Phyllis

At its core, “Candide” is about the nature of humanity, from tribalism to the root of evil to the belief and function of a higher power. “Candide” is also a road trip story akin to “The Odyssey,” “Canterbury Tales,” and “Gulliver's Travels.”

Voltaire's use of irony and parody are extremely effective; seemingly endless cycles of violence and brutality lead to short-term wins for the victors and rough treatment for the losers. Yet, Candide is able to realize that he should he should focus on “cultivating his garden,” or focusing on what he does have, which is sort of a “no place like home” epiphany.

Discussion Questions from my Great Books meeting 07/27/19:
1. How does Voltaire satirize the philosophy of optimism (popularized by Alexander Pope), in which “all is for the best” in the first chapter?
2. In Chapter II, Candide is forcibly conscripted into the Bulgarian army and participates in the Seven Years War. Later, in Chapters XI through XII, we learn the story of Cunegonde's servant, the old woman. What is Voltaire's view of war?
3. The philosophy that mankind has both reason and free will is also lampooned in “Candide.” Can you think of examples in which the author targets free will and supports that the opposite is the way of the world?
4. Throughout Chapters IV through VI, Candide experiences one disaster after another from shipwreck to earthquake to religious persecution, but is elated at being reunited with his teacher, Pangloss. How does Candide view the Catholic Church and the practices like auto-da-fe? Does the author support the theory of Divine Providence, in which a loving and caring God watches over humanity?
5. In Chapters VII through X, Candide is reunited with his first love, Cunegonde. He learns that she was not fatally disemboweled and how she came to be the chattel of both a Grand Inquisitor and a wealthy Jewish banker. At this point, do both Candide and Cunegonde still subscribe to the optimistic philosophy Pangloss taught them?
6. What is the significance of the three men that Candide, an essentially happy-go-lucky and gentle person, kills?
7. There are several utopias depicted in “Candide.” Is Candide satisfied with the various utopias at the beginning in Westphalia and later in Eldorado? Which utopia do you think is the author's true idea of paradise? Where do we find the most “civilized” people in Candide's travels?
8. Throughout the story, amazing coincidences occur; those thought to be dead are alive – those thought never to be seen again appear halfway around the world. What is the purpose of these coincidences?
9. What does Candide mean by the decision to cultivate his garden?

“Whose Body?” is a solid little first mystery in the Lord Peter Wimsey mystery series. While the novel could have used a bit of tuning up to shift it to the 3.5 or 4.0 level, it is still enjoyable, especially for those who like the old pip-pip cheerio of the British upper class often found in escapist lit between the world wars. I shall take a crack at the next one in the series at some point, although I'm trying not to gorge on an entire series at once, so as not to get author/character fatigue.

“Whose Body” shines in characterization, many of whom practically leap off of the page, particularly Lord Wimsey's family. I particularly liked Merwyn Bunting, Lord Peter Wimsey's servant; he writes an engaging letter to Lord Peter about 3/4 of the way into the story that cracked me up. Also, Ms. Sayers hints at a backstory for Lord Peter by referring to the early case of Lord Attenbury's emeralds, which gives the reader a hint at what the younger son of the family was up to and why he might be approached to help solve a crime. Lord Peter himself has bits of Bertie Wooster (my favorite landed dingbat) and Sherlock Holmes.

Another element of the book, and, perhaps, the series, are parodies of Sir Arthur's Holmes and his methods, as well other typical Golden Age whodunnits. While the novel generally follows many of the “official” rules of the genre, it also breaks away from time to time, which is what piques an interest in continuing the series.

Is this solution to the mystery particularly surprising? No, not from my perspective. The villain's motive was a bit ho-hum and the confession a bit too detailed. But, I still enjoyed the book for its Wodehouseian nonsense.

My 10-year old's science class is reading this book and I was TOLD I should read it, too! Okay, then!

Jennifer Holm does a nice job weaving what appears, at first, to be a fun story but actually has more serious topics peeping through. Such as growing apart from a childhood best friend and making a new friend you at first think seems weird and scary. Or parents who are no longer together and are making their way on different paths. And the double-edged sword of scientific progress.

But, most of all, read this book to meet MERVIN! Mervin Sagarsky is a riot and a treasure who stole just about every scene. He will certainly make readers of most ages laugh.

I look forward to turning my book report into my stepdaughter and getting her thoughts, as well as reading the next book in the series.

I listened to the audiobook version, which is read by the author. I recommend that others try the audiobook version. Certainly, Jon Krakauer's account of a disastrous attempt to reach Mount Everest's summit is compelling in its own right, but to hear the author tell us his story adds another layer. His writing style is excellent; clear, but verging on poetic.

The account starts out with the author's personal history in not only climbing, but also in Mt. Everest; the author's father was good friends with a famous climber. You can hear the excitement of a little boy imagining wild adventures few can attempt.

This book was an attempt to excise survivor's guilt that time had not assuaged. In fact, in an article released last year in conjunction with the film debut of “Everest,” for which he was not consulted, and “Prophet's Prey,” related to his more recent work, “Under the Banner of Heaven,” it's clear that the guilt lingers.

“But he wants one thing to remain clear: Summitting the mountain isn't a point of pride — it's a regret. “Everest is not real climbing. It's rich people climbing. It's a trophy on the wall, and they're done,” he says. “When I say I wish I'd never gone, I really mean that.””

