Perks of Being a Wallflower

Title: Perks of Being a Wallflower

Author: Stephen Chbosky

Publication date: 1999

Book's setting: 1991

Random facts: Percy Jackson and Hermione Granger are leading in the movie, out next year.

Plot summary: Middle-class suburban Charlie starts high school, and needs a way to vent his emotions, fears, and secrets if he's going to survive. Instead of a diary, he writes letters to an anonymous friend whose name the reader is never given. These letters make up the book. Charlie accidentally finds himself on the fringes of a crowd of amazingly cool seniors. The book deals with issues all teens face with sincerity and grace.

Favorite aspects: Oh, was it perhaps a bit too fraught with emotion? A tad too sincere? Yeah. But somehow that excess of incredible emotion was what made it so relate-able and real and sorrowful. Charlie himself was such a sympathetic character. He was a bit much at times... but the surprising ending made sense of that. Actually I think the characters in general made it so strong. Anyone can write a book about dysfunctional teenagers- substance abuse, drunken riots, closeted homosexuals, pregnancy scares, college application terrors. Not everyone can make you care that these kids are experiencing any of this stuff. I even genuinely cared for Sam, who is the stereotypical crazy beautiful bitch. however, is characters are the strongest point of the book, the characters I was most drawn to were Mary Elizabeth and Brad. Bravo, Chbosky. It takes a lot for me to love a teenager.

Least favorite aspects: I was (and still am) a bit confused as to how writing the novel in letter form helped the structure. I don't know if it symbolizes something I'm missing... or if it's just a clever way making it autobiographical without being a diary... But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I often caught myself wondering more about what the hell was going on on the other side of the correspondence than about Charlie's own life. If someone was writing me letters like Charlie's, I'd want to respond and help. Maybe no one was receiving the letters. I'm not sure.

Other works it reminded me of: Criss-Cross by Lynne Rae Perkins.

Sadie's merciless break-down: It's one of those really famous books, so I was hesitant. It's a hipster classic right up there with The Bell Jar, On the Road, and Oscar Wao. So I was hesitant. But it was one of those books that really deserve the excessive hype they get. To be quite honest, I think it unfortunate that it fell into the hands of the hip booklisters and ended up on the shelves in Urban Outfitters next to Dirty Italian and The Quoteable Stoner. It doesn't belong there. Was it the best book ever? No, probably not. But it was a beautiful, heartfelt, and sincere book that deserves more than its overly ironic fanbase of the grown-up teen scene of the 90's. As excited as I am for the movie, and as excellent as the casting is, I once again don't know if it's actually going to do the novel any favors. Oh well. At least people are reading it.

Recommendation rate: It's a teen book. It's about teenage problems. If you're okay with that, it's one of the best teen books I've read.

Hard to Admit and Harder to Escape

Title: Hard to Admit and Harder to Escape

Author: Sarah Manguso

Publication date: 2007

Book's setting: Modern America

Random facts: This book is one in a set of three short stories call One-Hundred and Forty-Five Stories in a Small Box.

Plot summary: This is a collection of eighty-one short stories. Really short stories. Each one is limited to the length of a page, some are ever smaller. Although many of them stand alone, if you read them carefully enough you'll find that many of them seems to be about the same people, or child. Many of them sound incredible real, perhaps even autobiographical.

Favorite aspects: I cried over some of these, they were so delicate and perfect. Manguso's writing is so seamless and easy to sink into. It's a tiny little book, only eighty-one pages, and you could totally read it in a single sitting. But that's one of the coolest things about it. It's an experience to read. It's theatrical. It's spell-bounding. You want to read it all at once.

Least favorite aspects: You can only buy it in a set of three books, for about $27. I choked and bought it... so what? Money is meant to be spent.

Other works it reminded me of: No One Belongs Here More than You by Miranda July.

Sadie's merciless break-down: Let me quote one of the stories to you:
"There's one girl in the nursery that I decide to love. I stare at her and try to think of what I should call her. I decide I will call her Benny, and I approach her. "Hi, Benny," I say. Another girl pipes up. "It's Becky, not Benny," she informs me. But what she doesn't know is that I got within one constanant of the girl's name just by looking at her."

Recommendation rate: A must-read. All Manguso is a must, must, must read.

Keturah and Lord Death

Title: Keturah and Lord Death

Author: Martine Leavitt

Publication date: 2006

Book's setting: Late medieval, somewhere.

Random facts: So I am rather behind on reviews. I'm still reading, I just haven't had time to review. Summer, whatchagonnado?

Plot summary: Keturah is a peasant girl, raised by loving grandparents in a small village. She sees her grandparents as a shining example of true love, and is dedicated to finding a True Love for herself. Her quiet life is disturbed the day she follows the legendary hart deep into the forest finds herself lost. After days of wandering aimlessly she knows that she is about to die, and Death comes. Except Death is a handsome Lord who she feels pity for. Desperate to live, Keturah challenges Death. She uses her storytelling skills to make him grant her a reprieve for one day. She tells a story of a love so pure that even Death cannot destroy her chances. He allows her to live another day on the condition that she come to him with an ending to the story and her true love. Can she find love in such a short time, and help her friends find their own? Can she continue to challenge Death when the plague reaches her beloved village?

Favorite aspects: This might sound dorky, but the message was really beautiful. I also really loved all the villagers. Leavitt creates such a real little world! In that way it reminded me of Shannon Hale's books, but I think that Leavitt's story was much more delicate and metaphorical and downright artistic than Hale's teenager fantasies.

Least favorite aspects: I found the incredibly old fashioned narrative to be rather hard to sink into... I don't know why. It's not like I am not accustom to reading older book, even incredibly old books. Actually my inability to really sink into the words worried me, because the novel I am working on has a very similar style, and now I am rethinking the entire style.

