Review: Splintered by A.G. Howard

This reimagining of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is just as freaky, scary and wonderful as expected.

Title & Author: Splintered by A.G. Howard
Published: 2013
Pages: 371 (Amulet Books, 2013)
Read: 3/2/13 - 13/2/13
Series: N/A
Challenge(s): 2013 Debut Author Challenge
Source: Owned book

Synopsis: Alyssa Gardner hears the whispers of bugs and flowers—precisely the affliction that landed her mother in a mental hospital years before. This family curse stretches back to her ancestor Alice Liddell, the real-life inspiration for Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Alyssa might be crazy, but she manages to keep it together. For now.
When her mother’s mental health takes a turn for the worse, Alyssa learns that what she thought was fiction is based in terrifying reality. The real Wonderland is a place far darker and more twisted than Lewis Carroll ever let on. There, Alyssa must pass a series of tests, including draining an ocean of Alice’s tears, waking the slumbering tea party, and subduing a vicious bandersnatch, to fix Alice’s mistakes and save her family. She must also decide whom to trust: Jeb, her gorgeous best friend and secret crush, or the sexy but suspicious Morpheus, her guide through Wonderland, who may have dark motives of his own.(from Goodreads)

Loved/liked: Loved.  This was actually one of the January debuts I passed over when I did my initial list, which now seems mad as this is so good.  I'm glad it was picked as the Debut Author Challenge's book club book for February or I might not have read it, which would be a shame as I really enjoyed the read. 

I have to admit, one of the things that made me a tad wary was the love triangle.  It's right there in the synopsis and I was sure it would irritate me but no!  I actually liked it, mostly because a) it made sense, b) it didn't dominate the whole damn plot, and c) I agreed with the outcome, which didn't feel forced.  It was what I was rooting for throughout, which was nice (usually I pick the 'losing' guy).

The writing is gorgeous, the reimagining of Wonderland superb, and the characters all well-rounded. I liked Alyssa and rooted for her, and her evolution from freaked out teenager to total badass is believable and awesome.  Both guys - Jeb and Morpheus - are great, and while I won't say which one I wanted to 'win' the love triangle I didn't feel that either didn't deserve to.  Plus, Morpheus has various hats to suit his mood and/or the occasion, which is something I adored.

Basically, I loved this book and am finding it a bit tricky to put that into words without potentially ruining the whole dame plot.  It's the sort of book I want to babble about to someone who's also read it, to point at favourite bits and discuss the sheer wonderful weirdness that was this take on Wonderland.

Problems/issues: None.  The length of time it took me to read it was entirely my own fault; whenever I read the book I couldn't put it down.  It's only not a 10/10 because, as much as I liked it, I didn't love it as much as I love my favourite books (which is, again, entirely on me).

Extra Awesome: Court intrigue, flying, hats for every occasion, weirdness everywhere.

Do I want more? Definitely.  This isn't a series - though there is the potential for a sequel at the end, it's just something mentioned in passing - but I will be reading A.G. Howard's next book for sure (whenever that is *peers at Goodreads author page*).

Do I recommend it? Yes. Especially if you like darker, twistier fantasy - I'm thinking Holly Black and Melissa Marr, the sort of books that occasionally make me go "oh, that's nasty"...but not so nasty that I stop reading.  Also, there are hats for specific events which is something I need in my life.

Rating: 9/10

Review: Slated by Teri Terry (Slated #1)

A British dystopia?  An intiguing set up, good worldbuilding and a kickass heroine?  All present and helping to make Slated pretty damn awesome and a good first book for the year.

Title & Author: Slated by Teri Terry
Published: 2012
Series: Slated #1
Pages: 429 (Orchard ,2012)
Status: Borrowed from the library
NB: I'm not counting this towards my 2013 Debut Author Challenge as, technically, it was a 2012 debut in Britain.  Also I started reading it in 2012 so it would all feel like a cheat.

Synopsis: Kyla’s memory has been erased, her personality wiped blank, her memories lost for ever.

She’s been Slated.

The government claims she was a terrorist, and that they are giving her a second chance - as long as she plays by their rules. But echoes of the past whisper in Kyla’s mind. Someone is lying to her, and nothing is as it seems. Who can she trust in her search for the truth? (from Goodreads)

Review: I have to get something out of the way right at the top of this review - my biggest problem with the book was the ending.  Without spoiling, I'm just going to say that it felt rushed and was so clearly setting up book two (Fractured) that I felt a little cheated.  It's actually what knocked this book down a little in my estimation, as there's no real resolution and Kyla has a couple of sudden epiphanies that seem to come out of nowhere and are just there to make you want to read Fractured.  I wanted to read it without that ending!  It isn't a cliffhanger in the traditional sense, but it feels rushed and as if the book just stops with Kyla making a decision about what to do next and then bam, the end.

Having said that: I really liked this book otherwise.   It's a British dystopia!  There were elements that made me go "oh, cool, that references stuff that's happening now - argh, wait, this is stuff that's happening now!" and I particularly liked that the Evil Government Up To No Good were called the Central Coalition (though I then had another argh moment over this).  There's also reference to the EGUTNG being a result of severe riots and, yeah, hello 2011.  In a weird way, I liked that it was my country that had turned to the Dark Side (in fiction, anyway).

The science fiction elements are well handled: people under 16 who are deemed an enemy of the government are given a chance to start over again by being Slated - their memories are removed and they're given new families.  They're also closely monitored and non-consenting minors* and there are a lot of hints about what happens if you're over 16 and annoy the EGUTNG, but not so much that I have all the answers.  I get the feeling that this will be explored more in the rest of the trilogy, and that we'll get more on just why people get chosen and how the technology was developed - more so than we have already, anyway.

All in all, this was a good first book let down by a rushed ending.  I will definitely be reading the rest of the trilogy, but this would have been the case even without the open ending - I was intrigued from page one and really enjoyed the world and characters, I just wish there had been a proper resolution to the story of Slated before we rushed into Fractured, but I still think this a very good, accomplished and taut thriller throughout the rest of the book.

* In most cases.  I did like that there was reference to the way in which Slating is used to help people get over severe trauma, as it did suggest that the technology could be used to help rather than oppress, and also stopped it being completely one-sided.  Still, complete memory wipe? 

Rating: 7/10

Review: Monsters of Men by Patrick Ness (Chaos Walking #3)

In the final book of the Chaos Walking trilogy: oh my God, argh no, seriously?  Just when you thought the end of The Ask and the Answer meant things couldn't possibly get any worse, they do.  Spectacularly.  And then you get repeatedly punched in the gut.

Title & Author: Monsters of Men by Patrick Ness
Published: 2010
Series: Chaos Walking #3
Pages: 603 (Walker Books, 2010)
Challenge: Series Catch-Up
Status: Owned book

Note: As with The Ask and the Answer, please don't read this review if you haven't read the previous books in the series (The Knife of Never Letting Go is #1).  While I don't spoil Monsters of Men I do discuss plot details from the earlier books.

Synopsis: As a world-ending war surges around them, Todd and Viola face monstrous decisions. The indigenous Spackle, thinking and acting as one, have mobilized to avenge their murdered people. Ruthless human leaders prepare to defend their factions at all costs, even as a convoy of new settlers approaches. And as the ceaseless Noise lays all thoughts bare, the projected will of the few threatens to overwhelm the desperate desire of the many. The consequences of each action, each word, are unspeakably vast: To follow a tyrant or a terrorist? To save the life of the one you love most, or thousands of strangers? To believe in redemption, or assume it is lost? Becoming adults amid the turmoil, Todd and Viola question all they have known, racing through horror and outrage toward a shocking finale. (from Goodreads)

First Line: "'War,' says Mayor Prentiss, his eyes glinting. 'At last.'"

