Skin-deep Life Lessons, Chic Lit at Heart

Way back before this blog started, we (you know, my we) all read Marisa de los Santos's debut novel, Love Walked In.  The G. girls and Chava *loved* it because the writing (flowery) is just their style.  Everyone else (including me) liked it because it's a solid romance.  The sequel was published around Thanksgiving when Batya was engaged (which I remember because I read it at her pre-Shabbos kallah in cl).  That one was not a romance, and in fact, did a good job of destroying the romance of the first book (okay not destroying, but certainly tarnishing).  So I was not that excited about her new book, Falling Together, since clearly, romance is not MdlS's first priority (she's got like a Ph.d in poetry or something so I would say her flowery writing is actually priority #1 :)).  And Huvi and S.b. read it over Succos and were both quite unexcited about it, Huvi saying it was everything we don't like about MdlS - overdramatic, too flowerly etc.  So you can guess that I did not have hugely high expectations for this book.

It seemed like Huvi might be right as I plunged right in to the "epic" tale of three friends-closer-than-siblings, at their center a girl supposedly wholly adorable whom I failed to find so.  To be fair though, MdlS acknowledges that she sounds annoying, having Pen assure her friend that, really, she is adorable. But on the plus side, the other two friends, (that's Will and Pen) are quite likeable.  And guess what? we get the book from their POV, not from Cat's at all.  I'm not saying that all is well with the world just because the characters are likeable - there's plenty about the book to be approached with skepticism.  The family drama, the overblown significance of little incidents, the similes I find more distracting than illuminating...

But bottom line, surprise, surprise, I think this book is even more of a romance than the first one.  First of all, we get plenty from Will's POV - a major plus, as we get nothing at all from Teo's standpoint, as far as I can remember (at least as hints of his love for Cornelia, whereas Will's for Pen, while never outright stated, is clear and obvious from the start).  And with all else that's going on, the book gives fair prominence to the playing out of the romance - so maybe I was wrong about Marisa de los Santos, she is a romantic at heart :) (one might say a chic lit writer, but I wouldn't be so cruel :)) So basically what we have is two likeable narrators and a good romance.  And not only that, I just realized this now, but a supreme lack of tension! All the uncertainty (other than romantic-wise) comes from not knowing Cat's whereabouts - but who cares about Cat anyway? Will and Pen are in good places in life, and not really in danger of losing them.  So as long as I didn't get distracted by those other things (see paragraph above :) I really enjoyed this book).

That was until almost the end.  The romance got somewhat resolved with a little plot still to go, and I didn't adore the way it finished up.  But that can be forgiven, indeed this is something I often forgive authors for, it being so difficult to do a good finish :) And after that was wrapped up, we wrapped Cat's story up - and to my surprise, I found that MdlS pretty much agreed with me the whole time - Cat isn't a "fairy tale princess" - or if she is one, she sure isn't perfect.   It's Pen and Will who come off good in this one -  Cat's going off on her own, and I say good riddance to her.  That was the end of Cat's story, but since the book is more about Pen, there were a few revelations to go.  I can't say they were earth-shattering, but neither were they wholly misguided.  Pen realizes the importance of love - can't say it isn't.  And Will realizes how important it is to fight for it, which is why he fights for Pen (don't worry, it was just a minor incident that necessitated that fight).  So it was all's well that ends well, though it could have ended sooner and just as well in my book.  Likeable characters, decent romance, and fairly non-intrusive life lessons.  I have to say, more the best of MdlS than the worst.

Verdict: 3.5/5

Going Through the Motions of Romance

Whoop! Moving right along - who's that other author whose constant strem of new books I continue to read, though they are sometimes less than crazy exciting? You can get it, I know you can... Okay, it's Robin Lee Hatcher, the queen of Christian romance herself - just counted and this will be my fifth review of one of her books - not bad, not bad for around a year and a half.  This one is, I think, a new series (or at least not the same one as the last few of her books I've read).  It's the usual - turn of the century small-town Idaho, gruff man meets sweet and faithful woman.  This was gruff widower meets schoolteacher, which I think she's done before (at least gruff widower meets governess).  I'm not sure why she finds this particular matchup so compelling, but I suppose it's as good as any.  Gives a girl a good reason to come out West, and gives a man a good reason (his kids) to get to know the pretty newcomer.

I think I've said everything there is to say about the plot of this book.  What about the more important elements, like the romance? Well it was there, I don't think there was anything I can complain about - no getting together too early or breaking up for stupid reasons.  But at the same time... it just wasn't.  The little heartaches, the breathless moments, the unexpected longing - they happened, but only because they had to.  I just felt like the book was moving along, progressing now and then, regressing now and then, but really biding time between the "real" moments.  And in this book, more than in any other RLH so far, I think, the reality was all about religion.  Well you know I don't have anything against religion per se - but I don't even want to read about it when it's my own and you can bet not when it's someone else's :)  The best Robin Lee Hatchers were those apparently adapted from the time before she was born-again.  It seems like the worst are those influenced most by her time since.  This book did have a little more substance than the Bethlehem Springs books, which I think allowed it to go on longer without seeming dragged out.   But it never really had a place to fall from - it just never got that exciting.  Not that it was that bad or anything, but maybe I need a *little* more than the bare bones of an RLH Idaho cowboy romance.

Verdict: 2.5/5

Tipping the Scales Slightly to the Good Read Side

Sometimes, I eagerly await the publication of an author's next book, checking the library website daily so I can put it on hold.  Sometimes I'm less vigilant, but still excited when I see the book has gotten in.  And sometimes.... sometimes I'm just me, and keep on reading for no very good reason.  I'd say Jill Mansell falls into the third category, but I suppose I do have some reason.  She is one of the last writers I know who still brings forth a prolific stream of chic lit.  Maybe there are others, but my browsing days seem to be mostly over so it's hard for me to discover them.   But Jill Mansell has come out with, I think, her third book in a year - certainly the third one I've read in a year.  No surprises here, it's the same airy mix of boy-meets-girl stories, same drama, drama, drama, same happy ending.  But that's not a bad thing, especially since I'm coming out of a more serious reading curve. (Actually I've literally been on a trajectory up to chic lit - encyclopedia, non-fiction, mystery romance, and, finally, the real junk :))

I have to say, with the caveat that this could (as it always could) be the result of my mood, or my reading choices immediately prior to the book, I found this latest a little less trying than Jill Mansell's other recent offerings.  I had remarked previously (I'm not sure in the blog or if I was just thinking it) that all the books have the same plot - girl likes guy, guy likes girl, but girl doesn't trust guy - not my favorite type of chic lit since the suspense of the romance just isn't there.  But guess what - she changed it up! Ok, she changed it up by making the main character a widow who isn't interested in romance... with which angsty drama (and not in the good angst sense :)) I could live without, but at least it's something different.  I was disappointed at first because I was rooting for her to get together with the best friend - I still maintain that would have been a better story.  But the one chosen, while a little far-fetched, was plenty fun - handsome, down-to-earth, successful guy falls in love with our Ellie at first sight, while she remains oblivious.  And we get plenty from his point of view - I think more than usual.