Other works it reminded me of: The Princess Academy by Shannon Hale; Tales of Beedle the Bard by JK Rowling; Beauty by Robin McKinley; Wildwood Dancing by Juliet Marillier.

Sadie's merciless break-down: Truth timez! I didn't really enjoy this book much, mainly because I was not properly focused while reading it. It was beautiful, the story was gorgeous. The very concept makes my heart flutter. But I sort of just read the words dutifully.
I read it soon after arriving home from Germany, with a pile of seven books waiting for me. I had to get back to work, I had a couple of very overwhelming personal things to deal with. It was just the wrong time to read it. Keturah and Lord Death is exquisite. I'd recommend it in a heartbeat. I'm looking forward to reading it again in a few months, or even years, and being able to give it the respect it deserves.

Recommendation rate: If you like fantasies and all that, then you've gotta try it. Sadly it is out of print already, but check the library.

The Rescuers

Title: The Rescuers

Author: Margery Sharp

Publication date: 1959

Book's setting: Sometime in the vague early 1900's.

Random facts: R-E-S-C-U-E RESCUE AID SOCIETY HANDS HELD HIGH TOUCH THE SKY YOU MEAN EVERYTHING TO ME.

Plot summary: So there is this massive society of mice. The Prisoners Aid Society. And their job is to comfort depressed prisoners around the world. There is this really sad poet who is imprisoned in the most terrifying prison of all time, in Norway. The only mouse who can get access to this prison is high class Miss Bianca. She's completely out of her depths in the dark and murky world of Norway's jails, but she's just brave enough. Besides, Barnard had asked her so nicely. Along with the help of Nils, a Norwegian sailor mouse, Miss Bianca fights cats and all manner of terrifying things, to save the sad poet.

Favorite aspects: I think that the illustrations were my favorite part of the book, which I know it actually cheating, but it's true. Either way, it was darling. I was very delicate and sweet and touching and careful and everything a good childrens book should be. I was actually very impressed, I wasn't anticipating liking it so much.

Least favorite aspects: I actually had a bit of a hard time falling into the writing. It was a bit old fashioned obviously, but I read tons of old(er) books and have always really enjoyed the stately language. This was probably more an error on my part, like I was really tired or something when I read it.

Other works it reminded me of: The Wonderful O by James Thurber.

Sadie's merciless break-down: The Disney movie of the same name was one of the most important things in my childhood. No lie. As much as I loved this book, it wasn't the Disney movie. Actually, it was probably better than the Disney movie, but it was still incapable to affecting me the way the cartoon did when I was a kid. Obviously. That's not exactly surprising, just confusing. Much like Ronia, this is a book I wish I had ten years ago.

Recommendation rate: If you are a big children's lit fan, then check it out.

No One Belongs Here More Than You

Title: No One Belongs Here More Than You

Author: Miranda July

Publication date: 2007

Book's setting: Modern

Random facts: 200+ pages and I read it in a day, forsaking all else.

Plot summary: A collection of short stories written in that compelling and emotional voice that is ~modern~ literature. The stories are just little pictures of life- different lives and different heart break. Some of them are very odd, bordering upon metaphysical I'd almost say. Except it's not really the story itself that is otherworldly, it's just the way it's told.

Favorite aspects: All the emotions were sincear and they all felt so close to home... I even identified with the ones that I really had no reason to. I felt the character's pain in a way that is very rare, especially in short stories when none of the characters are actually fully developed. I have an easier time reviewing the books I didn't love. I loved this. I loved it. I think my favorite stories were The Swim Team, This Person, and How to Tell Stories to Children. The last one broke my heart in the most epic way of all time.

Least favorite aspects: I don't think I can think of anything... Sorry.

Other works it reminded me of: The Complete Short Stories of Evelyn Waugh by Evelyn Waugh; The Two Kinds of Decay by Sarah Manguso.

Sadie's merciless break-down: I'm in an incredibly vulnerable place in my life right now, so prehaps it isn't any wonder I cried. Even so, I don't cry often.
So there is this style of writing. It's called "modern." And I've realized I love it. I'm cautious with it because it can be easily abused, or at least I think it can be. I don't think it possible that all "modern" writing could possible be as meaningful as No One Belongs Here More Than You. It's like poetry in proses form. It has a new set of rules and it's rhythmic. I'm a bit afraid of modern literature because I think it's more emotionally powerful than older styles of writing. It can grab you and haunt you so easily. I think that's because emotion is the point of modern literature. Not theme or morals or social commentary- the point is conveying emotion and making the reader feel it too. So in that sence it's a bit frightening, but it can also be compelling and eye-opening and really, really exquisite.
Note: Because I don't know who reads this blog or what their personal standards are I just feel the need to note that this book has sex and cursing in it. You have been warned.

Recommendation rate: It's a pity you can't force someone to read because you should all be forced to read this.

Ronia the Robber’s Daughter

Title: Ronia the Robber’s Daughter

Author: Astrid Lindgren

Publication date: 1981

Book's setting: Medieval timesish

Random facts: It was turned into a film in Sweden, one that did incredibly well. And then it was turned into a stage play in Germany.

Plot summary: Ronia is the only daughter of Mattis, the chief of a band of thieves in the forest. Ronia grows up as the only child in a world of men until she meets Birk, the only son of Mattis' rival. The two bands of thieves have fought for years, but become forced to unite for their children's sake.

Favorite aspects: Childhood romances are my kryptonite!! Okay, so it was more like a friendship, but you know what I mean. Cute little playmate stories are my kryptonite. It was just a charming story. It's really short... I read it in an afternoon... but it's still worth reading if you like children's literature. It's by Lindgren, so you know it's hysterical as well as charming.

Least favorite aspects: It's funny, I think I am just a bit old for this book... Or rather, I enjoyed it because I knew I'd have loved it as a child. It's a book I'd love to give a little girl, more than actually read again for my own personal pleasure.

