Okay, since we've had a significant drop in posting these last couple months, lets take the summer off and come back in September with renewed reading vigour! I have a suggestion so that we can all continue to broaden our reading horizons. Actually 2 suggestions.
1) Write quick posts about the books you are reading this summer so we can pop in and check out what you've read and decide if we want to read it ourselves.
2) Check out this blog http://wyomingfamily.blogspot.com/2009/04/wednesday.html. My friend Sarah has posted 100 books from the BBC that are considered classics I guess. Think about a few and decide if we want to read some next fall. I have only read 16, so I am open to almost all (I have started a few and had to put them down because of inappropirateness (Memoires of a Geisha and Love in the Time of Cholorea.) I'm going to be working on that list this summer (laboring through Great Expectations right now...). So basically, what I'm asking is that maybe we can get most of the fall reading from this list so we won't have to rack our brains for what to read!!
Good luck and have a great summer!
Friday, May 8, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Ever by Gail Carson Levine
First, let me apologize for last month. It’s amazing how a month short by only two or three days seems like it goes by so quickly!! I just never seemed to have time to go get the Alchemist at the library, so if anyone else read it, I hope they will share their thoughts about it!
So, I made it a point to go to the library first thing this month and I got “Ever” by Gail Carson Levine. Since it is written for young girls (or boys, I guess), it is a pretty quick read. I am a fast reader, and was able to read it in a couple days, just a couple hours at a time. I will be discussing it below and it will contain spoilers, but first I will post questions for others to think about as they read.
1. The story is written from the first person point of view of both the heroine and the hero (a lot like “Breaking Dawn” of Twilight, but each chapter instead of large sections at a time). How does the first person point of view help or hinder the story? How does seeing both sides of the story help or hinder?
2. Levine tackles some interesting issues in this novel. The one that jumped out to me was faith. How do you think this story portrays faith? Do you agree or disagree?
Also, if you could add some suggestions for the next couple months. I need to post that soon! Thanks.
Please also add any questions you’d like to pose to the rest of us.
My discussion, spoilers ahead!
So first off, I kind of liked how the story jumped back and forth between Kezi and Olus. Since both of them kind of fell for the other from the first moment they saw him/her, I didn’t feel like it gave away secrets or anything like that. The first person point of view is also interesting for me. I’m reading another book (“A Great and Terrible Beauty” by Libba Bray—and the jury is still out on it, so I can’t give you my opinion yet… ;)) that uses that tactic. It sort of makes you feel like you’re in on the action, I guess. I was halfway through “A Great and Terrible Beauty” before I realized that the author wasn’t writing in past tense. I think it makes descriptions easier and more alive. As you can see by my second discussion question, I was interested in the type of subject Levine chose for this novel. I’ve read quite a few of her books and I don’t recall any of them dealing with faith in a god or gods. On one hand I see her as just picking up a myth or story from some culture and turning it for her purposes (which is basically what she’s done in a lot of her other books, we are just more familiar with those myths or fairy tales), and so I see her just taking that Greek gods and goddesses thing, or whatever culture she’s taken it from and weaving a story from it. I know when I write, my heroine and/or hero doesn’t necessarily believe or act like I believe or act. On the other hand, she created this god, Admat who is all powerful and all seeing, and if we face it, pretty vengeful and not loving at all. The other Akkan gods and goddesses, besides Olus, while they are not mean, are not very concerned with the mortals either (which reminds me of the Greek myths I read in high school). So I don’t know what to think about it. Somebody tell me, please! :)
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Yes, Finally finished as well!
As in intro: Sorry, Tonya, I haven't posted yet and I'm afraid that I'm actually going to disagree with you about the book.
I actually found this book difficult to get through for a number of reasons. The number one reason it took me so long to finish this book is because I refused to read it after six in the evening for fear that I would have dreams about vampires—and since the vampire in this book is a lot more evil than Edward Cullen, I couldn’t take that chance! :) And, basically I didn't really like it and when you don't like a book it makes it difficult to wade through it.
SPOILERS ahead!!!
The funniest thing is that a long time ago I read one of the “Great American Bathroom Books” synopsis of “Dracula” and I could have sworn that someone besides Quincey died in the end. I also thought that Mina Harker turned into a vampire. That mistake is actually from “A League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” I falsely assumed that they had gone by the books the characters were from. I’m wondering if I need to go back and read all those books now to see what else they did wrong in that movie! :) So, needless to say, I was surprised at the end.
