Book-Related Pet Peeves

I don't usually do internet memes, but this one, from The Broke and the Bookish, really made me think.  Those who love to read always say that we "love everything about reading", but it isn't really true.  There are tons of things that I don't like that are book-related (not to get all negative on you).

Raping Good History (Philippa Gregory, I'm looking at you).  I understand that the whole fun of writing historical fiction is creating your own spin on it.  That's fine.  But to take history (which I always feel is better and more incredible than any fiction writer could invent) and write blatant and ridiculous lies into it to make your book sell more?  Ugh.  Criminal.

Quick-and-Dirty Plot Hole Covers.  I'll use the Harry Potter series as an example (which sucks because I love Harry Potter).  In The Chamber of Secrets, Polyjuice Potion is an extremely complicated potion to make (it takes one month for full potency) and includes rare, hard-to-find ingredients.  By The Half-Blood Prince, everyone and their mother is brewing (and using) Polyjuice Potion.  Come on.  Work a little and come up with a better cover for your plot holes.

The Current YA Literature Genre.  Every time I go into any bookstore lately, the YA shelves are full of nothing but vampire fiction.  Twilight has been done, guys.  Move on.  And in the same vein, every YA book I seem to pick up has "bland female protagonist lusting after cute but aloof male who turns out to be supernatural."  Ugh.

Adjective Overuse.  "She looked sadly out the window at the falling rain" = fine.  "She heaved a melancholy sigh as she stared balefully out of the rain-spattered window at the cold, gray rain falling from the iron-clouded sky" = you need to put your thesaurus away and tone it down a bit.

Books with Multiple Protagonists.  The only book that I've ever read that featured multiple protagonists that I liked and could follow was My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult (mainly because each protagonist got a different font in the chapters in his/her point of view).  Other times, I get confused when the first person narrative switches from one character to the next.  Too strange.

Unauthorized Prequels/Sequels.  I am sorry.  All you have managed to do is get your fanfiction published.  Also, you are riding on another author's coattails and using his or her hard work as your own.  The most difficult part about writing (IMHO) is coming up with compelling characters and a setting that interests the reader.  When you write an unauthorized prequel or sequel to an original piece that doesn't belong to you...well, the hard part is effectively over.  And I have never yet read an unauthorized sequel that was as compelling and well-written as the original.  Someday, when I have time and feel like giving myself a headache, I'll review Susan Hill's unauthorized sequel to Daphne DuMaurier's Rebecca, entitled Mrs. DeWinter...but today is not that day.

Hyped Books.  I'm stealing this one because I agree.  When a book has been so overhyped, I find myself feeling let down if it's not quite as amazing as I heard it was.  Which makes me not want to read overhyped books.  I have been proven wrong a few times (Memoirs of a Geisha, The Hunger Games series, etc.), but overall, I find I'm disappointed when a book has been over-exposed.

Re-writes of a Well-Known Series.  Everyone was buzzing about the Sweet Valley High books being rewritten to update them to the 2000s instead of the 1980s.  I went through these books like crack when I was a teenager, so I picked a copy of the "updated" series in Borders to check it out.  Thank God I didn't buy it.  The "updated" slang was terrible, and really, making the twins a size 4 instead of a size 6?  Ridiculous.  And thanks for showing us that body image in the 2000s is every bit as ridiculous and vain as we already knew it was.

What are your book-related pet peeves?

Review: The Last Full Measure by Jeff Shaara

I don't generally read books out of obligation any more (I stopped doing that in graduate school), but after finishing Gods and Generals, I felt somewhat of an obligation to complete the so called "Civil War Trilogy" and give The Last Full Measure a shot.

*sigh*  Where to begin.