Other works it reminded me of: The Minstrel in the Tower by Gloria Skurzynski.

Sadie's merciless breakdown: I have a long list of book I want to give a little girl one day. Not even my own daughter necessarily, but any little girl. I want to give her Ransom for a Knight and The Minstrel in the Tower and The Maude Reed Tale... and I want to give her Ronia the Robber's Daughter. I'm sure eventually one of my sisters or friends will have a daughter... and when that happens I have a large stack waiting for her.

Recommendation rate: Buy it as a present for your niece.

Bleak House

Title: Bleak House

Author: Charles Dickens

Publication date: 1853

Book's setting: Early 19th century

Random facts: I read this book because of Gillian Anderson and Carey Mulligan. Also because I was bored.

Plot summary: So there is this massive court case over the fortune of a guy who has been dead for a really long time. The case is called Jarndyce and Jarndyce. In a way Bleak House has two plot lines, that don't come together till the very end. The first plot line is regarding three young orphaned wards of the court- Esther, Ada, and Richard. They are taken in by a Mr. Jarndyce, one who wants nothing to do with the case and discourages his young wards from getting involved. Romance and tragedy and inevitable entanglement with the case draw the three young adults together toward their uncertain futures. The other plot line centers around one Lady Dedlock. Lady Dedlock has a secret, one that her husband's lawyer is hellbent on uncovering. This second strand of story unfolds like a whodunit mystery, pulling in all manner of classic "Dickens" characters. By the end of the thousand page novel, the two stories are binded together in more way than one.

Favorite aspects: Ada and Richard. I stumbled and crawled and cried through the dull parts and the political parts and the massive chapters filled with old men yelling at each other for Ada and Richard's sake. I never thought Dickens could be capable of such a subtle, sweet romance. I want to buy my own copy and just highlight all the sweet Ada and Richard bits and read those alone over and over. (And just ignore their tragic end.) The other best part was Lady Dedlock. I'll go through the book with a different colored highlighter and cover all the amazing, tragic, heartbreaking thoughts of Lady Dedlock. Maybe the fact that I'd seen the miniseries helped bring these characters to life in a fully emotional way... or maybe Dickens is just capable of much more romantic subtlety than I had thought.

Least favorite aspects: Those stinking Smallweeds. I sort of glazed over those parts. I mean, "shake me up Judy!" gets boring after a while. I feel like I needed an index of characters and back stories and family secrets while reading Bleak House. Maybe I'm just a bit too lazy to give it the attention it desires. Oh well. Nothing regarding Snagsby or Jo will be highlighted or given too much thought.

Other works it reminded me of: Let's be honest. Dickens is only ever really like other Dickens.

Sadie's merciless break-down: So, remember two months ago when I begrudgingly had to admit I liked Little Dorrit, but was pretty certain I wouldn't be throwing myself into any more Dickens anytime soon? Well. I guess that plan fell through.
I took it out from the library because I was going on vacation and I needed something incredibly long and not too interesting to read on the plane, and in bed every night while in Germany. I needed something interesting enough that I'd actually read it, but nothing so good that I'd forsake enjoying myself for the book. So I read it on the plane and in bed and while my friends were napping before dinner was served. I read it while charging my mp3 player and while drinking a beer in the evening. I read it in fits and burst and skimmed the parts that bore me and read my favorite parts a couple of times over.
Basically, I read it incredibly badly. Then again, I don't really care. Usually I believe that all literature should be paid express attention to, that it needs to be, I guess, respected. But I read Bleak House the way one might read a romance novel while on a business trip. It relaxed me. Book critics and historians and all those people are probably crying right now, but I don't really care. I enjoyed it. Maybe the reason I have a hard time reading Dickens is because I try too hard. Maybe the secret to enjoying him is just letting yourself fall into the story and read it your way... even if that means you miss 89% of the political commentary. Whatever. Ada and Richard. The end.

Recommendation rate: I don't know. What do you think?

The Talisman Ring

Title: The Talisman Ring

Author: Georgette Heyer

Publication date: 1936

Book's setting: Sussex, Regency Era

Random facts: I am so tired I am not sure whether this review will make any sense...

Plot summary: Old Baron Lavenham dies with one last wish. The marriage of his his great-nephew, Sir Tristram Shield, and his young French granddaughter, Eustacie de Vauban. Eustacie is young, romantic, and has no interest in marrying her much older cousin. So she runs away, and straight into the arms of a smuggler, who turns out to be the estranged son of Baron Lavenham. Ludovic Lavenham is injured and Eustacie brings him to an inn, where she meets sensible Sarah Thane. Ludovic claims he is innocent of his crimes and lays them on his cousin Basil. Miss Thane, Eustacie, Tristram, and Ludovic must find proof of Basil's guilt if Ludovic is to ever take his proper place as Baron Lavenham.

Favorite aspects: It was funny. Georgette Heyer is really good at that. Eustacie's dreams of being a victim in the French Revolution were particularly amusing. I like how ridiculous most of the characters were... but it doesn't really matter and you love them anyway. Ridiculous people are my favorite. Especially ridiculous RICH BRITISH people.

Least favorite aspects: BUT... BUT... BASIL. WHY? I LIKED YOU SO MUCH!!!!! Ludovic was just really hysterically dopey, Basil was better.

Other works it reminded me of: Tall Dark Stranger by Joan Smith.

Sadie's merciless breakdown: I'm planning a trip to Frankfurt and Bacharach all by my lonesome. I'm a bit terrified. So I put down American Gods and I put down Bleak House and I put down all that nonsense and I read this instead. Is it so bad to read Regency era romantic fluff? It's a terribly girly thing to do, very stereotypical.
But fluff exists for a reason! It makes you laugh and forget whatever it is you're worrying about. I really like romantic comedies. (In book form. In movie form they usually annoy me.) This is my fourth regency romantic comedy and I think I like them more and more each time. Georgette Heyer is practically a PG Wodehouse in her ability to keep you smiling the entire book through. That is all I want to say. Respect the regency fluff. Respect it.

