Review: Mother Bruce by Ryan T. Higgins

Another funny kids book.  I picked up this one because a third Bruce book is coming out in September (Bruce's Big Move, due out Sept 26, 2017, according to Goodreads) and was being discussed in one of the Upcoming Releases webinars I was listening to.  Almost right after listening to that one, I spotted Mother Bruce on the shelf and had to give it a try. 

 

Mother Bruce by Ryan T. Higgins

 

 

 

My Rating: 5 of 5

 

Plot Summary:

 

Bruce the bear is a grump, through and through.  Doesn't like anything, anyone.  But he does like eggs.  However, when stealing from Mrs. Goose for eggs for his latest recipe, something unexpected happens: the eggs hatch.  Bruce is now parent to four goslings, so what's a bear to do?

 

Thoughts:

 

This one isn't a deep picture book, but I wanted to write it up anyway.  What makes this book great are the illustrations and the sense of humor.  A little silly, a little sarcastic, laugh-out-loud funny for kids and adults.  That balance is always a hard one to achieve, but this one manages beautifully.  While the text is funny (Bruce loves eating gourmet recipes found on Pinterest, for example), it's really the illustrations that steal the show (he goes shopping for his recipes in the forest using a shopping cart).  His attempts to raise the goslings, despite not liking anyone or anything, are priceless (even when they are stubborn teenage geese).  And the goslings always have that spacy look on their face, four little feathered heads concentrating on four different fluffy thoughts.  Made me giggle every time.

 

 

 

For story times and lessons, I've seen online how teachers and librarians have used this book to introduce terms such as hibernation, migration, and imprinting, and to talk about adoption and unusual families.  My story times are usually for the 3-5ish age group (preschoolers and young kindergarteners), and this would be a good story time for my older kids.  The story's probably a bit too involved for little-little guys (our toddler time, or my younger preschoolers), and the idea of dinner hatching might be a little stressing.  My older kids would get a kick out of Bruce though!

As I mentioned, Bruce #3 is coming out in the fall.  For those interested, Bruce #2 (Hotel Bruce) came out last fall (2016). 

Overall:

 

This is one of those books that kids will like and parents will enjoy reading to them.  I think it'll be a good older kid story time book too.  While the plot isn't deep or complex, it is fun, and the illustrations are just too cute.  And don't we all know someone like Bruce?  I laughed out loud several times while reading this (slightly awkward when reading quietly at one's desk at work) but you just can't help it.  Bruce and his goslings are a hoot!  I'm definitely looking forward to Book 3 coming out in the fall!

Review: Death at Wentwater Court (Daisy Dalrymple 1).

With my long commute to and from work, I've found that I can get in a good 20-30 minutes listening to an audiobook while I'm driving.  Sometimes on the way home, I listen to All Things Considered instead (yes, we have NPR again!!) but if I'm in a good book, then it's definitely the book.  With almost an hour of listening time each day while I'm driving, I'm finding I can get through an average book in a week or two of commuting.  Obviously, I'm expecting it will take a lot longer when I tackle Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall - I think that one's over 20 hours!  This one, though, was a light and fluffy one, a change after the Napoleonic battles of Sharpe and the 95th. 

The first in the Daisy Dalrymple mystery series: Death at Wentwater Court by Carola Dunn

My rating: 3.5 of 5 (closer to Really Liked It, but definitely have a few issues keeping it from 4 solid stars)

Plot Summary (as per Goodreads - yes, it is a bit flowery, as summaries go):

This first installment of a cozy mystery series transports listeners back to the bygone era of 1923 Britain, where unflappable flapper and fledgling journalist Daisy Dalrymple daringly embarks on her first writing assignment—and promptly stumbles across a corpse.

No stranger to sprawling country estates, wealthy Daisy Dalrymple is breaking new ground in having scandalously traded silver spoon for pen and camera to cover a story for Town and Country magazine. But her planned interviews with the inhabitants of Wentwater Court give way to interrogation after suave Lord Stephen Astwick meets a dire fate on the tranquil skating pond. Armed with evidence that his fate was anything but accidental, Daisy joins forces with Scotland Yard to examine an esteemed collection of suspects and to see that the unlikely culprit doesn’t slip through their fingers just as the unfortunate Astwick slipped through the ice.  

Story Comments:

Oh, look.  Lara has found another cozy historical mystery series she likes.  Quelle surprise!  (/dry sarcastic tone).

 

But seriously, though.  I like Golden Age mysteries, I like historical mysteries, I like British mysteries, and I enjoy a good cozy mystery.  While I also enjoy the puzzle presented in grittier "modern" mysteries or in hardboiled detective stories, I enjoy the simplicity and neat ends of a cozy mystery when I'm looking for a bit of escapism.  This definitely falls into that category.  If you like Mrs. Bradley, Lord Peter Wimsey, or especially the Phryne Fisher series, you'll probably enjoy this one too.  The Maisie Dobbs series and Rhys Bowen's Royal Spyness books  are others that I've heard fall into this category, though they are still on my To Read list.

 

Daisy is a pretty likable heroine.  She's clever and sympathetic, the type people naturally confide in, which makes her well positioned to be an amateur detective - people involved in the case just open up to her.  She's not perfect though, as the conclusion to the mystery demonstrates. Her police counterpart is Detective Chief Inspector Alec Fletcher, another very clever and capable character - no bumbling flatfoot here. There is the interesting dynamic of the well-born Honorable Miss Dalrymple and the more "common copper," which we'll probably see more developed in future books - at least, I'm hoping so!  A lot of the other characters were pretty standard types in this sort of story: a villain to be killed off, and enough other characters to create some mystery - characters both likeable enough to support and questionable enough to consider them as suspects in murder.  My favorite side character was Daisy's childhood friend and sometime suitor, Phillip.  As he's constantly described: sweet, but not the sharpest knife in the drawer (or words to that effect).  Hopefully we'll see him pop up again as well.

 

The plot itself is a pretty standard cozy mystery.  Not the actual events, but the whole "if they'd just talk to each other this wouldn't be nearly so big of an issue" type of plot.  There were a few side story arcs which felt almost unnecessary.  For example, the whole jewel robbery storyline felt very underdeveloped somehow.  And as almost required by the cozy mystery genre, there is a romance looking to develop.  Daisy will probably be seeing a good bit more of DCI Fletcher as the series proceeds.  I'm looking forward to that, especially with how the ending took their characters - besides the class differences, will the case's conclusion here prove an obstacle to the budding romance?  I'll just have to keep reading and find out, won't I?  And yes, like many cozy series, this is one which has to be read in order. 

 

The book is well written, with a good vocabulary and period slang incorporated well (I've read some where the period jargon was used so heavily that conversations were actually hard to understand).  There are some light moments, and a good amount of humor, but there's still a good amount of mystery.   I was actually betting myself on picking out who would be the culprit, and I was wrong, so that means there were enough red herrings to keep me guessing.  That being said, it was still pretty fluffy, not a "heavy" read.  The style of writing is very similar to Golden Age authors; if you like Dorothy L. Sayers or Margery Allingham or Ngaio Marsh, this will be a good one to try.

 

The period feel is emphasized by some details - make-up, fashion, some slang usage, the cars, etc. - and also by current events.  Daisy is a working girl because her brother was killed in the War (as was her fiancé) and her father passed away in the flu epidemic; the result was that a cousin inherited the title her father had held.  That doesn't mean it's a piece of Historical Fiction.  There is a good bit of artistic license in the period details, too, in order to make the story actually work.  Reminds me of Downton Abbey - some period details very accurate, but others are a bit more fast-and-loose in order to make the stories work.  Doesn't mean you enjoy it any less, as long as you take it for what it is.

