Annoying = Unlikable

I wanted to like Eyes Like Stars by Lisa Mantchev. I do like the cover.



Here's the plot: Beatrice Shakespeare Smith has lived in the Theatre Illuminata for her entire life. The Theatre is home to every single play ever written--and all the characters. Beatrice, who is an orphan that was dropped off at the Theatre (little subplot about "who's my mother" is worked in) is an annoying troublemaker and about to be kicked out unless she proves her worth to the theater. So she tries to. There also may be two guys she's interested in, both of whom get involved in her plot to save her life in the theater. Also, she has four annoying fairy friends. Trouble ensues.


Alright, obviously there's more to the plot but I just didn't like the story. Beatrice's motives and decisions changed sooo quickly and without reason. Plus, she's annoying and honestly, sort of deserves to get kicked out of the Theatre. AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON HER FAIRY FRIENDS. UGGGGGH. I have so many issues with them. And really, with most of the characters...some kept in their "character" while others adopted totally modern personalities. Annoying.


Rating: 5/10

Some Reads

Here's a few random reads that I've been meaning to mention.

After months of waiting, I read Diana Peterfreund's Rampant. My final thought? Eh. Didn't hate it, didn't love it. Also, for some reason, I didn't expect it to be set in modern day, so that threw me off a bit. And the unicorn aspect was different and interesting....but still, just an "eh" overall.

Rating: 6.5/10

I finished The Manual of Detection by Jedediah Berry last night. My overwhelming thought on the book? Postmodern.

Here's the Amazon description of it:
"Charles Unwin, a clerk who's toiled for years for the Pinkerton-like Agency, has meticulously catalogued the legendary cases of sleuth Travis Sivart. When Sivart disappears, Unwin, who's inexplicably promoted to the rank of detective, goes in search of him. While exploring the upper reaches of the Agency's labyrinthine headquarters, the paper pusher stumbles on a corpse. Aided by a narcoleptic assistant, he enters a surreal landscape where all the alarm clocks have been stolen. In the course of his inquiries, Unwin is shattered to realize that some of Sivart's greatest triumphs were empty ones, that his hero didn't always come up with the correct solution."

I just didn't have the patience to get into it. Most of the time I was skimming, saying "yeah, yeah, very postmodern, I don't understand what's happen, blah blah." So clearly my attitude didn't really help in my reading and interpretation of the work.

However, Pearl of Pearl's Picks recommend this book and she hardly ever steers me wrong. Ah well.

Rating: 5/10

More Like Art Lectures

I didn't go into The Art Thief by Noah Charney with any sort of great expectation other than it'd be about art. And it certainly was.


The book is about three main works of art (I think? I've already forgotten)--all of which get stolen. It is also a story FULL of characters. So many that I was lost nearly immediately. The book is also full of theft. Several pieces of art are stolen in Europe; people work separately to find the art and at the end, everything pulls together--and actually in a way that rather surprised me. Looking back, I still don't really get how it all worked but whatever.

My first bit of advice, if you're going to read this book, is to not expect to read a "novel." Think of it as more like people lecturing about art. I enjoyed learning more about art but really, this isn't a true story. Characters aren't fleshed out at all and stuff just seems to happen to further along the plot. And the ending is so sudden, with no lead up to it, that I was taken aback and almost didn't want to accept it. In my mind, the title (The Art Thief) was more about art thieves in general and not a specific person. Any ending can be believable and acceptable to the reader--if there is enough preparation. Charney failed on that front.

The reviewers on Amazon hated this book--out of 54 reviews, 26 of them are one star. Reviewers talked about ripping up the book after reading. Many mentioned laughing out loud at parts that weren't even supposed to be funny. While I don't think it was quite a one star read, it was actually pretty bad for a novel. But I did enjoy reading more about art!

Rating: 5/10

Why, Donna, WHY?

I'm not going to post the cover of The Little Friend by Donna Tartt. It's CREEPY. So creepy that after I bought the book at a library book sale, I couldn't bring myself to read it for months because of the cover: all black, with a cutout of a baby doll's eyes. And there isn't even really a doll mentioned in the book! When I finally did read it, I kept it face down at all times when I wasn't reading it.