Some reviewers have complained that the author could have done more to help some of the hikers who needed help getting back to base camp after the storm hit. It's clear that the storm that hit the climbers as they returned from the mountain's peak created conditions that nearly eliminated visibility and heightened the extremely low temperatures and lack of oxygen. Jon, although an experienced climber, was not a high-altitude expert and did not seem to be in a fit state to guide seriously impaired hikers back to camp. Yet, can we say that any of the non-guides had any business rescuing others while suffering from hypoxia? Many Sherpas could not be roused for the same task during the storm, so what can a peanut gallery ensconced in comfy chairs really say?

Others have criticized the author's assessment of what did and didn't go right that day. I plan to track down Sandy Hill Pittman's and Beck Wethers' accounts as a supplement. But, can any single person be held responsible? I suppose you could argue that any person who decides to attempt to climb Mt. Everest is putting their life on the line. Mr. Krakauer posits that the leaders of two of the expeditions attempting to reach the summit that day may have succeeded had they followed their own strictures about turn-back times and attention to both the abilities of themselves and their clients. Had Fischer paid attention to the resurgence of his parasite and its weakening effects or had Hall stopped trying to get a client atop the mountain who had previously failed, would they be alive? We will never know. But, check this book out; there is much to think about and learn.

This is approximately the 5th time I've read “Pride and Prejudice” and I found it as delightful as the first time (1991-Junior year of high school). I remember that I found the style to be slightly impenetrable until I read a few pages aloud, which is what I do with Shakespeare or poetry that isn't opening up to me. Once I read the pages and understood the sentence construction and common phrasing of polite society in 1812(ish), the rest of the book rolled along. Since my introduction to Jane Austen in high school, I've read several of her novels and discussed two at my Great Books Book Club. Leading said discussion gave me an excuse to rewatch the marvelous 1995 BBC adapatation and the horrendous 2005 adaptation starring Kiera Knightley, as well as a recent Marvel comic book version[b:Pride & Prejudice 6482046 Pride & Prejudice Nancy Butler https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1404517187s/6482046.jpg 21824833] and two annotated editions, both of which provide extensive analysis and information on anything from modes of dress to modes of transportation to modes of address, all of which have fallen into obscurity to modern readers. Of course, all of these other adaptations and annotations don't follow the Great Books philosophy of sticking to the source material, BUT I WAS HAVING FUN!While some readers find Jane Austen wordy, one must take her in context; she was compact and modern for her time. It is clear she honed the story so that the coincidences didn't seem forced and that the characters are able to act in a way that makes sense given their nature. What really struck me on this reading is the way that the characters shine through their dialogue; Jane Austen does not spend pages describing Mr. Darcy's nose or the color of his hair, but she does give you his smiles, his writing, and his dialogue to see into his at-first seemingly haughty shell. The characters live and breath. However, I do have one small bone to pick regarding Wickham's decision to run off with Lydia. While it is clear that Wickham preferred younger ladies and especially those with money, did he run off with her because he had dug himself into a deep hole with gambling and other debts and he'd be run out of the militia anyway? He knew Lydia had no money, so he knew that even a short fling would cost him money. While this turn of events heightens the tension of whether Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy will ever get together and a way for Mr. Darcy to show his love for Lizzy, it still is a little weak. The other point that another member of the Book Club made in response to another member's disappointment that there is no spiritual awakening or God in the book is: “Pride and Prejudice” is a true product of the Enlightenment, in which the only characters who develop and are held up for the reader as models of living use reason to assess other people and situations. Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy do not appeal to a higher god or the local clergy to help them through rough time; they appeal to their own sense of self and the facts of the situation. Nature has an influence on characters and the way that characters from Mr. Darcy to Lady Catherine de Bourgh to the Bennetts manage their little piece of nature is intended to expose more about each person's inner being.Ultimately, I still think that “Pride and Prejudice” is a masterwork and worth reading at different stages in one's life to glean the different levels and shades of meaning Ms. Austen is still imparting over 200 years later. Below are the discussion questions from the Book Club's June 30,2018 meeting, some of which I wrote and others I harvested from multitudes of discussion questions available on the internet (verbatim or paraphrased).Discussion Questions for “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane AustenJune 30, 2018 Meeting of the Fremont Public Library Great Books Group1. The group read Jane Austen's “Persuasion” several years ago, the theme centering around how much a person should be persuaded by the advice of others and how much they should be true to their own mind and heart. Do you see a similar theme in “Pride and Prejudice?”2. In E.M. Forster's “Room With a View,” Lucy Honeychurch faces a choice between the wealthy and cold Cecil Vyse and the middle-class intellect and passion of George Emerson; Lucy's potential suitors' relationship with and appreciation of nature affect her ultimate romantic choice. Characters are shown appreciation both cultivated and less tamed natural areas and prospects throughout the novel. -Is Mr. Darcy's choice between Miss Bingley and Miss Elizabeth Bennett affected by each woman's appreciation of nature? -Does Elizabeth Bennett select her future husband using similar criteria (conscious or not)? -How else does nature interplay with the characters?3. Jane Austen often uses characters' homes to reflect the tenants' inner qualities. -What does the grandeur of Lady Catherine de Bourgh's Rosings or the welcoming atmosphere at Mr. Bingley's Netherfield say about Jane Austen's thoughts about new wealth? -What does the natural elegance of Pemberley say about Mr. Darcy and the upper class?4. Throughout “Pride and Prejudice,” characters exhibit these titular characteristics showing that “First Impressions,” the original title of the novel, and long-held impressions aren't always reliable. -Instead of the beautiful appearance and hideous inside of Oscar Wilde's “Picture of Dorian Gray,” Elizabeth's examination of Mr. Darcy's portrait during her tour of Pemberley reveals Mr. Darcy's beautiful inside. Is this a turning point in Elizabeth's prejudice? -What causes Mr. Darcy to allow his love for Elizabeth to overcome his pride? -How do various characters, from Miss Bingley, Mr. Collins, and Lady Catherine de Bourgh to Mrs. Bennett, Mr. Bennett, Jane Bennett, and Charlotte Lucas exhibit various flavors of pride and prejudice?5. Many characters in the novel live on a continuum between taking themselves too seriously and taking things too lightly. Which characters are on each side of the continuum and do any characters move along the spectrum and why?6. Why does Wickham select Elizabeth Bennett as a target for flirtation? -Does Wickham suspect Elizabeth stands to inherit from her father at any point in the novel? -Does Wickham see Elizabeth as a vehicle to besmirch Darcy's character amongst people who didn't know either of them? -Did Wickham actually appreciate Elizabeth's lively and attractive personality?7. Throughout the novel, we see many examples of poor parenting skills, from Mr. and Mrs. Bennett to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, but very strong sibling relationships. Where are the Bingleys parents? Why does Jane Austen choose to display few effective parents in the main action despite showing that some characters, like Mr. Darcy, are the result of excellent parents? Is Jane Austen suggesting that sibling relationships are more important than parental relationships?8. Lady Catherine DeBourgh's accusations and demands regarding a possible union with Mr. Darcy ultimately assure Elizabeth Bennett that there is yet hope. Why is this master stroke of dramatic irony so satisfying for readers? How are the roots of this irony are sown throughout the novel?9. In Pride and Prejudice marriage serves many functions. It is a romantic union, a financial merger, and a vehicle for social regulation. Scholar and writer Mary Poovey said that Austen's goal “is to make propriety and romantic desire absolutely congruent.” -“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” -What does the line imply about women's role in society and in marriage? -Whose opinion do you think this is? -How do the established marriages in the book fulfill these purposes? Consider: -Mr. and Mrs. Bennett -The Hursts -The Gardiners -How do the marriages that occur in the book achieve these various functions? -Do you think Jane Austen is offering a critique of marrying for social and financial considerations the marriages of Mr. Collins to Charlotte Lucas and Mr. Wickham to Lydia Bennett? -Are the happy marriages of Jane and Elizabeth Bennett, who marry “up,” favorable by the terms of the society? Do these happy and advantageous marriages undermine any critique the book offers? 10. Do the coincidences in the novel seem forced or do they support Austen's preference for realistic plots? Do the the characters in the novel have free will or are they guided by chance?

