Book 14 -- Black Coffee by Agatha Christie

My first repeat author! Fun fact: this is a novelization of a play by the same name, also by Christie.

Context:

An urgent phone call from renowned scientist Sir Claud Amory sends Hercule Poirot packing to London. However, he is too late--upon his arrival, he discovers Sir Claud dead. Who murdered the scientist, and what happened to the formula he was working on?

My Thoughts:

I didn't like this one quite as much as I liked The Body in the Library, but I think that was more personal preference than anything specific.

So, one thing I've noticed with Christie (though I've only read two books) is that her game is introducing lots of minor characters so that you're continually guessing about "who dunnit." While this is a great ploy in terms of mystery writing, sometimes I get confused about who is who and how they know whoever else, especially in this book where several characters had the last name "Amory."

I like that she starts the novel very openly. You feel kind of confused because she tells you up front that Lucia put the poison in the coffee and gives you all of this really important information. You KNOW that it can't possibly that simple, but the facts are right there! This is something I really like about Christie--she challenges her reader to think with the detective. I liked the bit about the formula being hidden in the spills--how creative!

I will say that I don't like Hercule Poirot quite as much as Miss Marple. Poirot feels too much like Generic Brand Sherlock Holmes to me. I liked Miss Marple because she was brilliant, but different from your typical genius detective. Also, I don't think I'm ever going to get over thinking how incredibly stupid people used to be for placing so much of their live's importance on the opinions of others. I don't want to belabor the point; I know that it is historically accurate, I know the reasons why things used to work that way, I just don't like it and never will.

I like that Christie keeps a consistent tone and style, yet still manages to have independent characters. I love her Victorian language and how everything really fits in the historical context, but her characters all have individual personalities, and I really like that about her. It's quite masterful.

My Rating: 3.5/5

I'm still impressed with Agatha Christie and can see why her works have lasted so many years. Though I am not much for mystery novels, her stories always grab me and provide interesting mental puzzles and shocking finales. I'm not much for Sherl--er, Poirot--but I still adore her style and her ability to mislead and confound her audience.

Book 13 -- The Maze Runner by James Dashner

I just can't stay away from YA dystopia!

Context:

Thomas wakes in a service elevator with no memories except his name. He's pulled into the world of The Glade, where other boys work to survive--and to find a way out of the Maze that surrounds them. The Maze is an ever-changing labyrinth teeming with Grievers--half animal, half machine, and completely terrifying. After Thomas joins the Glade, a girl arrives--the first girl ever. She bears a haunting message that will destroy the Glader's way of life.

My Thoughts:

I like creative dystopias. Sorry if this sounds disjointed, I'm writing tired because I really want to get this written tonight. 

Firstly, I really like the way the author sets the scene. He's really good at scenery descriptions. He gets to the point without explicating every tiny flower and blade of grass. I have a hard time imagining scenery but I found imagining the Glade and Maze fairly easy.

His characters are fantastically vivid. Each character feels distinct and genuine. You really get emotionally involved in the characters.  Also: Chuck. :(

I also like that Thomas and Teresa didn't turn into a love story. It's so typical of YA to turn even the dreariest situations into a love story. Though a romance between Thomas and Teresa was hinted at, it was also made very clear that they had far more important things to worry about.  They could barely remember each other. So, I'm really glad there wasn't a played up romance between these two, because that would have broken the mystery and appeal of the world they live in.

I found the plot and story mostly enjoyable. I definitely didn't know what to expect--I really enjoyed the twists and turns the story took. The only things that detracted from it was just...sometimes it felt kind of...disjointed? I dunno, it feels like there's two different stories here. I would have liked it better if the first book ended with the Griever Hole. It leaves too many unanswered questions and kind of creates this weird blended story feeling that I'm not a big fan of. The Glade is a world away from the world they came from. Dashner does make up for it with the haunting letter at the end--I'm definitely interested to read the next book.

Oh and the Grievers were weird to me. I guess I see why they were scared of them, and maybe I'll get it when the movie comes out--but they honestly just didn't freak me out. 

My Rating: 3/5

Overall, I really enjoyed the book. Most of my complaints are small, but a lot of the mark down is simply because the book just didn't grab me. It was a well-written, interesting story, but it didn't really get down deep for me. Maybe it's because it's following Kane & Abel, which is officially one of my new favorite books, and that's a tough act to follow. It didn't feel like a story I would revisit time after time, but Dashner is a great author and I hope to see more work from him.

Book 12 -- Kane and Abel by Jeffrey Archer

Have you ever read a book that was so beautifully written, so emotionally gripping, and so painfully realistic that you were in tangible emotional pain after turning the final page?

Context:

Two men, born on the same day in very different circumstances, are fated to cross paths. One, William Kane, is the son of a wealthy banker. The other, Wladek, is born in a Polish forest and experiences the horrors of war first-hand before immigrating to America. Both men fight for a stake in the American dream--but at what cost?

My Thoughts:

Well, I'm an emotional wreck right now, so there's that.

I think I'm going to break it down by characters and themes, because there is a lot of ground to cover in this book. As always, plot destroying spoilers ahead. 

Characters:

I started the book feeling exponentially more sympathetic to Wladek/Abel. Kid goes through some real shit. Frankly, I nearly had to put the book down when his sister was gang raped. The situations Abel finds himself in are horrifying, but treated with the care of an author who has done his history homework and has deep sympathies for injustices to human rights. I was rooting for Abel the whole time, desperate to see him succeed after being beaten, starved, imprisoned, and abused.

Kane on the other hand, I couldn't have cared less about. To me, he was a spoiled little boy, redeemable only by his sheer intelligence. I grew slightly more fond of him during the whole Henry Osborne gold digging fiasco with his mother, but mostly because I finally began to see him as a human instead of the Super Harvard Banking Prodigy. 

And then Archer strikes an incredibly brilliant blow to the reader, and subtly yet definitively flips your sensibilities on their head. Abel's reaction against William in terms of Leroy's death was ridiculous. Knowing Abel's background, it's easy to see why he took the death so hard and needed someone to lash out at. However, letting his friend's death eat away at him and fuel an unfounded hatred for William made me start to dislike Abel. I never reached the point of truly disliking either character, but by the end of the novel I was much more firmly on William's side than Abel's. William only reacted to Abel the way he did because Abel came after him first. They became two petty children squabbling over pride and dollar signs, forgetting something they had both learned earlier in life: the importance of family and love.

Speaking of Harry Osborne, by the way, Archer is a master of secondary characters. When we are first introduced to Osborne, he seems like a one-off guy. He just waltzed in, destroyed William's mother's life, and left. For Archer to weave Osborne back into the story without it seeming forced or plot device-y was truly ingenious. He does this with many other minor characters, especially in the banks. The way they come and go feels realistic. There are certainly coincidences in these characters that link William and Abel, but they don't feel forced. I mean, even the part where Abel saves William on the battle field didn't feel horribly forced. It did feel a little deus ex machina, but it was written beautifully (yet also simply) enough that I was pretty okay with it.

The most obvious of those coincidental interactions (though by no means are these "secondary" characters) is Florentyna and Richard. I was truly impressed with how naturally Archer set up their meeting. He sets it up beforehand so the reader knows it's not weird for rich families to come into contact in New York; recall Abel waiting William's table before Abel comes into his money. This was also an era with fewer people. Anyway, it seemed plausible that Florentyna would be where she was and Richard where he was. Their romance felt true and honest. I will insert a small complaint that both father's enraged reaction to the marriage of their children and subsequent estrangement of those children felt a little too Rom & Jul. I totally understand William shutting Abel down (since Abel did refuse to hear him out years ago), but THESE ARE YOUR CHILDREN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT! Abel's only child and William's only son! I feel like even two people who hated each other as much as they did would begrudgingly attempt to reconcile based on how important these children were to them. 