Review: As the end of The Ask and the Answer and the first words of this book suggest, Monsters of Men is all about war.  There is a lot of fighting.  I didn't find this off putting (I am a huge fan of battle and action scenes, they are often my favourite thing in books and movies) but I know some other readers do - so, just to be warned, lots of fighting and battle and blood and death.  It never feels gratuitous, but it is constant for the first 1/3 or so of the book and this can be grinding.  It's completely realistic, but there isn't much breathing space.

Not that this book is all about the action.  It is, ultimately, a book about peace.  Peace is what most people are striving for, and what characters like Mayor bloody Prentiss (I really think I'm just going to take to calling him that) are constantly trying to prevent.  There is the added issue of thousands of settlers being on their way, potentially to land in either a war zone or to be wiped out by the Spackle, which makes a drive for a decent peace treaty - not like the one reached after the first war, which lead to a Spackle slave population - even more important.

This is all making it sound like a very simplistic plot.  And, to an extent, it is.  It is a relentless plot, just as the first two books are, and there are just as many twists and turns with as many surprises as you'd expect.  A lot of the focus is on the Spackle - there is now a third voice added to Todd and Viola's and it is absolutely awesome and adds a new layer to the debate about peace and war, justice and revenge.  The genius of this book, as with The Ask and the Answer, is that there are no simple solutions and pretty much every side is justified in their actions in some way (except Mayor bloody Prentiss).  Like the best science fiction it makes you think about the real world, about issues we have to deal with, and does so with an amazing story that left me crying and shuddering and wanting to recommend it to as many people as possible.

Does it work as the last book in a trilogy?  Hell, yes.  It is a fantastic finale, which brings together all the themes and works perfectly.  I did not feel remotely let down by any part of it.  I really don't think I can recommend this trilogy to people enough - it is painful and intense and there are times when you care so much that it hurts, but it is so worth the read.  I just wish I'd read all three last year when I first read The Knife of Never Letting Go.
Rating: 10/10

Review: The Ask and the Answer by Patrick Ness (Chaos Walking #2)

In the second book of The Chaos Walking trilogy, just when you think things can't get worse they do.  Every time.  And it hurts (though not as much as it will in the finale).

Title & Author: The Ask and the Answer by Patrick Ness
Published: 2009
Series: Chaos Walking #2
Pages: 517 (Walker Books, 2009)
Challenge: Series Catch-Up
Status: Owned book

Note: If you haven't read The Knife of Never Letting Go I strongly recommend you do so before reading this review.  While I don't spoil The Ask and the Answer I do, by necessity, discuss the ending of the first book which is not something you want spoiled.  Trust me.

Synopsis: Fleeing before a relentless army, Todd has carried a desperately wounded Viola right into the hands of their worst enemy, Mayor Prentiss.

Immediately separated from Viola and imprisoned, Todd is forced to learn the ways of the Mayor's new order.

But what secrets are hiding just outside of town?
And where is Viola? Is she even still alive?
And who are the mysterious Answer?

And then, one day, the bombs begin to explode... (from Goodreads)

First line: "'Your Noise reveals you, Todd Hewitt.'"

Review: So, the ending of The Knife of Never Letting Go was pretty bad, right?  Viola's been gut shot, Todd can't find anyone to help, and Mayor Prentiss has taken over Haven, renamed it Prentisstown and declared himself President.  Things can't get much worse, right?  Wrong, they get spectacularly worse in epic ways.

The book is told from Todd and Viola's perspectives, which is great and Viola Eade is a total bamf and Todd is just as cool as ever.  What's less great is that neither of them know what's happening to the other, so first there's the tension of Todd wondering if Viola survived, then there's all sorts of misunderstandings as they both try to muddle through and figure out just what the other one is up to.  And given that they end up on opposite sides of a fight between Mayor "I'm a nice guy really" Prentiss and Mistress "I know best let's blow stuff up" Coyle there are a lot of things to misunderstand.  This could become annoying, but Patrick Ness handles it well and there's only one moment when I wanted to smack myself in the forehead then slap them both because, guys, really, think things through for a bit and see that you're being played. 

Just as The Knife of Never Letting Go dealt with 'big' issues through a fantastic plot, so The Ask and the Answer addresses the little matters of dictatorship and terrorism while driving relentlessly to an ending with no easy choices.  I do like that Patrick Ness didn't make all those in opposition to the Mayor perfect or even likeable; it's more real that way, and opens up two matters for consideration.  Because as despicable as the Mayor is, the reaction some of the residents of Haven have to him both make things worse and give him the opportunity to improve his public image. 

And I really feel like I can't say more because, again, spoilers.  The one thing I will say is: make sure you have Monsters of Men to hand before you finish The Ask and the Answer.  Because if you though the cliffhanger to The Knife of Never Letting Go was evil you are wildly unprepared for the end of The Ask and the Answer.  Every plotline speeds up, rushes towards a conclusion - and then something wholly unexpected happens, which leads to Todd having to make a terrifying decision.  And then the book ends.
Ultimately I don't love this book as much as I love The Knife of Never Letting Go, but it is an exceptionally good read and an excellent middle book of a trilogy.

Rating: 9/10

Review: The Knife of Never Letting Go by Patrick Ness (Chaos Walking #1)

In The Knife of Never Letting Go, subjects such as war, love, feminism, misogyny and death are dealt with in a way that is a) beautiful and b) so intense oh my God I couldn't stop reading even though it hurt.  And that's just the start of a series that will wreck you.

Title & Author: The Knife of Never Letting Go by Patrick Ness
Published: 2008
Series: Chaos Walking #1
Pages: 479 (Walker Books, 2008)
Challenge: Series Catch-Up
Status: Owned book

Synopsis: Todd Hewitt is the only boy in a town of men. Ever since the settlers were infected with the Noise germ, Todd can hear everything the men think, and they hear everything he thinks. Todd is just a month away from becoming a man, but in the midst of the cacophony, he knows that the town is hiding something from him -- something so awful Todd is forced to flee with only his dog, whose simple, loyal voice he hears too.  (edited from Goodreads because hello spoilers much?)

First Line: "The first thing you find out when yer dog starts to talk is that dogs don't got nothing much to say.  About anything."

Review: This is a difficult review to write because a) I love this book so damn much, I've read it twice now and know I'll reread it repeatedly; and b) I want to say a lot but don't want to spoil.  A lot of what makes this book so good is the constant surprise and mystery and wondering just what Patrick Ness is going to drop his characters into next.  And then you find out and it hurts and you want it to stop but you also can't stop reading and then you get to the end and let out all the swears because I warn you now, cliffhanger o'clock.  Have the rest of the trilogy ready to go because it really needs to be read together or you'll go mad with anticipation.

So, without wanting to spoil anything: Todd Hewitt is the last boy in Prentisstown, which is the last settlement on New World.  When Todd was a baby the Noise germ (released by the Spackle, the native aliens, during a war that eventually wiped them out) killed all the women of the town and made it so the thoughts of everyone and everything else can be heard.  All the time.  Forever.  This is shown in the book as a mass of words and fonts that are hard to differentiate and give you a sense of just how nightmarish this world is.  Todd has learned to hide his Noise a little, but he's still only twelve and stuff leaks out - and when he finds something strange in the swamp, he knows he has to keep it a secret.  Only he fails and has to run and then it's a manic chase across New World in which he learns that everything he thought was true isn't.

And there's death and violence and war and grief and seriously, this book is so good.  There's one bit (and people who've read it before know what it is) that I still can't believe Patrick Ness did because you do not do that sort of thing.  That is crossing a line.  I had forgotten it happened on my reread and I actually tried to convince myself it wasn't going to occur.  That it did and it hurt as much this time as before is testament to how this book sucks you in and makes you care about the characters.

I'm really not sure this review conveys how much I love and admire this book (although maybe the sheer incoherence gets that across).  I just think everyone should read it, and then continue with the rest of the trilogy.  It made me cry and think and swear, all of which are good things when I'm reading.  Read it.

Rating: 10/10

Review: Highland Fling by Nancy Mitford

In Nancy Mitford's first novel, all of the elements are there but she hasn't quite found her style yet.