Although I'm attempting to write reviews to remind my aging self what I thought of each book, I feel that the following review completely covers every thought I had about “Mr. Mercedes.”

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/762241160

I so wanted to hate this book based on the plot summary on the back of the book. Desperately wanted to hate it!! Yet, the characters and story were so charming that I had to put my hate right back in its box on the shelf for some other bestseller.

Again, I'm writing a review well after finishing a book, but I recommend this one, which was recommended to me by a good friend, who similarly wanted to be filled with disgust after polishing it off.

“The Bees” was just okay and falls along a 2.5 star rating, but I'm rounding down this time. Perhaps, the 2014 Best Of lists hyped this one too much, or, perhaps, it's just not all that great. The idea of following a worker bee through daily activities through a fictional lens was alluring, as were the comparisons to “Watership Down.” However, this book comes nowhere near the genius of Richard Adams' wonderful book.

Some portions were interesting, such as the handful of interactions with the Myriad, but I never felt grabbed. Actually, I got through the book quickly because I was hoping to get one more into my woefully low 2014 book count and because the font was relatively large. Ultimately, I never felt terribly invested in Flora 717 or most of the characters, other than Sir Linden and Lily 500, which may have been the core issue.

“Elizabeth is Missing” came up on one of the trillion best-of-2014-book lists I've reviewed in the last few weeks and sounded interesting. Christmas got in the way of reading this one straight through, and, upon completion, I'd say I agree with whichever list recommended the book!

Emma Healey paints Maud beautifully, both as a young girl and as a elderly woman spiraling into dementia. It's not just Maud that is nuanced and living; the other characters in the book are also well-rendered. Post-WW2 English life also felt spot-on based on family stories, which makes me wonder whether the author incorporated real events into the novel. Although Maud's present isn't as vivid as her childhood in 1946, the depiction felt accurate; the current-day lens is mostly through a woman living alone (with her daughter and carers sprinkling in) whose short-term memory is severely hampered. I couldn't help but cheer Maud's tenacity in the face of confusing information coming from both internal and external forces.

After finishing the book a few minutes ago, I could not help but be impressed by the authors handiwork in her first published novel. What might have been ham-fisted in other hands was elegant in Ms. Healey's.

Although the plot is quite different, readers who enjoyed “Elizabeth is Missing” may enjoy “Turn of Mind” by Alice LaPlante. Another reviewer recommended “The Night Guest” by Fiona McFarlane, which I've not read, but does sound compelling.

“The Call of the Wild” comes in at a solid 3.5 for me and resulted in a better-than-expected book club discussion yesterday.

