|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B00DJYMJ7Q
| 3.94
| 377,284
| Jul 03, 2001
| Oct 13, 2009
|
it was ok
|
So here's the thing about the romance trope of "guy annoys girl on purpose because he thinks she's cute when she's angry": First, I hate it. I haaaaate So here's the thing about the romance trope of "guy annoys girl on purpose because he thinks she's cute when she's angry": First, I hate it. I haaaaate it. It's condescending as shit and is rooted in the idea that other people's emotions aren't real, so that makes it totally fine to upset someone on purpose because you think it's funny. Also it's always the guy doing it to the girl and is never the other way around, and you know that Julia "let's just do a beat-for-beat retelling of Cinderella and call it a day" Quinn certainly won't do anything inventive with the trope. But it's also an extremely tricky thing to pull off, because it requires the man to act like a total dick and the woman to be consistently beaten down by his "flirty" teasing and insults. The author has to work very hard to make the final act turnaround work. And that's the thing that kills An Offer From a Gentleman dead in the water: this dynamic of "guy is mean to girl because he can't admit he likes her" does not work in a Regency setting. At least if you have a bickering couple in modern day, you're comforted by the fact that if the girl really doesn't like the guy, she can tell him to fuck off, and walk away. Sophie Beckett, the heroine of this extremely frustrating and unromantic horror story, can do neither. Add that to the fact that Benedict's favorite way to needle Sophie is to remind her that she has no power and he can do whatever he wants, and the result is a love story where I was actively rooting for the heroine to murder the hero in his sleep. I mean, Jesus. At least with Anthony and Kate, their constant bickering worked because even if Kate wasn't as rich as Anthony, they were more or less social equals and had a level playing field. The Benedict/Sophie dynamic is just sad, because you're just reading about this woman getting constantly belittled and insulted, and the only way out is to marry the guy. Sure, Benedict doesn't rape her, and his narration is constantly insisting that "well, if she rejects me and means it of course I'll stop" but then literally a sentence later he's like, "She'll sleep with me eventually, I just have to wear her down." Not great, Julia! (I do love how Benedict is so delusional he just takes it for granted that becoming his mistress is the best thing that could possibly happen to Sophie. Provide references or shut the fuck up, bro. Also it's worth pointing out that in this era, being a rich guy's mistress was one step up from indentured servitude anyway, and GOD how I wish Sophie had pointed this out to him.) (view spoiler)[Also, I do not believe for one second that the other Bridgertons (and society at large) would be so chill about this pairing. Violet Bridgerton, a woman whose defining character trait is wanting her children to have good (ie, profitable) marriages, does not mind that her son is marrying a bastard servant girl because, well, as long as he's happy! We'll just invent some relatives for her and hope nobody looks into it! Excuse me? There are FIVE MORE kids who'll eventually need to get married, you're telling me that Violet isn't even a little bit worried about how this will affect their chances? For Christ' sake, the entire series is framed around a GOSSIP COLUMNIST whose WHOLE THING is uncovering characters' dirty secrets, are you seriously telling me that Lady Whistledown never finds out Sophie's real backstory? (No, of course not, because Lady Whisteldown is [redacted], so she can't ever do anything mean to the perfect Bridgertons) And remember, at this point in the series Anthony is recently married and doesn't have kids, which means if he gets run over by a carriage the entire family fortune goes to Benedict. Is Julia Quinn seriously going to tell us that Anthony (Anthony!) is cool with the second son marrying a servant?! There's even an epilogue where Sophie is thinking about her kids and their future marriage prospects, and she's like, well, it'll be fine because by then everyone will have forgotten the rumors. Sure, Jan. (hide spoiler)] An Offer From a Gentleman proves that Julia Quinn is the laziest kind of historical fiction writer, one who picks and chooses which rules from the era she wants to follow when it suits her story. She clearly chose the Regency era because she liked the idea of writing romances where unmarried couples could barely touch each other in public, but as soon as she runs into ugly realities of the time period, like the total lack of human rights for servants or the unbreakable rules of social hierarchies, she half-asses an explanation for why her characters can ignore them because to acknowledge the reality of how much the Regency era sucked for 95% of the population isn't sexy. Georgette Heyer is embarrassed for you. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Mar 2025
|
Mar 16, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
| 1250807603
| 9781250807601
| 1250807603
| 3.46
| 7,512
| May 25, 2021
| May 25, 2021
|
it was ok
|
I'll give Brian Moylan credit for this much: the man has certainly done his homework. If you want a really in-depth, technical-detail-heavy exploratio
I'll give Brian Moylan credit for this much: the man has certainly done his homework. If you want a really in-depth, technical-detail-heavy exploration of how the Real Housewives sausage gets made, this is the book for you. Unfortunately, it wasn't the book for me. Fair warning to anyone considering whether this might be their personal cup of Pinot Grigio (Turtle time!): you have to be a true-blue, hardcore Housewives fan to really enjoy everything going on here. Personally, I only watch the Atlanta and Beverly Hills iterations of the show, so despite the fact that I've consumed what amounts to twenty-two seasons of television, I'm what Moylan would consider a casual fan. And because of this, a lot of the stuff that gets discussed here just bored me. I'm sure many other readers would be entertained by Moylan's exhaustive description of the time he paid $2,000 to attend a weekend event thrown by Vicki Gunvalson; I had little frame of reference for why this was such a big deal. And honestly, the behind-the-scenes details he discusses are far from explosive; more often than not, it's a lot of stuff about what production company is in charge of what franchise, and how casting works, and whether or not Bravo pays for the lavish vacations the women get sent on every season. In other words, while this wasn't technically a DNF for me, I definitely skipped over some large swaths of the book. Honestly, the main problem this book has is that Moylan cannot deliver on the insider information he promises. According to Moylan, Bravo execs became aware that he was writing a Housewives tell-all and, because they had their own network-sanctioned book already in the works, basically iced Moylan out: anyone on Bravo's payroll, from producers to editors to the housewives themselves, were ordered to refuse any interview requests from Moylan. As a result, nobody was willing to speak to Moylan on the record, and any insider info we do get is delivered anonymously, or by former employees (who, often, still refuse to be named). Even Erika Jayne, who Moylan insists is a personal friend (and not, you know, his former employer) didn't break ranks and agree to be interviewed on the record. Those who pick up this book seeking a true glimpse behind the curtain will be disappointed - reading Moylan's book is sort of like being promised a backstage pass but then getting taken on a tour of the concert venue's HR department. That's not what we paid to see! One thing this book did solidfy for me was that I'm happy staying on the casual side of the Housewives fandom. There are people who love this strange juggernaut of a franchise with all their hearts, and ultimately I never found common ground with them. Reading Moylan's breathless descriptions of BravoCon should have filled me with joy and envy; instead, it just made me sort of sad for everyone involved. I was definitely not the right audience for this book. "The ultimate promise of BravoCon is the reassurance that the fandom we've all spent so much time and devotion nursing, is valid. It is worthwhile, and tangible. Every panel, every celebrity interaction, every selfie taken, every piece of merchandise purchased was like the universe whispering, 'This is real. This is real. This is real.'" ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
May 2022
|
May 03, 2022
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0380800829
| 9780380800827
| 0380800829
| 3.79
| 644,969
| Jan 05, 2000
| Jun 27, 2006
|
it was ok
|
Look, it was fine. It wasn't my cup of tea and I have no interest in continuing with the series (or starting the show), but I'm not going to begrudge
Look, it was fine. It wasn't my cup of tea and I have no interest in continuing with the series (or starting the show), but I'm not going to begrudge anyone their own personal taste in Comfort Fluff. I think the main reason this book really wasn't my jam was because I'm already a fan of Georgette Heyer - Julia Quinn makes a heroic attempt, but her story really pales in comparison to THEE queen of Regency romance. Even the setup is very, very familiar to Heyer readers: our heroine is Daphne Bridgerton, who is facing her first London season with no suitable marriage prospects on the horizon, and an increasingly pushy mother who's desperate to get her oldest daughter paired off. Enter Simon, duke of My biggest complaint with the book so far was that we didn't get to spend nearly enough time with the Fake Engagement plot - it feels like Quinn could have gotten a lot more mileage out of this, but she's clearly interested in getting Daphne and Simon married (and into the bedroom, eyebrow waggle eyebrow waggle), so a very silly series of events means a hasty marriage, so the pretend courtship aspect barely lasted two chapters. The characters are well-drawn and engaging, if slightly anachronistic (over the course of one book, Daphne punches two different people and then explains it away by saying that she has lots of brothers, and it doesn't quite justify why our proper Regency heroine is hauling off and socking people in the face). However, I will give Julia Quinn all the credit in the world for having a heroine who not only has a healthy curiosity about sex, but enjoys sex, and Daphne nor the text ever tries to apologize for how unashamedly horny she is for Simon. (One of the funniest scenes for me was Daphne and Simon's wedding night - Simon is just concerned about taking things slow and not scaring Daphne, who of course has had no sex ed whatsoever; meanwhile Daphne is just like DO WE GET NAKED NOW I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S IN YOUR PANTS BUT I CAN'T WAIT TO FIND OUT.) So yeah - I was having a reasonably fun time, if nothing special. And then the sexual assault happens. (view spoiler)[Listen. I get that in Regency England the concept of "spousal rape" didn't really exist as a concept (or, anyway, as something that you shouldn't do) and the idea that a woman could sexually assault a man was similarly foreign. So of course, when Daphne coerces Simon into sex while he's too drunk to consent, with the specific goal of getting herself pregnant against his wishes, she's obviously not aware of all the ways this is very, very wrong. She gets that she's tricking Simon, of course, and she does eventually realize how upsetting the experience was for him, but the whole series of events was...really strange and really unpleasant to read about, especially because the book isn't really willing to delve fully into the fucked-up-ness of what Daphne did. But I'll admit that I also hate stories where Person A is really adamant about not having kids until Person B wears them down. At least Daphne and Simon eventually have a kid because they both agree to it, and Simon's rape doesn't result in pregnancy. But it soured their entire relationship for me, and I was never able to fully get over it. (hide spoiler)] Bottom line: if you're looking for smut, there's better erotica out there. If you're looking for historical romance, there's Georgette Heyer. There isn't anything The Duke and I has to offer that isn't being done better elsewhere. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Oct 2021