Overall though, I really loved the characters. Archer does a great job of having a realistically sized cast of characters without overloading the reader with names to remember (I'm looking at you, Robert Jordan). The reader can get into a rhythm of forgetting unimportant, one-off characters but remembering certain names (like Henry Osborne) when they're brought up later. That coupled with the authentic language and history of the novel makes the reader feel like they've taken a trip through time to the early to mid 1900s. 

Themes, History, Writing Style, Etc

Speaking of the history, wow, does Archer know his stuff. He writes convincingly and knowledgeably about a HUGE span of time (1906-1967). So much history happens in that time!! I mean you've got two World Wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, and all the wars and prisoner camps and stuff going on in Europe. It's amazing to watch Archer carefully place historic events in his characters lives (like William's father perishing on the Titanic), and again, it feels so realistic. It's like you're watching these historical events unfolding in real time as opposed to reading them from a history textbook or learning the facts cold. They feel relevant to the characters and to the reader. 

I also have to throw out there that I love how simply Archer writes. 

Side note: I keep feeling this need to compare him to Robert Jordan, and I think that's because though I love Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series, the things he failed at were performed masterfully by Archer. 

Continuing on. 

Archer has the ability to choose exactly the right words to deliver emotion, realism, and beautiful imagery in the simplest way possible. He never goes overboard with the dialogue and never dumps a sensory overload of scenery. He is always pushing the plot forward. You never feel like you're sitting in one place too long--though I will admit in some of the longer banking scenes, I kind of just wanted it to be over with. It came dangerously close to feeling like jargon-overload (a la "The Girl Who Played with Fire"), but never quite crossed that line. Archer knew when to back off. 

Finally, I just want to discuss how much the ending broke my heart. I'm happy that William and Abel were able to more or less bury the hatchet, but it destroyed my soul that William died just before meeting his extended family. In those last few moments, you really saw William the way he used to be in his prime--after you were done being annoyed with him for being a spoiled child, but before he became a bitter old man consumed with hate and pride. It was done realistically, but also logically--remember my gripe from "Pictures of You," that I didn't get the why of things ending the way they did? Here, you got it. They both finally realized what was really important and shelved their hatred, but not before they broke each other entirely. I think it's good that they both "succeeded"--they destroyed each other's reputations and dreams (William's of retiring and his son taking over, Abel's of being the Ambassador to Poland) and realized how hollow those things felt--because they spent the years after Florentyna and Richard's elopement kindling hate instead of love. They (especially William, who I feel even worse for than Abel because it's not his damn fault this whole stupid feud started anyway--but perhaps it's justifiable because Abel deserves to live with that guilt?) missed out on watching their dearest children create a life together, and their grandchildren's formative years, and for what? 

I was flying through the last 100 pages or so, not going to lie. The climax of the feud came suddenly and it came quickly. I was as astounded as Abel when he returned to accusations of bribery, and I think I gasped aloud when it was revealed that William's successor was the one who sold his 2% to Abel. Damn good story telling, Mr. Archer.

My Rating: 5/5

I truly loved this book. The few moments I pointed out that felt a little out of place weren't enough to detract from how much I enjoyed it. The characters are beautifully written and realistic; the history is seamlessly incorporated and thoroughly researched; the plot is exciting (Archer got me interested in bankers, for the love of God--that's impressive) and fast-paced...there's nothing to hate about this book. I recommend it highly.

Book 11 -- The Fault in Our Stars by John Green

Nice Shakespeare reference there, John Green. I like it.

Spoilers ahead AS USUAL.

Context:

The Fault in Our Stars is the widely popular YA fiction about Hazel Lancaster, a sixteen year old girl with terminal lung cancer who hates going to her Support Group. That is, until Augustus Waters--an amputee with osteosarcoma--shows up and changes everything.

My Thoughts:

Well, I certainly didn't hate it.

On the good stuff:

I discuss my inability to believe in the characters later, but when they do sound believable, it's really good stuff. I especially like Hazel's reaction to correspondence from her favorite author: "WHAT IS LIFE!?" Someone's been on Tumblr.

I think he does a good job of capturing the pain and reality of cancer. I can't say this with certainty, because the only family member I've lost to cancer lived a state over from me, but it didn't feel like a Lifetime movie, at any rate. I like that he addresses how people are always painted as heroes when they die and how that's kind of bullshit--as if bad people don't die.

The Amsterdam trip was actually quite nice. I liked their little adventures. Very sweet, very emotional and thoughtful. The imagery was really lovely and kind of made me want to go to Amsterdam.

Andddd...the way she took care of him as he died was really sweet. Believable Mature Teenager moment. I felt really bad for Augustus at the gas station. 

Also:

"The world is not a wish-granting factory."

Accurate.

On the bad stuff:

Hazel and Augustus are the same person. The only difference between them is anatomy and Augustus's desire for his death to be a legacy. In that vein, they spout out these ridiculously philosophical quotes and metaphorical theories that are more befitting of the Wise Sage archetype than the Mature Teenager. I truly understand that these kids have been through some life-changing stuff, but going through something world-shaking like cancer doesn't suddenly give you the ability to quote classic literature in daily speech and reference obscure quotes that I, a 24-year-old grad student, have to Google (I'm thinking specifically of "sword of Damocles"--what the hell?). So much of it just sounds like he is trying very hard to wax philosophical and it usually doesn't work for me.

I also don't get the whole "great love" thing. What do they know about each other besides cancer and An Imperial Affliction? Do they ever have a conversation about anything else? I can't think of one.

Also...Van Houten, what the hell? While I liked his character development, the whole "him coming to America" thing was very, very weird and unbelievable to me.

My Rating: 2.5/5

Not an awful book by any means, but not particularly striking for me, either. Not a waste of time, but there are some really flat moments that stink of "trying too hard." Does handle cancer in a believable way, so if you like crying over the human condition, give it a shot.

Book 10 -- The Body in the Library by Agatha Christie

Did you know that Agatha Christie is the most widely published author in the world, falling just short of Shakespeare and the Bible? Now you know!

Context:

The Bantrys wake to find the body of a young woman in their library. They don't know who she is or why she is there, but when another young girl is murdered nearby, the connection is clear: something foul is at play. Esteemed amateur sleuth and adorable old spinster Miss Marple is brought in by Mrs. Bantry to discover the truth of the situation before her and her husband's reputations are ruined by the affair.

My Thoughts:

I've never been much of a mystery girl, but I really enjoyed this novel.

First, I like the time period. I've always gotten a kick of  late Victorian and early 20th century language--you know, when they used to say "fantastic" to mean something wildly unimaginable, or "gay" to mean happy, and all that kind of stuff. It's also interesting to see how different it was solving crimes Back Then. Today we have television shows like CSI and SVU and other such things that give us ideas about how crime solving works, but they had far less technology in the period Agatha Christie wrote. The character of Miss Marple is something of a Sherlock Holmes, without the ramped up ego and label of Genius. It was interesting to see her suss out the details based on human observation and uncharacteristic cynicism of human nature. I think my fiance would like this book a lot. He prides himself on his observational skills, so I wonder if he'd be able to figure it out. I sure didn't. I was totally wrong.

