Cat
My rating: 3 stars
What I Liked:
-the epistolary format which adds suspense to the novel
-Mina Harker is an excellent protagonist, and often the only person in the Dracula hunting party with a functioning brain cell. She is one of the few characters who has a somewhat defined personality, even though at times it is very evident that she is being written by a male author.
-The relationship between Jonathan and Mina is astonishingly healthy, with both possessing an equal devotion to the other. They are couple goals.
-Dracula, for the most part, was an interesting villain. He is not a being whose motivations is blood thirst alone but rather bringing fear and torment seems to be his primary motive as proven with his insistence on draining Lucy even when it requires more energy and effort than selecting a new victim.
What I disliked
-the book's pacing went off-rhythm after Lucy's death , resulting in a final product that could stand to have fifty or so pages removed by an editor.
-Almost all characters in the book have an incredibly shallow characterization which results in many characters feeling like cardboard cut-outs serving as unnecessary additions or plot devices.
-Bram Stoker refused to give even the POV characters like Lucy, Mina, Jonathan, Seward or Van Helsing a distinct voice in their journal entries, leaving one to rely on the subtitles which inform the reader of the POV. The closest the reader gets to having a character with a distinct voice is Van Helsing's incorrect grammar.
-I found Stoker's insistence on writing dialogue in the accent of the character speaking annoying and it grew frustrating as time grew on.
If you're concerned that you'll be bored because you watched the Netflix adaptation, don't be daunted by it. The books are on a different level. One, the author writes them as though his readers are of at least average intelligence. Instead of spoon-feeding us the story, he uses foreshadowing and doesn't hesitate to use ambiguous endings or messages. You end up interacting with the material for so much longer than you would think because you're fascinated. Who said the curse? Why did he do this? You never walk away feeling like an idiot, even if you do have questions.
The only thing that detracts from it is that it can sometimes feel disjointed. Sapkowski makes a very limited use of transitions. I can think of two or three stories which flowed from one another very naturally. Still, it's a very mild complaint as the book is split up by each story so the occasional use of smooth transitions wasn't too different from the other stories.
This book is a disappointment and fails its own premise. I found it to be historically inaccurate in multiple sections and most egregiously, misogynistic and defensive of grooming.
Kathryn Howard and Elizabeth I are painted as being seductresses and sexually liberated at the age of 13. They were victims. Elizabeth herself resorted to attempting to get away from Thomas Seymour, her molester and despite the fact Kathryn Howard was of higher rank than her abuser, she was a 13 year old student of Henry Mannox, a man a decade her senior. But Lindsay paints them both as sexually liberated, empowered young women. She also refuses to note that there were two Thomas Culpeppers at this time, and we are not certain whether the Thomas Culpepper Katheryn Howard would have an affair with is the same as the one who was a rapist. She also has Kathryn Howard's birth year wrong. It is believed that she was born in 1523 or 1524, not 1520 as Lindsay claims. (She also has Margaret Beaufort's age at the time of marriage wrong as well). The idea that this affair was based in emotions other than lust goes unmentioned though both Kathryn herself and Thomas Culpepper maintained (even after their sentence) that they had yet to have sex. Lindsay has a narrative here, to prove Henry VIII had double standards and was needlessly cruel. A narrative that is easily proven by actual facts without denying the trauma Kathryn experienced in her early life.
Katherine Parr's first marriage was not at the age of 14 to Lord Edward Burgh, a widower in his 60s but to his grandson, Sir Edward Brugh who was 21 to her 17/18. Too young, yes but not as egregious as Lindsay paints it. It wasn't until the end of this chapter that I got angry. The rest of the chapter is well-written and accurate aside from the mention of her first marriage. It is when Lindsay presents Thomas Seymour (who she calls “Tom” for some reason, and yet can't call Catherine of Aragon Catalina or Anne of Cleeves, Anna like most do when writing about all six wives) as having a consensual affair with the 13-year-old Elizabeth that I grew furious. Elizabeth was noted to be resistant to Thomas' attempts at grooming her- rising early so he wouldn't enter her room and grope her in her nightgown as he liked to do. And yet, in Lindsay's eyes, this is a consensual affair between a middle-aged man and a 13-year-old child.