|
Jan 03, 2022
|
Mass Market Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0385695403
| 9780385695404
| 0385695403
| 3.33
| 60,576
| Jun 30, 2020
| Jul 14, 2020
|
did not like it
|
Novels written specifically to be an "homage" to a piece of classic literature are always a risky venture for authors. You have to appeal to people wh
Novels written specifically to be an "homage" to a piece of classic literature are always a risky venture for authors. You have to appeal to people who have never read the work that your book is based on, by making your story stand on its own merit and not just on its similarities to another story; and by the same token, you need to put enough of your own spin on the story so fans of the source material will still be entertained. And of course, the biggest risk comes from inviting - and almost encouraging - readers to compare your story to the much more famous book it's based on. So Kevin Kwan set himself up for an enormous challenge by attempting to do an updated version of A Room With a View, and it should come as no surprise to anyone that he biffs it, spectacularly. EM Foster's heroine Lucy Honeychurch has been swapped out for Lucie Churchill - the half-Chinese, half-American daughter of an old-school East Coast WASP family. The Italian setting remains the same, although Kwan substitutes Capri for Florence, possibly because Capri gives him more chances to describe various lavish vacation homes (part of the fun of this book, I'll admit, is googling the different mansions and luxury hotels Kwan is constantly name-dropping). Anyone who has read Foster's book will already know every beat this story will take, and can rest assured that Kwan will not risk any truly innovative deviations from his source material. Readers who have no familiarity with A Room With a View will probably spend most of their time wondering why an adult woman in the 21st century is so obsessed with protecting her "reputation." It doesn't translate well, is what I'm saying. Kwan almost sells us on the idea of a quick fling at a wedding almost ruining a woman's life, because he at least does a good job of demonstrating how strictly Lucie's behavior is dictated by her upper-class conservative upbringing. But Kwan can't even be bothered to make his version of George legitimately unsuitable for Lucie - the best he can do is have George be the wrong kind of obscenely rich, oh and also his mother is tacky. The horror. (there's a bit at the end where Mrs. Zao gets a WASP makeover to appease the racist co-op board of the luxury apartment she wants to buy, and it left a seriously bad taste in my mouth) The easiest way to illustrate how Sex and Vanity (oh my god, the LAZINESS of that title! Go girl give us nothing!) fails to live up to its literary predecessor is with the text itself. First, we have the scene from A Room With a View when Lucy breaks up with her fiance: "When we were only acquaintances, you let me be myself, but now you're always protecting me...I won't be protected. I will choose for myself what is ladylike and right. To shield me is an insult. Can't I be trusted to face the truth but I must get it second-hand through you? ...you wrap yourself up in art and books and music, and would try to wrap up me. I won't be stifled, not by the most glorious music, for people are more glorious, and you hide them from me. That's why I break off my engagement." And here's how Kwan updated that speech for 2019: "And I know you think it's wrong of me to say this now, but I know you'll be miserable being married to me in the long run. You deserve someone who actually has an Instagram account with more than eight posts. You deserve someone who loves sitting in the front row at the haute couture shows in Paris, who loves wearing huge emeralds while sunbathing on your superyacht. Someone who likes tying you up in the gondola and reenacting the wrestling scene from Death in Venice. ...For a while, I thought I was that person too, but I've come to realize I'm not." Somehow, not quite as stirring. The closest that Kwan ever gets to telling an actual story is when he examines the complicated relationship that Lucie has with her white grandmother, who raised Lucie in an environment where she was always treated more like a pet than a person - her grandmother's "little China doll." There's a scene where two characters discuss the idea that someone can love you and still be a racist piece of shit, and it's over far too quickly so Kwan can retreat back to his comfort zone of Rich People Doing Rich People Shit. With this book, it's clear that Crazy Rich Asians was a fluke. That book succeeded because of Rachel Chu - our Everywoman who let us into the world of the obscenely rich while still keeping the reader tethered to reality. Kwan's total disinterest in her character (she virtually disappears from the series by the time the third book rolls around) shows that he's no more complex as the spoiled rich people his books try to parody: Kwan really doesn't have anything more to provide as an author except an endless litany of designer brands, exclusive locations, and luxurious mansions. There even seems to be a tiny flicker of jealousy from the author when he describes Lucie's art career - even though she comes from an extraordinarily privileged background and has the world at her fingertips, Lucie is considered above the other characters in the book because she has a rich inner life, and real artistic talent. And talent, unfortunately, is the one thing you can't buy. (Also, Kwan missed a huge opportunity by doing A Room With a View when I would pay real actual money to see his take on The Buccaneers by Edith Wharton. Now that could have really been something) ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 28, 2021
|
Feb 2021
|
Jan 28, 2021
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0525577122
| 9780525577126
| 0525577122
| 3.26
| 3,639
| Jun 30, 2020
| Jun 30, 2020
|
it was ok
|
Lesson learned: don't read a book just because Chrissy Teigan recommended it on her Instagram.
Lesson learned: don't read a book just because Chrissy Teigan recommended it on her Instagram.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
2
|
not set
not set
|
Aug 2020
not set
|
Sep 15, 2020
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| B07KWDXB66
| 3.30
| 17,748
| Apr 16, 2019
| Apr 16, 2019
|
did not like it
|
"I've gone to therapy, but it was inconclusive." I want to make something very clear right off the bat: I am not giving this book one star just because "I've gone to therapy, but it was inconclusive." I want to make something very clear right off the bat: I am not giving this book one star just because it’s written by a reality TV star. I gave Holly Madison’s Playboy memoir five stars and I meant every single one of them, so I went into this book with a pretty open mind, and wasn't prepared to dismiss it just because it’s written by someone who became famous for being awful on a Bravo show. I’m giving this one star because it’s the lowest tier of ghost-written celebrity literature: the so-called “how-to� book. Sometimes a C-list celebrity will attempt to write a book, but because they’ve already laid so much of their life bare on TV, social media, etc (and have no particularly interesting thoughts or inner life to share), they have to brand themselves as an “expert� in some vague and difficult to define field like “entertaining�, “balancing life and family�, “keeping it real�, or “having it all� (ie, nothing so specific where you need some kind of degree or certification to prove your expertise). Stassi has apparently decided that her particular Thing is “owning it� and at my most generous, I’d say that the purpose of this book is to help you find your self-confidence. Which is, weirdly, a very appropriate subject for the woman whose claim to fame on Vanderpump Rules is systematically destroying the self-esteem and emotional well-being of her enemies. Who better to teach us how to hone our self-confidence than the woman whose greatest skill set is identifying weak points in the emotional armor of others? Unfortunately, Stassi has completely de-fanged herself for this book in order to appeal to the broadest possible audience and not appear controversial in any way. This book is not written by the Stassi who once threatened to send an acid-soaked dildo to her enemy, and that’s a real shame. Any declarative statement in this book is immediately followed by the caveat that if it’s not your thing, that’s fine too! Everything is fine! There is no wrong way to be! Everyone just get along! A weirdly fascinating aspect of this book is seeing all the various ways Stassi essentially rephrases the same core idea of “you do you, girl� and stretches it over a couple hundred pages. In fact, that’s pretty much the only lesson to be gleaned from this � so really, Stassi didn’t need to write a book, she could have just gotten t-shirts made. (Also, the “girl� part of “you do you, girl� is crucial, as this book is not remotely interested in speaking to anyone who is not a cishet woman) But my one-star review mostly represents this book’s wasted potential. Stassi is trying to be a bootleg Oprah here, but that’s not what we want from her. You can draw a direct line from Dynasty villains to Stassi Schroeder’s persona on Vanderpump Rules, and that’s the person I wanted to read a memoir from. This book reads like an audition for a bland lifestyle show on the Home network, and that’s disappointing. And Now, A List of Things I Wanted From This Book That Were Never Delivered: -detailed step-by-step descriptions of how Stassi forced multiple girls to quit SUR because she didn’t like them -how to hack your boyfriend’s social media in order to keep tabs on him and exert full psychological control -a lengthy chapter explaining the how and why of that time Stassi tagged along on Katie and Schwartz’s honeymoon -a more honest memoir that would address the fascinating insight into Stassi’s adolescence that we got when her mother said that teenage Stassi would lie on the kitchen floor and eat bread every day after school -becoming a reality TV villain for fame and fortune: how did Stassi do it, and was it worth it? -a straightforward industry memoir about what it’s like to work in a West Hollywood restaurant that’s also a working reality TV set At least I got this from the library and didn’t pay actual money for it. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Oct 2019