The biggest downside to me was the ending.  After presenting such a suitable victim with lots of potential motives, the actual solution felt... rushed, I suppose?  Like as if the actual detecting stopped and the solution was just dropped into Daisy's lap.  It felt as if Dunn cut a few corners in both plot and accuracy to finish up the story quickly.  This type of cozy mystery often incorporates a good bit of artistic license, or standard suspension-of-disbelief - think of an average Lord Peter Wimsey story.  How the crime happened was way more important than the actual real-world probability or feasibility of it happening in that particular way.  Even taking that into account, the conclusion still didn't feel real, somehow.  Basically, don't just suspend disbelief - chuck all disbelief out the window when you start getting close to the end and just roll with the events as they're written.  WITHOUT ANY SPOILERS, yes, this was the early 1920s, and some things were done a certain way, and class and wealth still played a very large roll in social dynamics, but the police would still have had some procedures and actual rules to follow.  It felt like Daisy (and Dunn) had just waltzed right over/past them.  One other Goodreads reviewer said that it felt like Dunn had come back to working on the novel after a period of absence, and just wanted to hurry up and finish the book.  That seems a pretty accurate description, actually.  This is the first in the series, so I will cut her a bit of slack for that.  There are at least 20 Daisy Dalrymple books right now, so I'm assuming that Dunn'll grow in confidence in the mystery genre as she works more in it.  A lot of series take a book or two to really get their feet under them, so to speak.  I enjoyed Daisy, Alec, and the other characters and the rest of the story, so my frustrations with the conclusion won't prevent me from picking up the next one in the series.  But, this ending (with my associated frustrations) is what keeps me from giving this one a full 4 stars.

Audiobook Comments:

Bernadette Dunne was the reader for this one, and for the majority of the series, I believe.  This is the first time I've listened to her, and she's not bad, though nothing exceptional.  There wasn't tons of distinction between the voices of the different characters, particularly the women, but I did like her version of Daisy's voice.  I read the reviews on Audible before trying this as an audiobook (a bad narrator can be very off-putting, even for books that you love).  Several people have commented on the quality of Dunne's British accent and pronunciations - some very negatively so!  Being an American myself, it wasn't jarringly bad for me to listen to.  Too many years in Latin classes did tell me that the words "pater" and "mater" were mispronounced, but that was the only one I caught, and it wasn't frequently enough to be either overly irritating or distracting. I'm sure if I was a Brit, I'd probably be more bothered (I know that bad TV/movie Southern accents drive me nuts). 

Overall:

 

I enjoyed it.  Though not entirely satisfied with the ending, I enjoyed it enough that I've got the second in the series ready to read (listen to).  Take it for what it is, though.  It's a fluffy historical cozy mystery series - a "potato chip" read (can't read just one), a palate-cleanser between darker or weightier stories, an enjoyable bit of escapism.  Think Dowton Abbey, remember. Books can be just fun, you know.  Don't read it if you're looking for extensive historical or procedural detail (or accuracy).  And if you're looking for a really hard-core heroine or a very gritty story, this isn't the series for you; try The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Harry Hole or Wire in the Blood instead.

Review: The League of Unexceptional Children by Gitty Daneshvari

Children's services includes more than just story time and picture books.  I also get to order the middle-grade books!  So my reading list just gets more and more eclectic.  It already included classic and cozy mysteries, urban fantasy, romance, traditional fantasies, the occasional nonfiction, and has now expanded to picture books and elementary school chapter books.  Which is not a problem at all.  Of course there are classic kids books that I still love rereading - Avi, Roald Dahl, M.M. Kaye, Patricia Wrede - but there are a lot of really good authors writing for kids and young adults today.  And really, "it's for my job!"  :)

This week's read: The League of Unexceptional Children by Gitty Daneshvari

 

 

My Rating: 2.5 of 5 (between It's OK and I Liked It)

 

Plot Summary (courtesy of Goodreads):

Are you average? Normal? Forgettable? If so, the League of Unexceptional Children is for you! This first book in a hilarious new adventure series is for anyone who's struggled to be noticed in a sea of above-average overachievers.

What is the League of Unexceptional Children? I'm glad you asked. You didn't ask? Well, you would have eventually and I hate to waste time. The League of Unexceptional Children is a covert network that uses the nation's most average, normal, and utterly unexceptional children as spies. Why the average kids? Why not the brainiacs? Or the beauty queens? Or the jocks? It's simple: People remember them. But not the unexceptionals. They are the forgotten ones. Until now!

Comments:

Well, they do say that spies shouldn't be like James Bond, but blend into the background instead.  Why couldn't average, nondescript children be used the same way?  And with that idea, Jonathan and Shelly find themselves roped into saving the United States when a security breach at the White House ends up compromising all existing agents in the field.  The newest members of the League of Unexceptional Children have to learn the ropes and save the world all at the same time!

Somehow the adventure never really clicked with this premise, though.  It's not that this is a bad one, but it just doesn't come together somehow.  There are some great mysteries and adventure stories for this age group (heck Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys are both in this same section of our library).  So it is possible to have some exciting adventures or suspenseful mysteries and still be suitable for a middle-grade audience.

The characters are kinda weak.  Granted, Shelly and Jonathan are supposed to be nondescript and forgettable, but thankfully, they do grow up a bit with their successful mission.  Shelly got kinda irritating after a while, honestly; she's a chatterbox with no filter on her stray thoughts popping out of her mouth.  Sometimes a bit funny, but sometimes a little tiring.  The adults are more caricatures of old adventure/spy story characters than actual characters - the boss talks like a film noir cop, for example.  The morbid nurse is just a little weird, personally.

The humor worked pretty well, though - best part of the book in my opinion.  While the whole book is a take on society's focus on Exceptionalism, there are parts that are laugh-out-loud funny.  There were just absurd moments, straight up slapstick - the League's messaging system via produce, for example.  My favorite bits were the satirical points about living in Northern Virginia, though.  Having grown up in Virginia myself, with family on the Maryland side of DC and several good friends in suburbs in NoVa, I've visited the DC area enough to be familiar with the suburbs.  And as mentioned, with friends living there, I got some insider commentary on life in Woodbridge or Stafford or some of the other DC suburbs.  The Stepford mentality seems pretty accurate, and made for a very funny (for me) backdrop to the kids' adventures.

As an adult reading this, it was a so-so book, but middle school students who feel that they themselves are pretty unexceptional might enjoy it more than I did.  I know that I don't fall into that particular demographic - no longer a middle-schooler and never having been an Unexceptional (definitely more of a Brain).  But, someone who feels themselves to be very average might enjoy that aspect of the story, giving the book a little bit more of spark than what I felt for it.  I definitely wouldn't discourage anyone from reading it, but it wouldn't be my first recommendation either.

It is the first book in a series (there's one more out now, and another due out in the fall), so here's hoping that the author can find her footing a little more solidly in this world through the subsequent books.  There are well written parts of the story, and some very sly humor, but not quite enough pieces coming together to really click for me.  A shame, when it's such a fun idea.

Overall Thoughts:

This is a cute book with a fun premise, using a network of the average and nondescript children for espionage and adventure.  It was pretty funny, but it missed on the suspense and adventure side of things.  Yes, it's possible to be all of the above - a funny story with adventure and mystery too - but the suspenseful side never really clicked together, and at times it felt more rushed or forced than anything else.  I wanted to like it, I really did, and it's not that it's a bad book, but it's not great either.  It's fun, a quick read, but not really memorable.  In it's own way, unexceptional.

Review: Sharpe's Rifles (book)

I blame Mom for this one ending up on my To Read list.  Not that it's a bad thing, but it's definitely her influence that got Richard Sharpe and a historical war/adventure series on my radar - not my typical sort of book.  She was hooked on the BBC series ages ago (by ages, I mean her copies are on VHS), and thereby spread the love into subsequent generations.  Because Crazy is inherited ;)

So, for the first Sharpe I'll be reading: Sharpe's Rifles: The French Invasion of Galicia, January 1809 by Bernard Cornwell

My rating: 4 out of 5

Plot Summary (courtesy of Goodreads):

"Bernard Cornwell's action-packed series that captures the gritty texture of Napoleonic warfare--now beautifully repackaged.  It's 1809, and Napoleon's army is sweeping across Spain. Lieutenant Richard Sharpe is newly in command of the demoralized, distrustful men of the 95th Rifles. He must lead them to safety--and the only way of escape is a treacherous trek through the enemy-infested mountains of Spain."

