Number 21 this year is Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier. Its a 'classic' novel, written in 1938. I've heard about it for years and years and thought about reading it. I know that Hitchcock made a movie from the novel, but I've never seen it either.

The novel, told in first person, is from the pov of the nameless narrator, the second Mrs. De Winter. She's a young girl, barely out of university, travelling as a paid companion to an older, British woman in Monte Carlo, when she catches the fancy of the mysterious, and much older, Maxim De Winter. De Winter, it turns out, is in Monte Carlo to get over the events of the past year, where he lost his beautiful, accomplished wife Rebecca, in a sailing accident.

When the narrator's companion catches a bad case of influenza, she and De Winter hit it off, so much so that he ends up marrying her rather than have her go off to New York with her employer. The sudden marriage takes everyone by surprise, and in fact, the most people seem to be able to say is that she is so very 'unlike Rebecca'.

The couple return to De Winter's majestic, Cornwall estate, Manderly, and it is there that the narrator is beseiged with the memory and presence of the late Mrs. De Winter. The servants constantly tell her that 'that was not how Mrs. De Winter did it'. She only hears about how beautiful and wonderful Rebecca was. And most of all, the head housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers, was extremely devoted to Rebecca, and seems to go to great length to keep her memory alive, including setting the narrator up for a very great faux pas on the night of the newlywed's first fancy ball.

The narrator's despair at Manderly grows greater and greater as the gulf between she and her husband grows greater and greater. The more she hears of Rebecca, the more she is convinced that De Winter is still in love with his late wife, that Rebecca will always be between them.

And Rebecca is between the narrator and her husband, but not in the way the reader thinks.

The truth comes out one terrible night, allowing the narrator to finally put Rebecca's ghost behind her, but, De Winter's actions regarding the late Rebecca threaten to tear their world apart anyway, and De Winter can only say that Rebecca has indeed won, even after her death.

The book is gorgeously written, the Cornwall country-side written with loving detail. The characters are interesting, from the sinsiter Mrs. Danvers, to the naive narrator, to stoic De Winter, to the enigmatic Rebecca.

Its very much shaped like a mystery, or a throwback to the old, gothic romances, and in fact, had Rebecca turned up as an honest to goodness ghost, I would not have felt that out of place. But this is more a mystery than anything, as the narrator tries to piece together the life of her predecessor, only to find out, like everyone else, had Rebecca completely wrong.

It's an interesting thing, reading a book told by a character who has no first name. Its an intimate narrative point of veiw from someone we're not even on a first name basis with. I had thought this might make me think the narrator was unreliable, but I don't think that was the case, rather, she was simply mislead, just as everyone else was. Our journey to know the truth is pretty much the same as the narrator's.

There is intreque and blackmail and murder and everything that makes a good mystery. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would like to check out the Hitchcock movie now.

We're out of the teens and onto number 20 now!

Number 20 is The Night Watch by Sergei Lukyanenko. It's a translation of an extremely popular Russian novel. In fact, the movie that went on to be made from this became the top grossing movie in Russian history.

G saw this movie some time ago (I guess when it came out over here a few years back) and so, finding out that my mother was a big horror/vampire/werewolf officionado, decided to give this book to her for Christmas. Mom enjoyed it (although, typical of my mother, she had a hard time remembering the foreign names), so G decided to pick it up (and its sequel, The Day Watch)and read it as well.

So of course, having been raised on horror/vampire/werewolf literature myself, I also decided to give it a go.

Lukyanenko has built himself an interesting world. Its set in modern day Moscow, but, unbeknownst to most, the world is also populated by the supernatural 'Others', the vampires, werewolves, magicians, sorceresses etc. of the old tales. For the most part, these Others exist pretty much alongside hjmanity, but some Others, the Dark ones, will use their powers for their own gain, and kill humans for food or sport, or sometimes both. However, there are also Light Others, who use their powers for the greater good, or to heal or whatever. At some point, a Treaty was struck between the two groups of Others, and the Night Watch, consisting of Light Others who police the Dark ones, and the Day Watch, consisting of Dark Others to police the Light ones, were born.

The world itself is well crafted and has good internal consistency. Powers are never totally, clearly defined, but they are all 'graded', and the two Watches give all the mystical stuff a nicely done bearucratic feel. It makes sense that magic and powers and monsters would have to be governed in the modern day.

The book itself is told mainly through the POV of one Anton Gorodetsky, a smart, earnest Night Watchman with a decent amount of power, but not a heck of alot. At the start of the first story, he's just been promoted to field duty and is still finding his way about. The first story deals with him mainly meeting two other characters, Egor, a young Other who has not yet made his choice between the Light and Dark, and Svetlana, a woman who will become a rare, Great Sorceress, and whom also falls in love in Anton.

Anton's an interesting character, but I did find him to get a little too 'emo' sometimes, especially in the final story, where it all becomes clear what Svetlana was being groomed so quickly for by the boss of the Night Watch. Anton struggles throughout the final story with his feelings for Svetlana and the entire struggle between Light and Dark, which is undoubtedly a normal thing, but it just got tiring after awhile. Don't get me wrong though, he's nowhere near as whiney as Lestat gets...

I think it was the second story that was my favourite, where Anton has to track down and capture a Maverick Other; an Other that neither the Night Watch or the Day Watch had previously found, who is running around killing Dark Others. To make matters more interesting, the Day Watch is subtely framing Anton for the murders as well. It was a nice mystery/cat and mouse story.

I enjoyed the book overall and will continue on with the Day Watch.

Oh, and because I watch a lot of hockey, the Russian names didn't really throw me for a loop like they did my mom :)

And here we are at number 19 of the year, the greatly anticipated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. So here we are at the end of the Harry Potter epic, and I cannot say I was surprised by anything really, but I also cannot say I was disappointed by anything either. It was grand, and answered everything, had lots of action and plenty of people died. Which, is something I always find needs to happen at the end of something big and epic. That was one of my main complaints at the end of Buffy the Vampire Slayer; not enough people died. So yeah, it was a nice ending, Voldemort is defeated without question this time, Harry gets to live happily ever after, which I admit, I discovered that was important to me, we discovered Snape truly was on the side of the angels, Dumbledore chose his death, one of a pair of my two favourite characters didn't survive, and of course, Ron and Hermonie end up together.

Its funny, at the end, there is an epilogue that takes place many years later and gives us the "And Harry lived happily ever after part", but as usual, I"m left wondering what everyone else has been doing. The new baby who was orphaned, what happens to him? How does one character go on when pretty much his other half is gone? Stuff like that. It reminds me of how I felt at the end of the Fionavar Tapestry, when I really, really NEEDED to know what happened to some characters. And i know though, that without the epilogue, I probably wouldn't have needed to know so badly, I would've just accepted that everyone lived happily, as best they could.

It was a good ending. Not a great ending, but a good ending to an enjoyable series of books overall.

Number 17 of the year is Fluke by Christopher Moore. I love Christopher Moore, I've read quite a few things by him and Lamb has become one of my favourite books.

Fluke is about whales. Its about a whale researcher, Nate Quinn, and his motely crew of fellow researchers. Life with the humpbacked whales in Hawaii has been going on without real incident for years now, but Nate is no closer to learning why they sing than he was when he started, and he's starting to feel discouraged. Then, one day, he notices a whale exhibiting some distinctly un-whale-like characteristics, specifically the words "Bite Me" written on his tail.

Moore's books are always odd, humourous and a little... not disturbing, but definitely always thought provoking. They're also lovely little fantasies set in the real world, and Fluke is no different. Nate ends up 'kidnapped' by the whale, discovering that there are actually whale 'ships', ships designed to look and behave exactly like real whales. Who are they designed by? Something called Gooville, which has the ability to write its genes into anything, including the whale ships, and their pilots, the genetically unique, humaniod whale-like whaley-boys.

This book is a bizarre romp, and its hard to really describe what this book is about, as it gets almost science-fictiony, which I think is a bit of a departure for Moore, its usually magic he incorrporates into his books. But the characters are a lot of fun, and his research and respect for the whales comes through swimmingly.

I liked it a lot, but not as much as Lamb.

I'm... hesitant to claim number 18 of the year, but well, it is a book and I did read it... Yeah, its a cheesy little romance-type novel, but I finished Fluke and my re-read of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix at the cottage, and so I was searching for something to read, and all I could find was Late for the Wedding, by Amanda Quick. Guess its not too bad, cheesy romance novels really do lend themselves nicely to being read while sitting near the water. So yes, this was... ok. It was basically a Regency-era romance where the two main characters are running a 'private inquiries' business, basically meaning they're P.Is. I have a weakeness for 80s private investigator shows (LOVE Magnum P.I and Simon and Simon and Remington Steele), so I did find this one kinda a hoot. Won't go into the plot, there's no point, but the characters weren't too annoying, and there was a good amount of action in it, so it was a fun read at least.

But now I'm onto Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and I'm looking forward to it!

Number 16 was a pretty quick read , but for the most part, I find collections of short stories are generally quick reads. So number 16 is a collection of short stories, The Love of a Good Woman, by Alice Munro. I like Munro's writting style, its blunt and poetic at the same time. I liked all the stories in this collection, all told from the pov of a woman, sometimes first person, sometimes third, sometimes in the form of a letter, with a common thread of adultery weaving through them. Which of course means that sometimes the stories end quite badly. I also found a lot of the stories ended quite abruptly, which I found jarring at the time, but upon reflection, realize that might just be the point, so many relationships end abruptly and that's what these stories are about alot of the time, endings.

Munro is so good at capturing unhappiness, unhappiness in a relationship, knowing that there must be soemthing better out there. Sometimes her protagonistis find it, sometimes they don't. There are few 'happy ever after' endings in her writing. Its not that things are bitter or bad or horrible or happy, the endings are just... realistic it seems. And I really appreciate that about her writing.

Wow, I think this is the shortest review in this blog yet. Not to short-shift Munro at all, but I think I just feel her stories more than I can really rationally write about them.

I'm throwing rocks tonight! (basically just meaning I've been reading things quickly again...)