|
Nov 05, 2019
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
| 1455557102
| 9781455557103
| 1455557102
| 3.80
| 68,001
| Apr 07, 2015
| Apr 07, 2015
|
liked it
|
While I definitely wouldn’t say that I’m one of those Americans who is weirdly obsessed with the British royal family, I will admit that my college ro
While I definitely wouldn’t say that I’m one of those Americans who is weirdly obsessed with the British royal family, I will admit that my college roommates and I got up at 4am to watch the live broadcast of the William/Kate wedding. I baked scones for the occasion. So actually yeah, I probably AM one of those Americans who’s weirdly obsessed with the British royal family. That being said, I almost definitely read this book much too late. The Royal We was released in 2015, when everyone (or at least those of us who refuse to let go of our romanticized notions of royalty being inherently better than normal people) was still basking in the afterglow of the William/Kate Cinderella Romance Wedding Spectacular. Nowadays, public perception of the couple is, uhh…well, let’s just say that the honeymoon is definitely over. (If you don't know what I'm talking about because you don't pay attention to weird shit like this, allow to summarize what's currently rotten in the house of Windsor) So only four years after being published, The Royal We already feels like a charming nostalgia piece, written in a more hopeful time. (Just imagine being a reader in the early 1990’s, picking up a fictionalized account of the Charles/Diana courtship � you know that novel exists, somewhere) Our William stand-in is "Prince Nicholas", while an American student named Rebecca Porter (aka “Bex�) has been subbed in for Kate. The two meet when Bex is studying abroad at Oxford and finds herself assigned to the same dorm building as the future King of England (along with a handful of his blue-blood friends and a pack of security personnel). The two coexist as Just Friends for several years before falling headlong into a romance, and the book follows their up-and-down relationship over the years as the couple deals with their massively different upbringings, obsessive media coverage, and enormous pressure from Nicholas’s family to go along with the path that’s been carefully planned for him. People who followed the Will/Kate romance in the tabloids from the beginning will appreciate how closely Cocks's and Morgan's account follows the real-life trajectory of the relationship, and enjoy getting a behind-the-scenes look (even if that view is purely imaginary) at the more bombshell events in the timeline. But even if you don’t care all that much about the monarchy, the story is still compelling, because it explores the struggles of being an “ordinary� person trying to have a romantic relationship with someone in a position of unimaginable power and privilege. And The Royal We takes that concept and adds extra pressure: how do you maintain a personal, private relationship with someone who’s been a public figure from the moment they were born? The Royal We is best when it shows us Nicholas grappling with the idea that the price he pays for his unimaginable wealth and privilege is that his life doesn’t really belong to him. Of course, even in these moments when Nicholas is trying to make his relationship with Bex exist alongside his responsibilities as future king, a thought kept intruding on my otherwise fun-and-fluffy reading experience: you know, you don’t HAVE to be king if you don’t want to. It’s amazing to me that not a single character ever, in the entire course of the novel, even suggests abdication as a possibility. There is never any discussion that Nicholas might walk away from his birthright, even though he views it as more of a burden than a privilege or a calling. This, in my humble and very American opinion, is ridiculous. For starters, there’s already a historical precedent for this exact situation (do any characters in this book ever say “Wallace Simpson� out loud? I can’t remember, but I’m pretty sure she’s never mentioned), so it’s not like the concept of Nicholas abdicating so he can marry Bex is totally unheard of. And, like his real-life counterpart, the fictional heir has a younger brother who jokingly refers to himself as the “spare.� Another problem cutting the high stakes of the novel, and the reason I think Cocks and Morgan would have done better to put this story in a historical setting when there were actual stakes attached to who wore the British crown: in this day and age, “King of England� is not an important job. In fact, I would argue that it’s not even a job, period. A king or queen of England in the 21st century isn’t a ruler, they’re a mascot of a vanished era. Looking at the situation dispassionately, what is Nicholas honestly giving up by abdicating? The chance to open Parliament once a year? Free tickets to Ascot? It was just really hard to sympathize with Nick’s “But I cannot turn my back on my DUTY� handwringing because, let’s be honest, the “duty� he’s talking about means wearing stuffy ceremonial garb maybe three times a year and then dividing the rest of his time between Balmoral and a yacht. Like, calm down, Aragorn son of Arathorn, this is not a big deal. Can’t wait for the Meghan/Harry followup novel, though. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Mar 2019
|
Jul 09, 2019
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0385539088
| 9780385539081
| 0385539088
| 3.84
| 220,788
| Jun 16, 2015
| Jun 16, 2015
|
it was ok
|
(warning: this review will contain spoilers for the first book in the Crazy Rich Asians series. If you haven't read it, or have just seen the movie, p
(warning: this review will contain spoilers for the first book in the Crazy Rich Asians series. If you haven't read it, or have just seen the movie, proceed with caution because I am going to discuss the ending and crucial plot points for that book) So, I'm a little baffled at the difference in my reactions to the first Crazy Rich Asians novel versus the second. The first book was a fun, fluffy romp of a story about an Everywoman's journey into Filthy Rich People Land - everything was beautiful and nothing hurt, and Kwan was adept at using brand names, luxury settings, and general wealth porn to distract me from the shallowness and mediocre prose of his debut novel. (I should probably also admit that the movie version, which is one of the rare cases where the movie is better than the book, is probably making me feel more positive about the book than when I first read it) In China Rich Girlfriend, Kwan assumes that he can stick to the formula that made his first book such a hit, and doesn't bother to deviate very far from his established pattern of "Nick and Rachel go somewhere luxurious, then we follow some other characters to similarly luxurious locations, repeat until you hit your required page count" because why should he? The first book was so well received, why bother trying anything new? The problem is that China Rich Girlfriend didn't work for me, at all, and I'll try to use this review to figure out why. For starters, Kwan's decision to have this book pick up two years after the events of the first book is baffling, because none of the characters have experienced any growth or change in that time. Rachel and Nick are just now getting engaged (and I had totally forgotten that the book, unlike the movie, doesn't end with Rachel accepting Nick's proposal) and in that time, they don't appear to have ever had any serious conversation about money and how their marriage will potentially be affected by Nick's wealth - Rachel remains as confounded as ever by the obscene wealth of the people she encounters in China and Singapore, and Nick continues to refuse to discuss his family finances with her in any detail. The lack of personal growth doesn't stop at Rachel and Nick, either - Nick hasn't spoken to his mother in two years, and Astrid is still married to her dirtbag husband, and is still maintaining an "I swear we're just friends" relationship with Charlie Wu. (The Astrid of the movie version, who delivered that blistering breakup speech to her husband, is nowhere to be found in this book.) The big drama of this novel is Rachel reconnecting with her birth father, and Kwan has absolutely no idea how to handle this plot. Rachel and her father immediately get on like a house on fire, and she bonds with her newly-discovered half-brother without any issues. (Instead of having Rachel wonder why her father the billionaire politician never used his resources to try to find her and her mother, or question whether it's healthy to try to start a relationship with a family that never wanted anything to do with her, it's all "Wow, my dad sure is great!" and "Oh wow, my estranged brother and I eat our soup dumplings the same way!") At the same time, Kwan decides to do what he did at the end of Crazy Rich Asians and take a hard left turn into soap opera-level drama, when Rachel is (view spoiler)[poisoned and almost died, all because someone was afraid that she would inherit some of the money that would have gone to her brother (hide spoiler)]. It's like he doesn't know how to create drama out of people reacting normally to extremely emotional circumstances, so he has to throw crazy plots into the mix instead. The other big issue here is that, unlike in the first book, it has become glaringly obvious that all of these people are shallow, spoiled monsters. Kwan was able to keep me reasonably distracted from this in the first book, but while I was reading China Rich Girlfriend, an intrusive thought kept ruining my reading experience: these people have too much money and it has turned them into sociopaths. Some of them are supposed to be ridiculous, like Kitty Pong (who, by the way, I will defend to the death, and it's a major flaw of the book that we don't get to spend more time watching her My Fair Lady journey into high society) and Carlton's girlfriend, the Chinese socialite Collette Bing. But on the other hand, we have Carlton himself, who at the beginning of the book crashes his sports car into a luxury boutique, severely injuring himself and putting one passenger in a coma, and killing the other. His mother then pays to have the girl's death covered up, and Carlton never sees any consequences for his actions. I cannot imagine how Kwan thought his readers would be capable of sympathizing with Carlton after that. Again - he put one girl in a coma, and killed another one. Oh sure, he feels super bad about it, but Kwan seems to think that that's sufficient. It was not, and in every interaction Carlton has with another character, all I could think was "a girl is dead because of you." Also, notice how I have to just keep referring to each of his victims as "the girl"? That's because they never get names. I mean, Jesus, Kwan. Even Nick sucks in this one. There's a scene where his aunt sits down with him and bluntly tells him that he's free to continue dating Rachel if he wants, but he should wait to marry her until after his grandmother dies so she'll leave him Tyersol Park in her will. And instead of defending Rachel (you know, like he spent the first book doing?) and inviting his aunt to take a flying leap off her mega-yacht, Nick gives some non-committal non-answer, because despite knowing all the shit his family put Rachel through and even though he ultimately chose her over them, he's still not willing to risk pissing off his grandma and losing his chance to be lord of the manor one day. It was deeply disappointing, to say the least. Crazy Rich Asians succeeded because its core story was a universal one: the pressure of meeting your partner's family for the first time, and the anxiety that you won't be accepted. Readers loved the first book because Kwan took a very familiar, everyday experience and sprinkled it with gold dust and placed it in an exotic setting, making the humdrum "meeting the parents" scenario feel much more interesting and high-stakes. China Rich Girlfriend could have worked in a similar way, because again, it deals with a common experience: a newly married couple trying to navigate their shared life and make their partnership succeed despite their vastly different families and upbringings. Unfortunately, Kwan has absolutely no interest in exploring this, preferring instead to stick with his old formula of repetitive scenes of rich people doing rich people things in rich people places, and he can't even do us the favor of letting us watch familiar, already-beloved characters do them - he seems to think that he can just repeat the plot of the first book with new characters and settings, and that his audience will be happy. I read this book for one reason, and one reason only: so I would have added background information when the movie version came out. In that respect, China Rich Girlfriend delivers. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 2019