Story comments:

This is the 6th book in the Sharpe series, if you're going by the internal chronology.  It's the 9th by publication date, and the 1st that was made into a TV episode.  So, take that for reference. 

The Sharpe's series is a really good historical adventure series.  For both the TV show and the books, it's a good one to try if you've enjoyed the Horatio Hornblower stories or the Aubrey and Maturin books (the Master and Commander series).  Or vice versa - try those if you like Sharpe.  Just land adventures as opposed to ones at sea.

Cornwell didn't write the Sharpe series in chronological order.  It's one of those commonly asked questions on book sites like Goodreads - "do I read these in chronological or publication order or does it matter?"  Well, personal preference, I suppose.  I started with Rifles as I like the men in the 95th.  Figured it's as good a place as any.  As mentioned above, this is the 6th chronologically (set in 1809), but 9th by publication.  Looking at Goodreads and Amazon reviews, some people found this a bit frustrating.  It means that continuity can be a little off, that characters might not have quite the same presence or developed personality that they did in a earlier/later book, that things referenced might not make 100% sense, that the writing style might not be quite the same.  That makes sense from a writer's perspective - it's a bit of a challenge to keep things flowing completely smoothly when the "next" adventure was really written 8 or 10 or 12 years after a particular story.  Heck, even some series written chronologically have trouble keeping all the details straight and having the characters develop smoothly.  In the grand scheme of things, though, it's not a big deal most of the time.  At least not to me - though there are series where names are inconsistent between books, major details, that sort of thing; then it does get to me.  For Sharpe, it's not a series that has a tight overarching storyline anyway.  Sharpe and the others get promoted, the war proceeds, and events in previous novels are mentioned, but it's not like you need to read the series in completely chronological order in order to follow along.  Just pay attention to the dates given in the novel and remember, "oh yeah, this is before/after (battle name here)"

Just because there's not tons of overarching storylines, doesn't mean there's not a lot of development within the story too.  The characters certainly grow within the individual stories too.  Sharpe starts the story kinda depressed, actually.  He's a fighting soldier, raised from the ranks to an officer, and has been relegated to quartermaster.  So, going from fighting to paperwork and supplies, with no respect from above or below.  Yeah, he's not a happy guy.  He's kinda an antihero to start, not a dramatic born leader ready to inspire men into battle.  Through circumstances, he's now in charge of the men who don't respect him, who have no reason to follow him, and who are stuck in the mountains in winter with not nearly enough supplies.  And honestly?  As a reader, I'm not even sure I liked him and would have followed him.  He grows in confidence and in his leadership, though, and by the end of the story, they really are Sharpe's Rifles.  No, that's not a spoiler - if he didn't grow into being an officer, the series wouldn't really have anymore to do, would it?  A lot of characters are introduced in this one who I know will appear in other books (I have watched the TV show a number of times, after all).  We'll see how their development goes.  The most noteworthy was Sgt Patrick Harper, who will become Sharpe's best friend and ally.  Here, he leads a mutiny and gets into a knockdown-dragout with Sharpe, before eventually getting promoted and gradually coming to respect his Lieutenant. There's the uneasy truce and trust there, but not the close friendship yet, so we'll see how they come to trust each other more as the stories proceed.

Reading other reviews on Goodreads, even people who like the series have split opinions on individual books.  Some like this one, some aren't as fond.  Like most series, I suppose.  Even if the series overall is a good one, individual books can vary. Not having read any of the others yet, I don't have an opinion one way or another.  I suppose that in later posts, I might have more opinion on which Sharpe book is my favorite, but as it is...

Cornwell definitely does his historical research.  Even though the Historical Note at the end of the book basically said, "this isn't how the events really happened," there's a lot of research that's obvious in the details of the fighting, the uniforms, the weapons, the setting.  It is very easy to picture the scenes, given all the description and Cornwell's eye for detail.  For the actual events... the French occupation of Galicia and the British retreat are pretty accurate; it's just the actual events of the story that Cornwell took liberties with. I suppose if you're wanting complete historical accuracy, that might be disappointing, but certain liberties should be allowed in order to make a good adventure.  It's not like he was using lasers or dragons or even machine guns, right?

At times all the historical detail can get kinda tedious, actually.  Mom calls it techno-babble (she uses that description a lot with Tom Clancy books), and just specifies that in Sharpe's stories, it's Napoleonic techno-babble.  If you don't mind a lot of historic detail in your adventure, then it won't be a deal-breaker.  But if that sort of thing turns you off from a book... well, you've been warned.

Favorite quote?

Harper commenting on Sharpe: "He'll fall in love with anything in a petticoat. I've seen his type before. Got the sense of a half-witted sheep when it comes to women... It's a good job he's got me to look after him now" (p.265).

Your hero, ladies and gentlemen: sense of a half-witted sheep.  Not even a full-witted sheep!  And it's true.  Though there are some recurring female leads, Sharpe really is a Napoleonic James Bond (though less suave - more in the new-girl-every-book sense).

A few points comparing it to the TV series:

• Sharpe has black hair???  No.  He is Sean Bean, end of story.
• I missed Teresa.  When the TV writers were adapting the stories to film, they brought her into this story, instead of introducing her later (she first appears in the novel Sharpe's Gold, 9th in the series chronology).  Louisa Parker wasn't bad as Sharpe's love interest - she did have a bit of spark to her - but she wasn't La Aguja. 
• Besides Theresa's appearance, there are a lot of other differences in the events of the book versus the TV episode - a whole chunk of the main mission in fact.  But, quite honestly, there's only so much marching through frozen wasteland that you can film and keep a story entertaining, and large cavalry charges do take lots of horses, extras, and choreography.  So, for filming purposes, the changes are rather understandable.  The "take-homes" are the same - characters are introduced, the gonfalon is raised at Compostela, Harper and Sharpe fight and then come to terms, and Sharpe grows into his role in command of the 95th.  Everything's now set up to head to Talavera.

Audiobook comments:

The narrator for the Sharpe's series, and thus for this book too, is Frederick Davidson.  He does a lot of classics and a good number of mystery series, as well as the Sharpe's series, so I've definitely encountered his readings before.  Never really had any issues with his voice before, but I honestly wasn't crazy about his reading this time.  He has a very flat sort of delivery, a bit dry and pinched at times, which was fine for a lot of the narrative.  It actually really suits some of the other books I've listened to (I though he was the perfect voice for The Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsyth - very much like the 1960s-70s British newscaster-type voice that appeared in the movie).  It wasn't so much the narrative portions that bothered me here, as much as his accents and the associated voices.  The Spanish voices were very deep and gravelly, and sometimes hard to understand, but it was the Irish voices that bothered me the most.  They all went up in range, getting higher.  Which is fine, I suppose, except I really like the Irish characters (and their actors) in the TV series, and a higher voice just didn't work with what I had in my head, or even in the text.  Sgt Harper is constantly described as such a big man, and he's played by Daragh O'Malley in the show - again, a very big guy (he's 6'4" according to IMDB).  A high voice just doesn't fit with that sort of build.  And then there's Hogan, played by Brian Cox in the series.  And I'll be honest, Brian Cox has one of those voices that I could just sit and listen to him read a phone book (also Patrick Stewart, Benedict Cumberbatch, Morgan Freeman... ).  So that's a hard mental image/expectation to beat, or even live up to. 

At any rate, higher tenors just didn't work for either Hogan or Harper, at least IMHO, and that kinda grated on me a bit.  Otherwise, though, Davidson did a pretty decent job with the story, and his reading won't be a deterrent to listening to the rest of the series.

Overall comments:

The story itself is a 4 of 5.  The audiobook version might get docked a half star or so, mostly because of the voices.  But either way, that still is enough stars that it's worth a try.  If you like historical novels or adventure stories, these are good ones to add to your reading list.  Lots of well described battles, good characters, and certainly an eye for periodic detail.