So the primary romance was pretty decent.  The requisite secondary romances (friend and older couple) were not overly interesting, but I think took up less space than usual, so that was a plus.  The characters themselves were... I don't know if they more interesting, more realistic, or just more London than the two previous books, but I think I liked them better.  The plot was, I think, even more implausible than usual - but the good side to that is that the implausibility was in keeping the couples apart for so long - and I'll take that over the alternative, which is a boring ending because everyone is already together.  Even the writing seemed not quite as cringeworthy, though I concede that is almost definitely a product of my greater willingness to go in for a bit of chic lit than last time.  In short, I had more fun reading this book than I expected,  even up till the ending.  Which is why Jill Mansell will remain an author whom I check out, if not one who gets on-holded a month in advance :)

Verdict: 2.9/5

Sleuthing, Victorian Style

Back to a familiar name and a familiar genre, the next book the library had ready was Deanna Raybourn's 4th Lady Julia (wait, actually it's the 5th), the 4th of which I reviewed last year on this very blog :) That review was all about the comparison between Tasha Alexander and Deanna Raybourn and the truth is, that's pretty much a lot of what I thought about while reading this one too, but I really think I should move on.  (Don't worry, I'll come back to it anon :)) But meanwhile, let me try to review this one on its own merits.

So let's start of with what we can best expect from Lady Julia #5.  Even in #s 1-3, before Nicholas and Julia tie the knot, the romance is very much not the focus of the book.  It's quite intense and quite well done, but just doesn't take up that much space.  These books are really serious mysteries, and mysteries with quite a fantasy element thrown in.  Victorian mystery... that frustrating genre, so familiar and yet so removed from the lovely Regency settings of GH and co.  It's amazing how much I love England (old-fashioned England especially of course), given that I don't know how much these books could hold my interest if they were, say, about little green men in a galaxy far far away.  I also must not hate mystery all that much - or at least this type of mystery - more highbrow than whodunit.  There is emphasis on Lady Julia and Brisbane's relationship of course, but also on various elements of Victorian London and on Lady Julia's numerous family.  The pursuit of the case is subtle enough to keep the gaslit-fog atmosphere going and also exciting enough to keep the book moving.  In general, Deanna Raybourn exercising her writing chops well.

Which brings me back to the subject of the last book's review, where I pointed out DR's far superior writing skill.  There, I was left unsure whether the rather more intense tone outweighed the better execution, but here dark side was somewhat less manifest, perhaps because it was tempered by the civility of London as opposed to the wild Indian state of Darjeeling.  So, although the spookiness factor of the book wasn't particularly low, it wasn't so intense as to be distracting.  And one other significant difference - the ending, while I found it disappointing, had none of the dramatic and sudden death I had to contend with in #4.  So what's left when all is said and done? And fairly exciting read about characters I've learned to care about whose relationship still holds some interest for me - not an unenjoyable read at all.

Verdict: 3/5

A Biographical History of Science

Two nonfiction in a row! Well what can I do? I am but a cog in the wheel of the library reserve system... and at the same time GH's Regency World was ready, so was The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.  But what was I doing reserving a book on the story of a black woman whose cells were developed into the first, and most successful, cell line in the world? Well the long and short of it is that it was recommended... by Naomi G (that's abg's aunt, if you couldn't figure it out :)) when she saw me reading Intuition.  It was an If you like... then you should read... The problem of course, is that I didn't exactly *like* Intuition :) But it was highly recommended, and there were lots of reserves on it at the library, so I knew it couldn't be all that bad, so there it went, right on my reserve list.  Though I didn't get around reading to read it for quite some time (see previous post for my good reasons :)), Huvi read it almost right away.  Her comments did not encourage to think I'd particular enjoy the book, since she was talking about how horrible it was the way black people were mistreated in medical experiments.  Not that she's wrong, of course Tuskegee was horrifying, but I didn't find it *that* inhumane to use someone's cells without his/her knowledge for medical research.  But Huvi did seem to find the book interesting enough, so I didn't think it'd be torture or anything.

The book, as it turns out, is in part social commentary, in part biological history, but mostly biographical.  Rebecca Skloot sets out to recreate the life and personal legacy of Henrietta Lacks, to remind us that there was a person behind the HeLa cells.  It's a laudable enough purpose, but not a topic of general interest (general being me, of course :))  The most compelling aspect of her personal life story was how absolutely not pretty it was.  These were people with some family structure, but no education, and no money.  There's jail time, infidelity, multiple forms of abuse, mental illness, STDs, and a general unpleasantness with which I do not recall coming often into such close contact.  The state of the black population in the fifties was sorry indeed if the Lacks are any example (I think they probably are not).   And the Lacks of today (or of the nineties) are not much better.  There's still a lot of crime and a lot of anger, little education and no sophistication.  I almost wonder if Rebecca Skloot means to portray the Lacks so unflattering - they seem to blow off the handle at nothing and exhibit little understanding of the complicated affairs surrounding their mother's cells.

Which is what keeps the book from getting too preachy.  Yes, scientists did not treat blacks well in the fifties.  But it's not like anyone really thinks they perpetrated a huge wrong against Henrietta Lacks when they cultured her abandoned tumor cells. Her family thinks they deserve monetary reward, that their mother might have suffered, but her family doesn't appear all that credible.  And there is plenty of evidence on the other side that the scientists would *still* be legally mostly in the right (with the exception of exposing HeLa's identity) and that morally, they really did very little even questionable.  The greater ugly story of black and other minority experimentation is explored, but not with any aim toward villifying the greater community of scientists, and particularly not condemning those involved in HeLa cultivation.  It is horrifying that in the 1950s scientific research was so primitive with regards to subjects rights, but it's gratifying that we have come a long way.   And regarding the moral issues that still plague research, and in particular tissue research today, The Immortal Life is quite balanced - I find myself mostlhy in agreement with Ms. Skloot, with the exception of a few bouts of scare-mongering which I think are there mostly to argue towards the book's relevance.