Both at the novel's initial publication and today, some readers argued that the novel suffers from anthropomorphism. But, how can an author present a story from the point of view of an animal without using some references that human readers can understand? Humans couldn't see the world from a dog's eyes and still can't today, no matter how many mini-cameras we strap to canine heads. The description of Buck's desperation to find shelter during his first night in the Klondike and his amazement at finding Billy burrowed under the snow seemed very realistic. Buck flourished when he could work, not just lay about looking fluffy. That's why he loved Thornton as his master, not Judge Miller.

This isn't a book about dogs, though. It's a frame for presenting what Jack London saw tramping around the Klondike in the late 1890s. It's Darwinisim, it's fate vs. free will, it's civilization vs. the wild.

One member of my book club suggested that nature is the hero of the book. Buck comes of age in the opposite direction from the typical human coming of age tale; he sheds the comfiness and ease of civilization for the harsh reality of the wild. The law of club and fang represent the struggle to live in the frostbitten ruggedness of Gold Rush era Klondike and Buck responds with aplomb. With all of the mugs of imported tea and marinated pork chops stripped away, your own strengths must surface or you don't survive. Jack London used the novel to present a semi-autobiographical tale: “It was in the Klondike I found myself.”

The leader of my group found the book extremely ham-fisted in support of socialist political views. Materialism and greed are shown as the very things that will get you and everyone you're with killed. However, I didn't feel that I was being bashed over the head with London's opinions; trying to drag around too much stuff when you have to haul it yourself (over frozen tundra and up and down mountains no less) is a fools errand.

Although “The Call of the Wild” often gets characterized as a children's book, I think it's arguably an all ages book. Some folks in my book club expressed disgust with the amount of violence in the book and felt it was inappropriate for children. Yet, I think this book is entirely appropriate for children to read or have read to them, but perhaps over age 5. The world isn't and wasn't sanitary. Wouldn't it be better for children to see animals, whether a beloved pet or in the wild, as a being to be considered on it's own and respected?

A good friend recommended this book as one of the better ones she's read about making oneself heard. And I agree! There are so many useful tips and the author never talks down to you or gives you test that only a superhero or robot could accomplish. I'm glad I have my own copy as I plan to go back and re-read some sections for further contemplation and self-improvement.

Postscript: while this book is intended for women, I think almost anyone could benefit from reading this book. Men may find interest in hearing what women experience in daily life and especially in workplace situations. Almost anyone can benefit from the suggestions that the author makes.

While “Woolly” sounds interesting and was renewed twice in my attempts to read it, I found the book poorly constructed. I don't need fictional perspectives from Woolly Mammoth calves switching right into the childhood history of setting off fireworks in a swamp to two lovebirds making their way to Siberia. How about getting to the story?!

I was so ready to recommend this book to others until I got to about page 200 or so. At that point, the story started getting sillier and the repetition increased. By the end, I was skimming.

Also, at the beginning, the author did a good job putting you in each character's shoes and using the change in point of view to move the story to interesting places. By the end, it was gimmicky and sloppy. Some of the characters also were cardboardy or just poorly drawn; I usually like strong females, but Caitlin Masters ended up being a shrill harpy. And black female sexuality was depicted in ways I haven't seen in decades.

I understand that Greg Iles had a terrible car accident while writing this book. While he had to make a valiant effort to recuperate, it doesn't excuse this book. Why wasn't the editor able to take this in hand and do something with it?

The entire book is a pleasure to read and look at even if one had no intention of drawing or painting anything! The author's intent is to encourage artists to get outside, see, and enjoy nature. Many of the examples include the author's particular observations on the weather, sounds, smells, etc. accompanying the plein-air sketch or painting.

After about a year of learning, I'm probably an advanced beginner at watercolor thanks to Let's Make Art.

As a supplement, I thought it would be nice to find books that contain simple exercises to use as warmups to more involved projects or subjects for watercolor cards I've been sending to friends and family.

I checked this book out from the library based on a quick flip through.

What I didn't notice (even though the subtitle clearly states) is that the focus is on using watercolor pencils along with watercolor paint. This is the only book I found that really gets into interesting, detailed techniques on working with watercolor pencils. This book is also a useful guide for a watercolorist using paint or crayons, too, because the demonstrations explain steps in creating a composition and the colors used.

The second chapter is really helpful. The author spends a lot of time explaining how to achieve different effects with watercolor pencil including how to do various washes, how to create different textures, how to order water and pencil steps to achieve certain results, and how to create compositions. The illustrations accompanying her very easy-to-follow instructions allow the reader to clearly see pencil marks and the how the pencils behave on different watercolor papers. Both the written information and the drawings help the reader to recreate each technique.

The third chapter goes into detail about how to select and set up a sketchbook or artist's journal. This is a subject many watercolor books do not seem to address, yet is a topic very popular with many watercolorists. In fact, as one progresses through the book, it is clear that the intent is for the user to use a sketchbook or our general in nature to capture what the artist sees, although loose paper could be used with more difficulty.

The book is beautifully designed and has a nice balance between narrative explanation and illustrator examples. I highly recommend getting this book if you are looking for a comprehensive reference on using watercolor pencils.

I just reread this book for our Great Books book club (note that we don't read just Great Books, but like to include Pulitzer/National Book Award/etc. selections so that we can include a greater diversity of voices) and this is still one of my favorite books. I first read “Gone With the Wind” in Middle School, if I remember correctly. While there are new insights or, perhaps, different takes to be gleaned now that I'm almost 30 years older than when I first read the book, it still crackles with life. Margaret Mitchell had a real knack for capturing dialog and painting vivid scenes and characters.