Review: Narcos

Zach and I have been incredibly pleased with the Netflix original programming, and have become outright hooked on several of the titles.  With him being gone for so long last year, I was (incredibly!!) patient and waited for him to get back before catching up on OITNB, Narcos, Longmire, Marco Polo... Like I said, we've been pleased with their original programs :)

 

Which means, now that he's back in the states, that we are catching up.  I know Narcos season 3 is already due out sometime this fall, but here you go: my thoughts on the show thus far.

 

 

 

Plot:  The series so far has followed the rise (and eventual downfall) of cocaine king Pablo Escobar and his cartel, and the efforts of the Colombian police and US DEA agents assigned to bring him down.

 

This has been a very well-done series. 

 

The acting was solid.  No big names, though a few familiar faces, and they all did a good job bringing the characters to the screen.  The standout definitely was Wagner Moura as Escobar.  Unfortunately, he won't be back next season, at least in anything other than a flashback (season 2 ending with Escobar's death, and all), but he was definitely worth watching.  And a bit of trivia?  Moura is Brazilian, so his native language is Portuguese, not Spanish.  He actually learned Spanish for this role!

The story is very well paced.  The plot is really what pulls you in, more than particular characters, and the writers paced things very well to keep the action and the tension going pretty consistently.  Definitely got us hooked.  If you're expecting a generic crime drama, prepare to be pleasantly surprised.

 

Historical accuracy?  Well, as the disclaimer at the start of each episode says, some events, characters, etc. have been dramatized for the purposes of television (or whatever the actual legal wording says).  Obviously, some things have to have been based on imagination, because these are conversations where all participants have since died - Escobar talking to his sicarios, for example.  Some minor characters were based on real people, who may or may not have experienced the same fate as their fictional versions.  And some things were streamlined time-wise to fit the pacing of the show, or were sensationalized a bit for TV - all those little changes to turn Real Life into a Show, you know?  I read an article interviewing the two agents featured in the show, and what they thought about the accuracy.  Pena laughed that his love life wasn't nearly as exciting as it was in the series.  That sort of thing - dramatization.

Part of the dramatization, too, is the good-guy-bad-guy dynamic.  Escobar was a truly violent drug czar, but at the same time, was beloved by a lot of people and considered a Robin Hood-type, supporting communities that the government was practically ignoring at the time.  And let's face it, the US was not squeaky-clean, white-horse, white-hat in their actions, either.  In order to bring down the Medellin cartel, drug enforcement agencies were willing to tread in some rather murky waters.  Though it does get more into the grittiness of reality in the second season, the show did, in some ways, have to simplify these issues.  Part of it was the need to water it down for TV audiences, and part is probably just the challenge of trying to capture how complicated reality actually was.

 

And yet, there are a lot of things that they tried to get right.  The make-up and costuming staff did a great job getting many of the actors to look very much like their real-life counterparts.  There are even articles you can find online comparing pictures of the actors and real photos of their characters.  And the two DEA agents, Murphy and Pena, acted as consultants for the series, so there's input from people who were actually there which (for better or worse) does make a difference. 

 

One of the (very) effective techniques they used to emphasize the realism of the series was including real photos and footage from the time.  There were times where it was almost seamless, the blending of old footage and show footage.  They were getting very good at this through the second half of Season 2, as the drug wars were heating up.  Using news coverage of the bombings and murders really drove home the images.  Very well done.

 

Aside from accuracy, the mark of a good historical piece (to me, at least) is that it makes me want to read more about the real events.  Same way that a good movie from a book should make me want to read the book.  And I've definitely been reading on Escobar as we've been watching this - just like I've been reading on Marco Polo and Ghengis Khan, and on Thomas Cromwell (Wolf Hall).  Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, but just doesn't film as well, you know?  There are some incredible stories out there, and as I'm a curious little mind and into everything, I like when a series does a good job of planting the seeds.

 

Biggest complaint so far?  The sound.  There was something up with the sound of the second season, where the Spanish dialogue seemed much softer than the English.  Don't know if it was something in the show itself, or in the Netflix streaming, or in our devices, but it was a little frustrating.  A shame too.  Even though we don't speak Spanish, it's still fulfilling to hear the dialogue, the sounds and tones and inflections of it.  The acting is well done, and it's a waste to not be able to hear it.  Hearing the emotion, even if we can't understand the words, is part of the experience, after all.

 

SPOILER (though not really, if you know anything about the history told here, or can look up Escobar in Google):
Escobar does die at the end of S2.  This was an incredible episode, very effective - a good emotional gut-wrench.  The inter-splicing of actual news footage and photos was very well done.  Zach and I both had just a stunned moment as the episode ended, one of those "wow" type feelings.  Like I said, very, very well done.

And the questions circulating now, looking at different websites, are where will they take us for S3 and 4 (both of which have been signed for on Netflix)?  The way things look, the Cali cartel will be the next focus, but we shall see in the fall what else they bring to the table!

 

Overall:  4.5 of 5.  Not a warm and fuzzy show (drug wars, after all), but good cast, well written, and well produced.  The story drives it more than anything else, but you still enjoy watching the characters and their interactions.  A few things that could be improved, but still definitely worth watching.  Consider it another win for Netflix original programming.

 

And because I like character-based poster series, here you go :)

 

        

 

Season 1 (above) had pictures of everyone with cocaine and powder sprays/splashes (is it a splash, if it's powder?).  Season 2 (below) had pictures with bullets.  Pretty appropriate really - Season 1 was the building of the Medellin empire, and Season 2 was the war that resulted.

 

       

Review: Telephone by Mac Barnett, illustrated by Jen Corace

As you know, dear reader, I finished my library science degree last year, and am now working in a real-life library.  What you might not know yet is that I handle children's programming there.  I've been tracking the books I read as part of several reading challenges, but I'm also keeping notes (via GoodReads) of books that I'll use for story time, STEM programs, my next book order, etc.  An unexpected side effect of that, is that my Total Books Read list for this year is already over 100!!   I've already had to update my expected/goal number twice, and I'm still ahead of schedule!  Looks like I'll be upping it again soon - gotta keep the motivation up after all ;)

 

No, not all of them are picture books! I've always got a book on my Kindle App for on the go, and an audiobook going in the car, plus several others at any given point in time, so a lot of what I've read so far this year would be considered "my" books as well.  But, there are a lot of picture books for story time in my list, I will admit.  And some of them are really clever and deserved to be chattered about just as much as my thoughts on my latest mystery.  So expect to start seeing a smattering of picture books and mid-grade reads appearing here too. 

 

First up:  Telephone by Mac Barnett, illustrated by Jen Corace.
 

Plot: A fun illustrated version of the game Telephone, the message transmitted courtesy of an eclectic collection of birds on a phone line.  Will the message get to Peter Pigeon in time to make it home for dinner?  And will he even understand it when it reaches him?

 

I enjoyed the different birds, and how their hobbies obviously affected what they were hearing.  In a larger sense, it's the idea that what we are personally interested in will color how we see (or hear) the world - one of those Big Picture Ideas snuck into kids' picture books :)  I also enjoyed the connections between certain birds and their activities - the cardinal with a baseball bat, for example (any St Louis fans out there?).  My favorite birds were the (spherical) turkey and the owl.  The facial expressions were great!  The owl just looks so deadpan, listening to the Crazy that has reached him on the line.  And I also liked the two little penguins up on the wire with Peter at the end.  Just like the turkey - what are they doing on that phone line?

Extra Bonus?  Chronicle Books has a wallpaper with the owl on it for free on their blog!

 

 

 

Personally, I enjoy Mac Barnett's works quite a bit.  He was a presenter at the Texas Book Festival a few years ago when I was able to attend, and just cracked me up (he was presenting with Jon Scieszka, another favorite, so definitely enjoyed myself).  I've found that his books have a quirky, rather absurd sense of humor, and this one's no exception. 

