What I read...and reread

With the latest "Harry Potter" film coming out in a few weeks -- Noa and I call it "HP7.2" -- I reread the last chapters of the book, basically where the second film will begin. I then starting thinking of how many times I have read the HPs. I began reading them with the second book came out -- a grad school friend had a British friend who had sent her "Harry Potter and the Apprentice's Stone" and she was so hooked that she convinced me to start reading them when the American versions came out. So, I read books 1 and 2. Then when 3 came out, I read 1, 2 and 3. When 4 was released, I read 1, 2, 3 and 4. And so on. I have read the entire series (1-7) three times, so that means I have read the first book nine times -- is that possible?! I am afraid it is.

It made me wonder what other books I reread a lot, for that would tell me what books I truly love and would recommend. I went to my bookshelves and here is what I found (in no particular order):

The Harry Potter series by JK Rowling
The Flavia de Luce series by Alan Bradley
The plays of William Shakespeare (specifically "Hamlet," "Julius Caesar," "Macbeth," and "Twelfth Night.")
"Reviving Ophelia" by Mary Pipher
"Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen
"Lonesome Dove" by Larry McMurtry
"The Book Thief" by Markus Zusak
"The Screwtape Letters" by CS Lewis
"A Man for All Seasons" by Robert Bolt
"Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell
"My Life in France" by Julia Child
"How Children Raise Their Parents" by Dan Allendar
"Bel Canto" by Ann Patchett
"The Six Wives of Henry VIII" by Alison Weir
"Reason for God" by Timothy Keller
"The Illiad" by Homer
"The Stand" by Stephen King
"Seabiscuit" by Laura Hillenbrand
"The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Collins
"The Tower, the Zoo and the Tortoise" by Julia Stuart
"Empire Falls" by Richard Russo

If you want to know about any of these books, email me. Some may show up on a blog in the future and I am sure I will add to this list as time goes on. Until then, happy summer reading.

The Flavia de Luce Novels by Alan Bradley

The Flavia de Luce Novels by Alan Bradley

Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie

The Weed that Strings the Hangman’s Bag
A Red Herring Without Mustard
I am Half-Sick of Shadows (release date November 2011)

The Flavia de Luce Novels are, by far, my favorite series of the past few years. The first was released in 2009 and I adore them. They are murder mysteries, set in the 1950s in the de Luce family estate, Buckshaw, found in the English countryside. Our dear Flavia is an 11-year-old girl, motherless due to a climbing accident that claimed her daring mother, and living with her closed-off father and two mean older sisters, Ophelia and Daphne. She inherited a relative’s chemistry lab in the house and when her sisters shut her in a closet or insist she was adopted, Flavia daydreams about the best way to poison (not kill!) her sisters, yet escape without getting caught – something an intellectual, yet
pre-teen girl would fantasize about.

In each of the novels, a murder occurs either at or near Buckshaw and our impetuous, precocious Flavia is determined to solve the mystery. She takes “no” as suggestion or challenge if it prevents her from following a lead. (“a hand-printed card (in front of the steps) read: ‘Tower Off Limits – Strictly Enforced.’ I was up them like a shot.” Sweetness, p.227). She is beyond her years in many ways, yet fights back the tears when her sisters hurt her feelings.

While the protagonist is a young girl, I would say they are more high school and adult books. They are not considered Young Adult Fiction, yet my 15-year-old nieces and 11-year-old daughter have read them. While they enjoy them, I think they miss some of the funnier lines and references that only come from once being that age and having the maturity to view it differently, as well as the experience to recognize different works of literature and the era in which the book is set. I have yet to solve the mystery before Flavia, so they are well-written. I don’t want you to think that just because she is young that the mysteries are light. They are all murders and there is a bit of peril involved.

What amazes me the most is that the author captures a young girl on the cusp of becoming a teenager, yet Alan Bradley is a Canadian in his 70s. There are so many lines from the books that I just love. Here are some of them:

“You are unreliable, Flavia,” he said.