One good friend reread “GWTW” recently and said that the racist attitudes made the entire work nearly unlikeable (to paraphrase), which is quite different from her earlier opinion of the book as a whole. It's true that depictions of both enslaved and free blacks in the novel smack of minstrelsy and are unquestionably racist. However, I think that the attitude depicted was a true representation of many white folks' attitudes during/after the Civil War and in the 1920s and 30s when the novel was written. That does not make it any easier to read those sections, but I do not think it lessens the work as a whole. With a few exceptions where we dip into Melanie's or Beau's (or a few others') heads for a few moments, the story is told from Scarlett's point of view, although in third person.

Instead of continuing my lengthy opinions on the work, I'll include the discussion questions that I cobbled together using various sources, including a visit to the Margaret Mitchell museum in Atlanta (small, but interesting).


1. In her youth, Margaret Mitchell played with gender roles; for much of her early life, she dressed in boys clothing and went by the name “Jimmy.” She also rebelled against her mother, who was an active suffragette and leading citizen of Atlanta, committing various outrageous acts as a flapper. How do these biographical elements manifest in the book?

2. Although “GWTW” is set between just before the Civil War through Reconstruction, how much do the novel and its characters actually represent the Jazz Age (following WW1 and the 1918 flu pandemic that killed her mother) during which the novel was written?

3. In Gone with the Wind, Mitchell depicts several Southern female stereotypes—especially that of the helpless, passive, and sometimes silly woman, such as Scarlett's sisters, Aunt Pittypat, and Ashley's sister, India Wilkes—and then undermines them by delimiting their roles. Some critics argue that Scarlett is a traditional heroine who escapes the limits of her role and is forced to expand her horizons. Do you agree with this viewpoint? Who is/are the heroines in “GWTW?” Do you find it interesting that men generally aren't depicted as heroes in this book?

4. Gloria Steinem proposed that Scarlett O'Hara was a victim, not a feminist. Given historical context, each character's innate traits, and their relationship with their husband(s), do you consider not only Scarlett O'Hara, but also Ellen O'Hara and Melanie Wilkes feminists?

5. Some critics believe that Scarlett represents the South, both “Old” and “New;” Scarlett changes throughout the novel, which parallel the changes that take place in the South. Do you agree with this proposition?

6. As a child, Margaret Mitchell “sat on the bony knees of veterans and the fat slippery laps of great aunts and heard them talk” about the Civil War. What do you think of how Mitchell, a Southerner from a family that fought and survived the Civil War, depicted the war?

7. Many readers and critics argue that “GWTW” depicts a racist and patriarchal attitude towards slaves. Margaret Mitchell's attitude was actually different in real life. Why might she have decided to depict slavery in this manner?

8. Mammy, for example, looks down upon field slaves early in the novel and later upon “trashy free issue” blacks. What do you think of the class demarcations and how they change throughout the course of the novel?

9. As Scarlett is approaching Ashley for advice on how to raise money for the additional taxes on Tara, she describes him as follows: “God intended him to sit in a great house, talking with pleasant people, playing the piano and writing things which sounded beautiful and made no sense whatsoever.” However, it isn't until the end of the novel that she sees her love for Ashley as a fantasy.

So was her love for him ever real? Does she transfer her love to Rhett, or did she actually love Rhett all along? Alternately, is Scarlett what Rhett describes as a typical Southerner: “But it's in one's blood. Southerners can never resist a losing cause.” Has Rhett taken on Ashley's place as a typical Southern male?

10. Were you surprised at how closely the movie adaptation mirrors the book (some dialogue is word-for-word and costumes match Mitchell's descriptions) and how the movie departed from the book in other cases?

“Murder on the Rocks” is a cute cozy mystery set on a quaint island beset by big-city developers, both greedy and insular islanders, and embezzlers.

The book itself is just okay. I read it in the middle of tax season in a seemingly unending winter, so descriptions of riding a bike or walking around outside were almost like porn. And, really, that's what this book is.

The main character is pretty flighty and runs off from a partially filled B&B when the power is out and there have been threats against her, leaving her guests with candles.

But, there's a part of me that would like to run an Inn with a hulky, miniature-shop-carving tenant/deputy next door and ride my bike to the seaside town. Well, sans all that baking and diabetes prep. With just a few improvements, this could have been a stronger story. But, that likely won't stop me from checking out the next title in the series!

Why, Goodreads, why can't I give a book zero stars?! Because this garbage book certainly deserves zero stars.

Sometimes, the library opens my eyes to enjoyable books with the book club selections (not specific group, just a title which is segregated into an area where many copies are available for patron's consumption). “Fikry,” which sounds a bit like a swear and which I may begin using as such given the increase in my bile due to reading this waste of paper, however, is not one of those books. Have you guessed that I didn't find the novel “a page-turning delight,” “marvelously optimistic,” or “a reader's paradise of the first order?” The only delight in turning pages was to finish this heap of trash.

Let me explain why before continuing with further metaphors. The characterization is nowhere; there are just cardboard cutouts propped up everywhere.