Recommendation rate: I don't know if it's your style, but I love them.

American Gods

Title: American Gods

Author: Neil Gaiman

Publication date: 2001

Book's setting: Modern America

Random facts: I've lovingly dubbed this book Percy Jackson: With Sex. Anyway.

Plot summary: Shadow is nearing the end of this three year sentence in prison. He is looking forward to getting back to his wife and normal life. When he gets the news that his wife died in a car accident days before his release, he no longer knows what to live for. On the plane back home Shadow meets the mysterious Wednesday who knows everything about him and employs him on the spot. Wednesday is a god, one of many still trying to lay claim in The New World. Some are succeeding better than others... and Wednesday is ready to fight a war for his survival.

Favorite aspects: The buffalo man! I'd be lying if I said that all the buffalo man didn't make me think of Living With the Land in Epcot. I loved all the weird bits in "hell" and like, the backlot of America. Neil Gaiman is really good with setting in his books. It's always so vivid and beautiful and spooky. Mostly spooky. American Gods was like a dream, bordering upon nightmare. Its strange structure and meandering plot and chapter-long asides gave it a dreamlike quality. It got really scary in parts too, which I love. Neil Gaiman is actually capable of scaring me, which is an epic feat! A big part of the book is how some places are just sacred. He did a great job making them feel sacred.

Least favorite aspects: I keenly felt the lack of the Greek gods. With the neoclassical movement in the 18oo's in the United States, I'd think that the gods would have a real sort of presence. Their images are everywhere in DC and New York City and Boston... I like how he used a lot of gods people often forget (the point, really) like Eoster and Wisakedjak and Bast and a Kobold, but the Greek and Roman deities were definitely very missing.

Other works it reminded me of: Percy Jackson by Rick Riodan (but with sex); Something Wicked This Way Comes by Ray Bradbury.

Sadie's merciless break-down: I've always wondered what about America appeals to Europeans. Neil Gaiman is British, but he is obsessed with America. He moved to America, he wrote a 600 page novel all about how fantastic and weird America is. (He also married Amanda Palmer, one of America's finest achievements.) I think that after reading American Gods I have a better understanding of what's so magical about the United States.
The USA has a distinct sort of fantasy canon and mythology. We forget that things like gas stations and convenience stores and barbecue are exclusive to our culture, and then Gaiman goes and makes them magical and strange. Everything about American Gods was otherworldly and strange, especially the common place things.
It's less like a novel and more like a project. Like a multi-media presentation, only without the multiple medias. In a way I think that Neil took on too much with American Gods, but not really because it was more exciting stuffed to the gills with themes and ideas and strange characters and motifs.
I read American Gods incredibly slowly, ten or fifteen pages at a time. I wanted to pay attention- I didn't want to skim, so I only read it when I was feeling really dedicated. I'm glad I just gave in and bought it. (Only 6.99 you guys!!)
So now I've managed to say a lot of words without really getting to my point. Here's my point: ~*~AMURICAH~*~

Recommendation rate: It didn't win the Hugo AND the freaking Nebula for nothing.

Lost at Sea

(In this review I'm going to quote the novel. In the quotes there is profanity. I don't know who reads this blog, but if that bothers you... well, that why I'm warning you.)

Title: Lost at Sea

Author: Bryan Lee O'Malley

Publication date: 2003

Book's setting: Modern California. (Possibly Oregon.)

Random facts: I read Lost at Sea in Target because it was quiet and I was turned out of the house due to kitchen renovations.

Plot summary: "Maybe all these desperate clashing feelings I'm feeling are just random brain activity. Maybe I'm just delusional. But there are things that I miss, and things that I feel like I should be seeing and feeling every time I turn around, and I just keep turning and turning and turning, and there's nothing." Raleigh is stuck in a car, on a road trip from California to Vancouver (home) with three kids she never really got to know from high school. She was in California visiting her dad. Except she wasn't- she was there visiting him. Or maybe she was there looking for her soul- the one that her mom sold for success, the one that's locked in a cat somewhere.
It's sort of a coming of age story, but it's also a story about fear and how to break free.

Favorite aspects: I have never (do I need to say that again? NEVER.) read a book that more accurately summed up what it's like to be us. Girls in the highschool/college years in the 21st century. Our worries and emotions and problems and circular thinking and failed romances. One of the most brilliant scenes is when Stephanie wishes she was tall, and Raleigh says she hates being tall and Stephanie says, "Anyway, of course you hate being tall. That's how it works." Also I love how Raleigh's "gifted class" bubble was burst in highschool. Sometimes I think that happens to homeschoolers in college. Basically Bryan Lee O'Malley has an incredibly grasp on reality. Other than maybe Ghost World, it was the most realistic thing I've ever read.

Least favorite aspects: I'd like to know if she ever read the letter. (Also, are her sisters really cats?)

Other works it reminded me of: Ghost World by Daniel Clowes; Scott Pilgrim vs the Universe by Bryan Lee O'Malley.

Sadie's merciless breakdown: It's been a long, long time since I read something that struck me personally like this did. Atonement and Good Omens and Siste Viator were magnificent and cut me to the core, so to speak... but Lost at Sea was for me. I guess it's for every lost, lonely girl, but it does not mean it was not also for me.
I guess I'll just leave this rather offensive but incredible quote. It's incredible because everyone I know had made some version of this speech to me, and I've done it to others too.
"I'm an anti-social monster. I'm suck a fuckup. I'm- I'm a mediocre fuckup, even. I'm not even good at fucking up! He might not love me? That's cause for a fucking breakdown?! What is this? I'm stupid! I feel stupid! I'm horrible! I'm dead, I think I'm dead. Seriously."