In The Last Full Measure, Jeff Shaara once again faces his old nemesis of biting off more than he can chew.  He picks up where The Killer Angels left off, in July 1863, describing the Confederate retreat from Gettysburg and the inability of the Union army to capitalize on their victory.  Shaara attempts to sift through the confusion by focusing on three leaders this time -- Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, and Joshua L. Chamberlain (who is really relegated to little more than a footnote in this final book).  But there is still just too much information.  The battle scenes are confusing -- without the incredibly dramatic chapter ends (Shaara explains where the battles are taking place by way of one general saying the name of the city/location i.e. "Appomatox" or "Cold Harbor" on several occasions), it's difficult to even discern where the battles are taking place.

The wounding of the superior officers gets somewhat repetitive as well.  Although Shaara's research is correct, and many commanding officers suffered major, yet not quite fatal wounds towards the end of the Civil War, his description of "the punch" in the arm or the gut for every single wounded man is repetitive AT BEST.  I concede that Shaara has never experienced a bullet or Minie ball to the stomach or one of his extremities...but a variation in the description might have served him well.

Jeff Shaara, unfortunately, is not working to the same caliber as his father Michael.  The original book, The Killer Angels, was based off of extensive research by Michael Shaara into the personal memoirs and reports of the soldiers at the battle of Gettysburg, which were then turned into a novel.  Jeff Shaara takes an alternate approach, and just writes the history.  He is more interested in telling a compelling story than he is concerned about the accuracy of emotion.  And it is painfully obvious when he was conjuring up his own interpretation of a character's reactions -- it is at these moments that his writing is most heavy, wooden, or awkward.

I said in my review of Gods and Generals that it is unfair to compare the writing of the father to that of the son.  But by attaching his body of work to his father's, Jeff Shaara opens himself up to the criticism that unfortunately I must give -- he is not his father, and the "prequel and sequel" to The Killer Angels are better read on their own, and not in connection to the Pulitzer-prizewinning novel.

Rating: **

Book Reviews, Thicker Skins, and The Meltdown Heard 'Round the Blogosphere

Yesterday, self-published writer Jacqueline Howett had a much-publicized meltdown when she discovered that a Kindle copy of her ebook, The Greek Seaman, had received a lukewarm review on a well-read book critic's blog, BigAl's Books and Pals.  Howett's comment was the first that BigAl received on his review, and instead of thanking the reviewer, she unleashed a tirade about the poor review and demanded it be removed from the website.  Other comments followed hers, which riled her further, and she posted two explicit comments before abandoning the blog.

BigAl, in response, posted an entire entry titled, "A Word on Negative Reviews."  I encourage anyone who enjoys reading (and sometimes critiquing) books, or reading book review blogs, to check this entry out and see if it rings as true for you as it does for me.  Two parts in particular stood out to me:

"...the purpose of a book review...(is) to help readers decide if it is a book they want to buy. The primary purpose isn’t to help the author, publisher, or anyone except the reader." 

"I’ve seen two star reviews for books I’d give four or five stars. I’ve seen one star reviews on books considered “classics of literature.” If 9 out of 10 disinterested reviewers love your book then what I think shouldn’t matter."

I don't flatter myself that I have a ton of readers, and I won't kid myself into pretending that many people care about the books I read.  Though I am attempting to branch out into more fiction writing, I realize that I am thoroughly mired in history, biography, and historical fiction, and sometimes these genres don't appeal to many people.  I might give something four or five stars that you, or your friends, might think is the most boring book ever.  

I hate the Twilight series.  I have never made any bones about this, or excuses.  But I also know that these are among the most popular books in the world right now.  If I leave a one-star review on Breaking Dawn on Amazon.com, it really shouldn't matter to Stephanie Meyer -- as of today, there are 2,634 5-star reviews on Breaking Dawn's Amazon page.

Granted, Jacqueline Howett is not Stephanie Meyer.  She is a self-published author, not a multi-millionairess with a film franchise that's going to support her well into her old age.  This is probably her first brush with a seriously negative review.  But I say to you, Ms. Howett -- learn from this.  