And the plot. My Lord, what a mess. The “charming” device of using a memoir about a widower to eventually connect the curmudgeonly middle-aged bookstore owner and publisher's rep was soooo ham-fisted. And what's the name of the publishing house of this magical tome? KNIGHTLEY. Good gravy, save me from bad Jane Austen allusions. Let's just tack a bunch of stories together about a stolen, prized book, an unfaithful author husband, a surprise baby, adoption, and suicide. Of course, the baby transforms the curmudgeon (who, let's face it, is unsurprisingly falling apart after the sudden death of his beloved wife). And he suddenly becomes beloved by the entire town. OF COURSE. Mind you, I love old movies, but this Fikry thing is like a really bad movie from the '30s or '40s, all saccharin and nonsense. I'm surprised the author didn't throw in a dance number or something.

This book doesn't even have decent writing to tie together the mess of a plot. Goodreads won't let me quote the exact problems with the book BECAUSE I'D HAVE TO TYPE IN THE ENTIRE CONTENTS. I will state that the chapter intros describing short stories to Maya were soooo stupid.

Okay, I'm all worked up. It's time for wine to cleanse my pallet of this terrible taste.

“Neverhome” is filled with strong female characters, each one pushing, pulling, or holding Ash/Constance as she leaves the hell of the Civil War, insane asylums, and the road home filled with friends and foes.

Although we learn in the very first sentence that Ash is leaving for war, it isn't until near the end of the book that we learn why. Earlier in the book, Ash describes how strong and able her mother was. So strong that she defends a neighbor woman when the townspeople came after her.

It is only later that we learn Ash's mother ran from that confrontation and that it was Ash who defended the neighbor with a gun, then accompanied her across state lines. So, is it any surprise that it is Ash who feels she must defend her home, her neighbor's homes, and, by extension, the Union?

We also learn during Ash's travels that the sight of a blood-stained slave manacle haunted her, so perhaps she was also an abolitionist at heart, although she never explicitly says.

The structure of “Neverhome” loosely follows Homer's “The Odyssey” in three parts. Ash is a freed Penelope, who goes to war in place of her husband. Ash's mother is a bit like Athena, guiding Ash throughout much of the early parts of the book, with Ash taking up the war maiden's scepter. Ash is healed by Neva and nearly stays with her, much like the stay on Circe's island. However, Neva turns on Ash when Ash decides to return to the front and has her thrown into an insane asylum, similar to Charybdis. It is only by disguises that Ash evades death time and again, much like Odysseus.

Ash returns home to find her husband serving tea to squatters, similar to the suitors Odysseus finds after a long absence. Both proceed to slay the interlopers, but Ash ends up killing her husband by accident, whereas Penelope survives.

It is this particular bit of plot I found a bit troublesome. Ash feels less like a woman after losing their son, so the war provides her an escape from failure. She can embrace the things she's best at, including outshooting and outsoldiering most men. Yet, the letters to and from are filled with love on both sides. So, when she orders her husband to get her mother's gun to help kill the squatters, how does she forget and shoot her husband?

Was Bartholomew real, or Ash's other side that she runs from when duty calls (perhaps tearing herself in two like the country)? I can't be sure. Similarly, did Ash steal from other soldier's knapsacks or not?! This is an unreliable narrator I can get behind unlike so many of the recent girl/woman popcorn characters wallowing in various substances.

Each chapter is relatively short and reminded me of what a soldier in the Civil War might have been writing home. Unlike the pacing in Dan Brown's garbage “The DaVinci Code,” these short chapters move from the excitement of a new adventure to the horrors of war to fever dreams to torture without losing anything, all the while keeping Ash's distinctive voice.

I first read this book somewhere between second and fourth grade. My mom gave me the paperback copy from her classroom library (her days of teaching school ended before I was born). I was excited to read the book again (about 40 years later) and discuss it with my Great Books book club today.

What a great discussion it was! I was a little surprised at the depth we were able to go, and that discussion certainly improved my view of the book.

I think it's important to take a step back and think about a book and the time it was released. When “A Wrinkle in Time“ was published in 1962, it was revolutionary for young adult fiction. Young girls were rarely encouraged to be different and to furthermore celebrate their otherness and certainly were not encouraged to use their anger or exploit their faults. In addition, most Science Fiction writers were men, which probably explains why it took so long for L'Engle to find a publisher for the book. Even in the ‘80s, we did not have the plethora of fantasy and science fiction books that kids today do. In fact, one thing that the members of the book club mentioned was that most of our young adult reading was from the Victorian era!

First, I want focus on some of my favorite things about this book.

I love that the book starts off with “it was a dark and stormy night” and sets a tone of uncertainty, a feeling of not being safe, and letting the reader know that Meg's day at school was rather bad. This is a great way to draw the reader in and explore the backstory of several of our main characters. We also learned that Meg's father is missing and some of the small town folks, including the very inappropriate principal, feel it's totally cool to scold Meg for not accepting that her father may have left the family. This would've been a pretty hairy topic in the early 60s; in the vast majority of books aimed at kids during that time, a parent was not around because they were dead.

As we move through the story, character development and worldbuilding are pretty solid. The Ray Bradbury-esque description of the sameness of Camazotzians to the comforting tentacles of the Aunt Beast on Ixchel were outstanding.

The late 1950s/early 1960s were a time that many Americans were still struggling to assimilate into the melting pot. At the same time, there was a backlash against Communism any threat of being forced to be all the same. Quite an interesting dichotomy that I think comes out in this book whether intentional or not.