The Little Friend is a Southern gothic novel that takes place over a summer. (In that respect, I was thrilled to read it; I love reading books set in the same season.) I have to admire how completely Tartt switched from the New England/ivy league college setting of her first book, The Secret History, to the completely rural, class-conscious atmosphere of a small town in Mississippi. And her narrators switched gender, age and worldviews.

So the basic plot is this: 9-year-old Robin was found hung in his backyard; no one knows who did it. Twelve years later, Robin's sister Harriet decides she's going to find his murderer. And then she becomes involved with a certain trashy family and snakes and wow, Harriet's life is crazy and odd and gothic.

Tartt is a detailed writer and this book is certainly character-driven. (In my opinion, too character-driven. You get to know SOOO many people far too well.) Harriet is a fascinating character that's not entirely sympathetic. But that's okay, because otherwise she wouldn't have accomplished what she did. As for plot, well, random things happen. Like poisonous snakes nearly killing people. Looking back on it all, my main problem is that I didn't end the book feeling resolved on anything.

Here's my main issue and it's a bit of a spoiler: THE ENDING IS AWFUL. There's no resolution. None. Every single plot line is left open: Harriet's parents, what will happen to Danny and Harriet, the murder.....GAHHHH. Donna, you strung me along for 600+ pages; I WANT ANSWERS. I know, I know; life isn't pretty and full of answers but fiction isn't real life.

I just want to talk to someone else who read this book. Help me move on and resolve my issues...

Rating: 6/10 (more like a 8.5 for writing but a 5 for plot because I'm still so bitter)

Zombies

Much to the disgust of my brother, I read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance - Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem! by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith. I think my brother's disgust lay in the fact that Grahame-Smith is blatantly adding in a shock factor to drum up sales...which, yes, is true, but obviously caught my attention (and many people's).

First up, the cover. It's gross. So gross that I kept it face down when I wasn't reading it.

The book itself...well, yes, it's a gimmick. It was sometimes amusing, sometimes weird and other times, well, bizarre.

I did notice that Grahame-Smith made Elizabeth an anti-Christian character, which wasn't necessary. The reader's guide questions at the end of the book made the author's opinions toward Christianity and the church made it clear that Grahame-Smith wanted to add mockery about that faith. That sort of tainted the book for me. I mean, it's one thing to enjoy the addition of zombies and all that silliness but to add his own worldview and opinions to a classic novel that doesn't say anything on the topic is another matter.

So read it for the gimmick but don't expect much more.

Rating: 5/10

Took only two years

I am so excited right now. Scarily excited. On March 25, 2007, I added How I Fell in Love with a Librarian and Lived to Tell About It by Rhett Ellis to my Amazon wishlist. Today, March 25, 2009, I will remove that book from my wishlist---and I didn't even plan it out this way! I did realized that it had been about two years since I added How I Fell and I did want to finally get it off my wishlist. But still, it's a bit sad how excited this random coincidence makes me. However, I have to admit this book wasn't worth waiting two years to read.

If you want to see the cover, go here. It's so cartoony and I hate cartoon covers. The book is more of a novella and is probably self-published (or maybe independently published), which explains the cover. However, it had rave reviews on Amazon and I loved Ellis' novella The Greatest White Trash Love Story Ever Told. Seriously, that story rocked. It was truly examined redemption--yet was sweet and utterly shocking/surprising. I'd probably give it a 10. So you can imagine that I went into How I Fell with high expectations.

Here's the plot: basically, this 37-year-old pastor falls in love with a 24-year-old librarian who has just moved to his town. Oh yeah, she's a bit crazy. Like take numerous-pills-a-day, can't remember hours of her life, seriously crazy. There's also a subplot of this "bad" councilman who wants to shut down the town's library. But don't worry--love conquers all!