Writing is hard.  It has to be, or everyone would be out there getting published.  There are going to be plenty of people who do not like your work, who are going to say that it sucks.  Plenty of people think that Shakespeare sucks, too.  I personally can't stand Ethan Frome, and it still is taught in high schools across the country.  It doesn't matter what the reviews say.  You must hold your head high and take the criticism like an adult.  Because it doesn't matter how well you write, or how good your books are -- someone out there is always going to have something negative to say.  What matters now -- and will always matter -- is how you respond to the criticism.

Pictures of the redecoration!

Crazy, crazy weekend!  David and I spent the majority of it at our new place, laying siege to the kitchen, bathroom, and master bedroom, aided and abetted by my father, who shared his expertise on wallpaper removal and spackling with us.

Day One (Saturday) was spent in puncturing the wallpaper, pouring glue remover on it, and stripping the paper off piece by piece.  Unfortunately, we discovered that there was paint, another layer of wallpaper, and more paint underneath the original hideous pink and beige spotted wallpaper...so that was fun.  Renting a steamer would have been easier, but less cost-efficient.  We'll keep that in mind if we ever decide to buy a house that has wallpaper.

After removing the wallpaper, we scrubbed the walls with more glue remover to get rid of the last traces of glue.  That took up the majority of Saturday.

Day Two (Sunday), we came in after church to tackle the kitchen once again.  My father was a complete rock star and spackled the entire kitchen, going over the walls that I had scrubbed clean and patching holes and cracks with putty.  He did the whole room in three hours.

I made the rookie mistake of trying to sand the rough edges of the putty without wearing a mask, and made it about 15 minutes before my father noticed what I was doing and told me to stop.  Unfortunately, that was enough time to get the grit into my lungs, which I was definitely feeling last night.  I feel better today though.

After breaking for lunch at my parents' house, we came back to tackle some of the painting.  I went into the bathroom, which used to be the color of a radioactive lemon, and painted it with the Behr Premium Paint that we got at Home Depot.  The color is "Pure Snow", but it looks exactly like Marshmallow Fluff.

Meanwhile, David went into the master bedroom and painted the walls in there.  I don't have a picture of the finished first coat, but I do have some pictures of his work-in-progress.  The color is Sherwin-Williams "Peacock Plume".

I wish my good camera was working so I could show this color accurately.  It's a really pretty greeny-blue.  Unfortunately, all I have are cell phone pictures.

Might as well say "David Was Here".  This was on Saturday, he painted this wall and the others yesterday.  The first coat of the whole room is done, he needs to go over with a second coat in places today.

Suffice to say, there was little to no reading done this weekend, and no knitting whatsoever.  I don't know how much I'll be getting done in either department this week -- I'm going to the new apartment every day for redecorating purposes.  And we move in (the bed, the clothes, the pots and pans, the cats, the guinea pig, and the TV) on Friday.  Cable will be set up on Saturday.  And the big stuff gets moved next weekend!

I can't wait until we're in and it's all done.

Review: Gods and Generals by Jeff Shaara

Loving The Killer Angels as purely as I do, it is probably odd that I have never (until now) seriously ventured into the rest of the so-called "Civil War Trilogy".  Truthfully, I had misgivings when I found out that Jeff Shaara had taken it upon himself to add a prequel and a sequel to his father's work.  I'm not a fan of other authors building on original stories.  But my father gave me the Civil War Trilogy, and it's been sitting on my bookshelf for several years now, so I thought, why the hell not?

Gods and Generals, the first book in the Trilogy, differs from The Killer Angels in the scope of its timeline.  While Angels takes place over four days (June 30th - July 3rd, 1863), Gods begins with the unsettlement of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859, before the Civil War even began.  Like his father before him, Jeff Shaara focuses on the military leaders and their points-of-view of events leading up to the war, and the battles, when they begin.  He chooses to focus on Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Winfield Scott Hancock, and the fledgling-soldier Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, with a few chapters about other minor officers.

