Blue sky, green trees.

A few weeks ago I purchased “The Three Sisters Indian Cookbook: Flavours and Spices of India”, which is the first cookbook I've ever bought for myself. The main selling point for me was that each recipe, from mains to dipping sauces, has a vivid color picture showing the final product. This is very helpful for a new cook, especially when the spices or cuisine are unfamiliar.

So far I've made six recipes, the most successful of which were the Lamb with Sun-dried Tomatoes, Lamb Rogan Josh, and Mango Chicken. Absolutely delicious. These dishes will definitely enter my general cooking repotoire. The Naan recipe also turned out very well (we devoured it!), but it was different than expected. When we have naan in restaurants it is very soft, but because this recipe called for using a pizza stone the naan turned out more like, well, a pizza crust: crunchy on the bottom and soft on top. Still good, no question, but different than expected. Maybe restaurants use a tandoori and that's what keeps the bottom soft? I'm not too worried about it, and I'll definitely be making this recipe tons, but other readers should know that it might be crunchier than they are used to eating. Also, it would have been nice if they included naan flavor variations/toppings. It might be as simple as sprinkling different stuff on top, but I don't know for sure - and that's why I turned to a cookbook in the first place.

One other thing that potential readers might note: the authors speak British English, so some of the words and terms they use might not be familiar. For example, courgettes instead of zucchini, coriander instead of cilantro, and saying “stone the mango” rather than “remove the mango pit/seed” (this last one was particularly confusing to me - “do I pound the mango with a mallet?”). The measurements shouldn't be a problem, they include both systems.

I'm still very much in-progress on this book (only 6 recipes so far!), but I wanted to get my thoughts out here while my impressions are still fresh.

This book is definitely for learning art theory, and is less useful for learning artistic technique. It was educational to learn how previous artists used composition to make their paintings more interesting or to drive home messages. As someone trying to learn how to paint, the main thing I took away from this was to simply be thoughtful about composition, try to think if moving a horizon line or grouping things differently would make a more interesting picture.

A good read for sure, but I wish that he hadn't skipped around so much. Within each chapter there were stories of multiple religions, so I'm not sure what the chapters were dividing. In any case, very interesting book.

Very useful.

This book is actually a speech given by Edmund Burke to Parliament in 1775 regarding the deteriorating situation between England and the American Colonies. His position is that peace should be pursued before force because one can always use force if peace fails, but if force fails then you cannot try peace because the bad blood of war will linger. Furthermore, he believed that England should make concessions to please the colonies because England had the power, and so could bestow concessions and seem like benevolent rulers. If the colonies made concessions it would look like weakness on their part, and they would be humiliated.

My favorite part is when he lays out the six characteristics of American colonists that make them unsuited to the loss of their liberty, which was what was happening with all the taxe hikes, port blockades, and lack of representation in government. It was very interesting to see the blooming national character from an outsider's perspective, and to think on how it has/hasn't changed.

What I didn't love about this book was that it was very long-winded, and that it was pretty dull in some parts. As a research document this is probably very useful, but as a fun read it was a dud. What I liked about this book was the British viewpoint of the situation, especially an anti-war viewpoint, since that isn't often taught in American schools' coverage of the Revolutionary War.

My sister gave me this book because I am what Mr. Elster refers to as a “spelling pronouncer” - I come across unfamiliar words in print and never bother to look up the correct pronunciation. I've used this book to check on words when someone calls me out on a mispronunciation, and it's been very useful. However, it wasn't until I started reading this book straight through, for my Dewey Decimal Challenge, that I got really hooked on it. There were so many regular words that I never would have checked that I - and everyone I know - have been mispronouncing, it was fascinating. Examples? Okay!

Grocery: apparently it is groh-suh-ree, with an S, not grohsh-ree, with an SH. I've probably said and heard this word a million times in my life, and never once with an S sound.

New: the proper way to say it is NYOO, like in newt. Surprised the pants off me!

Any word with “-alm”: ahm, with no L sound. This one was a total shock because it meant that I've been saying balm, calm, palm, psalm, almond, etc. completely wrong. Except for salmon, that one I nailed (small consolation). Really, we are supposed to pronounce balm like bomb? Really?! Frankly, there's no way I'm going to starting saying these words without the L sound because it sounds awful to my ears.