Number 15 is Fall of Knight by Peter David. Fall of Knight is the third in David's Arthurian cycle, and like the others, its enjoyable, is a nice continuation of the myths, and yet feels rather heavy-handed in some places.

I know, from reading various things in comic book circles, that Peter David is a very liberal (with a small 'l' since he's American) person, and this often shows up in his writing. He's had some, overall, goodnatured 'spats' with fellow comic writer (and uber-conservative) Chuck Dixon, and I always found myself more in line with Peter David's views.

So, while Knight Life was mainly just David's view of politics, One Knight Only became more political, and was obviously his reaction to 9-11 and the current administration's reaction to it and terrorism in general. And now, with Fall of Knight, David is tackling the issue of faith.

I like Peter David's Arthur. He is strong-willed, charismatic, charming, smart and yet, often times bull-headed, a little arrogant and pretty used to getting his own way (after all, he was King). I think the personality suits him perfectly, and of course, there are the nice touches such as the simulataneous world-weariness and yet also the niavety he has about the modern world.

Arthur, since awakening from his thousand year slumber, has been mayor of New York City, then President of the United States. Fall of Knight opens with him and Gwen in retirement, on a sailboat in the middle of the Pacific, where he's basically bored out of his skull. The problem is, they cannot go back, because no one is to know that Gwen has recovered from her coma (induced by a terrorist/assassin's bullet to her head) and is in fact fully healed, due to the Holy Grail (as was done in One Knight Only). Gwen is the recipient of a miracle no one would believe in.

But of course, Gwen's recovery is discovered, and Arthur (with Gwen and Percival, the Grail Knight's support) Arthur goes public with who he is and that the Holy Grail is in his possession. Well, as you can imagine, the shit hits the fan. People want to be cured. The Catholic Church wants the Grail. The US Government wants the Grail. And of course, the main badguy, a near-immortal necromancer/alchemist calling himself Paracelsus, also wants the Grail. Of course, the church and the state wish to study the Grail, afirm its divinity, that sort of thing, but Paracelsus wants it because he wishes to use it to wipe humanity from the Earth. And he's pretty close to being able to do so, considering he also has the Spear of Destiny in his posession.

But overall, the theme of faith is what drives this book. Arthur, his faith in a higher power pretty much shattered by his Grail Quest (for he finds out the Grail is much, much older than Christ) and so he shares this with people who find themselves likewise disaffected from modern, organized religion. Of course though, some people see Arthur himself as a new messiah-like figure, and turn to 'worshipping' him. This makes the Church rather upset and they denounce him thoroughly. A lot of Arthur's message can be seen as 'think for yourself' (a message anyone versed in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" will be familiar with), but after awhile, it does seem that even Arthur is believing his own hype as a saviour of humanity.

Arthur, in his efforts to help as many people as he can, launches on a scheme to bottle water that has been poured into the Grail, then diluted, and sell it to as many people around the world as he can. The product, called Grail Ale, sells out immediately and performs all sorts of miraculous cures. Arthur is happy with this, however, lots have misgivings, including the loyal Percival.

Of course, it all goes to shit, the person who came up with the plan to bottle Grail Ale is actually Paracelsus, who, knowing that magic always has a balance (i.e., the more good that is done with the Grail means the more 'bad' energy is also being built up. So you know, Karma) is waiting for the Grail to basically be 'full' of goodness, so he can use its power and that of the Spear to purge humanity off the earth. And of course, its up to Arthur to stop him.

He does, of course, but Percival is lost in the battle, as is Excalibur. Its interesting that, when the chips are down and Arthur doesn't have his remaining Knight and Merlin is trapped (Nimue again of course), he is moved to prayer. I'm not sure if I liked this part, it seemed too pat for someone who was not only questioning faith, but also the divinity of Christ, would then turn back down that path, but perhaps it was David saying that when all else is lost or gone, it is natural for people to hope that there is something/someone out there who will lend a guiding hand, or rainstorm in this case.

I guess overall, I did find it interesting because alot of what Peter David was questioning wasn't exactly faith, but faith in how religion is presented to us in a modern age. He brings up the old standbys - how much blood has been spilt in the name of one who's message was predominately peaceful, how could God so completely turn his back on his creation and let so much evil flourish, if Christ did return today, would he be accepted or simply shut up in an institution somewhere as one of the nameless mentally ill? All excellent questions really. He doesn't really go so far as to portray the Church in a negative light, but they aren't exactly positive either, which is probably the best way to look at them.

Overall, I liked this trilogy. David crafted a likeable bunch of characters and his knowlege of they legends are extensive and his reworkings of them never feel wrong. In fact, one of my favourite scenes in this book was Arthur telling Gwen that, in reality, when she was ordered to burn at the stake for her treason against Arthur (over the affair with Lancelot), there was no intention on Arthur's part of having Gwen rescued by Lancelot. In David's version, Lancelot was under siege in his own home, unable to leave, and so Gwen wasn't rescued, she burned, and Arthur, consumed with vengence for his betrayal, was perfectly fine with this. Arthur tells Gwen that her rescue was tacked on later, by the various writers, to make things more 'romantic', but it was not true. This was a great retelling of that particular moment in the legends, for it reminds one that Arthur came from a brutal time, and perhaps wasn't as 'accepting' of the affair as many of the retellings say, that in fact, he was pissed off, and had more than enough power to make Gwen and Lance pay heavily for it. It was a powerful moment in the book.

Its nice to see I'm picking up some speed again, 'cause here it is, two finished books in a week. Perhaps I should re-think my whole, reading multiple books at once modus operandi, because sometimes it feels like I never get one thing read...

But anyway, here we are at number 14 of the year, Wilson: A Consideration of the Sources, by David Mamet.

Now, I don't like books that make me feel stupid. Fortunately, not many do. Sure, I struggled with Beowulf written in Old English at first, but after awhile, the understanding grew and I understood it. In fact, there were very few books that made me feel stupid during my four years of English Literature that made me feel stupid, until 4th year and 20th Century and Modern Literature hit.

I'm not a big... postmodern junkie. Not by any means. I really, really dislike modern poetry, and having to read authors like Beckett, Pinter, Plath, etc. kinda made me feel like I just didn't 'get' it. And I don't like that feeling. I guess I am a bit of a snob when it comes to books; by dint of a degree in English Literature, I AM well read, but I'm not increadibly well read when it comes to modern literature.

So, this brings us to Wilson by David Mamet. It made me feel stupid. It definitely made me feel like I didn't 'get' it. But I think that this was the entire point.

Wilson is a feat of social archeology, the supposed reconstruction of what early 20th century life was like only through the garbled leavings of a corrupted Internet. Needless to say, trying to recreate life, or literature or anything for that matter using only the Internet to go by is going to leave you with a not very realistic look at our life.

Wilson is an interesting but frustrating read because, while there are moments of literary and word play brilliance, it is, ultimately an exercise in having no context. Even as someone living during the time that the information is supposed to come from doesn't help, what has been cobbled together is equally as baffling for us as it is for them. Who is the Toll Hound? I still have no idea... I've at least heard of Woodrow Wilson, but how his wife's diaries fit into all of this, I'm still not sure.

Reading Wilson is an exercise in liteary futility, which is exactly what I would imagine it to be if someone, hundreds of years from now, tried to put our society and culture together after some apolcalypse wiped nearly everything out, except a few snippets of the internet.

Yeah, I hate feeling stupid.

Mordred, you bastard.

Numeral 13 is Mordred: Bastard Son by Douglas Clegg.

I love Arthurian legends, as I may have mentioned before. I read a lot about them. It is a rich legend full of interesting characters that you really can do just about anything with. So, I never usually mind when new things are tacked onto characters or small twists or turns are taken with things, so long as the story still stays true to the overall legend, so long as the internal consistency of the legends are intact.

But now and then, a change is made or something is added to a character that I just don't quite agree with, or it just doesn't ring true with me. And that's what's happened in this book.

Mordred: Bastard Son is supposedly the first part in a trilogy, where Mordred is telling about his life, so basically, this is the Arthurian Legends told from Mordred's POV. Which isn't novel, its been done before, and that's fine. Mordred, in the tales, has been everything from misunderstood to outright evil. I don't really have a preference, he is what he is, and ultimately, that is the villian of the piece.

Clegg has obviously read his Mists of Avalon, for that's very much what Mordred: Bastard Son feels like. This book deals with Mordred's upbringing in Broceliande, under the tutaledge of his mother, Morgan Le Fey, Viviane, the Lady of the Lake, and of course, Merlin. Mordred lives in a fantasy-like setting, surrounded by people of the old Celtic tribes, hidden away from a vengeful and fearful father, where he learns all manner of magic. There's really nothing wrong with the character of Mordred, he seems to be an earnest lad, he wants to learn, he wants his family (mainly his mother) to be happy, and he's unsure about the awesome, distant father he has, especially since his father so wronged his mother (we're lead to believe that rather than Arthur being the victim here, it was he who forced himself on his half-sister Morgan, and then tried to have her killed when he found out she was pregnant). No, but the main divergence in Mordred's character in this book is that Clegg has made him gay.

Now, homosexual/homoerotic undertones (or overt-tones) are not new in Arthurian legends either. Its been noted in various places, such as Mists of Avalon, and heck, even in Monty Python's The Holy Grail, that the deep love Arthur and Lancelot feel for one another is not a strictly platonic thing. Mists of Avalon goes one further in actually having Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere engage in a threesome, and after awhile, you get the idea that Gwen felt rather left out. And that never bothered me, in fact, I thought it kinda made sense, in some of the tales, I sometimes got the idea that Lancelot had that all consuming love for Guinevere because that was the closest he could get to displaying his love for Arthur in a physical way; that Guinevere was an extension of her husband. But this is the first time (that I can remember) where I've seen Mordred portrayed as gay, and I think I don't like it because it feels like its too much.