|
Mar 2019
|
Mar 06, 2019
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0525953809
| 9780525953807
| 0525953809
| 3.57
| 1,952
| Jan 31, 2013
| Jan 31, 2013
|
it was ok
|
This is definitely not the kind of book I usually read. If I’m reading nonfiction, it’s history or an essay collection by a writer that I’m either fam
This is definitely not the kind of book I usually read. If I’m reading nonfiction, it’s history or an essay collection by a writer that I’m either familiar with, or who came highly recommended by a friend. “Navel-gazing memoir by someone who didn’t do anything notable� is rarely my cup of tea; even less so is the “navel gazing memoir of a very brief time in someone's life stretched out to standard paperback length� subgenre. But this book was lent to me by a friend during one of my experiments in online dating, so at least it was relevant to my interests at the time. The purpose of this book is clear and straightforward: Amy Webb documents her experiences on several online dating services, which were initially unsuccessful until she started thinking about how the various sites “match� people, and decided to see if she could "game" the algorithm to get the best possible match. Published in 2013 and documenting events around 2008, the book already feels incredibly dated. Although Webb is writing about a time when online dating was becoming more common, the sites that she used (JDate and Match.com) were still in their infancy, and I don’t think OkCupid even existed yet (although Webb, who only used paid dating sites, may have excluded that one from her data pool, since it’s a free service. At any rate, it’s never mentioned). There was also some disconnect between the Webb’s experiences in online dating and my own, which made the book harder for me to connect with � Webb states plainly at the beginning of the book that her goal was to find a husband, and not waste her time on dates with incompatible men, thus her need to “hack� Match.com and find the best match as fast as possible. Are you getting the sense that Amy Webb is a methodical, mathematically-minded, and unromantic individual? She is indeed, and most of the fun of this book (what little fun there is, really) is watching an utterly pragmatic, unsentimental person try to find love in a businesslike, research-backed manner. It was almost charming how Amy Webb behaves like the antithesis of a rom com heroine. One of John Green's teen protagonists once claimed, "Love is graphable!" Amy Webb would concur. Less fun is reading about how Webb behaved on her dates, because she acts less like someone trying to form a personal connection with another human being, and more like Jane Goodall observing the apes. Early in her experiments, Webb would haul her laptop along with her on dates, and then bring the laptop into the bathroom with herso she could take notes on how things were going. Also, she emails recaps of every date to a group of her friends and family, which...oof. It was at this point that I texted the friend who lent me the book: “This woman is UNHINGED.� Once Webb throws herself fully into researching the algorithms used on matchmaking sites, the book practically grinds to a halt as she bogs us down in math and statistics and graphs and uuuuggghhhh I’m already falling asleep. If you love that kind of thing, this will probably be fascinating to you. I was mostly impressed at the level of focus present - when Webb first gets her research idea, she spends a solid six hours working on it. I can’t get through a twenty-minute episode of TV without checking my phone five times. I was impressed at the research and the sheer amount of work that went into this experiment (an experiment that was, by all accounts, purely for the author’s own benefit and not for any greater academic purpose), even if Webb's methods are, to say the least, a little questionable. At one point, Webb decides that she needs to figure out how her own profile is being presented on the site, and to whom. So she makes a fake profile posing as the kind of man she’s hoping to find, to see what kind of women she gets matched with. Okay, fine, but then she actually interacts with real women on the site, responding to messages while posing as a man. She had a rule, she assures us, that after three messages she broke off the conversations, to avoid leading the women on and creating an awkward situation. So, good for her for not wanting to catfish anyone, but still, the ethics of this part of the experiment seem…iffy. But in the end , none of this work matters. How, you may be asking, does Amy Webb finally attract the man of her dreams? Does she deliver on the promise her book makes, that she’ll teach you to game the system and find your perfect match through the magic of statistical analysis? (spoiler alert?) Short answer: No. Not even a little bit. Amy Webb finds her current (I assume) husband by doing the following: going to the gym regularly, eating better, and having styled photos as her profile pictures. That’s it. That’s the book. If you’re a statistics/computer geek, you might be amused by the research that went into this experiment. Or just come for the joy of reading the anti-rom com. Just don’t expect to learn anything you don’t already know. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Sep 2017
|
Jul 27, 2018
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0062372106
| 9780062372109
| B01BITGENS
| 3.56
| 49,298
| Jun 23, 2015
| Jun 23, 2015
|
it was amazing
|
Or, as I called the book in my head, Everyone is a Whore Except Me and Here's Why. Better yet: The Truth About Kettle: An Autobiography by Pot. Look, Or, as I called the book in my head, Everyone is a Whore Except Me and Here's Why. Better yet: The Truth About Kettle: An Autobiography by Pot. Look, I'm not going to pretend that I had any good reason to read this book. Underneath the surface, this is a scathing indictment of unfair beauty standards, the fear of female sexuality, and the entire goddamn patriarchy (and Madison, delightfully, seems blissfully unaware of the deeper implications of some of her observations about the unfairness of life at the Playboy Mansion - she's just mad that all these girls were so mean to her). But that's not why I read it. I read it because "behind-the-scenes look at trashy reality show" is one of my favorite memoir styles, and I've always been weirdly fascinated by mistresses, harems, harem culture, and the whole "what men think women do when they're not around vs. what women actually do" issue. But mostly I just wanted dirt on Hugh Hefner, the weird atmosphere of the Playboy Mansion, and the women who were paid to have sex with Hefner under the guise of "girlfriends." I wanted dirt, and hoooooly shit, readers, does Holly Madison deliver the dirt. It's hilarious that the cover photo shows Madison holding a finger to her lips, because she is holding nothing back here. A more honest picture would be Madison shouting at the reader. Reading this book is sort of like sitting down for coffee with a casual acquaintance right after she's broken up with her boyfriend, and you have to sit there and listen politely while she unloads every complaint and annoyance she ever had while they were dating. In short, Holly Madison has some things to get off her chest, and god damn was I here for that. I read this book in two and a half days. So, some background: Holly Madison spent seven years living in the Playboy Mansion as one of Hugh Hefner's "girlfriends." In the early years, she was one of a larger group of girls (who are always referred to by Holly's hilariously oblivious narration as "the mean girls"), but later the girlfriends shrank to three members: Madison, Bridgette Marquette, and Kendra Wilkinson. The women gained fame when they starred in a reality show based around the Playboy Mansion, and then eventually moved on to get their own shows once they left the mansion. Sidebar: there are a ton of The Girls Next Door episodes on YouTube right now, and there are worse ways to waste an afternoon. Madison's memoir is an incredible portrait of a total lack of self-awareness. She spends most of this book desperately trying to convince the reader that she is somehow different than all the other women who "dated" Hugh Hefner and posed in his magazine. See, those other girls were dumb bimbos, but not Holly! She only pretended to be dumb! The other girls were cookie-cutter blondes who all looked like clones of each other, but not Holly! Sure, she bleached her hair and got plastic surgery, but only because she wanted to fit in! It's totally different! And the other girls were opportunistic sluts who only used Hef to gain fame! Not Holly! Sure, she left the mansion and got her own reality show, and went on Dancing With the Stars, and starred in a Vegas show, but she accomplished all of that on her own! The fact that each of these projects made direct references to her history with Playboy is just a coincidence! It is stunningly absurd that, for all the time Madison spends insisting that she's built a career on her own and has completely escaped the shadow of Playboy, she can never convince the reader that she's become famous in her own right. I mean, for God's sake, the subtitle of this book makes sure to mention that Madison is "a former Playboy bunny" because like it or not, that is Madison's sole claim to fame. Of course, to hear Madison tell it, she was just playing the game, and was trying to get out all along. She never loved Hef, and had to pretend otherwise because it suited his cultivated image. She merely played along, Madison insists, until she was able to escape. The idea that other women may have had the exact same strategy has not occurred to Madsion, and she remains blissfully unaware of her own hypocrisy. One of the many, many