What I wish the book had more of is the actual science.  I really know nothing about cell culture and I had never heard of HeLa cells.  I (along with I'm sure everyone else who reads this book) find it fascinating that one single cell line has spread so pervasively throughout the cellular research world.  And tracing the track of scientific and medical discoveries since the '50's feels miraculous - the advances of biology and genetics are made concrete through the careful timeline of HeLa through history.  I don't know if I would have been able to read a book that emphasized the science more - Rebecca Skloot's talent is certainly adding human interest to the story and I can't imagine her getting enthusiastic without that angle.  And I can guarantee that the book flows a lot faster because half of it is tales of the Lacks and of various other human players.  I guess this book really is similar to Inutition in that there's a lot of interesting science and research methodology mixed with a human tale - but unlike Intuition, the science is the reason I read the book.  And the truth is, maybe I felt it was dumbed down by all the other stuff, but I think I actually learned quite a lot - and not only that, I think it will stick in my head, and that's because of the book's vivid and sympathetic style.   I have to say, there's a reason it's a bestseller - compelling, easy reading and something for quite a few folks.

Verdict: 3/5

A Guide Along an Already Well Marked Path

Wow, it's been a while! But I think with good reason :) What with getting married, sheva brachos, moving... on the other hand, I did rather lengthen my commute, which is how I actually finished my latest - Georgette Heyer's Regency World.  This was a book  I decided against buying at the Border's sale, but one which Gital (my new cousin :) who has as high an opinion of GH as I could wish for :)) recommended, and one which I felt ready for after reading Mag's Jane Austen Handbook.  The latter, if you recall, I found slightly juvenile and not at all in depth enough for one of my vast historical knowledge :) This one was longer, came recommended (probably by Austenprose as well, though I can't remember at this moment) and is GH Regency focused rather than early 1800's upper middle/lower upper class.   So there was definitely hope for improvement.

(Parenthetical note before I continue, I started this in September, before Rosh Hashana so I did not go a whole month without reading a book - just got a little hurried what with Yom Tov at home and whatnot :) and did not finish this review)

The book is definitely composed of more interesting subject matter than the Handbook - not suprisingly, as GH's world is considerably more upper class than JA's.  And there is a lot more detail, both in breadth (chapters about pretty much every interesting aspect of Regency life I can think of) and in minutiae.  But overall, I found myself feeling underwhelmed - there just wasn't anything new there.  While the Handbook was aimed at a rather less knowledgable reader than myself, Regency World is meant for the ardent Heyer fan.  This being the case, one may well question why almost every detail in the book seems to be lifted from Heyer's pages.  Yes, it's mildly amusing when she cites examples from the Heyer canon - reminds me of old friends - but I, too, am intimately familiar with many, if not all, of the works she cites.  So if it's Heyer, it's not new.  And not only that, but there were times when I felt she was *using* Heyer as her source - like saying it was not uncommon for young men to pick fights with the Champion (Tom Cribb I think) - I mean, really, how not uncommon was it? And how exactly do you know this? Because I know this from (I'm pretty sure) Regency Buck.  And even if she did go back to Heyer's sources (and we know she had them :)), if she didn't do anything more, what's the point?

Besides the lack of new and interesting information, the book also lacked a compelling narrative.  Okay, not exactly surprising - it's basically an encyclopedia, or at least a guidebook.  Maybe I'm not supposed to read it cover to cover :) Well sorry then - but it definitely took me longer to get through than a book of this length normally would.  On the other hand, I did go through the end chapters a little faster.  Why? maybe they had more new information, or were better organized - this could be, as those were the chapters on clothing, carriages, and all that good stuff :) But I think it really came more down to time/mood.  Before the wedding, I was reading a few pages at a time, mostly unimpressed by the few facts and tidbits that were new to me.  Then I put the book down for a little over a week, and picked it back up on my new commute.  And, literally immediately, I found the book easier reading.  More new facts? definitely some, but I'd say more ability to concentrate was the deciding factor there :)  In any case, I got through it.  Do I know more about Regency England than I did a month ago? I know that a curricle has two wheels (for some reason, always thought it had four) and that kerseymore is an unusually textured wool.  I'm sure there are lots of other tidbits that have made their way from the pages to my head, but I guess what I got more than anything else out of this book is the Georgette Heyer is the MAN.  If after all her research (let's give her the benefit of the doubt :)), this is all Jennifer Kloester could find out about Regency life, our GH *knew her stuff*.

Verdict: 2.5/5

A Not Unworthy Copy of the Real Thing

Reaching even farther back into my backlog reading agenda, we find Clare Darcy's A Regency Trio.  This book was given to me by Sarah Sp., to keep because I had recommended Clare Darcy to her and she *hated* the book.  In my defense, I had read about 9 pages of one book when I did the recommending (and made that clear to her), and shortly afterwards, I realized I may have been in a bit of a hurry.  I actually found these books at the Howard Country Library, where I went once or twice when I was working in Columbia, MD (so that would be January-July last year) - the name Darcy of course jumped out at me, and these books appear to be early imitators of Georgette Heyer, and thus worth a very definite try.  Unfortunately, I found the books terribly written - the dialogue unutterably bad, the plots ridiculous and anachronisms unbounding.  But since this is, of course, my favorite genre, I was not averse to taking Regency Trio, a three-in-one of her books, from Sarah Sp.  I did take it, I think last year some time, but of course wasn't in the biggest rush to read it.  S.b. didn't think it was that terrible though, and a.b.g enjoyed it, so I certainly did plan to read it at some point.  That point finally came this past week, when I finished all my library books and my borrowed book as well.