 

Jen Corace's illustrations are wonderful.  They aren't Heavy Artistic pictures, or overly detailed, but they carry a lot of the story themselves - the ostrich with the feather duster?  The worry on the turkey's face?  Her illustrations add that depth to the simple story.  The simplicity of the illustrations make it a good choice for a story time too.  Books that have incredibly detailed illustrations are wonderful in their own way, but they can be a little too much for 20 4-year-olds at a time.  Barnett himself summed it up well: "Her birds are so bold and bright and charismatic, and can command the attention of a rowdy mob of kindergarteners, but there’s plenty of clever and delicate details you can study with a quiet kid in your lap."

 

As an adult reading the picture book, it's silly fun, but a little simple for me, missing that bit of oomph that would really make it a classic.  However, this is a good story time book, one that will tie in nicely with activities with the kids.  I'd have preferred a little more similarity between the garbled statements as they passed between birds, especially as I'll be reading it aloud at story time, but you could still see how one statement warped into the next. 

 

My rating: 3.5 of 5 (somewhere between Liked and Really Liked)

Review: Cross Kill by James Patterson

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Plot Summary:

From GoodReads:

Along Came a Spider killer Gary Soneji has been dead for over ten years. Alex Cross watched him die. But today, Cross saw him gun down his partner. Is Soneji alive? A ghost? Or something even more sinister?  

Nothing will prepare you for the wicked truth.

The story begins with Alex Cross and his partner John Sampson working at a community soup kitchen.  Shots ring out and kitchen workers are injured.  In tending to them, the two men are also attacked by the shooter.  Sampson is shot in the head, and Cross in the chest, protected only by his Kelvar.  Even more of a blow, Cross sees the shooter as a man whom he saw die over ten years previously (for perspective, Along Came a Spider was the first Alex Cross book, while this is #23.5).  While Sampson fights for his life in the hospital, Cross hunts for the shooter.  He doubts his eyes and his memories, trying to find answers about one of the worst criminals he has encountered in his long career.

Story comments:

This is one of the first Alex Cross stories I've read (or listened to). I think it might even be the first, though it seems hard to imagine, as many Cross stories as Patterson has written.  Maybe I'm just familiar with the few which have been made into movies.  At any rate, there it is. 

Book Shots are novellas, really, designed to be single-sitting (or single-day) reads.  They are written to fall in-between the full-length novels in the series.  This one, for example, is listed as #23.5 in the Alex Cross Series.  In terms of listening length, I listened to the audiobook during my commute to work, and it took me less that a week.

Part of the story centers on Sampson's shooting and recovery. It honestly felt like those sections dragged a little, lots of hospital visits and emotional build-up over whether Cross would lose his childhood friend and partner.  Good emotional build-up (especially in such a short book), but not having read others in the series, I just didn't have the same emotional investment in John Sampson that others might have. 

I also was probably more interested in the mystery of the man rising from the dead to shoot at Cross and his partner. That side of the story really drew me in. There were so many questions and potential twists and clues and suspense, that the big reveal at the end was a bit of a let-down, quite honestly. The solution seemed a bit simple and rushed, but it is only a BookShot after all.

My BIGGEST frustration was by far the huge cliffhanger! I don't mind books in a series carrying subplots over between books; characters do have to develop, after all, and some series create an archnemesis (a Big Bad, to quote Buffy) or extreme set of circumstances, which may take several books to solve or overcome.  I am not, however, a fan of huge cliffhangers where you MUST go out and get the next book to find out what happens in the main plot. Just makes it feel like you've read an excerpt of a book, and not a book in itself (at least in my opinion).  If you don't mind these, or are already well-invested in Alex Cross and his world, then you probably won't mind the cliffhanger nearly as much as I did.  For me, it was almost a, "Wait, what just happened??" moment.  At which point the audiobook credits began playing...

Audiobook comments:

Ruben Santiago-Hudson does a good job putting emotion into the character, and I enjoyed listening to him. Of course, Alex Cross now looks like Capt Roy Montgomery (Castle) in my mind, but that's a minor issue. My only real complaint was that they put in sound effects for the sirens, gunshots, etc.  Other books I've listened to just had the narrator say something ("bang!", "crack!", etc.).  The actual noises were very startling, especially if I was listening as I did something else (driving, running, etc.).

Overall comments:

As I said, this is my first Alex Cross book.  I'm interested to read more, starting at the beginning.  Even though I know Soneji died in that book, I'm interested in Patterson's writing now.  The suspense and tension he built in the story was very well done.  My minor complaints are really partially my own fault - who starts a series 23 books in, after all?  The biggest reason I gave it only three stars was the cliffhanger at the end.  It'd probably have another star from me if that wasn't there (side note: the plot twist was a good one; I just wish it had been developed and resolved in this book instead of the next).  If you're already sucked into Alex Cross's world, or if you don't mind huge cliffhangers in your books, then you'd probably not mind that nearly as much as I did.

All the way through season 8!!

Netflix has all 8 seasons of Dexter streaming!!  Here's my own little chatter (and marketing plug to watch this show!).

Plot:  In case you haven't heard of or seen the show, here you go.  Dexter Morgan is a blood spatter analyst working at Miami Metro Homicide.  He's also a serial killer on the side.  Watch Dexter through 8 seasons as he eludes the police, the FBI, and other serial killers, while balancing dating, being a father, and hunting for his next victim. The series is inspired by the books by Jeff Lindsay, of which I've only been able to read the first so far.

The acting is great!  Michael C. Hall just makes the show.  Dexter's monologues and inner comments are  priceless.  How many characters can remind themselves "I will not kill my sister.  I will not kill my sister" and you know they really mean it??  Jennifer Carpenter's great as Deb, his sister.  And the supporting cast is very very solid.  Lots of likeable (and unlikeable) characters very well played.  And one of the fun things about the show is that in addition to the regular cast, they bring in a guest star or two for the season.  I still think my favorite was John Lithgow in Season 4.  It'd been so long since I'd seen him in a bad guy role, I'd almost forgotten how creepy he can be!

The timing and pacing of the show are beautiful.  It's a Showtime series, so only 12 episodes in a season compared to network TV.  Which means that it doesn't have lots of fluff built into season.  Some story arcs might have more padding than others, but overall, it's a nicely paced story.

And watching the characters develop is so much fun.  Dexter's an antihero, a serial killer who you still don't really want to see caught.  And he repeatedly refers to himself as a monster, something not really human.  So in each season, you see him working towards being more human - dating, finding a true friend, falling in love, becoming a parent.  Despite not feeling human, Dexter grows in some very human ways, and that makes for a highly enjoyable story.  His narration is relatable, as well as being entertaining.

On to the negatives...

After season 5, you can kinda see the production and/or writing crew changed.  The dialogue didn't change or characters didn't start acting out-of-character or anything like that.  It was more in the storylines and character development.  Like, the first 5 seasons really were driven more by character development - not that there weren't major plot lines, because there were.  But the character development was a more major push than it felt like it was in seasons 6-8.  In the later seasons, the character development seemed more reactive, more a back seat to the events surrounding Dexter et. al.  In all honesty, you could probably watch the first 5 seasons and stop there and not feel like you're missing out much.  Seasons 6-8 happen, and lots happens to the characters, but I dunno, it just felt like a shift after season 5.  Kinda hard to explain, but just watch it and you'll understand.

On that same thought, but without any spoilers... the series finale.  The general consensus is that the finale was pretty bad.  Some lists put it as one of the worst series finales ever.  I'd definitely agree.  Without giving away too much, it felt like the writers just didn't know what to do with the characters to end the show.  Everything feels forced and over the top.  That was a regular feeling of mine in season 8, honestly, but it's really overwhelming in the last episode or two.  Like every formulaic Big Event got squeezed in.  Really, a very very disappointing ending to an otherwise well-done and enjoyable show.

KINDA SORTA SPOILER - I'm not putting it lower on the page, since it's not REALLY a spoiler, but it does cover some later plot points, so maybe you might think it is.  At any rate, I never really liked Hannah (seasons 7-8).  I'd buy that she's 'not the same kind of killer as Dexter,' i.e. that she's not a psychopath, but I don't buy that she only 'did what she had to, in order to protect herself.'  Yes, she was possibly dragged along on the spree when she was a teenager, overwhelmed by the older personality, but she's got several deaths on her own hands, too.  One is an older woman, her mentor of sorts, who left Hannah a flower shop and inheritance in her will.  Oh, and then conveniently passes away.  If it wasn't for that one death, I'd buy that Hannah wasn't really a heartless killer, but that one death was driven by greed, not necessity.  And that keeps me from really warming to Hannah.  Just can't.