There was also a huge interest in science and space full of so many unknowns. It's key that Meg has a working scientist mother, which was unusual.

What's also striking in this book are the themes of adapting when you can't see (Mr. Murray and Mrs. Who's glasses) or communicating with creatures or people that don't speak the same language or live in a very different world. Although self-reliance is important in this book, there's also an emphasis on working with friends and family when challenges arise. While themes like this are common in today's YA literature, I would say they were ground-breaking at the time the book was released.

Now onto what I didn't like.

Sometimes the language felt too simple, especially given some of the quotes or ideas presented.

Meg was super annoying at times (you know it's bad when Aunt Beast won't hug you) and I suppose L'Engle wanted to present a teenager struggling with large and difficult situations, but I didn't find myself rooting for her as I think I was supposed to!

“Love conquers all” saves the day - I wish some other method of saving Charles Wallace could have been the answer.

If I weren't to consider this book in historical context, I find it's not as excellent a book and likely wouldn't win a Newbery metal today. However, I don't think that's necessarily fair. Would there be a Harry Potter or the oodles of other YA fiction so popular today without AWIT to pave the way?

At the end of the day, I still think this book is worthwhile for 4th to 6th graders to read because it does spark the imagination and has valuable themes. I hope that my 10 and 12-year-old step kids will end up reading the book at some point and let me know what they think.

Discussion Questions another group member put together:

1. Madeleine L'Engle had trouble finding a publisher for this book. No one knew who the book was for and didn't know how to market it. L'Engle said, “It's for people don't people read book?” Who do you think the book is for? How would you categorize it?
2. What are your thoughts on L'Engle's writing style? Were you at all surprised by the way in which science is depicted and discussed in the book? What do you make of “It was a dark and stormy night,” as the opening line of the book?
3. “A Wrinkle in Time” was written from 1950-1960 and published in 1962. What were some parallels of the global and domestic stage at the time that are reflected in the novel? Do you find any of these parallels relevant today?
4. Sight is a recurring theme in the novel. What do you think L'Engle is trying to say regarding vision/blindness literal and metaphorical? What did you make of the juxtaposition of Mr. Murray needing special glasses to see his children vs Aunt Beast and the species that do not have a sense of sight as we do?
5. “A Wrinkle in Time” is often found on banned books lists. Why do you think the book is banned?  
6. A major theme of the novel good vs evil. Do you see this as a religious parable or social commentary? Did you find this message complex or oversimplified?
7. L'Engle references quite a few classic pieces of literature and the Bible, often through Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Which. Do you think these three characters were inspired by Biblical or literary characters?
8. L'Engle also touches on feelings of alienation. Meg worries that her father has abandoned the family; Charles Wallace unsettles most people due to his odd personality and preternatural maturity. Fear of the “other” is seen through Meg and Calvin as they are initially terrified by the citizens controlled by IT on Camazotz. If the novel were written today, how do you think these feelings would be addressed in modern terminology?
9. Meg is a flawed person. Does her character feel well-developed in this story? Do you admire Meg? Why or why not?
10. What are your thoughts on Charles Wallace? Did your impression of him change from the beginning to the end of the novel?
LINKS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIFmuIsjGME
https://youtu.be/LxhW3-vXDsk?si=8lQFPVJxjXPTt-fW
https://youtu.be/D0AjelTAcMk?si=Me-7ZNWkTlF1QdEf

I first read this book back in high school and remembered absolutely loving it. The second time around, I found some of the story, particularly the ending to be overly melodramatic. However, I don't want to take away from John Steinbeck's amazing ear for language and the attitude of a lot of folks who lived during the Depression.

Longer of you to come.

My Mom raved about this book after listening to an audiobook version, so, of course, I had to see what all the hubbub was about. Okay, and the book showed up on a number of best-of-2014 book lists.

I often don't enjoy fictional stories based on historical characters (“Loving Frank,” for example, was a real drag), so I approached the book with some trepidation. Perhaps, Sue Monk Kidd's extensive research (don't miss the author's note at the end) helped to bring out the character's voices more than in other historical fiction I've read. To be honest, I did not know much about the Grimke sisters and would like to learn more given their ground-breaking abolition and women's rights activities.

In this novel, unlike another book I just read, switching narrators was an effective tool for seeing the story from a house slave in a well-to-do antebellum Charleston and a young woman who owns this same slave. I found the characters of Charlotte and Handful to be particularly well-drawn; these sections were in technicolor without being overdone. Also, Sarah Grimke's struggles between social propriety, expectations and hope for a loving husband and children, and social justice were also well-done.

While “The Invention of Wings” wasn't one of my favorite books of the year, it was enjoyable and I'm glad I listened to Mom.

Let me start off by stating what so many other reviewers acknowledge; Jeff VanderMeer can WRITE. Sometimes, what he's writing about magnificently is vague or completely unclear to me, but boy, do I enjoy the ride! Even when otherworldly creatures are oozing through marshes or stomping over the landscape, I can see every eye and gaping maw.

With that said, “Annihilation” was my favorite of the series with “Authority” a distant third. I know I'm supposed to be reviewing “Acceptance,” but can I really ignore the way it fits into this this very different trilogy?

The shifting point of view often delves into the back stories of the first two books. I loved seeing pre-Area X from Saul's and the Director's eyes, but both Control and Ghost Bird were a bit of a snooze. Of course, an entire book from Control's perspective was part of the problem with “Authority.” Yet, I would have liked a little more explanation about the ending. Control turns into something with paws, but somehow makes it back through the wormhole to an alien-free Area X (well, not totally alien free with the biologist's copy, Ghost Bird, running around). And, what of Lowry? Was his post-expedition, super-aggressive self a copy, too?