Of course I was! It was one of the things I loved most about myself. Eleven year olds are supposed to be unreliable. We’re past the age of being poppets; the age where people bend over and poke us in the tum…And yet we’re not at the age where anyone mistakes us for grown-ups. The fact is, we’re invisible – except when we choose not to be. (The Weed…, p 112)

“Horehound sticks are meant to be shared with friends,” she said.

She was dead wrong about that: Horehound sticks were meant to be gobbled down in solitary gluttony and preferably in a locked room. (The Weed…, p 145)

On the British Broadcasting Channel (BBC) voice actors all sound the same: “The BBC must breed these people on a secret farm.” (The Weed…, p 258)

“I had to make water,” I said. It was the classic female excuse, and no male in recorded history had ever questioned it. (A Red Herring…, p 75)

Compared to my life, Cinderella was a spoiled brat. (A Red Herring…, p 101)

Alone at last! Whenever I’m with other people, part of me shrinks a little. Only when I am alone can I fully enjoy my own company. (A Red Herring…p 102)

Undefeated, I saw down and removed my shoes and socks. When I come to write my autobiography, I must remember to record the fact that a chicken-wire fence can be scaled by a girl in bare feet, but only by one who is willing to suffer the tortures of the damned to satisfy her curiosity. (A Red Herring…p 142)

*****

I find myself reading these books with a smile on my face – they entertain, they make me laugh, they test the intellect. They are a joy and I will lend them out and reread them endlessly.

Divergent by Veronica Roth

Divergent by Veronica Roth

This book was recommended to me by my friend Emily a few months before it was on the shelves. Veronica Roth is her friend and I thought the blurb looked interesting. Then I saw it promoted in a few magazines and ordered it through Amazon.com. (When the UPS truck drops off a package from amazon.com, it is like I hear “The Wells Fargo Wagon” song from “The Music Man” – it always brings such excitement!)

Divergent is set in post-war Chicago where its citizens have been divided into five factions, each known by a main virtue and each serving its own unique purpose in keeping the city going: 1) Dauntless – they honor courage above all and believe cowardice to be “blamed for the world’s disarray;”  2) Candor – value honesty and hate duplicity; 3) Abnegation – value selflessness and hate selfishness; 4) Erudite – value knowledge and hate ignorance; and 5) Amity – value peace and hate aggression. Each faction was formed to do good and serve each other, but as with so many good intentions, corruption can infest. When teenagers reach the age of accountability, they are allowed to choose the faction with which they will belong for the rest of their lives. If they leave the faction they were raised in, they must cut all ties with their family and start a new life in the faction they choose.

The story follows Beatrice Prior, a girl raised in Abnegation and her duty to “die to self” has been both an asset and a cause of strife. The book opens with her nearing her Choosing Ceremony and then the action begins. I do not want to tell too much more about the plot because it would truly spoil where the story goes. I will say that it closely follows Beatrice (or Tris) as she goes through the initiation into the next part of life and how she struggles that she is not completely any of the factions – she can be selfless, but she is also selfish; she desires peace, but she is willing to fight. It leads to a worthwhile discussion of how we are labeled – by ourselves or by others – and how we can have so many characteristics, and some that conflict at times.

If all this sounds somewhat familiar, it may be because you read The Hunger Games. I have seen Divergent compared to The Hunger Games in many reviews and it is understandable. “A dystopian thriller” (as the author herself calls it) about a young girl on the cusp of a life-changing event of which she has very little control. I adore The Hunger Games (well, the first one anyway; they kind of slide downhill after that for me) so I was a bit skeptical at first and that feeling hung around for the first 100-150 pages. Then Roth went a direction I was not expecting and I saw Divergent as its own book, not as a Hunger Games knock-off. Roth makes this story its own and while I can see the comparisons, her book is different and should be opened up on its own merit, not on the coattails of another successful Young Adult story.

