Author: booknutgirls

booknutgirls http://thebooknutdotcom.wordpress.com I read. I blog. I sell books. I chauffeur my kids. What more do you need to know?

Under the Tuscan Sun

2 Comments

I have come to realize that in many ways, books are like food. Nourishment for the soul. Some books can be devoured like cheap (but good) pizza or my personal favorite, cake. Other books are meant to be savored, each part for its own sake, like a fine meal. Under the Tuscan Sun, by Frances Mayes, is one of those to be savored.

I originally heard of this from the movie trailers I saw two years ago. I thought it was some sappy American-finds-love-and-herself-in-Italy love story. Sort of a white verson of How Stella Got Her Groove Back. And I didn’t think about it again, until I came across the book in the travel essay section of the book store. I had no idea it wasn’t a fiction book. It is a love story, though, but about a woman’s love with a house, a place, a dream. She already has a companion/lover/partner, Ed, who is compliant in all her dreams, though I think the house is technically hers. It’s a truly beautiful book to read, and I’m not one to usually read books for the sure pleasure of the language. Her descriptions of the land, the area of Cortone in Tuscanny, the house itself and all the rennovations, are fabulous and picturesque. I will never see the movie, because nothing can be as wonderful as Mayes’s descriptions of the place, except for probably the place itself.

All that being said, while this book is something to be savored, it’s not necessarily something I would want to read again and again. But, like the experience of a fine meal, it’s the memory of the book and it’s pictures that will linger on. It’ll probably make me wax poetic and be lyrical for a while. At least, until the next time I have cheap pizza.

Re-reading books or Tag, I’m it

8 Comments

No, that’s not a book title. There’s a book meme going around, and Russell got it so he tagged me. I guess that’s what comes of being married…

The question is: What fiction did you read as a teen/young adult that you have re-read as an adult (or would like to)?

My problems: I have a crappy memory (hence the blog), so I’ve had to think long and hard about this one. I’ve come to realize that I read a lot of crap when I was younger. Tons of romance novels (many with the names of states and exclamation points– UTAH!, TEXAS! — on them. Don’t remember a bit of what they were about. I also wish, like one of the commenters on the Crooked Timber thread, I wish I could get back the time I spent on Piers Anthony.

I read every single Nancy Drew (even all the bad ones) that I could get my hands on, but I’m not sure I’d give those the time of day now. Though I would probably encourage my daughters to read them (in fact, since my mother-in-law has them all, I might just do that when we’re visiting over the next two weeks).

So, what would I re-read? In no particular order:

1) Ray Bradbury’s short stories. I discovered him in 7th grade, reading a work about life on Venus that haunted me (anyone know the title?). Over the next few years, I read everything I could find. Granted, I didn’t like it all, but some were quite engaging. I loved The Martian Chronicles and Fahrenheit 451. I haven’t re-read the former, but still love the latter.

2) Edgar Allen Poe. Everything. When my kids get a bit older, I want to read them “The Tell-tale Heart” on Halloween. And other times, too. I had “Annabel Lee” memorized at one point. I think the “Cask of Amontillado” was my absolute favorite.

3) Huckleberry Finn, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, and The Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, all by Mark Twain. I read the first two when I was 11, after we visited Hannibal as a family. I was assigned the last one in 7th grade (I must have had a really good 7th grade English teacher), and loved every minute of it. Perhaps that’s where my love of King Arthur started?? Which reminds me, why don’t we have a copy of The Connecticut Yankee here at home?

4) Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, by Dee Alexander Brown. Not fiction, I know. But very powerful in a 16-year-old’s mind. I loved that I got to visit the Badlands in South Dakota soon afterward, too. I’ve often thought that I should re-read that one.

5) The Secret Garden and The Little Princess, by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Still love these, and I’m glad my girls do, too.

Okay, I guess I didn’t read just crap. I hereby tag Julie at Bookworm and Julie at BestBooks and Amira when she gets back in town. And if Heather or The Wiz at Mormon Mommy Wars or anyone over at Conversation want to take on this one, they can consider themselves tagged, too.

Holy Cow

1 Comment

I generally try to operate under two principles when it comes to books. One: I try to read the ones that have come recommended to me. Every once in a while, I manage to find a good book on my own, but it’s not exactly a common occurrence. Two: I only buy books I like or have come highly recommended to me.

I broke both of those when it came to Holy Cow, by Sarah MacDonald, and instantly regretted it.

