A Matriarchal Memoir

Before we get on to the aforementioned new stuff, need to finish up Pesach reading.  After finishing up Slaughterhouse 5, I moved on / back to Cheaper by the Dozen - or, actually, Belles on Their Toes. I ordered it after so thoroughly enjoying CbtD (ordered CbtD too, since I’m sure I’ll want to reread it one day :)) Obviously, I’ve read and enjoyed Belles on their Toes before, but I did want to see if it held up quite as well as Cheaper by the Dozen did.  It’s definitely a sadder book, both because the father is no longer living, and because it features extensive passage of time, which I always find somewhat depressing.  And it has fewer hilarious incidents than the first book.  That’s not to say it’s sad though, maybe just not *quite* as humorous.  But still humorous, very well-written, and a lot of fun.  It’s definitely up for discussion whether the book would be as much fun had we not been introduced to the Gilbreths already, but I kind of think it would be.  The main thing is that the Gilbreths are so much fun to read about - they make even stressful situations fun and light-hearted.  So even though there’s more stress in this book, there’s not that much less fun.  What makes this book special is right there in the intro “this is Mother’s story” (might not be the exact quote). Mother, who is an admirable figure in Cheaper by the Dozen, really comes into her own in Belles on their Toes.  She is strong, wise, and kind, a career women whose children adore her.  It is clear from the book that the Gilbreths love their mother, and I have to say, I love her too.  The story of the Gilbreths after Dad died is a happy one, told in light and entertaining fashion, and she made it all possible.

Verdict: 5/5

Solid Talking Points

Going back months as usual, I finished by GH reading while at my in-laws' house for Succos.  They have plenty of interesting reading material there, but everything was a bit disorganized because of construction.  One thing I came upon was Alan Dershowitz's The Case For Israel, which definitely seemed promising.

Of course, I am a stalwart supporter of Israel and I know many of the talking points, but I am always interested in knowing what to argue in more depth (with whom? well anonymous Salon  commenters, but that's another story... or perhaps not, I'll get into that later :)) Anyway, The Case For Israel is a fast read, not a detailed history, but it addresses every argument of the anti-Israel camp in detail (well maybe not every argument, but certainly those that I've heard).  It goes through some of the salient history, much of which I did not know  - including the recently relevant details of the Mufti's participation in the Holocaust and the very important demographic information surrounding the founding of the state (up until 1830, "Palestine" was almost empty. Though the start of the Arab influx of immigration predated the Jewish start by a few decades, the population growth of the two groups occurred basically simultaneously.  At the time of the Partition Plan proposal, the clear majority of the population living in the land to be allotted to Israel was Jewish).  There was information about international law and how it relates to Israel, and details about the Israeli army's extremely careful stewardship of life. The book was written in 2003, but nothing much has changed since then - other than the Palestinians growing over more intransigent and world'd louder condemnation of "settlements".

I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable, gratifying and very informative read.  I then took my new-found factually-based arguments and commented on a Salon article. That of course was a mistake, in which I wasted a week raising my blood pressure to argue with a rude bully, until I gave up as it was taking too much time. But, that incident notwithstanding, I am very glad to have read this book, just so I can answer all those anti-Israel news stories in my head with solid, cogent, pro-Israel arguments :)

Verdict: 5/5

Interesting and Informative, or, I Finally Read Some Non-Fiction

As usual, it's been forever.  My reading material in the past months has been exclusively Commentary magazine, so I have little incentive to finish my review backlog.  I have recently started on something new and interesting so that gives me a little push :) And this review is the last on my backlog (except for a short note on a reread that will be coming whenever this one is done).  Anyway, now up is Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise.  I don't remember exactly when I read this book, but it either right before or at the beginning of my maternity leave.  So a while ago.   But I still have something to say, don't worry :) Anyway, some background on this  - The Signal and the Noise is a non-fiction bestseller by Nate Silver, statistics guru formerly of the NY Times.  His employer notwithstanding, I think I had some vague interest in the title for a while.  Some time last year I started reading Nate's new website, fivethirtyeight.com, regularly, which definitely made me want to read his book more.  The premise of the website is to offer a hard-data perspective of the news, certainly a refreshing and and informative product.  I did enjoy the articles and, when I was next in need of something to read at the in-laws, I picked up the book.  It took me a few visits to get through it, but I enjoyed it all the way through.