The domestic scenes, the interpersonal reactions, are where Jeff Shaara's writing shines.  I never found Michael Shaara's descriptions of battle sequences confusing, but I muddled my way through the battles of Bull Run, Second Manasses, and Antietam in a way I never did the Battle of Gettysburg.  The main issue, unfortunately, lies in the fact that Jeff Shaara has too much material to work with.  A better choice might have been to focus on one or two battles -- perhaps Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, which he writes more clearly -- instead of trying to cram so many years into one novel.  True, four years does not seem like much, until you realize that 1859 to 1863 were four extremely turbulent years.  Jeff's handicap is that he simply has too much to write about.

That being said, the humane side that Jeff gives to some of the soldiers --  noteably, Stonewall Jackson and Joshua Chamberlain -- is well-written and appreciated by this reader.  I wasn't a fan of his portrayal of Robert E. Lee, mainly because I felt it was too far from what Michael Shaara had depicted.  

It comes down to this one fact -- one cannot compare the writing of the father to that of the son.  It is just too different, the scope of writing too large.  I will be reading Jeff Shaara's sequel, The Last Full Measure, but really only to finish off the trilogy.

Rating: ** and 1/2

Review: The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara

In the summer of 1994, when I was ten years old, closing in on 11, I went to a now-defunct used-bookstore in Old Saybrook, CT, with my mom and little sister.  My sister ran for the kids' books, my mom, to the romance novel section.  I shyly approached the cashier and asked her if she would help me find a certain book.  She didn't think they had it.  But she thumbed the shelves, and there, at the very bottom, close to the floor, collecting dust, was a paperback copy of The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara.  Probably selling for less than $5.

I had just seen the film "Gettysburg" in my fifth grade class the previous year, and something about that movie captured my attention.  Other kids in my class hated it; I loved it.  I wanted to get my hands on as much literature about the battle as I could.  And during the credits of the film, the words "Based on the Pulitzer-prizewinning novel "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara" flashed across the screen, and I knew I had to read the book.  The book that became my "gateway drug" to becoming a history freak.

I read it.  Then I read it again.  And again.  I wore out that copy.  My mother found me another in a used bookstore.  I wore out that copy.  Now, seventeen years after I picked up that old paperback book in a used-bookstore, I have worn my way through four copies of The Killer Angels.

Why am I telling you all this?  By way of explaining exactly why it is so difficult for me to write an unbiased review of it.  How do I critically evaluate the book that made me the history geek I am today?  I will give it my best shot, though.  Bear with me.

The Killer Angels is historical fiction -- I use this term loosely -- about the battle of Gettysburg, July 1 - 3, 1863, as seen from the points of view of the men who were there, the leaders of the battle.  Michael Shaara, the author, during his meticulous research, dug into the memoirs of such military greats as Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, and John Buford (to name a few), to determine exactly what they were thinking at the time.  What were the emotions as these men directed their troops into battle?  What was Lee's motivation for Pickett's Charge?  How did they, as individuals, view the opposing army, or the nigh-impossible tasks they faced?  Shaara took their words, their writings, and wove them into his novel, to give the reader an insider's look at the battle.  Years after reading the book, when I was 14, my grandparents took my sister and I to Pennsylvania to tour the battlefield at Gettysburg.  Seeing the places I had imagined in my mind so many times was just astounding, and viewing the monuments to the many men who died there was a humbling and moving experience.

Shaara won the Pulitzer Prize for writing The Killer Angels in 1975.  After his death in 1988, his son, Jeff Shaara, wrote a prequel (Gods and Generals) and a sequel (The Last Full Measure) to his father's work.  I am currently embarking on Gods and Generals, which, thus far, I am disappointed in.  But to compare the son's work to the father's is unfair, I guess.  And I have to be honest: there is nothing that I can imagine taking the place of The Killer Angels in my mind.

If  you are going to read one historical novel about the Civil War, make it this one.

Rating: An admittedly biased *****

With spring comes exciting news!

Happy Spring!  I have never felt so happy to say those two words!  It really does feel like this past year was the cruelest, coldest winter ever.  And even though we in Connecticut are due for not one, but TWO snowstorms again this week (*sigh*), today's date is the death-knell for winter 2010 - 2011.  It is ALMOST OVER.