bits of vengeful gossip Madison gives us is that Kendra's signature loud laugh is completely faked, and that Kendra only started doing it to distinguish herself from the other women. This, readers, is the dictionary definition of "pretty fucking rich" because have you ever heard Holly Madison's laugh? She just bleats "ha ha ha ha" in a monotone, like someone who mispronounces a word because they've only ever seen it written down. And for all her railing against "the mean girls" of the mansion, Holly Madison is like the most petty and passive-agressive person I've ever read about. After detailing her breakup with Vegas magician Criss Angel (Vegas. Magician. Criss. Angel.) Madison gleefully quotes, at length, all of the negative reviews his show received. I'm pretty sure that Peep Show, Madison's own Vegas show, wasn't exactly showered in positive reviews, but as far as she's concerned, it was a massive hit and everyone loved her and her lifelike, nuanced acting. And Madison makes sure we know that after she left The Girls Next Door, the show was a failure without her and was quickly canceled. When Madison's own reality show is canceled after two seasons, she explains that this was right after a new president came on at E!, who wanted to move away from Playboy-related content. The implication is that, if it wasn't for this change in management, Holly's show would still be running today. When she is accused of starting a twitter fight with Hefner's new girlfriend by claiming she stole her look (a look which, remember, Madison adopted in order to fit in with all the other bleached, surgically enhanced blondes at the Mansion), Madison is adamant that she did no such thing, and only posted a generic tweet about hating copycats. I see you, Madison. You ain't slick. And of course Holly Madison feels a personal affinity with Marilyn Monroe, unwilling patron saint of vapid starlets who want to appear complex. Here's one of the book's more rage-inducing paragraphs: "Like me, Marilyn had suffered at the hands of some not very nice men. She was used, underappreciated, and struggled to find herself. She worked her way up in Hollywood with stars in her eyes and a kind heart, but found that Hollywood wasn't always as kind in return. She may have been publicly adored, idolized, and lusted after, but she often felt alone and trapped. Those dark demons eventually got the best of Marilyn. Part of me knows that could have easily been my fate had I not chosen to take care of myself. I only wish poor Marilyn could have done the same." Wow. Wooooooow. I love this paragraph, because it reveals so much more about Madison's character than she realizes. She puts herself in the same category as Marilyn Monroe, one of the most famous and most talented women of her generation, and did everyone catch the way she subtlely blames Monroe for her own suicide? Gee, if only Monroe had "chosen" to take care of herself, she might still be alive! If only Holly Madison had been around to show her the way! Underneath the drama and the fluff and the gossip, Madison is (perhaps unintentionally) exposing something much darker and far-reaching than a bunch of backstabbing mean girls. The real fascination of this memoir is watching Madison explore how she was brainwashed and virtually imprisoned, and how she went about the process of slowly undoing the damage she incurred at the Playboy mansion - a process that is still ongoing. Simply put, Holly Madison is a survivor of domestic abuse, although she doesn't yet have the emotional vocabulary to articulate this. You only have to read a few paragraphs about Hugh Hefner's intense control issues (he apparently hates red lipstick on women, and once screamed at Madison when she dared to wear it) and the way he pits the women against each other to realize that you're reading a description of a textbook abuser. When Madison is describing the steps she took to leave the mansion (saving money, making an escape plan), she sounds exactly like everyone who ever had to go through the process of escaping an abusive partner. It's going to be easy for reviewers to demonize Holly Madison for her choices (and as you can see from the many, many paragraphs above, it's hard not to) because, as I said in my review of Pamela Des Barres's memoir of her time as a groupie, Madison is merely a symptom of a bigger disease. The real villain of this story is not backstabbing opportunistic women, but the man who orchestrated their struggles, and encouraged fighting among them so they would forget who the real enemy was. But Madison didn't forget, and she's at her best when her writing is full of righteous fury and frustration at Hugh Hefner, the man who kept her a virtual prisoner and destroyed her self-esteem so thoroughly that she contemplated suicide. Sure, Holly Madison is awful human being, but Hefner is the Dr. Frankenstein, while Madison is merely the monster that all the villagers go after with pitchforks. In conclusion: fuck you, Hugh Hefner. You're a bad person, I'm glad your entire empire is crumbling, and I hope whatever barely-legal girl you marry next smothers you in your sleep. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jun 27, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1594633665
| 9781594633669
| 1594633665
| 3.96
| 3,159,149
| Jan 13, 2015
| Jan 13, 2015
|
really liked it
|
When I started this, knowing that it was one of the big It Books of the year, I was pretty sure I knew what to expect. I had read the publisher-provid
When I started this, knowing that it was one of the big It Books of the year, I was pretty sure I knew what to expect. I had read the publisher-provided description, which goes like this: "Rachel takes the same commuter train every morning. Every day she rattles down the track, flashes past a stretch of cozy suburban homes, and stops at the signal that allows her to daily watch the same couple breakfasting on their deck. She’s even started to feel like she knows them. “Jess and Jason,� she calls them. Their life—as she sees it—is perfect. Not unlike the life she recently lost. And then she sees something shocking. It’s only a minute until the train moves on, but it’s enough. Now everything’s changed. Unable to keep it to herself, Rachel offers what she knows to the police, and becomes inextricably entwined in what happens next, as well as in the lives of everyone involved. Has she done more harm than good?" Based on that, I was sure that I could make some pretty safe assumptions about what would happen in the story. A girl, bored on her daily commute, notices a particular couple every day when the train pauses behind their house, and she amuses herself by making up stories about their life. And then she sees, I don't know, the husband strangling the wife or something like that, and gets drawn into the investigation surrounding two strangers. Sounds right, doesn't it? Just a normal story with lots of opportunities for reflection on perception vs. reality and how we never really know what goes on behind closed doors. The Girl on the Train sounded, in short, like a perfectly nice and very literary exploration of these themes. I am delighted to report, therefore, that The Girl on the Train is nothing like this. It is melodramatic to the point of hysteria, it is convoluted, it is absurd, it is consistently cranked to eleven. The Girl on the Train is the best worst Lifetime Original Movie ever made. (mild spoiler warning: I'm going to describe exactly what Rachel saw, and the circumstances that set off the action. Normally I wouldn't really view this as a spoiler, especially since it all gets revealed in the first few chapters, but since all the descriptions and reviews I've read have kept this information super vague, I thought it was better to be cautious. So, if you want to be completely surprised by the events that start the plot, don't continue!) Rachel, the main character of The Girl on the Train, has joined Mary Katherine Blackwood in my unofficial Unreliable Narrators Hall of Fame. Rachel, we quickly learn, is not just some bored commuter picking a random couple and making up stories about them. The couple, who Rachel calls Jason and Jess (but are actually named Scott and Megan) live a few blocks away from Rachel's old house - the layout is the same, even. Rachel's former home is now occupied by her ex-husband, Tom, and his new wife (and former mistress), Anna. Rachel, frankly, is a mess. She takes the train into London everyday, but actually lost her job months ago because her drinking was out of control. She still drinks excessively, and is unable to stop visiting her old neighborhood and watching what goes on in her old house. For her, the fantasy she's created for "Jason" and "Jess" is a way for her to deal with her failed marriage - because Jason and Jess seem so happy, and their life seems so perfect, Rachel can console herself with the knowledge that someone, at least, managed to get it right. And then one day, the train pauses by the house, and Rachel sees "Jess" in the garden, kissing another man. Rachel is shocked, and feels personally betrayed. The next day, she learns that the woman she calls Jess has disappeared. And, because this isn't dramatic enough, Rachel was in the neighborhood on the night of the disappearance, but because she was blackout drunk, she can't remember if she saw anything. (are you excited yet? Strap in, because this crazy train is just leaving the station) Rachel is one of three narrators - the other two are Megan (aka Jess) and Anna, the woman who had an affair with Rachel's husband and then married him. Each woman is unhappy in her current circumstances, and each is her own variety of unreliable and vaguely repellent. The time frame skips around, with the majority of Megan's chapters taking place months before the main action occurs while the other two women's chapters take place at mostly the same time. This was my one big complaint with the story, and it's really more of a warning: each chapter is labeled with a date, and you need to pay attention to them. I didn't, and was really confused when I read about Megan's disappearance in one chapter, and then the next one opened with her at home. Look, this book is ridiculous. But it's fun ridiculous, like when you're wine-drunk at 1 am and decide to watch in its entirety. Not that that's ever happened to me. It's not a mistake that this book is being advertised as the next Gone Girl, and how you felt about Gillian Flynn's rollercoaster of screaming insanity will be a good way to gauge how you'll feel about this one. Look, even I started rolling my eyes once I got to the ending and everything went fully off the rails (seriously, it is the most Lifetime ending you've ever read in your life, and that is a compliment), but the fact is that I tore through this book in two days. The rights have already been purchased by some major film studio, which is a real shame, because this book was meant to be brought to life by Tori Spelling and filmed in a shitty backlot at Lifetime Studios. It would be called Next Stop: Danger, (or, if they wanted to go subtle, The Wife) and it would be amazing. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Nov 2015
|
Dec 06, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0307341542
| 9780307341549
| 0307341542
| 4.01
| 1,156,792
| Sep 26, 2006
| Sep 26, 2006
|
it was amazing
|
This book was so stupid and hysterical and I loved every second of it.