Though one thing that annoyed me--due to my own personal issues rather than anything wrong with the novel--was Mrs. Bantry's obsession with how people talked about them. It was clearly emphasized how important public opinion was. And I get it. It's totally historically accurate. In today's society, we can afford to be independent and self-important; in the era which Christie wrote and wrote about, communities well and truly depended on each other for everything from employment to reliable professionals (for instance, you wouldn't want the only doctor in your small community to think poorly of you). And sure, some of it was superficial and more about socializing, but socializing was important, and could only be accomplished if certain social etiquette was observed. Nowadays, social etiquette isn't really important, at least not to the degree of propriety it used to be. It's an interesting way of living, but it just irritates me that so much importance had to be placed on other people's opinions.

I also really like Christie's tone. She has a sense of humor that is subtle, and her characters each have a distinct personality that doesn't feel forced or overly structured. There's also a point where she references herself--a young boy claims he has autographs from many mystery authors, and the boy names Christie as one of them. Teehee.

I also like her obvious feminism. Considering the book was published in 1942, it was rather daring of her to have so many women at the forefront of her novel. The detective who solves the crime is a woman; one of the murderers is a woman; the victims are women; and in fact, quite a number of the supporting cast are women. Each of these women is a character who would pass a novel version of the Bechdel test. I applaud your progressive stance, Agatha Christie!

The actual story was wonderful. I read this book in a day. I was fascinated by the storyline, and remember earlier in my blog when I mentioned how not many authors can pull off a twist without it feeling unoriginal or forced? Well, Christie is apparently the Mother of the Surprise Ending; I didn't expect her ending at all, and it didn't feel contrived, scripted, or forced in any way. She had me guessing from the get-go, and I loved every minute of it. Marple felt real;  unlike the well-loved Sherlock Holmes, whom we are supposed to simply accept as a savant, Marple is simply an old lady with a keen eye for detail and a cynical view of human nature. 

My Rating: 4.5/5

An extremely well written novel with believable characters, an intriguing plot, and a great pace. There's no real identifiable reason why I didn't quite feel this novel was a five; simply a feeling I had where I was intrigued, but not grabbed. I wasn't hooked, maybe because there wasn't a lot of action. It was mostly dialogue and descriptions of action. Perhaps if we could have seen one of the murders in action, cloaked in anonymity, it would have grabbed me more. 

Book 9 -- Pictures of You by Caroline Leavitt

This was an adventure outside of my usual reading comfort zone. So let's hop to it!

Context:

Isabelle is running from her imploding marriage when she crashes her car into a woman who is running away as well. Isabelle must come to terms with what the accident does to her life, and simultaneously becomes entangled with the lives of the surviving husband and son.

My Thoughts:

At first, I didn't really care for this novel. I honestly felt like I was reading a cheesy country song (no offense, country music--I grew up on you and I love you dearly) for a little while. And the characters were infuriating. Maybe it wouldn't have been so maddening if the novel wasn't third person omniscient. At any rate, it's annoying to me that Charlie knows that April is a free spirit, acknowledges that she acts flighty and disconnected and likes to take random road trips, and then gets all confused when he doesn't keep the romantic spark alive and smothers her with suburban American life and she runs away. Well, duh.

I also felt really frustrated with the way things turned out. See, I'm a bit picky and weird and don't make a lot of sense. I really enjoy endings that break free from the norms (as in, not everything is a happy ending), but I still want the happy lovey romance stuff to work out in the end. So on the one hand, I'm happy that it was more realistic and it wasn't like "And Isabelle and Charlie lived happily ever after!" But it was also so obvious that Charlie and Isabelle always loved each other and that they settled with the people they ended up with. Excuses about Sam be damned, they could have made their way back to each other at some point. Or Charlie could have, you know, not been an ass and tried the whole long distance thing until Sam was stronger.

I don't know, I guess this is why I don't read romantic dramas a lot. I realize the novel is realistic in many aspects, and I do appreciate that, but I also craved something more for Isabelle and Charlie. I tried to be understanding of Isabelle's paranoia and clinginess, and of Charlie's wishy-washy, one foot in one foot out crap, but I just wanted to slap both of them.

Oh, and the final reveal about April--equal parts surprising and unsurprising. Like on the one hand, we already knew she wasn't planning on taking Sam with her, but to really know for sure that she was planning on leaving her family behind...yeah April was established as impulsive and flaky but to abandon your kid? Seriously lady? Getting the story from Bill was a nice surprise, and much needed closure. 

I did enjoy getting a POV from Sam, and it was really great when he finally realized his mother was really, truly dead. Such an emotional scene. I also enjoyed that the closing chapter of the novel was from an adult Sam's POV. I'm glad he got closure with Isabelle. 

Some of the themes were slap you in the face obvious, but the author has a really great style of writing, so despite the fact that I could see right through most of the metaphors, illusions, and themes, it didn't bother me too much because her beautiful writing eased me through it. 

My Rating: 3/5

A surprising read that takes a while to warm up to, Pictures of You explores some interesting themes and offers a creative, interesting story that actually feels fresh. If you're not a fan of romantic dramas, it may be hard to believe in the story, but the author's well-written characters and beautiful dialogue help ease the process along so that it doesn't feel like a Fabio-emblazoned stereotype.

Book 8 -- The Giver by Lois Lowry

I read this book in elementary school, and I don't think I really grasped it back then. So I re-read it in anticipation of the oncoming movie (which looks awful, by the way).

Context:

Jonas lives in the perfect world. Spouses and careers are hand-picked for each person; there is no war, pain, fear, or emotion whatsoever. However, when Jonas is selected to be the Receiver of Memory--a rare, prestigious honor--he learns that there used to be more to the world than his daily routine. 

My Thoughts:

Okay now I remember why I thought of this book when I read Divergent: the age ceremonies! Of course, the age ceremonies are more about assignments and the Choosing Ceremony is about choice, but still.

So anyways, I just really really love this book so much. 

I love how it's not your typical dystopian novel. Things are bad without being bad. Jonas doesn't even realize what a controlled world he's living in until he receives memories from the Giver. And this leads to an interesting discussion and moral conundrum: should people be allowed to make choices? What is the inherent value of these choices? This is something Jonas struggles immensely with and something I think would be fun to introduce into a classroom. 

On the one hand, you can't miss what you don't know. So Jonas's friends and family live in a world without love, color, music, weather, or career options--is that really so bad? As readers, we balk at the idea of someone taking away our emotions and the nuances of life--but only because we are so spoiled by them. They also have no heartbreak, no pain, no lies, no war, no illness. What's so wrong with that? Jonas would have lived a perfectly content life, never knowing any different had he not been selected as the Receiver of Memory.

And then, of course...we know that pain is what makes us human. Our ability to process and experience emotions and experiences and change based on what we learned is key to our identities. Without some sense of personal relevance, we are nothing more than robots. What is even the point of life if we all continue on the same structured, bland, neutralized path planned out by someone with our "best interests" in mind? Even if our choices end up being destructive, shouldn't we have the right to make those choices?

DO YOU SEE HOW FASCINATING THIS BOOK IS YET?

I just wish we had more back story. How did Jonas's world come to be this way? How many communities like Jonas's are there? Are there other communities with different rules? Is there still war and all those other things Jonas received memories of, and they're just sheltered from it somehow (much in the same way Chicago was a pocket unto itself in Divergent)? 

And the whole ending is just so freaking sad. I know Lowry has released sequel novels to The Giver that kind of explain what happens, but before that, the ending was just a huge question mark. Does Jonas and the baby die? I always thought they kind of did, because it was just so convenient how they 'stumbled' upon the exact scenario from Jonas's first memory. 

This is a very short book, but it's slammed full of interesting themes and fantastically written scenes. 