She also paints Mary I as weak and useless. You are not weak if you survive Henry VIII as a husband or a parent. Mary's desire to have the things that were denied to her by her father (a husband, a family) is painted as weak. She is considered weak for being distressed by the news her betrothed had a mistress. But yes, Lindsay, let's consider her foolish and silly for not wanting to go through the same pain her mother and Henry's other wives had to, for not wanting to endure the humiliation they faced, for daring to be upset that her utmost wish seemed to still be out of reach. There is a needless comparison of Elizabeth and Mary, along the same lines of the comparison made between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville.
Karen Lindsay's feminism is only for exceptional woman, not those who long for traditionally feminine things and roles, who did not have access to the educations of a Spanish princess, a persuasive diplomat's daughter or any woman not infamous in some manner.
It was a sweet story but hastily clobbered together. It wasn't special and it certainly felt slow at times. The pacing was off. The author didn't use the conflicts she introduced in an efficient manner. To be honest, I enjoyed the early parts of the story better than when the conflicts started to be introduced as the conflicts were very heavy-handed and cliche- Mustache-twirling fiancé, nosey female Judas, PTSD brother goes nuts What confused me the most was the end of the book where Keziah states she now understands that her journey was to God, not that God was with her on her journey which feels more like an excerpt from a different story since the author didn't portray Keziah's journey in that manner. Keziah remains the same in terms of piety throughout the book. The only thing that changes for Keziah is that she becomes an abolitionist. Still, it was an easy and enjoyable read if you don't think too much about it.
TL;DR Skip the book and just go with the movie inspired by it.
This book was a major disappointment. It supposedly tells the story of Queen Esther, through a diary Esther wrote late in her life for the benefit of another Jewish woman who has entered the harem. An odd set up that requires a great amount of effort in suspending disbelief. Somehow this diary has been secretly preserved and hidden at the behest on one family. This is when it gets bad- instead of the story of Hadassah becoming Esther, we are now focused on this modern Hadassah and her imminent wedding.
This book is purposefully misleading , skimming over Queen Esther's life like it wasn't important in the slightest just to set up another book. Just watch the movie inspired by this book- at least then, we see Esther's struggle and character- she's ambitious but incapable of cruelty, she is a romantic but remains sensible whereas this book simply has a cardboard cutout of a woman for the author to mess with. No personality traits ever come through, except for her love before 1st sight with Xeres and the severe internalized misogyny Esther has.
Mary Balogh set off the Huxtable Quintet with this book, which may be to her regret but not to her readers' as the following books are incapable of holding a candle to this one. I will not claim that this book is the modern Jane Austen because it has flaws though I will state that it is one of the better-written modern regency romances with tropes loved by fans of the genre.
To sum it up spoiler-free, this book is a decently-written romance that is more heartwarming than sexual between two intriguing characters who were at the least semi-successful attempts at complex characters. I re-read it far too often, for the heartwarming aspect is quite drawing and the characters tend to make more sensible decisions than those in the later books.
A bit slower in pacing than the first volume but it is still enchanting to read. Perez's characterization is wonderful, the world-building is intricate but easy to understand. The only two complaints I have are that 1) it's definitely meant for those already into comic books- details about stories that I guess took place in other titles around the time of publishing (referencing Olympus being destroyed by Darkseid and other details that newbies like me would not have known) are spoken about and play a part in this volume which was confusing at some points though Wikipedia and the DC wiki helped me understand some, finally 2) Perez once again introduces villains without brining them back in the next few issues even though their first battle with Wonder Woman was more of a draw (in Vol 1 it was Barbara Minerva and in this volume, Silver Swan was present for one issue close to the beginning of the volume and was never brought up again). The only recurring villain who always shows up as a villain is Phobos so far. Still, itching to read the next volume of Perez's Wonder Woman.
Awesome! I see why George Perez's run is still the most iconic 34 years after it was published. This is the perfect start point for those looking to get into Wonder Woman or understand the character herself. It's feminist without being cringey, empowering and enrapturing. It praises both genders, treats “feminine” traits with respect and it's remarkably human. I can't wait to finish all the volumes of Perez's run.
The entire novel was fantastic, especially with the annotations made by the editors of my book which tied certain aspects of Shelley's writing with her life experience giving me a better understanding thematically. The characters were usually well-written, even if I didn't see much of a “passionate romance” (quote from my book's back summary which calls the book a horror novel, philosophical and a romance novel) between Victor and Elizabeth. I actually appreciated the simplicity of Elizabeth's character considering the role she would play but I wouldn't have minded her fleshed out a tiny bit more. Considering my feeling that this book leans towards horror and philosophical more than romance, the focus on the character of the creature and Victor was sensical. I also found that there was more of a complex musing on the thematic issues than I expected there to be. Neither Victor or the Creature are portrayed as being 100% wrong in one view so that was refreshing.