Published: 1932
Pages: 185 (Hamish Hamilton Ltd, 1975)
Read: 8/11/12 - 9/11/12
Status: Borrowed from the library

Synopsis: Albert Gates goes to stay at Craigdalloch Castle in Scotland for a shooting party.  There he meets a host of mad characters, plays some pranks, and falls in love.

First line: "Albert Gates came down from Oxford feeling that his life was behind him."

Review: This is the second time this year when I've read the first book by an author I like and wondered if I'd be a fan of them if I'd started with their debut (the other was Christopher Isherwood's All The Conspirators).  I'm a huge fan of The Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate to the extent that I've lost count of how many times I've read them, especially the former, but Highland Fling is definitely an early effort.  It's not bad, but it doesn't sparkle like those books do.

Still, if you expect upper-class eccentricity and moments when you're not sure if you should be judging the actions of the aristocracy positively or negatively, then this has those elements in spades.  And those are things I like about Nancy Mitford's work, it's just that here they've yet to reach the pitch of absurdity she manages in her later books.  There are definite hints at what she'll achieve - General Murgatroyd is a forerunner of Uncle Matthew - but she hasn't got there yet.  If anything, this felt a bit like reading an Evelyn Waugh novel, and you can see his influence clearly.  Not a bad thing (though I've only read Brideshead Revisited) but not what I'm looking for in a Nancy Mitford.

So, I would definitely recommend this to people wanting read more Nancy Mitford, but I would say read The Pursuit of Love or Love in a Cold Climate first so you can see what all the fuss is about.  I would also say that the book ends so abruptly that I had to do a quick double check that the library book hadn't been defaced.  A fun read, and interesting for people who are already fans of Mitford's work, but not something I'd recommend as a starting point.

Rating: 6/10

Other Reviews:
Desperate Reader
I Prefer Reading

Review: My Sister Lives on the Mantelpiece by Annabel Pitcher

In this beautiful book, subjects such as grief and intolerance are dealt with in a wonderful, non-preachy way and it is marvellous.

Published: 2011
Pages: 221 (Indigo, 2011)
Read: 7/11/12
Status: Borrowed from the library

Synopsis: Ten-year-old Jamie hasn't cried since his big sister, Rose, was killed five years earlier.  His family has fallen apart as a result of her death: his mum left, his dad drinks, and Jasmine, Rose's twin, isn't eating.  When his parents divorce, Jamie moves with his dad and Jasmine to the Lake District in an attempt to rebuild their lives.

First Line: "My sister Rose lives on the mantelpiece."

Review: This review is tricky to write because I loved this book so much.  I read it at the start of what was meant to be a Day of Reading and then found that I couldn't pick up another book afterwards, I was that caught up in My Sister Lives on the Mantelpiece and my reaction to it.  I cried, I cringed, I laughed, and I was taken back to my own time as a ten-year-old.  All in one slim volume of elegant prose and fully realised characters. 

I'm tempted just to stop here and say: read it!  Read it now!

But I won't, though I may just list reasons for reading it:

1) Jamie himself.  He is a wonderful narrator, and it really feels like a ten-year-old view of the world.  Not just in the language, which is beautiful yet still, somehow, childlike, but in how he treats the universe: if he wears a Spider-Man t-shirt then it will be ready for when his mum visits, and wearing it will make her visit. There are constant imaginings of how life should be and will be and I really wanted to be able to Thursday Next my way into the book and give him a hug.

2) Sunya, Jamie's friend at school.  Sunya forever, she is badass and incredible and I kind of wish she'd been my friend when I was that age although I would have been terrified that one of her fantastic vengeance plots would get us in trouble.  Not that it would have done, she is too badass for that. 

3) Tough issues are dealt with in a fantastic way.  My Sister Lives on the Mantelpiece deals with grief, intolerance, abandonment, alcoholism, anorexia, bullying and exclusion in a way that never feels heavy-handed or as if Annabel Pitcher is forcing a moral on the reader.  Jamie puzzles things out for himself and has constant moments of trying to put together a right way to act from the hypocrisies of the adults around him.

4) It perfectly captured what being at primary school is like.  The school in this book is a local village one, very heavily C of E and though this is clearly set in the 21st century, but it reminded me a lot of being at primary school in the late 80s/early 90s, although none of my teachers were as hideous as Mrs Farmer.  The way in which teachers often make favourites of the most hideous children was very accurate though.

5) There is a total Britain's Got Talent parody/piss-take which I loved.  I don't even watch the damn show and I appreciated it.

6) It made me cry. 

Oh, just read it!  I don't want to spoil anything - I haven't even said how Rose died, because I went in not knowing and I quite liked it having a bit of mystery as to what happened to her, although I know some book blurbs do include it - I just want to recommend it to people and buy a copy so I can lend it to my friends with instructions that they read it.  And you should, too.

Rating: 10/10

Other Reviews:
Wondrous Reads
Forever Young Adult
Beth Fish Reads

Review: This Dark Endeavour by Kenneth Oppel

In This Dark Endeavour, Kennth Oppel writes a prequel to Frankenstein that reminds me why I want to punch Victor.  And that is a good thing.

Published: 2011
Pages: 366 (David Fickling Books, 2011)
Series: The Apprenticeship of Victor Frankenstein
Read: 30/9/12 - 16/10/12
Status: Borrowed from the library

Synopsis: When his twin brother falls dangerously ill, Victor Frankenstein sets out to find the Elixir or Life.  The quest is fraught with danger, not least because of Victor's arrogance and a bitter love triangle that threatens to derail the entire endeavour.

First Line: "We found the monster on a rocky ledge high above the lake."

Review: This Dark Endeavour is a prequel to the Frankenstein story, but you don't need to have read Frankenstein for it to make sense.  It works just as well as a standalone novel (though it is the start of a series) and prior knowledge of Mary Shelley's work isn't essential.  I have read Frankenstein, but it was ages ago so my memory of it is sketchy; though there were bits I remembered that helped me with this book, there were some times when I thought "hang on, is that canon?" but this was my issue rather than the book's.  There was foreshadowing of the original novel, and a few references that cheered my eighteenth-century literature student heart - Polidori lives on Wollstonekraft Avenue, yay! - but none of this is noticeable as part of something the reader might not understand.

As a book in it's own right, This Dark Endeavour stands up.  It would work even without the Frankenstein connection, although that adds an extra dimension to Victor's actions.  This Dark Endeavour is well plotted and the prose is good, without too many attempts at eighteenth-century language and without any modern slips.  There are elements of genuine Gothic horror, and the Swiss setting gives even more opportunity for things like, I don't know, being stuck up a tall tree in a thunderstorm while being attacked by giant birds or almost being eaten by a giant cave-dwelling fish.  It wouldn't be a quest if there wasn't some peril.

Victor himself is well-drawn and fits in with how I think of Victor Frankenstein, a.k.a. I want to punch him really hard in the face.  I've felt that since reading Frankenstein and This Dark Endeavour just proves I'm right (which is nice).  I really like that Kenneth Oppel doesn't shy away from making Victor an arrogant, presumptuous little git whose actions might break the laws of nature and cause all sorts of problems but who doesn't care about this as long as he's Right.  That you don't stop reading even though the narrator is driving you mad is a sign of a good book.

Not that Victor is all bad (which is part of the reason why it works).  He does genuinely care about his brother, and he has moments of complete honesty in which he recognises that his own motives aren't completely pure.  That he also admits to seeing a cold-blooded way of dealing with the book's love triangle is something else in his favour (awful though it is), as I like that Kenneth Oppel took the story there and allowed his character to have those thoughts.  It would have been unnatural (hoho) if he hadn't.

This Dark Endeavour works well as a book by itself, and I will definitely be reading the sequel - Such Wicked Intent - when it comes into the library.  A prior knowledge of Frankenstein isn't necessary (and I think most people, even if they haven't read the book, know the gist of the story) but it does add a little extra depth/knowledge to the reading.  Definitely recommended for fans of Gothic horror and flawed narrators.