Finally, I have to laugh at ourselves, too.  Even after all this chatter about how addicted to the show we are and how excited we have been for each season, Zach and I had a serious conversation about it when season 6 was about to begin.  We actually make the conscious decision to wait until the end of the season until it's all over to watch.  The way we burned through seasons 1-5 (seriously, in about 2 weeks), I think waiting from week to week over a full season would drive us bonkers!  So, we decided to wait until the season's all over (and the case of season 8, the show's finale too!!), then watch it all in a weekend or so, like we did with the earlier seasons. :)  The fact all 8 seasons are now available online via Netflix was just icing on the cake.  We started over back at season 1 just before Christmas.  I hadn't seen all of season 1 (he'd started watching the show and I got sucked in about episode 5) so we started at the beginning, thinking we'd watch season 1 and then go to season 8.  Until about season 1, episode 4, when we looked at each other and said "Yeah, let's just go straight through!"  So, with a break for our travels over New Year's, we worked our way right through :)

Overall: 4.5 of 5.  There are moments in any season, obviously, which are a little stretched or over the top, but overall, it's one we have watched (and will again, probably) more than once.  Dry, dark humor, good character development, great acting, surprise twists.  Like I said above, goes downhill after season 5, but still definitely a win.

Review: Brick

This one was one of our "let's see what's new on Netflix Instant Watch" finds.  An indie movie I hadn't heard of before: Brick.

Plot:  A high school loner is contacted by his estranged ex-girlfriend, who's scared of something she won't explain to him.  When she turns up dead, he begins to investigate on his own, making his way into a web of drugs and murder.

So, it's film noir, but set in a modern-day SoCal high school.  And I mean true film noir:  the disillusioned, loner hero; the female lead who might be a damsel in distress or might be a femme fatale; the camera angles and play with shadows; the soundtrack, either very oppressively quiet or strident and jarring music (no Third Man zither, though); even Dashiell Hammett-esque speech patterns. 

However, it's still set in a modern high school.  So, jocks, drama kids, stoners, outcast nerds.  But all talking as if they're in The Maltese Falcon.  So get used to conversation that seems a little incongruous with the mouth it's coming from.  Seriously, Brendan (the lead) called Laura (the Girl) "Angel" in their last conversation, just like the final conversation in The Maltese Falcon.  I don't think I've EVER heard someone my age use that nickname in that manner.

The acting's very solid.  I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt in general, and this one proved to be another strong performance from him.  He plays the film noir hero very well, which can be a tricky balance - withdrawn and disillusioned, but not jaded or mean or unlikeable.  And for a movie in color, they did a very good job using the shadows the way a typical noir does (something a little easier in black and white, so definitely noticeable if they do it well in color).

Aside from the mind bend of the movie's premise (which was both a plus and a minus), my biggest frustration with the movie was the sound.  It was either very quiet or very loud, which worked with the story's events, but at the same time, it made it difficult at times.  And with the stylized speech patterns, the uneven soundtrack volume, and a tendency for hushed conversations, the dialogue was often challenging to follow.  There were a couple times where one of us had to look at the other and ask, "What did he just say?"  The mystery is supposed to be in events, not because you couldn't hear or follow the characters' conversations.

I honestly have no idea if I liked it or not.  Yeah, I know, watch a two hour movie and still can't tell if you like it.  There were points where I could pull back and appreciate the film noir tropes being used and reinterpreted in the modern story, and then there were times where it jarred and felt too surreal.  The acting and directing were all well done, but the story, the premise itself was what made it so unusual.  It's not an escapism movie, or a "make you think," Deep Subject sort of movie.  This was an "artistic" movie, if you know what I mean.

Overall:  No clue.  Not one for my shelf, but an interesting watch, especially if you like mysteries, indie films, or movies that are a little on the unusual side. 

And because I like series of character-based movie posters, these were the ones from Brick.  

 

Review: Pride, Prejudice and Cheese Grits

One of my resolutions this year is trying to read more.  My goal is 2 books a month, and so far, that's a pretty good average pace.  Average, because I never read one book at a time, so it's not always an even 2-a-month.  For example, I didn't really finish much in June, because I had 4 books going, so I'm on pace to make up for that in July :) 

This one was one that was a free download on Amazon Kindle (click the picture below to go to the Amazon page): Pride, Prejudice, and Cheese Grits by Mary Jane Hathaway.

Summary (courtesy Amazon's page):

Shelby Roswell is a history professor on the fast track to tenure until her new book is crushed in a review by the famous historian, Ransom Fielding. She struggles to regain her momentum only to discover that Fielding has taken a visiting professorship at her college. The place that was once a refuge from the poverty of her past is now a battlefield of Civil War proportions.

Ransom is still struggling with his role in his wife’s accidental death six years ago and was hoping a year at Shelby’s small college would be a respite from the reminders back home. He never bargained for falling in love with the one woman who would give anything to make him leave. Together Shelby and Ransom learn that home is never very far away, and when you least expect it, love arrives.

With a cast of Civil War re-enactors, an evil wedding planner, antebellum mansions, and several mysterious diaries, 'Pride, Prejudice and Cheese Grits' will take you on a touching and hilarious ride through a modern South you haven't seen before. NOW WITH RECIPES

Yes, I got the one with the recipes too.  The only appearance of the cheese grits, as a matter of fact (they don't play any part in the story).

Free Kindle books are nice, but I'm still not going to waste my time, even if I haven't wasted money, on a book that's not worth it.  So, I always start with the other Amazon user comments, just to get an idea if it might be interesting.  Beyond that, I read it to make up my mind on my own :)

One of most frequent complaints in the the Amazon reviews questioned the Pride and Prejudice connections.  It honestly didn't bother me too much.  Hot-headed heroine, awkward hero, lots of butting heads and misconceptions.  At that level, it really didn't bother me.  There were scenes that were straight out of P&P, though.  Funnily enough, those were the scenes I liked the least.  Just didn't fit, somehow.  (Slight spoiler alert)  The party that Shelby goes to with her mom and sisters and the disastrous matchmaking attempt was straight-up Mr. Collins.  And that honestly bothered me.  It's a modern story, but that scene just seemed so... anachronistic.  I mean, I have friends who have received "You're not getting any younger" type comments from friends or family, but in this day and age, 27 is not absurd, especially for someone in academia.  PhDs aren't overnight degrees, after all.  Her mother getting frantic about her 27-year-old daughter turning down a date with a guy in his early 40s just seemed out of place.  Yes, Shelby did behave on the ruder side, but the guy was pretty much insulting everything she'd worked for and cared about.

The other big complaint in the Amazon reviews were about proofreading mistakes.  Looks like I downloaded a later edition, because it wasn't an issue.  There were still some, and a few continuity things that nagged at me, but otherwise, don't be put off by that criticism. 

As for the story itself...

It is Christian romance.  Meaning, no steamy scenes.  Lots of banter, smoldering looks, and a kiss or two before the wedding at the end.  It is listed as Religious Romance in the categories down near bottom of the Amazon page.  I hadn't really noticed it, but I'm up for Austen in any form.  If you're not, or you're looking for something steamier, this isn't the book for that. 

On that same note, it's not a beat-you-over-the-head preaching sort of story.  A character is looking for forgiveness, another for strength, characters pray and from time to time, talk about the importance of faith in a relationship. And that's about it.  No moralizing, not really heavy handed proselytizing.  I didn't find it distracting from the story at all. 

I liked the lead characters.  Shelby, the heroine, is outspoken, honest, pretty but not "everybody hates me because I'm too pretty" (yes, I recently tried to start one whose heroine was like that.  I couldn't finish it).  And yes, I have a partiality for nerdy, sarcastic, curly redheads :)  The hero, Ransom, is suitably awkward and proud for an Austen hero.  I liked them, honestly.  I powered through the book in 2 days, so it kept my attention pretty securely. 