And with the death of winter, to the B household, came an email.  Our landlord will meet with David on Friday, take our security deposit and first months' rent...and the apartment is OURS.  We can then go in any day we like, and move in on April 1st.

So painting and redecorating will commence next weekend.  We're moving in to our new apartment a week from this Friday!

It's coming at just the right time, too, because I have had it with this place.  The small space, the cramped quarters, the bumping into each other constantly.  It's not easy being married in two and a half rooms.  Soon we'll have SIX rooms to spread out in, and move about, and decorate!  I can't even imagine having that much space right now.  I am so excited about it.

Life seems very good right now.  I started Weight Watchers this past week, and so far have stuck to it very well (even on St. Pat's, which was quite difficult!).  I've also gone to the gym three days this past week, and biked a total of 41.39 miles and 115 minutes (1 hour, 55 minutes) on the stationary bike this week.  That is now my base goal -- this upcoming week I will try to bike for at least 20 hours and try for 50 miles.  It can only go up from here!  I also have to pick up a scale, so I can weigh in once a week.  I'm supposed to weigh in on Monday, but I don't have a scale right now.  Other than my WiiFit one, and I hate getting on that thing.  Ugh.  It just goes "ooooh" like an elephant is getting on it.  Demoralizing!

And it may snow tomorrow, but as for today, I will spend the afternoon outside, and enjoy this fleeting glimpse of Spring.  It's almost here.  You can smell it.

Film Friday: Gone With The Wind

You knew it was a matter of time, didn't you, before I posted an entry on what I believe to be the greatest film adaptation of a book ever written.  Gone With The Wind, by Margaret Mitchell, is the definitive fiction novel about the American Civil War, a name mentioned reverently, which has, since 1939, become synonymous with the film that was adapted from it.  I've seen this film and read this book countless times, but it is because I watched it again this past Saturday that I chose to blog about it now.

Gone With The Wind (the book) was written and published in 1936 by a young Southern housewife, Margaret Mitchell.  The story of the deceptively-tough Southern belle Scarlett O'Hara, as she struggles through ten years of the Civil War and the Southern Reconstruction, is a story for the ages, and will go down in history as one of the finest pieces of historical fiction (if not the finest piece).

The debate about who would play the beautiful but tenacious Scarlett went on for several years before David O. Selznick, producer, finally cast a then-unknown English actress Vivien Leigh.  Miss Leigh spent hours trying to perfect a Southern accent, in order to prepare herself for the role.  Though some may have had doubts about her ability to play the part, Vivien Leigh not only acted Scarlett; she embodied Scarlett, and there has never been anyone since who came close to the sweet, wicked way she played the part.

There are several noticeable changes from book to film -- the largest being, of course, that Scarlett only has one child in the film (Bonnie), and two others in the book (Wade Hampton and Ella Lorena).  Selznick claimed that he had Wade and Ella removed from the film in order to paint Scarlett in a more favorable light (since, as Rhett Butler says in both book and film about Scarlett, "A cat's a better mother...!").  Also, some minor characters (such as all three of the Elsings, Uncle Henry Hamilton, the Fontaines, most of the Tarletons, etc.) are removed from the film in the interest of keeping it short.  Rumor has it that if Selznick had stuck precisely to the original story, the film would have lasted 24 hours!

Overall, the film does not vary that much from the book.  Are there changes?  Yes.  But there had to be, otherwise the film would have been too long and the budget much too high.  How incredible is Gone With The Wind?  So incredible that, 72 years later, there has never been even a whisper of a remake.  Do yourself a favor, read the book, and see the film.  It really is amazing.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

From the B household to yours, Happy St. Pat's!  We're all Irish on St. Patrick's Day (David is 1/2 Irish and I'm about 1/4).  I spent my afternoon making Irish Car Bomb Cupcakes -- adapted from two different recipes.  I was going to make the cupcakes from scratch, but quite frankly, David and I are moving in three weeks, and we're trying to get rid of food that has to travel.  So I made them with a box mix.  Forgive me?