Rating: 8/10

Other Reviews: 
Good Books and Good Wine
A Storm of Words
Diary of a Book Addict
The Book Smugglers

Review: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling

In the third Harry Potter book, all the awesome is brought.  Or, to be clearer, everything I love about the series crystalises in one book, including an "oh, J.K. Rowling you did not just do that" moment.  And, on top of all that, one of my favourite characters makes their first appearance.  As nearly perfect as the series gets.

Published: 1999
Pages: 317 (Bloomsbury, 1999)
Series: Harry Potter #3
First Read: Summer 1999
Times Read: At least 10
Part of: The Harry Potter Readalong

Synopsis: The notorious murderer Sirius Black has escaped from the wizard prison, Azkaban.  As a supporter of Voldemort, he is out for revenge on Harry Potter for defeating the Dark Lord.  Harry, however, is more worried about the Azkaban guards swarming around the school - until he learns that there is a greater connection between himself and Sirius Black than he knew...

Review: As with Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets, I'm splitting this into two sections for those who haven't read the books and those who have.

For those who haven't read the book(s) before
This is my favourite Harry Potter book, and I think it will remain so even after I've finished this readalong.  To me, it encapsulates everything that makes the books fantastic: the magic, the mystery, the characters, the plot, the sense of a fully formed world, the humour and the depth of feeling.  Everything locks together and the clicks into place perfectly.  More than any other book in the series, it makes you aware of just how well J.K. Rowling plotted the individual novels.

I am tempted to say that if you read only one Harry Potter book it should be this one.  Not only because it is the perfect example of the series, but because there isn't a lot of back story and all of it is mentioned (it's missing from later books) so the basic catch up is easy.

And I really have to stop now because anything I say, however oblique, has the potential to ruin the plot.  Go forth and read!

For those who have read the book(s) before
Before I get truly, ridiculously fangirly, I'm just going to bring up the one thing that has always bugged me about this book.  I hate doing it, because I do love Azkaban, but I notice it every time I read the bok so here goes: there is an error with Lupin's lycanthropy (at least, I've always thought so).  He says that without the Wolfsbane Potion he would become "a fully fledged monster once a month" (258) but he only transforms when his by direct moonlight  it happens as they all return to Hogwarts (278) and he doesn't change on the way to the Whomping Willow because "[c]louds were obscuring the moon completely" (296).  So, why not just stay in a windowless room every full moon?  It may cut back on your social engagements but at least you wouldn't change. 

Sorry, that has just bugged me for ages.  On with my thoughts on the book...

SIRIUS!  Oh my God, Sirius!  And Lupin!  But I like Sirius more (sorry, Lupin)!  And timey-wimey wibbly-wobbly stuff!  And That Plot Twist!  Fangirl flail!

And an invocation of depression through the Dementors, who are terrifying.  I don't think the concept of anything else in Harry Potter is as scary (not even the Inferi).  They make you remember your worst moments and there's no relief from it; that to me is horrible to contemplate.  And Harry has to hear his parents dying over and over - this book, more so then Chamber, builds on what it means for Harry to have grown up without a family, and the thread runs right from his wanting his dad to have cast the Patronus to The Forest Again. 

I was going to say that, much as I love Azkaban, it seems more standalone than some of the others - despite Pettirgrew escaping - but there are themes that are constants of the series.  It's also the first time we see Snape's side of things, and get the first real hints that James Potter was a pillock.  I am on Snape's side in how he viewed the Marauders (though less so on how he chose to deal with his teen angst - maybe don't join a group of evil doers, Severus, at least not till you've given it a good long think).  And as much as I love Sirius there are hints in his entire portrayal that he wasn't as badass a teenager as he is an adult.

This is getting a little muddly, mostly because I can't think of how best to convey my love of this book.  You've all (hopefully) read it, you know how awesome it is.  I really think it is the best book in the series as well as my favourite - though Deathly Hallows runs it a very close second.  I think reading Azkaban is what cemented me as a full on Harry Potter fan; there was no going back after this.

Rating: 10/10

Review: The Casual Vacancy by J.K. Rowling (Readalong Part Two)

This review is part of The Casual Vacancy Readalong, which is being hosted by Beth at Bookworm Meets Bookworm and Brenna at Literary Musings.  This is the second of two posts, the first of which was the non-spoilery early reaction post of last week.  This post is the full review, so it will be more in-depth than last week.  I'm not going to post the entire plot or ending, but I will speak more about themes and events than last week (though in a generalised way for the latter).  (Also, I feel really bad for not replying to the comments on the first post - part of that is because I didn't want to spoil, but mostly because I still wasn't sure what I thought. Hopefully this answers some of the matters raised in comments last time, and I'll definitely reply to the ones for this post as now I can stop wondering how far people have got in the book).

Published: 2012
Pages: 503 (Little, Brown, 2012)
Read: 27/9/12 - 29/9/12

Synopsis: The idyllic village of Pagford is ripped apart by the local parish council election and the hostilities, hypocrises and prejudices it brings to light.  The election is seen as a means of finally enabling the council to reassign jurisdiction of the Fields, a council estate that borders the village, to the local town, thus removing the pollution of the estate from the village.   

Review: As I said in my first post for the readalong, I'm really not sure how I feel about this book (even now, two weeks later).  Thinking about it in a bare bones, structural way: the beginning is a little confusing, as there are a lot of characters introduced in a short space of time; the middle is really good as she explores everyone's characters, hypocrisies and prejudices, and applies that to society on the whole; and the ending slips into Dickensian melodrama with a death which is obvious pages before it happens.  Yes, sorry, that's a bit of a spoiler but there are deaths in this book (it's JKR, that's how she rolls) and one of them is very obviously an example of how people can get so caught up in their own problems and reliant upon their own prejudices that they fail to perform an act of basic goodness which could, ultimately, save a life.  Even as I was reading it thinking "oh, no, not even Jo would do that" I knew what was going to happen because it felt inevitable.

I think that that is my problem with the novel: that the ending feels tacked on yet inevitable.  That may not make much sense, but that's how it seemed to me.  There are so many amazing moments in the book, and so many pithy descriptions of how people are that made me think "yes, that is so true!  That is so well observed!" that the ending was a let down.  The book really excels when showing people - especially teenagers - as they really are that the ending came as a huge disappointment, because it didn't seem to gel with what the rest of the book was doing.  As Julie Myerson said on The Review Show last week, it's jarring to go from a comedy of manners to tragedy, and I think that was my major issue with the book.

As for the politics - and there has been a request for my political rant, though I'm still not going to give it as it descends into Father Jack-style swearing - I think the novel was spot on about how many people view the poorer people in society, especially those living in places like the Fields.  Those sections seemed genuine, and as if Rowling was writing from her own experience of living on benefits.  Given what George bloody Osborne has been suggesting this week - slashing benefits rather than taxing the rich; basically taking from those with little so that those with plenty are left feeling happy with the government (which is presumable the whole damn point, mustn't upset your mates)* - I think this was a very well-timed novel.  Although it was started under the Labour government, it is particularly applicable to the coalition, and it scares me that Rowling was originally writing in reference to what the Tories were doing in the early 90s rather than what they're doing now.  I'm not sure how many people's minds will be changed - I've seen some reviewers on the right panning the book (though the main one I saw is someone whose opinion I wouldn't trust on whether milk had gone off) - but I still think it's important that it was written, and that J.K. Rowling is saying these things.

(Hmm, that last paragraph may contain a cleaned up version of my political rant).

To sum up - if I ever will, I could go round and round on this book - I would definitely recommend reading this book, not just because it's "what J.K. Rowling did next" but because it says some important things about the state of Britain today.  Of course, I may just think that because I agree with a lot of her opinions, but I do think it's important that this book was written.  Though that may be why I didn't enjoy it as much I could have done: it felt too much like an issues book, with an ending that served to make a point rather than tell a story, for me to enjoy it as a piece of writing.  As a damning critique of modern society it is excellent; as a novel it is flawed. 