I liked the best friend as a character, too.  A lot of the other secondary characters seemed very underdeveloped, though.  They just kinda appeared for a scene and then disappeared.  Tasha, the romantic rival, was entertaining, if aggravating, but then my personality tends more to Shelby's views than Tasha's.

I felt the disasters were a little rushed, especially at the end.  The video especially seemed to just come and go with little development.  Things just kinda happened and then never mentioned again, like the author was trying to fit in too much.  Like the faux pas at Ransom's aunt's party?  And the back-to-back disasters towards the end felt very rushed.  Everything worked out alright, and for the most part, no loose ends.  Just felt like things kinda happened and then were gone, no lasting repercussions.

My biggest complaint was the questionable Southern geography.  The book is set at the fictitious Midland College in the fictitious town of Spartainville, MS.  So, they talk about going to Oxford for shopping and so forth.  No problem, there's an Oxford, MS.  The heroine's hometown is Flea Bite Creek, though.  Though it's never mentioned where Flea Bite Creek is in the book, there really IS a Flea Bite Creek.  In South Carolina.  South of Columbia, actually, about 9 hours from Oxford, MS.  Resulted in a few issues for me:

• Her "regular weekends home" seemed off to me.  I've done the 8 hr drive from Greenville, SC to Virginia Beach, VA very regularly, and it's makes for a very draining weekend.  Add two more hours for the round trip... Hard to believe.
• With the 9 hr distance, the dismissive way people talked about Flea Bite Creek just didn't fit.  If you're going to be dismissive about a tiny Southern town, you're going to do so about the ones nearby, not ones 9 hours away.  People always talk about what they know.
• Also, characters mentioned Savannah and Charleston as destinations like they were just a couple hours away.  From Oxford, MS, these cities are each about 10 hours away.  People tend to be 'out of sight, out of mind' so seemed a little weird.  It's like being in Atlanta and regularly talking about Baltimore as a destination.  The Southeast uses a relatively small radius, as a region; things are more compact.  I've learned in Texas, an hour and a half drive is nothing.  "Oh, it's just in Austin."  In the Southeast, that same hour and a half would pass a dozen more towns than what would be in the same stretch in Texas or further west. 

I realize it's a stupid complaint for a work of fiction, but I spent two years looking at Southern maps for my job, including for some job sites in Oxford, and it bothered me. It was as if the South was just a nebulous region in this story, everything all kinda near each other.  Probably not something that would bother too many other people, but there you go.  One of those little tickles in the back of your mind in the story that wouldn't go away.

Overall: 3.75 of 5.  Glad it was a free book, but I'm always glad of a free book.  I don't know if I'd've bought it, but it was pretty good  and it did draw me in.  It's a Christian romance, as mentioned, so nothing steamy, but the characters are cute together.  Likable leads, and in all, a nice, fluffy, fun read.  Just some quirks that made me wonder if the author had spent much time in the South...

Review: the Thin Red Line

Yup, some more movie chatter!  Most of my viewing time recently has been TV shows, several of which might make there way here eventually, but yes, we do still watch movies from time to time :) This was one that had ended up on my queue after reading one of the Top 100-type lists.  I can't remember if it was in an article or one of the AFI lists, or what, but it was ranked as one of those 'movies you should see.'  So I did!  Here you go, my thoughts on The Thin Red Line.

Plot:  The movie follows an Army company during the Battle of Guadalcanal, from the landing on the beach through much of the fighting.  An ensemble piece with a very strong cast, the film examines the soldiers' thoughts and reactions to the bloodiness and chaos of the war they have been drawn into.

There are two areas of comments that I have for this movie - artistic merits and entertainment value.  It really is one of 'those movies' when it comes to art v. entertainment.  And the movie will appeal to some and not to others for exactly this reason.  If you're looking for a daring-do sort of adventure movie or a more 'traditional' sort of war movie, this is not the film for you.  Even other modern war movies, like "Saving Private Ryan" for example, while less traditional, are much more plot driven than this one.  "The Thin Red Line" explores greater themes using the war as a setting, rather than the story itself.  It really doesn't matter what battle, or even what war, this company is involved in.  Amidst the chaos of battle, the characters examine themes like courage, death, and the existence of God, among others.  I'm sure they could have set a similar story in WWI, Vietnam, modern day fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The point is more the human reaction to war, not the battle itself.  Very much a 'thinking' war movie.

And this cerebral aspect makes it an interesting movie, one to watch at least once.  It's a very Artistic take on a war movie.  I considered it a 'surreal vision of the idea that War Is Hell.'   The way they play with sound for example - some of the most chaotic, bloodiest, violent scenes of battle are almost soundless, simply a character's voice-over or an light instrumental piece.  Where another movie would be at one of it's loudest points, this one is at one of it's softest.  It give the fighting a very detached feel, like you have been inescapably sucked into the storm, but that you are watching from outside as it swirls around you.  The pacing too - things that might have been the focus of another movie (action scenes, battle, etc) are more quickly paced and more time is spent on the build-up to battle and on the aftermath.

Thinking of pacing, this is veeeeeery slowly paced (it is 3 hours, after all).  It honestly took me a good third of the movie to get into the story and to distinguish and care about any of the characters.  This is where the 'entertainment value' critique comes in.  I will care much more about the philosophic pondering of someone if I can distinguish them from each other.  Characters also appear and disappear from the story with little announcement or explanation.  Yes, I realize that's how battle goes, but it does make it harder to follow which soldier is following which train of thought.  And thinking of details almost omitted, I had to look up the plot description first to even know what battle they were preparing to fight.  It was very vaguely discussed at first, more talk of "taking the airstrip" or "taking the island" rather than Guadalcanal as a specific name.  I guess this was done intentionally, to keep the movie as more of a commentary on war itself, as opposed to this specific battle.  For an entertaining movie, one typically turns to plot-driven films.  This is much more slowly paced, taking the viewer through the characters thoughts as they face battle and survive it.  Quite honestly, philosophic epics aren't usually what one chooses for light afternoon fare.  Still, if you're looking for something deeper, this is a well-done film.

Finally, the cast.  This is another area in which the film excels.  It's an ensemble piece, and just about everyone who has a speaking line is Somebody, or became Somebody.  The leads, if there are any, are played by Sean Penn and Jim Caviezel, as a jaded sergeant and a quiet, spiritual, almost ethereal private.  Caviezel does a lot of the narrating, and his soft, smooth voice suits well all the talk about finding courage and finding what lies after death.  Penn's gruff sergeant tries more to find the numbness that will let him survive this carnage after being in so many other battles.  Ben Chaplin plays another major role, as a soldier thinking of his wife at home (definitely a part where the movie drags, as he dreams of his wife).  Chaplin's longing and sadness give him probably the most emotional character.  It's a very strong cast, and seeing the reputation of the director, I'm sure people were falling over themselves to be a part!  

Overall: 3 of 5.  Liked it, very well done, but also very veeery long.  Hard to get into, and hard to feel for the characters for easily the first third of the movie.  Not one for the shelf, but I'm glad I've seen it now.

Review: Darkly Dreaming Dexter

Happy blogoversary to me!  4 years now chattering away mindlessly.  Crafts, travel, books, movies... all those things that help keep me sane as we bounce around the country.  So, a post today!  Not a pattern or project instructions or anything incredible, but here's a book I've been dying to read since the spring, and we finally got our hands on a copy:  Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay.

Plot: Meet Dexter Morgan, everyone's favorite monster. He’s a serial killer who abides by a code: he only kills bad people. Working as a blood splatter expert for the Miami police department puts perfect victims - murders, rapists, etc. - within his grasp. Not that anyone would suspect him. He’s handsome, charming, and over the years, has become adept at blending in with 'regular people.' His well-balanced life becomes unsettled, however, when the department starts working on a series of brutal murders, whose signature is eerily close to his own style. Dexter works to sort out the killings, trying to stay one step ahead of his co-workers, all while wondering if he's trying to solve his own crimes...

