Systematic Student:
meh

I have a whole bunch of books I know that I should be reviewing right now, but I'm in one of those moods where I'm just not interested in doing anything that will require that much thought, and I'm tired, which right now translates into I'm not going to write anything nice/worthwhile, and most of the books I have in my review que are books that I really, really enjoyed. I don't want those reviews to be crappy, because these books deserve more than that. I thought about not doing anything for today, but I did that yesterday. I was browsing my bookshelves, and I saw my copy of Walden by Henry David Thoreau. I read Walden (or Walden Pond, depending on your copy) about a year ago and wrote up a short review on goodreads. I've been wanting to read and talk about more than just YA lately, and decided that now was as good a time as any.

So, in my title I ask if I'm in the majority or the minority. Meaning — I want to know if anyone who has read this book actually liked it. I've talked to a lot of people who like Thoreau. And, after conversing with them further, I discovered that all of them (except for one) were lying. At least a little. They had read excerpts of Walden or individual quotations and thought them to be insightful and thought-provoking. I agree. When taken one sentence at a time, after, of course, carefully screening for only those which inspire deep thought and meditation, Thoreau is just fine.

I read most of Civil Disobedience in HS as well as excerpts from Walden and I spent a few years thinking Thoreau was pretty hot stuff (literarily speaking of course...) . So, when I found a pretty faux-leather bound copy of Walden and Other Writings at a used bookstore, I grabbed it, and went home so excited to read it, thinking I was going to be so edified. And then, after I started reading it, I realized I was so bored. Thoreau takes 300+ pages to talk about spending 2ish years in the woods, and with the amount he rambled, I'm thinking 100 to 150 pages would have been better. He told stories that related to nothing. In the middle of a chapter about walking around, he's suddenly start spouting off about this dove/dog/man who were all searching for each other and then... and then... and then... nothing. No resolution. He even itemized how much it cost him to build his little home in the woods. (Or rather, how much it should have cost him, because I swear, everything he took with him was donated by someone else...)

Anyway, I could have gotten past the fact that Thoreau's life was a little dull, because really — he's spending 2 years in the woods with very little human contact, and no amenities. Don't get me wrong — I love the woods. I'm not gonna lie — I'd totally go live in the middle of the woods if I had the chance, although I'd make sure I took electricity and a flushing toilet with me... So, I could have forgiven that, and probably enjoyed this book a lot more if Thoreau didn't come off as so darn pompous and self-righteous. I'm kind of glad I never had to meet this man, because his writing makes him sound like one of the most condescending men I've ever come across. And, living in the woods for 2 years without the luxury of a doormat and then moving back to your original home does not make you qualified to tell me that my luxuries are the beginnings of my downfall into evil. He doesn't exactly say this, but it's pretty close and I definitely felt like Thoreau was talking/looking down on the rest of us. I might take Thoreau and his preachings about the benefits of an entirely simple life if he had always lived by Walden. But he didn't. He went home after a few years. But, he's still better than all the rest of us who invite evil into our lives. Bully for you Thoreau.

I understand that this opinion very possibly makes me sound like an uncultured, uneducated philistine. I mean really, Thoreau is one of the Transcendentalists, right up there with Hawthorne, Whitman, and Emerson. I get that... But, I don't care. I didn't enjoy Walden. It's entirely possible that I was simply in the wrong mood to read this type of literature/philosophy when I gave it a shot, but I don't think so. Because I own the book and doubt I'll be getting rid of it (it's pretty and looks great on my bookshelf) I'll probably give this a try again in a few years, when I'm older and hopefully wiser and all that great stuff. And, if I'm still blogging, I'll be sure and let all of you know about my new opinion, if it changes at all.

But I'm confused by all the 5 star ratings on Goodreads. Many more than I would have expected. The 4 and 5 star reviews strongly outweigh the negative reviews. So I wonder... Is there something that I'm missing? Or has the general population bought into the idea that they have to give the book a higher star rating to prove that they did, in fact, get it, as so many of us lesser people seem to not. Perhaps this paragraph doesn't make as much sense as it should... Although I was quite put off by Thoreau himself and his writing, I can see where the basic ideas of economy and simplicity could really resonate with someone. Perhaps, because I was raised to understand that living within my means and avoiding debt and extravagant lifestyles made this book superfluous to me, so I didn't feel it connect with me, but regardless. Whatever the reason I or you come up with, Walden was not for me.

So, I'll ask you again. Am I in the majority, or the minority on this one? How did YOU feel about Walden and Thoreau's writing in general?

Lipstick in Afghanistan by Roberta Gatley is the story of a Elsa, an ER nurse in her early 20s who wants to make a difference in the world. She is accepted as a relief nurse with an international organization and sent to Afghanistan in 2002 to help run the local hospital. Drama ensues.