My favorite passages are the ones that contain fun tidbits, like calling out famous people for saying something wrong, or describing a personal encounter with a mispronouncer. Also when the author gives information about a pronunciation that goes beyond what is in various dictionaries, such as how locals say a certain place name.

One very big thing I've taken away from this book is a sensitivity when it comes to the words pronounce and pronunciation. They came up a lot in this book (obviously), and I was saying “pronunciation” wrong (I think; it's sometimes hard to remember how you say a word in your natural speech). Now I'm very aware of it, for better or worse.

The book was about 1/3 too long in my opinion, and crafts that were very similar or not sufficiently obscure should have been edited out. What is sufficiently obscure? I don't know exactly, but some of the items, like quilting, don't seem to be it. Despite being a bit longer than my attention span, this book was a pretty good read. I loved the sections on hedgerows, coppicing, and making jam.

Jeeves and Bertie Wooster at their finest.

Concise overview of the different styles of Victorians in San Francisco, with most of the book devoted to photos of the houses. I especially liked the section that talked about the exterior paint colors because I'm a color-oriented person, and the colorful exterior of many Victorians was one of the things that drew me to them in the first place. Thanks to this book my walks through the neighborhood just got a lot slower and more interesting.

Lots of children's books are interesting for adults, too, but I think there is a point where the book is for such a young reader that it's not going to be fun for an adult. Unfortunately, this book is part of the latter group. It is on the 100 Best Children's Books list, so there is definitely merit here, and the illustrations are lovely. But as an adult who is reading this on my own, it was boring. Why would an adult read a children's book on her own? Because I plan to read every book on the list that I never read as a kid, and so erase the embarrassment of admitting to my library school professor that I'd only read 12 of the listed books. Plus, as I said before, lots of children's and young adult books are very interesting, and good reads at any age.

I wanted to like these stories, but they are all so damn depressing!

This book is methodical and thorough in its description of bullfights and bullfighting, covering every aspect from the different roles to the traditional dress to the applause at the end. The author is economical with his words, bringing to mind (appropriately enough) E. Hemingway.

What makes this book truly useful is the addition of ink drawings to illustrate the corrida and the different passes. Each pass is shown with at least one drawing, some of them with up to three, depending on the difficulty of description. Most of the other topics of the book are also illustrated, and these drawings are delightful even if less necessary. I love how the drawings are full of energy and movement, almost vibrating with life; I can easily imagine these drawings framed.

I'll end on this great quote from the author: “Note: Bullfighting is not a sport, and there is no competition between man and beast. No one ever wins a bullfight. It is better to make a comparison between it and tragic drama. In this case, if it is possible to say that two actors are competing to show which is the better, then it is fair to say that competition enters into bullfighting to the same extent - among matadors.” (p. 6)

I think this book is not well written. Too many irrelevant details, such as using the intricate elephant-naming code throughout the narrative, and too much gloss over potentially interesting things, such as her childhood in Africa. In my opinion people didn't learn how to write exciting and absorbing non-fiction until the 2000s, and this book helps prove the point. It's a shame because the author's story seems like it could actually be quite interesting.

Dull.

I just couldn't get into it.

I found this book extremely unhelpful for learning about opening a children's bookstore. The information is vague and general for most of the book, and when it does get specific it is horribly out of date. I'm talking typewriters and adding machines listed as necessary equipment, no mention of the internet whatsoever in the marketing sections - this book was published in 2007! Come on!

Reading one or two fables is just right for me; reading a book of fables is overload. My suggestion is to read no more than one fable a day, and you'll probably like this book just fine.

As Nick said, “Of course you didn't like a 2000 year old book. Look at ‘Die Hard', it's only 20 years old.”

This book should be mandatory reading for every parent whose child is in school or about to start school. Maybe it would help get them to see that this issue is bigger than their child, that it is as big as freedom gets. And maybe it would get them to think a bit more, be ruled by fear a bit less, and get them to back the f off and let library professionals do their jobs.

While the most common involved parents freaking out about their kids' reading material, there were also really thought-provoking stories about other types of censorship, such as librarians' self-censorship and about student activism against censorship.