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Aug 2015
|
Aug 30, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0062245538
| 9780062245533
| 0062245538
| 3.14
| 6,339
| Sep 10, 2013
| May 21, 2013
|
liked it
|
"Maybe, I thought, the Bling Ring kids felt they could just walk into the stars' homes because stars no longer shined. Maybe the Bling Ring, for all i
"Maybe, I thought, the Bling Ring kids felt they could just walk into the stars' homes because stars no longer shined. Maybe the Bling Ring, for all its silliness, represented a turning point in America's relationship to celebrity." *In which our reviewer takes a break from her usual intelligent discussion of Serious Literature to express her love of trashy reality TV shows* Gather 'round, my blueberries, and let me tell you the tale of an ill-fated reality show called Pretty Wild (it's currently streaming on Netflix, and if you wanted to go ahead and watch the entire show right now I would support you). The show was intended to be a bastard stepchild of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, in that it would followed the exploits of three sisters living in LA and being "wild" etc. However, on the first day of filming, the main character, Alexis Neiers, was arrested for her alleged involvement with a group of teenagers accused of burglarizing celebrities' homes. After that, the show had to create an awkward blend of general teen partying and scenes of Alexis's ongoing legal troubles. At some point during filming, Alexis was interviewed by Nancy Jo Sales for Vanity Fair, for an article that would eventually be titled "The Suspect Wore Louboutins." Alexis felt that she had been wrongly portrayed by this article and, while the cameras rolled, called Nancy Jo Sales to express her anguish. The result was one of the in television history, and also the reason the terrorists hate us. The reality show lasted one season, because apparently there is a threshold for people's enjoyment of watching narcissistic monsters disguised as human beings, and it stopped with the Kardashians, but then Sophia Coppola read Sales's article and breezed in from France and was all, "I want to make a movie about this! Spoiled rich kids behaving badly set to mournful indie soundtracks? That's kind of my thing." So she met with Sales to discuss the whole case of the teenage burglaries, which had been dubbed "The Bling Ring" (and featured three other girls - Diana Tomayo, Rachel Lee, Courtney Ames - and one boy, Nick Prugo) and expanded her original article, proving more information about the suspects and follow-up on the their legal battles. The result is The Bling Ring. I'm going to be honest about you guys here: one, I typed all that shit up there from memory. Two, this book is not that great, but it was like fucking crack to me. Did I mention that I've seen every episode of Pretty Wild three times (Netflix will be my downfall)? So I was going to love this no matter what, and that love was only made worse by Sales's occasional inside look at the creation of the reality show that shot Neiers to quasi-fame. That being said, it's not great. Sales makes many attempts to bring deeper issues into the book, like when she discusses teen suicide rates in boys versus girls, or whenever she tries to divine some deeper cultural meaning for the burglaries besides "the kids loved famous people and wanted to steal their shit" and you just find yourself thinking, "Okay, calm down, Nancy Jo. This whole book is basically a highbrow US Weekly article, and no amount of statistics you throw out can convince me otherwise. Now, give me some more dirt!" Also she throws out weird pop culture references that have no place being there, like when she says that "Until recently, the fame bubble has always seemed magical, impossible to pierce, like the protective force thrown out by Violet, the 'super' girl in The Incredibles." (First of all, Sales, Violet was super, and there's no need to qualify it with quotation marks. Second, what the hell? You could have just said that the fame bubble was like an invisible forcefield and we would have known what you meant.) And, although Sales managed to score interviews with almost all the alleged perpetrators, the one person who is conspicuously absent from the book is Rachel Lee, the alleged ringleader of the group, who ignored all of Sales's attempts to contact her. I don't think it's any coincidence that the one person who isn't interviewed by the book's author is the one cast as the villain and the mastermind - if, say, Nick Prugo had been the one who refused to talk to Sales, I'm sure he would have been described as the mastermind behind the robberies. Still, the fact remains that I read this book in a day and a half, and do not regret a minute. As beach season approaches, this seems like the perfect eponymous "beach read" (who the fuck goes to a beach to read, by the way?) The point is: if you, like me, delight in trashy stories of the rich and vapid behaving badly, The Bling Ring will be your shit. Otherwise, run far away, for that way madness lies. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
May 2013
|
May 30, 2013
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0062024035
| 9780062024039
| 0062024035
| 4.14
| 4,235,849
| Apr 25, 2011
| Feb 28, 2012
|
liked it
|
It's times like these that I'm genuinely happy to be a part of the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ community - without this site, I might never have known that Divergent ex
It's times like these that I'm genuinely happy to be a part of the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ community - without this site, I might never have known that Divergent exists. My first exposure to this series was actually when one of my fifteen-year-old Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ friends tried to get me to join her Divergent roleplaying group. Thanks but no thanks, but at least the book sounded cool. I still didn't really care, but then my roommate (who works at a big chain bookstore that lets employees check out new bestsellers) brought home a copy, and I figured, well, why the hell not? For those who don't know, Divergent is a dystopian story set in the near/far future (the exact date isn't specified, although at one point the narrator informs us that a building must be "ancient" because it's built out of brick, but at the same time technology seems about the same except now they can inject a bunch of stuff into people through syringes, but I digress) when society has crumbled and been rebuilt into five distinct factions: Abnegation, which is devoted to selfless service of others; Candor, which values honesty; Dauntless, which values courage; Erudite, which values intelligence and learning; and Amity, which values peace (that's the best way I can describe it, anyway - we don't see much of this faction in this book, so as far as I can guess the Amity people hang around on farms singing Kumbaya all day). When people turn sixteen, they're given a personality evaluation and told which faction they fit into. Choosing a faction other than the one you were raised in means turning your back on your family and completely severing ties with your old life. Our heroine is Beatrice, who is raised in the Abengation faction but chooses to switch to Dauntless when she turns sixteen (and no, that is not a spoiler, because the second the narration tells us that Dauntless people are super badass and have tattoos and piercings and jump off trains and shit it's pretty obvious that Beatrice isn't going to stick with the Abnegation people). Beatrice renames herself Tris and starts Dauntless training, at which point shit hits the fan in the usual YA Dystopian way. Look guys, it's not bad. The worldbuilding is solid, the characters are pretty well fleshed out (Tris is especially good, because she's allowed to just be naturally good at being Dauntless without having to apologize for it) and the story moves along at a fast and exciting clip. And, possibly best of all, there's no love triangle. I need to repeat that in all caps, because that's how important this is: DIVERGENT, A BESTSELLING YOUNG ADULT NOVEL WITH A FEMALE PROTAGONIST, DOES NOT FEATURE A SINGLE FUCKING SCENE WHERE SAID PROTAGONIST AGONIZES OVER WHICH OF TWO BOYS SHE SHOULD MAKE OUT WITH. Thank. Sweet. Baby. Jesus. If nothing else, Veronice Roth deserves all our praise for not caving to that stupid, STUPID trope that everyone is obsessed with. For that, we salute her. BUT - lest you think I was going to leave this review without nitpicking, Divergent is not perfect. Although the writing isn't particularly bad, nor is it particularly good. There are a lot of very tired descriptions at work (at one point an uptight instructor is described as looking like he has an iron rod in place of a spine) and the dialogue leaves a lot to be desired. The "witty banter" (sarcastic quotation marks very much intended) between characters is especially cringe-inducing - often, character interactions can be summed up like this: "HERE, LET ME SET UP A WITTY RETORT FOR YOU." "THANK YOU. HERE IS MY WITTY RETORT. IT IS AMUSING." And now I have to spend a lot of space complaining about something that, really, probably wasn't Veronica Roth's idea at all. And I want to preface it by saying that I don't blame her at all for going along with it - if I wrote a bestselling young adult novel on the first try, I'd want to talk about it for as long as I could too. Blame the publishers, who severely underestimated their audiences' patience. The end of Divergent, right before the special sneak peak of Book Two, features some bonus material. This isn't unheard of, as lots of books feature book club discussion questions or author interviews. I do not have a problem with this. But Divergent takes it several steps further and gives us so much bonus material it needs a goddamn table of contents, which I will now outline here, with my accompanying comments in parentheses: "Q&A With Veronica Roth" (In which we learn the answers to such hard-hitting questions like "How do you get through a dark day" and "What thought or message would you put in a fortune cookie?") "Quotations that Inspired Divergent" (This is called an epigraph, children, and it's where you put a meaningful quote at the beginning of the book and shut up about it, leaving the reader to figure out its significance on his/her own. Unless you are Veronica Roth's publishers, in which case we do this bullshit instead.) "Veronice Roth's Divergent Playlist" (Veronica Roth really likes Flyleaf, and after all the publicity this book is getting them, they owe her a check.) "Writing Tips from Veronica Roth" (Because if anyone is qualified to give out writing advice, it's someone who just published their first book.) "Discussion Questions" (Hooray! Now your book club doesn't have to sit in awkward silence anymore!) "Veronica Roth Talks About Utopian Worlds" (In which Veronica Roth makes the groundbreaking observation that utopias are actually dystopias in disguise.) "Faction Naming with Veronica Roth" (In which Veronica Roth explains why the word "dauntless" is a synonym for "courageous.") "Faction Quiz" (The only really useful part of the bonus materials, because as soon as the different factions are introduced, you're going to wonder which faction you'd fit into. This one gets a pass from me.) "Faction Quiz Results" (I was Dauntless, with Candor in close second.) "Faction Manifestos" (Again, this is useful information and good for added worldbuilding. But it should have been introduced in the text itself, not pasted on at the end.) A sneak peek of the next book comes after that, but I didn't even read it because I was too pissed off after reading thirty goddamn pages of the publishers jacking off Veronica Roth. It wasn't worth it. Did that part of the review seem too long and self-indulgent? SHARE MY PAIN, GOODREADERS. Three and a half stars for actual story, one star for execution. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Apr 2013
|
Apr 23, 2013
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 4.14
| 3,311,988
| May 24, 2012
| May 24, 2012
|
really liked it
|
I had one big concern that initially kept me away from this book: what if this was one of those Highbrow Crime Books, where the murder or kidnapping o