Here's what really got me: the writing. It focused on random details that didn't add to the plot (ex.: they had chips, slaw and pop for dinner and then sat on the couch...) and had much awkward telling, but not so much showing. And the pastor seemed hardly concerned about being in a relationship with a CRAZY person--someone who would randomly flip and start talking in rhymes, break the law with a "wild" car chase, etc. The whole major age gap wasn't really addressed either; speaking for someone who is in her mid-2os...um, that guy is almost 40...that's a 13-year gap. Yikes.

So I had issues with this book. But at least it's finally gone from my wishlist!!!

Rating: 5/10

And the point was?

The Somnambulist by Jonathan Barnes left me saying "umm, what just happened and what was the point?" So it won my "wtf" award this month.

Well, it's British, so maybe that explains it. (Sorry, lame joke.) I read this book for 1) the gorgeous and gothic and suck-you-in cover, 2) decent-sounding plot and 3) mixed reviews on Amazon. I wanted to see why people hated it or loved it. Also, numerous reviewers mentioned A HUGE TWIST and I was curious. (For the record, it wasn't a huge twist and it didn't impact the plot much.)

Ok, honestly, I don't even know how to sum up the plot. It's set in late Victorian England. The story basically involves an aging magician/detective named Edward Moon and his silent assistant, The Somnambulist. They are presented with a mystery...first two odd murders, bizarre assassins and warnings about something bad that's going to happen to London in a certain amount of days. Stuff happens; people randomly show up/disappear; and Edward gets lucky in solving the mystery...but that doesn't prevent the bad thing from happening.

Let me be upfront: the book is weird. It could've been weird-yet-enchanting but as the book progressed, it just became um-I-feel-slightly-uncomfortable-weird. The late one-fourth of the book spirals into a bizarre, end-of-the-world fight that just doesn't make sense. Seriously, characters suddenly showcase the ability to disappear into thin air and I won't even get into details about who the sleeping person is and what happens to his body...bleh. Also, the ending itself is so unclear. I have no idea if it actually happened, and to be honest, it's basically a "yeah, who cares?" ending.

I didn't really gain much by reading it. Maybe if it hadn't spiraled into a crack-fueled world, it could've been better.

Rating: 5.5/10

No sympathy

You know how there's certain books you just think you should read? Well, after watching The Talented Mr. Ripley, with my boy Matt Damon in it, I told myself that I should read the book. After all, generally the book is much better than the movie and since I had liked the movie, I'd like the book, too. Yeah, not so much.


Patricia Highsmith wrote The Talented Mr. Ripley and numerous sequels. According to the book's description, Tom Ripley is a sociopath. After looking up the description of a sociopath, yeah, he is one. Manipulative, parasitic, a liar...again, I just didn't like him.

***Spoilers ahead****
The movie actually is pretty true to the plot, but if anything, the movie is better. It's more suspenseful, believeable and convincing. You kind of like/empathize with Tom Ripley of the movie--in the book, Tom isn't as likeable. He's never fully understood.

Most of the book I can believe; Tom is a murderer and gets away with two murders, including his friend Dickie Greenleaf. What I couldn't swallow was the ending--he fakes a will, leaving EVERYTHING of Dickie's to himself, and presents it to Dickie's father, WHO BELIEVES IT. For me, that will just screamed "I murdered Dickie for his money. I'M GUILTY." I wanted him to get nailed for the murder, too, but no luck.
***

I didn't really like the book at all and struggled to finish it. Honestly, the movie was richer and more interesting. This is the very rare occasion where I say see the movie and skip the book.

Rating: 5/10

In which I question myself

Walker Percy....I love your name but how you confuse me. I read your novel The Second Coming in college and actually enjoyed it. If I remember right, it's because it ended hopefully. Your first and most well-known novel, The Moviegoer, is just too existential for me. (Funny--I had to look up how to spell that word; that's how much I don't care for existentialism--I don't even know how to spell it.)

The main character, Jack "Binx" Bolling is the type of guy I just want to smack: meandering, undecisive, etc. He's searching for God--in his own way--and seems to be slightly crazy, in my opinion. But hey, that's okay, because he has his (step-)cousin Kate who understands him, because she's crazy as well.