Mordred's role in just about every tale is to be the villain, yes, but also to be that of the Other. Due to the circumstances of his birth, he is always considered tainted, the child of incest can never be fully accepted by society because he is the product of an extremely large societal taboo. Now I'm not saying this is correct because really, the blame shouldn't fall on him for something he could do nothing about, but that's the way it is in the tales. Mordred is forever on the outside looking in, and in those tales where he desperately wants to be accepted but never will, those are the ones that are most poignant. But making him gay, placing another societal 'taboo' on him, is nearly overkill. The deck is already stacked against Mordred, does it really need to be more so? I don't think so. Oh sure, I guess it adds another angle of angst to the character, but I just think its an unnecessary one.

I don't disagree with the choice to have Mordred's first lover be Lancelot. As I said, Lance has often been portrayed as having homosexual tendencies, and Lance has a long history of having ties to the Lady of the Lake and the Otherworld in which Mordred is raised in this novel, so its not far-fetched that their paths would cross. Of course though, in making Lance be rather more homosexual than just having homosexual leanings or perhaps being bi-sexual, I do wonder how Clegg will reconcile the more famous triangle that Lance is part of, because it seems to me, that by having Lance sleep with Arthur's gay son (who could be Arthur's sexual proxy in Lancelot's mind?), it makes one wonder just why Lance would switch teams and fall for Guinevere (although sometimes Arthurian authors make Gwen so horrible I'm often left questioning why Lance or Arthur fall for her, regardless of their sexual orientation). Of course, Clegg could just use some old standbys, magic spell, potion, etc, or he could just ignore it completely (ugh), but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

By the end of the novel, we've reached the end of Mordred's 'childhood'; he's well versed in magic and the martial arts, and he's just rescued the princess Guinevere from a plot devised by his mad aunt Morgause (who is currently the villain of the piece) and will now return the princess to her betrothed, King Arthur, therefore paving the way for the first meeting between the estranged father and son.

I am interested in reading on, but sometimes, this book focuses too much on the magic (an extended conversation with some practioners of magic of the goddess Hecate went on for what felt like ever), and I feel like I'm starting to have to skip the magic-babble like I would skip the techno-babble in a Tom Clancy novel, or the whaling-babble in Moby Dick or the marching-song babble in Fellowship of the Rings. Sure, stuff like that adds flavour, but after too much of it, I'm pretty freaking full.

It would seem to me that Clegg is obviously setting up Mordred as a more sympathetic character who has reasons other than just being evil to bring down his father's shining kingdom, so once again, its feeling very Mists of Avalonesque. But right now, Mordred is really the only well-drawn character and this lack of any interesting tertiary characters hurts a bit. By the end, this Lancelot was starting to feel a little more well-rounded, which is good, because well, a large part of my enjoyment of any Arthurian related book is how well Lancelot is portrayed. After all, he is my favourite.

Hmmm, I'm not sure if I should count Alice In Sunderland, by Brian Talbot, as number 12 for the year. But, I think I will. The only reason I'm hesitant about counting it is because its a graphic novel, and, in case you haven't noticed, I haven't been counting the comic books I read here. No, comic books, if I kept track of all of those I read in a year, would need an entire blog all on their own. But, Alice In Sunderland is one of those comics that isn't really a comic book, no its truly a 'graphic novel'.

It took Brian Talbot three years to do all the pictures and illustrations for this gargantuan novel. Its really breathtaking. I'm sure it also took him three years to do all the research as well. It is a tour of British history, but mainly viewed through the narrow scope of how it relates to Lewis Carroll and the creation of Alice in Wonderland.

See, Lewis Carroll grew up in Northern England, in the town of Sunderland (and yes, the name of the town sounds rather like Wonderland could very well be a play upon it), and it is Talbot's thesis that Carroll did not come up with and write all of Alice during his time at Oxford, but rather Alice was a summary of many different parts, many of them coming from Sunderland. Carroll's family are the main perpetrators of keeping all the Oxford connections (or myths) alive, but Talbot thinks that what the family has put forth is not fully the truth, and in fact, does some disservice to the man Carroll really was.

Alice in Sunderland is part biography and part history. Not only do we delve into Carroll's life, but also the life of the England he knew and the England before him. We go right from the Roman conquest and Bede and the Lindisfarne Tapestry and William the Conquorer and Robin Hood and so many other twists and turns in British history that I felt like I was back in my Old English class of second year, which was, by dint of being a history of the English language, also a history of the English people.

Its probably because I had a familiarity with much of the background history and because I have a fair knowledge of Lewis Carroll that I found this book so fascinating,

I would've liked it immensely even without all the pretty pictures :)

And make no mistake, the pictures are pretty. Talbot uses many medium, pencil and ink, collage, photos, etc. It makes for a striking page each and every time. And it makes for a very striking narrative. Talbot has a couple of narrators, both of whom seem to be the artist himself, in different incarnations. There's also an 'audience', who is very adept at asking questions when we need them ask.

I thoroughly enjoyed this, but well, I am a big book nerd, and this is right up my alley.

And we're on to number 11, The Curse of the Narrows, by Laura M. Mac Donald.

This book is about the Halifax explosion of 1917, when two ships, the Mont Blanc and the Imo, collided in Halifax harbour. The didn't collide all that hard, but the problem was that the Mont Blanc was carrying tons of high explosives, all destined for the war effort over in Europe. The Imo hit the Mont Blanc and about half an hour later, the Mont Blanc exploded, devestating much of Halifax in the process. The Mont Blanc became the largest man-made 'bomb' the world had yet seen, and the explosion killed nearly 2000 Haligonians and caused 24 million dollars of damage (in 1917 dollars).

Y'know, while reading this book, I was struck by the fact that, in many ways, I'm pretty ignorant of my own country's history. Oh sure, I know the broad details, the War of 1812, Confederation, the FLQ Crisis, the building of the railroads, the Plains of Abraham, the Winnipeg Strikes, Louis Riel, blah, blah, but there's a lot I don't know too. It really did strike me that, through the dint of my degree in English Literature, I know British history a hell of a lot better than I know my own. And that made me kinda sad.

The only knowledge I had of the Halifax explosion prior to picking up this book was one of those Canada Heritage Moments on the CBC (other Canadians will know what I mean), where they talk about a telegraph operator who manages to telegraph a train and stop it from arriving at Halifax harbour, as he knew the ship was going to explode. The train was stopped, but the telegraph operater died in the explosion. And that was all I knew.

But the Curse of the Narrows goes into frightening, clear detail. I had no idea that Halifax had been so devestated. There wasn't a building in the city left undamaged when the explosion was done. People were blown from their feet to land miles away from where they were. 2000 died and nearly 5000 were injured. Some were blinded, some lost limbs, whole families were wiped out, many children were orphaned. It was a horrendous catastrophy.

Mac Donald attempts to recreate the circumstances leading up to the crash, and she basically comes down on the side that it was the Imo that was in error. But unfortunatey, error compounded on error and the ships collided anyway. The Mont Blanc's crew, tried to warn others, but there was no time, they abandoned the ship, which, with unfortunate accuracy, drifted over to a pier where she stayed, practically in the 'centre' of town, until she blew. Mac Donald follows certain families and people as they try to understand what just happened and make their way home through the devestation, searching for loved ones.

But its the relief effort that she also captures very well, and despite the cataclysm, there is much hope as the rest of Canada and Massechusettes especially, responds to help Halifax and send doctors, clothes, food, temporary shelters, money etc., for a city that has lost very nearly everything.

She also talks about the inquiry the Canadian government had about the explosion, which was really more about assigning blame for the catastrophy, more than in finding out what really happened. The inquiry found that it was the Mont Blanc, the ship carrying the explosives, that was to blame, but this doesn't really seem to be the case, but no one cared, they just wanted to have someone to take their frustrations out on.

But the most poinant thing of all that I got out of this book is the realization that the role Boston played in helping Halifax is still recognized today: Every year, the huge, Christmas Tree that is lit there is shipped down from Halifax. They sent the first tree in 1918 as a thank you for the desperately needed relief they received from Boston. I think its beautiful that the thank you is still recognized and remembered every year.

This was a very, very interesting book and I'm so glad I read it.

Numeral X of the year is Give Our Regards to the Atom Smashers: Writers on Comics. Its written by various writers (none of whom I'd actually heard of, now that I think about it), and edited by Sean Howe. I picked it up from G after he'd finished with it (as it is his book) because I was looking for something a little lighter than my current 'heavy' read.

Its bascially exactly what it says it is, various writers writting about their thoughts, feelings on comic books. There's a lot of reminiscing and sharing what comic books mean to them, or meant to them while growing up. Often, they were forbidden by a parent, and so because they were taboo, they became even more sought after.

I found it interesting that the majority of those writing were tried-and-true Marvel zombies as kids, reading nothing but Marvel stories and completely disdaining DC. This was during the seventies, when comics had hit a rather... rough period. I.E., they were pretty bland. Of course, though, as the writers look back in hindsight, they realize that a lot of the Marvel stuff they were reading and loving were actually reprints of Marvel stuff from the sixties, when Marvel was at its zenith of putting out really good, energetic, interesting stories and art. That wasn't happening in the seventies.

I'm not saying DC was doing anything better in the seventies, the renaissance for DC wouldn't really happen again till the 80s with Frank Miller and Alan Moore, but still, as someone who is pretty much a DC-phile, I get a kick out of reading ex-Marvel Zombies admitting that the stuff back then wasn't really that good.

There were quite a few essays on stuff that I've never read, like TinTin, Little Nemo, some various Indie things that I'll probably never read because I find the vast majority of Indie stuff boring, repeatitive and way too emotionally overblown. I like my superheroes, I freely admit that. I never apologize for liking superheroes or superhero comics, and so it is always nice to read about others who are similarily unapologetic for their comic-book reading habits.

I guess I took this book as a big affirmation as to my love of comic books :)

Number nine is Serpent's Garden by Judith Merkle Riley. Yes, polished off another by her, as G's friend lent me another, and I don't like keeping books from people for long. So this one did some line jumping in front of the 'heavier' book I'm also currently reading.

Merkle Riley obviously has a bit of a 'pattern' in her books. Her main characters are modern women but in historical settings. Like Genevieve from Oracle Glass, Susanna Dollett has been well educated for a woman of Renaissance England. In fact, she's so well educated (by her father) that she can actually earn a living from her trade, she's a master painter. But of course, because she's a woman, she'll never be recognized as such. She's married off to a rather horrible man who really only wanted to know her father's secrets, and so agrees to marry her. Susanna wants to be a good wife, but her husband is a philanderer who is eventually murdered in his mistress' bed by her husband. Susanna's life of course gets better then, albeit rather strange.