Was the 8-pointed flower really alien, or was it a gateway into an alternate dimension? The alternate dimension seems to make more sense to me otherwise I can't account for what happened to the alien colonizers.

Despite a somewhat lukewarm review of “Acceptance,” I can recommend the trilogy as worthwhile and plan to read more of the author's work.

Really fun read (until I hit the end, but that may because the boyfriend forced me to watch the movie before I was done reading the book)! I enjoyed the Perils of Mark Watney and his ability to think himself out of tough, near-death situations. Frankly, the book is quite funny and I enjoyed the mix of intelligence and profanity from Mr. Watney.

The Broadway Books edition includes discussion questions, a Q&A, and a short article about the writing of the book.

After the last few duds I read, I wasn't expecting much from “Annihilation.” Is that fair? No. But, do you start expecting less when a pattern of garbage (to be fair, a pattern of two stinky, waste-of-paper/time, garbage books) has been developed? Sure. Which brings me back to “Annihilation.” What do you see in the patterns of writing, of human speech, of nighttime sounds? Are you always able to recognize changes in patterns, or does your brain fill in the omissions or changes so it keeps finding the same pattern? Can you make sense of the pattern even if it is unchanging? Can you extract the building blocks of the pattern to understand why? And are your memories or the memories of others truthful? Is evidence really evidence and of what?

Jeff VanderMeer creates a dreamy, nightmarish Area X, which I can still see when I close my eyes. In under 200 pages, he captures not only the shifting environment, so similar and yet so different from our own, as well as the shifting emotions of the main character in such a way that you can practically feel the sun on your skin or see the wall words of the Tower/tunnel, as well as a compulsion to find out WHAT THE F is going on and what is with your cohorts.

The biologist, whose name we never learn, is an introverted character, who needed to experience a significant loss and embark on an adventure few in the post-Area X world experience to get her shit together. Her flashbacks to episodes during her childhood, first job, and married life brought her to life so much so that I felt as though I knew her. In many ways, I could relate to her interest in being a keen observer and sense of detachment in social situations, which has lessened for me the longer I've climbed the accounting ladder. However, if I had selected a career observing and documenting tidepools, I might be more insulated like the biologist. This introversion and strong sense of self are some of the reasons that the biologist is able to survive without the pack and find answers more quickly to questions previous expeditions had taken weeks to solve. Are we sure the brightness described happens and is one reason the biologist makes it? Is she unreliable? I submit that narrators are always somewhat reliable if they are in any way human. It's all about what the narrators remembers and experiences, accurate or not. Is she still hypnotised to some extent and that's why even she never refers to anyone's proper name, even her husband, when we are in her inner thoughts? Did the Southern Reach vaccinate her in some way so that she was able to keep going, or did the contact with the shell of her husband after his return give her an immunity? As far as she knew, she was the only spouse of a previous expedition member that chose to go on her own expedition.

In some ways, the novel feels like things are moving slowly, but if you sit back and think about it, there's quite a lot of action pillowed by moments of introspection. And who wouldn't be introspective if in an environment in which you have no digital/electronic distractions, few or no other humans with which to interact, or cultural events to distract you from actually noticing what's happening within and without? The pacing seemed just right given the events of the novel.

Don't think for a minute that the length of this book or the fact that it is the first in a quickly published triology (from 2014) means that it doesn't pack a punch. This isn't fluff. It's science fiction/mystery/horror/romance (okay, I thought so on that last one - lots of ugly bumping does not a romance make in my mind) and at no point did it feel forced or badly nailed together. I was so engrossed in this book that I had to detach myself from my boyfriend after getting home from the city so I could finish the last 20 or so pages. Quite a feat! It's interesting that the great movie trilogies (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Back to the Future) seem to have spawned a trend in book publishing, albeit years later. Why not? Humans like stories that are suspense-filled and that don't give you the answer right away, despite claims that immediate satisfaction is penultimate. Serial publishing made Dickens, Dumas, and Melville, so what's wrong with that style today? Nada, I say. Unless it is garbage filled, as are the Passage, Twilight, and Divergent series. Then it should rot, slowly moldering. Or maybe quickly so it's presence stops troubling me.

What's also great about “Annihilation” is that it stands on its own. As much as you want to find out whether the biologist makes it to her next goal, there's something to be said for the author creating a good enough story that you imagine several options for her, but feel as though the story arc was complete. I don't know whether they'll be answered in the sequels, but I'm definitely going to read them!

More of a 3.5 than a 3 star book; oh Goodreads, why do you foil the half star?!

It took awhile for me to cozy back up with Lady Trent and the world she inhabits, in addition to the various cultural and social structures she must manage in her home country and those she visits to research all things dragon, including tying other species to the dragon family tree that aren't recognized as such in book 2. I would not recommend jumping into
Book 2 without first reading book 1; the backstory is required to really get anywhere.

Lady Trent is an excellent character, who shares some character leanings with both Amelia Peabody of Elizabeth Peter's excellent series and Lady Emily of Tasha Alexander's “And Only to Deceive” series. Lady Trent is spunky and, sometimes, a bit foolish. However,Marie Brennan's writing style is well worth and small flaws in plot or character.