Other than the intro/conclusion chapters, each chapter looks at a specific topic often subjected to statistical analysis, or more specifically, to "forecasting" (predicting the future based on present / past data).  So each chapter is an informative read on how forecasting works in a certain field, ranging from weather, to sports, to climate change.  I don't think there was one topic I had in-depth knowledge of, so each chapter was an education in itself.  Some hold more interest to me than others (climate change more than baseball :)) and some more day-to-day relevance (weather) but all interesting and good reading.  It really gave me a new way to think about each of these fields.  On climate change specifically, I really appreciate Silver's temperate approach toward the science and have more-or-less adopted it as my own (for the record, the models are by no means perfect and certainly have something to answer for, but they do all suggest rises in carbon dioxide are going to be problematic if the models are accurate).

And besides for educating me in a few specific topics, the book also introduced me to the notion of Bayesian forecasting.  I know about Bayes  but certainly hadn't thought to apply it as widely as Silver does. It really is a clarifying way to approach predictions of both the future and general unknowns.  It's very helpful to think in terms of current assumptions and how they affect the assumptions about new propositions (not that I mean I use this in any real sense, just in my rich intellectual life :p).

As someone with no statistical background, no background in any of the topics Silver discusses and not really a critical thinker, it's not like I'm a in a place to really evaluate Silver's book on its academic merits.  Suffice it to say, it was not only an interesting read, but has contributed to the way I think about the climate change debate, weather forecasts, mortgage securities, earthquake predictions, and Bayesian reasoning.  Not bad :)

Verdict: 4/5 (based purely on how much I enjoyed this book, not on its technical merits or lasting impact)

Some Shorts

And here I am, still sitting phoneless on the train :( With nothing else to do but review books, and I don't even have the list of books in front of me to review :( But I'm pretty sure, based on the last time I checked, that all I have left to review is miscellaneous non-review books :) So you're going to get some selected shorts - 

1) I reread Reb Aharon Feldman's book on marriage, The River, the Kettle and the Bird.  Nothing earth-shattering (there wasn't really anything the first time around either) but always very, very good to remind myself of the basics of communication and relationships, especially with one's spouse :)

2) I reread Sandition, which I have reviewed previously - still really like this book.  If I'm being picky, it's not Jane Austen, and it's pretty obvious when you're looking - I wouldn't say it's perfectly consistent plot-wise with the beginning of the book either.  But who cares, it's a *great* story, and quite well told.

3) I reread the Ordinary Princess, mostly because I wanted something fast (and maybe that I wouldn't have to review, not sure :)) As good as always (reviewed last year if you're wondering).  Not much depth, but then, it's a fairy tale :) and charming, charming, charming.

4) QED - also a reread, though one I don't remember.  I used to read physics books a lot, I should start again, I really kind of like them :) This is a very interesting one, since it goes into a lot of detail without going over my head (much :)) By the classic physics for the masses writer of course (well maybe not quite that, but a very, very good teacher from what  I understand :)) Richard Feyman.

Well that's all I remember for now, but if I remember more or somehow obtain my list (which was stored on my dead phone but maybe just maybe was connected with the account instead of the phone) I will add others.

Light, Fluffy, and Real-Life!

It's a good thing I'm keeping a list of books I need to review on my phone, because otherwise I don't think I'd know what's on my agenda (forget next on my agenda, order is on my whim at the moment).  So coming up next we've got Jen Lancaster - this is an author recommended by Laren Willig, who loves her books.  She writes non-fiction, comedic memoirs.  Not a genre I've read much of, but since she seems very well liked, definitely worth a try.  And two of her books were available from the library on kindle, so that settled it.