I was actually shocked by how much I liked this. To start with, let me sum up what my usual taste is. I grew tired of YA books before high school so I haven't read any for many years. I was prepared for an immature, underdeveloped and bland plot BUT I was wrong, delightfully so.
The books starts with a chapter that takes place around three years before the current setting and it wasn't promising. But it builds and adds to surprisingly deep characters with huge issues.
Hanna, one of the four girls, is a teenager struggling with parental abandonment, self esteem issues and she's running into a lot of trouble with the law. Not to mention, her relapsing back into bulimia if she had ever been in a true remission of the eating disorder.
Spencer, perhaps the girl with the least chapters or mentions in the book. Many in the reviews have found her unsympathetic based on their perception of her sister. She's competitive, saddled with parents whose love is obviously conditional and who would leave her all alone in emotional shock because they're angry with her . Spencer is a brat almost constantly- the most paranoid about her grades and about this “A” person. But we see Spencer's been pitted (although it is not known if it was intentional or if either sister realizes it, or wants to call a cease-fire to their war) against her older sister her entire life. With this information, you can piece together pretty quickly that Spencer's attraction to her sister's boyfriends might be a further escalation of this conflict, made by the warped mind of a screwed-up teenager . It's unforgivable but Spencer is still sympathetic after cheating with her sister's fiancee, going into emotional shock but being left alone by her parents in her yard .
Aria has the second most chapters in the book, I would say. She's a weird character and not what I expected. She's not a punk princess but an entitled girl.
Emily is the most sympathetic and has the most chapters. She's at least bisexual though it may be strictly lesbian (I couldn't tell from the text) and a young athlete. Befriending the new girl sends her on a wild ride with huge consequences.
TL;DR- Read but make sure to treat as fiction and probably educate yourself on Anne Boleyn Files youtube videos afterwards. Horribly inaccurate but very engaging- only more than decent novel of PG's.
I am a history lover and I have always been aware that to deem this novel as far from historically accurate is too lenient. After reading several other Philippa Gregory novels including The White Queen, The White Princess, The Red Queen, etc., I was hesitant to pick up another book. Her writing has never been my cup of tea, it is far too drawn out and in some areas, suspense is horribly set up and in others the moments that could make a book strong and engaging are cut out. Suffice to say, I was rather unwilling to read this but on the advice of my mother who states it is the best novel PG has written, I did. And it was great in terms of fiction but not in any semblance of fact.
You MUST treat this book simply as FICTION. The glaring inaccuracies started popping up on the first page and continued almost constantly throughout the novel. But I was engaged in the book, in a way that none of PG's other novels had made me, and I remained engaged finishing the book in eight days. Of course, I constantly noted things that seemed wrong or misleading and then I watched a whole ton of Claire Ridgeway's (Anne Boleyn Files) Youtube videos to make sure my brain hadn't absorbed the inaccuracy.
I purchased the book for my mother. We are both fans of historical fiction but had been searching for new authors. After she read it, I picked it up after hearing her honest thoughts.
I wanted a different take on Elizabeth Woodville, curious to see the differences between authors. (I have read The White Queen and related books, and watched the series). This book was highly recommended but it is not flawless.
It is implied that this book is the POV of Edward IV. While he did have the predominant amount of narrated sections, random POVs would pop inside and the character voices were less distinct than one might expect. There was no narrative purpose with these random POVs, and you could go 2/3 of the book without hearing from them again or go completely without them popping back up. There was also an immense focus on Richard III, almost equivalent to the focus on Elizabeth and Edward. I could definitely tell Plaidy is a Ricardian, which is not a bad thing within itself though it did tint her writing a good bit.
The set-up of the book is a negative. Even for the most competent readers, a moment of confusion is bound to happen while reading this. It is a multiple POV book but the POV does not change every chapter yet every few paragraphs; characters end up separated by a blank line or two. For people with memory problems or trouble reading, I would not recommend this. Jean Plaidy writes well but the set up is not the best, considering the character voices are not distinctive enough.