Recommendation rate: If you're an old guy or if you're 12 or something then you might not like it or get it. But if you're a girl and you've ever felt a feeling you should read it.

The Ladies of Grace Adieu

Title: The Ladies of Grace Adieu

Author: Susanne Clarke

Publication date: 2006

Book's setting: Victorian

Random facts: Accompanied by gorgeous illustrations by Charles Vess.

Plot summary: A collection of eight short stories. One of them is set in the world of her novel Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, one of them is actually set in Gaiman's Stardust universe, and all of them are ridiculous and incredibly fantasies, filled with ridiculous and incredibly Victorian ladies.

Favorite aspects: Clarke has an incredibly pure type of magic in her stories. It's no-nonsense, yet bizarre and doesn't feel the need to follow any rules. It truly is faerie magic. Also she has the ability to keep up a really stuffy, old-fashioned style without the reader getting tired of it. Each one of her stories was written in a slightly different style, which was also very impressive.
I really loved all her, I don't know, not-stereotypically-annoyingly-strong-female characters who were awesome, confidant ladies never the less. Does that make sense? Eh.

Least favorite aspects: I... don't have anything... to say here...

Other works it reminded me of: Fragile Things by Neil Gaiman; Unexpected Magic by Diana Wynne Jones.

Sadie's merciless break-down: Quite possibly, this was the most busy month of my life- and it's still not over. The copy of The Ladies of Grace Adieu we have from the library is beautiful... but it's also a massive hardcover. It doesn't fit in my pocketbook, and therefore I have been reading it in ten-page bursts before bed. Now that things have seemed to (kind of) calm down, hopefully I can get rolling with the reading again. But whatever- I'm not here to make excuses for my lapse from reading.
Fantasy and I go way back. The Ladies of Grace Adieu had a really classic, ancient, Tam-Lin sort of incredibly British magic that I love. I don't think that there is enough of that sort of magic in fantasies. It doesn't follow rules, it's mystical, almost religious in a way. Pagan, I guess. Sometimes I think modern fantasy tries too hard to be plausible and logical. Leave "plausible" to sci-fi. Fantasy should just be allowed to be outrageous.

Recommendation rate: If you enjoyed her novel than these are totally worth reading.

The Tombs of Atuan

Title: The Tombs of Atuan

Author: Ursula K LeGuin

Publication date: 1970

Book's setting: Fantasy world of Earthsea

Random facts: Second book in a series. The fourth in the series won the Nebula Award, this one won a Newbery.

Plot summary: Tenar was born the day the First Priestess of The Nameless Ones died. That means she is the priestess, reborn. Tenar is taken from her home and raised to fullfill her place as the Eaten One, Arha, First Priestess of the Tombs. The Tombs of Atuan follows the story of her childhood and training as Arha. But the tradition of the temple and the worship of The Nameless Ones is disrupted when Arha find a strange thief in her Tombs. She pities him and lets him live. After more encounters she and becomes fascinated in him, and he plants the seeds of doubt in her as to the order and truth behind her name and behind her gods.

Favorite aspects: The Tombs of Atuan was a really short book, for a fantasy at least. Maybe short is the wrong word. It was small. Once again small is the wrong world... Maybe I mean that it was tight. There was one main character who drove the entire story. The entire book was from Tenar's point of view and focuses on her life as the First Priestess. I think because LeGuin focused in on one small part of Earthsea's civilization, that allowed her time to be as specific and detail-oriented as she pleased. I was also fond of how visual it was. I had a very hard time putting it down, not exactly because it was exciting, but because it was beautiful. The world she created was beautiful.

Least favorite aspects: I felt a bit left in the cold regarding The Nameless Ones. I wasn't sure if LeGuin was trying to say that they weren't gods worth worshiping... or if they were actually false. Equally, I wasn't quite sure if we were supposed to believe that Tenar was really The Eaten One. I don't think she was, but then I'd think that automatically discredits The Nameless Ones. It was incredibly religious... and I'd have liken a bit more closure with the gods of Atuan.

Other works it reminded me of: Wolf Star Rise by Tanith Lee; Book of a Thousand Days by Shannon Hale.

Sadie's merciless break-down: It is a scientifically proven fact that if I am not reading some sort of fantasy I shrivel up and die. My beloved sister things most fantasy is dorky. (She is very conservative when it comes to fandom.) She generally dislikes anything that focuses on "world building." (Unless it has really hot men of course.) The Earthsea series was a favorite of my mom's growing up so I obviously felt compelled to read them. I read the first last November, The Tombs of Atuan is the second.
But back to world building. The Tombs of Atuan isn't even 200 pages long, but LeGuin manages to create one of the most visually compelling and realistic fantasy worlds I've ever read. It's always interesting when a fantasy world in very ethnic or foreign. For obvious reasons English fantasy often takes place in very European surroundings with very traditional Norse or Gaelic powers. The religion and setting in The Tombs of Atuan was deliciously foreign, and was what drove the entire book forward.
Lots of fantasy authors try so hard to communicate their entire universe to the reader that the details get lost. LeGuin focused on the details, and somehow they were powerful enough the the entire universe fell into place.

Recommendation rate: If you like fantasy then I'd put it on my list.

Little Dorrit

Title: Little Dorrit

Author: Charles Dickens

Publication date: 1857

Book's setting: 1830ish

Random facts: I read this book because of Arthur Darvill, Matthew McFayden, and Russel Tovey. I also read it because I am crazy.

Plot summary: The title character is Amy Dorrit, a girl who was born and raised in debtors prison. Before she was even born her father lost his fortune and he has spent the last 23 years there. Amy looks after her father in prison, while her older siblings, who never quite adjusted to being poor, try (and often fail) at making a living for the family. Arthur Clennam spent his entire grown life overseas, and returns home after his father's death with a message for his mother. "Never Forget." Arthur becomes suspicious that his family is somehow responsible for the misfortune that befell the Dorrit family over twenty years ago and sets out to try and save them. In typical Dickens fashion a host of characters and subplots are entangled around Arthur and Amy's story, including the French fiend Rigaud, the mysterious Ms Wade, innocent Pet and her slacker husband Gowan, and The Man of the Age. Mr. Merdle.