As I said, this isn't a genre I've read much of,  so not much to compare it with (I thought maybe Dave Barry since I've been read one of his books at Dov's parents' house but those aren't really memoirs).  Actually David Sedaris (Yael H. was at my house last Shabbos and reading this) but I've never read any of his books.  So I did find the format of the books interesting - it's a little hard to tell what's real, and what's, shall we say, exaggerated.  And there's of course not much plot and, sometimes, an iffy timeline.  But small potatoes... These books are funny, easy reading.  I read two of them, one is more about her childhood and one more about contemporary stuff, but both are just full of light anecdotes and slightly satirical portraits of Jen herself and everyone around her.  Like I said, I'm not sure how much was real and how much either fictionalized or fiction, but I don't think it matters.  I'm not sure how much it even mattered that these were non-fiction as oppose to fiction.  Well it's definitely funny when you can say, hah, I know people like that (or I know people exist like that, they don't exactly run in my circles :)) but even if I have to say, yeah, there's no one really like that, enough elements of human nature / life in America / and all that shine through to be appreciated.

So I liked these books - I don't think I liked one more than the other, they were pretty similar and kind of ran together a little bit, but I'd be happy to read more of the same.  Really quite perfect reading for nursing, as there's not much continuity involved and everything flows along pretty fast.  Almost surprising how much she has to say about not that much... unfortunately these were the only two available at the library, and I'm not interested in paying.   So maybe I'll get some physical copies out at some point, or maybe she's a finished chapter (for now).  But good stuff.

Verdict: 3.753.5/5

PS Just searched for an image, and she is quite hefty.  Not that it matters, but interesting (oish I'm horrible :)) But that started me thinking about the books, where she does go into some weight issues, and then I realized I should probably add a post script.  I did like these books, but I'd say they are kind of guilty pleasures - or semi annoying, however you look at it.  (I hope more the latter).  She is really not the most refined, or the nicest, person.  Oh well, she's still funny.  But I am lowering my verdict.

Confirmation of the Tastes of Years Gone By

Well it's been a while again... but with this pop back in, I have new material to review! True, I have been busier than I ever with my LO (that's a common abbreviation on mommy sites :)) but what with nursing and pumping, I do have time which is well-filled by reading.  Reading what? Some old favorites.  Well-loved, but I still don't (or maybe because of that don't) feel like posting full reviews.  So right here, you're getting three shorties :)

First, Friday's Child.  S.b. has a nice collection of GHs and I picked this one up - haven't read it in a while, though not in longer while than most other GHs.  It's always been a favorite of mine (well top ten) but I think it was (at least for a while) *the* favorite for Huvi.  She loves the humor, and I do think Sherry's band of bachelor pals are very amusing - their knowingness in some areas and cluelessness in others, their calm confidence in sometimes absurd notions.  So there's that, and then there's romance, which is as well done as any Heyer, and nicely original, again, as any Heyer :) That's always been my feeling on this book, and it did not disappoint upon this reread.

So after one successful Heyer, I was eager for another.  Picked up Devil's Cub, also a long-time favorite, but in quite as a different mode.  Devil's Cub is not a Regency, and thus lacks the classic Heyer Regency feel, which reflects the casualness and light elegance of the era (at least the era according to GH :)) It's Georgian, and dramatic.  This is not something I noticed on my first reading, but I did pick up on it a while ago - and while I think I prefer the Regency tone, it doesn't mean I don't still love Devil's Cub.  Yes, it may be a litttle overdramatic at times (a' la Scarlet Pimpernel, see that review) but still, solid, solid, romance.  GH does not disappoint!