It is my understanding that Divergent is the first in a trilogy and the book lends itself to a sequel. While the book is near 500 pages, it is fast read and definitely a Young Adult (YA) book with the teenage girl struggling who figure out who she is and who she is becoming – and, of course, there is a boy.

I give it a 4 – try to find it at the library or borrow it (locals – I have it).

"Major Pettigrew's Last Stand" by Helen Simonsen

Major Pettigrew’s Last Stand by Helen Simonsen

"Life often does get in the way of one’s reading."

Again, another book title that kept coming up, especially by friends in other book clubs. My book club is reading it as our June selection.

Major Ernest Pettigrew is a distinguished retired military man, still trying to find how to live as a widower. He lives in the same town he has known forever and observes his fellow Englishmen and women (and himself) and their reactions and responses to the English of Indian descent who live with them in town -- but it is more like a co-existence. The hint of – and sometimes quite obvious – racism and divide flows throughout the book, even as Major Pettigrew develops a relationship with Mrs. Ali, the local shopkeeper, herself also a widow. Major Pettigrew is an interesting character in that everyone has great reverence toward him. It is even more interesting that while all the other characters appreciate his integrity, the power of his position, the strength of his word, the respect he demands merely because of who he is (he does not demand it, it is freely given), his call to duty, his chivalrous attitude, and his humility, everyone wishes to use his greatest attributes to their advantage. Almost every character – rotten or not – wants Pettigrew on their side. They all know that he is so respected that his support of them is gold (At one point, when a man wants to sway others to his plan, he verifies the power of the Major: “If we can’t convince him of what we are doing, we might as well give up”). He seems quite aware that he is being used, but his sense of duty and desire to be needed encourage his involvement.

For some reason, this book took me a while to read and get into. It was not particularly difficult to read or even uninteresting. It took effort, and I am not even sure why. It was a book club selection, so I plowed through and after hitting about halfway, I was glad to pick it up and read the last 3/4ths of the book in one day.

My recommendation: When I finished it, I was glad to have done so. If it had not been a book club book, I probably would have stopped 50 pages in and then asked a friend who had read it what had happened. I recommend sticking with it, but don’t get discouraged when it takes a while to plow through it.

 Quotes I liked:

“Back behind his own gate, the Major felt a small spasm of grief. He had been feeling better in recent days and it was a surprise to find that his sorrow over his brother [who recently died] had not gone away, but had been merely hiding somewhere waiting to ambush him on just such an occasion.” (p161)

“’How amazing it is that we ever planned to read it [poetry about nature] outdoors,’ said Mrs. Ali. ‘It has so much more power out here where it was made.’” (p. 192)

"Sweet Valley Confidential" by Francine Pascal

Did I really just read the 2011 Sweet Valley High book?!

Yes, yes , I did. I must feel pretty comfortable to admit that. A few months ago my sister-in-law showed me her collection of books from her pre-teen years. On the shelf sat nearly 50 Sweet Valley High books, books that made my stomach flip. I remembered devouring Francine Pascal’s teenage mini-novels that followed the perfect Wakefield twins – novels with titles like “Double Love," "Playing with Fire" and "Dangerous Love." As a middle schooler, I gobbled up these books every month and I know I was not the only one. Even though I roll my eyes as I recall the books, they have a part in my history and good memories from being a pre-teen.

So after reminiscing about the books, I laughed when not long afterwards I saw that the author had written a sequel and Sweet Valley Confidential recently hit the bookstores  – what in the world would Jessica and Elizabeth have to say to me now as a 39-year-old? The book was set 10 years after the height of SVH (you heard me, I harkened back to the small red flag with the letters “SVH” on the covers) and it is not the Sweet Valley I remembered. I remembered the stories of Jessica and Elizabeth Wakefield with their California lives and great friends.  At first, I would feel a bit sick when I compared my scrawny, bespectacled, brown-haired self to the model-perfect twins, but after reading them, I thought that somehow the girls were like me – never got into too much trouble, “real” trouble (drinking, being too rebellious, testing the boy/girl world) was uncomfortable and a bit scary, and they just wanted to be liked by friends and have one good boy like them back. With that I could relate to them and so their stories were fun.