As far as Stoker’s treatment of women—I honestly didn’t see a lot of difference from “The Scarlett Pimpernel.” The heroine was a cookie-cutter character: Smart, beautiful, extraordinary…etc. Stoker, I think, treated women even worse, because whereas Marguerite had flaws and failings, Mina didn’t really. She was saintly and very forgiving. She was smart and resourceful, beautiful and loved one man passionately and three others like brothers. She was so super-special that one man loved her passionately as well and three other men loved her purely as a sister. Lucy was the same way, except she was much weaker—mentally and physically—than Mina.
I think that Stoker’s characters were the major failing of the book. The men are too good. Each of them is brave and strong and willing to give their lives for Mina and the cause they’re fighting. Literally, none of the heroes had flaws at all. The villains had no likability, except perhaps the lady vampires, and everyone just felt bad killing them and also wanted to kiss them even though they knew how terrible that would be.
“Dracula” is VERY different from “Twilight” and since that’s the only other vampire fiction I’ve read, I’ll have to compare it to that. (I hope someone else has read something else because I would love to see some other points of views. Also if you have read other vampire fiction, could you suggest a few titles for me…I’m really curious now!) “Dracula” has a very religious bent to it. Count Dracula is fought off by almost entirely spiritual methods—crucifixs, holy water, the wafer…and it is made very plain that the vampires are damned. Clearly, “Twilight” has none of that, except for Edward’s concerns about his soul and Bella’s. Whereas in “Dracula” it is definitely a BAD thing to become a vampire, in “Twilight,” there’s a lot more gray area to it.
As for the format (diaries, letters, newspapers) sometimes I got confused, usually whenever Van Helsing was talking. Other than that, however, I kind of liked the way it was told because you got the entire story from a personal standpoint, not the usual omnipresent point of view.
I actually found this book difficult to get through for a number of reasons. The number one reason it took me so long to finish this book is because I refused to read it after six in the evening for fear that I would have dreams about vampires—and since the vampire in this book is a lot more evil than Edward Cullen, I couldn’t take that chance! :) And, basically I didn't really like it and when you don't like a book it makes it difficult to wade through it.
SPOILERS ahead!!!
The funniest thing is that a long time ago I read one of the “Great American Bathroom Books” synopsis of “Dracula” and I could have sworn that someone besides Quincey died in the end. I also thought that Mina Harker turned into a vampire. That mistake is actually from “A League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” I falsely assumed that they had gone by the books the characters were from. I’m wondering if I need to go back and read all those books now to see what else they did wrong in that movie! :) So, needless to say, I was surprised at the end.
As far as Stoker’s treatment of women—I honestly didn’t see a lot of difference from “The Scarlett Pimpernel.” The heroine was a cookie-cutter character: Smart, beautiful, extraordinary…etc. Stoker, I think, treated women even worse, because whereas Marguerite had flaws and failings, Mina didn’t really. She was saintly and very forgiving. She was smart and resourceful, beautiful and loved one man passionately and three others like brothers. She was so super-special that one man loved her passionately as well and three other men loved her purely as a sister. Lucy was the same way, except she was much weaker—mentally and physically—than Mina.
I think that Stoker’s characters were the major failing of the book. The men are too good. Each of them is brave and strong and willing to give their lives for Mina and the cause they’re fighting. Literally, none of the heroes had flaws at all. The villains had no likability, except perhaps the lady vampires, and everyone just felt bad killing them and also wanted to kiss them even though they knew how terrible that would be.
“Dracula” is VERY different from “Twilight” and since that’s the only other vampire fiction I’ve read, I’ll have to compare it to that. (I hope someone else has read something else because I would love to see some other points of views. Also if you have read other vampire fiction, could you suggest a few titles for me…I’m really curious now!) “Dracula” has a very religious bent to it. Count Dracula is fought off by almost entirely spiritual methods—crucifixs, holy water, the wafer…and it is made very plain that the vampires are damned. Clearly, “Twilight” has none of that, except for Edward’s concerns about his soul and Bella’s. Whereas in “Dracula” it is definitely a BAD thing to become a vampire, in “Twilight,” there’s a lot more gray area to it.