I had one big concern that initially kept me away from this book: what if this was one of those Highbrow Crime Books, where the murder or kidnapping or whatever is really just a MacGuffin that only serves to causes a lot of lengthy inner monologues and well-phrased intellectual reflections on the characters' family issues or whatever? What if this is one of those books where the crime isn't actually the point of the story, and at the end we're never given a satisfying solution to the original mystery, because "the mystery was not the point." This has happened twice to me, first with Donna Tartt's The Little Friend (where a commenter informed me that the mystery of who killed a ten-year-old boy, the mystery that starts the story, "is not the point" because that makes sense) and more recently with Tom Franklin's Crooked Letter Crooked Letter, and I was wary. There were many red flags in the plot description: on the morning of their fifth anniversary, Nick Dunne's wife Amy vanishes from their home without a trace. Nick is the prime suspect in her disappearance, and as the investigation continues, more details surface about Nick, Amy, and the true state of their marriage. Frankly, that sounds like a minefield of intellectual fakeouts. What if I started the book, wanting a good crime story, only to find out that Amy's disappearance was merely an excuse for a lot of meditations on marriage and modern relationships and other things that are not nearly as interesting as the search for a missing and possibly murdered woman? I didn't think I could handle it if Gone Girl turned out to be That Book again. But rest assured, dear readers: Gone Girl is not That Book. Gone Girl is smart, yes, and it's intricate, and yes, there are a lot of meditations on relationships (Flynn has some really interesting things to say on the myth of The Cool Girl, which I don't have enough space to quote in their entirety) and marriage, but this is a crime thriller, pure and simple. Scratch that - this is a really, really good crime thriller, pure and simple. No, scratch that - Gone Girl is the best episode of Law and Order: SVU that has never existed. It's pulpy, melodramatic, crime-thriller fun, and part of its brilliance is that even if you think you've guessed some of the plot twists, you're never quite sure if this is the sort of book that would do such things. For instance, Nick is so blatantly suspicious in the first half of the book that, were this a regular detective novel, I would immediately write him off as a suspect because no one who seems that guilty could possibly be the real culprit. But this isn't a regular detective novel, so I didn't know what direction Flynn was planning to take things. Basically I spent the entire first half thinking wildly, "But no! ...but yes?" And don't worry: you find out what really happened to Amy. Her disappearance is the actual plot, not just a catalyst. The book isn't perfect - the narration has its fair share of clunkers ("In the decade since, Tanner Bolt had become known as the Hubby Hawk - his specialty was swooping down in high-profile cases to represent men accused of murdering their wives.") and the ending wasn't quite what I wanted it to be. Without giving away spoilers, I felt that it didn't live up to the breathless, twist-a-chapter pace of the rest of the story, and I wanted something significantly more explosive to happen in the last few pages. Gone Girl ends not with a bang, but with a whimper, and while I understand that this was the more realistic choice, I'm still docking a star out of spite. I wanted a bang. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Mar 2013
|
Mar 07, 2013
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||||
| 0345476875
| 9780345476876
| 0345476875
| 4.02
| 626,856
| Apr 12, 1976
| Aug 31, 2004
|
it was ok
|
Damn you straight to hell, 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, for what you made me do. You made me read a goddamn vampire book. Not only that, y
Damn you straight to hell, 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, for what you made me do. You made me read a goddamn vampire book. Not only that, you made me read a vampire book with a cover made entirely of shiny ostentatious material that shouted to everyone in the library as I checked this out, "Look everyone! Madeline is reading a book about vampires! SHINY SHINY SHINY LOOK AT ME! I CONTAIN SEXY BROODING VAMPIRES AND I AM SO EFFING SHINY." (I cannot stress how shiny-gold this cover is. Like, the ancient Egyptians would look at this cover and say, "That's a bit much." It was awful.) Okay, so the book itself isn't bad, really - hence my rating of two stars, which Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ classifies as "it was ok." That's what the book is: just okay. Maybe I would have been more thrilled by the story if I hadn't seen the movie - even though there's stuff in the book that didn't make it into the movie, none of it is particularly thrilling. At least the movie made the wise decision to keep the blatant, in-your-face-but-unacknowledged homoeroticism (seriously, this book is, and I mean this in the most literal way possible, the gayest thing I've ever read) but changed the fact that a) Claudia is only five years old in the book and b) she and Louis do everything except actually have sex with each other. They're always kissing and caressing each other and Louis is calling her his lover and his paramour and it is so fucking creepy. But, lest we forget, vampire books are supposed to be creepy. In these post-Twilight days, it's easy to forget that there was once a time where vampires fucked and killed and were a general amoral all-around good time, and if one of them chose to be all broody and sad about being a vampire he was the weird one that no one else wanted to hang out with. God, I miss those days - to the point where I considered giving this an extra star, just because I was so grateful to read a story about vampires who do actual vampire stuff and it's sexy and scary instead of boring and schmoopy. Also good was how in-depth Rice goes into the psychology of vampires, and I loved her explanation for why they haven't overrun the planet: most vampires are miserable, and end up killing themselves. Explains Armand, who I will continue to picture as Antonio Banderas and you can't stop me: "How many vampires do you think have the stamina for immortality? They have the most dismal notions of immortality to begin with. For in becoming immortal they want all the forms of their life to be fixed as they are and incorruptible...When, in fact, all things change except the vampire himself; everything except the vampire is subject to constant corruption and distortion. Soon, with an inflexible mind, and often even with the most flexible mind, this immortality becomes a penitential sentence in a madhouse of figures and forms that are hopelessly unintelligible and without value. One evening a vampire rises and realizes what he has feared perhaps for decades, that he simply wants no more of life at any cost." That part was pretty cool. But as for the rest, I'll just watch the movie, thanks. Or not, because if we're going to be honest I don't even like the movie that much. It's probably time to admit to myself that I have no interest in reading about/watching any vampires not created by Joss Whedon. Sorry, Ms. Rice, but if my vampires must be broody, I at least want them to be funny and charming too. (or Alexander Skarsgard, because ) ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Feb 2012
|
Feb 23, 2012
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0307269981
| 9780307269980
| 0307269981
| 4.26
| 958,807
| 2006
| Jul 28, 2009
|
liked it
|
Over a year after reading The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Stieg Larsson has finally suckered me into continuing his series - or at least getting thro
Over a year after reading The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Stieg Larsson has finally suckered me into continuing his series - or at least getting through the second book. This is mostly due to the fact that I recently saw the movie version of The Girl Who Played With Fire and got the sense that there was a lot that got cut out, but also everyone is starting to get excited about the American adaptation of these books, and I'd like to be fully informed before I start sneering at Rooney Mara's performance as Lisbeth Salander. First off, a quick note on the movie vs. the book: the book is structured differently from the movie, and goes into greater depth about nearly everything (this is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a very, very bad thing). Entire characters and subplots are omitted, but the bare bones of the story is still intact. So I'd recommened the movie, but with the addition that you should read the book if you want to fully understand everything that goes on. Anyway, on to the book. It's been a while since I've done a review in my "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" style (PATENT PENDING), so here we go. The Good: Lisbeth Salander is still awesome, and always will be. Especially interesting is the transformation she goes through in this book, where she stops dressing like a teenager, removes one of her tattoos and most of her piercings, buys an apartment, shops for furniture, has a somewhat stable relationship...essentially, we get to see Lisbeth becoming a grownup. But rest assured - her awesome is in no way diminished by her newfound domesticity. She still fucks everyone's shit up on a daily basis, and a disinterested sneer is still her expression of choice. Additionally, the story itself is really interesting, not in the least because we get a detailed look at Lisbeth's background and how she became who she is. Blomkvist's detective work is still fascinating to watch, although I was less thrilled to learn the details of the continuing saga entitled Mikael Blomkvist Sleeps With Everyone And It's Totally Normal. (I mean, Jesus, Micke - Harriet Vanger? Dude. DUDE.) The Bad: I don't really know what went on in the editing process for this book, or if there was any. The only explanation I can come up with is that Stieg Larsson's editors, out of respect for the recently-deceased author, decided that it would be a fitting tribute to send his books out exactly as they were in the original drafts. That has to be it, because there's no other excuse for the staggering amount of pointless details we're subjected to in this book. I thought it was bad in the first book. I had no idea. Not only do we have to wade through pages and pages of the bullshit office drama plaguing the Stockholm police department and hear about every damn detail of Blomkvist's sexual exploits, but we also, in true Larsson form, hear about what every character wears every day, what kind of computer they use (always wanted to know how much RAM Lisbeth's computer has? You're in luck!), what brand of car they drive, and what they eat for every. goddamn. meal. When Lisbeth buys her apartment and has to furnish it, she naturally goes to IKEA (that's the only store they have in Sweden, right? Besides 7-Elevens, which are aparently everywhere and a great place for an affluent businessman to have lunch). The description of her shopping trip, where we are given an inventoried list of everything she buys, lasts TWO WHOLE PAGES. *facedesk* You're killing me, Larsson. The Ugly: Stieg Larsson, as far as I can tell, wrote these books mainly as a social statement about misogyny and sexism and how women are abused and mistreated by The System. He's not just aiming to write a series of exciting detective stories, he wants to open his readers' eyes to the very real problems of sexual abuse that women go through every day. For taking on this task, I applaud him. But he might be a total hypocrite. Stick with me, and I'll explain. Early in the book, we spend a (way too long and essentially pointless) few chapters learning about what Lisbeth is doing during her vacation in Grenanda. Basically she spends her time spying on a guy who's beating his wife, sleeping with a sixteen-year-old, and reading about math. ...hang on, what was that middle one? Ah yes. During her vacation, Lisbeth seduces and then starts a relationship with a sixteen-year-old boy. This is not as creepy as it could be (it's completely consensual, there's never any doubt about that), but it's still pretty icky. I don't care that Lisbeth looks like a teenager, she isn't. She's a twenty-four-year old woman having sex with an actual teenager. I don't know, maybe the laws are different is Sweden, but in the United States it doesn't matter how consensual the relationship is, it's still called statutory rape. I think I would have less of a problem with this if Larsson and his characters didn't spend every moment of his books shouting at us, "Sexually abusing women is the worst crime a person can commit! If you rape someone, Lisbeth Salander will come after you and ruin your life because raping a woman is WRONG." I agree, but what Larsson is forgetting is that men can be sexually abused, too. What Lisbeth is doing is taking sexual advantage of a minor, and she never even takes a moment to wonder if maybe this is wrong. It simply does not cross her mind that, if she encountered an older man having a relationship with a sixteen-year-old girl, Lisbeth would make him suffer for it with no hesitation. Larsson got so caught up in making a statement about men who hate women that he completely forgot that his herione commits a similar crime. And that's not okay. Final thoughts: this was an interesting book, and I liked learning about Lisbeth's past, but I think I'm done. Thank you for your time, Miss Salander. It's been real. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jan 2011
