You know the right side column that lists the genres a book belongs to? I never pay attention to that so this wasn't the first time I was surprised to realize the book I'm reading is not what I thought it would be. Like I thought The House of the Scorpion would be of the supernatural genre from the blurb. Yes, it clearly talked of a clone but ... work with me here, k? It wasn't a big deal when I realized it was SciFi. What I made me say "oooooooh ..." was the fact that it is Dystopian. Yes, I'm slow.
So! I liked this. A lot. I first saw the book over a year ago at the award-winning shelf of the store I often go to and been meaning to read it but I wasn't sure if I'd enjoy it. The blurb didn't say much. But since this year I set a goal to read authors I've never read before (and that their initials, or one of their initials, should match the first letter of the month, heh) I finally got to reading it. Thank you, February. I still had inhibitions in the first couple of chapters because I didn't understand what was happening (I'm really that slow sometimes) but Nancy Farmer is a great story teller and The House of the Scorpion is actually a great story.
The story had politics and all sorts of relationships (from affairs to family to friendship) and the whole underdog rising to take the platform he deserves (yes I made that phrase up) and the works and a pretty good twist towards the end ... and also in the middle. I kid you not. In the middle. The end got a bit predictable, though, except for that sad part that ... I don't want to say here because that would be a spoiler ... and it really makes me sad.
Please excuse me as I curl up in bed and cry myself to sleep.
If television networks are allowed to ... remake (?) Sherlock in a million different ways *coughElementarycough*, book authors should be given the same right, right? I'm not saying this is based on Sherlock but if it was, it's a pretty good and original one. Contradicting, I know. Let me elaborate.
The Sherlock comparison was made because Stephen Leeds is a rich, eccentric guy, hired to solve mysteries by different organizations and entities (that's pretty much the gist of the story, too). What separates the guy from the usual crime fighting, mystery solving Sherlock remakes is that Leeds is a schizophrenic. Saying he was eccentric was actually an understatement. Whereas Sherlock's knowledge in various subjects are stored in his head (he deletes some stuff to make room for new ones, if I remember it right) and he uses deduction in solving mysteries, Leeds assigns an "aspect" to a specific subject he learns. Simply put, he's a genius who has gone crazy. He is well aware that he has hallucinations, though, so it's not like a dissociative identity disorder ... or however you spell that.
I actually didn't understand the book's blurb. I just know Brandon Sanderson writes a lot of scifi and fantasy but the reason I picked this up was because I saw most of his books were rated 4stars and I wanted to know why. Well, now I know why. I love how his descriptions and ideas are vivid and narrative but at the same time ... entertaining? I don't usually associate narrative with entertaining. Maybe it has something to do with his hallucinations. I guess I picked the right first book to read. I enjoyed "meeting" Leeds' different aspects. If I made my own aspects I would also imagine them with different ethnicities and persona depending on their specialization. With accents and all that shit. That must be fun.
***SPOILER ALERT***
I took off one star because [of the part where Tobias (one of the hallucinations) said he hasn't heard Monica's theory before. That Leeds make up the hallucinations because he doesn't want the burden and responsibility of being brilliant. I mean, come on, a lot of different organizations have been publishing studies about him for years and no one's ever thought of that? It's like, the idea/scene was thrown there to be a filler. But that's just me. I still think the story's brilliant.
The main reason why I picked this book is that I'm drawn to stories set in Southern USA, particularly Mississippi and Louisiana. Probably from reading too much Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn as a kid and then later on in college I read a lot of Tami Hoag and she wrote stuff set in those states too. I don't know. It could be part of the reason why I gave it 5 stars but simply put, there's something about this story that triggered all the right emotions from me. I cried, I laughed a little, I was disgusted, I got angry and felt bad and sad and I felt pity for the character ... I also found out what crooked letter, crooked letter meant lol.
There may be questions that were left unanswered but I can let them go in exchange of a *SPOILER ALERT* happy ending.
PS I had a longer review but I didn't realize it wasn't saved so ... {-_-}
Who knew this would have a happy ending ... well, considering. I know it's morose (a word I use for all Donna Tartt books) but it all worked out well in the end. Spoiler? Heh. I mean seriously, I thought of all possible scenarios for a plot like this to end and although this ending was one of those scenarios, I didn't keep my hopes up ... but there you go.