I was planning on waiting till I had finished all three books and then reviewing them all together, since I assume they will all be much the same, but, fortunately or unfortunately, I just took out two new books from the library and I need to move this one down my priority list.  I read the first one, so the first one will be the one reviewed now.  S.b. is of the opinion that this one is inferior to the other two, but I will have to leave that up in the air for now.  Meanwhile, I must say I was pleasantly surprised by Cecily, or a  Lady of Quality.  Like I said, I found the writing (dialogue especially) terrible and extremely anachronistic in the two Clare Darcy books I read previously.  This one though, while it was painfully obviously a Georgette Heyer imitation, was very well done copy.  Each plot twist and each character had its exact counterpart in some Heyer novel, and many of the very sentences had their roots in my favorite Heyers, but overall the tone of the writing was so similar I'm not sure I could have differentiated easily.  (I pointed this out to abg, and she said she thought that her later books were better written, which is a plausible explanation).

The great deficiencies remaining are those of characterization and plot (such small nitpicks, those :)) The characters are mostly completely one-sided - likeable, but completely cliche and difficult to force out of their proscribed patterns of behavior.  The plot then becomes determined by those patterns, and thus less interesting (and less fun too).  What am I saying? Cecily is nice, but a bit of a nitwit - her escapades start out as Heyer-like, but they just go on beyond that, so that by the time she runs off to the theatre we are just like ergh! what is your problem? And Mr. Ranleigh is of course supremely cool, but so supremely cool it doesn't feel at all like he can unbend to be humbled by his love for Cecily - okay you know what I'm saying - those super cool ones are sometimes no fun at all when they're in love - that just takes away their coolness! GH handles it well, but we're not all GH.

I was reading some blog on Clare Darcy that made that very point - we're not all GH, so Clare Darcy needs to be judged on her own merits.  I'd say that's downright impossible, since her books are so much a copy of the great Gorgette's as to be almost an homage.  But of course, it is somewhat true since I do not in general judge books by whether they are as good as Georgette Heyer - that standard is rather a little too high.  And I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed Cecily.  Okay, maybe not thoroughly, but enough so that I was eager to keep on reading, at least for almost all of the book.  At one point, it got a *little* too long, and like I said, the characters were not quite totally likeable at all times in their appointed roles, but overall, I completely enjoyed the book.  I really didn't find it cringeworthy at all, all the more surprising, since I found the other two to be quite so.  Maybe I've gotten less critical, especially since Sarah Sp. *hated* these three, but whatever the reason, I am looking forward to getting back to the other two when I finish up my more pressing engagement :)

Verdict: 3.5/5

A Serious Study of Serious Study

Remember way back when, I reviewed Allegra Goodman's latest, The Cookbook Collector? I heard about it on Austenprose, but was laughed at when I asked Sarah Sp. and Chava if they had heard of her.  Apparently, I was a little late to the party celebrating this great author.  Since Sarah Sp. owned her other books, I borrowed them from her… and, of course, promptly abandoned them to more pressing materials.  Everyone said Intuition was the best one, but Sarah Sp. told me to save it for last, and that was the original plan.  But however many months later, when S.b. read Intuition and bothered me to read it too, I thought it was time to abandon that careful formulation and at least get the best one read.

So, having exhausted my supply of library books, I looked forward to reading the Allegra Goodman that was the Allegra Goodman to read.  S.b. hadn't loved it, so I knew it wasn't incredible, but I liked Cookbook Collector well enough, and this one was supposed to be far superior.  CC was mildly romantic, so that should mean a substantial romance in this one, right? When I read the jacket flap, I couldn't really see a romance off-hand.  The book seemed pretty serious, tackling the not especially grave subject of academic life, but apparently delving into the discomfort arising from exposure of its dirty underbelly.  Or something like that anyway.

The truth is, though academic life isn't September 11 or the dot-com bubble, it's not a subject that lends itself to the lightest of tones.  First of all, I don't know if there exists a more competitive and tense atmosphere than that of post docs and professors fighting for recognition.  Personally, I never could get up enough ambition to stomach the constant pressure of a life in research.  So it's not suprising I wouldn't enjoy reading about it.  And besides that, there's my not so secret pang of regret at not going for that right to be a Dr :) So even more than for most people I'd say, the academic life holds less allure and more anxiety for me. 

So it's not to say the book wasn't well crafted.  It was exceeding so, with all the characters well developed, the plot moving along at a sedate but steady pace, the writing a pleasure without too much pedantry… but what a serious book! Not that CC didn't have elements of seriousness (and actually was quite serious in tone) but I thought this one was the fun one! The one everybody loved! I understand why Chava loved it, I'd say it's right up her alley - well thought out, interesting territory, and not too happy go lucky :) But I thought Allegra Goodman was my kind of writer, or at least had some of that in her.  I couldn't find a squigeon of fun, of light-heartedness, of simple pleasure here.

The characters, especially the main ones, were deliberately unlikeable.  Even the more sympathetic ones had their, not minor, faults.  The themes, at least, I would say were unobjectionable - it wasn't like the book was a doomsday prophecy or anything, the right values  - family, honesty, loyalty - were squarely championed.  But on the subject of doomsday, the ending was actually much the same as CC - in that it was disappointing.  She just doesn't like to give us what we want, does that Allegra? No one ends up in a particularly good place (I'd say Marion is the only one  who maybe ends up better off) though mostly they end up more enlightened about themselves.  But I guess that's the point of the book.  Academia is a long, hard road,  and the most one could hope for is acceptance of the way forward.  And I guess the same could be said for me and Intuition - at the end of the day, the trek wasn't bad, and I can't say I regretted it at the end, though I don't know what I got out of it :)

Verdict: 3/5

Good Romance Hits Home

A few things I've done recently - attended several ballets, did research on traveling to South America, and went to Borders for the going out of business sale.   All that equals what, next on my reading list? Eva Ibbotson's A Company of Swans (you weren't supposed to get that, don't worry).  Other than The Morning Gift, which I of course already own, it was the only Eva Ibbotson (only adult one, didn't check for kids ones) Borders had, so it was the one I bought (Sarah Basya asked me why and I said it was my second favorite, but then she reminded me of The Reluctant Heiress so really it's my third I think, ahead of A Countess Below Stairs and A Song For Summer).  I've read it at least twice before, but not for a while (at least as long as I've had this blog for sure :)) and I haven't read it since I went to see Giselle and Swan Lake, both of which feature heavily.  And as an added POI, my South American research findings included a map of Brazil's destinations, one of which was Manaus, the central setting of the book and a place I have never heard of otherwise.  In short, I was on the eager side to read it, so it came up first after all the mandatory (library :)) reads.

