Check This Out! (May 2013)

Hello! It feels like I’ve been absent a long time!

I’m going to break my hiatus with a shorter recommendation post. I might do these every once in a while as a way of doing quick reviews on a variety of things.

A book I’m reading: Part of the reason I haven’t done a book review in a while is because Les Misérables has been taking up most of my free reading time since January. I read the abridged version a year ago, but I can honestly say that the “real” book is totally worth it. I’m still wrapping my head around how long this book is, yet it’s totally worth it for the way it immerses you in the characters’ lives and surroundings. I’m reading the Isabelle Florence Hapgood translation on my Kindle, which means I’ve been highlighting the heck out of this book without shame.

A movie I’ve seen: I watched The Last of the Mohicans for the first time a few weeks ago. I’ve heard it hyped up my whole life since my family used to go on vacations in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where the movie was filmed. It’s an interesting historical drama with action, emotion, and some romance that fans of movies like Pirates of the Caribbean would enjoy. Daniel Day-Lewis delivers just like always, the cinematography is lovely, and I can’t stop listening to the soundtrack. If you’ve never seen it, I’d highly recommend giving it a watch while it’s still on Netflix Instant Stream and Amazon Prime.

A show I’m watching: I don’t really watch a lot of TV, but I’m passing the Sherlock hiatus with the help of CBS’s Elementary. Much has been made of Lucy Liu – an Asian-American actress – playing Watson, and it’s a fun twist on the classic duo. Jonny Lee Miller makes an excellent Holmes, delivering sarcasm, vulnerability, and everything in between with ease. I’m not typically a crime drama watcher, and some of the associated blood/gore in the show does put me off, but the funny and often touching friendship between Holmes and Watson has brought me back each week. I’m really looking forward to the season finale tomorrow. The whole season will likely be up on Netflix soon.

What I’m listening to:  I’m way behind the times with both of these, but Coldplay’s X & Y is lovely and Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard’s The Dark Knight soundtrack is epic.

Have comments or recommendations of your own? Let me know below!

Top 10 of ’12: Best Books I’ve Read This Year

Since it’s the beginning of a new year (and thankfully not the end of the world), it’s time for me to list my favorite books that I read in 2012.

Note that not all of these books were published this year –  these are just my favorites out of the ones I have read.

Without further ado:

(in the order I read them):

The Jumbee by Pamela Keyes

I gobbled up this modern-day retelling of Phantom of the Opera set in the West Indies. It’s very unique and fans of romantic ghost stories or theater in general will likely enjoy it as well.

 

 

 

North and South by Elisabeth Gaskell

Read the book that became the basis for the hit BBC miniseries starring Richard Armitage and Daniela Denby-Ashe. Minister’s daughter Margaret Hale and factory owner John Thornton don’t exactly hit it off when they first meet, but their circumstances and conflicting backgrounds will change them both in the end.

 

 

The Scorpio Races by Maggie Stiefvater

Gorgeous writing, a well-developed setting, and two tenacious main characters make this “horse book” a delight.

 

 

 

 

This Dark Endeavor by Kenneth Oppel

A really, really creepy prequel to Frankenstein that should definitely be read with the lights on. Victor Frankenstein isn’t always such a likeable or sympathetic protagonist, but that’s the point, the way Oppel writes from his perspective is very well done.

 

 

 

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes/The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes/The Hound of the Baskervilles by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

I may as well call this the “year of Sherlock”: I saw A Game of Shadows in theaters, got hooked on BBC Sherlock as well as CBS Elementary, and not to mention that I  read some of the original stories while traveling through the areas of England where they are set. (I definitely wouldn’t want to be alone on the moors of Dartmoor at night, especially if there’s a gigantic hound roaming around). A century later, the adventures of Holmes and Watson are still taking on new forms all the time, but nothing beats the original canon.