The three principle ingredients in an Irish Car Bomb are Guinness Stout, Irish Whiskey, and Bailey's Irish Cream.  In the cupcakes, the Guinness goes into the cupcake (you can't taste it, it bakes out -- but it does make a richer cupcake!), the whiskey is made into a delicious ganache filling, and the Bailey's goes into a buttercream frosting.

Irish Car Bomb Cupcakes
For cupcakes:
1 chocolate cake mix (I used Pillsbury)
3 eggs
1/3 cup of vegetable oil
1 and 1/4 cup of Guinness Stout

For ganache:
2 tbs. unsalted butter
8 oz. bittersweet chocolate (I suggest using semi-sweet, unless you like a REALLY dark and bitter ganache)
2/3 cup of heavy whipping cream
2 tsp. Irish whiskey

For frosting:
2 cups unsalted butter
5 cups confectioner's sugar
6 tbsp. Bailey's Irish Cream

Make cupcakes first.  Mix all ingredients and prepare as directed on back of box (substituting Guinness for water).  Bake for appointed time.  Turn out onto cooling rack and let cool while you prepare ganache.

To make the ganache, chop up the chocolate finely, and put into a heatproof bowl.  Put the cream into a saucepan and heat until it simmers.  Pour cream over the chocolate, wait one minute, then stir with a flat spatula.  Blend in butter and whiskey.

Scoop out a tiny bit of each cupcake, in the middle top.  Fill each cupcake with ganache, using a piping bag (or a plastic bag with a corner cut off to act as a piper).  If the ganache cools too much, warm it in the microwave for 20 seconds.

To make the frosting: cut the butter into parts and whip with mixer for 5 minutes.  Add the confectioner's sugar cup by cup into the bowl, mixing as you go.  Add the Bailey's, whip for another 2 minutes.

Frost cupcakes.

Enjoy with a glass of whatever alcohol you prefer.

Erin Go Bragh!

Film Friday: Emma

First off, I apologize (to my 10 followers) that I didn't have a "Yarn Along" submission this Wednesday.  I figured you were all pretty much over my Noro socks and my Kindle.  And that's all there would have been.  You also all know that I've been reading Jane Austen's Emma.

This is the first Film Friday where I'll feature a film adaption of a book I have not yet finished.  I'm about a quarter of the way through with Emma, but since David left last night to go to PAX East in Boston, I found myself lonely and a bit at a loose end.  The film Emma was on Instant-Queue on Netflix, so I figured, why not.

Matchmaker, matchmaker: Paltrow and Collette gossip

The titular Emma is played by Gwyneth Paltrow, before Shakespeare In Love rocketed her to silver screen glory.  Emma is the daughter of a doting, overprotective father, and she is primarily concerned with her own self-proclaimed prowess as a formidable matchmaker, having recently taken credit for setting up her former governess and the man who has just taken her to wife.  Thoroughly pleased with herself, Emma sets her sights on finding a suitable match for her best friend, Harriet Smith (Toni Collette), whose dubious parentage leaves her with very few marital prospects.  Nevertheless, Emma feels she cannot fail to unite Harriet with the sort of man she feels worthy of introducing Harriet to genteel society.

Emma is a pampered girl, universally adored and petted by nearly everyone she meets, with the exception of her brother-in-law, Mr. Knightly (played by dashing and handsome Jeremy Northam of The Tudors fame).  Mr. Knightly dislikes Emma's penchant for meddling in the affairs of her friends and scolds her for her "lack of sense."  His criticism piques Emma, who is used to almost-universal praise, but she finds herself appreciating his honesty and sense, and as her good intentions begin to unravel around her, Emma finds herself wondering if there really is something to Mr. Knightly after all...

I loved Emma.  My review being premature, as I have not yet finished the book, I found it to be (thus far) a very good adaptation of the book.  The only major difference (besides Mr. Knightly's name; he is George in the book, and his brother, Emma's sister's husband, is named John) is the repartee between Emma and Mr. Knightly is much more candid in the film, I suppose to play up their relationship more.  I loved it as much as I loved Mansfield Park (the film) and I think, my Jane Austen love being as pure as it is, there will be a reading of Pride and Prejudice, and a viewing of the film version, in my future!