My Rating: 5/5

Hands down one of my favorite books I've ever read. The plot makes sense, the characters feel very real, and I love that it's a dystopian with a utopian face. Lowry creates an incredibly imaginative world that makes the reader question everything they know about the human experience. This is a book that will make you feel and think, and will leave a lasting impression on you.

Book 7--V for Vendetta by Alan Moore & David Lloyd

Read this for class and decided to count it towards my 50 because I had been planning on reading it one day anyway. So there!!

Context:

The story takes place in England; an England changed by war and rendered a fascist dictatorship. One man, V, takes on the likeness of Guy Fawkes to enact violent acts of rebellion to encourage the people towards anarchy. V wants more than revenge for wrongs done to him in what is essentially a concentration camp; he wants the right the wrongs done to society. He saves a woman, Evey, from being raped, and raises her as his protege. Evey eventually takes on the likeness of Guy/V and becomes a revolutionary in his stead.

My Thoughts:

I really thought I was going to like this novel a whole lot more than I did, but keep in mind that my feelings towards this book are slanted by my distaste for and lack of understanding in politics as a whole. 

First of all, a lot of the white male characters in this graphic novel look the same to me. This is probably a personal issue, but I honestly just couldn't remember who was who half the time, which made the whole thing confusing to read.

Secondly, a lot of the political intrigue didn't quite come off to me. Again, I have a hard time understanding politics, so that's probably most of why I didn't quite get it, but I didn't find myself truly interested in the story until we found out what happened to V in the concentration camp.

Which, speaking of, hello dystopian theme of governments using chemicals and serums against people! Poor V. It's pretty easy to sympathize with his character.

Speaking of V, I enjoyed all the different perspectives we got, even though I wasn't always sure whose perspective I was getting. It gave the story a sense of fullness and completion, and you really got to see everything instead of just focusing on V's experiences. The Leader was crazier than a sack full of rabid badgers, just, by the way.

I just really like V as a whole, regardless. How he continues to hoard literature and other cultural things that the government has forbidden, how he continues to educate himself, how he is so talented at martial arts and tactics. He pulls quite a few tricks over on the government. And he blows up their buildings. Which is awesome.

Though there were some points where my confusion muddled the progression of the story. Like one minute V left Evey in the street for no obvious reason and then she was living with some guy that she was in love with and some random guy kills him and slow down what the hell is going on

V's death was really fitting too. I can't even tell you how angry I would have been had Evey removed his mask.

My Rating: 3/5

I enjoyed the action, the violence, the dystopian themes, and the idea of V's story. All of these things were convincing, well-written, and powerful. However, I personally found myself rather confused with some of the characters and the progression of the story. 

Book 6--Allegiant by Veronica Roth

*throws this book out the window*

I am so totally 100% white-girl done with this book right now.

Let's just get right to it.

Context:

After revealing the shocking news that she and her fellow faction people are actually a little a science experiment, Tris joins with a group of people against Evelyn called the Allegiant who want to figure out exactly what lies beyond the fence. In joining them, Tris hopes that she and Tobias can start life anew. Instead, she learns the secret that ties everything together--pure genes (Divergent genes) and damaged genes (er, everyone else). She quickly learns that humans will find a reason to fight no matter where or what over, and ends up joining another revolution--this one with heavy consequences.

My Thoughts:

major huge ridiculous wtf spoilers ahead

Okaaaaaaaay. Deep breath, kids, we'll make it through this.

So.

The Good:

Genes: Sooo the genes thing was actually pretty interesting. I haven't read anything yet (except Brave New World ) that really addressed the idea of toying with genes, but it's interesting to see what understanding your biological makeup does to people. I mean, Tobias takes the whole not-really-Divergent thing kind of hard. But it does open up more interesting questions about how the serums work.

The journal: Hooray for Tris getting to learn more about her parents! This was super interesting to me, especially since Tris's mom was from this outside world that Tris is unfamiliar with. I think it helps her make sense of things, which makes me much happy.

Human Nature: This whole triology has really wrestled with the complexity of human nature. What drives people to do the things they do? How much of who we are is predetermined, and how much is a choice? I think these novels handle those heavy questions really well, even when it made me sad or angry. People are nasty, screwed up creatures, but they are also capable of great love and great sacrifice.

The Dual POVs: A lot of people hated that Tobias and Tris both get viewpoints, but I thought it was necessary. Tobias was hiding some stuff from Tris, things that are essential to his character development that we wouldn't have seen without a POV from him. So, yeah, Tobias does some dumb stuff and it's kind of a red flag in terms of the ending but I felt it was necessary.

The Bad:

That Nita Bitch: Everything about this girl screams sketchy and yet everyone wants to go along with her little plan, which ends up killing way more people than I want to think about and accomplishing basically nothing. It angers me to no end that Tobias trusted her over Tris, especially after everything that happened in Insurgent. Tris has proven herself to be strangely perceptive and reliable at this point. Just because you're having a tantrum that your genes aren't perfect doesn't mean you should be an idiot.

Uriah: Considering everything else that happens in this novel was it really necessary to kill Uriah like WAS IT REALLY NECESSARY VERONICA!? 

More Crazy Government Stuff: Ohhh, the whole wiping people's memories thing just...ahhhhhhhhhh. Just why? Part of me is like, who cares what happens to the factions inside the walls? Seriously, everything is going to hell in a basket of razor blades over there, forget about it. On the other hand, I understand why they want to get Uriah's family and talk to Evelyn and all that. It's just interesting to think about the importance of memory, especially in conjunction with a lot of the books I've been reading lately for an oppressive government text set for my English class (memory is a key factor in many dystopian novels, from The Giver to 1984 to Brave New World and on and on). Memories are more than identity markers and growth checkpoints; they're proof of how things used to be, and inciting forces to change the present and future. Without their memories, the citizens of Chicago would just be molding clay for the government--which is decidedly inhuman and immoral. I think Tris begins to realize that wherever there is potential for power, there is potential for human corruption, and it's basically inescapable. Yay.

The Genes: While I found a lot of the genetic stuff interesting, a simple Google search after reading the book showed me that some of the things she proposed didn't make sense. It kind of ruined the entire plot of the book. I wish she had put more research in, because even though I'm really good at hanging my disbelief on a hook, it still bugs me. While I still enjoyed the book overall, I re-read parts of it after doing some genetics research and found myself frustrated with the way things were happening.

The Ending:

I don't really know what to say.

I've never read a novel where the author killed off the main character. I spent the entire novel thinking Tobias was going to die (I knew someone was going to die and that was just my gut feeling), only to get slapped in the face with this. What the what? I cried. A LOT. Unlike some fans, I understand why Roth wrote this ending. And I understand Tris's reasoning for what she did. I feel like all those what is bravery/what is selflessness questions we wrestled with in this series came full circle for Tris, and that she really got it in those last moments.

My question though, is why couldn't they have BOTH gone? I mean, no, Caleb probably wouldn't have made it through the death serum, but we might could have had a nice little scene where Caleb gets that same lightbulb moment as Tris, and saves her from the bullet for the right reasons.

And even if Roth toyed with that idea and couldn't see it making sense, I still hate Caleb (even more than Peter or Jeanine or Evelyn or Marcus) because he was incapable of love or personal growth. He was incapable of thinking of someone else except in terms of what it meant for him personally. Tris saw right through him. He didn't want to sacrifice himself because he believed in the cause, but because he felt he was obligated to for some abstract reason that he didn't really get.

And poor Tobias, God Almighty. That whole last part of the book was so painful to read. I think I started crying around the time he found out Tris died and didn't stop until about five minutes after I put the book down. The whole last part was really well written and absolutely heart-wrenching.