Rating: 7/10

* I also like that he isn't going to go through with a "mansion tax" - essentially taxing homes worth over £2 million more - because too many people would be affected.  I don't know how many people George knows whose homes are worth over £2 million, but I don't know any.  It must be nice to live in a world where everyone has plenty of money and nice big houses.

Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling

Before Harry Potter returns for his second year at Hogwarts he is warned that terrible things will happen at the school.  A wave of mysterious attacks sweep the castle, and Harry finds himself caught up in the efforts to discover the culprit.

Published: 1998
Pages: 251 (Bloomsbury, 1998)
Series: Harry Potter #2
First Read: Spring 1999
Times Read: At least 10
Part of: The Harry Potter Readalong

First line(s): "Not for the first time, an argument had broken out over breakfast at number four, Privet Drive.  Mr Vernon Dursley had been woken in the early hours of the morning by a loud, hooting noise from his nephew Harry's room."

Review: As with my review of Philosopher's Stone, I've split this into two parts - one for those who haven't read the books before, and one for those who have.

For those who haven't read the book(s) before
In many ways, Chamber of Secrets builds on Philosopher's Stone, expanding the world and introducing themes that will run throughout the series.  The main focus in this book is the anti-Muggle prejudice that exists in the wizarding world, and which is J.K. Rowling's means of exploring intolerance.  This may make the book sound heavy-handed and moralistic (and it is the latter) but it loses nothing of the whimsy and humour of the first book.  It may seem like a slight rehash of Philosopher's Stone, but it is a great book on its own and features the fabulous creation that is Gilderoy Lockhart.

I'm trying not to say too much as an in depth discussion would be spoilery, but know this: when you've read this (even if you dislike it, as much of the fandom seems to) you can go on to Prisoner of Azkaban which is oh my God amazing.

For those who have read the book(s) before
I know this is one of the least popular books in the fandom, but I've always rather liked it.  It isn't one of my favourites, but I don't dislike it.  It's funny, and servicable, and it doesn't leave me let down like Order of the Phoenix nor does it seem slight like Half-Blood Prince.  I see that it is a lot like Philosopher's Stone, and it still feels like an introduction, but I rather enjoy the ever-expanding element of the wizarding world and Rowling's way of moving the reader deeper into it as the books progress.

The main flaw with this book it that the mystery isn't completely solvable by the reader.  All the other books provide you with the required information, so that when you read the answer you say "oh, why didn't I see that, it was right there!".  While this is true of the Ginny element of the solution, it isn't so with the answer of the basilisk - it is revealed in a short paragraph that tells what has gone before rather than shows.  It would have been difficult to work the information in without it being bloody obvious, but it feels forced and sloppy when it is revealed.  This is the most disappointing element of the book, which is frustrating as the mystery is usually one of the best things in a Harry Potter.

However, much as I still notived the flaw on this reread, I was most struck by how much Chamber of Secrets foreshadows Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows.  Quite apart from the items in Borgin and Burkes which Draco uses in HBP, and the two Vanishing Cabinets (oh my goodness she really had this planned), there is the diary!  A piece of Lord Voldemort's soul, right there, being flushed down toilets and thrown around by teenagers!  I almost wish there was some way he could learn exactly what happened to the diary after he'd left it with Lucius.  It could be seen as merely important to the plot of Chamber, but the word "soul" is thrown around a lot as Tom Riddle explains what happened, and even on the first read this element seems important enough to be noted though you don't know why.  And that is part of the genius of the series as a whole.

My favourite line from this book though, the one that leapt out at me this time, was "[l]et's match the powers of Lord Voldemort, heir of Salazar Slytherin, against famous Harry Potter, and the best weapons Dumbledore can give him" (233) because that is exactly happens at the end of Deathly Hallows and that says so much about Voldemort's weaknesses and ultimate defeat.

So, despite the fault with the mystery, I really like Chamber of Secrets.  It may seem a more important book now the series is complete, but I've always enjoyed reading it.  Still, I'm curious: what is it about Chamber of Secrets that fans dislike?

Rating: 9/10

Review: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J.K. Rowling

Orphaned as a baby, Harry Potter is brought up by his neglectful aunt and uncle and thinks he is an ordinary boy.  Then he discovers he's a wizard, goes to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and fights the Dark Lord who murdered his parents.  And it is awesome.

Published: 1997
Pages: 223 (Bloomsbury, 1997)
Series: Harry Potter #1
First Read: Spring 1999
Times Read: At least 10
Part of: The Harry Potter Readalong

First Line: "Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."

Review: This book is very difficult to review, because it's Harry Potter and I just want to bounce around going "it's awesome, if you haven't read it before go and read it, if you have read it before then read it again.  Either way, get thee to the book!" but that probably isn't very helpful.  Also, I want to speak of spoilery things, but that's hardly fair to new readers, so I have divided this into two sections: one for those who haven't read the books, and one for those who have.

For those who haven't read the book(s) before
Part of me wants to say, simply, "remedy that" but that's not exactly a compelling argument.  So I will say: the word 'magical' is constantly thrown around about Harry Potter - especially given its immense popularity and J.K. Rowling's rags to riches story - and it is an epithet that fits.  These books are magical, especially this first one when everything is sparkly and new and the series hasn't yet taken the dark turn it does in later books (oh, the pain those later books can cause).  Yes, the language is simplistic and geared at a young audience, and some of the characters are painted with broad strokes, but it is a fun, fast-paced read that perfectly sets up a series full of mysteries, laughs and drama. 

Read it, and know that people are envying you for being new to the world and to not knowing all the answers (because the films don't include everything).  As a piece of pop culture, it's worth reading; as a children's book, it's fantastic.  Get thee to the book.

For those who have read the book(s) before
This is more difficult, because I feel like I ought to be talking about themes like love, death and loyalty, and basically writing an essay that encompasses the entire series and interviews from Rowling, complete with me fangirling all over the place and going "this is why I love her and her books, because of these moments, and because she'll talk about the coalition and how much they're screwing the country over!  Stuff like this!".  But I'm really not sure if that isn't something better saved till the end of the series as I'm constantly reassessing on this reread - for example, I've realised just how much Chapters 17 and 18 of Chamber of Secrets foreshadow Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows.  There is so much there it's ridiculous in hindsight.

And because, on rereading, this book doesn't contain as much information as some of the later books.  That seems self-evident, but in terms of moments where I was going "oh my God, that's setting up this!" it doesn't have half as many as in CoS.  There's the mention of Sirius, and I really wonder if Harry's dream at the end of Chapter 6 (when Malfoy turns into Snape and there's a flash of green light) is a reference to Half-Blood Prince, but the actual information that Jo gives is minimal.  It's really the introduction to the world and the big mysteries: why did Voldemort want to kill Harry?  How did Harry survive?  Why does Harry's scar hurt?  And how much, exactly, does Dumbledore know? 

I have to admit that, with hindsight, I am watching Dumbledore more closely.  Not in a judgemental way, as you know he doesn't want to use Harry in the way he does (even if it's an action which even Severus 'I want that boy expelled' Snape is quick to condemn) but because you're aware of what his true actions are.  When he tells Harry he isn't old enough to know the truth, you know that he has his reasons for not saying, all of which are explained in Order of the Phoenix - he loves Harry too much to cause him the pain of knowing the truth.  Of course, another part of me was thinking "yeah, plus Jo needs to spin this out for several books" but, at the same time, I don't know that the books would be improved by Philosopher's Stone ending with "hey, Harry, there's this prophecy and you're in it!".