Character consistency is another issue as well as character development. I was well aware of Edward IV's routine forgiveness of traitors and the like, but this book refuses to gift him any political acumen which even the notorious Phillipa Gregory grants slightly by having him admit the country was torn apart. In comparison, Richard III's short rule as both King and Lord Protector was constantly described as better, as “the rule of a man” because he never pardoned traitors and would not sup with those he didn't personally like. I almost think that Plaidy deeply disliked her story's supposed protagonist by the end. Richard III's last few chapters where so different from his previous that if, not for the constant use of his name, you would think this was an entirely new character.
The view on Elizabeth Woodville constantly changed. Three paragraphs about how marriage wasn't bad and how she was fond of her life and then the next three would be about how she didn't care for Edward much. At some points, she was smart but not heartless, and at others, foolish and aloof.
All in all, it wasn't terrible but the negatives did detract two stars from my rating.
A Game of Thrones ends on a somewhat bleak but inspiring note- the man who we believed a protagonist is slain, the impossible happens when dragon eggs hatch- but then we start A Clash of Kings on an even bleaker note. We finally meet Stannis, who I have been disappointed but also intrigued by. We get two new POV characters, in an attempt to even out the bias of the narrative- someone had to replace Ned Stark's POV in King's Landing and we must see Stannis and his plans through the eyes of another POV. I must admit GRRM's avoidance of making the claimants to the Iron Throne (aside from Daenerys ofc) or to a throne at all, is ingenious. We judge the characters as if we were in their camp, not being privy to their inner thoughts and only being able to analyze their dialogue and actions.
This book was rather odd. I appreciated this new view on Elizabeth Woodville but the character just sounds dumb. It's so repetitive and then when the character seems to have learned something, she forgets it a chapter later. The character wasn't involved enough. It's almost as if the author went and wrote too deep for Margaret Beaufort in the last book and either didn't want to or couldn't go even a smidgen deeper for Anne Neville.
The book was decent. In some aspects it was fantastic and connected the Rivers girls. It was incredibly interesting to see Jacquetta-Elizabeth interaction and then Elizabeth-Elizabeth of York action. It was a very odd book though. There wasn't enough development of the power to provide a stronger story. Elizabeth Woodville is horrible at magic and needs her mother to help her and then she's knows everything a chapter later. I do feel like the book dragged at some points. It was very interesting to see the protagonist also becoming a rudimentary villain to her daughter. There wasn't really a set manner of interacting between any of the children and their mother.
However, the story provided enough unique ideas and managed to keep a good plot overall. 3.75/5
While Titus Andronics is an excellent example of a Renaissance Revenge tragedy, to the modern reader it's laughably gory and dramatic. However, the characters, specifically Aaron redeem it due to their three dimensional aspects and traits. When looking through the lens of this era, Titus Andronicus is a wonderful piece.
Well....
She's a strong character and a very difficult one to read. She's pretty insane, like this lady needed medication. However, Philiippa Gregory deserves a lot of praise for this book. At times, I had to put this down and stop reading, I felt like I was entirely too deep into this woman's head. It's strongly written, the character is....unique and it does provide another perspective that might help when reading this series.
While the 1st book will forever be my favorite, this book is also incredible with a story arc. Not only is there a strong female character, the male character has his own arc. I would recommend this book to anyone who loves historical romance.
Lisa Eldridge combines history and biology to allow use to understand not only the use of makeup, but the art. This book was incredibly interesting and was organized in a easily understood manner. The book's content is not chronologically ordered but is ordered by important people and similarities between eras. This creates a fast read, if allowed less distractions.
Not only does the author use historical examples to illustrate human's ideas but backs her conclusions with research, both biological and philosophical. Among examples are women who are revered for beauty in film or history, ranging from Nefertiti to Marilyn Monroe.
Eldridge also includes pictures of looks, inspirations and packaging. This combined with her use of not just makeup history but other events which affected the world create a lasting impact.
The only two things wrong with this book are; 1)buying a physical book is slightly costly since there are no paperback only hardcover versions, but the ebooks are very cheap 2) it's not long enough!
I thoroughly recommend this book to you.
Horrible. The male character has no arc and is completely perfect. This is even more of a let down that Huxtable #3.
This book is a classic, the reason the name Jane Austen is revered more than a century after she died. Ahead of its time, Ms. Austen has well devolved characters including a strong willed herione, one which many women admire and relate to. The male suitor is also well written, providing a leading couple similar to most real life couples and people. Many authors in modern times could not write characters so refreshing in their likeness to normal people, especially a female character or a couple.