I had a few problems with this book. And the bulk of my review will dwell on what I didn't think worked very well. But I do want to say that this book isn't bad. There is a market for this book, and I know people who would love reading this book. I, unfortunately, just wasn't one of them. But the book does have merit, and there were times when it was plain to see that the author had lived among these people and has an emotional attachment to their culture.

So, there are positive things to this book, and you won't be wasting your life if you decide to read it. However, I struggled with this book. It's an easy read, but I found my self speed reading, hoping to reach the end faster. I find it very hard to enjoy reading the book when I strongly dislike the main character. Elsa was whiny, annoying and naive. There's a part of the story, after she's been in Afghanistan for a while when she tries to convince her friend, Parween (and the other narrator of the story) that growing up poor in the poor part of Boston means she understands all the suffering any of the Afghanis have experienced.

She doesn't stop to think, and parts of other people's personalities rub off on her, (like Parween's impulsive thoughtlessness). She's incredibly self-centered, focusing only on things as they touch her. She can't imagine that life is bad in Afghanistan, or that other places are dangerous, or that her town is dangerous because she hasn't personally been exposed to it. If she doesn't see it, it doesn't really exist. It's like kids who see something bad on the news but think, 'that would never happen to me.' It got really old really fast.

I won't go into detail about the other characters, although I definitely could. There were a lot of people in the story, and all of them were rather black and white. They are good or bad. They are victims or fighters. They are happy or miserable. They are helpful or hurtful. And none of them felt real. I've heard a lot of people complain about authors telling rather than showing. This is one of the few times when I desperately agree. I can normally overlook that if I'm really enjoying the story, but in this case it made me want to pull my hair out. Everything I knew about any of these characters was because I was told that's how it supposed to be, not because the author just let them be that way. I didn't believe in anyone. I didn't believe their actions were reasonable or logical, and I didn't believe the situations they were in were realistic.

I also felt that the author was missing that happy median on details. We were either given very few, very sparse details about events, or overloaded with them. Some detailed accounts, such as the wedding ceremony was interesting, but most were not. It was just too much. The writing felt forced and murky and kind of like she was trying just a little bit too hard.

And the lipstick... I know this is a personal thing but I missed the lipstick point. I know that the author shares Elsa's fondness and need for lipstick, but I don't get it. And, there were times when I felt that the lipstick was more important than the story, and that the author relied on the lipstick to carry the story forward. It just didn't feel right to me.

Like I said before, I can see that this will be a book many people could enjoy. It just wasn't for me. Maybe someone else will have better luck.

*Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book for review from the publisher.

The publisher has also been kind enough to offer two copies of this book for two lucky (US ONLY) readers. (Sorry, the books are coming from the publisher, not me!)

If you are interested in receiving a copy, just Fill out the form by Nov. 29. I'll randomly select two winners on the 30th, and give you 48 hours to respond.

Good luck!

Although I do really enjoy reading book lists, and various award winners, you can't always trust the committees who pick the books. Sometimes, you get a 'bad' on in the bunch. Gay-Neck, the Story of a Pigeon by Dhan Gopal Mukerji is one such book.

While not a horrid book, Gay-Neck is also not a book I would recommend or reread. I picked it up because it is on the Newbery list, and it is one of only two books thus far that I truly disliked. (The other being Hitty: Her First Hundred Years by Rachel Field.) It's been a little while since I read this one, so my memory of specific details, but the way the book made me feel is still pretty fresh. I was reorganizing my books for storage (sad, I know) and I saw this one, and decided to write my review now and get it over with while I was thinking about it...

The book is about a young boy in India who trains pigeons around the time of World War I. Gay-Neck happens to be one of his prized pigeons. Initially, our narrator is the young boy. Through him, we learn about the training procedures for carrier pigeons and what his life is like. Later in the story however, we get to hear from Gay-Neck himself as he goes off to war and a few other places as well. I have never been a big fan of animals being the ones to tell a story. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part, I rather dislike that.

There wasn't much that I liked about this book. The writing never grabbed me, the story never interested me, and the characters never moved me. I don't know what I'm supposed to feel when a pigeon starts making eyes at this pretty lady pigeon, but I definitely missed that one.

I respect this as an award winner, because there are very few award winners that are so obviously set in, or about other cultures beyond America. Not to say that the book has no merit on its own, but I believe the glimpse into another culture played a large role in earning this book the golden sticker. I can't think of another Newbery book set in India or written by an Indian author right off hand, and it's always nice to be able to add a bit of culture.

Although I wasn't a fan of this book, I can understand why some view it as a distinguished contribution to children's literature, and I've even been told that there are people out there who truly enjoyed this book. I haven't met any yet, but I'll let you know if I do! I think that this is a book with a very limited audience, and sadly, one of the Newbery winners that has not stood the test of time well.