In fact, I only got 3 chapters into it before I decided that this woman is a first-class snit (well, something else, really, but I want to at least be polite), and hates India and everything about it. I suppose that was the point of the book: she hates India at first but comes to love everything about the country. But, you know, I don’t care.

Thankfully, I still had the receipt and was able to get my money back.

The Year of the Hangman

20 Comments

The Year of the Hangman, by Gary Blackwood, has a great premise. The year is 1777 (three gallows, hence the title), George Washington has been captured, the Patriots exiled to New Orleans, the Revolutionary War all but lost. A great “What if??” right? Well, sort of. The plot revolves around Creighton, a 15-year-old (who sometimes acts much older than 15, in my opinion) English boy who’s a bit of a rogue. His mother tires of him and arranges to have him shipped off to his uncle in Charles Town so she doesn’t have to deal with him any more. Once there Creighton’s uncle is transferred to Pensecola, and in route their ship is attacked by a group of Americans and Creighton’s uncle is captured. Creighton isn’t because he was supposed to be posing as an indentured servant, so the Americans take them under their wing. Well, actually, he’s supposed to be a spy. Still, it’s pretty interesting.

The problem comes at the end. Creighton makes a very believable switch to the American side (he’s living with Ben Franklin, who meets a very unfortunate end, and becomes friends with Benedict Arnold), but the ending just kind of falls apart in my opinion. It’s not something I can put my finger on, though. Maybe I wanted more… it kind of ends on a downer note (though with some hope, I guess). Maybe I wanted something else to happen. I don’t quite know. It was a great idea, and it held it for a while, but in the end fell flat. I suppose you can’t win them all.

Westmark

1 Comment

This series, by Lloyd Alexander, was recommended to me by William Morris (indirectly on a post a while back). It’s an interesting series. I’m not sure, in the end, that I really liked it though. The three books — Westmark, The Kestrel, and The Beggar Queen deal with some intriguing and engaging ideas: politics in general, a monarchy versus a republic specifically; war (The Kestrel is very much an anti-war war book); how a person who believes himself to be good can turn into a monster because of war; hate and forgiveness; ideals versus practicality; the evils of a dictatorship; and so on. But, in the end, I think the series was only about ideas. I really found myself not caring about the characters. The “bad guy” Cabbarus is evil, but you don’t really hate him (that he’s absent for all of the second book and most of the third doesn’t help that fact). The “good guy” Theo is terribly conflicted, which makes him human but not very sympathetic. The love story’s weak; I found myself impatient with the stupid things Theo did because of his love for Mickle. And there were characters that I was interested in that Alexander just dropped after a while. Connie, the King of Regia, for example. I really liked him, but he didn’t survive past the beginning of the third (though he wasn’t killed off, not for lack of trying). Admittedly, I did like Keller, Sparrow and Weasel. But three characters out of the host that were in the books isn’t that much.

As a result, I found the ending weak. The ending was character, rather than idea, driven and if one doesn’t care about the characters very much, the ending will probably be unsatisfying. On the other hand, the ideas were presented well, and they are very interesting to talk and think about. It’s probably worth reading, though I think if anyone asks me for a good Lloyd Alexander book, I’ll recommend the Prydian series over this one.

Garlic and Sapphires

Leave a comment

I read Ruth Reichl’s memoir (the first one), Tender at the Bone, ages and ages ago. I don’t really remember what it was about; what I do remember is that it was absolutely delicious to read. Garlic and Sapphires is the same. It’s the tale of her time as restaurant critc at the New York Times; the places she ate, and the disguises that she used so she could remain anonymous. And it’s absolutely delicious to read. I know I wouldn’t eat 1/3 of the food she describes, and I’ve never even ventured into a restaurant where it’s $100 a person to eat there (though my husband has). But, just reading about it was interesting, enjoyable, and oh so satisfying. And the best part is that, in addition to all this yummy reading (which is so much better for you than the eating, right?), she includes recipes. My three favorites (which I need to try): New York Cheesecake, Nicky’s Vanilla Cake, and Aushak (which are Afghani dumplings). An excellent, truly satisfying read.

Half-Magic

3 Comments

I heard about this book, by Edward Eager, on an NPR Morning Edition report about what to read while waiting for the next Harry Potter. I originally got it for my oldest, but when she didn’t look interested, I picked it up just to see for myself.

It’s a very cute little book. Written in 1954, Eager uses E. Nesbit’s style and stories (the children’s lives change after reading The Enchanted Castle) to create his own tale. The plot is simple: Four siblings find an ancient talisman and find that it grants wishes, but only by halves. They have some fun adventures, learn a few things, and generally have a grand time. Not real deep stuff, but fun nonetheless.