I think the thing that most staggers me, repeatedly, with Harry Potter is: how did J.K. Rowling* pull this off?  The more I read the series, and the more I attempt to write my own books, the more I have to marvel at her achievement.  Yes, there is the occasional plot hole that makes me want to tear my hair out** and yes there are times when I think "wouldn't this have been a bit simpler for the bad guys?" (particularly in Goblet of Fire) but ultimately: how did she do this?  How did she plan it, hold it all in her head, and then get it down on paper over the course of ten years (seventeen including planning)?  Even without the immense pressure she was under as the series went on it would be difficult, but with that media spotlight and the fans' expectations, I really don't know how she did it.  The amount of care and attention and planning that went into these books is phenomenal and one of the things that I take away most from them.

So, I think my reaction to Philosopher's Stone is 1) I'm back at Hogwarts, yay!; 2) how on Earth did J.K. Rowling do this?; and 3) there is so much more to come and I cannot wait.  Onwards!

Rating: 10/10

* I know the correct, academic usage would be 'Rowling' but I feel weird writing that, just as I feel weird writing just 'Austen'.  Though writing Jo also feels a bit too personal as I've never met her, however much I may be 'but that is my name too!'.
** There's one in Prisoner of Azkaban that I will discuss when I get there.

Review: The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas

Falsely accused of treason, Edmond Dantes is imprisoned in the infamous Chateau d'If.  There he meets the Abbe Faria, who educates him and tells him of the legendary treasure of Monte Cristo.  After a daring (and somewhat foolhardy) escape, Edmond finds the treasure, re-invents himself as the fabulously wealthy Count of Monte Cristo, and seeks revenge on those who betrayed him.

Published: 1844-46
Pages: 1,264 (Harper Perennial, 2008)
Read: 20/8/12 - 6/9/12
Challenge(s): Project Fill in the Gaps

First line: "On the 24th of February, 1815, the lookout of Notre-Dame de la Garde signalled the three-master, the Pharaon, from Smyrna, Trieste, and Naples."

Review: I have a couple of confessions to make regarding my reading of this book:

1) Although I've owned a copy for years, I only started reading it recently because I'm hooked on Revenge and had heard that the series was loosely based on this novel.
2) A lot of my ideas about the plot were formed by a trailer I saw years ago for a movie adaptation of the book.  Most of these were completely wrong (which I'm glad about, because the trailer made the story look dire and also pretty much told the entire plot in three minutes).
3) I am ridiculously proud of myself for finishing this book.  Given my usual habit of getting distracted and putting books down to pick them up again years later (if ever), the fact that I stuck with this despite its length makes me feel like I'm owed some sort of prize. 

Now that those are out of the way: I really enjoyed this book.  Despite its somewhat intimidating size and the smallness of the text, it's incredibly easy to read - I'd suddenly find that I'd read over a hundred pages and it was a lot later than I thought.  The plot, though convoluted and complex, keeps you reading, especially when Edmond is the Count and wreaking his revenge and you're not quite sure exactly what he's doing or how the vengeance is going to play out.  There are a lot of characters, all with their own agendas and secrets, which all come into play, and despite the sheer number of plot strands everything is wrapped up at the end - possibly a little too neatly but given the juggling act Alexandre Dumas pulled off this is fine.

My main gripe would be that, at the beginning, Edmond is a prat.  The reader is meant to feel sympathy for him - and I did when everything started going wrong - but at first he's a slightly arrogant, thoughtless prat and, while I didn't want him to end up falsely imprisoned for over a decade, I did want someone to at least tell him off a little.  This lack of sympathy continues, to an extent, while he's in prison and after his escape, mostly because the Count is constantly set up as an almost supernatual, utterly inscrutable being.  One of my favourite "oh, you're just messing with the reader now, Dumas" parts of the entire book is how often the Count disguises himself and gets away with it, the height of this being when he is three 'different' men on the same day to the same investigator.  He's up there with Sherlock Holmes in terms of how well he can disguise himself, and it gets more than a little ridiculous.

This, naturally, follows over into no one who knew him before he went to prison recognizing him (with one logical exception).  The people he's seeking vengeance upon invite him to their homes, ask his advice, and blindly accept that this dude has popped up out of nowhere at exactly the same time that their lives start falling apart.  This is often spoken of as divine providence - and the Count sees himself as an agent of God - but it does raise the question of how justified his actions are: yes, he suffered terribly, but he pushes things to such an extent that there are suicides, murders, madness and the near obliteration of an entire family.  And, while Dumas does deal with the downside of this, it's never clear whether he condemns or condones the Count's actions - though, most likely, the latter, while leaving it uncertain for the reader.

Personally, I think it's all a bit overkill, and the ending is a tiny bit too neat.  There are also several moments when I wanted to shout "just tell each other what's going on!" at a few of the characters, and towards the end there's part where the Count really should have just told Morrel what he was up to, it would have stopped a lot of problems.  Yet, despite my ambivalence towards the central figure - and to most of the characters, if I'm honest - I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book.  It's not a swashbuckling yarn as I expected, and there are times when I thought Dumas was being more than a bit ridiculous with what the Count could achieve, but it was fantastically readable and fun for all that.

My Final Thoughts: Not the most sensible of books, but it doesn't have to be.  Continuity errors abound, the characters frequently fail to recognise someone they knew well unless it's convenient for Dumas, and the outcome of all of the plotting and conniving is, potentially, not worth it.  But, for all that I can see plenty of faults with the book, I'm glad I read it and recommend it to anyone looking for a fun (if long) read.

50 Words or Less: Enjoyable read, worth the time it took to plough through it, but a bit messy and full of moments of incredulity.  Less swashbuckling than expected but lots of plotting and manipulating, which keeps you guessing (which is why I've mentioned as few actual plot details as possible in this review).

Rating: 9/10 

Review: Mansfield Park by Jane Austen

Fanny Price is brought up by her wealthy relations, the Bertrams, at Mansfield Park.  She accepts her status as a dependant and becomes an observer of the drama that ensues when the Crawford siblings arrive in the neighbourhood.

Published: 1814
Pages: 372 (Oxford World's Classics, 2008)
Times Read: 2
First Read: March 2005
Read This Time: 6/8/12 - 11/8/12
Part of: Austen in August

First line: "About thirty years ago, Miss Maria Ward of Huntingdon, with only seven thousand pounds, had the good luck to captivate Sir Thomas Bertram, of Mansfield Park, in the county of Northampton, and to be thereby raised to the rank of a baronet's lady, with all the comforts and consequences of an handsome house and large income."

Review: As I said in my sign up post for Austen in August, I've only read Mansfield Park once and that was a long time ago (seven years, oh dear).  I'd labelled it boring and less fun than Jane Austen's other works, and if I had dipped in it was to reread the last three chapters of the book when everything goes all eighteenth-century melodrama.  This, as I discovered in this reread, was silly of me as Mansfield Park is brilliant.  I don't think it's going to replace Pride and Prejudice or Persuasion in my affections, but I'm definitely going to stop thinking of it as Jane Austen's 'failure' (because, frankly, such a thing doesn't exist).

Not that I didn't find fault with elements of the book - for me, the biggest problem was Fanny as the heroine.  It's not because she's an intensely moral character or a quiet one, because I'd say both Elinor Dashwood and Anne Eliot are these things as well, but because for a large part of the novel she's a passive observer.  I know that this is the point - and that she's been brought up to believe she has less part in family life than her cousins - but it's hard to enjoy that as a reader.  Even though I could understand what Austen was doing, especially with the 'staging' of the play sections and Fanny's role as 'audience' to the romantic drama, I still found myself urging Fanny to do something.  Fortunately, when she does it is awesome and steel-cored.

What struck me most while rereading, though, was how the Crawfords were failed versions of Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy*.  Mary Crawford has all of Elizabeth's playfulness, charm and wit, but none of her sense of duty or proprierty.  And Henry Crawford nearly manages a Darcy-style transformation into a proper landowning gentleman, only to fail because he doesn't have the right foundation of character to sustain this.  It's almost as if Austen is playing around with her own work to make her point about the need for "principle, active principle" (364) and an understanding of the correct way to behave.  The world of Mansfield Park is a lot harsher and colder than that of Pride and Prejudice, which may be why I struggled with it first time.  It's certainly Jane Austen at her most disconcerting.