 

Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier 

It’s sort of a 1930s revision of Jane Eyre. A timid young girl marries a much older man and goes to live at his English estate. The creepy housekeeper seems like she’s out to get her, and the memory of Rebecca, the first wife to live at Manderley, casts an eerie shadow over the place. I never did get around to writing a review of this one, but it’s good.

 

 

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

It’s a crime it took me this long to read Jane Eyre! It’s a Gothic love story told in a very clear first-person style by an orphan girl firmly convinced of her own worth. I can’t recommend it enough.

 

 

 

 Scarlet by A.C. Gaughen

Great new Robin Hood retelling that reimagines Will Scarlet as a tough young woman disguising herself as a boy. I could hardly put it down!

 

 

 

Seraphina by Rachel Hartman

Fantastic “dragon” book involving murder, music, and a search for acceptance. One of the best fantasy books I’ve read all year.

 

 

The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien

Technically it’s a re-read, and technically I just finished it today, not in 2012. But it’s been around ten years since I’ve read it, and I just felt my list wouldn’t be complete without it. It’s a simple adventure with some surprising depth and gives a wonderful taste of the world Tolkien created. Plus, it’s a lot of fun. I can’t wait to see how Peter Jackson brings the rest of the book to life on-screen.

 

 

5 of these books were borrowed from the library.

3 of these books were read on Kindle.

2 of these books I bought from a physical bookstore.

Have a Happy New Year!

Check out my list from 2011.

Movie Review: Les Miserables

Where do I even begin to start? I’ve got to admit that it’s intimidating for me to try to gather my thoughts and come up with a coherent review for such a long-awaited movie such as this. I shall try to do my best.  I’m hoping to go back and see it again soon, so if my opinions shift on a second viewing (as they sometimes do) maybe I’ll add a little note at the end or something…

I’ve also been debating whether to direct this review towards the fans, or more towards potential movie-goers who may not be as familiar with the source material. Ultimately, I will write this review for the latter (since fans are going to go see the movie no matter what) but at the end in a designated section, I’ll give more of a fan’s perspective for those who are interested.

To read about my some thoughts on the original musical and the book (and my reaction to the first movie trailer), please click here.

An adaptation faithful to the musical with added elements from Hugo’s novel, Les Miserables soars on the wings of its excellent cast. Although there are a few distracting directional missteps, the emotional, inspirational story still shines through.

Rating: B+

But my friend, you left so early, something surely slipped your mind. You forgot I gave these also – would you leave the best behind?

The Story

It’s complicated, but it starts in 1815 with a man named Jean Valjean. Originally arrested for stealing bread to feed his sister’s family, Valjean eventually serves 19 years of hard labor after a few failed escape attempts. The musical opens on the day he is set free; however, life is still almost unbearable for him as he is mistreated everywhere he goes because he has been marked as a “dangerous criminal.” Understandably bitter, Valjean’s entire life turns around when he has an encounter with someone who shows him true compassion and mercy. He vows to become a different man, and over the next two decades makes an impact on the many individuals who cross his path. They include Fantine (a young woman willing to go to desperate lengths to save her little girl, Cosette), Javert (the stalwart police officer pursuing Valjean for breaking his parole), and Marius (a revolutionary fighting the oppression of the masses). The story culminates in the June 1832 Rebellion in Paris.

The Characters (aka the “Good”)

Since there are so many people in this musical, and much has been made of the star-studded cast, let’s start with them. This whole section could almost double as the “Good” part of my review, because I was really impressed with this cast!

Well, I loved Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean. Acting-wise, he was as great a Valjean as a Les Mis fan could have asked for, in my opinion. He did such a stellar job embodying the character: his inner conflict, compassion, occasional paranoia, and integrity. As Valjean is my favorite character, his soliloquies are always the highlight of the story for me, and I was really impressed with Jackman’s take on them. Another thing I loved about the film interpretation was the way that it really focused on Valjean’s love for Cosette, his adopted daughter, and Jackman conveyed this so well.