And after hearing me talk about it, my oldest decided she wants to read it. And after they’re done with Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe, my husband and second decided they want a turn, too. So, maybe it is something worthwile to read until Harry Potter 6 comes out. (Maybe it’ll spark an interest in Nesbit’s books, too.)

The Goose Girl

1 Comment

I have to start this with a couple of disclaimers. This was recommended to me by Heather on my Once upon a Marigold review, so I came to the book with the impression that it’d be a silly little book. It’s not. Secondly, the book jacket author blurb is one of the most annoying ones I’ve read. I was prepared to hate a book by an author who “started writing when she was 10 an has never stopped”. (Blech.) I didn’t hate it though. Quite the opposite. I found this to be a wonderful fairy tale. The characters are really well developed, I adored Ani the whole way through; the plot believable, with an absense of the “magic” that usually surrounds fairy tales of this sort (there’s something like magic, but more realistic); and, even if I saw the ending coming a mile away, on the whole a thoroughly enjoyable book. I also liked it because it was a good strong girl book… a princess made soft by luxury who finds strength, hope and friendship through adversity.

A great book, one worth reading over and over again. (Perhaps they could change the author blurb, though.)

Boston Jane: Wilderness Days and The Claim

1 Comment

I really looked forward to the continuation of the Boston Jane series by Jennifer Holm, having really liked the first book. And Wilderness Days held up to my expectations. The story was pretty simple — there’s a man, Jehu, who’s in love with Jane, if she wasn’t too dense and stubborn to realize it, which she does over the course of the book. It’s a good little romance, withe some adventure thrown in (there’s a bit of a far-fetched plot with a murderer on the loose that she, Jehu and an Chinook friend have to track down; it’s really just an excuse to get Jane in close quarters with Jehu).

However, I think Holm must have run out of plot for the third book. She brought back a “nemisis” from the first book, Sally, who’s a real witch of a woman. Sally comes to Shoalwater Bay and literally makes Jane’s life miserable, turning everyone in the town against Jane. In true form, Jane overcomes all (in a really stupid way, though) and ends up happily ever after. The book left me peevish, though. I ranted about it for a while, until I realized it’s a high school book. (It is youth fiction after all.) Everything (pretty much) could be lifted up and set in a modern high school and no one would be the wiser. So, I guess, if I was a 12-14 year old girl, it might just be a better book.

Too bad I’m not.

Setting the World Ablaze

3 Comments

Acutally, the full title is Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the American Revolution. It’s a scholarly book (I’m impressed I got through this one; I usually find scholarly books too dry) by historian John Ferling. And, surprisingly, it was fascinating. The first chapter or two — the set up of the years leading to the Revolutionary War — were pretty dull, but once the war started it picked up in both pace and interest. I kept commenting to Russell that Ferling must have really liked the war, because it showed in the writing. And, by the end, I was totally amazed that the Americans won the war. By all accounts, the colonies should have lost. I guess if I knew that, I totally forgot it.

But this book is first and foremost a portrait of three central leaders of the Revolution. Ferling made Washington out to be, well, human. Which, Russell tells me, isn’t anything new. Ferling asserts that Washington was ambitious and vain, but came through honorably when he needed to. He also totally believed in the idea of a republic. As a general, he was great in the beginning of the war, being assertive and daring when he needed to. But as the war wore on, he became cautious and over-reliant on the French. And obsessive about attacking New York. Still, in the end Washington came off as a pretty decent figure.

Not so much for Jefferson. Ferling had one thing good to say about him: the man could write. And that’s about it. He was a lousy leader, he was a spoiled rich Virginia planter, he was racist and unenlightened. Made me wonder about the spin that surrounded Jefferson. How on earth did he become so respected? (As a side note, Ferling doesn’t much like Franklin, either.)

And then there’s Adams. Ferling’s thesis here was that Adams, while ambitious, was easily the most hard-working, diligent, honest leader who did everything in his power to assure the independence of the colonies. I got the impression that Ferling believes that Adams has gotten a bad historical reputation over the years and was doing everything in his power to reverse that. And it worked; I have more respect for John Adams now.

The ending chapters had the same fault as the beginning, except they were blissfully shorter. He did deal with the issue of slavery at the end, and how each of the three dealt with it (and they came off the same way: Washington was human, but noble in the end; Adams, stalwart; and Jefferson, a racist flake). A good read.