As for the format (diaries, letters, newspapers) sometimes I got confused, usually whenever Van Helsing was talking. Other than that, however, I kind of liked the way it was told because you got the entire story from a personal standpoint, not the usual omnipresent point of view.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Mission Completed
I agree almost hands down with Ranee'. I too enjoyed Mina. She was so good and humble, and I loved the way her mind worked so methodically, especially when it came to tracking down the Count in the end. I preferred her character over Lucy who seemed too dainty for my tastes. I kept wanting her to get more backbone, but I suppose that wouldn't have fit the storyline.
I enjoyed getting this story from so many narrators. It made their individual experiences so vivid and more alarming. I did, however, think it rather hilarious how much detail each of those involved included. I know my journal has never been so descriptive. From a realistic perspective I'm not sure it holds, but it worked well for Stoker. While the newspaper clipping of the Count's ship arriving in England was very different from news today, it added a nice change. I especially liked the way Jonathan Harker's journal was composed in the beginning. I had a difficult time getting through it though - it was on such a personal level that I had to wait a few days before picking the book up again. I was relieved when the book took a less grisly turn for a while. My nerves needed a break.
Vampires. Other than the Twilight books, the only other vampire book I've read is Robin McKinley's "Sunshine." I'm not sure I'd recommend it, but after this it may not seem so bad. McKinley's characters follow more of Stoker's version, but with more natural cunning. Meyers' vampires are in a category all of their own. However, I read a comment by her once that said that she had actually never read vampire books and didn't intend to start in case they changed the way she viewed her own characters. I've always found that interesting.
I did enjoy this book. It is very well written, and I found the characters to be quite realistic, for the most part. I thoroughly enjoyed the Harkers and Van Helsing. Those three to me were the book. I'm not sure I'll pick this one up again any time soon and re-read it, but I'm glad I did read it. I'm looking forward to this month's book.
I enjoyed getting this story from so many narrators. It made their individual experiences so vivid and more alarming. I did, however, think it rather hilarious how much detail each of those involved included. I know my journal has never been so descriptive. From a realistic perspective I'm not sure it holds, but it worked well for Stoker. While the newspaper clipping of the Count's ship arriving in England was very different from news today, it added a nice change. I especially liked the way Jonathan Harker's journal was composed in the beginning. I had a difficult time getting through it though - it was on such a personal level that I had to wait a few days before picking the book up again. I was relieved when the book took a less grisly turn for a while. My nerves needed a break.
Vampires. Other than the Twilight books, the only other vampire book I've read is Robin McKinley's "Sunshine." I'm not sure I'd recommend it, but after this it may not seem so bad. McKinley's characters follow more of Stoker's version, but with more natural cunning. Meyers' vampires are in a category all of their own. However, I read a comment by her once that said that she had actually never read vampire books and didn't intend to start in case they changed the way she viewed her own characters. I've always found that interesting.
I did enjoy this book. It is very well written, and I found the characters to be quite realistic, for the most part. I thoroughly enjoyed the Harkers and Van Helsing. Those three to me were the book. I'm not sure I'll pick this one up again any time soon and re-read it, but I'm glad I did read it. I'm looking forward to this month's book.
Finished
I guess I will post first about the book by answering the questions.
1. I found it refreshing how Mina was portrayed. She was intelligent, selfless, continually learning and improving her skills to better her life and her future husband/husbands life. She was also refined in her social skills. It was great to see a well rounded women who could think beyond the next social event and what people thought of her.
2. I found the use of journal entries, letters, and newspaper clippings to be interesting. I tired at times of yet another journal entry but I enjoyed the details and the different characters points of view. I think it was affective for this book because the details were vital to story. I kept my interest because I had never read a book written with just journal entries, letters, and newspaper clippings. I found the method interesting to me. I am glad that not all books are written this way but I enjoyed the method has a whole for this book.
3. I compared the Twilight vampires to the vampires in Dracula the whole book. I enjoyed seeing the difference and wonder how Stephanie Myers developed her vampires into something so much more human than underworld beast created by Stoker. I enjoyed reading about Dr. Van Helsing having seen a couple of movies depicting him. I enjoyed him a lot more in the book.