|
Jan 23, 2011
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0439023491
| 9780439023498
| 0439023491
| 4.34
| 3,906,766
| Sep 01, 2009
| Sep 01, 2009
|
liked it
|
Trilogies, whether they're books or films, are always tricky to pull off because they so often fall into the same basic pattern: Part 1 introduces us
Trilogies, whether they're books or films, are always tricky to pull off because they so often fall into the same basic pattern: Part 1 introduces us to the characters and the conflict, then gives us a simplified version of the Big Climactic Ending that's being planned for Part 3. Part 2 might introduce some new twist or conflict, but mostly its job is to set up Part 3. Part 3 is where everything pays off and the trilogy ends in either a brilliant blaze of glory, or a godawful mess. (see: Godfather III) As we can see, Part 2 of any given trilogy is bound to be the weakest part, because it has the worst job. Think about all the trilogies and their second installments. The Empire Strikes Back is just Luke dicking around with Yoda until he learns to be a Jedi in the third movie, Attack of the Clones is just Anakin dicking around (and being a general whiny bitch) until he turns into Darth Vader in whatever the last Star Wars movie is called, and The Two Towers is just one big parade of dicking around - Frodo and Sam dick around near Mordor; Merry and Pippin dick around with the big tree; and Gimli, Legolas, and Aragorn dick around in Rohan. In all of these films/books, everyone is just biding their time until Part 3, when all the shit they've worked to build up finally hits the fan. ("Say dick again." "Dick.") In case you couldn't guess where I'm going with this, Catching Fire had a disappointing legacy to live up to, and it did this quite well. Once again, the whole book is mostly just Collins setting up the Big Important Climactic Fight that will Decide Everything Forever and generally Fuck Shit Up, and of course none of that happens until the third book. In the meantime, we get a lot of information on how Katniss basically ruined everything in the last Hunger Games and unwittingly started a rebellion so now the President wants her dead, and also her mockinjay pin is a symbol of the rebellion (o hai, Book 3 title!), and also she has to compete in the Hunger Games again due to a Very Convenient Loophole. It's all very interesting and well-paced and exciting, but no matter how good Catching Fire gets, we can't escape the sensation that Collins is just biding her time, distracting us with this second-Hunger-Games plot while she works up to the book that really matters - the third one. It's an entertaining stalling tactic, but a stalling tactic none the less. Now I understand why my roommate immediately downloaded Mockingjay on her Kindle as soon as she finished this book. We have to get to the good stuff! Okay, now I'm going to discuss two major issues I had with this book, and since they are both spoiler-riffic but I don't want to mark the whole review as a spoiler, I'm going to give you chance to exit out of this review and avoid ruining the ending. If you wish to read the spoilers, please stay on the line and scroll past the following amusing photos we have posted for your enjoyment. see more see more see more Okay, we still here? Excellent, let's get to the bitching. Major Issue Number One: So, as part of a sympathy ploy, right before the Games start Peeta announces to the whole friggin world that Katniss is knocked up. Everyone instantly believes him and flips out over how unfair it is that an expecting mother has to compete in the Hunger Games. Here's my problem: so, did no one ever think, "Hey, this seems very convenient for them. Why don't we just give her a quick pregnancy test, just to make sure?" I mean for God's sake this is the future. She probably wouldn't even have to pee on a stick and wait ten minutes, I bet they just have some kind of litmus paper she can suck on and it'll turn blue if she's pregnant. My point, basically, is why does no one think it's a little weird? I mean, even in Chicago they made Roxie Hart go to a doctor when she said she was knocked up. Major Issue Number Two: If you've read the book, you probably know what I'm going to talk about. That's right, Plutarch Heavensbeem aka The Man Who Was Totally A Double Agent OMG Twist! Except not. So, Katniss is talking to this guy at a party. By this point she knows a) there's an underground rebellion going on in the districts and b) the symbol of the rebellion is a mockinjay. Plutarch's talking to her, and he shows her his watch with its secret mockingjay symbol. How does our brilliant heroine interpret this gesture? "Maybe he thinks someone else will steal his idea of putting a disappearing mockingjay on a watch face." Yeah. That's totally it. It couldn't mean, oh, I don't know, he's working for the rebellion as a double agent? I mean, come on Katniss, HAVE YOU EVEN BEEN PAYING ATTENTION? That part takes place on page 82. The revelation that Plutarch is with the rebellion, which takes Katniss completely off-guard, doesn't occur until THREE HUNDRED PAGES LATER. There is one thing that frustrates me above all other things in literature, and that's when the main character is dumber than me. It's obnoxious and maddening and makes me lose all faith in the protagonist, especially when she's incapable of figuring out something so blatantly obvious. This book was, as a whole, not too bad, but Katniss Everdeen has a lot of work to do in Book 3 if she wants to win back my confidence in her abilities as the hero. Girlfriend needs to seriously step it up. One last thought, I swear: what IS IT with YA heroines and their ability to make EVERY TEENAGE BOY CHARACTER in the book fall madly in love with them with no effort? Seriously, it's getting stupid. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Sep 2010
|
Sep 17, 2010
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 4.34
| 9,404,627
| Sep 14, 2008
| Oct 14, 2008
|
really liked it
|
Writing a review of this book seems like a particularly superfluous task, because according to Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ there are already over 3,000 reviews on this
Writing a review of this book seems like a particularly superfluous task, because according to Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ there are already over 3,000 reviews on this site alone. So odds are good that you already know what this book is, what it's about, and that everyone loves it. I'm not going to write a review about it because it's been done over and over. Instead... Madeline Reviews Inc. Presents The Hunger Games, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bandwagon. *all following conversations did actually take place, and have been recreated as accurately as possible. SCENE 1 - our main characters, MADELINE and her ROOMMATE, are at lunch. Because they are both English majors, both want to be writers, and ROOMMATE in particular is interested in writing young adult novels, the conversation turns to books. As it often does. MADELINE: So have you read The Hunger Games yet? Everybody's losing their shit over them and I think I might have to finally jump on the bandwagon here. ROOMMATE: Yeah, I've heard a lot about them but I haven't read them. I don't even know what they're about. MADELINE: They're sort of a futuristic dystopian allegory for reality tv, I think. ROOMMATE: Ugh, I hate dystopian novels. That's disappointing, now I don't want to read it. *bear this line in mind, as it will become very important later.* A FEW MINUTES PASS. ROOMMATE: You know, there's a Barnes and Noble just down the block... MADELINE: Let's go. SCENE 2 - Because MADELINE has a fuckton of required reading to do, ROOMMATE starts and finishes the book first, giving MADELINE almost daily updates. It goes something like this. DAY 1: MADELINE: So, how's The Hunger Games going? ROOMMATE: Not bad. The beginning was pretty slow, but it's picking up. DAY 3: MADELINE: Any better? ROOMMATE: This book is fucking amazing. DAY 4: MADELINE: You're finished already? ROOMMATE: Yes. Also I ordered Catching Fire on Amazon. It'll be here in a few days. DAY 5: ROOMMATE: MADELINE, HURRY UP AND READ THIS GODDAMN BOOK SO I HAVE SOMEONE TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH. SCENE 3- MADELINE has finished The Hunger Games, and before skipping off to write a bizarre review on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, reports to ROOMMATE that she's done. ROOMMATE has, by this point, purchased and finished both Catching Fire and Mockingjay. MADELINE: I finished it! It was awesome! ROOMMATE: Great. Hurry up and read the next two - we need to talk about Mockingjay NOW. MADELINE: Okay, let me just - ROOMMATE: NOW! READ! FASTER! MADELINE: AUGH! ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Sep 2010
|
Sep 14, 2010
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||||
| 3.87
| 6,211
| 1968
| 1968
|
liked it
|
Oh yes, I'm still reading Nancy Drew novels. As an adult with far too much literary criticism classes, reading them is a very different experience for
Oh yes, I'm still reading Nancy Drew novels. As an adult with far too much literary criticism classes, reading them is a very different experience for me than it was as a kid. Then, reading these books was like watching action blockbusters - sure, in the back of my mind I knew they were silly and outlandish and there were better things I could be doing, but dammit I was having fun. Nowadays, the experience is a little different. Reading Nancy Drew now is like watching a Mystery Science Theater short - one of those 1950's informational ones on or . Now the outlandish, outdated absurdity is brought forward into the harsh light of day, and I am suddenly aware of how stupid these books really are. But I still read them, because they're still fun. The casual sexism and racism is just a bonus. That's why I think Spider Sapphire Mystery is the ideal introductory book for initiating the innocent into the world of Nancy Drew. There's jewel thieves and rich people and lots of attempts to kill Nancy and her friends (Ned even gets kidnapped and then anything that may have remained of his masculinity is destroyed when Nancy rescues him). And the majority of the story takes place in Africa (Nancy and the gang get to go on a safari, yay!), so there's lots of great vintage racism. And at the same time, everything is just so goddamn wholesome it makes your teeth hurt: "Before long, the chattering, laughing Emerson group hurried aboard the chartered plane. When they were airborne, small groups began singing songs, some of them college numbers, others from musical comedy hits. Once in a while someone would call out a wisecrack and set everyone laughing." Doesn't that just sound swell? Safaris! Nice, grinning natives! Chartered planes! Musical comedy singalongs! WISECRACKING! Someone in this group needs to figure out that it's the 60's, and fast. Shrooms and rock music and premarital necking for everyone! ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
May 2010
|
Jun 01, 2010
|
Hardcover
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.94
|
it was ok
|
Mar 2025
|
Mar 16, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 3.46
|
it was ok
|
May 2022
|
May 03, 2022
|
|||||
|
| 3.79
|
it was ok
|
Oct 2021
|
Jan 03, 2022
|
|||||
|
| 3.33
|
did not like it
|
Feb 2021
|
Jan 28, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 3.26
|
it was ok
|
Aug 2020
not set
|
Sep 15, 2020
|
|||||
|
| 3.30
|
did not like it
|
Oct 2019
|
Nov 05, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 3.80
|
liked it
|
Mar 2019
|
Jul 09, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 3.84
|
it was ok
|
Mar 2019
|
Mar 06, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 3.57
|
it was ok
|
Sep 2017
|
Jul 27, 2018
|
|||||
|
| 3.56
|
it was amazing
|
not set
|
Jun 27, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.96
|
really liked it
|
Nov 2015
|
Dec 06, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 4.01
|
it was amazing
|
Aug 2015
|
Aug 30, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.14
|
liked it
|
May 2013
|
May 30, 2013
|
|||||
|
| 4.14
|
liked it
|
Apr 2013
|
Apr 23, 2013
|
|||||
|
| 4.14
|
really liked it
|
Mar 2013
|
Mar 07, 2013
|
|||||
|
| 4.02
|
it was ok
|
Feb 2012
|
Feb 23, 2012
|
|||||
|
| 4.26
|
liked it
|
Jan 2011
|
Jan 23, 2011
|
|||||
|
| 4.34
|
liked it
|
Sep 2010
|
Sep 17, 2010
|
|||||
|
| 4.34
|
really liked it
|
Sep 2010
|
Sep 14, 2010
|
|||||
|
| 3.87
|
liked it
|
May 2010
|
Jun 01, 2010
|
Loading...