Unfortunately, I do have to say it: I was not crazy about Jackman’s singing. I loved how much emotion he put into everything, but his voice almost grated on me at times. There is just something strange about his voice in general that bothered me. However, he still had his moments, one example being the last note of  the song “Who Am I?”

In contrast to a number of other reviewers, (and I may change my mind on a second viewing, who knows) I didn’t have a big problem with Russell Crowe. I thought Crowe’s voice was mostly fine. True, sometimes he does seem to focus more on singing than changing his facial expressions, but at least Javert is a stoic sort anyway. It would have been nice to actually see some more of the conflict in him, but I really don’t think Crowe should be getting so much heavy criticism. “The Confrontation” was good and “Stars” was perfectly serviceable.

At the end of the day there’s another day dawning…

I’m not sure there’s ever been anything as soul-crushing as Anne Hathaway’s performance as Fantine. Her decline is truly horrifying, as it should be. The use of close-ups are justified here as she sings of “I Dreamed a Dream” all in one take. Even through her appropriately-anguished delivery of that song, Hathaway’s voice is actually quite lovely, showing that those who had reservations about her casting (myself included) had nothing to fear. She makes the most of her brief time on screen, and if she doesn’t walk away with an Oscar, there is no justice in this world.

Eddie Redmayne’s voice sometimes has a bit of what some call the “Kermit” syndrome (like Sarah Brightman) but it’s not distracting enough to be a problem and I really, really liked both his voice and his acting. Marius is not always a character I’m too fond of, so I appreciated really being able to root for him this time around. His solo song “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables” was truly one of the most emotionally impactful moments of the film for me, and trust me, that’s really saying something.

I was a bit worried about Amanda Seyfried, but once again my fears were proved unfounded. Cosette is far from the most interesting character in the musical to me; however, Seyfried’s performance was lovely and sweet. While her voice is not very strong, I thought it was very pretty and matched the character well. Her acting turned out better than I had expected, and her height difference compared to Jackman and Redmayne was adorable.

One more day all on my own…

Samantha Barks’s role as Eponine was surprisingly brief compared the original musical, but like Hathaway, she made the most of it. I already loved her to death in the 25th anniversary concert, so I don’t have too much more to say about her. Her “On My Own” didn’t have quite the same vocal power of her concert performance (for some reason I missed the way she emphasized “preTENDing”) but it was heartrending all the same.

Aaron Tveit as Enjolras, as well as the rest of the revolutionaries, were perfection. Their mixture of zeal and inexperience was spot-on, and since they are all played by West End veterans, so was their singing.

Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter were serviceable as the Thenardiers, a married couple who are the musical’s villains, but also its comic relief. I have to admit that the Thenardiers tend to make me cringe more than laugh, but their interactions with Valjean and Cosette worked pretty well.

Isabelle Allen and Daniel Huttlestone were so well-cast as young Cosette and the street urchin Gavroche. Child actors are usually hit or miss, but these two were perfect.

The Let-Downs

As much as I approve of the cast as a whole, I do have a few bones to pick with the direction.

Much has already been made of  Tom Hooper’s penchant for super close-ups. Most of the time I didn’t mind them, but I agree that sometimes they went on for too long, and a wide shot or two would have been appreciated. They are clearly meant to give a sense of intimacy, but sometimes the awkwardness of the camera angle distracted from the emotional performances of the actors. The factory portion of “At the End of the Day” in particular bothered me in the way it was shot (and sung).

Those who have seen the stage show are familiar with its more minimalist set-up, but Tom Hooper pulls no punches, going straight into grim and gritty. However, I thought things went too far with two (very brief) sexual scenarios shown. One prostitution scene is essential to the plot, but could have been implied (like the stage show) with the same impact. The other is just raunchy humor depicted as part of “Master of the House.” Again, both shots are very quick and don’t involve nudity, but they are needless, especially since the real focus of the film is on the various loving, selfless relationships.

What’s the Big Deal?