My own thoughts about the book: I found this book interesting and a bit enjoyable because it is so different from what I have read before. I really enjoyed that the group of Dracula hunters where not going to give up until the evil they knew existed was destroyed. The no tolerance for evil was refreshing considering the world we live in now accepts evil for good and the tolerance to allow evil in every day activities is so sad. I always love when good wins. I could keep going about good and evil but I have a little boy who needs me.
Has anyone else finished?????
1. I found it refreshing how Mina was portrayed. She was intelligent, selfless, continually learning and improving her skills to better her life and her future husband/husbands life. She was also refined in her social skills. It was great to see a well rounded women who could think beyond the next social event and what people thought of her.
2. I found the use of journal entries, letters, and newspaper clippings to be interesting. I tired at times of yet another journal entry but I enjoyed the details and the different characters points of view. I think it was affective for this book because the details were vital to story. I kept my interest because I had never read a book written with just journal entries, letters, and newspaper clippings. I found the method interesting to me. I am glad that not all books are written this way but I enjoyed the method has a whole for this book.
3. I compared the Twilight vampires to the vampires in Dracula the whole book. I enjoyed seeing the difference and wonder how Stephanie Myers developed her vampires into something so much more human than underworld beast created by Stoker. I enjoyed reading about Dr. Van Helsing having seen a couple of movies depicting him. I enjoyed him a lot more in the book.
My own thoughts about the book: I found this book interesting and a bit enjoyable because it is so different from what I have read before. I really enjoyed that the group of Dracula hunters where not going to give up until the evil they knew existed was destroyed. The no tolerance for evil was refreshing considering the world we live in now accepts evil for good and the tolerance to allow evil in every day activities is so sad. I always love when good wins. I could keep going about good and evil but I have a little boy who needs me.
Has anyone else finished?????
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Reading and reading
I'm still reading, too, Ranee'. On top of this book being creepier than what I typically read (adolescent lit), it's been a crazy month. I hope to finish by this weekend though. I just have 100 more pages to go.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Discussion Questions
I'm going to go ahead and post a few questions for those of you who have finished "Dracula." (I'm ashamed to say I haven't made it through it yet, mostly because I refuse to read it before I go to bed because I'm a huge wimp...)
1. Tonya has already brought up that "Dracula" treated women differently than other literature at the time. What do you say to this? How different are the women in "Dracula" portrayed as opposed to other women in literature during this period, specifically compared to how the Baroness wrote Marguerite in "The Scarlett Pimpernel?
2. The book is told using journal entries, letters, and newspaper clippings. How does this affect the story? Is it an effective way of telling it or ineffective? Why or why not?
3. Stoker established vampire folklore in fiction, so we have to compare it to other vampire fiction! What is different about Stoker's folklore compared to more recent books? (Twilight is all I'll have to go on, but if any of you have read any other vampire fiction books, please add in those too!)
If anyone else has any other questions they'd like to discuss, please post them!
1. Tonya has already brought up that "Dracula" treated women differently than other literature at the time. What do you say to this? How different are the women in "Dracula" portrayed as opposed to other women in literature during this period, specifically compared to how the Baroness wrote Marguerite in "The Scarlett Pimpernel?
2. The book is told using journal entries, letters, and newspaper clippings. How does this affect the story? Is it an effective way of telling it or ineffective? Why or why not?
3. Stoker established vampire folklore in fiction, so we have to compare it to other vampire fiction! What is different about Stoker's folklore compared to more recent books? (Twilight is all I'll have to go on, but if any of you have read any other vampire fiction books, please add in those too!)
If anyone else has any other questions they'd like to discuss, please post them!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Upcoming Books
Thanks, Tonya for the great suggestions. Since I'm the boss around here (ask my husband, it's a streak that runs through me that I just can't get rid of...) and because of a lack of other suggestions, I've decided to go ahead and assign our books for the upcoming months.
For January:
Since I'm sure a lot of us have read Twilight, I think that "Dracula" by Bram Stoker would be a great choice. Plus, as Tonya has pointed out, the female roles in it would be something nice to compare with "The Scarlett Pimpernel" and Marguerite as a heroine. I've chosen it for January because it should be easy to find in your libraries.
For February:
Tonya also suggested "The Alchemist" by Paulo Coelho. You can go to Amazon.com and look it up to read an excerpt. It's a fable type story and different from both "Dracula" and "The Scarlett Pimpernel," so I think it's an excellent choice.