Seriously though, the two of them wonder about the meaning of life and both fall into despair so easily. I'm not an existential sort of person at all--my faith in God is strong. Binx and I think so differently that I couldn't understand him.

On a side note, the book was published in the early 1960s, and other than Mary Stewart or Elizabeth Peters, I have hardly read anything from that era. I found myself being fascinated by silly little things--for example, Binx gets in a car wreck and the other driver, who caused it, just drives away. I started thinking about insurance and wondering if they had car insurance back then and how Binx didn't seem mad that it was a hit-and-run and how he'll have to pay for his little car to be fixed...and yeah, see how unexistential I am?

To be far, this is considered a great American novel but that doesn't mean I enjoyed reading it!

Rating: 5/10

Not so much

If you've read this blog for any length of time, you may have picked up that I like Elizabeth Peters. When I heard that she was writing another Vicky Bliss book, obviously I had to read it.

The Laughter of Dead Kings is the final book for the series--and written only 14 YEARS AFTER the last book in the series, which to my mind, felt like a series finale.

What can I say about Laughter? It was okay--by far not my favorite of Peters' work--and just didn't capture my fancy. The series has spanned years and years; the first book technically in the series was written in the '60s. But this newest book just felt too rooted in the modern era. Cell phones, texts and email abounded. While that's obviously accurate, it's just not what I want from a book by Peters. She does note this incongruity in the introduction but whatever, I still didn't like it.

The plot is similar to any other Vicky Bliss plot; however, characters from all the books are brought back. And at the end, Peters inserts herself, which was mildly amusing.

Basically, I have to admit I skim read it. Oh well, c'est la vie. On a positive note, I made absolutely delicious scones tonight, which is going to brighten up my morning.

Rating: 5.5/10

Book vs. Movie

If you're a woman, you've probably seen the movie Chocolat. Well, the book version of Chocolat (by Joanne Harris) is, um, VASTLY different than the movie version (and it was the original).



Here's my version of the movie: Magical chocolate lady with daughter moves to French city. She makes magical chocolate, everybody eats it, they're happy, fall in love, etc. She falls in love with a gypsy. Everybody's happy, yay, yay, yay. There may have been a conflict but I don't really remember it.


Here's my version of the book: Witch lady with daughter moves to French city. She makes chocolate but it doesn't make everybody happy or really have that magical of powers. She clashes with the town priest, helps people defy him, etc. After pages of subtle digs and not-so-subtle digs at the Catholic church, the priest (and Easter) is defeated by chocolate and pagan happiness. Oh, and yeah, there's a gypsy man but he ends up with somebody else.

Can you see why I'm having trouble digesting the book version? Obviously I have to view them as two separate creations because their stories are so different. The book gave the movie its very basic outlines but wow, the screenplay writers added so much more--and made it a happy, much lighter story, too.

I really didn't enjoy Harris' continual slamming of Catholicism and Christianity. I'm a Christian--not Catholic--but I hate how she portrayed the Christian faith. Honestly, I barely finished the book. She's welcome to her opinion but I don't agree with it. So keep that in mind for my rating.

Rating: 5/10

Bleh weekend reading

My weekend reading was less than stellar. I started out with Snobbery with Violence by Marion Chesney and ended with Secret Society Girl by Diana Peterfreund. Both were disappointments.

Snobbery had odd writing--I felt like the point of view shifted or suddenly became omniscient. It was odd. And I couldn't get ahold of the main character. She shifted too much to really understand her; however, this is the first book in the series.

It also had a completely predictable plot. Seriously, someone mentioned a totally bizarre theory and somehow they managed to prove it. I was ticked off (let's just say it involved a crazy guy sleeping with virgins to try to cure his syphilis...and yes, this happened in the early 1900s). Did anyone actually believe that anymore, much less an Englishman living in England?

Rating: 4/10

Secret Society Girl was my own issue. I thought it was going to be a serious sort of book, one like The Night Climbers, which has an amazing cover:

Seriously, I love it. So gothic and a great representative of the book.