As a whole, the film managed to stay very true to the original musical while incorporating a lot of elements from the book that fans will

A heart full of love, a heart full of song…

enjoy (see below). While getting the smaller elements “just right” is definitely important to the whole feel of the movie as a whole, what’s really important is conveying the right tone and message of the story. Overall, I think the filmmakers succeeded.

I’ve noticed that people unfamiliar with the musical wonder at its mass appeal and dedicated fans. Sure, its story is sweeping, its music is moving, and its characters are compelling. In addition to all this, it’s the message at its core that really grabs people. Les Miserables  is a parable about the good that can emerge from the very worst muck that human beings find themselves stuck in. And although Jean Valjean’s physical strength frequently allows him to better assist others, it’s the strength of his faith in God that really empowers him.

Why are the characters’ stories in Les Miserables so depressing and dark? Besides representing the awful conditions people have had to endure, I think it’s to better show the light. It truly helps us remember that no one is so far gone that he or she can’t be saved by God. To quote Corrie ten Boom, a Christian who survived time in a concentration camp after hiding Jews during the Holocaust, “There is no pit so deep that God’s love is not deeper still.” Like Valjean, when we throw off our old selves and believe in the grace that rescues us from our sins, our lives can be changed in wondrous ways. The journey from that point on may not be easy, but we are assured of our destination and the reward that awaits us there.

And if that’s not a reassuring and uplifting message, then I don’t know what is.

Spoilers ahoy! For those who are already familiar with the book/musical/have seen the movie already:

So many details from the book!!! It was like finding Easter Eggs. I really didn’t mind any of the changes from the musical – I thought they all felt “right” and only served to help the plot and characters make more sense. Some of the ones I remembered: Fantine’s teeth, the snow in her dress, the absence of the brand on Valjean’s chest (the reveal of the number at the trial was a cool moment in the musical, but it doesn’t make sense when you realize that all the police had to do was check Valjean’s (or the “false” Valjean’s) chest to see if he was 24601), Valjean and Cosette seeking shelter in the convent, Gavroche living in the giant elephant, Marius having a grandfather and actually getting a backstory, he and Eponine being next-door neighbors, the manner of Eponine’s death, and the revolutionaries seeking shelter in the building.

I also really appreciated that Grantaire and Enjolras got to die together like in the book, but thought the moment went by way too fast. I would have preferred some dialogue there, and I don’t think a first-time viewer would get the full significance at all. However, Enjolras falling out of the window (though hard to watch, to be sure) was really the perfect compromise between the book and the iconic scene in the musical.

Javert pinning his badge on Gavroche’s body was a nice touch, but the moment that stood out for me the most was when he sees Valjean enter the tavern. Hanging limply from a noose, the expression in his teary blue eyes was startling and lingering. But I think Javert’s death would have worked better had he just disappeared into the water rather than hit the concrete with a loud crack!

Eponine! I appreciated that she kept Cosette’s letter hidden for a while and was injured saving Marius’s life as in the book rather than just climbing back over the barricade to be with him. The shot of her leaning on Marius’s doorframe was another great nod to the Brick.

Where I go, you will be.

Like I said before, I loved the emphasis the movie put on Cosette and Valjean’s daughter/father relationship. First the little “mademoiselle” greeting and hat tip made me “awwww!” because it’s the first time anyone since Fantine has treated her with respect, and well, basically like a human being. She’s so scared of him in the woods at first, but by the time they get back to the village, she’s laughing and holding onto his arm while he lifts her off the ground – so cute! It’s clear “Suddenly” is a ploy for the “Best Original Song” Oscar, but it’s still very sweet, especially that Valjean has a moment to slow down and accept that he’s just become a father, and it’s already changing him. But of course, Cosette grows up and falls for Marius, and Valjean realizes that it’s time to let her go. Jackman stumbling over the phrase “you love me as well” in Marius’s letter killed me, as did his palpable relief when Cosette arrives to see him right before he dies. Seyfried’s acting made this scene even more heartbreaking than usual (as did Jackman gently “booping” her on the nose. Weep with me).