My Rating: 3/5

The dual perspectives, while necessary, left something to be desired; Tobias didn't seem to have his own personality, at least not the one we thought he had based on his interactions with Tris in the first two novels. The scientific explanation feels shaky at best and leaves a lot to be desired. Some parts dont' feel believable, but despite a relatively weak story, the character development and grand finale really save this book. I mostly liked it more than Insurgent because Tris and Tobias finally have some romantic moments. Yay.

For a more detailed look at the problems with Allegiant (I agree with most of her points, but not quite as vehemently, and I certainly didn't hate the book), check out this review: http://myallegiantreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/breaking-down-ending-to-allegiant.html

I certainly didn't hate the book by any means but I get most of her points.

Book 5--Insurgent by Veronica Roth

The semester is over!! Full steam ahead! Read ALL of the books!!

I read the Divergent triology within the same week, but it's taken me a while to get these reviews up. Hopefully I'll be back on track soon!

Context:

After stopping the simulation driving Dauntless members to kill Abnegation, Tris is on the run. She and her group find refuge at the Amity compound. Tris learns secrets about the factions she never dreamed of (Amity using peace serum, for instance) and before long finds herself in many a terrifying situation: among the factionless, where she discovers Tobias's mother is alive; among the Candor, where she confesses under truth serum to killing Will; and among the Erudite, where she has marched in to try and stop all the madness by sacrificing herself. Tris agonizes throughout on thoughts of bravery and selfishness vs selflessness. The novel concludes with a shocking death and an equally shocking revelation.

My thoughts:

Sooo Insurgent.

I spent a LOT of this book being irritated with Tris and Tobias. Needless, immature bickering! Agh! I guess it's to be expected from a couple of teenagers, but the ridiculousness was painfully transparent.

Things that were cool: 

Ooh the serums. The governmental control plot thickens! Everyone is disillusioned thinking they actually have some choice in how they live their lives, but even the Amity are controlled by serum. Very interesting!

Evelyn being alive--holy plot twist!! Too bad she ends up being just as bad as Jeanine, though less annoying. Being a survivor of an abusive relationship earns you a few sympathy points.

Tris stabbing Eric--YESSS. I hate Eric. 

Tris confessing to killing Will: Always going to cheer for character growth, but it was a really sad moment. Poor Christina! I feel for her, though girl could have probably not been so catty towards Tris. Will was being controlled and Tris didn't know what else to do (though: couldn't she have shot him in the foot?)

I love the development of Uriah, Marlene, and Lynn. I'm worried the movie is going to leave them out totally--Uriah had what amounts to a CAMEO, when he was so much more than that in the first book...where does this leave him and our other favorite Dauntless born initiates come the Insurgent movie? At any rate, I loved watching their character development--they really become more than secondary characters.

Peter and his weird allegiances: I don't like Peter in general, but one thing I DO like about his character is his obvious psychopathy. I think he truly suffers from a mental illness that renders him incapable of relating to other humans. He's interesting, if nothing else. He deals with humans strictly on a business like basis. Who owes who what? Terrifying, but interesting. 

The Edith Prior factor: Hello cliffhanger, was wondering if you'd show up again! Nothing quite like finding out you were nothing more than guinea pigs in a little 'save the world' experiment and the Divergent that you're so scared of are truly your saviors. Hooray!

Things that were not so cool:

Tobias ignoring Tris's advice because he has mommy issues: this becomes a recurrent theme through the last two books and I really just want to punch him in the face. Your woman is the superhero protagonist, LISTEN TO HER. This annoyed me severely throughout the book. As much as I love a super strong female protagonist, I want to see some romance too, dang it. And I just did not get what I wanted. There is a fine balance to strike between angst and romance and so many of their moments fell on the angst side. It was emotionally exhausting. 

Tris having to make the decision that results in the death of Marlene: it was good writing. It was really emotional and hard to read. But I was just really starting to like Marlene when this happened. It was truly terrible and disturbing to realize the kind of things the government could do. It actually made me think of the Imperius Curse a little bit.That kind of power in the wrong hands is just...unstoppable. I understand why Tris saved the kid instead of Marlene and whoever the mystery person was but UGH.

Tris turning herself in to Jeanine: Not cool Tris. NOT COOL. The one thematic thing I really like in this book is the fine line between bravery and stupidity, and the meaning of sacrifice--when is it appropriate, and when is it selfish foolishness? While Tris turning herself in set us up to explore those themes quite thoroughly, it's pretty obvious where Tris's action lies on the Spectrum of Sacrifice, and it's not on the end that her mom and dad were on.

Caleb's betrayal: I actually hate Caleb more than Peter. I don't care about your non-Divergence, she's still your sister, you incredible piece of crap.

Tris lying to Tobias AGAIN: I understand why she wanted to help Marcus, but GOD TRIS HAVE YOU NOT LEARNED TO JUST BE HONEST BY NOW LIKE PLEASE. The whole situation is snarled and crazy, and revenge thirsty Tori ends up killing Jeanine before Tris can get the information she wants anyway.  

My rating: 3/5

I definitely liked this book less than Divergent. Tris's angst was almost insufferable at points, but there was some really creative dystopian government stuff that didn't feel like something I'd seen before. The idea of the factions being an experiment was interesting, and some of the moral issues raised thought provoking questions. Overall, I was just ready to get to the third book by the end, but I still enjoyed it.

Book 4--Divergent by Veronica Roth

Oops it's been a few months.

I predicted correctly that I would drown in grad school work. I found time among the madness to pick up the latest YA dystopian craze--Divergent.

Context:

Beatrice Prior lives in the remains of Chicago in a society divided into five factions: Abnegation, Candor, Dauntless, Erudite, and Amity. Each faction represents a virtue which is theoretically the "most" valuable to successful government and life (for example, the selfless Abnegation are the leaders of the government). On her sixteenth birthday, Beatrice takes an aptitude test which is supposed to tell her to which faction she is best suited. But the test doesn't work on her--her instructor fearfully tells her that she is Divergent. Beatrice must decide then which faction to choose and conceal her Divergence. 

As always, spoilers ahead.

My thoughts:

I did not expect to love this book so much. In fact, I didn't realize how much I loved it until I finished the third book, Allegiant. It didn't grab me the same way The Hunger Games or Harry Potter did, but I still loved it. 

Beatrice is your typical rebellious, do-it-yourself teenage female protagonist, but I still liked her. Perhaps she is relatable because being Divergent is more of a "natural" state of being--none of us can truly say we know people who are always selfless, or always honest, for instance. At any rate, I like Beatrice's voice, and I enjoy her strange, faction-divided world. The aptitude test was fascinating to me; like a virtual reality personality test. Equal parts creepy and awesome. The Choosing Ceremony reminded me vaguely of The Giver, though I haven't read that book in a while so I can't place my finger on exactly why. 

Man, Tris joining Dauntless was just awesome. The whole train thing and jumping off a building thing...it's interesting to put yourself in that position and think, wow, what would I do in that situation? Would I rather become factionless or die? Hmmm. 

Initiation in general was just fascinating to me. Everything about the way the Dauntless live was interesting, actually. I liked the idea of the chasm, and I like their manifesto. Too bad your typical "gotta screw everything up now because I'm a bloodthirsty jackass" villain has to come along and muck it up. 

I like that Tris wasn't just naturally gifted or anything like that. I love Katniss, but she was apparently some kind of prodigy with a bow. Tris had to work her ass off. She had to claw her way into an initiation position. She was at the bottom of the pack, got her ass kicked several times, and continued to stand up and fight again. There was nothing special about Tris except that she left Abnegation for Dauntless; the one and only "Stiff" transfer. She beat out several Dauntless born initiates to earn her place in Dauntless. I think she's an admirable role model. 