Merkle Riley also seems to have a fondness for quirky demons, as another one shows up here as well. The plot seems more mudled in this book, as she throws in a lot of Priory of Scion/Templar/Holy Blood, Holy Grail conspiracy stuff in here that doesn't really seem to be a good... fit? The court intregue that Susanna becomes embroiled in through her painting talents seems to be enough; she ends up being in the service of the powerful Cardinal Wolsey and having to accompany the Princess Mary (Henry VIII's younger sister) to France for her marriage to the King of France, and all of this seems plenty. The plot to put the Meroviginian's back on the French throne seemed tacked on and rather... well, given the DaVinci Code crappola, tired. (and yes, I know this book came out well before the DaVinci Code, but I guess I'm just a little tired of all these consipiracy theories).

Overall, it is a nice book, a quick read, and Susanna is a nice character, but no, I didn't think this was as good as Oracle Glass.

Numeral VIII of the year is The Oracle Glass by Judith Merkle Riley. Its a book recommended to me by one of G's friends who also has a prediliction to historical 'fantasy', so I take her recommendation seriously.

This was a lovely book set in the time of the reign of Louis XIV, the Sun King of France. Now, I know quite a bit about the French Revolution and the last of the days of Louis XVII and Marie Antoinette and whatnot, but before that, not much. Really, my knowledge of earlier France was through the Three Muskateers and whatnot, so not exactly in depth, but a rough idea.

The main character of the Oracle Glass is one Genevieve Pasquier, a girl from a decent family that's fallen on hard times. Her mother is a society-climber who cannot seem to get very far, and continuously rails against her lack of position. Genevieve's father is a failed financier who now buries himself in his philosophy books and doesn't have much time for any of his family save for Genevieve, and so he passes on his love of the great Greek philosophers to his daughter. Genevieve grows up very eductated in some things, not so much in others. But it does give her a shrewd mind and a very different way of looking at French society.

After her mother poisions both her husband and her mother-in-law, Genevieve escapes her family (basically by having her own death faked) and begins a new life as a fortune teller, under the tutaledge of the most famous and powerful witch in Paris at the time, La Voisin. Genevieve is recreated as the century-old Marquise de Morville, who is adept at reading futures in vases of clear water. It is interesting that Riley actually does seem to give Genevieve actual talent at being psychic, as that's the really only 'supernatural' element of the book. Otherwise, all the other fortune telling talents are exposed for what they are; card tricks, hoaxes and some fairly advanced psychoanalysis. Its really quite fascinating especially as I never knew that fortune telling was in such vogue during the Louis XIV's time.

Also quite fascinating is the web of underground politics amongst the witches. They are also suppliers of love potions, of posions, and abortions. They subtely influence the court, especially when they give predicitons on who the King may or may not take as his latest mistress. I love books with court intregue, and this one has it in spades.

We follow Genevieve through a few years of her life, as she deals with first her training, then her rise in the court, her battle of wits with her overbearing and powerful patroness, and her trials and tribulations with love and the law.

Its a very well done book, the historical details are lovely and the characters all very well drawn with Genevieve being strong enough, yet quirky enough as well to be believable.

Number seven of this year... heh, that's kinda apropos actually, given that the main character has this problem with the number seven, i.e. bad things always happen to her when sevens are around.

Anyway, number seven is Where the Heart Is by Billie Letts. This is not a book I would ever, ever seek out for myself. My aunt threw it at me and I thought it would be rude not to read it. (I can afford to be polite because I read fast). Why would I not read this? Mainly because it is a *shudder* Oprah Bookclub recommended read. Generally, I swore that I would stay faaaaarrrr away from anything Oprah recommends because I'm a snob. I admit that. Oh sure, I do read best sellers, don't get me wrong, but Oprah always seems to recommend scholcky sort of reads that just don't interest me in the least. Although she did also recommend East of Eden by John Steinbeck and that's a good book... well, everybody's right now and then I suppose.

So, Where the Heart Is... its a quick read, which is nice, full of nice, quirky, Southern characters. The main character is one Novalee Nation (whom I believe is played by Natalie Portman in the movie based upon this book). She's 17, 7 months pregnant, and is dumped by her loser boyfriend at a Wal-Mart with only $7.77 to her name. Upon discovering her abandonment, she ends up living in the Wal-Mart until she gives birth to her little girl, whom she names Americus Nation. Yes, that definitely made me roll my eyes. Anyway, Novalee's plight touches many of the people in the small, Oklahoma town she has been left in, and she is given a home with one of said, quirky characters (charmingly-uber-christian Sister Husband) and a job with Wal-Mart (probably the only place you'll ever see Wal-Mart portrayed somewhat benignly). Novalee struggles somewhat, but she works hard and makes something of herself and yes, this is a rather uplifting story that things can work out for you if you actually do TRY, so its got a nice message that way. And its not actually treacly sweet; characters do die and are preyed upon in some really bad ways, but everything does work out for the best, so there are happy endings all around.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for happy endings. I especially love a good happy ending after a character has been put through hell and back, but in a weird way, I never felt like that happened to Novalee, despite all her setbacks. Maybe because I felt she had an almost Pollyanna outlook on life, and that makes it hard to see that she's struggling.

Yup, nothing great, nothing bad, just there. No more Oprah for me.

Number six of 2007 was Anasasi Boys by Neil Gaiman. I bought this one way back last fall and, for some reason, have only now gotten around to reading it. I'm not sure why the delay; yes I did have some other books in line before it, but I also did some line-jumping with this one and just kept shuttling back. It's not that I don't like Gaiman; Sandman good, Stardust good, Good Omens great, American Gods really good, etc, I just couldn't seem to get into the idea of reading this one.

I think partly it had to do with the fact that I don't know anything about Anasasi or African mythology or anything like that. I have some pretty good knowledge of a lot of different mythologies (mainly Greek/Roman, Celtic, Norse, Arthurian), but anything not really 'western' and I'm at a loss. So, for some reason, I thought not knowing anything about Anasasi (other than he is represented as a big spider sometimes) would hinder my enjoyment of the book.

I was wrong. I didn't need to know a damn thing about Anasasi. I really shouldn't have worried, basically Gaiman takes these gods (as he did with some of the Norse guys in American Gods) and uses them for his own stories. Oh he stays true to the gods' particular brand of story, and so it all flows well.

This one is another nice, domestic tale of a god's family (and really, aren't most mythologies all about the domestic lives of the various gods?) and its as dysfunctional as most pantheon families is as well. The book deals with the death of Anasasi, and how it affects his son, Fat Charlie. How this affects Fat charlie the most is that he finds out about a brother he never knew he had, a brother named Spider. Seems that Spider is Fat Charlie's brother in only the loosest sense, turns out he was actually 'split' from Charlie magically, when Charlie was just a boy. But Spider seems to be everything that Fat Charlie wishes he was; cool, suave, carefree and killer with the ladies. But with such things, Spider also brings some chaos, and its not long before Fat Charlie's life is turned upside down, which is usually what happens when you're dealing with a trickster god and his offspring.

Like the tales and webs that Anasasi spun, there are many threads in this story, but they all weave together nicely until just about every main character ends up for the story's climax on a small, Caribbean resort island. Believe it or not, it actually took me a few minutes to realize that it was all coming together like that, Gaiman did a really good job of not making it obvious until really, the third character stated their intentions of going there.

There's some humour and violence as usual, but also as usual, Gaiman wraps up everything quite nicely.

Anasasi's Boys was a quick, fun little read and I really shouldn't have put it off for so long.

Book number five of the year is The Memory Keeper's Daughter by Kim Edwards. I wasn't expecting to like this book as much as I did. I mean, it wasn't great, but it was interesting enough to keep me going and the prose was fluid and descriptive and also not too bad.

I received this book for Christmas from G's sister. Its not normally something I'd pick up by anymeans (meaning its not fantasy or historical fiction or historical non-fiction or even horror, which is the bulk of what I read), rather its good 'ol best sellers list stuff.

The book is about a doctor, David Henry, who, in the 1960s, finds himself delivering his own set of twins on a snowy night, unable to get his wife to the hospital in time. Everything is fine with the first baby, a healthy little boy, but the second baby, a little girl, is born with an obvious case of Down's Syndrome. Henry, having grown up with an invalid sister who died young, makes the decision not to 'burden' his wife with this child and so tells his nurse to take the baby away to a home where she will be cared for. He later tells his wife (who has been unconscious for the later part of the birth) that the baby girl died.

The twist here is though that the nurse, Caroline, does take the baby (called Phoebe) to the home, but sees immediately that it is a horrible place, and so makes the decision to take Phoebe and raise her as her own. She does indeed tell Henry that she has done this, but she doesn't tell him where she moves to, as she doesn't want to give up the child.

What ensues is a very interesting look at the dynamics of the two families who are formed by the doctor's fateful decision. The doctor's wife Norah, never comes to terms with the depression she continuously feels after her baby's 'death', and the doctor forever holds himself apart from his family, protecting the terrible secret he created. The family slowly disintigrates over the years, drifting apart, never talking, no one but the doctor knowing what the real problem is, so never being able to fix it.

The second family, the nurse's, turns out much more happy really. She does live with some fear that she will lose her 'daughter', and she fights very hard for Phoebe's rights, ensuring that she gets a fair education etc. She also has the happier of the two marriages by far. Because of this, I couldn't help but feel that obviously, Caroline made the 'right' decision in not abaonding Phoebe, and so, while there are some hardships, she does have the happier emotional life.

Of course, its also very interesting seeing the way Down's Syndrome was percieved in the 60s. While it may seem increadible to us that David Henry would just immediately sentence his child to an institution, back then, this was what most doctors would recomment. Caroline's story of struggling to win the basic rights for her daughter to even go to school is very fascinating, and its strange to think that this wasn't always such an automatic thing.

So yeah, quick read, but a good one, I think this really only took me three days to read.