Figgs and Phantoms by Ellen Raskin won the Nebery Honor in 1975. Four years later, she won the Newbery Award for The Westing Game. I read The Westing Game several years ago, and I really enjoyed it. It was wonderfully complex and the characters were simply delightful. (More on that later). So, I was actually quite excited to read Figgs and Phantoms.

Alas... Figgs just didn't work for me.. It was quite the disappointment. I started this book, not really knowing what to expect about the story itself, but looking forward to it, because I had so enjoyed The Westing Game. Sigh.

Figgs and Phantoms is about a family, The Figgs, who are all wildy quirky, except the youngest daughter/niece, Mona. She is decidedly normal, hates her family's weirdness, and is terribly embarrassed by what she believes the people of her town, Pineapple say about all those crazy Figgs.

I thought that Raskin was trying too hard with this novel, and as a result she missed the mark just about everywhere. Every single character has something weird, wacky, crazy, or unbelievable about them. All of them, except Mona. (She's just bitter about life and everything in it. Rather than make her quirky, I'd say she's just a teenager.) It got to be a little bit too much for me. Her mom, Sister Figg Newton (Newton being her married name) tap dances. All the time. Everywhere. Her uncle Truman, the human pretzel and sign maker (but horrible speller). And the list goes on and on and on. There was too much for me to believe it. Sometimes I'd look at the book and want to shout at the author — Enough already! I get it! They are weird. Can we move on please?! — Or something like that anyway...

The majority of the book focuses on Mona and her angst. I think it's supposed to be about her struggle to find her place in life, and accept her family as they are but it always just felt like angst to me, and not the good, realistic kind. Just the really annoying, get over yourself already type. Raskin makes hints about what she is supposed to be learning, and she gives us subtle clues here and there, but by that point, I was so fed up with Mona's whining and general annoying-ness that I didn't care. I just wanted the book to end. The only person Mona feels close to is her Uncle Florence. Everyone else is ridiculous, embarrassing and needs to just stop so that Mona can stop feeling embarrassed to go out in public. But, Uncle Florence is sick, and getting sicker.

The Figgs believe that when you die, you go to a place they call Capri. It's been written about in a journal passed down the family. The family meets together periodically for a night of reading from the family journals about Capri, a ritual they call 'Caprification'. Mona, or course, barely participates but when her uncle Florence dies (not really a spoiler, because it gives strong and obvious hints on the back cover) Mona knows she must find Capri so she can either bring her uncle back, or live with him in Capri. Even more weirdness ensues.

Nothing in this book was very believable to me. I had a hard time believing that much of what happened, and in the order or way they happened would be possible. Very often we were taken from point A to point F and just expected to believe that this was the natural progression of events, never mind the fact that we missed points B-E in the process.

On a positive note, I did enjoy several of the characters and their quirks, especially in the beginning. The secondary characters are often delightfully fun and I actually really enjoyed their time on the page. Truman's misspellings were fun (even one sign where he misspells his own name) and I especially liked the idea of Romulus and Remus Figg, the Walking Book of Knowledge and the Talking Adding Machine, respectively. I did wish the secondary characters had been more a part of the novel, and had been more fleshed out. I don't think I would have been as annoyed by the amount of quirks these characters had it they had also had more personality. But no. They were written as if their unique trait was all there was too them. It was how they were defined, described, and we didn't get to see any more than that. I do recognize that much of this is probably because that is how Mona sees them, but knowing why doesn't make it any less annoying.

All in all, I'd probably say this is one to skip. I don't know that I would really recommend it to very many people. I read it because I enjoyed The Westing Game, and because, as you (should) know, I'm trying to read the Newbery list. But, it's one I feel I could probably have done with out. There wasn't anything really special about it. The rating came really easy too. I finished the book, looked at it a moment, and then said — Meh.

If you've read it, I'd love to hear what you thought about it! Let me know!

The Story of Mankind by Hendrik van Loon was awarded the very first Newbery Medal in 1922. I decided a few years ago that I wanted to read and own every Newbery Award Winner. Given that this won the first Newbery, I was excited to read it, even though I had heard some less than favorable things about the writing.

Let me first admit that I skimmed a vast majority of this book. I started the book with the full intention of reading everything as normal, but it didn't take long for me to realize that I would never get through the book if I tried to read without skimming.

The one positive thing I can say about this book is that Hendrik van Loon took on an impossibly difficult topic. He tried to fit the entire history of mankind into one book. This must have taken huge amounts of time and research, and I give the man props for that. However, that is about the positive thing I can say about the book.

While reading, it is painfully obvious that van Loon thinks himself to be terribly witty and clever, but he's not. At all. He's dry and dull and tries too hard to be entertaining, instead of just letting the history tell itself.

