Hannah Morgan-Lewis
A difficult one from a modern perspective as it's dealing with a couple who would just be divorced today. Nevertheless, I think it makes an interesting point about the position of women in the period. Honorine longs to live independently and earn her own money but she is hopelessly naive, encouraged by her husband who secretly finances her because he can't let her go. The situation for both of them is pretty hopeless. The story is told delicately.
It's taken a couple of attempts and some years but I finally appreciate Wuthering Heights. Yes, many of the characters are loathsome & this is no love to emulate, but I don't think any other book I can think of is quite like it in it's depiction of a savage, all consuming completely destructive love.
I feel very lukewarm and quite frustrated towards this book. It's a straightforward, not very original update of Austen's novel. What I love about the original is that Austen conveys the emotions of the characters in such a subtle way. Unfortunately I feel like Trollope fails at this and the characters end up annoying and insipid. Add to this the feeling that the social media references were written by someone who has little concept of the modern world and a Margaret Dashwood talking slang that dates the book immediately and what I got was a big pile of disappointment. If I hadn't read the original I might have found it an instantly forgettable romance, as it was I don't think that it really deserves to have Jane Austen's name on it.
An engaging accessible account of the War of the Roses. Seemed well researched and a good book to read as a start to getting to know the period. I would have liked to see a family tree & perhaps a list of historical figures as it got a bit difficult keeping track of the many people called George or Edward!
Mostly when I read books I have some sort of idea where the author is going and what point they are trying to make, but not with this book. It just seems to meander on and on. I felt I had to finish it but was left with a disapointing sense of ‘Is this really it?' I don't have a problem with depressing books or emotionally scarred protagonists but I didn't really find this book had much of an emotional resonance, perhaps because I found the narrator quite annoying, particularly with the ham-fisted philosophy. Theo didn't develop as a character, he just seemed to stay 13 in my head, probably because of all the drug taking. It ended up feeling a bit like reading a rather pretentious YA novel with added drug addiction.
Cleverly written and funny in places, I thought this book had some important points to make but I got frustrated by the bloated middle part. I think it needed a bit of editing and a little more left to the reader rather than obviously pointed out, but this does have probably one of the densest narrators in modern fiction, it makes you wonder how Claude got his job in the first place, although his friends are hardly any more intelligent or observant. Also, Paul and Igor get a bit annoying, particularly Igor. Otherwise, I enjoyed most of this book.
A charming epistolary novel about two women growing up and falling in love. Balzac contrasts Renee who choses an arranged marriage with an older man and her domestic life with her children, and Louise who falls passionately and jealously in love. The novel gives a good insight into the motivations of the two women and into their private and public lives, although I would describe them as both being rather stubborn in their opinions and Renee in particular can be quite judgemental towards Louise. Once I got into this, I found it hard to put down.
Undoubtedly this sprawling novel is a great achievement in terms of plot, length and historical research, however I'm giving it 3 stars. It's readable but I found myself frustrated by Ralph and Philemon the panto villains who are Irredeemably nasty and always seem to scupper the plans of the heroic characters, the what seemed like an over-reliance on rape as a plot device, particularly in the first half. Not even well-written rape, just problematic rape. Finally, the mysterious letter. I'm not going to spoil it, but I would've liked some sort of explanation as to why Ken came up with that theory, as most novelists do tend to explain what's going on when they use real historic figures. As it was, it seemed like a bit of an irrelevant after thought. Think I preferred the first book, this one seemed to take me ages.
Great plot and I really liked the way that the author handled the alternative history. I think that the thing I really liked about it was the way that Sansom portrays ordinary people coping with extra-ordinary situations. The characters are realistically portrayed, flaws and all, suffering the same kind of doubts that anybody would.
A beautiful book in all senses of the word. Natalie Livingstone takes the lives of some of the female inhabitants of Cliveden as the premise. This is not really a history of the house as such, although this does play a part. It is more like a social history of a group of really interesting women through different ages. The reader learns about their changing positions and how they influenced the lives of the monarchy and the governments at the time. Although this could hardly be called a short book, it doesn't feel that long as there seems to be just enough about each of the women described. I thought it seemed well researched, engagingly written with well chosen illustrations.