For March:
Because I just LOVE Gail Carson Levine (and again, I have to thank Tonya for this because in our book club in Laramie, "Ella Enchanted" was the first book she suggested we read, which led me to all of Levine's many wonderful books!)--anyway, I have been dying to read her latest, "Ever," and once again, because I'm the boss, that's what we're all going to do! :)
If you have strong opinions against any of these, let me know, I'm willing to make a change on Feb and March (not January because it's too close). If not, let's go with it and please leave more suggestions for books for the following months. Happy reading!
For January:
Since I'm sure a lot of us have read Twilight, I think that "Dracula" by Bram Stoker would be a great choice. Plus, as Tonya has pointed out, the female roles in it would be something nice to compare with "The Scarlett Pimpernel" and Marguerite as a heroine. I've chosen it for January because it should be easy to find in your libraries.
For February:
Tonya also suggested "The Alchemist" by Paulo Coelho. You can go to Amazon.com and look it up to read an excerpt. It's a fable type story and different from both "Dracula" and "The Scarlett Pimpernel," so I think it's an excellent choice.
For March:
Because I just LOVE Gail Carson Levine (and again, I have to thank Tonya for this because in our book club in Laramie, "Ella Enchanted" was the first book she suggested we read, which led me to all of Levine's many wonderful books!)--anyway, I have been dying to read her latest, "Ever," and once again, because I'm the boss, that's what we're all going to do! :)
If you have strong opinions against any of these, let me know, I'm willing to make a change on Feb and March (not January because it's too close). If not, let's go with it and please leave more suggestions for books for the following months. Happy reading!
Saturday, December 20, 2008
More Options
I've read both of Renee's suggestions, but not since AP English ten years ago, so I'd be game for either or both. I'm not sure on the Jane Austen Biography though. Every time I think of that movie I get so mad. Honestly, I hate that life can be so cruel sometimes. The movie clearly hit home to me. Anyways, books.
I was just reading my cousin's blog and she had a list of books she recommends, too. I'll admit that at 11 at night I'm not going to research them, but I do trust her opinion. I've read the Twilight and Eragon books but not the others, and I've been wanting to read Dracula for a while now, and not just since reading Twilight. Dracula marked a big change in how women were viewed in literature. Do any of you know something about the other books?
I was just reading my cousin's blog and she had a list of books she recommends, too. I'll admit that at 11 at night I'm not going to research them, but I do trust her opinion. I've read the Twilight and Eragon books but not the others, and I've been wanting to read Dracula for a while now, and not just since reading Twilight. Dracula marked a big change in how women were viewed in literature. Do any of you know something about the other books?
- Dracula: by Bram Stoker
- The Alchemist: by Paulo Coelho
- Chickens in the Headlights: by Matthew Buckley
- Twiltight, New Moon, and Eclipse: by Stephenie Meyer
- The Host: by Stephenie Meyer
- Eragon, The Eldest and Brisinger: by Christopher Paolini
- The 13th Reality: by James Dashner
- The Bartimaeus Trilogy: by Jonathan Stroud
Friday, December 19, 2008
Tonya's Idea
Tonya had a great idea so that we don't waste too much time deciding on books. We will line up a whole bunch of suggestions and choose one for January, February, and March all at once, so that we have plenty of time to discuss and comment! I'm looking forward to your ideas!
One book that I've wanted to read for a while is "Becoming Jane Austen" by Jon Spence. It is actually a biography on Jane Austen's early life and the movie "Becoming Jane" is based off of this biography. From what I've heard, Spence uses Austen's letters and her books to construct her early life and what led her to become the person she was. I own "Becoming Jane" the movie, and since some of that movie is contradictory to other information I've read on Austen's life, I'm eager to read the book and find out for myself. As a HUGE Jane Austen fan (as well as a historian...) I am very intrigued.
I'm sort of into the classics lately, so here are a few of my other suggestions:
Wuthering Heights (I've never read it, although I own it...)
The Scarlett Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne
One book that I've wanted to read for a while is "Becoming Jane Austen" by Jon Spence. It is actually a biography on Jane Austen's early life and the movie "Becoming Jane" is based off of this biography. From what I've heard, Spence uses Austen's letters and her books to construct her early life and what led her to become the person she was. I own "Becoming Jane" the movie, and since some of that movie is contradictory to other information I've read on Austen's life, I'm eager to read the book and find out for myself. As a HUGE Jane Austen fan (as well as a historian...) I am very intrigued.