As Sarah Basya pointed out, this book is not *that* good, none of Eva Ibbotson's other books compare to The Morning Gift.  But that's like saying not all ice cream is Haagen Dasz; it's still one of my favorite foods :) Eva Ibbotson is truly a woman after my heart, creating stories that are purely and totally about the romance, and about the romance of good old fashioned girls and rich gentlemen.  They've got an artsy element too, but as books always have to have another element, I'm not complaining.  Ballet is interesting and so is Brazil.  And Harriet herself actually mostly doesn't have that annoying Ruth-like quality of "loveable" whimsicality that bothers Huvi and S.b. so much.  So why isn't this one as good as The Morning Gift?  Well, I guess that's not a fair question - The Morning Gift is so good because it's one of those indefinably good books - you forget how much and why you like it until you read it.

But I think I forgot how much I liked this one too.  I was happy to read it, but I wasn't ecstatic to have bought it.  When I picked it up though, I didn't want to put it down.  It was kind of funny because I was reading it last Shabbos and I was strangely eager to come back home - it took me a while to figure out that I was eager to get back to the book.  Of course, it was full of all the maudlin expression typical of Eva Ibbotson but I probably just wasn't in the mood to care.  Rom really liked Harriet, Harriet liked Rom too, and the obstacles keeping them apart felt totally legitimate.  The pathos was exquisite, also in true Eva Ibbotson style - Harriet's life is really pathetic and Rom does a good job taking her away from it all :) Harriet herself is a bit of an idiot, but I didn't find it too annoying.

So either I was preconditioned to like this book or it really is quite good.  Against the first, we have that I was *not* overly excited about it and against the second, that I did *not* love it the first few times  I read it.  But that's not true, I did like it, I just had reservations.  So I guess I just was preconditioned to ignore my reservations :) Makes sense because with my reading list as of late, fluff is appreciated all the more.  Oh that there were more authors who just understood good romance.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Familiarity Breeds Content(ness)

Series... the written equivalent to television.  It's not a perfect analogy of course, but they both, after a while, mostly hold my interest because I'm attached to the characters.  I'm not a plot fanatic in the first place, but when it's the same people over and over, I start to care about even the less likeable/entertaining ones.  And of course, that's what series writers depend on - the plot can be the same, slightly altered, or different but less spectacular, we probably aren't paying much attention.  Why the philosophical meandering, you ask? I have just (or not just, last Shabbos and I already have another review besides this) finished Gail Carriger's *4th* Parasol Protectorate novel, Heartless - 4th in asterisks because I reviewed all three previous ones on this blog, all in the past year (well, almost, I just checked and the first one was reviewed last July).  I waited quite a while for this, since for some reason the NYPL waited a full month! to order it (I find the NYPL to be greatly inferior to BCPL, despite my early excitement).  And by the time I got it, I had just finished Winter's Tale, so I was certainly ready for some good, predictable fluff.

Now we're holding by #4 in the series, so one thing that cannot be expected is good romance.  I mean, some angst maybe, but it's not mandatory - if I'm reading it, I'm hooked enough to get by without it (probably, anyway :)) The hook here has become increasingly comedy - very little romance, a setting removed from the actual historical one I would find more interesting, and a lot of danger and fighting not holding much attraction for me.  The comedy isn't bad though - there might have been a few lol moments, and, throughout, all drama, pathos, suspense, frenzied action were handled with a light touch.  Here and there, I could tell she (Ms. Carriger) was getting a little too pleased with her clever turns of phrase, but the writing was mostly just tongue-in-cheek enough. In any case, in accordance with my opening tangent, the book didn't even need to be that funny.  Alexia, Lord Maccon, Lord Akeldama, Professor Lyall, Madam Lefoux, etc. are funny because they are familiar.  You know how friends amuse you simply by being themselves? Okay, maybe I don't feel *that* much affection for them.  But with the book itself striving for the lightest of tones, it helps that the characters are utterly predictable, utterly themselves, and we know nothing too suprising is going to jump out of the box.  And since I wasn't looking for surprises, getting what I expected was good.

Don't get me wrong, there were some "revelations" - about which, seriously,  Professor Lyall too? But whatever, I guess he was due for a little fleshing out.  And at least he remains his ever-capable self.  Madame Lefoux, on the other hand, emerges a little tarnished, and Biffy, we already know, had his powers stripped by the previous book.  Lord Akeldama is mostly holding steady, Floote's going strong, Alexia herself has her moments, and so does Lord Maccon.  I have to say, I sound very lackluster about it all - that's partially due to my current tired state, for sure.  I enjoyed the book well enough, and it's not like I enjoyed any of them that much.  This one was up to par in terms of comic content, and, more importantly, comic tone (not taking itself seriously).  That's really all there is to say, I don't know why I just wandered off in all directions for the past three paragraphs.

Verdict: 3/5

Too Much Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing

Swinging right back into it, I'm ready for another review - what can I say, it's easier when the books come from the YA section :) Actually, I didn't realize this was a YA book - I got it out because it's written by Austenblog, which is the Austen website I used to read before Austenprose.  Austenblog is a lot of fun, mostly because it's full of interesting Janeite news, but also because the "editrix" is often funny and usually expresses sentiments with which  I concur wholeheartedly (regarding public opinion on Austen and such).  So even though The Jane Austen Handbook is just a collection of facts about Regency England, I was happy to give it a retry (maybe I shouldn't say just, but it's not like there's any story there, or any narrative at all).

Really, it's not like I wouldn't be interested in a book about nineteenth century English life of the upper classes.  I don't know if I've ever read one, which is surprising, since there is more than one available.  But what? It's not like I don't know quite a lot already... and it'd have to be quite a scholarly tome indeed to catch my interest. Or if not scholarly, than certainly not aimed at the lowest common denominator.  Who exactly is that lowest common denominator though? Why, young adults of course :) The handbook to all things Austen does not go much deeper than explaing that whist is similar to bridge and that an entail means the female line can't inherit.  There are little details here and there I didn't know, but overall, it's pretty much nothing new to me.

Besides that, the overall tone is kind of weirdly teeny-boppery.  Like it purports to be a how-to and most of the language if vaguely reminiscent of the 19th century, but then these little things clearly marked at the modern audience break out.  And by modern audience, I do not mean myself :) That being said, it was a short little book with occasional interesting tidbits.  It wasn't really painful, but I have to say it was less interesting than it could have been.  I guess I need to wait for the Jane Austen Handbook NOT for Dummies...

