Thursday, February 21, 2013
Book #9: Make the Bread, Buy the Butter by Jennifer Reese
I am kind of debating over whether this book even counts as me having "read" it, since it's half a cookbook, but I really, really like the concept behind it so I'm going to count it. Reese chooses a bunch of foods that we consume regularly and tells you whether you should feel guilty about buying them store-bought or if it's worth making them at home. She tells you how much the cost comparison is between homemade and store-bought, and how much the hassle is of making it, and whether she thinks it's worth it. A problem is that she ends up saying that you should make a lot of things, even after she goes on and on about what a hassle they are (which doesn't really make them sound super inviting). But I guess she's a foodie, and it's worth it to her (and let's be honest: a really well-made bagel is worth it to me too, even if it is way more work than buying it), so I guess forewarned is forearmed (or whatever that saying is). She presents recipes for most of the items that she says you should make or make/buy, and I'm really dying to try some of them (like a bagel recipe!). A lot of the things she posts about I would never consider making from home anyways (like cheese--maybe in my next life or when I run out of things to do, ever), so a lot of her recommendations aren't really that useful, but the whole book is still a really great idea. I'm totally keeping this book from the library for a while to try some of the recipes.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Book #8: Emma by Jane Austen
Emma has always been one of my least favorite Jane Austen novels, although every time I finish reading it, I'm not quite sure why. I always love it once I do read it. Maybe it's because I hate the shame of the several bad mistakes that Emma makes throughout the novel--because they're not horrible sins or anything, but they are real-life person mistakes that anyone could or would be tempted to make in her same situation. The shame and the regret she feels after she's impatient to Miss Bates is real, and I feel it just as much as she does, and it reminds me of how awful it feels to do that same thing. So I suppose that's a sign of how well-written a novel it is, that it makes me so uncomfortable that I don't like it--even in such a little matter as that.
Emma Woodhouse is also one of the most complicated heroines that Jane Austen writes, I think. Fanny and Anne are not exactly anyone too exciting--they're quiet and well-mannered and GOOD girls; Elinor and Marianne are kind of character types of themselves (one's sensible, one's sensitive); Elizabeth Bennet is witty and beautiful and altogether very sure of herself but very aware of her faults (to a point, I guess). But Emma Woodhouse ("handsome, clever, and rich") is a good person--she does charity work for the poor, she is kind to the people in her father's circle, even those that annoy her, etc.--but she really is insufferable and spoiled because she knows that she's a good person (and that she's handsome, clever, and rich, like the first line says). Mr. Knightley is the only person who sees any faults in her and tells her so, and he is, of course, right all along. I love how she evolves as a character over the course of the book--she humbles herself to take Mr. Knightley's advice and rebuke after how she offends Miss Bates. She also recognizes the mistakes her pride has made her make with regard to Harriet at the end of the book, and wishes she'd listened to Mr. Knightley's advice about her all along. I think that's the key to her character change all along--she learned to humble herself and recognize her faults and mistakes more honestly. She grows up, really.
The one thing that drives me CRAZY about this book is Mr. Woodhouse. Why is he so annoying? And why is everyone else so nice to him about it? Why are they always talking about draughts and catching cold if you get a little bit rained on? He's obviously a hypochondriac (or something of the sort) but they're always so nice to him--the only person who ever responds to him in a logical, rational manner is Mr. John Knightley, Emma's sister's husband, who offends Emma so badly when he tells Mr. Woodhouse to stop talking about that. But oh, well. It's a little thing, and it's part of the humor of the book (and it's also very telling about Emma's character that she's so devoted to her father anyways).
Emma Woodhouse is also one of the most complicated heroines that Jane Austen writes, I think. Fanny and Anne are not exactly anyone too exciting--they're quiet and well-mannered and GOOD girls; Elinor and Marianne are kind of character types of themselves (one's sensible, one's sensitive); Elizabeth Bennet is witty and beautiful and altogether very sure of herself but very aware of her faults (to a point, I guess). But Emma Woodhouse ("handsome, clever, and rich") is a good person--she does charity work for the poor, she is kind to the people in her father's circle, even those that annoy her, etc.--but she really is insufferable and spoiled because she knows that she's a good person (and that she's handsome, clever, and rich, like the first line says). Mr. Knightley is the only person who sees any faults in her and tells her so, and he is, of course, right all along. I love how she evolves as a character over the course of the book--she humbles herself to take Mr. Knightley's advice and rebuke after how she offends Miss Bates. She also recognizes the mistakes her pride has made her make with regard to Harriet at the end of the book, and wishes she'd listened to Mr. Knightley's advice about her all along. I think that's the key to her character change all along--she learned to humble herself and recognize her faults and mistakes more honestly. She grows up, really.