Nothing in Mansfield Park feels safe or secure for very long.  The house may stand as a symbol of home for Fanny, and be the picture of well-bred society in the early nineteenth-century, but everything about it feels off somehow, as the presence of Mrs Norris demonstrates from the start.  The arrival of the Crawfords merely exaggerates everything that was already bad, and when Fanny returns to Portsmouth her recollections of the house are coloured by the poverty in which her parents live.  Everyone's perceptions and ideals are shown to be incorrect in some way throughout the novel, even Edmund's.  Only Fanny has a clear sighted view of people's characters, and the sense to recognise where her own feelings may colour her perception.  This may be yet another of my problems with the novel: Fanny has nothing to learn, there is no major change in her character or views as there is with Elizabeth or Emma - again, this is true of Elinor and Anne, but they're older and more believable as such paragons.

I think it's going to take a while for me to sift through all my thoughts on Mansfield Park.  I certainly enjoyed rereading it, and there were moments when Austen's snark and irony really shone through - especially when dealing with Mrs Norris, particularly in the interaction with the butler - but there's something not quite right about Mansfield Park that throws me off.  It could be that this was Austen's intention, to demonstrate how even the wealthiest and therefore 'ideal' families can fail, but this makes the novel uncomfortable to read.  I'm certainly glad I reread it, and will do so again in the future, but I think it's a jarring shift from Pride and Prejudice and is making me appreciate the relative sunniness of Emma that much more.

* In their characters rather than their relationship to each other, obviously.  Thank you, film adaptation, for throwing that 'surmise' out there at the end.

Review: The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller

Published: 2011

Pages: 352 (Bloomsbury, 2012)

Read: 27/6/12 - 29/6/12

Synopsis: Patroclus, an awkward young prince, has been exiled to the kingdom of Phthia. Here he is just another unwanted boy living in the shadow of King Peleus and his golden son, Achilles. Yet one day, Achilles takes the shamed prince under his wing. As they grow into young men their bond blossoms into something far deeper — despite the displeasure of Achilles's mother. When word comes that Helen of Sparta has been kidnapped, the men of Greece are called upon to lay siege to Troy in her name. Seduced by the promise of a glorious destiny, Achilles joins their cause. Torn between love and fear for his friend, Patroclus follows Achilles into war, little knowing that the years that follow will test everything they have learned. (from Goodreads)   

First Line: "My father was a king and the son of kings."

Review: I'm trying to keep this review from being too effusive, as I've just finished the book and am still in the afterglow of a fantastic read.  Suffice to say: I love this book.

I'm something of a Classics nerd, to the extent that I can be a bit precious about the Greek myths in general and Homer in particular.  I was wary about reading Percy Jackson (though I really like those books; another series I need to finish*) and I refuse to watch Troy because I'm sorry you cut the gods and made Achilles and Patroclus cousins I do not want this, so I was a little worried about The Song of Achilles.  I needn't have been: even though I knew what was going to happen to everyone, I was still gripped and cared about the characters - to the extent that I cried at the end, even though I knew exactly what that end would be.

I think part of the reason I loved the book so much is that it fitted almost exactly with my own view of the Trojan War.  Not only because of the Achilles/Patroclus relationship, but the portrayal of the other heroes, especially Odysseus.  I started reading the book on my lunch break at work, and I had to smother laughs at the sheer snark of Odysseus at Tyndareus's palace.  And then the epic snarkfest between him and Diomedes - so much joy.  If there is one tiny complaint it's that we don't get Diomedes kicking the arses of Ares and Aphrodite because that would be awesome (but I see why we don't).  And a quick note on the gods: they appear and are involved in the fate of the heroes, and they have all the power that features in the myths, as well as the ability to guide men without the men quite realising, which works perfectly.

But it's in the portrayal of Achilles that the book works best.  In The Iliad he's either stubbornly proud or psychotically vengeful, so to get more depth to his character and story is wonderful.  I've never particularly liked him as a hero, but this made him more human and his story even more tragic, and I wanted to reach into the pages and stop everything from happening.  And this is me trying not to spoil for people who don't know Homer, but the end of the book is a steady rush to a finale I knew but dreaded.  That is the strength of the book for me: that it made me care even though there was no suspense for me.

I think even if you go into this book with no knowledge of the Trojan War, it's still a fantastic read.  If anything that might add to it as a story, because I was foreshadowing everything that was going to happen by myself.  But I wouldn't give up the sheer joy of discovering that someone else views these characters as I do for the chance to read this book as if it was a new story.  As a book it is beautifully written, the battle scenes are fantastic, the research is clear but never shown off, and it is a marvellous read.  At its heart - taking away the epic story and the foreknowledge of the character's fates - it is a love story between two young men caught up in a war neither of them want, and it is wonderfully told.

50 Words Or Less: A marvellous read, even without a foreknowledge of the Trojan War.  While my Classics geekery added an enormous amount to my enjoyment, it is a wonderful book regardless, working as both a romance and a historical novel.  My fantastic read afterglow will last.

Rating: 10/10

* Although I did work myself up into a somewhat ridiculous fury over the whole Percy calling himself Nobody to Polyphemus won't make sense to anyone reading the book thing. 

Review: Tom Brown's Schooldays by Thomas Hughes

Published: 1857
Pages: 307 (Penguin, 2004)
Read: 4/6/12 - 6/6/12
Challenge(s): Project Fill in the Gaps
Also part of: A Victorian Celebration

Synopsis: Tom Brown attends Rugby, deals with a bully who goes on to have his own spin off, cheats at Greek, drinks beer, plays cricket and rugby, and generally grows into a thoroughly good chap (albeit one with alarming Victorian facial hair).

First line: "The Browns have become illustrious by the pen of Thackeray and the pencil of Doyle within the memory of the young gentlemen who are now matriculating at the universities."

Review: I have to admit, I started reading this with a couple of fixed opinions - that the book would contain all those elements which later became cliche in boys' school stories, and that it would be a slog to get through.  Both were proved wrong.

This really isn't a difficult read at all, for all that the first three chapters are an ode to England that reminded of the Fry and Laurie sketch in which they end up yelling "England! England!" like they're stuck on repeat.  Yet even this part is readable, harking back to a simpler time in which 'folk' ways dominated.  It sets the tone for the book, which is very much about the wonders of England and what the right kind of male characters can do for the country.

As for its position as one of the first (if not the first) school story: there are many elements that I'd say are familiar from later school stories - the sports, the bullies, the need to behave correctly not only for the sake of the school but for later life - but a lot of the more outlandish elements are missing*.  This is more about charting the development of one boy rather than the activities of an entire school, which is borne out by the book featuring so much of Tom's early childhood as well as his time at Rugby.  That this is also evident in the highly Christian ethos of the book - something which does feature heavily in a lot of later school stories, for boys and girls - suggests that this novel is about as instructing as much as entertaining.

Not that it isn't entertaining, if only for the differences between considerations then and now, my favourite being that it's not all right for an eighteen-year-old boy to drink gin (it's never named but that's what the bad drink has to be), but it's perfectly fine for eleven-year-olds to drink a lot of beer while enjoying an all-house-singsong.  And while there aren't all the pranks that are so frequent in later books of the genre, there is the Least Sensible Rugby Match Of All Time:

1) The entire school plays, that's approximately three hundred boys aged between eleven and nineteen.
2) It's school-house vs. the rest of the school, so about sixty boys vs. over two hundred.
3) It's best of three goals, and it's considered miraculous that a goal is scored in the first hour.
4) The match is split over three consecutive Saturdays.
5) The rules are explained in such a way that Quidditch seems like an easy sport.  I'm not a rugby expert, but I can follow a match; even so, I was thinking "what the hell are you saying, Hall, that makes no sense whatsoever!"
6) An eleven-year-old attempts to tackle a much older boy and simply bounces off.
7) Tom ends up at the bottom of a pile up and is only saved from crushing by the fifth former on top of him bearing most of the weight of the boys above.  Still, at least they all think he's a plucky youngster for diving on the ball.