I also love that romance isn't the focus of the book. Sure, she ends up falling in love with Four, but it's awkward and halting and very real. It's also not her primary focus. She's desperate to be a Dauntless initiate. That is her driving force. She doesn't derive her happiness or her identity from Four. I love that. 

I found the fear landscapes and the general use of serums interesting, too. It feels kind of Brave New World to me in the psychological manipulation sense. It doesn't seem too much of a reach that this could be very real in the future. Maybe not to the same degree as in Divergent, but wow, the serums (discussed here and in future books) are creepy and fascinating at the same time. 

I also like Peter. (pause for effect) I don't like him, per se, but more what he represents. Too few authors are willing to deal with "societally incorrect" mental illnesses. Everyone's all for tackling learning disabilities and autism and things like that, but most YA authors do not dare to touch things like psychopathy or sociopathy with a ten foot pole. And Peter is certainly a sociopath. He adds an interesting flavor to the mix of tributes, and especially as they books went on I enjoyed learning more about his character. 

The chasm kiss was hot. So there's that. I just love the way Tris and Four interact. They don't just sap all over each other. They're strong, and respect each other's strength. It's cute in a not-cute kind of way. If that makes any sense.

I like the way they toss bravery and selflessness up in the air. Tris is constantly battling with not feeling "selfless" enough for Abnegation, but starts to learn that there are some elements of selflessness in bravery--after all, the manifesto for Dauntless proclaims that standing up for someone and common acts of bravery are what they find admirable. These things inherently contain selflessness. I feel like this is the first "coming of age/who the hell am I" teenager story that I've read where you can actually see the protagonist growing and figuring out who she is. It's pretty cool, really. 

The whole ending was pretty cool. Tris's mom saving her, her dad saving her...ahh so many sad feels! I was a bit surprised by how quickly all this happened. I guess I expected a little more "Tris as a Dauntless" action before Shit Hit the Fan. 

I did have some complaints though. I did realize after reading the last two books that all my questions got answered, but holy hell I had so many questions at the end of this book. Which I guess is a good thing, to keep you wanting to read, but it really just left me feeling frustrated. Also, again I got the answer to this come book 3, but who thought strict separation was a truly great ideal of how humans should form their culture and society? Honestly! Yeah, let's force everyone to wear ONE color to represent the ONE ideal they all hold. Okie dokie then. 

Uggghh Jeanine Mathews. Such an annoying, smug character. I just feel like no one really gets it, you know? Everyone thinks they just know how their society should be run, and they're all stupid and wrong. You would think someone so intelligent would realize how incredibly inhuman she's being. But I guess not.

I also wish we got more "why and how" did all this stuff happen. Some of it gets answered in Allegiant, but I still have questions, dammit.

My last gripe is that there seems to be some critical research missing. Like, Roth never really seems to understand guns. She just is like oh here's a gun and Tris put some bullets in it. Okay, what kind of gun? Because a military grade weapon (like it is implied they have) would have a magazine. Not a bullet chamber. Come onnnnnnnnn.

My Rating:

I give Divergent a 4/5

Great, gripping story with well done (if not familiar) characters. Fresh take on dystopian society, though laden with some critical research errors, annoying questions, and stereotypical YA dystopian tropes. Overall, I loved it, despite its imperfections.

Book 3--Night by Elie Wiesel

I'm really irritated that it took me so long to finish this book and review it. It's just over 100 pages, so I could have/should have finished it in a day. In my defense, I started my graduate school program this week and have been doing a LOT of things. This schedule will take some adjusting to.

So my third book: Night

Context:

Elie Wiesel was 15 years old when his Jewish family was uprooted and dragged off to a concentration camp. This short but powerful autobiography chronicles his personal struggles and the horrifying abuses he endured by the Nazi party.

My thoughts:

I really enjoyed reading this autobiography. It's one of my favorite Holocaust books I've read. It's personal--unlike popular favorites like The Diary of Anne Frank, you get to see behind the fence and truly experience the horror. The title, "Night," is a perfect descriptor for the narrative--not only is it dark and terrifying, but the words "Night had fallen" are repeated numerous times throughout the semi-memoir. Elie is constantly aware of the night--physically and metaphorically. It's also symbolic of how he loses his faith in God--his faith becomes dark and silent. 

I was moved by his relationship with his father. It's interesting to see how so many boys turn on their fathers (one murders his father for a scrap of bread), but Eliezer stands by him until his horrific death. He refuses to leave him; no matter what happens, he's constantly thinking, "Where's my father?" As Elie states, it's easy to abandon all sense of humanity when your basic needs aren't being met; but for him, his father was his main reason for surviving.

It's also stunning to hear of the abuses the Nazis heaped on the Jews. Everyone knows that it was awful, but I believe we've become numb to what those horrors were like. We know they were experimented on, tortured, beaten, and starved, but it's too easy to remove ourselves from that since the vast majority of us have probably never experienced anything like that. This work, with it's beautiful and haunting prose, brings the reader into the Holocaust. Running 42 miles, the lack of food and water, the children being burned in a pit, men being hung for minor infractions...these horrors sent shivers down my spine. You can tell the author lived these things; how else could he so painfully recollect and retell these events? And God, were they brutal. Elie's description of his wounded foot, his father's suffering in the throes of death, and the horrible conditions of the trains and the barracks made me feel sick. How could any human look at another human being and inflict these cruelties on them? I hope I never have to find out.

The religious themes are also immensely fascinating to me. Most religious people try to praise God whether things are going well for them or poorly--however, when faced with senseless persecution, it's so easy to lose faith. I can't judge them for that. How could a loving, benevolent God stand by while his "chosen people" are murdered and tortured? Eliezer's experiences force him to question the cherished beliefs he once identified with. He does not completely abandon his faith, but it's interesting to watch him and the other Jews struggle with their lot in life. 

It's important to note that though I have been using Elie and Eliezer interchangeably, Elie Wiesel did change some minor details in the retelling of his story. He was silent about the Holocaust for about 10 years before he decided to write this Nobel Peace Prize winning story. This seems to be an effort on his part to continue to place some distance between himself and those events; and who can blame him? He lost everything in the Holocaust; his family, his identity, his dignity, most of his faith.

My Rating:

I give Night a 4.5/5

Elie Wiesel's autobiography is terrifying, haunting, and fascinating. His writing is absolutely gorgeous, and his emotion is tangible. Each scene leaps off the page and grabs the reader, forcing them to think about what the Holocaust actually was, as opposed to the desensitized textbook page it's usually treated as. The only reason I didn't give it a 5 was entirely personal: this book is very heavy, and left me feeling emotionally drained at the end. I would still recommend it to anyone, though.

Book 2--If I Stay by Gayle Forman

The reason I picked up this YA thriller is because on my book-a-day 2013 calendar, the reviewer likened it to The Lovely Bones, which is one of my all time favorite books.

I should have known better, honestly.

Context:

Mia is a 17-year-old high school senior and cello prodigy. She has her whole life in front of her--she's been accepted to Julliard, she has a great boyfriend, and life is just starting when she's involved in a car wreck that claims the lives of her parents and young brother. Mia then has an out-of-body experience where she observes her family and friends and she must make the decision whether she stays on Earth with them or lets go and moves on.

My thoughts:

Sigh. Okay. My main issue with this book is that it's so predictable. Of course Adam's love for Mia saves her in the end. Of course Mia is a teenage heroine who is "so different" from other teenage girls.  The symbolism her memories of the past represent pretty much slaps you in the face, never letting you figure out the themes for yourself.