When I finished Devil's Cub, it was a Shabbos, and I felt slightly guilty about picking up another secular book... so I went off in another direction, reaching even farther back into my reading past.  I have a habit (not so much anymore, it used to be more frequent) of quoting "Rabbi Wein stories" - this leads people to assume I am a Rabbi Wein aficionado, when in fact, my stories all come from one anthology of Rabbi Wein shorts not even written by him - Vintage Wein, by James Brown.  I'm not sure to whom the credit goes (both, I'm sure, actually) but the stories are short and very much to the point - poignant, pungent, moving and amusing.  I have read this book so often that even though I haven't picked it up in years, I don't think there was one unfamiliar story in it.  And it's still a great read, I breezed right through it - glad to be reminded of all those Rabbi Wein tidbits I can bring up in conversation :)

So that was that, three old favorites, all still 5/5!

Some Neat Lines, A Lot of Fluff

I actually finished this one almost a week ago, but what with my little dash off to San Fran I didn't get around to reviewing it till now... when it seems most imperative that I do so since I'm heading into Pesach and possibly more reading time.  Anyway, after finishing up a long-neglected GH, I still didn't have any books on my agenda (and still don't have many, since I've been lazy about reserving) so I picked up a rather random title.  A few months ago, I mentioned that a "popular math" book I saw around Dov's parents' house looked interesting - Math Mysteries I think it's called or something like that, by Marcus de Satoy (again, or something like that).   I've read a few books of this type - history of math, basic introductions to its areas of study - and they're entertaining enough.  So my sweet Dov brought the book home for me, rather unexpectedly.  It seemed incumbent upon me to read it once I got around to it.

It turned out to be fairly interesting, and definitely an easy read.  I don't think any of the actual math was new - a lot of it was very similar to the math section of 1,2,3....Infinite and the remainder was mostly my CMSC 203 class - discrete math.  But it was a nice reminder I guess.  What I found a little annoying was the juvenility of some of the examples - the book is peppered with games that "illustrate" the concepts being explained.  But maybe it's aimed at a juvenile audience, I don't know.  It just seemed like a little too much filler.  And on the other hand, some of the most interesting math was glossed over, so that I found myself wishing he explained A->B in a little more detail.  But there was good too - I think what I found strongest were his examples of math in nature - especially the prime number cicadas and the three-colored lizards.  What a world we live in, huh?

I guess it's not his fault that this isn't my first math book.  I would have gotten more out of it if I didn't already know most of the stuff.  But I'm glad it's not my first, because I think those other ones did a better job explaining the concepts than he did.  Overall, it wasn't hard to read though, and it was a nice refresher.  Not too taxing on the brain, and good reminder of the neatness of mathematics.

Verdict: 2.75/5

My Unconscious Mind Has Preconditioned Me to Disagree With This Book... Or Something Like That

Man it took me a while to finish this one - took me a while to get it too.  Back in I don't know when, Google had an Author@ for David Eagleman, whose latest book is Incognito.  This was right around the time (I guess that' when :)) when I read Joshua Foer's book, Moonlighting with Einstein, that I found so unexpectedly fascinating.  So I was more than a little open to another neuroscience title.  Plus there were lots of reserves on it, always a goodish sign :) So I put it on hold... and it was the same old story - hold expired, got it out, couldn't renew it... etc. until now (or a few weeks ago) when I finally managed to get a hold of it without reserves and actually had time to read it.  I was slightly hampered by tiredness, since, I have started to go to the gym in the mornings (yes I had to say this, of course I did :)) which means I feel like sleeping, not reading on the bus in the mornings (though it's morning right now and I am writing my blog, that's how dedicated I am :))

So about the book... well in the beginning, I was just unimpressed.  He kept going through all these examples of how what we see isn't reality and how our brain does so much unconsciously for us.  He said these things like they were a revelation, instead of which, almost all of what he said was familiar to me.  I suppose his framing of it was something new in a few cases - that we really don't tend to realize the role the brain plays in composing our view of the world.  But mostly it was like, uh yeah, our brain processes a lot unconsciously, that's what it's there for.  And along with his dramatic reveal of the unconscious, Eagleman continuously refers back to evolution as the cause and impetus of all this - evolution dictates that this was better for survival, this was advantageous... Without offering one iota of proof or even acknowledgement that evoking evolution as a magical force does not cement its place as the most logical explanation of how intelligent life (us) came about.  I mean it's not like I expected the guy to launch into a defense of evolutionary theory, but given the utter lack of any backup when he mentions that this or that was better than some other scheme for survival and that's why it has survived, why mention it at all?