Number 4 of the year is Ysabel by Guy Gavriel Kay.

Guy Kay is my favourite author. He wrote my very favourite books ever (in fact, I'm re-reading the Fionavar Tapestry again right now), and during university, I wrote a paper on them (which, if you go to Kay's site www.brightweavings.com, you can read it there.) I realized it had been awhile since I'd visited the site, so last Monday I decided to pop on over and see what Kay was up to.

Imagine my surprise to discover he had a new book out. Ok, surprise probably isn't the right word... shock is more like it. I couldn't believe I'd missed it! I couldn't believe I'd missed him doing his usual book launch reading at Hart House! I have all his books and each and every one of them are signed. This is the first one that hasn't been and I feel... let down. Let down by myself more than anything really. But, I'll keep track now and hope that he does another reading again at some point. After all, he does live in Toronto.

So anyway, yes, Ysabel. I loved it. Loved, loved, loved it. Mainly because two characters from Fionavar show up in this, and I was just tickled to see them. Oh, the book has its own merits of course, and its actually quite the departure for Kay as well. Its his first book set wholly in the 'mundane' world. Rather than having characters from our world cross over into a fantasy world, or rather than having the story take place entirely in a fantasy world... Ysabel takes place completely in Provence, France. And in another departure, the protagonist of the book is only fifteen years old, which makes for an interesting perspective. I'm not entirely sure Kay writes a youngster perfectly, but he does well enough.

The plot is mainly a cat-and-mouse game that has been going on for thousands of years, and its a game with deadly consequences that the protagonist, Ned, finds himself wrapped up in. Kay likes the themes of people with hidden potential caught up in stories that they don't mean to find themselves in and rising to the occasion, and he writes them very well. I also thought that despite the title of the book, Ysabel herself is not really... in it much. She is discussed and sought after and the raison d'etre for the entire book, but we don't really see her much as a character, which meant I felt myself rather distanced from her, but I think that was the point. Ysabel is from a time so long ago and alien to us that its hard to understand what is happening with her and her two, eternal suitors, Cadell and Phelan. We see the story pretty much entirely through Ned's eyes, and while sometimes this is good, sometimes its frustrating because I would've liked to know a little more about WHY everything was happening. A little more explanation would've been nice.

But other than that, I didn't have any complaints. I burned through it in a week, and the exclamation of joy I made when I realized who indeed Aunt Kim was, made this book all worth it for me.

Whoohoo! Finished book number three of the year!

And what was my third book? Bitten by Kelly Armstrong. Originally, I had G pick this up as a possible Christmas gift for my mother. I had mistakenly thought it was about vampires, but it ended up being about werewolves. No biggie though, my mom is equally fond of both. However, it ended up that G found the book he originally wanted to give my mom (which was about vampires), so I ended up keeping Bitten.

I'd heard of this book awhile ago. Kelly Armstrong is from Toronto and took the same Romance Writing course I took, from the same instructor. As she has gone on to be published, of course Brian (the course instructor) trotted out her name to prove that some of his alumni do go on to get published. Which actually, was nice to know.

So, having the book in my posession, I decided to give it a shot.

It's not great.

I's not bad either; the fact that some of it is set in Toronto is always amusing, since not a lot is actually set in Toronto. It's told in a first person narrative, through the eyes of the 'only female werewolf in the world', Elena. Elena has a cliche ridden angsty background that drove me up the wall (orphaned tragically at a young age, brought up in foster homes and abused repeatedly. I don't doubt this happens, but really, it would be so much more refreshing if this sort of thing didn't happen all the time in order to make a character more... edgy) and she dithers more about decisions than Hamlet does, which also makes her rather annoying.

Armstrong does create her own werewolf mythology, and she maintains her internal consistency well, but I find her writing style falls victim to her often repeating herself, or hitting you over the head with her central motifs of how angry Elena is with everything, but how she has to accept it etc. The secondary characters aren't all that interesting, in fact, I also found them pretty cliche; the attractive, intelligent, dangerous, lone wolf ex-boyfriend; the patient, intelligent, talented Alpha male pack leader, etc. I found that I didn't really bond with any of these characters much at all.

As I said, it wasn't a horrible read, I mean, I did finish the book, but I know there are more in this series about Elena, and I doubt I'll be rushing out to pick 'em up.

And now after three fairly 'fluffy' books, I'm feeling the need to read something a little more... weighty I think.

Oh, and I'm half way through a re-read of Guy Kay's The Summer Tree.

Yay! First post of 2006! And I've already read two books!

Ok, so one was pretty damn short, but still, two books! Two weeks into January!

I'm not going to keep this pace up...

So, what have I read? Well, I read Inheritance by Devin Grayson, and Five Hole Stories by Dave Bidini. What are they about? Well two of my very favourite things, superheroes and hockey, respectively, and even better, there's sex in 'em!

lol. Yes, I'm juvenille.

Devin Grayson normally writes comic books. She normally writes comic books that I don't read because I don't like her writing. She took over the writing chores on one of my very favourite characters, Nightwing, and I had to drop the book, I was so unhappy with her writing on it. Now, I understand that she probably feels kinda like how I do about Nightwing... i.e. she's got a bit of a fetish about him. So while I can totally get on board with that, I still think her writing style stinks, its way too soap operaie. Why did I want to read Inheritance then? Because, way back when, Rich Johnston of Lying in the Gutters fame, posted a couple of passages from this book and they were DELICIOUSLY awful and I decided right then and there I had to read it. Plot doesn't really matter, it has to do with a (made up) foreign dignitary's son nearly being assasinated in Gotham, so Batman, Nightwing, Green Arrow, Arsenal, Aquaman and Tempest team up to find out whodunit. So, with all these heroes and their side kicks running around, you see where the title came from. The thing I took most from this book? Devin must think Green Arrow has bisexual tendencies as she has him comment on how good looking Nightwing is NUMEROUS times, and she is terribly concerned with both Nightwing and Arsenal's sex lives. Unfortunately, she doesn't go into quite salacious enough detail to really make this book worthwhile. As far as superhero porn goes, it wasn't that good.

I'm a big fan of Dave Bidini's. No, not his band, The Rheostatics, but his writing. Another of his books, Tropic of Hockey, ranks up their amongst my favourite books. So, when I heard he'd published a book of erotic hockey stories, well, lets just say I was thrilled and rushed out to buy it as soon as I could. Five Hole Stories is not very long, there's only about five short stories in it, but they're well written if not very... titilating. A few of the stories were even tinged with a bit of sadness; there's nothing graphic about them, and the most controversial one of them got was about a goalie who feels unrequited love for his team star player, a very thinly disguised Wayne Gretzky. I mean, I enjoyed the book, I guess I was just expecting something more... erotic.

Hmm, these reads seem to have left me rather frustrated. lol

In the words of Daniel Cook; "Here we are!"

That's right, 2007. So... what did I read in 2006? What was the final count?

Well, 22 new books were read, 20 were re-read, plus one re-read of an epic poem, for a grand total of 43 books read this year...

Wow that seems low. Of course, I chalk this up to numerous things, mainly just having less time to read and my dear G passing on his bad habit of watching television on DVD :)

Of course, this also doesn't keep track of all the comic books I read. With at least 3 or 4 a week, that's a lot of comic books over the year.

I have quite a pile on my bedside table right now, latest Dave Bidini offering; something that could end up being deliciously smutty from Devin Grayson; Gaiman's Anasasi Boys still; and a book on the Cohen brothers, are all things on my reading list for the new year.

Let's start the count again!

*insert usual comment about how I haven't updated this blog in awhile...*

Since last update, G and I went on a trip to England, London specifically, and it was wonderful and perfect and everything I could ever have wanted it to be and of course I bought books over there :)

But what have I read since I last updated?

All My Friends are Superheroes by Andrew Kaufman. G lent me this book and it was a fun, quick, little read written by Canadian author Andrew Kaufman. Its a funny little book where the main character is about to loose his wife forever, because she cannot see him since he was made invisible on their wedding day by a rival for his wife's affections. Everyone in the book has a 'superpower' based on the most outstanding aspect of their personalities (i.e. the wife is the Perfectionist) and I found myself wondering what my personality-related-superpower would be and strangely enough, I couldn't come up with one. But anyway, it was a fun book and really enjoyed all the different superheroes (as I also found myself going 'Oh yeah, I know someone like that') and it was a satisfying, happy ending.

Arthur and George by Julian Barnes. Believe it or not, this is NOT an Arthurian-themed book that I picked up in London. This book is about a case of a wrongfully accused and convicted man (one George Edalji) who's cause renowned author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle comes to champion. The book is a very, very interesting look at the lives of two very different men, and infact, it isn't till about 2/3s of the way through that Arthur and George finally meet. I admit, I kept wondering if the crimes George was accused of would end up being linked to the crimes of Jack the Ripper, but that was never done, and I actually found myself happy that they weren't. Its funny though, while I have read some Sherlock Holmes stories and liked them well enough, I've found that I enjoy books where Holmes' creator is a main character very enjoyable (like in the List of Seven) Sir Arthur seemed to be an extremely fascinating character all of himself as well.

I just began Alice Munro's latest offering The View from Castle Rock, which I hope to have finished fairly soon.

Rereads of late includes lots of Anne McCaffery books; Dragonflight, Dragonquest and the MasterHarper of Pern.

Oh my goodness I have been neglecting this thing. Not neglecting reading though of course, I could never do that. But I also do know I haven't been reading as much as I used to. Not replacing it with watching TV though (even though hockey has of course returned to the airwaves now), but the problem with dating someone who has a larger comic book collection than you do, is that there are more comics to read. So yeah, reading a lot of comics, no so much books.

But, books I HAVE finished in the last while... Bad Dirt: Wyoming Stories II by Annie Prouxl and The Last Knight: The Twilight of the Middle Ages and the Birth of the Modern Era by Norman F. Cantor. Both of these books were purchased in Stratford when I went to see Coriolanus with G, and that was in July. Tells you how busy my summer was, huh?