Favorite aspects: Why do I always like the characters you are not supposed to like? I liked Tip and Fanny and Pet and Edmund and Gowan best. Am I all there in the head? That's like reading Pride and Prejudice and liking Wickham and Caroline best. Ach! Am I a cowardly aristocrat at heart? Maybe, maybe. This was one of my favorite passages in the book, regarding Tip and Fanny. "He would have found it amply in that gallant brother and that dainty sister, so steeped in mean experiences, and so loftily conscious of the family name; so ready to beg or borrow from the poorest, to eat of anybody's bread, spend anybody's money, drink from anybody's cup and break if afterwards." Yeah, I love these people. The worst part of the whole book was that Fanny and Tip didn't get to be RICH FOREVER.

Least favorite aspects: Saying it was "too Dickens" is not an insult because it IS by Dickens. It's not his fault that his lengthy asides bore me or that his inability to be generous to rich people saddens me. I enjoy Dickens despite of his Dickensness, not because of it. But what were a few specific things I didn't like about Little Dorrit? Well, Amy had no flaws. Dickens has a habit of creating perfect poor angels who are perfect and mouse-like and whimper a lot on the moral high-ground. I'd rather hang with Mrs. Merdle to be quite honest. Also the ending was UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED. Dickens, darling, it's not completely unheard of to bother explaining to your readers what is going on.

Other works it reminded me of: North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell; The Deans Watch by Elizabeth Goudge.

Sadie's merciless break-down: Moby-Dick and The Odyssey are among my favorite books. It's not that I dislike long books. It's just... Dickens. I've spent years making it abundantly clear that I hate Dickens. I'm still not exactly a fan, even after dedicating two weeks and a thousand pages to him. I guess I read Little Dorrit as a challenge to myself. I know I can read anything in the world if I want to. But can I also read anything in the world if I don't want to? Little Dorrit was an easy way to find out. I'd seen the eight hour BBC One production starring the aforementioned hotties, so I already was familiar with the plot and characters. How hard could it possibly be? (Hard. I'd tried this two years ago with Bleak House. Gillian Anderson! Carey Mulligan! I could DO IT! Fifty-something pages an I gave up...)
For me reading is very visual. When you read Dickens it's hard to be visualize everything because he gets very sidetracked with politics and money. Little Dorrit was funny, in an old fashioned way. And it had great characters, when you stripped down the terrifying amount of narration they were wrapped in. I'm not really sure why I read it or whether or not I technically enjoyed it...
But I finished it! This is a BIG DEAL! I finished something by Dickens longer than Oliver Twist! And you know what? I hate to say it, but I had a hell of a lot of fun.

Recommendation rate: Only if you are very brave, or for some weird reason, actually enjoy Dickens.

Good Omens

Title: Good Omens, The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch

Author: Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

Publication date: 1990

Book's setting: Present Day (ish)

Random facts: I bought Good Omens on the day that the rapture was supposedly going to happen. Looking back that is ironic.

Plot summary: I have never had such a hard time articulating a review before. It's all sentence fragments and exclamation points. But I'm trying, I really am. Here we go? Crowley is a demon and Azirphale is an angel. They have been left on earth to prepare for the Apocalypse and in the meantime have become friends and rather fond of humanity. Adam is the Antichrist, a young boy destined to be the destroyer of earth. Anathema is the descendant of Agnes Nutter, a medieval witch who wrote a book of prophecies on the end of the world. Newt is the descendant of the witch hunter who burned Agnes. Death, Famine, War, and Pollution are the four Horsemen who are preparing the world for destruction. Good Omens is the story of the end of the world, and how all the above characters manage to bring about (or attempt to resist) the Apocalypse.

Favorite aspects: The pacing and the scene changes were cinematic and hilarious and wonderfully planned. The climax of the book was so fast-paced and insane that it stopped feeling like reading and felt more like inhaling. Basically I liked everything about this book. I liked Newt and Anathema's predicted, plotted, totally unromantic relationship. I adored Crowley and Aziraphale, whose bromances negates all other bromances in the history of literature. I laughed out loud at the secondary motorcycle gang from Hell. (Most of the time I couldn't tell, but that bit had "Gaiman was here" all over it.) I liked all the crazy pop culture references that no one will understand in 200 years. I loved how it was brimming with HISTORY. I appreciated how sometimes I almost started taking it seriously, and then had to pull back and remember I was only reading. I guess most of all, I liked how it wasn't anything like reading a book. It was a multi-media cultural event. Or something.

Least favorite aspects: Where is the sequel? Can there at least be an appendix? Or a collection of short stories? Come on guys!

Other works it reminded me of: Love in the Ruins by Walker Percy; Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams; but also a little bit of everything?

Sadie's merciless breakdown: I read the first 50 pages of Good Omens very carefully in bed the night I bought it. (I went out of my way to buy it. I'd never read it before and I don't do that often, but I wanted to read it and the library didn't have it so I called up Barnes and Nobles and they put a copy aside for me and I bought it. $18 for a paperback. Shame.) Then I realized I was about 1/7 done with the funniest book I'd ever read, so I stopped.
I read the next substantial part while sitting in Coraddo on 70th street after a Lady Gaga concert. I shouldn't be allowed to read in public. There was a gay couple and their friend sitting at the table with me (it was crowded) and whenever I hit a really smashing sentence I was tempted to tell them about it. I didn't of course. I kept reading on the subway. All the way from 70th to the Junction. Then I had to stop because I had to go to work.
I got home from work at 6:30pm. Instead of reading more I watched tv with my sick sister. I woke up the next day with the flu. The next five days were spent too delirious to read. I finished the book on a Wednesday. It was 86 degrees out and felt like it could very well be the end of the world. I sat outside of my apartment building and decided it probably was. (Remember, I still have the flu.)
When I finally finished it I decided it was probably one of the best things I'd ever read. Still think so.
In light of Good Omens I could never write anything witty about it. Every possible witty thing was put into the novel. So instead I gave you my pathetic reading experience. (Well, going to a Lady Gaga concert is far from pathetic. However Coraddo's overpriced coffee is.)