The one thing that drives me CRAZY about this book is Mr. Woodhouse. Why is he so annoying? And why is everyone else so nice to him about it? Why are they always talking about draughts and catching cold if you get a little bit rained on? He's obviously a hypochondriac (or something of the sort) but they're always so nice to him--the only person who ever responds to him in a logical, rational manner is Mr. John Knightley, Emma's sister's husband, who offends Emma so badly when he tells Mr. Woodhouse to stop talking about that. But oh, well. It's a little thing, and it's part of the humor of the book (and it's also very telling about Emma's character that she's so devoted to her father anyways).
Book #7: The Forgotten Garden by Kate Morton
One problem I have is never having any good ideas for books--I don't know how to tell whether I'm going to like a book or whether it's something I want to read any more. I don't want to waste my time reading something that's going to turn out to be trashy or stupid. I need to find some good reading blogs that can give me recommendations! But anyways, when my friend Chelsea was here, she recommended this book to me, so I immediately requested it from the library and plowed through it in the last few days.
I couldn't put the book down. It was the story of a woman searching for her ancestry/family after she finds out she was actually a stowaway who'd been discovered at the age of 4 and adopted by a new family where she'd landed, but the cool thing about the book is that every chapter is told by a different narrator--past or present--and at a different time period. Sometimes the woman's ancestors (who she's trying to figure out about) talk, and we hear their stories, and sometimes the woman's granddaughter talks about her adventures trying to figure out the whole mystery (because nobody's ever truly figured it out until after the woman dies). I really liked the changing narrator and time periods because it really did seem like a mystery of a sort. I also liked the style of the book--the writing was good enough that it didn't ever distract me from what was being written about, if that makes sense.
My only complaints were these: that I figured out what the plot twist was going to be before it happened, and that some of the "discoveries" the granddaughter makes to help put the pieces of the puzzle together seem mighty unlikely and convenient to have actually happened. I'm not someone who usually figures out things before they happen, but I managed to in this book, and I think that's maybe a sign that it was a little too obvious. And it kind of bugged me that the granddaughter just "happened" to keep finding answers to these seemingly impossible questions right at the right moment--they reach a final stopping point, where there doesn't seem there can be any more possible answers, and then someone delivers a letter to her that had being held for her grandmother for the last thirty years. She happens to meet someone who happened to work with her grandmother's mother and who knew the whole big secret that no one else in the world knew and is the key to the whole mystery. Really? Just doesn't seem quite believable to me. But I guess you need to have stuff like that happen or else the mystery would have been very unsatisfying and never resolved.
I couldn't put the book down. It was the story of a woman searching for her ancestry/family after she finds out she was actually a stowaway who'd been discovered at the age of 4 and adopted by a new family where she'd landed, but the cool thing about the book is that every chapter is told by a different narrator--past or present--and at a different time period. Sometimes the woman's ancestors (who she's trying to figure out about) talk, and we hear their stories, and sometimes the woman's granddaughter talks about her adventures trying to figure out the whole mystery (because nobody's ever truly figured it out until after the woman dies). I really liked the changing narrator and time periods because it really did seem like a mystery of a sort. I also liked the style of the book--the writing was good enough that it didn't ever distract me from what was being written about, if that makes sense.
My only complaints were these: that I figured out what the plot twist was going to be before it happened, and that some of the "discoveries" the granddaughter makes to help put the pieces of the puzzle together seem mighty unlikely and convenient to have actually happened. I'm not someone who usually figures out things before they happen, but I managed to in this book, and I think that's maybe a sign that it was a little too obvious. And it kind of bugged me that the granddaughter just "happened" to keep finding answers to these seemingly impossible questions right at the right moment--they reach a final stopping point, where there doesn't seem there can be any more possible answers, and then someone delivers a letter to her that had being held for her grandmother for the last thirty years. She happens to meet someone who happened to work with her grandmother's mother and who knew the whole big secret that no one else in the world knew and is the key to the whole mystery. Really? Just doesn't seem quite believable to me. But I guess you need to have stuff like that happen or else the mystery would have been very unsatisfying and never resolved.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Book #6: Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
I feel like I know Pride and Prejudice really well--but apparently I've watched the movie/adaptations of it a lot recently but not actually read the book for a while. I know the whole plot, but I was totally surprised by how funny and sarcastic a lot of the story is! The narrator's voice is hilarious. I really loved this re-read. And I couldn't help but love the Mr. Darcy of the book--I don't think it comes through in the shows/movies what a change he undergoes after he proposes to Elizabeth and is rejected the first time. He really was prideful and rude before, but he humbles himself after her words and changes to be much more open and willing to please, just like she changes to acknowledge how prejudiced she was. In the movie, I feel like somehow you get the idea that he was this good guy all along who she just didn't understand until she read his letter of apology and explanation.