No more, I says! Somewhere in the past 10 years (fiction time frame) of the Wakefield twins, 25 actual years have passed and it is more certainly 2011. Nobody seems to be a nice person; everyone has turned jaded and some are just plain jerks. Language that would never, >ever< happen in Sweet Valley is tossed around. To have Elizabeth comment on her orgasms? Hell-o! For Mrs. Wakefield – with her page-boy haircut – to drop an f-bomb? No one seems to be happy or loyal; infidelity and surface relations are the norm. A main character comes out. This is stuff you find in many books written today – but to have this happen to characters whom seemed so innocent not that long ago? I must be naïve to think that the SVH characters would remain unjaded and committed to each other, especially in today’s world. That is what I loved about them at the time, so this book just seemed sad to me.

If you loved the original books, I would recommend rereading them instead of reading Sweet Valley Confidential. If curiosity gets the best of you, get it from the library – don’t waste your money on it – and give yourself a day to read through it. As for me, I am hopping over to my sister-in-law’s house and borrowing the first 10 of the original Sweet Valley High series. I think I can get through them in a long, lazy bath.

"The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook – A Tale of Sex/Money/Genius/and Betrayal" by Ben Mezrich

The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook – A Tale of Sex/Money/Genius/and Betrayal by Ben Mezrich

I saw “The Social Network” and figured there was more to the story. I mean, can Mark Zuckerberg be that big of a jerk? Not only that, can he be that big of jerk and yet people say “I don’t really care, he added something to my life”? Since movies are so truncated and oftentimes nothing like the book, I was hoping the book would shed some light and go deeper into the inception of Facebook. Ah, no. At least not on the Mark Zuckerberg part and he declined any participation in the book, as well as the movie. All parts about him alone are “picture him in his dorm room, working on his website. He might be thinking…” Speculation and that is all.

The book is obviously the story of Eduardo Saverin (it is unclear how much he helped), Zuckerberg’s co-founder of Facebook. Saverin comes across without guile, perhaps a bit naïve and a loyal friend. At the end of the day, though, the overall picture seems that he worked with the author because he is mad (not going any further into that in case you don’t know the story). I can only assume one of the Winklevoss twins also was a source – there is just too much info for them not to be. All that said, read the book with a critical eye in which the main character of the book – the main character of Facebook – is not present. There is a side of this story which is not told in this book or given publicly. I do not doubt that there is a lot of truth to this book – it just can’t be the whole truth. (And, as another Aaron Sorkin character would say: “You can’t handle the truth!”)

I dig Aaron Sorkin. I loved his dialogue on “The West Wing” and “Sports Night,” and his script for “A Few Good Men” is outstanding. But with his script for “The Social Network,” I was disappointed that he seems to have purposely set up Zuckerberg to be an even bigger jerk than he may already be. He changed facts from the book to help this in his script (e.g. in the film, when Zuckerberg needs to launch The Facebook, he convinces Saverin to hand over his Final Club members’ emails, seemingly caring less that this may be reflect poorly on Saverin. In the book, it was Saverin’s idea. And when Saverin visits Zuckerberg in California, Zuckerberg did not strand him at the airport as he does in the film. Small details, yes – but it doesn’t help Zuckerberg.). If you saw the film and were wondering a bit, the book is certainly interesting.

All that said, Zuckerberg did not cooperate with the book or the film. In fact, he has remained very quiet about it. (The only comment I heard from him regarding the film was that he was impressed that he actually owns every one of the fleeces and hoodies his character wears in the film. Ha!) The guy is getting slammed in a New York Times Bestseller and an Academy Award winning movie. People think that this is the guy he is. Why is he not defending himself? Frankly, he can afford not to care.