Recommendation rate: Just read it. Even if you have to spend $18 on a paperback and $4.50 on the subway fare to get you to the bookstore.

Redeeming Love

Title: Redeeming Love
Author: Francine Rivers
Publication date: 1991
Book's setting: 1850
Random facts: One of my best friends recommended it to me and I have this policy in which I must read every single book my friends love.
Plot summary: Redeeming Love is a vibrant interpretation of the Book of Hosea. Set in the 1850's the novel follows the life of Angel, a bastard child sold into prostitution after her mother's dead. When California farmer Micheal Hosea feels led by the Holy Spirit to marry Angel and save her from a life of prostitution, she doesn't come willingly. Redeeming Love is a novel about sacrificial love, salvation, and following God, no matter what he asks of you. Although Angel's journey toward salvation is the core of the novel, a host of compelling minor characters weave their way in and out of the story, impacting Angel's life in unexpected ways.
Favorite aspects: The first thing I liked (which is sort of small) was how well-researched it was. Sometimes books like this are thrown together and don't feel truthful, but Rivers obviously poured a lot of time into it, and it showed. I really love the time period it was set in and Rivers captured it in all its vibrant glory. Something about the prairie. I love it. The second thing I liked (much bigger) was Angel. She was one of the most developed characters I've read in a long time. She was spectacularly plotted and really well developed and not one point in her story line seemed false. She must have been incredibly hard to write but I was drawn to her and sympathized with her throughout the entire novel. It's not often that I meet someone like her in a novel. I'm not going to forget her.
Least favorite aspects: The more I read the more sensitive I become to writing. Obviously not everyone can be Marilynne Robinson- I get that. But this book was too good for it's writing. I'm not going so far as to say Rivers is a "bad" author, but I don't think her skill matched the task at hand. Redeeming Love had no literary beauty or style. It was just a plot being conveyed sensibly. It lacked the flavor and emotional high that moving literature has. Usually I'm not picky about writing if the plot is strong... but religious fiction demands more grace in the writing.
Other works it reminded me of: Not My Will by Francena Arnold; Rodzina by Karen Cushman.
Sadie's merciless break-down: Needless to say, this was a strange follow-up to Atonement. I am a Christian. Basically what that means is that I see grace, redemption, atonement, and unconditional love everywhere. I see it in Harry Potter and Pirates of the Caribbean of all places! I can find grace in anything. If you're not religious and you don't see it it's simply because you don't know where to look.
Okay. So. I think that Redeeming Love was heavy-handed. They say show don't tell, right? Number one rule of writing. Rivers broke it. I'm not sure what tipped the scale but the heavy narration bogged down the spiritual awakening. I feel awful saying this. It was a good novel, all things considered. The story arch was consistent and the characters were round and the themes were important. It was good enough that I finished it... but something was missing. Or rather something was over-exposed until it stopped feeling precious. Does this make sense? Am I being way too hard? Should I have waited longer in order to digest McEwan's delicate prose before plunged into Redeeming Love? I don't know. It just didn't move me like I thought it would.
ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE. I almost wrote this book a couple of times. (Without the sex and the religion.) It was going to be called Apple of the Prairie. It was going to be awesome. I never got further than the first chapter. I am seriously considering revisiting that idea.

Recommendation rate: If you really like Christian lit then give it a go, you may love it. If you're not one for religious fiction then just pass on it.

Atonement

Title: Atonement

Author: Ian McEwan

Publication date: 2001

Book's setting: 1935-1940

Random facts: My sister bought me a used copy for my birthday. On the inside she inscribed it for me. She says that the book has a lot of voting in it so I'll like it.

Plot summary: "I love you. I'll wait for you. Come back." In the summer of 1935 England is on the brink of war. 13-year-old Briony intercepts an inappropriate note from the son of a family servant to her older sister Cecilia. Too young to understand the complex relationship between the two, Briony's overactive imagination black-lists Robbie as a maniac, a man not to be trusted. That same evening Briony's 15-year-old Lola is raped by a unidentified man who Briony assumes is Robbie. The assumption evolves into fact in the young girl's mind as she is questioned by the police and eventually as a witness on trial. Robbie and Cecilia, torn apart by a crime he didn't commit, vow to stay true to each other, but prison and the impending World War II keeps pushing them apart. Can Briony ever face up to her guilt and could Robbie and her sister even forgive her? Atonement is a complex, emotional, and epic novel. It's written from several points of view, giving it depth and holding your interest, with a clutching ending that the reader will never expect.

Favorite aspects: The characters were perfect. I couldn't dislike them. They were flawed obviously, deeply flawed. And yet I rooted for each one the entire way though. Briony was a little beast who did her penance and never had the forgiveness she sought. But she was practically a baby when she did it. Robbie was moronic for sending that note, for even writing out what he did. But I've done similar things. How can you judge him for it? Cecilia should have talked to Briony right away. She probably also should not have had sex in a library. But despite her incredibly ability to hate Briony, she is an amazing Penelope and I admire her for it. And of course, the writing was flawless. Not only did McEwan seriously research his time period, he also researched his writing. It was written as if it had been written 50 years before its publication date. It tasted like Fitzgerald and Waugh and Wharton. It was beautiful.