Tuesday Book Survey

I stole this from my younger sister.  You can check out her blog (which isn't where I stole it from) at Movies.  Manga.  Anime.  Whatever.  

The books I am reading:
Emma by Jane Austen. 

The book I am writing:
*sigh*  I'm attempting to write some historical fiction.  I have two pieces going right now -- one about a family living in 17th century New England, and the other about Alys, Countess of the Vexin.  Neither is going very well, unfortunately.

The book I love most:
Eek.  How can you ever pick?  I have quite the list.  I love Francis Hodgeson Burnett's books, The Secret Garden (which I'm re-reading right now) and A Little Princess (do not even start to make fun of me for this, I love them and they bring me back to my childhood, and I'm okay with that). For fiction, I also really like The Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird.  My favorite historical nonfiction author is Alison Weir, and my favorite book by her is definitely The Six Wives of Henry VIII.  But my all-time favorite book that I have read probably at least 50 times is Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels.  So underrated, such fantastic historical fiction, and it won the Pulitzer.  Fantastic book.

The last book I received as a gift:
I can't find the title of this one.  My father bought it for me and it's home on my bookshelf.  It's a newly-released, enormously thick account of the Civil War that got a great review in The Economist, but damned if I can find out the title.  However, the last book I received before that was Knitter's Almanac by Elizabeth Zimmerman.

The last book I gave as a gift:
I gave a Debbie Macomber book to my mom for Christmas.  She laps those things up.

The nearest book on my desk:
I don't have any on my desk at work.  But my Kindle is in my purse -- does that count?

Review: Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

I have a confession to make.

I have my Bachelor of Arts degree in English...and until now, at age 27, I had never read Jane Eyre.

I know, I know!  I should have my B.A. confiscated!  In any case, when I finished Churchill and was hankering for some good fiction, I went to Goodreads and saw that they were doing a Jane Eyre Challenge, since the new film with Mia Wasinowski (of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland fame) playing Jane, I decided what the hell, I'd give it a shot.

From Goodreads: Charlotte Brontë’s most beloved novel describes the passionate love between the courageous orphan Jane Eyre and the brilliant, brooding, and domineering Rochester.  The loneliness and cruelty of Jane’s childhood strengthens her natural independence and spirit, which prove invaluable when she takes a position as a governess at Thornfield Hall. But after she falls in love with her sardonic employer, her discovery of his terrible secret forces her to make a heart-wrenching choice. Ever since its publication in 1847, Jane Eyre has enthralled every kind of reader, from the most critical and cultivated to the youngest and most unabashedly romantic. It lives as one of the great triumphs of storytelling and as a moving and unforgettable portrayal of a woman's quest for self-respect.

Having never read the book before, but knowing the storyline from seeing the 1970 film version with George C. Scott and Susannah York, I began reading this book with very little expectation.  Before two days were out, I was halfway done with it.  I heard from several of my friends that Jane Eyre was boring, dull, antiquated, etc.  But it's apparently a matter of taste, because I definitely enjoyed this book, as much as I enjoyed Jane Austen's Mansfield Park at the end of 2010.  Jane can be a difficult character to relate to, at times -- she is stoic and strong and self-deprecating, and thinks very little of herself as a rule.  Yet her desire to love, and more importantly, to be loved in return for all of herself, is an emotion that even the most hardhearted of readers can relate to.

Rating: ****

FO: Simple Newborn Hat with a Touch of Lace

Finally, after what feels like forever, I finally have a finished knitted object to show you.

Pattern: A Simple Newborn Hat with a Touch of Lace by Ginny at small things.
Yarn: Debbie Bliss Baby Cashmerino in 03 (Baby Green), less than 1 skein.
Needles: US 3's, circulars and 1 set of 4 dpns.