I think I would have preferred this novel as a sequel to a novel that follows Mia in her pre-tragedy life only. Forman has to set up so much back story that you start feeling like she's telling the wrong story. I do enjoy some of those memories, which is one of Forman's strengths; she is good at writing poignant familial moments. Sometimes the dialogue feels forced, however. Especially in the beginning of the novel, I had a hard time believing in Mia's "cool, hip" parents. Their dialogue made me feel like I was watching one of those really bad car commercials where the actors are smiling but their dialogue is clipped and cheesy, and you can tell they're reading from a prompter. It did get better as the novel progressed, though. I ended up liking her parents, but it took half the book for me to feel comfortable with them.

I do like that it's not a stereotypical ghost story. Mia can't walk through walls or magically appear in other places when she's having her out of body experience. The novel also surprised me in its gruesomeness. The car wreck was pretty intense; I mean, her father's brain peppers the road. Though I am a little disturbed by her lack of response to that. She kind of...observes the cauliflower-like pieces of brain scattered about and....doesn't react? Pretty sure that if I saw my dad's brains decorating the pavement I'd probably...scream? Cry? Faint? I realize she was a spirit at this point but some type of reaction other than mere observance would have been more believable.

I do like that Mia seems mature for her age. She's not your Twilight Bella flinging herself off a cliff and parkouring through courtyards in Italy in her love induced craze. She and Adam seem to have a mature relationship, and I was impressed with how Mia is very self-aware; she realizes that some of her behaviors are unhealthy and unfair and she takes steps to change. She works for her relationship. I can admire that.

I also like her obsession with music. I wonder (and am too lazy to Google and find out) if Forman was a musician, because her prose regarding Mia and her connection with the cello and music is absolutely gorgeous.

My Rating:
On a scale of 1-5, I give If I Stay a 2

Forman writes beautiful memory and music scenes, but falters in creating a believable family and characters that the audience can connect to. The plot meanders through present day and memories, never becoming cohesive enough to give the novel purpose. Though there are some emotional scenes that cause brief teary-eyed moments, it's not enough to make up for the cheesy dialogue and painfully predictable YA tropes.

Book 1 -- The Girl Who Played With Fire by Stieg Larsson, Part 2

Um. So I finished The Girl Who Played With Fire tonight.

Why couldn't the ENTIRE BOOK have been as exciting as Part 4?

Here come the spoilers!

In Part 4, everything finally gets tied up. We finally learn who Zalachenko is (him being her dad was one of those semi-surprising yet not impressive mystery story twists I mentioned last post) and how he is connected to Nils Bjurman, Dag Svensson, and Mia Johansson. We also learn who murdered the latter three persons--Lisbeth's half brother?? Okay, maybe that one did catch me a bit off guard. And wow--the ending! Suitable that a person as violent as Lisbeth would encounter such a grisly almost-but-not-quite-end. So here's a more organized list of my likes and dislikes from Part 4.

Lisbeth Salander in general: I think it goes without saying that Salander is a total bad ass. I love Katniss Everdeen and Princess Merida, but Lisbeth Salander would make them (and other YA heroines) piss their panties and run away screaming. I love her cocky attitude, and I was happy that she was immediately reintroduced in Part Four. The very first page of Part Four gives us this beautiful quip:

"She was irritated by the passport photograph that appeared everywhere. She looked stupid."

No, she's not upset that she's being hunted for a crime she didn't commit, that her name is being slandered and sullied in the media; she's pissed off about her freaking passport photograph. I find that endearing.

I find that we finally get to see Lisbeth explore her potential in this book. Yes, we know from Dragon Tattoo that she is not to be taken lightly, but that book is focused more on Mikael Blomkvist and how Lisbeth comes to be in his life, and ultimately how she fixes his life. Fire focuses more on Lisbeth; her past, her problems, and the people that sculpted her into her slightly sociopathic, anti-social self. Her back story is infinitely fascinating, and it was wonderful to finally explore her character in depth.

Especially in the scene where she confronts Sandstrom--it's so interesting to see a "normal" person's reaction to her. The beauty of Larsson's writing skill comes in that he makes the audience sympathetic to a very unsympathetic person. He shows the audience the corruption of the judicial and social welfare systems, and shows what it is like to be one of those people that society shoves aside and treats with contempt. The audience sees Salander's motives, her past, her present, most of the actions she makes--the "normal" characters (police officers, other journalists, etc.) never get that advantage. Larsson invites the audience to peek behind the veil that covers the mind of a "crazy" person--and I think most readers will find themselves surprised to be on Lisbeth's side through the whole thing.

Because let's be honest, if some girl with her face painted up barged into your house, Tasered you, strung you up by your neck, and threatened to kill you if you didn't answer her questions to her satisfaction, you probably wouldn't have much sympathy for her, no matter what her childhood was like. Knowing all the details though (Salander's experience with rapists, the fact that Sandstrom is a rapist, the connection between Sandstrom and her violent father) helps clarify the picture. Life is not black and white, kids!

Additionally--another fun Salander-ism: "No security system is a match for a stupid employee." Hee.

All the Evil: Ehhhh. I kind of expected All the Evil to be something...bigger, I guess? I mean I guess it's a pretty big deal that Lisbeth tried to kill her father when she was only 12 years old, but considering all the rape, sadism, corruption, violence and scandal that the audience is introduced to over the course of Dragon Tattoo and Fire, it seems a bit underwhelming. Also, it seems I was mostly wrong about my Prologue/All the Evil assumption. I was right that it was Salander, but it seems that the Prologue was showing when Teleborian had her locked away in isolation at St. Stefan's and she was imagining the joy she got from lighting her father on fire to get her through that torture. ... Yikes.

Bjurman: Don't get me wrong, I hate Bjurman. I'm so glad he was killed. Thank you Larsson, for dispensing merciless justice to at least one rapist asshole. However, I like that he became a fairly important character in the series. I never really saw that coming--after the whole rape fiasco, I assumed Lisbeth had him quite firmly by the balls and he wouldn't be a big issue down the road. Wrong. So very, very wrong. Oh, and speaking of which, Blomkvist finding the rape DVD kind of destroyed my heart. He obviously loves Salander (though these novels are not a love story by any means--I'm in no way expecting a tender kiss and a fairytale ending come Hornet's Nest), and for him to sit there and watch something so abhorrent happen to her, only a few hours after learning about Zala being her father and all the mind-fuckery involved with the Bjorck/Security Police/Bjurman/Zala/Teleborian..um..pentagon?? ...just made me hurt so bad for him.

Action Scenes: Larsson bores me to death with his police/finance/journalism jargon, but my God, when that man writes an action scene, he absolutely kills it. The whole confrontation between Lisbeth, her father (Zala), and her half-brother (Ronald) had me reading at top speed, practically bouncing in my seat as I sped-read through to the end. I definitely did not expect her to get shot up or buried alive. I also really liked Ronald's reaction to her coming back "from the dead"--in fact, I like the way Larsson treated Ronald in general. The poor kid. He's a victim of nature AND nurture. And, despite his terrifying build and bewildering resistance to pain, he's still scared of the dark. Aww.

Also: Roberto boxing with Ronald was just mind blowingly awesome. Period. Poor Miriam, though. I hope she and Salander get to reconcile in the future.

My Rating:
On a scale of 1-5, I give The Girl Who Played With Fire a 3.5
Larsson is an incredible author. He is intelligent, thorough, and imaginative. He has a mission to expose the slimy corruption of institutes most people think they can trust, and he executes it vividly and precisely. However, at times the plot seems to drag. The police investigation is slow going, and the reader must wade through pages and pages of unending character stupidity before being rewarded with Salander's return. Names and places get lost among a mire of similar sounding names and places, and tiny details clutter up and choke the important events.