Least favorite aspects: Oh good grief. Am I actually expected to say something negative? Okay, I'll try my very best. Lola. I wanted more of Lola. Did she know? What was her prerogative, marrying Marshall? When did Briony figure out it was him? These are questions I would liked answered but it's not like the book was missing Lola's story. Robbie's and Cee's was quite emotional by itself, thankyouverymuch.

Other works it reminded me of: Decline and Fall by Evelyn Waugh; Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh; Summer by Edith Wharton; Tender is the Night by F Scott Fitzgerald; All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque.

Sadie's merciless break-down: THIS BOOK THIS BOOK THIS BOOK. *breathes*
I haven't been this emotionally moved by something since The House of Mirth. While reading it I would just get so overrun with EMOTIONS that I literally had to hide the book and go get a drink or something. Words are oddly powerful like that. I've never had to pause a movie to have a good cry. Atonement left me with my heart on my sleeve.
And yet... Despite the fact that this was a DEPRESSING novel, it was also full of grace and forgiveness and hope. Hence the title, I suppose. It was an oddly religious for a novel that, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't so much as mention God. It was cathartic. Briony's atonement didn't just immortalize Robbie and Cee, but it felt to me like Atonement immortalized an entire generation of love stories cut short by the war. In a way the novel had two villains- Briony's crime and the war. So I guess you could say that the villain was unavoidable circumstance. Hardships and sorrow getting in the way of love and what to do about it. Briony never gets to ask forgiveness and she is unable to save Robbie and Cecilia from what she did to them. They never get to be together. But they are immortalized together in the novel, which in a weird way, like Briony says in the end notes, makes it okay.
While reading Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society I found myself filled with rage because of what happened to Christian and Elizabeth. I felt the same rage while reading Atonement. I know a lot of people hated Briony... and I guess there is reason to do so. But this novel is about, well, atonement. And you're not supposed to hate her. None of the main three characters acted in anyway to make them deserve the lives they had. They were just eaten up by the war. I think the war is the villain in this book. Or rather, war and everything else powerless about life. Living is the villain. Just by existing you end up hurting people and often it's completely out of your hands. I'm sure (actually I know) a lot of people might disagree, and it's easy to blame Briony for everything, but I think that goes against the entire point of the novel.
Atonement filled me with a weird sort of peace. I guess everyone will read it a different way but I found it to be a blessing. The note at the end made it an even better book, I read a lot of reviews who said they disliked it. It's almost more remarkable if she never lost her guilt and if Robbie and Cee were never able to forgive. Somehow, it was full of light and peace regardless.
Basically Atonement fills me with feeling. Feeling I could rant about for hours if you let me. It was visual and held amazing characters and incredibly motifs and it played with words in such a powerful way. I think I need to read it again before I can really wrap my mind around how moving it actually was.

Recommendation rate: If you're over 16 and you value good literature then put it on your list. JUST READ IT BECAUSE IT MAY CHANGE YOUR LIIFFFEEEEEEEEEEEEE. Goodness, you should see me now, I'm so hyper. I should not be allowed to type when I am hyper.

Man and his Symbols

Title: Man and his Symbols

Author: Carl Jung

Publication date: 1964

Book's setting: Nonfiction psychological text sooo, you know

Random facts: So they are making a movie about Jung and Freud and it's gonna have Keria and Fassbender so basically I'm going to watch it no matter how historically incorrect it is.

Plot summary: Man and his Symbols is a collection of essays by Carl Jung and his followers that explore the subconscious mind and meaning behind dreams. It was written as an introduction to his school of though, and was meant for a general audience as opposed to psych students. Because of this it's a surprisingly easy read.

Favorite aspects: The dream descriptions were my favorite parts. I basically feel ripped off. Where are my deep and meaningful dreams, wrought with symbolism?? I dream about sexy men and getting lost in my kitchen and awesome bookstores. Make what you will of that, Jung. I dare you. Anyway. I really looked at Man and his Symbols as over-blown literary analysis with a bit of anthropology tossed in for good measure. Don't be scared because it's Jung. It was a fascinating and incredibly understandable read. It really helped me be a better reader... Jung was obsessed with universal symbols like the Old Woman. It definetly helped me see fairy tales in a new light, and all fiction in general. Actually I think it might make me a better writer. If you consider yourself an author or even just write stuff for the heck of it then I think you should read Man and his Symbols.

Least favorite aspects: The edition I have is terrible, although it seems to be the only edition in print. The type was set so tiny I had to decode it! Someone, reprint this book in Helvetica or Garamond! It deserves it! I can't fault anything Jung or his followers say because they basically invented this way of looking at the world. It's not a perfect philosophy to say the least, but it is beautiful and thought-provoking and I appreciated it greatly.

Other works it reminded me of: I have never read a psych text before... so...

Sadie's merciless break-down: I haven't been reading much. I'm watching way too much tv (although Chuck and Fringe are done now) and when I am reading I've been on an old favorites kick. Sometimes you need a little Hilary McKay or Robin McKinley in your life. Very slowly during the last two weeks I've been picking my way through Jung. I was impressed. It was very crazy and had very limited science and probably should not be called psychology at all. But then again Jung was basically one of the founders of psych so we can excuse him for that because proper psychology did not exist when he wrote it.
You know what? Jung seems like a legit nice guy. I think I have a crush on him. (Except I am not allowed to because my sister does and she says I always steal her imaginary lovers. Except for Finn Hudson. I don't want him.) He was very gracious about religion and very respectful of it. Although he never said he himself was invested in any religion he admitted how important it was in society and how much the world depended on it and how greatly it impacted human thought and the universal symbols derived from it. I greatly appreciated that. He was the anti-Freud in that matter. Thanks, Jung. You and me baby, let's go interpret some dreams.

Recommendation rate: If you are interested in basic psych ideas or literary analysis or dream interpretation or fairy-tales then you need to read it.