I enjoyed Bad Dirt as much as I liked Prouxl's first short story collection. Many of these stories took place in the same towns as other stories, and that gives them a nice homey (read: claustrophobic) feeling to what is a very large state. I thought it was a nice touch. Some of them had a bit more of a supernatural element to them, which was definitely interesting, and there was still a lot of despicable people getting their comeuppances. And in one story I was tickled to see one of the characters spell his name the same way that G spell's his :)

The Last Knight was a wonderful look at the end of the Middle Ages mainly focused through the life of John of Gaunt, one of the very wealthy, very powerful sons of Edward III. Gaunt was brother to Edward, Prince of Wales (the Black Prince) and one of England's ruling Plantagenet family. He became, through marriage, the Duke of Lancaster, and so became the patriarch of the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenets, one of the two families who would later become embroiled in the War of the Roses. Anyway, in modern terms, Gaunt would be considered a billionaire, that's how wealthy he was at the time, and like any member of the ruling class, being it part of a medival society or a capitalist one, he was pretty fond of the status quo. That's not to say he didn't also sometimes flirt with progressive thinking, in fact, Gaunt was a patron for quite some time of Chaucer's, so he did promote the arts. But overall, Gaunt was a product of the 1300s and was not quite ready to move into a more modern era, Not that the 1400s were all that modern mind you, but medieval society was definitely changing during the end of Gaunt's era. Anyway yeah, very interesting, historical read. Cantor also has a book out about the Black Plague, which also sound neat, I may have to check it out as well.

I'm also nearly finished One Knight Only, the second of Peter David's Arthurian themed books. Rather less humourous than the first one, this one seems to be David's rather visceral reaction to 9-11. Arthur is now President of the United States, and not only has his administration had to weather an extremely brutal terrorist attack on US soil (David doesn't go into details about the kind of attack, but the 9-11 parallels are inescapable), but also, after the US retaliates against the terrorists, they then make it personal by having Gwen (the First Lady, natch) assasinated. Well, almost assasinated. So of course, Gwen, hovering near death necessitates the need for a Grail Quest. I'm always up for a good Grail Quest, but this one is made quite interesting in that the Grail's new keeper (and I use 'new' in a very loose sense here) is someone who is quite possibly the first 'hero'. And he makes for a very good contrast to Arthur's more modern hero. All in all, its a good read so far, a little bombastic and rah rah America, but overall, its also a good treatise on free will and human rights against dictatorships and whatnot and I am very interested in seeing how it gets all played out.

Also recently, did a comfort rereading of Pamela Dean's Tamlin for the umpteenth time.

Next up on the bedside table is Neil Gaiman's Anasasi Boys.

I'm really not getting much reading done these days, due to a myriad of reasons. Well, ok, really only one reason, but he's a good one :) However, on my week long holiday spent at the parents' and the cottage, I did manage to read The Devil Wears Prada. I saw the movie a few weeks ago and really, really enjoyed it, so when I saw the book at my parents' place, I dived in. Took me all of a day and a half to read it. It has now been added to my official "The Movie is Better than the Book List". It's actually rare that I find a movie better than a book, I usually always like the book better, but not in the case. I liked the ending of the movie much better and I actually found the main characters of Andy and Miranda much more sympathetic in the movie. Also, the author's (whose name I don't even remember) writing style left me a little cold in places. She definitely went for some rather overly complicated sentences a little too often. Overall, the characters in the movie felt far more fleshed out and I agreed with their decision to amalgamate about 3 separate characters into the one of Nigel, so brilliantly played by Stanely Tucci. The movie also left out a huge subplot about an alcoholic roommate, which, while I understand its importance in the book of displaying how Andy's job was consuming her life to the point where she wasn't there to help her friend, I thought was demonstrated just as ably in the movie through a stronger plotline concerning Andy's boyfriend. Anyway yeah, movie, great, book, not so much.

I also started The Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson. I really enjoyed Bryson's book "A Brief History of Nearly Everything", so when I saw he had written about the beginnings of the English language, I thought I just had to pick it up. Of course, I'm not really learning anything new, most of what he talks about here was covered during my Old English course at university, but Bryson definitley has an easier way of explaining things than good ol' Professor John Chamberlain did. But of course, Bryson isn't also trying to teach a bunch of second year students how to speak and read Old English :)

I went to Stratford (Ontario) last Sunday to get my Shakespeare on and it was a fabulous time. My main reason for going was because Colm Feore, undoubtedly my favourite Canadian actor, was back at Stratford after an absence of some years, and I was determined to see him in something. He's playing the lead in one of the Bard's lesser known plays, Coriolanus, and he was magnificent as always.

So, what does this have to do with what I'm reading? Simple, I'm now reading Coriolanus. I read it once, years ago, in university, but I wanted to read it again. The main character, Caius Martius, is unabashedly a great warrior. His entire being, his entire raison d'etre, is tied to him being a soldier. It is what he is good at, and he knows this and is secure in this. He has nothing but disdain for the common populace of Rome (mainly because they do not fight) and it is because of this that he gets into deep trouble when he attempts to become a politician. It is often said that this is Shakespeare's most political of plays, even more so than Julius Ceasar or Henry V, and I have to agree. Rome as a city, as a political entity in herself, is just as much of a character as anyone else.

And Martius himself is a very interesting character. I just finished the first true battle scene with him in it, and the way he rallies his troops, by almost shaming them into being brave, is just so different from Henry V (who is probably my favourite Shakespearean soldier) who's St. Crispian's Day speech spurs on his hopelessly outnumbered army by stressing brotherhood and the honour of fighting alongside one another. Not so Martius, while he does lead by example, he sees very little brotherhood amongst his own army, in fact, he feels closest comradeship with his greatest enemy, Aufidius. He and Martius have an intense, love/hate relationship that one could easily make a case for becoming sexual by the play's third act. It's fascinating.

I also picked up a couple of other books, Wyoming Stories, another collection of short stories by Annie Proulx, and a book called The Last Knight, which is about the end of the 14th century. I look forward to getting to both of those.

I'm also re-reading The Mirror of her Dreams by Stephen Donaldson, mainly as research as I get back to writing my novel. I had always seen my heroine as slightly... reactionary at the beginning, but I don't want her to be completely passive, because I find that unlikeable. Terisa, in these books, is completely passive at the start, and quite unlikeable, I've always found I wanted to give her a good shake. But eventually, she does find her talent and is able to break out of her passivity, so I find she's not a bad model to look at. But I don't want quite her extreme, so she's also a good example of what I don't want to do.

Greetings.

Not much new I realize. I'm still slogging through A Year in the Life of Shakespeare: 1599. Well, not really slogging, it is a good read, but I've found I havent' wanted to lug the big hardcover on the subway, so I'm doing a lot of re-reading too. I had wanted to finish A Year... when I was at my aunt's farm for a week, but I just never managed to find the time to read, we were just always doing things.

I've re-read the entire 'Kelts in Space' trilogy (the Silver Branch, the Copper Crown, the Throne of Scone), which, despite how the main character is disgustedly good at EVERYTHING, I still enjoy. Patricia Keneally may be a bit loopy, but I think she did manage to craft an interesting world overall.

I also read the first trade of a zombie comic called The Walking Dead. I'm not a huge zombie fan or anything, but I really enjoy Robert Kirkman's other comic book, Invincible, so I thought I'd give this one a try too. I have this vague feeling it gave me nightmares (I don't remember my dreams often), so I'm not sure I'll be going much farther than the first trade.

I was also given a very funny book, the Batman Handbook: The Ultimate Training Guide, by Scott Beatty, which is basically a very fun book that teaches you how to be Batman. And yes, I have always wanted to be Batman.

Yup, that's all for now.

Been awhile since I've posted anything here I see. I have been reading quite a bit in the meantime, but a lot of it has been the 'comfort food' of re-reads.

I've burned my way through five Outsider trades. Not bad, not great, not inspired enough to pick up the series regularly, that's for sure.

Re-read all of Byron's Don Juan; a whack of Shakespeare's Sonnets and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Of course I read that Potter book when it came out a few years back, and I remember it immediately becoming my least favourite of the bunch. But upon re-read, I found it wasn't that bad. If you go into it knowing that Harry is a pratt throughout, I found I was more able to see WHY Harry was a pratt throughout. Everything was just finally getting to him, and he IS only a 16 year-old-boy. The shit that kid's gone through, I think I can excuse his pratiness. And man, Delores Umbridge was a pretty good villian.

I did finally pick up a new book yesterday, which I started this morning; A Year in the Life of Shakespeare: 1599, by James Shapiro. Its fictionalized history, which I've always had a fondness for, and its about Shakespeare, so how can I go wrong? Shapiro has decided to focus on this year in Shakespeare's life because this is the year he writes Henry V (which is one of my very favourite plays), Julius Ceasar, As You Like It, and his masterpiece, Hamlet. It is a year of incredible creative growth for Shakespeare, and Shapiro wants to examine the history of the year in which Shakespeare was living and see if he can find a clue as to why this became an almost seminal year in Shakespeare's writing. I thought this was an admirable thesis, and so I'm very interested in reading it.

Speaking of a thesis, I started my hypothetical one as well. That's right, my 'prove Lancelot was indeed the best knight ever by doing a sports-like statistical analysis of all tournaments and battles the knights were in.' I'm about half way through the first volume, and right now, my poor, tattered Penguin editions of Le Morte D'Arthur are now furiously scribbled in all over as well. But I'm having a great time, and at some point, I'm going to talk to one of the mathematitians I work with about how to go about the actual statistical side of things. I also told Nat about this entire endevour of mine, and she thought it was a great idea. Nice to hear that from a fellow academic :)

Ok, since last post I have indeed finished Bury the Chains. VERY good book. Has made me want to swear off eating sugar for good, but I know that's damned near impossible these days. Funny thing is, while reading the book, the CBC rebroadcast their 'Big Sugar' documentary, which looked at modern day sugar-cane plantations, and all the ways sugar is a very big problem in our world. Those who harvest sugar-cane on modern day plantations are living a life of slavery in all but name. Its like nothing really changed over the past two hundred years, and Bury the Chains have said that many of the Caribbean nations (like Haiti) have never really recovered from the slave rebellions that destroyed much of the island's wealth. The show Big Sugar also heavily referenced Bury the Chains, as they showed the abolitionist movement was very directly tied to sugar. They also mentioned how WHO had been trying to get a bill tabled at the United Nations about sanctioning big sugar, in order to protect children from the growing obesity problem, but the US refused to sign it and threatened to withdraw funding from WHO should anyone mention it again. Guess who is a large contributer to the Republicans? Yeah, sugar companies...