Throughout the book, the author reminds us that Facebook was created to be the college experience to another level. It was stated in a plain, blunt and “this is how it is” kind of way – and I was bummed. I am a big fan of the old Facebook, but this made me sad. I hit 40 years old this August, I have been married for 17 of those years. I did not have the type of college experience that the instigated the inception of Facebook and there are those out there that would tell me that I should open my mind and accept that this is life. The Facebook buttons “Looking For. Relationship Status. Interested In. Those were the resume items that were at the college experience…. Online, it would be the same; the thing that would drive this social network was the same thing that drove life at college – sex” (94). That may be true, but I can’t believe that it is right or good for us. If it is, I am truly sad and scared for my kids. When busy students are thinking about social networking online, their main motivation is to meet girls “without the inefficient, time-wasting, wandering around campus that real life usually necessitated” (30). Wow.  The point is that they wanted to spend their crucial hours in class, studying, at practice for rowing crew, not putting an effort into finding a person and getting to know them. For that, they want a shortcut. To communicate, to connect, to put the work into a relationship – skip it, please. I must say, I feel very old and out of touch writing this. I am fully aware that texting and, to a lesser extent, emailing is this next generation’s method of communicating and I am sure years ago parents were very frustrated by their children choosing to speak to someone over the rotary-dialed phone than face-to-face. But it seems that this new method takes away all effort and even though it is full-disclosure, it is also distanced.  It is just really taking me some calm to get that it is now common to not need personal privacy, believe that “information is meant to be shared,” (53) (that one explains the rise in plagiarism), and is ok that the internet “wasn’t [in] pencil, it was pen” (57). I guess my concern is that this freedom will come back to bite us. Hard.

**Do not read this paragraph if you have not seen the film or read the book and don’t want to know.**

I asked David why Zuckerberg would settle with both Saverin and the Winklevoss twins, especially if – as seen in the movie – he believes he did nothing wrong. Doesn’t settling equal admission of guilt? He said that settling is not the same as admitting guilt. In fact, it is actually a wise idea at times. Attorney fees can/will get out of control and a lawsuit could drag on too long. And while the Winkelvoss were given a settlement of $65 million and Saverin an even larger amount, Facebook is worth between $6.5-10 billion – so Zuckerberg wins. He said the formula when for deciding when to settle is to figure out how much you stand to win, how much the lawyers’ fees will cost and determine if it is worth it. He told me one can’t think you can win on principle – that is not the issue. It does come to whether it is monetarily worth it (time and financially).

I also asked David, Esq., about intellectual property. In the book there is a lot of talk about how every computer science major at Harvard was creating a social networking site – it was not a rarity and no one had a market on it (Friendster and MySpace were working on it at the time, but, as we all know, they never reached Facebook fame). So if Zuckerberg heard a great idea and then his visionary mind took off to places the originators never dreamed of it going, is he really guilty of stealing? He said that if there is any resemblance, it is considered theft of intellectual property, so they had every right to sue and should be happy with their settlement (although it seems like a small amount compared to how much Facebook is actually worth). Just recently heard that although the Winklevoss’s agreed to not sue again after receiving their settlement, they sued for more money and the judge threw it out.

All that said, it is a fast read and current with something that impacts our lives today. If you liked the movie and want a little insight into today’s culture, it is worth it.

3 = I would ask around to borrow it or hit the library. (A “4” if you really, really liked the film.)

"The King’s Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy" by Mark Logue and Peter Conradi

The King’s Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy by Mark Logue and Peter Conradi

Much like with “The Social Network,” when I saw “The King’s Speech” I wanted to know more about the story. I did not know that the current queen’s father had been a second son who was thrown into the position of king, a position he never aspired to and was hesitant to take.