Anyway, the girl book turned out to be major chick-lit and more about who Amy, the main character, was sleeping with than the secret society. At one point, Amy realizes she wasn't the society's first choice; she gets all sad and is like, oooh, that makes sense, who'd want me? I was like, yeah, that's right, Amy; who would want you? I had to stop my bitterness and finish reading it since I was on a plane and had nothing else to do. Anyway, maybe it was just my not-into-sororities coming out or what, but I will not be continuing the series.

Rating: 5/10

Rule of boring

Okay, here's the thing: my friend Becca recommended The Rule of Four and let me borrow her copy. The book is advertised as an academic Da Vinci Code--but it's not. (I'm sorry I didn't love it, Becca--I really wanted to!)

However, 56% of the people who reviewed the book on Amazon.com gave it a one or two-star rating. I am not alone!

Really, I just blame the marketing; if it had been promoted as an academic novel (lots of Greek, philosophy, etc.) with a hint of intrigue, it would've been better. I just went into it with different expectations.

The book centers on four Princeton students' senior year. The book is sort of about their friendship, but it's more about this ancient, mysterious book that begins with an "H" and I can't remember now. Anyway, one student unravels the hidden meaning and it leads to action...but the most exciting action is only alluded to; seriously, it was a WEAK ending--you think someone is dead, but oh wait....five years later, maybe he's not? (FIVE YEARS later??? What a jerk friend!)

Anyway, if you're bored, give it a shot. If you want an awesome academic novel, try The Secret History by Donna Tartt--it's truly fabulous.

Rating: 5/10

Four in one?

I've been a busy reading girl this week. (Since it's FINALLY warm enough to be outside for longer than 10 minutes, I've started eating my lunch outside, which translates to more reading time. It's amazing how surfing the Internet can eat your lunch break away. Hmmm.)

So in the past week I've finished and/or read:
A Broken Vessel by Kate Ross (the second mystery that features Julian Kestrel, who I really like)
--- Nice mystery, interesting characters, good twists
--- Rating: 8.5/10

The Thief by Megan Whalen Turner
--- Young Adult novel, fantasy adventure novel, mystery (kind of), great ending
--- Rating: 9/10

Coil of Serpents by Anne Stevenson (yeah, I couldn't find a good link for this book)
--- Good for fans of Mary Stewart: it featured a girl who travels abroad, looking for her "missing" (aka just hiding out, mooching off of people) stepfather who falls in love with a suspicious guy. Danger, adventure, traveling and history abound. I thought it was set in the 1950s...until it randomly mentioned a disco. Yeah, it's set in the 1970s, but it didn't end up bothering me. I'd re-read it.
--- Rating: 9/10

Book I did not finish:
The Silk Vendetta by Victoria Holt
--- So overdramatic and filled with the same lines over and over and over and over. It was dull and BORING.
--- Rating: 5/10

I'm heading off to Tennessee later this week and am hoping to get more good reading time in. Yay.

Puzzling

I read The Givenchy Code by Julie Kenner because it had quite a few 5 star ratings on Amazon. The plot is a rip-off of The Da Vinci Code, obviously, with a twist on fashion. Except it's not as good.

Graduate student Melanie Prescott loves high fashion, history and math--particularly ciphers. However, if not for the author telling us she's in grad school, you'd never know--she doesn't do homework, worry about classes, etc. Instead, she's involved in a game called "Play.Survive.Win." (PSW), a sort of role-playing game with assassians, targets and protectors. PSW was just an internet game--until some sicko transferred it into real life.

So Mel is now a target, with some guy named Lynx after her. Yeah, you barely even get to know Lynx or even care about him. Instead, you meet Matthew Stryker, a hott ex-Marine who's been assigned to protect her.

The rest of the plot is basically Mel figuring out clues around New York City, Lynx using GPS to track them, and Stryker being hott/pushing Mel out of the way of bullets.