I'm sort of into the classics lately, so here are a few of my other suggestions:
Wuthering Heights (I've never read it, although I own it...)
The Scarlett Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne
Thursday, December 11, 2008
January Book
Well, December is half over and April is the only one that suggested anything. In truth, I was waiting and hoping for a couple other suggestions, so I decided to go this route instead. December is pretty busy for all of us, so let's just go ahead and pick a January book in the next week or so and get a jump on it. That's the best plan I have for this month, any other ideas would be great!
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
I finally finished reading!
I finally finished the book! I know; I'm slow. I was slow to start, but I think I picked up April's copy at the library just as she turned it in. Overall, I enjoyed the read. It was refreshing to read something that made me think more than the Twilight books or the other teen lit I've been reading lately. I'm glad we read a classic this go around.
As for the questions, I did the same as April and read the intro in the book. It gave the SP away so early. While that was a bit of a let-down, it allowed me to watch how the author developed his character through Percy while most readers were unsuspecting of his identity. The only other real prospect in my eyes was the prince.
Was Marguerite justified in her actions? Who truly can say when someone is justified. I like what Sarah said about the brother vs. the stranger, but wouldn't the brother have been disappointed for betraying the man he himself had sworn loyalty to plus what about the fact that the SP had saved over 100 lives and was potentially to save many more? I don't know. I'm just grateful I'm not in the same situation. However, did anyone else feel that since Marguerite was the most intellectual woman in Europe that she should have been able to avoid being led to rat out the Marquis de St. Cyr and then come up with something at the end other than hide in the darkness, scream at the shack, and then faint? I am so grateful that more is expected from women in books now. I know she didn't eat or sleep for three days and she tore her feet up walking after everyone, but come on. Couldn't she have done something with her pretty little intellectual head?
Lastly, I knew Percy was the Jew the moment he entered the picture. For one thing, I like to pay attention to the characters the author spends time on. They're usually important figures some how. Also, again, the stoop. It was a dead give away.
My last two things to discuss - how do you visualize the author? The intro to my book described Marguerite as being the author's ideal representation of herself. Basically, the author was everything Marguerite was not - tall vs short, slender vs plump, actress vs writer, etc. I read the book with a slightly comical slant due to this info. It changed the way I read Marguerite. I enjoyed her character, but I'm not sure I'd write myself as being so incapable. Also, my book mentioned that this book was patterned after and easily adapted to the stage. Think on how each scene was set up. The play is being put on is Salt Lake City this upcoming summer. Does anyone want to go? I think it would be really fun.
As for books to read, I would love to read either or both of April's suggestions. If we don't end up discussing them until January, that would be fine with me. In fact, I wouldn't mind if we plan a few books out and we can read them as we go.
As for the questions, I did the same as April and read the intro in the book. It gave the SP away so early. While that was a bit of a let-down, it allowed me to watch how the author developed his character through Percy while most readers were unsuspecting of his identity. The only other real prospect in my eyes was the prince.
Was Marguerite justified in her actions? Who truly can say when someone is justified. I like what Sarah said about the brother vs. the stranger, but wouldn't the brother have been disappointed for betraying the man he himself had sworn loyalty to plus what about the fact that the SP had saved over 100 lives and was potentially to save many more? I don't know. I'm just grateful I'm not in the same situation. However, did anyone else feel that since Marguerite was the most intellectual woman in Europe that she should have been able to avoid being led to rat out the Marquis de St. Cyr and then come up with something at the end other than hide in the darkness, scream at the shack, and then faint? I am so grateful that more is expected from women in books now. I know she didn't eat or sleep for three days and she tore her feet up walking after everyone, but come on. Couldn't she have done something with her pretty little intellectual head?
Lastly, I knew Percy was the Jew the moment he entered the picture. For one thing, I like to pay attention to the characters the author spends time on. They're usually important figures some how. Also, again, the stoop. It was a dead give away.
My last two things to discuss - how do you visualize the author? The intro to my book described Marguerite as being the author's ideal representation of herself. Basically, the author was everything Marguerite was not - tall vs short, slender vs plump, actress vs writer, etc. I read the book with a slightly comical slant due to this info. It changed the way I read Marguerite. I enjoyed her character, but I'm not sure I'd write myself as being so incapable. Also, my book mentioned that this book was patterned after and easily adapted to the stage. Think on how each scene was set up. The play is being put on is Salt Lake City this upcoming summer. Does anyone want to go? I think it would be really fun.