The most difficult of the Barchester chronicles I've read, this time I found the plot and the characters quite difficult to get into and it's taken me nearly a year to finish it (admittedly this has been an eventful year). Probably not the time to appreciate it. I appreciate the ending, however. I agree that Lily Dale is maddening for her decision, but so many novels of this period seem to take the easy route (Dickens I'm looking at you). So far, I haven't found that Trollope's women can compare to say Henry James or Hardy (although it's been a while since I read Trollope's later novels), I don't think Lily has that kind of depth, but it's a good beginning and Eames seems better written (apart from the harping on about his ‘hobbledeyhoyhood' which just seems rather overused).
An interesting premise - Sherlock Holmes and Henry James investigate the murder of Clover Adams, a figure in American literary circles. I enjoyed most of this book. The writing flowed well and it was quite exciting in parts. However, I think the second half went off the rails a little bit and I found it a bit of a slog. The main two mysteries were if Sherlock Holmes was real and who killed Clover Adams, but these two mysteries got derailed somewhat by the potential assassination which I found a bit muddled. Not keen on the magic Native American explanation for Sherlock either. Overall, it was a bit gimmicky at times; I think it needed a bit of editing and just a bit more restraint as it felt as if the author had thrown the kitchen sink at it and the solutions to the mysteries were a little bit of a let down. 3 stars is a bit harsh, however, it was more of a 3 and half stars book.
A bit of an odd book, well written but a few too many humiliations heaped on what seemed to be an easy target. I didn't find it that funny but I did like the way the author portrayed the marriage of the Fatty and Betty and the ambiguity surrounding the motives of the Irish characters who managed to get away from stereotypes.
An enjoyable, well-researched novel. I found the first-person narrative parts a bit difficult to get into at first, but once I got into it, I thought that it was quite a clever way of telling the story. The characters were interesting. I thought that it is the kind of book you would read and want to know more about both the case and some of the historical figures portrayed (Susan Vane-Tempest for example).
A surreal commentary on the vanity of writers and literary prizes, also on the nature of death (although this is too close of black humour to become morbid or depressing). The novel centres on the aspirations of three unnamed authors competing for a prize. I thought this novel was clever and an enjoyable read.
Not as keen on this one, mainly because of Javier and Kizzy. The newly introduced Javier has a touch of the Mr. Rochester about him, all brooding (read uncommunicative, controlling and slightly creepy as well as having a wife locked in the attic), whereas Kizzy is no Jane Eyre, she's far too busy swooning over his half-gypsy good looks and amazing skill on horses and pianos. The horse in a thunderstorm rescue at the end was really cheesy and I thought the abrupt death of his wife was a bit too convenient (contrasting with Devon & Lady Fraser's decision to go their separate ways in the previous books. Anyway,apparently being a widower will make Javier a good husband and that Kizzy will ‘heal him' (pah!).
I had the same criticism with the custody battle, it was gripping and I really felt for the characters, then suddenly everything was sorted out and it wasn't really mentioned again. Sebastian was just portrayed as being an irredeemable villain, but I was more interested in poor Suzette. I suppose I am not reading these books for unhappy endings, but I got a bit impatient with this one.
The kind of epic novel that leaves you exhausted by the time you finish it. I thought the characters were well written, particularly Prior Phillip. Follett has obviously avoided using language of the period and this makes it an easy read (other than the length!). I found the descriptions of the cathedral building interesting and well researched. I did notice my reading slowing towards the last third, but it did pick up again and I rushed to finish it.
At last, I've finished this damn book! Loved the first part, but goodness me, the military history of part two went on and on. Well researched, but the writing got a bit fanciful at times, making it seem a bit like a fictitious account of historical events. A bit disappointing, particularly as I really enjoyed her first book.