Ending now with the quintessential quote from the book: “Who do they think they are? What gives them the right to decide what I can and can't read?” (p.49)

I got to page 50 and just couldn't take it anymore. The whole point of the book is that the author is pissed off at the destruction of physical newspapers in favor of microfilm - this is made clear on the inside of the dust jacket. My problem with the book is that the author keeps saying the same thing in slightly different ways. He gives new facts, lays bare outrageous actions and irresponsibilities on the part of librarians - things that should keep me hooked - but everything is just a variation on the same theme. This probably would have made an excellent article, but I just can't get it up for 268 pages of self-righteous outrage.

Nick and I listened to this audiobook as we drove from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Over dinner that night we talked about the book, and both of us were very reluctant to say the truth: we didn't really like it. We danced around it a bit, but in the end it had to be said. Both of us had a big problem with the narrative - it jumped all over the place with no notable pattern to keep it together. Judging from some of the reviews, it's actually a collection of essays rather than a narrative book, which I did not realize. Perhaps this would have been obvious if I was reading it instead of listening, but in the audio format the essay style just comes off as messy.

My other criticism is that it was so negative and complainy (is that a word?). Yes, I know this is Anthony Bourdain. I loved “No Reservations”, “Kitchen Confidential”, and he's one of my favorite guest judges on Top Chef - I am very aware that snide and complainy is what he does. But this was just so over the top, it felt like someone doing a caricature of Anthony Bourdain. It was exhausting and annoying, which isn't good for a 6 hour drive.

The good: there is one part where he goes into food porn mode, giving sizzling glimpses of food encounters that are great individually but layer together to make something magical (like eating figs, then eating them with prosciutto). Far and away the best part of the book. Be careful though, because hearing this section when you are surrounded by Wendy's and Subways and Pizza Hut To-Gos might just make you crazy.

I loved learning about a place that was completely unfamiliar to me, and how a specific community established itself, thrived, and tries to remain relevant/simply remain. I also really enjoyed the style of the book, which focused on oral history interviews of a variety of black Martha's Vineyard residents, including year-rounders and summer-only visitors, long-timers and relatively recent additions, the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy. The photos sprinkled throughout the book - including a photo of every interviewee - adds depth and context to the stories being told. My favorite photo is of the author's mother, circa 1966, on page 102. She is so relaxed and happy, grinning at the camera in the most unselfconscious way - I don't know that I've ever felt how she did in that photo, and it makes me want to hop a plane to Martha's Vineyard so that I can try.

As an atheist raised as a non-denominational Christian, I truly did not understand why someone would become a nun, or what it meant to be a nun. This book helped me to understand a little bit about why some women choose this path and where it leads.

I really enjoyed when the women talked about how/why they decided to join an order, whether or not they think that vowed religious life will continue to exist beyond the current professed generations, and dealing with the sexism within the Catholic Church. These topics really got to the heart of my questions, and the variety of opinions and experiences gave me much to contemplate. One of my favorite lines went something like this: the Catholic Church measures time in centuries, and humans measure time in decades, so change that is much too fast for the Church is usually much too slow for the people. It's an interesting thought, and it certainly explains a lot.

One of the questions that popped into my head as I was reading this book was, “Gee, if nuns are no longer wearing the habit, no longer living in convents, no longer cut off from the world except for teaching, then what is the point of being a nun? Why not have a regular life as very devout laywomen?” Some of the interviews touched on this, as did the epilogue, but I do get the sense that it's a question that they are asking themselves, and that remains unanswered.

Wonderful and heartbreaking at the same time. I love oral histories, and I think that that format is perfect for conveying the horror of the AIDS crisis as it swept through an entire community. Actually, one of the interesting parts of this book was that it included people from outside the gay white male community, giving voices and respect to others who generally are invisible when the conversation turns to AIDS.

To me, as a transplant San Franciscan born when AIDS was just starting to spread, it is very important to get a sense of the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco. To understand is probably stretching it - can I really understand what it's like to lose everyone I love, to get sick, to be disrespected by health workers, to be ignored by the government at my time of greatest need? - but the stories shared in this book certainly got me close.

If you are interested in this book, or have already read and liked it, then I recommend watching the movie “We Were Here: Voices from the AIDS Years in San Francisco.”

Joan Didion books should only be read when one is in Los Angeles, preferably when it is very hot and you have just finished driving around town. The one exception to this rule is “The Year of Magical Thinking”, which must be read at night in a Manhattan apartment when you are alone, so that people do not see you cry, or do not see you not cry.