After finishing Bury the Chains, I started Knight Life by Peter David. Not bad at all and a fun little read as a re-awakened Arthur runs for mayor of New York City. I did have a slight panic attack worrying that perhaps this book might be too close to what I've come up with for the plot of my romance novel, but fortunately PAD's Lancelot is a non-factor in the book, and although Gwen might have some characteristics in common with my heroine, I think they're still different enough. The Arthur in this book was pretty good, and came off as very charismatic. Morgan was an ehn villainess, but I loved that Mordred was a top PR man. He was great. So yeah, overall, a nice book, I'll probably end up picking up the sequal, One Knight Only.

I've also been re-reading Byron's Don Juan (don't ask; personal reasons). I read this originally in second-year university, I had to do my Romantics seminar on it. I had an episode of Cheers taped where Diane was doing her psychology thesis on why Sam was a text-book case of Don Juan syndrome. Sam was a compulsive womanizer, and so yes, was a perfect example of the psychological Don Juan. However, as I read through Byron's poem, I realized that his Don Juan was not the compulsive womanizer that Sam was, rather Byron's Don Juan was more of a romantic, and it was usually always the women who pursued him. Byron's Don Juan was almost a niaf, and I found that rather fascinating, given the almost negative connotations being called a 'Don Juan' has in modern society. Byron's Don Juan isn't really what we think of as a stereotypical Don Juan. It is a lovely poem, full of romantic imagery, but also quite humourous as well. I'm having fun re-reading it. Oh, and way back when, I got an A on that Romantics seminar. Thanks Cheers :)

I started Bury the Chains, by Adam Hochschild this weekend. I'd heard about this book quite some time ago, meant to pick it up, but then completely forgot about it until I saw Hochschild interviewed on the CBC last week. Then I remembered I wanted to read this book and picked it up on Friday.

Bury the Chains looks at what was probably the world's first organized social campaign, the campaign to abolish the slave trade in Britian during the late 1700s. What is so amazing about this is that nothing like this movement had ever happened before, and those who started it were moved to do so because of the suffering of people half a world away from them. It is a remarkable thing that we, in this modern day and age, supposedly take for granted, but when we allow things like the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur to occur, well, it seems like things haven't changed all that much.

But so far, its a fascinating book. We've met some of the major players in the movement, men who were moved by the hardships and brutality suffered by slaves, some of whom had been involved in the slave trade themselves. But most interesting of all, was that the movement was really started by, and organized by, Quakers. I had never known this and found it fascinating. These men started just about every practice we take for granted today as being part of a social, reform movement; petitions, letter-writing campaigns, fund-raising, even the forerunner to political slogan-type campaign buttons.

Anyway, I'm only about half way through it, and the main players are still organizing themselves and are gathering amunition to use against the slave trade (they found huge support in the pre-Industrial Revolution city of Manchester, one of the few cities in England whose economy was not dependent upon the slave trade) and in trying to win over all-important Anglicans (for only Anglicans could vote and be Members of Parliament) to their cause.

The sections about the treatment of the slaves and what they went through is particularly horrifying, but well balanced with the more uplifting sections about the successes the abolitionists were having. It is a good strategy in the narrative, for the brutality does not become too much that it just makes you simply want to stop reading. You experience outrage, but you want to continue to see what happens and how the inevitable end, the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, comes about.

Whew, I was right, hockey playoffs have completely screwed up my reading time. Even with my favourite teams out, I'm still watching hockey. I'm so weak :)

Plus, I've finally been able to start riding my bike into work again, so no subway to read on.

So, I haven't really started anything new since finishing Mad Merlin. In fact, I went back for a re-read on two of my favourite Arthurian books, The Child Queen and The High Queen. They're told from Guinevere's perspective, and she's not bad in these books. A little drama-queenesque, but definitely not as completely unsympathetic as she is often portrayed. And the Lancelot in these books is a hot-head, and I like that about him. These books also have a GREAT Arthur. He's definitely one of my favourite Arthur's ever; very real, very personable, very... Arthur.

But yes, I still have to launch myself into Peter David's Knight Life. That will be next.

I've also started the painstaking process of carefully re-reading (and taking notes) Le Morte D'Arthur. I've recently had this wild idea that I would like to 'prove' that Lancelot was the best knight, statistically speaking. I mean, Malory is great with listing off EVERYONE who fought in tournaments; who unhorsed who, who fought who on the ground, etc., and I thought it would be fun to go through Le Morte D'Arthur and actually do sports like stats for the various knights. If I ever did get the opportunity to go and do my Master's Degree, this is completely what my thesis would be. Yes, I'm weird :)

It's the time of year again when my reading time will seriously suffer because the Stanley Cup playoffs have started and there is MUCH hockey to be watched. This year isn't as bad as the past few, since the Leafs didn't make the playoffs, I'm only having to pay attention to my beloved Wings. But since Detroit is playing a Canadian team in the first round, I'm actually getting to see the games. Which is awesome. But as I said, my reading suffers in the Spring.

But despite the distraction the playoffs present, I did manage to finish Mad Merlin by J. Robert King. It wasn't bad, but it is the first time that I actually felt like... yeah yeah, I know what's going to happen, Arthur beats the Saxons at Badon Hill, blah, blah. I never usually feel like that with an Arthurian book, I mean face it, I ALWAYS know what's going to happen with an Arthur book. Depending on when in his life they're focusing, I know that he becomes King, marries Guinevere, founds the Round Table, fights a lot of Saxons, defeats the Saxons, has years of security, the knights go off to find the Holy Grail, gets killed by Mordred. End of story (unless you're doing the once and FUTURE king side of his story). But this book is obviously ending early in Arthur's reign, and is going to be using the victory at Badon over the Saxons as the climax, but I'm just kinda... ehn about it.

It's not that I'm not enjoying the book, it has some neat ideas, like Merlin being the fallen ex-god Jupiter and Excalibur forged from the actual word of the Christian God, but I've found the characters rather hard to enage in because there's SO much focus on the magic and the clash of religions. Wow, I cannot believe I'm actually complaining that there might've been too much magic in this Arthurian telling, but I think I am.

I did like that the conflict with the Saxons was also them bringing their gods with them to conquor Britannia, but we all know that didn't work. The Saxon people might've eventually won, but it was the Christian God who won the religious wars, stamping out or appropriating the gods of the Saxons, the Celts, the Romans, etc. So yeah, that aspect I did find interesting, but I did think there was a little too much focus on such things.

Still have to finish Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure though. But I also started re-reading my run of Y: The Last Man, since I just got all my trades back from a friend who had borrowed them.

I'm still only about half way through Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure. Its not bad, but it hasn't really grabbed me much. I like it, its still amusing, but I find that Dave and Danny are not quite as funny apart as they are together. But, with Dave's book its quite interesting to find out that he still keeps in close contact with a few of the other Dave Gorman's he met, just as Danny made some good freinds out of Join Me. I liked that :)

Last Monday (not the one yesterday), I had forgotten my book at home and so had nothing to read AT THAT MOMENT, and so decided to go to the World's Biggest Bookstore. I love that place. It truly has the best selection of Fantasy/Sci-Fi books out there. Now, if I want just normal mainstream, popular fiction, then a Chapters or Indigo will do, but for fantasy? Nothing but World's Biggest. Lately, they've taken to having displays of 'theme' books, i.e. all humourous fantasy (Tom Holt, Robert Aspirin, Terry Pratchett, etc.) or all books prominently featuring Dragons, or all Canadian fantasy (Guy Kay, Michelle West, Charles De Lint etc.) or all Arthurian themed books. Squee! So yeah, saw that and had to pick up a couple I hadn't read yet. And its acutally been a few months since I've read any Arthurian and the withdrawl was starting to set in, so I picked up Mad Merlin by J. Robert King and Knight Life by Peter David.

I'd read another Arthurian themed book by King, called Lancelot du Lethe, and I enjoyed it, so thought I'd give this one a try. Its not bad, it has all the magic left in and has to deal with Arthur's ascention to the throne. Its got some weird ideas in it (Merlin is actually a 'slain' Jupiter, he was cast out from being a god and made mortal when he lost his followers to Jehovah), but the characters are quite good and Arthur comes across as quite charming, which, for being such a great leader, isn't always the case. So yeah, so far, not bad. Oh, and B finds the author's name very amusing, since it is pretty much his name, just rearranged a little bit. So he keeps referring to it as 'the book he wrote' :)

The second book, Knight Life, I'd been meaning to pick up for awhile because Peter David is someone I'm very familiar with through comic books. He's written all kinds of stuff, from the only Hulk and X-Factor issues I've ever read (and rather enjoyed), so a fabulous retelling of Aquaman's origin to the very enjoyable first bunch of issues that was Young Justice (I will say that as the run of YJ went on, I did have some problems with it, but there was some comedic gold in those first few issues), so I'm curious to check out his take on a modern version of Arthur.

And that's where I am this week.

I loved Lamb: The Gospel according to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. It was a tremendously funny, touching and deep book. It humanized Christ in a way that I, someone who doesn't really count themselves as a Christian, never thought was possible. And as I've always thought that Christ, despite his divine connections, was supposed to be the human side of God, he always felt so... untouchable to me in the Bible. There was never anything that made me want to follow his teachings in the Bible, but that may be because the Bible is presented as this 'authority', and I don't believe that anyone other than Christ himself could be the 'authority'. But anyway, I'm not about to run out and become a true believer, but I just really liked the way Christopher Moore characterized Christ, or Joshua as he is called throughout the book. Even just calling him Joshua instead of the more familiar, Jesus (which Moore has Biff point out to us is the Greek form of the name Joshua) goes so far in humanizing Christ. As does the first time we (and Biff) see him, in a scene that made me fall in love with the book nearly right away; Joshua is around nine years old and he has a squirming lizard in his mouth. He takes the lizard out of his mouth, hands it to his younger brother James, who proceeds to smash it with a rock and kill it. James then hands the lizard back to Joshua, who puts it in his mouth again, and brings it back to life. Biff cannot help but think there's something different about this kid.