As for books to read, I would love to read either or both of April's suggestions. If we don't end up discussing them until January, that would be fine with me. In fact, I wouldn't mind if we plan a few books out and we can read them as we go.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
December Book!!
Can you believe it is already the end of November? I really can't, but what this means for us is that we need a new book. In all the bustle of the holiday, I forgot to post for suggestions! So, everyone leave a comment with a book they'd like to read or an old favorite that you think we might like and we'll decide quickly so we can all get to reading!
Also, I've heard some comments that there wasn't as much discussion as was expected, so please, if you have any suggestions for how to make disscussion easier, let me know! We'd love to have everyone participating, and I know that November probably really flew by without you realizing it. December will probably be the same, so we'll shoot for a great discussion in January!
Also, if you feel that posting a new post for every comment is too time consuming, simply add a comment to a post if you have a quick word about something. Perhaps that will get our discussions going!
Hope everyone had great Thanksgiving!
Also, I've heard some comments that there wasn't as much discussion as was expected, so please, if you have any suggestions for how to make disscussion easier, let me know! We'd love to have everyone participating, and I know that November probably really flew by without you realizing it. December will probably be the same, so we'll shoot for a great discussion in January!
Also, if you feel that posting a new post for every comment is too time consuming, simply add a comment to a post if you have a quick word about something. Perhaps that will get our discussions going!
Hope everyone had great Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
I knew that the Jew was actually Percy as soon as he appeared, because he was stooping. I thought it was funny that they were telling all of the scouts to watch out for someone that was very tall, or who appeared to stoop to hide his height. Then there is a stooping Jew right in front of them and they don't suspect? I didn't think they were too observant.
I had no idea that the Jew was Percy until Marguerite heard his voice after everyone left. I was totally clueless. Never even crossed my mind. Once again, probably because I was reading too fast to catch the clues. I'm really going to have to read this book over...
And I know what you mean about being a newlywed! ;) Although, I think it's totally us. My husband and I were talking about a couple we knew that seemed to fight a lot and I said, "Don't you remember being first married? Getting used to each other? We had a lot of little disagreements too..." And he said, "No."
And I know what you mean about being a newlywed! ;) Although, I think it's totally us. My husband and I were talking about a couple we knew that seemed to fight a lot and I said, "Don't you remember being first married? Getting used to each other? We had a lot of little disagreements too..." And he said, "No."
Don't read the Intro
I found out who the SP was by reading the intro of my copy from the Library. I was a little discussed but I still loved reading the book. As for Marguerite my heart broke for her. The only family she felt she had was her brother. She didn't betray the SP without much hesitation and guilt. She even tried to tell her husband after the Ball but was stopped by the wall Percy refused to let down. She and her husband weren't even friends at the time she betrayed the SP so how could she even consider he might be the SP.
The relationship between Marguerite and Percy at the beginning of the book reminded me of being a newly wed. Did anyone else feel that way? Oh how those days were filled with unneeded drama and pride. Thank goodness they are long over. I was very glad to see at the end the walls on both sides of the Blakeneys marriage come down. My Question is: Did any of you suspect the Jew to be the SP?
My Answer: I thought the Jew was the SP when he came to the Inn but I was not sure until the end. The scouts report and the Red headed Jews account did not match up so I was tipped off by that.
This was a great read! I can't wait to read everyone's responses.
The relationship between Marguerite and Percy at the beginning of the book reminded me of being a newly wed. Did anyone else feel that way? Oh how those days were filled with unneeded drama and pride. Thank goodness they are long over. I was very glad to see at the end the walls on both sides of the Blakeneys marriage come down. My Question is: Did any of you suspect the Jew to be the SP?
My Answer: I thought the Jew was the SP when he came to the Inn but I was not sure until the end. The scouts report and the Red headed Jews account did not match up so I was tipped off by that.
This was a great read! I can't wait to read everyone's responses.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Everyone is justifying Marguerite for me!