Verdict: 2.5/5

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 :)

Word of Advice, the Beaten Track Is The Safest

I had not much expectation of getting another post into July, but I think I overestimated my own attention span.  I am about a third of the way through a biggie (more anon about that, of course) but my dear cousin abg did me the favor of picking up my library reserves, which included Meg Cabot's latest, the second in her vampire series.  In yet another reminder of both how boring I am and how old this blog is, I reviewed the first one back in September.  Not only that, I happened to have (I think completely coincidentally) reread my review last Friday, so I know just what I thought about it.  And that was that I was less than excited about Meg Cabot venturing into slightly more action-oriented fare, but that I had hope for her romance writer instincts to make the second book well worth reading.

I kind of thought that there would be three books in the series, but the ending of this second one, Overbite, seems pretty complete, so I'm not sure.  In any case, the romance seems definitively concluded, so I have no desire to see a sequel :)  I wouldn't have much interest in any case, of course, but there was nothing in this book to change my mind.  I thought the action of the last one was overdone, but I was more annoyed about the lack of a romance.  In this one, I was hoping for more romance, less action.  What I got was more romance, but more annoying romance, and *more* action (and I think the book is still shorter :)) So it probably wasn't actually more action, pages-wise, but it sure felt like a lot.  Was it even worse done than the last one? Could be yes, especially because this was definitely meant to be a final flourish type of thing.  And of course, could be I was just in a different mood or have become a more snobby reader :) In either case, I found the plot jump, uncompelling, hard to follow, and pretty boring.  A lot of the time I was just, whaa?

The rest of the time I was like, what happened? Meg Cabot knows what she's doing.  Why is this romance no fun? I really don't know why it wasn't.  Well I do know - the characters were both idiots.  But the characters are idiots in a lot of Meg Cabot books... I mean it was interesting that even without the first person narration, Meena comes off as an overly spunky and "special" type, but she wasn't worse than usual.  I guess the focus was just really not on the romance, and it always felt kind of passed off.  At the same time, it felt like too much of a foregone conclusion.  There's a simple lesson to be learned here... I've said it before, I'll say it again - stick with what you're good at... or you might lose even that.

Verdict: 2/5

Oh one thing though, I watched the trailer for the book... which makes it seem like the whole thing is a joke.  Which makes the writing some what more explicable, but brings up the new issue that if so, please let us in on it! So overall, not sure how much better that would make it.

Predictably Solid Fluff

Still trekking slowly on, but took a break from the tome you will hear about in about a month (if I'm lucky) to read quite the opposite, another from Julia Quinn (second-timer on this prestigious blog, if you're counting :))  JQ has the distinction of being the only writer in her genre (well I guess also Gail Carriger) whose books I actually follow and put on reserve.  I suppose she's a typical romance writer, but she falls fairly firmly in the category of romance writers whose books actually have a story.  Maybe not much of a story, but they're not too long.  And the story is pretty much invariably a good one - this is romance we're talking about.  And unlike many other romances, the characters are usually pretty likable.  None of this, why in the world would anyone like *her*? JQ also tends toward the funny side, light and funny instead of overblown drama (usually anyway, this is romance after all so we can't expect always :)) One last thing about JQ? Interestingly enough, her books have tended more towards light and funny stories in recent years.  Her Bridgerton series started it I think, and it's really made for some solid improvement in her books.  I don't know if I would have continued had I started at the beginning of her writing career, but as it is, I totally look forward to her next book.

The latest one is Just Like Heaven.  I think I pretty much said all I have to say about it in the paragraph above.  It has the distinction about being about some recurring side characters from the Bridgerton series.  It's light and funny, has a little story to it, but not too much, and it took me about two hours to read - two enjoyable hours though.  The truth is, I guess good writing is good writing, and it's obvious in any genre, even one not normally associated with craftsmanship.

Verdict: 3/5

I Heart JA

It's been quite a while since I read an Austenprose pick - Major Pettigrew's Last Stand was the last - so I'm certainly due for one.  And this one is a true Austen, not just some tangentially related female-geared novel.  Claire Harman has written Jane's Fame - subtitled "How Jane Austen Conquered the World". Really, you say? Jane Austen rules the world? Well you know I think so at least :) (to the non-existent readers of this blog, I refer you to an old joke, the tagline of which is "Rochel thinks she's the whole world" - see, girls? I'm not the only one!)  The premise of the book? Tracing the growth of Jane Austen's popularity from her lifetime until now.

Now you know I'm not going to argue about Jane Austen's (or, as we Janeites would have it, Jane's :)) popularity or supremacy is the world of literature.  But it's funny to find that so many of my ideas are shared by others, and have been shared for ages.  The idea that one can be judged on their like and dislike of JA - I have said repeatedly that when it comes to girls, I don't get why anyone wouldn't like P&P.  And I consider it a negative trait to dislike it, of course :) And I certainly feel strongly enough about why I like the book to be offended when others try to interpret it in other ways.  And I get a kick out of hearing how all these famous literati worship Austen.  Okay, maybe it makes me a little cliche, but you know what? I don't mind being cliche.  Besides, there aren't *all* that many people who like JA enough to actually read this book... right?

The book itself is a lot of fun to read.  It starts out as a bit of a biography, since it talks about Austen's notoriety during her lifetime.  But, unlike a biography, it talks mostly about Austen's relationship with the public, meaning it largely avoids the speculation necessary to write a comprehensive biography of the author's personal life.  There were a few occasional indulgences in fancy, but nothing to get me too distracted.  And once the book passes into Austen's posthumous reputation, it becomes almost all fact.  There is certainly a liberal sprinkling of interpretation here and there, but mostly forgiveable.  Only the last chapter, talking about Austen's current rise in popularity starting with the '95 P&P reads more like literary criticism than straight fact.

I have to say I'm often skeptical of what there are of Harman's interpretations/musings, so I'm glad they're kept to a minimum.  She's definitely in sync with me in wanting to paint Austen in the best possible light, but at times (a lot of times), she had me thinking, really? Couldn't I write the exact same book about Charlotte Bronte? To some extent, the answer is definitely yes - the Brontes have their fans, and at times, I'm sure, a much larger fan base.  Still... I bet Jane's is bigger :) In the end of the day, I don't need a book to prove to me that Jane Austen is a universal favorite - I have her books as proof that there's every reason she should be.  Hearing the reasons everyone else thinks so (her writing, her wit, her perspicacity, her exquisite touch, her realism, her feel-good bent...) are a fun confirmation though, most definitely.