Yes, this is the inspiration for the Showtime series, "Dexter" (more on that another day, as it definitely deserves its own post).

First off, I love my husband. You might think that this is a complete non-sequitor, but bear me out. We got addicted to the show "Dexter" back in the spring, when we found it on Netflix instant watch. Burned through the first 2 seasons in about a week (we did have to go to work sometime!) and then could barely wait for seasons 3 and 4 to arrive in the mail. Altogether, I think we became all caught up on 5 seasons of the show in less than a month! Since we started with the show, I had done some reading on the author and had been trying to get my hands on a copy of the books. Our library in CA didn't have them yet (very small place, after all) and here in TX the post library did have them, but only one copy, which seemed to be checked out every time I stopped by. Where does Zach fit into all this? He came home the other day with a handful of library books that he'd been wanting to read, including Darkly Dreaming Dexter. And to make him extra special, I got to read it first :)

A fast read, and a fun one.

It's not a deep book. That was actually one of the biggest complaints on the customer reviews on Amazon. I guess based on all the subplots present in the show, and as dark as a killer as Showtime was able to make Dexter, some people were expecting more from the book. But, in all honesty, the book couldn't include as many subplots as the show is able to. Like "True Blood" vs. the Sookie Stackhouse books (another series I'm getting hooked into) - if it doesn't take you much more than 12 hours to read the book, how can you expect the same book to fill 12 hours of TV time?  The writers have to add additional subplots and character development if they are going to fill the season. 

So, yes, it is lacking some of the things that the first season had (I'm trying to keep my comparisons to just the equivalent season of the show) but on the same argument, the book offers benefits that the show can't quite capture. The character banter is present still in the books, and that's one of the aspects of the TV show that makes it so enjoyable. It's not developed to the extent as in the show, but more of the book is in Dexter's head, instead of in his office. To put it another way, there's more narration in the books, more conversation in the show. It's the nature of the media.

The hardest point about reading this book for me was comparing it to the show.  Not in terms of character development, necessarily, or "oh when are they making that joke" or anything along those lines.  It was in terms of plot points.  Yes, the characters are the same as in the book, the same personalities, the same 'feel' to them, but it's as if the book is a parallel universe to the show, if that makes sense.  More on the spoilers below, but there are several key plot points that are different between the two media (think "characters living or dying" sort of key plot points).  It made reading a little... distracting, I guess would be the best word.  I honestly had to read it twice to actually appreciate the book on its own merits, because on the first reading, I kept trying to anticipate events that either did or didn't happen.  A bad habit, I know, but it does happen.

Overall: 4 of 5. It's not the deepest puzzling mystery I've ever read, and it's not the scariest serial killer I've read (thank you, Hannibal Lector), and it's not the most ingenious puzzle solution I've ever read (that honor firmly belongs to Dorothy L Sayers), but Dexter's certainly an entertaining read. The narration is comfortable and chatty, and I like the alliterative play throughout. I'm pretty sure this series will be shelf-worthy, but I'd like to get my hands on more books in the series first to make sure.

Here be spoilers!!

You have been warned!

Extra spacing, as this is a mystery, and mystery readers are always extra-sensitive about spoilers!  :)

The Wikipedia page for the book includes a table of the differences in the show (at least the first season) and the book. Very helpful, as there are some definite differences - characters living or dying, etc. I'm interested to see how the books continue to differ from the show, especially in regards to the station politics.  LaGuerta's political maneuverings are a pretty big element of the show, and with her being killed off in the first book... makes me wonder how it'll develop.  Looking forward to getting my hands on the next book and finding out!

Review: Wicked

No, not the musical.  The original book.

Plot: This is a revisiting of the Oz stories, but this time told from the point of view of Elphaba (better known to the world as the Wicked Witch of the West). To summarize (from Publisher's Weekly, courtesy of Amazon):

Born with green skin and huge teeth, like a dragon, the free-spirited Elphaba grows up to be an anti-totalitarian agitator, an animal-rights activist, a nun, a nurse who tends the dying, and, ultimately, the headstrong Wicked Witch of the West in the land of Oz. Maguire's strange and imaginative postmodernist fable uses L. Frank Baum's Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a springboard to create a tense realm inhabited by humans, talking animals (a rhino librarian, a goat physician), Munchkinlanders, dwarves and various tribes. The Wizard of Oz, emperor of this dystopian dictatorship, promotes Industrial Modern architecture and restricts animals' right to freedom of travel; his holy book is an ancient manuscript of magic that was clairvoyantly located by Madam Blavatsky 40 years earlier. Much of the narrative concerns Elphaba's troubled youth (she is raised by a giddy alcoholic mother and a hermitlike minister father who transmits to her his habits of loathing and self-hatred) and with her student years. Dorothy appears only near novel's end, as her house crash-lands on Elphaba's sister, the Wicked Witch of the East, in an accident that sets Elphaba on the trail of the girl from Kansas, as well as the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodsman and the Lion, and her fabulous new shoes. Maguire combines puckish humor and bracing pessimism in this fantastical meditation on good and evil, God and free will, which should, despite being far removed in spirit from the Baum books, captivate devotees of fantasy.

This is an interesting read, though not necessarily an enjoyable one.  It wasn't an easy read for me, either.  There were sections of the book that I was honestly just forcing myself to get through.  It's a very thick book, and could have been trimmed a bit - one of those less-is-more sort of feelings.  Some of the back story, and some of the details just seemed totally extraneous and, quite honestly, vulgar or gratuitous.  I'm not one for censorship (it's not like the book needs to be banned because of it) but at the same time, sometimes details or scenes add nothing to the plot or characters, and are just there to be there, no point to them other than to further the tense, dark, downtrodden feeling of this Oz.  Which, honestly, could have been captured without those scenes.  Those scenes just irritated me, and I had to force myself through such sections of the book. And it seemed too, that the details, even those important to the story, could have been trimmed.  A lot of the details and subplots did get tied together, albeit 250 pages later, but that didn't change that there felt like a lot of extra pages to slog through.

It also felt like Maguire couldn't decide what sort of book he wanted it to be.  It was part fantasy, part political maneuverings, and part philosophical discussion, but I'd always seen it marketed like a lighter piece of reading, a more 'traditional' fantasy sort of piece.  So, yes, I admit that did set me up for a let-down, as I certainly wasn't expecting something this dark.  The political back-and-forth dealings of Oz would put any modern day government to shame - this is not Judy Garland's Oz.  You have societal repression of certain groups of citizens deemed 'inferior,' you have class conflicts, you have politicians corrupting youth and organizing murders to further their aims - and that's just off the top of my head!  Maybe if I'd been expecting a more dystopian Oz, I would have been more prepared for the world Maguire had created.

Elphaba is a really good character, however.  I think the parts that dragged the longest were the ones that drifted away from her (like the first few chapters, which focused on her parents, neither of whom were particularly sympathetic characters).  It would have been easy to make this a lighter book and just write off Elphaba as a purely 'wicked' character.  Instead, it's a much deeper story.  A lot of Elphaba's actions show how 'treason is a matter of dates.'  Elphaba disagrees with the Wizard's rule, and tries very hard to bring about change against injustices that she sees.  She is brave, intelligent (much more so than many of her fellow characters), and a very well-rounded character.  Had she been successful in her efforts, then she might not have been seen as so Wicked.  The book makes you think too, about fate, as Elphaba tries very hard against a system that has seen her as a curse since birth (she is green, after all).  She has tried to further her causes despite setbacks and separation from her family and loved ones, and to no avail.  Yet Dorothy is plopped down in the middle of it all and things just work her way.  This makes Elphaba's story a pretty complex one emotionally, as you don't know how much to root for her, and already knowing the Oz stories, you also already know her ultimate demise.

Overall: 2.5 of 5.  It kept my interest, mostly.  I don't think it'll be a reread for me, and I'm not in a hurry to have it on my shelf, but I didn't dislike it either.  Would've liked it better without some of the extra unnecessary sexual details, and if I'd been prepared for a much darker world than the Oz I was familiar with.