Character development is a bit thin. Mel and Stryker end up sleeping together and maybe end up together in the end....but you don't know! I hate it when characters end up together just because they're both pretty people. The ending is so vague and not really explanatory--I don't think anyone was even punished for starting P.S.W. And there's one character (Todd) who may be bad or may not...but honestly, I can't even remember. And it's been a day since I finished it. That should sum up this plot-driven book for you--lots of action, but forgettable characters.

Rating: 5/10

I do have to thank this book though, because it's helped me realize I hate reading about high fashion. It just kills me when people spend so much money on CLOTHES that will be out of style in a year or two. That really bothers me.

I'd rather watch Dave Lieberman any day

In honor of the five to six-foot snow drifts outside my Ohio home, I decided to read a southern novel. I really liked Mary Kay Andrews' Hissy Fit and Savannah Blues, so when I saw she just released a new novel about cooking, Deep Dish, well, I couldn't resist. It's about food and set in the South. Count me in.

The novel is basically a rip-off about the Food Network--but not that I minded that. Gina, star of a fresh cooking show, is pitted against Tate, the show of a Southern Outdoor Network cooking show named "Vittles." (Seriously, Vittles? Do people still use that word?) They end up battling on "The Cooking Channel" for their own show. Oh, and we're supposed to believe that they fall in love, too.

The book just didn't work for me for numerous reasons.

1. The point of view changed constantly! Sometimes I had no idea who's point of view I was reading. But it wasn't as if the POV was omniscient, either. The constant shifts were distracting.

2. And speaking of shifting, Gina's real name is Regina. It's always a problem in books when the main character has numerous names and this book was a fine example of it. Gina would be called Gina, then suddenly the book would refer to her as Regina....through a different character's POV.

3. Tate and Gina never seemed to really connect. He's hot, she's hot, they both like cooking...they "fight" but then end up in love? And Gina gets over her cheating ex-boyfriend incredibly fast and with no hang-up. Whatever. Also, Gina is never directly called out as an anoxeric, but she never eats--and when she does, it's horrible, fattening food! It really bothered me.

4. Call me shallow, but the cover.....it's so cartoony!

5. Andrews makes a comment that a certain cheap tackle box that Gina is forced to use is something like a Yankee would buy. Um, Yankees can fish, ok? I don't like to fish, but I was a bit offended by that comment. Maybe it's the fact that I live on a great lake and therefore fishing is huge up here, but I didn't like that sweeping characterization.

On a positive note, I enjoyed all the cooking. Andrews does give a good job of what the real world of cookings shows are probably like. I just didn't like the book.

Rating: 5/10

Two in one

I had a busy reading weekend: Thunder on the Right and Still Life with Murder. First, let's talk about Thunder on the Right.

It's by Mary Stewart, so of course, great atmosphere--this time in France! Jennifer travels to France to join up with her cousin Gillian. When she gets to the convent where Gillian is supposedly staying for awhile, she's told that Gillian is dead. For several reasons, which I won't go into here, Jennifer is convinced Gillian is still alive. Throw in an old friend-who-wants-to-be-a-flame and it's a classic.

Best of all it featured someone with AMNESIA! Two books in a row...that made me happy.

Rating: 7/10

The next book, Still Life with Murder, wasn't nearly as enjoyable.

The front cover says it's a "thoroughly charming book"......if you find opium addicts, murder, whoring and prison charming. Set in the late 1860s, Nell, an Irish governess for a rich family, is asked to become a sort of detective for the family after their "dead" son pops up wanted for murder. So she starts investigating and meets Will, the son. Will is an opium addict due to an old war injury (or is it actually due to an internal injury...aka guilt, blah blah blah). He appears to be guilty, but Nell (kind of somehow) figures out he's not. There's some attraction between the two, but seriously, he's high so much, what really could develop?

I just couldn't like Will. He's a bit of a slut and his main topic of conversation was opium. Eh, not my cup of tea. Nell was fine, although "mysterious" (the author would throw in bits of information...like the fact she has a 9-inch scar...and then not tell you anything else. Pssssh). I like happy mysteries. This one was too serious and aspects were just too unbelievable--but some parts were so realistic. I couldn't handle the mix.

Rating: 5/10