Verdict: 3.5/5

Disappointingly True to Life

Dipping my toe in the waters of something different, I next picked up another multiply-renewed, off the shelf choice, Karen Joy Fowler's The Sweetheart Season.  Now I, like everyone else, know about KJF solely for her The Jane Austen Book Club, which I naturally read, since it has Jane Austen in the title and the movie adaption stars Hugh Dancy ;).  She also wrote a bunch of other books, apparently starting quite a while ago, and for some reason I took it into my head to give them (or one of them) a try.  KJF is definitely not chic lit, she's far more serious than that, but she's also definitely women's fiction, which is never a bad thing :) The Sweetheart Season, unlike The Jane Austen Book Club, is historical fiction, which is also usually a positive factor in the genre-weighing.

The interesting thing about the book was that it was not only historical fiction in the sense that it takes place in post WWII small town America, it is also almost historical in the sense that it was written (I think) in the early nineties.  It's really funny how I felt like the tone was so different... I don't know that I can really put my finger on it, or that it wasn't at least somewhat imagined, but I felt like the sensitivities of the author were really at least somewhat different than ours (that's ours as in us 21st-century-ers of course :)).  It could also have been that the setting was admittedly falsified, painting a rosy-simple picture of the war and post-war feel prevalent in the American midwest.  But whether it was real or not, it's certainly more what I want to read about - that time when there were heroes and good defeated evil (that's a good example of a nineties sensitivity, a preoccupation with the comparatively stark picture of good and evil of WWII vs. later).

But don't get me wrong, this book was not about the war at all, or even about trying to get back to normal afterwards.  This book was about the characters.  The back cover references Lake Woebegone, I don't really see the connection between this mostly sympathetic crew and the completely comedic Prairie Home Companion bunch, but they definitely have their funny side.  The girls, their families, their adjunct men, and the head-of-the-mill family each have their own strong and distinct personalities to make sure things get mixed up.  And they do get mixed up, at least enough to keep me entertained.  The book is ostensibly about baseball, but luckily doesn't spend too much time on any sporting detail at all.  It's really more about the girls finding their own way, which they do with varying degrees of success.

In the end, the question of course comes down to where the main character, Irini, ends up.  Irini is supposed to end up with Walter, that's for sure, and she does.  Unfortunately, instead of them getting together in a nice and satisfying finish, they just kind of fade into it, and then not really at all.  Actually they don't even really get together until two years after ending, and then it's pretty much off the scenes.  Irini's father gets a nice enough wife in the end, Irini herself gets out of the town, and lots of other good things happen, so it's not all bad.  But it's not really anything to celebrate either (and that's besides a really bizarre twist involving some early McCarthyism).  And that's before the epilogue... which we are in fact *warned* not to read, because it contains the information that Irini ends up breaking up with Walter :( (after they have a daughter, the narrator).  Way to bring us down to reality, dude.  So basically, I was fully prepared to enjoy this book, but that ending did not make it easy.

Verdict: 2.9/5

Surprising- (and Pleasant-)ly Down to Earth

After my mad May frenzy, I calmed down a bit, secure in my ability to finish all my library books once and for all.  Next on the list was Cecilia Ahern's Book of Tomorrow, which I have to date renewed... wait for it... 7 times :) (it's considered new, so each renewal is only two weeks).  No more though, I am DONE :) (not that it was such an accomplishment, don't get me wrong).  You all know Cecilia Ahern, even though I haven't reviewed her books yet, I don't think.  She's a bit on the chic lit side, but only because I don't think many men are reading her books.  They have a bit of romance usually, they are *all* about relationships, they end happily enough for the most part, have some serious-ish soul searching thrown in, and to top it all off, never fail to sprinkle a little fairy dust.

The Book of Tomorrow is no exception to all that.  It starts off angsty, with the suicide of the main character's father, and continues with her realization that she is, in fact, not a very nice person.  But it's not dark, just maybe a bit obvious.  On the plus side, the main character is sixteen, so she's allowed to be an idiot, which makes her naive amorality a little more believable, and definitely more funny.  Since the tagline of the book was something about knowing what tomorrow will bring, and would you want that, I was afraid the plot would descend into that sort of philosophical morass, but it stayed surprisingly fresh of such uncomfortable questions.  Though the diary tells Tamara some notion of her future, it never gets her in trouble.  Instead the book morphs into a sort of mystery, with Tamara exploring her own and her mother's hidden past.  And in that respect, it becomes surprisingly compelling.  While I don't think I would have had any patience with Tamara drawing herself further and further into the trap of using "magic" for the wrong reasons, I was genuinely curious to find out what in fact were the real relationships among the shadowy figures populating the novel's backstory and how they relate to those in  the foreground (;))

I guess in the end I was a little disappointed (I think the ending was a lot more obvious to all of us than it was to Tamara), but overall, I don't think Cecilia Ahern did a bad job at all with this, more mysterious, storyline.  I almost don't remember what she usually manages to fill out her books with, but I have a feeling it involves a lot more discomfort and tension than this little number.  In that sense, this book definitely compares favorable to some of her other recent ones... I suppose it is less emotion-wrought than her other ones, which could be viewed as a  bad thing, but of course does draw the reader in, if annoying at the same time.  This book didn't have that same level of shut-up-already-it-ness as a lot her others, but it also is slightly more boring I think.  I'm not really complaining about this, it was a nice little story in its own right.  And if it wasn't that romantic either, well it had something, and I don't know that I was expecting more.  So basically, didn't disappoint, because not many expectations :)

Verdict: 3/5

A Redemption, Definitely Somewhat Of A Redemption

After hearing this next title, will your reaction be, Rochel, are you a glutton for punishment? I don't think so, though reading yet another Jill Mansell might seem to imply that.  This was the one I mentioned (did you catch it? :)) as being in between the eerily (okay, let's not go that far :)) similar plotted ones I read before.  I'm going to finish this really fast to get in to May, so bottom line was it had different plot line! and a better plot line! Made me remember why I enjoy these books at all - they are silly, very silly, but you know, there's a decent romance somewhere at the center.  In the end, the storyline morphed into something more similar to the other two - does she have a hang up about it or something? - but I can't say I didn't enjoy most of the book :)

Verdict: 2.9/5

Taking Humor In the Spirit It's Intended

He just never stops, so I can't either... Alexander McCall Smith has published yet another book.  This one, the third Corduroy mansions, has only been published in England so far (as is typical of that series and 44 Scotland St), but I was able to obtain a copy, thanks of course to my dear cousin Sarah Sp.  For the curious, here's my review of the second one, also published from Chapman Lake (oh yes, I'm here in CL for Memorial Day :)) I have to say, it was almost funny to reading the review from last year.  First of all, I think my blogging style has definitely changed, though I guess not hugely tangibly.  The interesting thing was that I spent that whole complaining how the ridiculousness of it all was driving me crazy until I realized the whole thing was a joke.