I was also rather confused at the way he broke up history, and what time periods he gave more weight to. In a book that only has 485 pages to talk about the entire history of mankind from when we were amoebas until the 1920s, there are only a few pages to talk about different parts of history. But why would you spend 4 pages on Ancient Egypt and 13 on chivalry in the Medieval Era?! This feels a bit backwards to me.

Overall, this is not a book I'd recommend. The only reason I read it was so that I could complete the Newbery list, and I admit to feeling a huge sense of accomplishment now that it's done. But man, was it a struggle to get through.

Sudden Moves by Kelli Sue Landon is about the sudden disappearance of Michelle's classmate, Katie. When Katie and her family don't return from a spring break trip to Florida, Michelle panics, because she let Katie borrow a treasured family heirloom before leaving, and now she's unsure about whether or not she will get it back. She begins to investigate with the help of her, like, best friend? Tami, and Katie's almost, but not quite boyfriend, Brad, who Michelle has a serious crush on.

I feel bad writing this review, because I had hoped to like this book. But, I struggled with it from the very beginning. I didn't feel like the writing was very approachable. It felt very... mechanical, like someone trying to write teenagers who has had very limited contact with them since their own high school days. I felt like the characters were unbelievable, especially the adults. Every adult in the story was easily duped by these kids. The dialogue was wooden and forced, and the character interactions were awkward overall.

While reading it, I felt like Landon couldn't quite make up her mind about how she wanted her characters to be, and what direction to take them. As a result, there were a lot of inconsistencies as well as moments that just didn't fit in with the rest of the story. A lot of it just didn't make sense, and the details didn't add up. There were more than a few scenes I personally felt were unnecessary, and they seemed to have been added in just for the drama, because everyone knows you can't be a teen without the major drama, but none of these dramatic scenes added anything to the story. Like Michelle and Brad going to the under 21, soda only club (on a dateNotDate) and having Michelle getting into a screaming-shoving match with the 'queen bee' because she made a snide comment.

I never felt the drama of the situation, and I never felt a connection with the characters. Landon does have potential as a writer, and her story idea was good. I feel like a little more research and more direction within the writing would have been great additions to the story. Pick your 'angst', don't try to include it all. Having a book with a disappearance, main character trying to solve said disappearance, drama with a demanding, controlling and sometimes drunken mother, absentee dad who is always on the road as a trucker and may or may not be happy to be home with mom when he does stop, best friend drama in all ways, stereotypical high school mean girls with several almost cat-fights and then tossing in a love interest who is actually pining away for the missing girl just gets to be too much. Cutting out about half of the drama would have made the story better.

It wasn't a horrible book, but it wasn't one that really drew me in either. It's not one I'll ever read again, and I doubt I'll remember much about it in the future.

*Disclaimer: I received this book from the author for an honest review.

This review isn't about a book I read recently. It's about a book I read back in 2009, that I didn't really like all that much. I reviewed it on Goodreads and I came across it again as I was browsing through my book lists. It made me laugh so hard I decided to post it on the blog for all of you to read, and probably laugh at too. (posted exactly as taken from GR)

The Last Grail Keeper by Pamela Smith Hill

I am deciding between 2 and 3 stars right now, wishing, once again that GR offered a half star system. This book was definitely not a favorite. I felt that the writing style was weak, and juvenille. It was written in first person from the perspective of a young girl. I feel that because of this, the author felt the need to make every other thought Super exciting! And Wow! and Can you believe it! and Oh goodness! There were at least three exclamation points on half a page. Wow!

I also felt that the story itself was weak. In a fantasy story, there needs to be a suspension of disbelief for the story to function properly that just wasn't there for me. Always with the swirling purple dragon shapes, and the time sparkles. Magic and visions stop being interesting after the 8th time in 15 pages they are refered to. (I didn't count, but it mentioned them constantly).
Then, the bad guys. I'm sorry, but what evil, hard core, time-changing, future destroying, MAGICAL bad guy is going to let the little girl he is trying to destroy pick his pocket to retrieve her magical necklace because he is too distracted on the telephone?! I mean, really. Come on!

There were too many things in this story that I found hard to believe, and the character development was weak throughout the whole story. The only explaination for the evil witch fairy Morgan Le Fay (that anyone who has ever heard any Aurthurian Legends KNOWS is EVIL) for really being one of the best good guys is that — all the women of Camelot wear two faces. That's it. I thought the story could have had potential, but was very disappointed in just about every aspect of the story.

No story line was fully developed, all of the characters were depressingly one-dimensional, and there was nothing in the story that convinced me I should beleive what was happening. It felt contrived and slapped together, and I was very disappointed. I haven't been this bored reading a book in a long time.

Writing this review, I just talked myself out of another star. I still think 2.5 would be the best rating, but right now feel that 2 comes closer to what I feel than 3.