Ah, because my early annoyance at his constant noddings to that origins of life theory was, in fact, a pick-up on his not-so-hidden agenda.  Because once the book finishes showing us how our conscious minds are the smallest, most unimportant, and late-to-the-party part of our brain, it launches into the next phase of Eagleman's exploration of the psyche.  Given that so much of "us" is unconscious, do we even have free will? Well he posits this - the conscious mind is that which decides between warring factions in the unconscious - and in that, I think he's pretty much on the nail.  Why aren't we animals? We have the ability to choose between right and wrong.  But my agreement with his theory of consciousness notwithstanding, I diverge quite far from him at the next juncture.

And that is twofold - 1) that our ability to make decisions is influenced by innumerably many factors that are out of our control and 2) we haven't found a place in the brain that isn't looped in with other parts, making an independent, self-reliant conscious mind impossible.  Now as far as the first point, he is undoubtable correct - we are put into this world with a given set of circumstances about which we have no say - but we all know the big but, and that is that every person has the ability to choose right and wrong *within his personal circumstances.*  No one gets let off the hook just because they had an alcoholic mother or grew up below the poverty line - if you do something wrong, you are culpable.  Of course, we know that we're not the ones who can judge what's wrong (or at least what's a wrong choice) for any one person, so there's no question he has some point - more on that anon.  His second point is the one that really irks me (not surprisingly).  So here's my first needle poke in his balloon - have you isolated the area of the brain that you claim constitutes the conscious mind, that is, the place where arbitration between dueling unconscious processes takes place? I think not.  Which means you haven't explored the whole brain yet, so there very well could be a place that doesn't "take orders" from anywhere else.  And, more importantly, what if you don't find such a place? Well it just proves (or ok, not proves, but indicates strongly) exactly what I (and lot of other people) believe (know) - the seat of the unconscious is the non-material, intangible soul.  It's actually beautiful in a way, to see the scientific arguments in favor of a spiritual consciousness :)

In any case, I really can't expect Eagleman to know all this, I just need to vent when I hear him spewing ideas that are to me so very wrong.  And when it gets down to the practical, I don't think there's anything *very* wrong with his ideas.  He points at that the current criminal justice system, with its notions of blame, is fundamentally flawed.  Well we all know the criminal justice system is fundamentally flawed, and I actually, I disagree with him that it's all based on blame. I think far more of sentencing is based on two things - get 'em off the street and make sure no one ever does this again.   But yeah, jail time isn't the best way to accomplish this in all cases, and I think we're all in favor of rehabilitation over incarceration, if we knew rehab could work.  So as far as neuroscience can help rehab, I'm all for it.  Am I as sanguine as Eagleman when it comes to the possibilities? Well, obviously not, but who knows? We certainly are gaining a better understanding every day of the inner workings of the mind.

Which brings me to my last (side) point - whatever the mind is like, it is not a computer and I find it patently ridiculous that Eagleman attempts to explain its myriad functions as a series of subroutines, that get programmed in some vague manner.  I don't think that's how the brain works, and I don't think we're going to achieve AI via modeling it that way.  But he probably knows  more about AI than I do, and I'm sure they've gotten somewhere with that approach :) In any case, I found this book to be mostly hand-waving in the important parts (that is, the science) and, unsurprisingly, mistaken in its conclusions.  Disappointingly enough, I don't feel like I learned anything much at all from this book... but I suppose it made me understand my own faith just a little bit better - so there's something to be said for that :)

Verdict: 2.5/5

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