I love re-reading these books because I learn/notice new things every time.
I love re-reading these books because I learn/notice new things every time.
Book #5: Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen
I started this book not really anticipating that I would fully enjoy it. I remembered enough of the storyline to be annoyed by some of the characters (let's just say I am not even close to Marianne's or Mrs. Dashwood's sensibility) and figured I'd just give it a go since I was trying read all of Jane Austen's books again. And I totally got into it! I got through all of the plot that I remembered in the first 100 pages and then there was still a full 2/3 of the book left to go. I feel like I am much more of an Elinor--logical and underplaying emotion--than anyone else in the book, although she's much, much nicer and less selfish than I am in real life. She treats her sister with much more compassion than I ever would in that situation. . . . I'm always tempted to smack Marianne in the face and tell her to knock it off! All in all, I loved the story, love that everyone ends up getting married happily (except the bad people, who are unhappy--HA), and love Jane Austen, of course.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Book #4: The Return of the King (Book 3 of The Lord of the Rings) by J. R. R. Tolkien
I finally finished this (yesterday or two days ago) and it was so good. I really can't believe I didn't like the books the first time I read them. . . . just tells you what type of reader I was when I was a teenager.
Some of the things that surprised me about this book: the whole section about the Shire and having to fix everything there, and having Saruman end up in the Shire and all--wow! (Side note: Tommy and I are watching the extended version of this book right now and there's a scene where Grima kills Saruman on the top of his tower, instead of in the Shire--it's pretty gruesome. I always wondered what happened to Saruman in the movie, and now I know.) Also, it's so funny that Frodo destroys the Ring and then there's still like 100 pages more after it. It seems like it's the climax of the whole series (well, it is) and it's funny that there's so much story to follow afterwards. But it's all really good stuff--I didn't even really want it to end.
Frodo is so much cooler in the books than in the movies. I'd say more, but the babe is awake. The end.
Some of the things that surprised me about this book: the whole section about the Shire and having to fix everything there, and having Saruman end up in the Shire and all--wow! (Side note: Tommy and I are watching the extended version of this book right now and there's a scene where Grima kills Saruman on the top of his tower, instead of in the Shire--it's pretty gruesome. I always wondered what happened to Saruman in the movie, and now I know.) Also, it's so funny that Frodo destroys the Ring and then there's still like 100 pages more after it. It seems like it's the climax of the whole series (well, it is) and it's funny that there's so much story to follow afterwards. But it's all really good stuff--I didn't even really want it to end.
Frodo is so much cooler in the books than in the movies. I'd say more, but the babe is awake. The end.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Book #3: The Two Towers (Book 2 of The Lord of the Rings) by J. R. R. Tolkien
The Two Towers has always been my least favorite of the movies, because I really hate Frodo and Sam's parts in it. All they're doing is going round and round and traveling towards Mordor, and Frodo's acting more and more strange, and they get attacked and he falls over (have you ever noticed HOW OFTEN he falls over?) and of course, Gollum's there to make everyone even more cheerful. I always just can't wait to get back to the action with Merry and Pippin and Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. But the way the book tells the story is much more bearable than the way the movie tells it! For one, Frodo doesn't act like a haunted bipolar maniac (although, I understand that they have to show him getting more and more affected by the Ring in the movie), and he's a much more interesting and loveable character in the book. Also, the movie changed several things about the plot in the book that made me dislike it even more: adding the scene where Gollum makes it look like Sam ate all the lembas bread and Frodo sends Sam away (hate that), and making Faramir seem much more interested in keeping the Ring than he really was. He doesn't even actually bring Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath like they say in the movie. NOT that this whole review is supposed to be a commentary or comparison between the movie and the book--but I was just pleasantly surprised by how much more I enjoyed reading The Two Towers than I have when watching it. I thought it was an interesting choice for Tolkien to completely separate Frodo and Sam's part and write it as the second book in the book, keeping both stories totally apart from each other. It makes it hard to see what was happening at the same time as each other, but it does make it easier to follow each individual storyline.
Side note: This image is actually the cover of the trilogy that we actually have! We found it at a used bookstore for a decent price and bought them because they looked so nice and beautiful (hardcover, perfect dust jackets, etc.). I'm really happy we have them.
Side note: This image is actually the cover of the trilogy that we actually have! We found it at a used bookstore for a decent price and bought them because they looked so nice and beautiful (hardcover, perfect dust jackets, etc.). I'm really happy we have them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)