The main crux of the story is that Joshua passes those 'missing' years, the ones none of the Gospels cover, but going to learn how to become the Messiah. He does so by finding the three men who believed he was the Messiah right from his birth; the Three Wise Men. He (and Biff) journey to China, India and what would be modern day Afghanistan to learn the ways of magic, the Buddha and some Hinduism/Yoga. Its fascinating and a wonderful idea.

But most importantly along the way to learning to become a Messiah, it is Joshua's best friend Biff (Levi who is called Biff, named so because the sound of him being repeatedly slapped upside the head by his parents is the sound 'Biff') who teaches Joshua to be human.

It is a wonderful book, and even though the ending is such a foregone conclusion, I couldn't help but be sad at the end because for the first time, I felt I connected to Christ not as the ideal, or the sacrifice or the martyr or what have you, but as a person.

So yeah, plowed through that one and now I'm onto Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure.

Alrighty, I finished Danny Wallace's journey into culthood, er, sorry, collective-hood, Join Me.
It was a very good read, but not as side-splittingly funny as Are You Dave Gorman? Join Me was definitely more introspective, but still a journey about self discovery. Danny was inspired to create Joine Me when a Swiss great uncle of his passes away, and Danny is told by some family members, that at one point, this uncle had wanted to start a collective of people living on his farm, helping each other, living in harmony, etc. Basically a commune. Danny finds this wonderful and so places an ad in a newpaper, asking people to simply "Join Me". All they have to do is send him a passport photo. And from there it begins and it grows throughtout the UK to Belgium, Norway, and even the Far East.

I did find it sad that Danny and his girlfriend Hanne, who was such a wonderful character in Are You Dave Gorman?, eventually did break up over Join Me. To her, it was just 'another stupid boy-thing', whereas to Danny, it was an important meeting of minds, of people inspired to do good deeds, etc. It was sad that they couldn't agree on it (although Danny was a prat and hid his collective from her for most of it), although Hanne did eventually join him, but only as a member, not as his significant other again.

So anyway, good read, quite thought provoking really.

And now I'm onto some Christopher Moore hilarity, reading one of his older books that I'd been meaning to read forever but haven't gotten around to, Lamb: The Gospel according to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. It promises to delightfully irreverant, but with enough good punches to also make you think. Christopher Moore hasn't failed me yet.

I've been sick for the last three days with the worst cold I've had in a very, very long time. Didn't feel like doing much reading because my head hurt, but I did manage to finish Close Range. Overall, I really enjoyed the stories. Her descriptions of Wyoming are beautiful and yet stark, and she never lets you forget how unforgiving the country can be, death is an everyday part of the lives of all the characters, and many meet unpleasant ends. Her characters are harsh, hard-living, sometimes noble, but often not types. There was one story that was only a page and a half long, but with the best 'makes you laugh in a VERY uncomfortable way' punchline ending ever. As I mentioned, also included in this collection is the story, Brokeback Mountain, which was the main reason I picked this up. The story is very similar to the movie, and its not very long, but there are chunks of dialogue in the movie straight out of the story, and I now realize that the screenwriters of the movie did a really fantastic job of filling in the details after Annie's wonderfully stark prose supplies you with the initial ideas. Plus, Ang Lee totally captured exactly how Annie sees Wyoming. I think it was a beautiful translation, and I was so happy to see that some of my favourite moments in the movie did indeed come right out of the story. Brokeback Mountain comes out on DVD on Tuesday, and I am definitely going to pick it up so I can watch it and then reread the story.

Next on the reading list is Join Me, where Dan Wallace, one of the co-writers of Are You Dave Gorman? inadvertantly starts a cult. Sounds amusing :)

But I am taking a brief time out to reread Watchmen, as I reread V for Vendetta this past weekend in what was supposed to be a warm up to go see the movie. Which I didn't go see, because I was sick. But somehow, a really bad cold and political unrest/anarchy seemed to go well together.

Gah, I've been so slow with reading things lately. Stems from two things: I'm able to get out more since I only have Jet part of the time (which has its bonuses and its disads), and I got a beautiful new TV at the beginning of the month and have found myself watching TV for simply the sake of watching my awesome new TV. I'm getting a handle on this though, and am slowly returning to my regular viewing habits of only watching the Amazing Race, Lost and some incarnation of Law & Order.

So, since I was last here though, I have indeed finished the Maltese Falcon. I think the ending of the movie is very different from the one in the novel. I seem to remember in the movie, Humphrey Bogart breaking open the Falcon and some ridiculously expensive jewel was inside it. Or am I making that up? Anyway, book was good, but because I seemed to have that ending fixed in my mind, I was quite surprised at the ending of the book and I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or not. Kinda like when I read Jaws finally and got to the end and said "That's it? Boring!" Say what you like about Speilberg these days, he definitely improved on the ending of Jaws.

Also finished Are You Dave Gorman. I got off to a slow start with it, but ended up loving it and laughing myself silly at parts of it. It really is a good thing the authors were able to parlay their silly bet into a book and a BBC series, I can only imagine how far in debt Dave Gorman was after travelling to places like NYC, Italy and Tel Aviv. Being of Norweigian decent myself, this was my very, very favourite passage in the book, said by Dan Wallace's Norweigian girlfriend:

"I am in charge on this trip," said Hanne sternly. "Nothing is going to go wrong. You two have been very sloppy so far. You need a Norweigian in charge. Or a woman. Or better still, a Norweigian woman."

And, as her boyfriend then states, there's not a lot you can say to that. LOL.

I also finished my rereading of the complete Chronicles of Narnia. And, as I'm trying to break out of a writer's block concerning the superhero game I run, I also re-read all the Warren Ellis written trades of StormWatch. Still not inspired though...

Last night, since I was so close to finishing Are You Dave Gorman, I picked up Close Range, the collection of short stories written by Annie Proulx that Brokeback Mountain is in. I've only read a couple of the stories so far, but I'm quite liking them. She's very Alice Munroesque by way of Wyoming. I'm looking forward to getting to the Brokeback story considering how much I adored the movie.

No, I haven't finished the Maltese Falcon yet, I'm about 2/3 of the way through it. Very good, LOVED the scene where we first meet Cairo and he's holding the gun on Sam, so Sam (violently of course) takes the gun away from him, they talk, reach an agreement, Sam gives him the gun back, and Cairo immediately turns it on Sam again. Brilliant!

No, I haven't finished the Maltese Falcon yet, but I did start another book last night, called Are You Dave Gorman? Its a strange little book lent to me by co-worker Graig, and so far, is quite amusing. Its written by two friends who embark on a journey to find 54 other men named Dave Gorman. As you may have concluded, one of the authors of the book is named Dave Gorman. This whole adventure comes 'round during a drunken bet, when the other author refuses to believe that there are other people around who are named Dave Gorman. So, that night, they find themselves on a train to Scotland to find the first of the other Dave Gorman's, a general manager of a Scottish soccer team. It's all quite amusing, very quirky and British, and despite the fact that it is written by two separate people, their writing styles mesh well without losing each distinct voice.

I've also made a promise that I will try and launch myself into Love in the Time of Cholera again. So yeah, after finishing my searches for falcons and Dave Gormans, I will go back to cholera. Maybe.

I finished The Thin Man last night. Good book. I didn't guess who the killer was, so that usually makes a good detective novel in my book. My initial impressions of it held true, I liked Hammett's brief, economical word usage. Stylistically, it really shone when he was describing fights, it made the violence seem more brutal and fast. And it was a nice contrast with the more upper-class scenes. The characters for the most part were so quirky and set up nicely with multiple motives so that you really could keep guessing who dun it until the end. I definitely want to see the movie now.

I started Maltese Falcon, on the subway this morning. So far my impression is that Sam Spade looks nothing like Humphrey Bogart, and is not a terribly nice person. Awesome.

Still working my way through the Chronicles of Narnia. I haven't read any of it in over a week (mainly because I wasn't home this past weekend at all), but I'm close to finishing, I'm on the Silver Chair now. I still love these books so much.

I've been remiss in posting to this I see.

Let's see, what have I read (or re-read) since I was last here?

I'm half way through The Thin Man by Dashiell Hammett. Despite my adoration for 80s detective shows (Magnum P.I., Simon & Simon, Remington Steele) and cop dramas, I have not read a lot of detective fiction. Not sure why, just haven't. But so far, I'm really enjoying Hammett. He has an economy of style that is great, especially given my other great reading love is fantasty lit, which is often overblown and over-descriptive. But reading Hammett is like being a detective yourself; he'll just suddenly drop something descriptive into the narrative out of nowhere and forces you to go back and figure out how this may or may not change what you've already found out. One of my favourite instances of this is, about 5 or 6 chapters in, well after we've met the main characters of Nick and Nora, Hammett just casually slips in that Nick is significantly older than Nora. I honestly had no idea, and suddenly, armed with this knowledge, I had to rethink their entire relationship. Did he marry her for her (family's) money? Did she marry him to rebel against her wealthy family? It was an awesome bomb Hammett dropped just matter of factly, the way he delivers all his words. Really enjoying it, and will give an update once I've reached the end.

I've been slightly distracted from the Thin Man because I've launched into a re-reading of the entire Chronicles of Narnia. It's actually been a few years since I re-read them, but I was inspired to after seeing The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I realized, as I watched the movie that I really missed a lot of Lewis' turns of phrases that just weren't in the movie much, so back I went to the books. I still love them and, no matter what some critics say, I'm still not hit over the head with the Christian allegory, even though I know its there now. I'm nearly finished Voyage of the Dawn Treader, so only two more to go. (I read the Chronicles in order of the internal, Narnian timeline, so I start with the Magician's Nephew). Funny, my favourite is still the Horse and His Boy. I'll always love poor, proud Bree the most.