In fact, if I took anything away from this book it's that rugby used to be incredibly chaotic and confusing - and that Thomas Hughes loved it enough to turn Chapter Five into propaganda for the sport (and for school-house, which is fairly obviously his old house). 

I would recommend this book, especially for anyone wanting to read Victorian literature that's more light-hearted than a lot of the tomes that were produced.  The message of marvellous imperial Christian England (never Britain, it's all England) does grate somewhat, but within the context of the times is less wearing than it could be.  For a school story fan, it's fascinating to see where a lot of elements originate, and I found myself thinking most of Elsie J. Oxenham's books, which attempt to view issues such as death through a similar prism of faith.  A fun read, and a good start to my reading for A Victorian Celebration.

Rating: 8/10

* For example, no one is left lying grey and motionless and apparently dead, which is something which always livens up the latter third of a school story.

Review: Dante's Inferno (Group Read)

I read this for the Group Read being hosted by Allie at A Literary Odyssey.

I'm still sorting my thoughts on this poem - I only read Inferno, so there may be things that happen later in The Divine Comedy which would affect my current opinion but which I don't yet know about.  I finished at midnight last night after a few glasses of wine, which may be why I was underlining anything that was also referenced in Assassin's Creed 2 (or maybe I'm just a colossal geek) and getting annoyed with Dante for being all smug about leaving someone with their eyes frozen over.  I think the easiest way to do this may be in a list.

1) I am so glad I'm a classicist.  I was looking up quite a few notes in the back of my edition anyway - mostly to do with Florentine history and who some of the sinners were - but if I'd also been looking up the mythological references the poem would have taken even longer to read.  The only one I didn't recognise properly was Electra: I thought it was the daughter of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra and got a little hacked off that she was being treated nicely.  Turns out, it was someone tied into the whole Aeneas-founded-Rome thing.

2) Moving on from the first point, though, is the fact that I've always preferred Greek to Latin, especially when it comes to poetry.  The Aeneid does my head in a little, especially the end and Turnus and I'm sorry, I'm supposed to admire Aeneas because no, not happening, and don't even get me started on Dido - because at least none of Odysseus's ladies topped themselves when he left, whatever Dante may be saying about him in Inferno.  There is a note in my edition that states that Dante had no Greek and that Homer's work existed only in fragments or commentaries at the time, so he was drawing on those for his information, but still.  I was angry - as the above rant possibly suggests.

3) Also a follow on: the style of the poem.  I don't think I've ever seen so many Homeric similes in one place before.  They're everywhere.  And better done than Virgil, who does occasionally seem to be labouring the point.  The trip to Hell is also a clear imitation of the trip to the Underworld in The Aeneid, which is in turn based on Odysseus's journey there in The Odyssey.  I wonder what it would have been like had all of Homer been extant at the time of Dante's writing.

4) Did Dante like anyone besides himself, Beatrice and Virgil?  Because a lot of this read like Chaucer in A Knight's Tale threatening to immortalise his enemies in poetry.  This may change as he moves up to heaven - I'm guessing there will be examples of good people there - but in Inferno it seems like everyone who has ever pissed him off is suffering agonies.  He claims to have respect for the office of the Pope but is happy to have several late Pontiffs buried upside down in pits with their feet on fire.  And he even devises a way for people he likes who are still alive at the time of the poem to be suffering merrily away: your sin makes you lose your soul, which descends to Hell, and a demon takes your body (like a vampire in Buffy).

5) I'm not sure if the point is that Dante is human and therefore fallible, but he doesn't come off particularly well during his journey.  Not only does he swoon as much as Pamela, but he's smug and he lies and he's generally annoying.  Again, this may change when he gets to Purgatory and Heaven, but he didn't behave particularly well in Hell (they have a code of conduct down there, you know).

6) Some of the punishments were utterly grotesque - which may be why so many TV serial killers use them on their victims - but the one that scared me the most was in the desert at the beginning, full of people who had achieved nothing of good or evil.  Their lives had been blanks; they had done nothing and could go nowhere.

I feel like this should have some sort of conclusion, but I'm not sure what it could be - and I'm aware that this has been a bit ranty (I am clearly one of the wrathful).  I did enjoy the poem - as much as something that horrific can be enjoyed - and when I got into the rhythm of it the stanzas flew by.  I also want to read the rest of the comedy, and read up the history of Florence at the time because it sounds fascinating and faction-full.  Maybe that's the highest praise I can give it: I want more now.

Review: Dracula by Bram Stoker (Group Read)

Published: 1897
My Edition: Penguin Classics, 2003
Group Read: Hosted by Allie at A Literary Odyssey; main link post is here.

Review: I have 9 1/2 sides of A4 full of notes I made while rereading Dracula; some are serious, some are downright silly and there's an entire essay on gender and sexuality buried in there somewhere.  My main thoughts on rereading were that this is not the book I remember, or which seems to exist in the popular imagination - the horror is less about Dracula and more about people's reactions to him.

Not that I can't see the origins of just about every vampire story in the book.  Pages 254-5 of my edition lay down almost all the rules of vampires.  The main rule 'missing' is the harmed-by-sunlight thing (which originated in Nosferatu) as Dracula is merely prevented from using his full powers during the day time.  And a major difference from modern fiction *cough*Twilight*cough* is that Dracula is not an attractive vampire - though the three sisters are beautiful and voluptuous (that is their main descriptor) - and he gets younger as he drinks more blood, rather than being a fixed age.  There are all sorts of elements that can be dragged out and changed to keep the vampire myth going.

In that sense, Dracula is as it is perceived, but the main concerns of the book seem to be less about vampires and more about gender, sexuality and madness.  It's not just Renfield: almost every character seems to be haunted by the idea that they're insane for believing in vampires despite the strange occurrences happening around them, and that they may even be imagining what's happening.  Jonathan Harker has brain fever (of course, you can't be in a Victorian novel without it) and thinks the things at the Castle can't possibly have happened.  Mina's dreams are put down to her mind being too active and troubled.  They even consider how they're going to explain to the police about the burglary and murder they're going to have to commit to rid the world of the Count - because "oh, this foreign dude we just stabbed in the heart and decapitated is a vampire, officer" doesn't really cut it.  There's even an acknowledgement of how weird everything is, when Seward says "I sometimes think that we must all be mad and that we shall wake to sanity in strait-waistcoats" (292).

I'm actually finding this review a bit difficult to write, because I almost want to turn it into an essay and because a lot of the things I want to say are better expressed here by Cleolinda (as she says, Van Helsing talks like a lolcat; my personal favourite of his many bizarre speeches is "he fear time, he fear want!  For if not, why he hurry so?  His very tone betray him, or my ears deceive" (327)).  It is a horror novel and there are some absolutely terrifying bits - I had forgotten about the wolf breaking into Lucy's window and then her lying under her mother's corpse all night - but I think the greatest fear the characters feel is sexual, both the changes that will occur in the pure women if they become vampires, and in Dracula's own interest in Jonathan Harker.  The first four chapters in the castle are very homoerotic, and if the book hadn't been written in 1897 it could easily go another way. 

Which makes me wonder what it would have been like to read the book when it was first published.  Reading it now, not only am I reading subtexts into it that may not have been picked up on*, but I know Dracula is a vampire - and even if I didn't I know enough of the rules (laid down by this very book, if that isn't too circular a thought) that that I can spot what he is as soon as it turns out that he doesn't have mirrors in his house and all the locals are crossing themselves and giving Jonathan Harker rosaries to protect him.  But to read the book without any of that foreknowledge, to just think that the Count is a slightly eccentric foreigner...that could be interesting.

Rating: 8/10

* Although I think it's more blatant than The Picture of Dorian Gray and Victorians evidently found something there they didn't like.