If you liked the film, I think you will really enjoy the book. The film took liberties that were not true (while the king’s father was not the easiest man and father, Bertie seems to have been his favorite child; it does not seem that the king ever thought Logue was a doctor, etc.).  The book was written by Logue’s grandson who is custodian of Lionel Logue’s archives. It is amazing the amount of notes and correspondence Logue retained over the years and it serves the story well, both in explaining the plot and the humility of the man. The book does focus more on Logue’s story – his empathy for his students and desire to see them healed of their affliction is powerful and sweet – he wanted to help “bring them the relief of the sung word from the torture of the spoken one” (p 44).  But unlike a lot of biographies about people in the background of very famous people, this book does not focus entirely or even mostly on Logue. His story is almost all interwoven with the king’s story – how Logue got to England from his native Australia, how he learned his skill, his other patients and accolades for his work with the king. The book also gives a history lesson in what surrounded the king and World War II. I knew very little about the bombings of London (almost daily bombings for 76 nights during The Blitz) and how devastating it was. The king was an amazing man whose lack of desire for the crown made him a better ruler – he took his position out of duty and love for his country, not out want to rule.

The story explains the various childhood circumstances that led to his stutter, but also show that he was completely curable – with the right help. The story continues to show his great care and determination to be healed as he served as his father’s mouthpiece as a prince of the realm. It shows him as the second to the throne for the 327 days his brother served as king before he abdicated to marry an American woman because Parliament would not continue to serve if she became the king’s wife. Bertie – as he was known to his family, King George VI to his country and the world – became king and shouldered up his country through the second World War. His strength and determination seems evident in his daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, who celebrates her 60^th year on the English throne this year. Throughout this story, Logue’s own story is interwoven through his family life, the life of his practice and his consistent presence as teacher and encourager of the king.

What I found most amazing about the book (and in the film) were these two men. We rarely see a relationship between men that is not based on conflict, competition, good cop/bad cop, or opposites attract. This is an unpretentious, at first professional and then personal, relationship. It is rare to see two men who have great humility regarding their positions and their professions, especially when one is the king of England. The king never outgrew his desire to improve; he did not see their relationship as sovereign/peasant. As the years went on and both men aged and matured, Logue was unable to be at the king’s speeches, but the king asked him to call him following his hearing of every speech on the wireless and give him his notes. This man is the king of England! What humility. He was honored to be a student and friend of Logue and honored him in return with various titles and multiple letters with beautiful thanks. And none of these actions were to assert power, force loyalty or flatter. They were truly from the heart and the appreciation never lagged. Logue, for his part, was a great empowerer and sincerely wanted to see his student, his friend and his king be the best he could be, whatever that meant – “He is such a good chap – and I do want him to be a marvelous King” (p128).  Logue’s position is one that could have never gained him notoriety. It certainly wasn’t an era of complete disclosure (more or less) that we feel we are living in now. I found the story sweet, encouraging, stunning in that it is a true story, and I am glad we know these two men existed.

I give it a 4 – I recommend both the film and book. I will reread this book again and again. It gives hope.

"Faceless Killers" by Henning Mankell

Faceless Killers by Henning Mankell (A Kurt Wallander Mystery)

Once in a while, someone will recommend a book and then I hear the same book title mentioned on tv. Then I will see a review of the book. If I hear a title over and over within a short amount of time, I always look into it. I may not go through with reading it, but I will most certainly check it out.

Last month, I kept hearing of The Kurt Wallander Mysteries. It is a different enough last name that I didn’t forget it and it continually popped up. Then I saw a dvd with Kenneth Branaugh as “Kurt Wallander.” Ok, enough already! I went online to find the series and in which order I should read them and traveled to the Wheaton Public Library. As I checked out Faceless Killers (and the next two books), the librarian applauded my selection, saying she enjoyed them very much. An older gentleman standing next to us overheard the conversation and agreed with her.

When I asked my sister, Pam, if she had heard of them, she said “not another Swedish book!” I guess Mankell’s Wallander series has been overshadowed by a series by another Swede – Steig Larsson and his “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy.