Normally I read for the story over prose. For Donna Tartt it's the other way around. Everyone who read Donna Tartt before would know (but may not agree) that she drags. How else would you keep a story with very few characters going for 700+ pages? If I read for her story I'd find myself riled up by page 10 only to be let down in the next 158. Her prose and ... philosophy (?) I really enjoy. Her stories are out of this world (as some reviewers would say, it's very unrealistic) but the words behind them I'm sure people would be able to relate to. For example, I don't plan to steal any paintings but I do agree that "life is a catastrophe". Wait-what? Lol.
On another note, anyone ever noticed how all of her stories have a family-whose-old-money-eventually-faded-after-either-a-disaster-or-a-few-generations-of-mismanagement-angle? It's so easy for her to write about the high society, is it? Just saying.
Four stars because, yes the story dragged but, I loved her prose. I especially loved the last 13 pages where Theo just blabbed a good kind of ponderous blabbing (whatever that is) and I am not being sarcastic here.
One proof that I don't pay enough attention to blurbs is that I hadn't expected this was actually of the supernatural/paranormal genre. I was all "oh! he's a real angel!" when I got to that part.
I think this is a good book for teenagers who have the half-empty outlook in life. I'm not very convinced the I'm not in love with my best friend-wait maybe im in love with my best friend-wait no im really not in love with my best friend part is necessary. It was annoying but I guess it's part of the plot. I had to knock down two stars because of that but over all, I liked this book.
This is a very easy, uncomplicated read. It's sort of an in between book. It's one of those books I like to read when deciding what book to read next. For some this might be like an airplane/airport book.
How do you write a review of a book that is not your genre? Lol. I was never a big fan of self-help. Especially if it's a personality/social/motivational ... thing. I'm a firm believer that, deep inside, people know what they should do in certain situations. We know what's right and wrong. We're just too stubborn to follow it. At least that's how I am.
Reading The Club Rules makes me prove my point. Most of the rules and tips in here are what you'd call a no-brainer. You don't need anyone to tell you these because anyone with an average IQ should already know that, when meeting people, you should Rule #1: Be Yourself. The thing is, when you go over the stories (examples?) the authors enumerated, you would actually agree that someone HAS to lay down the rules because, surprisingly, there is actually a Greg or a Susan or an Anna or a Michael in your circle of friends ... or one of those people could be you. Unknowingly, you're doing the things you know you shouldn't be doing. So I guess this book would be a good ... reminder? Not to mention each story is sort of a juicy confession that some people (the right audience) might find amusing/entertaining.
Technically ... "Don't be (too much) of a tease" is not a sentence. If you remove the parentheses or if you put "of" inside the parentheses then it is a sentence ... because if we remove parentheses with the phrase in it, it would read: "Don't be of a tease" which doesn't make any sense ... Sorry I just got off work editing documents.
Again, this is not my kind of book but ... yeah, some of the stories made me snigger. Three stars?
Probably the only good thing about this book is the ending. You know? Because I can finally stop reading it!!!
Okay, the "lesson" Clay Jensen learned (if you even got to finish the book because I know people who gave up without even getting to half of it) was good too and that's one of two reasons why I even gave it a star. The other is that it wasn't badly written, but OMG this story! I wouldn't want my nephews to go anywhere near this book. If this is what teenagers read these days they might as well just watch crappy noon time shows. As if teenagers don't already think the world revolves around themselves and only themselves, we come up with literature like this. It's like giving them a reason to feel sorry for themselves instead of just SUCKING IT UP!!!
It's
not like she did what she did because she had a mental illness. I had
bipolar and manic depressive friends and even they don't have the need
to lay blame. And they are some of the most misunderstood people in the world.
This is a very sensitive issue, I get it, but if each *coughselfishcough* reason this girl has for doing what she did is even an excuse I probably shouldn't be turning 31 soon. I would've killed myself a long time ago. A lot of us would've done so. I was a teenager too. KIDS! High school is not going to kill you. Well, it's not supposed to. Were the people in school mean to you, Hannah? Yes. Is that reason enough to kill yourself? Pft. You mentioned your parents were going through a tough time at the moment and that was hard for you ... What? Their only daughter committing suicide will make them feel better? I mean, you don't have to be the one to solve your parents' financial issues but you could at least NOT ADD UP! Plus! Guilt tripping? Seriously? You did admit you let them do what they did to you but you said if the listener is the last person on the tape then that person can go to hell. The last person (actually a few people, by the looks of it) tried to help you and you just misinterpreted his words ... why? Because you already made up your mind because you're selfish.
Here's a thought. When you die, are you sure people are going to feel guilty for not trying harder to reach out to you and help you and be there for you all the time? Are you sure they will miss you? How do you know they won't think: oh thank God, at least we don't have to deal with all the drama anymore!!!
.jpeg)