Thank you for reading! If you have any book recommendations or suggestions on how I can make this blog better, please comment and let me know. :)

Book 1 -- The Girl Who Played With Fire by Stieg Larsson, Part 1

Good evening! This post kind of feels like cheating, because I actually began this book last year. My best friend gave me the Millenium Trilogy (the books that inspired the movie The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo starring Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig) as a present, and it's been slow going.

I'm not big into mystery/crime novels. I've found (and mostly been proven right, as you will soon see) that they tend to focus on very specific underground worlds and use a lot of jargon. And no matter how skillfully crafted, I'm rarely impressed by the "big reveal," because regardless of what the reveal is, I know a reveal is coming. Mystery/crime authors are always trying to find newer, more impressive ways to shroud the real perpetrator in a dense fog before supposedly BLOWING YOUR MIND with their oh-so-creative and fantastical reveal. So even if I am surprised by the outcome, I'm rarely impressed, because I knew something like that would happen anyway.

But on to the Millenium Trilogy.

Context (Spoilers ahead!):

This novel is the sequel to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, wherein Lisbeth Salander (a social outcast and brilliant computer hacker) and Mikael Blomkvist (a disgraced journalist victimized by a large financial corporation whose illegal practices he attempts to publicize) solved a long-dead mystery involving a wealthy businessman's presumed dead granddaughter.
Salander, feeling betrayed after deciding her uncharacteristic trust in Blomkvist has been betrayed, has fled Sweden and spends a year traveling. Blomkvist becomes entangled in a big story intended to reveal big name sex offenders that his magazine, Millenium, intends to publish. However, the couple writing the story is brutally murdered in their home...and Lisbeth Salander is somehow connected and named prime suspect. Did Lisbeth Salander murder Dag Svensson and Mia Johansson? Blomkvist doesn't think so, and sets out to prove it. Meanwhile, Salander's guardian (who is also her rapist) also turns up dead, casting further scrutiny on Salander's involvement.

My Thoughts:

So far, I've read three of the four parts of the novel. Part 2 will focus on the ending, which takes up a good chunk of the novel.

First, I'd like to point out how much I admire the blurbs that introduce each part. Each one is from Fermat's Last Theorem, and, well, I hate math. I understand the blurbs enough to understand that they are clever metaphors, referencing "irregular equations," "equality", "unknowns", and "absurdities," all of which are obviously meant to illustrate not only Salander's strange hobby of obscure mathematics, but Salander herself, an absurdity to those who encounter her, an irregular occurrence in their structured lives.

I also deeply admire Larsson's  intelligence and dedication. Especially after reading Dragon Tattoo, the breadth of his knowledge and the level of research the audience must presume he tackled is staggering. He easily and with great detail explains real historical events and geography of Sweden, financial corporations and their various ways of illegally obtaining money, the industry of journalism, the inner workings of the Swedish police force, and Salander's computer hacking abilities--on top of weaving a pretty solid mystery. Larsson could write the "for dummies" book on all of these topics.

The flip side to all that research is that occasionally I found certain elements of the book hard to follow. Some Swedish words look like my cat sat on my keyboard for a few seconds, and that made it hard to keep up with different locations and character names. I don't mean that to sound xenophobic--I am just not familiar with words like "Zinkensdamm", "Sivarnandan", "Zalachenko", and "Enskede." Sweden is not a locale I've visited frequently in my literary adventures, and so the Swedish language has escaped my notice.

Not only does the Swedish language require some adjusting to, but a lot of the jargon goes way beyond anything I've encountered before. More so in Dragon Tattoo, but certainly still present in Fire, there is a swamp of financial, judicial, and criminal jargon to wade through. It occasionally makes me feel like I'm reading a textbook, and takes away from my enjoyment of the novel. While I understand that it is necessary in this type of novel, it's what I meant when I said earlier that mystery and crime novels tend to be filled with very specific vocabulary that I don't always comprehend.

The benefit of that vocabulary is evident in the realism of the novel. I love how Larsson shows how nasty the police force can be. It's so easy in our modern society to shove police corruption in an infrequently visited closet, and what little is publicized usually gets chalked up to media sensationalism. One of the police officers on Salander's tale is blatantly sexist and homophobic. One of the other officers leaks information to the press. Also, part of Dag Svensson's report on sex crimes involves revealing the names of upstanding and prominent members of the Swedish police force.

Larsson also does not shy away from sex crimes, a matter he addresses in both Dragon Tattoo and Fire. From Salander's multiple sexual relationships and her rape, to the sex crimes committed by the villain of Dragon Tattoo, to the sex trafficking problem in Fire, Larsson gives gut churning descriptions of all the blood chilling violence these crimes create. And while it can be uncomfortable to read, I believe that Larsson viewed it as necessary. Larsson was a political activist who believed in equal rights, and I think he wanted to slap people with the brutal realism of what these crimes are like for the victims. Let me tell you, he hits hard.

I found the way he set up the premise for the second installment enthralling, if not a bit predictable. The prologue introduces us to a girl, captured and restrained in a dark room by an unknown man. She deals with her torture by imagining lighting a man (presumably her captor, but the text is ambiguous) on fire. Once Lisbeth Salander makes reference to "All the Evil" in her mysterious past later on, I immediately presumed it was her in the prologue. I could be wrong, but I'll let you know once I reach the end. (:

After this, we watch Salander a while longer, until she returns to Sweden. Once there, we get a mixed bag of Blomkvist and Salander's experiences--Salander getting a new apartment, Blomkvist meeting Dag and Mia, Salander visiting her first guardian in the hospital, etc.--until the murders happen. And then Salander is gone. For the entirety of Part 3, we hear nary a word from her. I'm hoping she resurfaces quickly in Part 4, because while waiting to hear from her has kept me on the edge of my figurative seat, I find the police officers stupid, annoying, and slow. Come back Lisbeth! You're so funny and edgy and different, and these police officers are actual idiots!

Whew! Remind me to work on not sounding like I'm writing an essay so much. I'm really quite an entertaining person, but whenever I write about literature I almost immediately go into "paper writing" mode.

Stay tuned for part 2!

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to the Fifty Book Project! My name is Christy, and I'm a book lover who has lost her way.

Let's be honest--there are tons of amazing television shows on. Doctor Who, Sherlock, Supernatural, The Walking Dead, and Once Upon a Time are just a sampling of the fantasy worlds that occupy a large amount of my time. But in between the zombies, the fairytale characters, and the time traveling, I haven't picked up a book in ages. The last time I remember getting so excited about a book that I just couldn't put it down was when I read the Hunger Games (and I read that for the first time about 2 years ago).

This has prompted me to resolve to read more in 2014. My original goal was 100 books, but considering everything that's going on in my life, I think 50 is still crazy but slightly more manageable.

So a little more about me--I'm 23 and working towards a Master's degree in secondary education. Classes actually start a week from today, and I'm really excited to get started! I already have a Bachelor's in English, and I have to say, when picking a major in college--go for what excites you! I had so much fun in my upper level English classes, and I wouldn't trade that for any high-powered lawyer job or fancy doctor's position in the world (though my parents sure wish I would).

I also have a full-time, soon to be part-time, job, and am engaged to the most amazing man in the world. :) Our wedding will probably  happen in late 2015, so much of the planning will probably start happening during my second and third semesters this year.

So there you go! Join me as I journey through different genres and worlds this year. First book should be coming soon!