(Sidebar – Now, I read the three Girl with the Dragon Tattoo books – The Millennium Trilogy, mostly because I was tired of people asking me if I had read them. I read them in late 2010 and while I am glad to have read them, I do not feel as strongly positive or negative about them as some people – but at the same time, I was eager to pick them up and felt satisfied when I finished them. I thought the trilogy worked really well, was cohesive and all three books were solid, unlike some trilogies (I’m looking at you, Hunger Games!). If you haven’t read them yet, be prepared for some stark/shocking events, some sadness and a solid three-part story. Lisbeth Salander is, as has been written, one of the most interesting characters in recent fiction. The Swedish films are good – but graphic and do show, in detail, what is in the book. I think the American versions that they are filming now will tone it down, but the severity of action is somewhat necessary to the plot. I think. Then again, the first book was called Men Who Hate Women in Swedish, and retitled to Girl with the Dragon Tattoo when printed in English. )

Kurt Wallander is a hero of today. He is not pretty, he does not have it altogether, he is actually quite a mess. He is a cop and investigator in a small town in Sweden. The mood of the book and its setting reflect its main character – dank, depressed, overcast, less than lively, bleak, oppressive.  It also has a slightly misogynistic tone to it – on a few occasions, when a female colleague contradicts or challenges Wallander, he mentally calls her a bitch. Really? If it was once, I would say there is some back story there, but it happens a few times and it felt angry.  It did remind me of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in this and made me wonder – is this just Sweden? Is this the general mood of its people and country? If you know a Swede, please ask them – I am very curious. (It may be like people around the world thinking that Americans are all blond, blue-eyed Californians.)

Faceless Killers follows Wallander as he investigates the double murder of an elderly farmer and his wife. The thread of racism within Sweden simmers under the investigation and has Wallander and the reader wondering its impact. The investigation itself is solid and interesting, as is Wallander’s private life that weaves throughout the story. His own elderly father who is aging too rapidly; Wallander still mourns the separation from his wife and he is estranged from his only daughter. By the way Mankell has Wallander’s life running strongly within the story and often interrupting the investigation, it is clear that his family will be a large part of the Wallander story we have yet to encounter. Wallander is very cerebral – much of the book takes place in his head. Wallander thinking is much of the action. There is dialogue and observations, but much is the main character mentally talking to himself.

The Wallander series is now complete with the author publishing the final novel this year. Mankell wrote several Wallander books and then more that focus on Wallander’s daughter. I heard that all the books address the question “what went wrong with Sweden?” Makes me curious and quite interested in reading more.

Quotes I liked:

“Wallander looked at the man sitting in front of him. There was something hard and dogged about him. Like a man who had been brought up eating gravel.” (72).

“Wallander was instantly annoyed by the man’s attitude. Sweden had turned into a country where people seemed to be afraid of being bothered more than anything else. Nothing was more sacred than ingrained routine.” (92)

“Every time Wallander stepped into someone’s home, he felt as though he was looking at the front cover of a book that he had just bought. The flat, the furniture, the pictures on the walls, and the smells were title.  Now he had to start reading.” (244)

I have yet to read other Wallander mysteries, but my interest is highly peaked and I look forward to them all. I liked the Kenneth Branaugh BBC version – he plays a great Wallander and I recommend those as well.

Faceless Killers – Borrow the book or get it from the library. If you read it and really like it, buy them all.

Blogging begins ~ June 5, 2011

I was talking books with my Bible study friends and someone said “you should start a book blog.” The thought had never occurred to me, but it made perfect sense. I am always giving my (often unsolicited and most likely adamant) opinions and recommendations so why not do it where I could actually keep track of what I said? (As my husband the barrister always says regarding things you think you need to remember and perhaps defend later – “document, document, document.”)