After reading Mom's (Rob) post about the book, I'm looking more and more kindly on Marguerite...if the SP did listen at the door of the theatre and knew the struggle that the Frenchman had placed her in, then I forgive him for forgiving her so quickly :)
But I have to comment on you calling the SP a hypocrite--I think that he didn't tell Marguerite who he was because of what he found out she had done. I mean as the elusive SP he couldn't exactly trust someone that he thought had betrayed her fellow Frenchmen...just my thoughts.
But I have to comment on you calling the SP a hypocrite--I think that he didn't tell Marguerite who he was because of what he found out she had done. I mean as the elusive SP he couldn't exactly trust someone that he thought had betrayed her fellow Frenchmen...just my thoughts.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
When did I know?
I guess I read a lot of mysteries, so I pretty much suspected Percy when he and Marguerite came to the Inn. I suspected this because of the description of him, being tall, well built, etc., etc. And also, I caught on that he wasn't with Marguerite during the whole time of the visit of her brother. There seemed to be little things along in the book, that suggested that Percy was 'it': 1) his frequent absences with little or no explanation to Marguerite (is she really that dense?), 2) his all together 'too' lazy attitude, 3)How did he keep in such great physical shape if he was so lazy?, and 4) he was great friends with Sir Andrew and the other (I can't remember his name). I really enjoyed the book. I thought it was well written and, I thought, just a little predictable :)
At the Inn, I thought Sir Andrew and his cohort were a little lax in their duty, I mean, really, they can get people in and out of France with out getting caught, but they don't notice a guy climbing under the bench in the dining room, it really couldn't have been that big of a room! They should have been more vigilant.
I can't really decide if Marguerite was justified in her actions or not, considering I pretty much knew Percy was the SP from the start, so I wondered why she didn't also. However, I think Sarah has a good point, if she really didn't know, then yes, it's a no brainer to choose one's family over a stranger. She also had great respect for the SP so she was pretty sure he could get himself out of any danger, and once she knew, she did everything in her power to help him. So that's a point for her.
Now, I think that Percy was listening at the theater box door and knew exactly how he was betrayed, also there was something about the way he looked at Marguerite after he came in, as if waiting for her to tell him about the problem with her brother and hoping she would trust him with that information and when she didn't he thought he had lost.
There seems to have been several things Marguerite could have done differently in order to save her brother (but then we would have the book, if we went and changed everything!). 1) she could have confided in Percy, 2) told Sir Andrew about the plot instead of stealing his paper or 3) told the truth about herself in the very beginning and then she would have known all about him.
Which brings me to my question: Wasn't Percy just a little bit of a hypocrite? He seemed to not forgive Marguerite for not coming clean before they were married, yet he kept his secret from her and acted a totally different person than he really was. They should have trusted each other, but there again, it wouldn't be the book it is without those things. :)
At the Inn, I thought Sir Andrew and his cohort were a little lax in their duty, I mean, really, they can get people in and out of France with out getting caught, but they don't notice a guy climbing under the bench in the dining room, it really couldn't have been that big of a room! They should have been more vigilant.
I can't really decide if Marguerite was justified in her actions or not, considering I pretty much knew Percy was the SP from the start, so I wondered why she didn't also. However, I think Sarah has a good point, if she really didn't know, then yes, it's a no brainer to choose one's family over a stranger. She also had great respect for the SP so she was pretty sure he could get himself out of any danger, and once she knew, she did everything in her power to help him. So that's a point for her.
Now, I think that Percy was listening at the theater box door and knew exactly how he was betrayed, also there was something about the way he looked at Marguerite after he came in, as if waiting for her to tell him about the problem with her brother and hoping she would trust him with that information and when she didn't he thought he had lost.
There seems to have been several things Marguerite could have done differently in order to save her brother (but then we would have the book, if we went and changed everything!). 1) she could have confided in Percy, 2) told Sir Andrew about the plot instead of stealing his paper or 3) told the truth about herself in the very beginning and then she would have known all about him.
Which brings me to my question: Wasn't Percy just a little bit of a hypocrite? He seemed to not forgive Marguerite for not coming clean before they were married, yet he kept his secret from her and acted a totally different person than he really was. They should have trusted each other, but there again, it wouldn't be the book it is without those things. :)
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Sarah's defense
You know Sarah, when you put it that way, I guess I see your point...I think I was probably thinking in a 2008 type of mode where women can get into the action and really take part and this book was written almost 100 years ago when that wasn't really the case. Good point!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)