The funny thing about that is that, with this book, I also noticed the ridiculous characterization and improbable plot twists immediately... but this time, I was immediately aware that they were meant in a wholly humorous bent, with not one corner of the eye on their believability index (interesting turn of phrase, though I don't think entirely successful :))... can I say thanks to my post of last year for that cognizance of tone? Why not? :)  I mean, first and foremost, there's the gentleman in canine form, Freddy de la Hay.  There's the complete and utter antipathy of Berthea Snark, psychoanalyst, towards her own son, a more vile human being than most.  There's the tale of Hugh, kidnapped by Columbians to salsa dance on their cruise ship... yeah, you get the point.  But it's all funny.  Lightly told, highly engaging, and ever so humorous.  And not only that, I have definitely started to care about at least one - well actually two - characters, FdlH and his owner William.  Everyone else I can pretty much take or leave, but mostly they're worth taking.

I felt like this book ended less abruptly than some of the others, Sarah Sp. thinks he may not have written it as a serial, which would explain it.  It definitely had some unfinished storylines, but it wasn't like, what? you can't just leave it like that, for the most part.  And a huge plus, I really didn't notice any political, or moral, or philosophic statements I disagreed with getting in the way.  Another product of not writing a serial? Or did AMS just get tired of it all already? Or maybe I just wasn't watching for it... either way, nothing arose to cloud my enjoyment of this delightfully charming romp through England.

Verdict: 3.75/5

Is Chic Lit That Hard to Write?

Take a look at the last three entries - non-fiction, classic, non-fiction.  Not surprising that I felt myself ready for something slightly lighter... the particular something available was yet another Jill Mansell, so that's what I picked up next on that Shabbos afternoon two weeks ago, after finishing not one, but two books previously.  I don't know whether the high caliber literature I had become used to ;) made me more sensitive than usual to the book's defects but...

Well we all know what those defects are.  Jill Mansell doesn't exactly write for the ages.  Her characters are often overblown, some of them are always completely uninteresting to me, her writing can just make you wince... but for all that, there are times when she's good, solid, chic lit.  This was not one of those times.  You know how I'm complained how the last one I read failed the chic lit litmus by not centering on the romantic tension of the two characters? How we knew right away they liked each other, it was just annoying dithering that kept them apart? Guess what? She did it again! I mean seriously, the same plot.  Girl likes guy, but he's a bit of a player so she's afraid to get involved, despite the fact that it's obvious he like her too! I mean really, two in a row? To be fair, it wasn't actually two in a row.  I skipped over one because this one was new and couldn't be renewed, and the other one could be.  But I literally had ZERO patience for this book.  I think the most exciting part was when there was a fire, which would normally just provoke an eyeroll at the overdramatic plot lines and then a light skimming (not that it didn't do that anyway, just that I felt actually a little more intrigued by that twist than most of the book).  It didn't really ever get better,  I basically just plowed my way through to the inevitable, ridiculous sappy ending.

Verdict: 2/5

I Love Books About Book Lovers

Delving even further into minor English classics of the mid-twentieth century, 84 Charing Cross Road was another long standing item on my BTRL (Books to Read List, naturellement :)) Again, don't know where I first heard it mentioned, but when I found out it was a non-fiction epistolary style memoir, and that the two people don't even meet in the end (spoiler? sorry :)) I was less than eager to put it at the top.  But I've heard it praised a few times, so I put it on hold.  I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be a teeny-weeny 100 page or so paperback, and even more pleasantly surprised when I picked it up on the plane to Mountain View a month ago.  I was kind of reading it to put myself to sleep but I found myself caught up in the writing almost immediately.  Since it was really interrupted reading (in middle of Mark Twain), I didn't pick it up again until a while later, two Shabbosim ago when I was home in Queens.

To begin with, there was definitely an overdeveloped sense of anticipation, since I had found the book so unexpectedly enjoyable.  It was to be expected then, that there would be a sense of not living up to expectations.  I guess that manifested itself in my reaction to the writer, Helen Hanff's, breezy sense of humor.  It's cute and funny, but... maybe a little too blithe? I'm not really complaining, the truth is, how can you complain about a real person? This wasn't someone writing an epistolary novel, this was actual letters from an American... well I suppose spinster would be the easiest way to describe a single woman in the 50's, but she not very spinsterish at all.  She's a writer for television, one with definite intellectual tastes, but one who seems to take life very much in stride and live to enjoy.  On the other hand, there's her correspondent, FPD (can't remember his full name right now) who comes off as English to the core - always polite, very friendly and helpful, but neat and reserved too (yes, we get all that from his letters :)) If it was fiction, it would be the most cliche'd fiction you could find, only redeemable by the couple getting together in the end, but of course :)

But it's not fiction.  FPD is married, and (sadly enough, spoiler alert) dies before Helen can get to England to meet him and his family.  And nothing much happens to Helen either in the twenty years they correspond (unless it does happen and she doesn't tell him of course :)) It seems like there are some letters left out, so there was definitely some effort and grouping the remaining ones into a narrative.  In the end, I suppose it's a pretty sad narrative, not much of a resolution beyond the publication of the letters - but it doesn't feel sad.  Helen and Frank seem to thoroughly enjoy each other, transatlantic though their relationship might be. And I enjoyed them too, I always enjoy people who love books :) Though wow, these books, I have never heard of *any* of them! Except Pride and Prejudice - yes, Helen loves P&P.  And now you know why I love the book :) Okay not really, but I always love it the way everyone loves Jane Austen - Stella Gibbons (Cold Comfort Farm) waxed enthusiastic at one point as well.  In any case, it's surprising how close you can feel to someone after reading their personal letters all about the books they love :) Or at least how much you can enjoy a light, fluffy, collection of them.

Verdict: 4/5

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 :)