So as I began to set it up: Step 1 was to name the blog (cue screeching tire noise). Huh? Stumped already. Set creative friend Aimee to work, put that off myself (that is called “procrastination” and “passing the buck.” See? We’ll even touch on vocabulary once in a while) and starting thinking of what I would actually do on said blog. First thing that hit me was that I needed to acknowledge my influences – not my literary influences, they will show up all over the blog later on. I need to point out those who have led me to where I am now and continue walking beside me.

*My parents – who always had full bookshelves and a willingness to take a trip to the library.

*Pam, my older sister – the first voracious reader I knew.
*Penny, my younger sister – always at the ready with a quirky book to recommend (“Stiff,” anyone?).
*Amy – she is just part of me and must show up on any “thank you” list I ever compose. It is as simple and deep as that.
*Julie – who introduced me to “Lonesome Dove” and we would sit in absolute mutually-appreciated silence in our dorm room while we each read our own book.
*The Diving Club – my sisters in Christ who first told me to do this blog. And then lovingly nagged me until it went online.
*Aimee – who took it upon herself to make me figure out this blog’s name. Much appreciated.
*My Book Club (yet to be named) – who always surprise me with their pick of the month and graciously remember the group with bookmarks from their travels far and near.
*Noa – my daughter who once wrote a poem about me that included the word “Shakespeare” and is on pace to be an even bigger reader than myself (with even more adamant opinions).
*Nathan and Micah – my boys who already show an interest in books as they drag a bag of them to the car every time we go anywhere and then ask me to read “Lego Star Wars: A Visual Dictionary” one.more.time.
*and David: who supported my habit by buying me my Kindle, knows how a house with built-in bookshelves is a must, looks forward to me getting my doctorate in English more than I do, and he loves me. That’s a good man.

So what to expect from this blog? I have kept a reading journal for a while now and it began because people would ask me how a book was that I read two months ago and I blanked. I wrote if I liked it, if it was recommended and by whom, a basic plot (if I knew I was going to forget it), how it changed me, favorite quotes, and where my mind went during and after I read it.  When a book makes me think, I tend to write more about it and what I am thinking – but one particular book’s entry in my book journal is “meh.” If something in the book needs research for me to understand it more, I can veer off to find out. (Example: When I read “The Book Thief” for the third time in a year – yes, it is that good; future blog? – I wanted to know exactly how nuts Hitler actually was so I read “Mein Kampf.” Just so you know, he was >really< nuts.) And on occasion, I ask David legal questions and I will share his insights as well (see “The Accidental Billionaires”). I am guessing that is what is going to show up here. I promise no spoilers (“no, really, they all die! It’s crazy!”), unless I tag it as a spoiler. You know I will be blunt. I will say “no, I did not like ‘Art of Racing in the Rain,’ and yes, I heard someone malevolently whisper ‘blasphemy!’ from the back of the room and I can live with that.’” (True story.)

I will probably also put up various favorite lists as they come to me (favorite all-time, favorite books made into films, etc.). Don’t expect a weekly “Top 10” or my version of “NY Times Bestseller.” I read fast, but not that fast.

Rankings:

5 = I own two copies of this book. One hardback for myself and one paperback to lend out.
4 = If I lost this or lent it out and wanted the person to keep it, I would buy another copy.
3 = Ask around to borrow it or hit the library.
3.5 = Read it merely to be able to cross it off my “Must Read/It’s a Classic” list.
2 = With no real effort, I would see if it was on the library shelf and if not, move on.
1 = Even if it was free on Kindle, I wouldn’t waste the space on it.

So, what does Paula read? I pretty much read anything. There are books and subjects I have no interest in at all – but that goes for everybody. I read current fiction, young adult, classics, nonfiction, plays, biographies, history, Christian living, whatever the book club names that month; books on parenting, marriage, relationships.  I try to keep a varied schedule and often will read something heavy while reading something lighter at the same time. Skip as you wish – I am not offended. And I am always interested in your response and book recommendations you have. Send them on.

Happy reading.  ~P