As I've mentioned before, there will be three babies born this year in my family by marriage, and this baby hat is for one of them.  The green is so soft that it is a neutral color, I have made boy baby hats before of it.  This is also for the head of a newborn boy; I am hoping that the tiny bit of lace is enough that it won't make the parents immediately think "girl baby" -- I know I wouldn't.  It's very small, in that adorable "everything to fit a baby is small" way.  I can't wait to make one for a baby of my own!

It was a quick and easy pattern; I fretted endlessly about not having enough yarn to finish the hat, and I finished with about 15 yards to spare.  I love this pattern and this yarn, and I'll be using both again.

Film Friday: The Man Who Would Be King

It's been a few weeks since I did a "Film Friday" post...today it comes back with a vengeance!  I recently finished reading The Man Who Would Be King by Rudyard Kipling, a book I'd been tempted to pick up several times because I love the film by John Huston, but I never did until last week (yay for free Kindle books!).  This, of course, lead me to re-watch the film, and present it here for Film Friday.

The book is very brief -- more of a short story than a novel -- but Huston stretched it and fleshed it out into a

Kings of Men: Plummer, Connery, and Caine

two-hour epic adventure of two English rogues (Sean Connery and Michael Caine) whose sense of imperialism and self-righteousness leads them to the distant reaches of the desert in an attempt to subvert the natives and make themselves kings.  After roping in an innocent newspaper correspondent (Christopher Plummer, playing the author, Rudyard Kipling) into witnessing their solemn oath, they set out for the uncharted territory known as Kafiristan, and their fate is subsequently decided.

John Huston could not have made a feature-length film without taking some artistic liberties with the script.  What's remarkable about the film is that there is nothing taken away -- only added.  Huston plays up the symbolism and the brotherhood of the Masons -- Peachy Carnahan (Caine) stumbles upon Kipling only after he picks his pocket in a railway station, and, upon noticing the symbolic square and compass on the watchfob, decides he must return it.  It is in this manner that Kipling becomes part of the rogues' future games.

The major difference between the book and the film is the unspoken moral of the tale.  Kipling leads his characters into danger and destruction as a passive reminder that the English sense of imperialism will eventually bring their ruin.  Although he shows the natives of Kafiristan to be ruthless and vengeful, he ultimately places the blame upon Peachy and Danny, the antiheroes of the tale.  Huston takes a different approach in making the audience sympathetic to these tragic men.  In choosing two extremely affable actors (Connery and Caine), Huston leads the viewer to a place where one can only sit and watch the story unfold -- and in spite of knowing that the outcome is richly deserved, one can't help wishing that it could all have been avoided.

Yarn Along Wednesday! (3/2)

It's Yarn Along time!  Every Wednesday, I (try, at least) to join in on the Yarn Along happening over at Ginny's blog, small things.  The objective is to take a picture of what you are currently reading and knitting, together, and then post it to your blog.  Then link your post to the Yarn Along, and everyone can see what everyone else is reading and knitting.

Yeah, I feel like a complete follower here...but I'm knitting Ginny's newborn hat with a hint of lace for one of the many babies to be born in the next few months.  Knitting it out of (what else?) Debbie Bliss Baby Cashmerino (too lazy to look up the link today).

I joined the Jane Eyre "Read the Book, See the Movie" challenge on Goodreads, so that's what I am reading at present.  Somehow I managed to avoid reading Jane Eyre in high school and college, and even though some people (like my sister) tell me it's  horrific, I really wanted to read it for myself.  I downloaded it for free on my Kindle, and I'm about 25% through with it, with a goal to finish by March 11, the date of the film's release.  I do look forward to seeing the film, I like Mia Wasinowski (she of Alice in Wonderland fame) and I think she'll do a wonderful job as Jane in the new movie.

Other than that, today is...going to be insane.  David came home last night in searing pain from a wisdom tooth, so we're waiting until the dentist opens at 8 AM to see if they can get him in right away to pull that thing out.  *sigh*  Never a dull moment, right?