Not actually sure how I feel about the “meta barricade” at the very end. It reminded me a lot of the very last scene in Titanic. I was confused about it at first, but then I read in the original screenplay that it was really supposed to depict the successful 1848 revolution. I like this because while the end of the stage show certainly leaves us with the hope that the people will one day be able create kinder times for themselves, the final image of a giant barricade defended by most of Paris really drives this home. Valjean and the revolutionaries are sort of watching in spirit, their memory kept alive. However, if the filmmakers were  really going for this approach, why not actually put the year and its significance as a title card on the screen? Why not include Marius and Cosette as part of the crowd, as was originally intended? (Although the Thenardiers were supposed to be there too, I’d rather not include them!) When I saw the film for the first time, I didn’t realize that the new barricade was supposed to be a part of the 1848 revolution – I just thought it was a dream sequence. Perhaps other may filmgoers may mistake it as some sort of afterlife, a “Great Barricade in the Sky,” or something.  The image of Valjean being welcomed into Heaven by the Bishop was great, but then it’s a bit strange for him suddenly to appear on a giant barricade without explanation. There is a lot to be said for the simple image of the two candlesticks left burning onstage at the end of the original musical. Besides referencing back to the Bishop’s kind action at the start of the story, I like to think they also represent the two young people who are the hope for the next generation, Cosette and Marius.

Man, I’m sure I’m forgetting other things I meant to mention, but this is already like the longest post ever so I’ll quit. Suffice to say, this movie was really difficult and gut-wrenching to watch, and it doesn’t always the musical/vocal power of the stage version, but despite its flaws it is just about as good a film adaptation of Les Miserables (book and musical) that could have been done.

For those who have seen it, what are your thoughts?

Review: Such Wicked Intent by Kenneth Oppel

NOTE: This book is a sequel to This Dark Endeavor. Therefore, it will contain spoilers for the first book in the series. You’ve been warned!

Summary:  When does obsession become madness? Tragedy has forced sixteen-year-old Victor Frankenstein to swear off alchemy forever. He burns the Dark Library. He vows he will never dabble in the dark sciences again—just as he vows he will no longer covet Elizabeth, his brother’s betrothed.

If only these things were not so tempting.

When he and Elizabeth discover a portal into the spirit world, they cannot resist. Together with Victor’s twin, Konrad, and their friend Henry, the four venture into a place of infinite possibilities where power and passion reign. But as they search for the knowledge to raise the dead, they unknowingly unlock a darkness from which they may never return.

(Source: Goodreads)

Review: I don’t always read horror fiction, but when I do, it’s based on classic novels and written by Kenneth Oppel.

Will Victor Frankenstein ever learn? Well, we already know the answer to that question is “no,” so it’s a credit to Oppel’s storytelling skills that we still find his adventures as a young man so compelling. After Victor discovers that one of his ancestors found a way to visit “the other side,” Victor starts plotting a way to bring his dead twin back to life.

As usual…things don’t go according to plan. General weirdness ensures, like finding clues in a painting Arnolfini Wedding-style, strange undead butterflies, making mudpeople, and discovering an ancient tomb right under the Frankenstein Chateau. Sometimes I would wonder “Where is Oppel going with this?” but the last half of  the book comes together with the kind of horrifying twists that literally made me go, “Oh no!”

As in the previous books, Victor’s not an especially likeable main character, yet there is still some altruism in him. What “romance” there is still ties directly into the creepy, unsettling tone of the book. It did annoy me that all the young men pursued Elizabeth, but that’s just the way things go.

Victor’s jealousy and selfishness in particular were frustrating to read about, but they’re necessary. There is a line spoken by Elizabeth where she declares that she never quite knows which forces motivate Victor’s actions. This is an integral part of Victor’s character that is so important to who he will later become. Speaking of which, overall this novel seemed to have more in common with Shelley’s original novel. Victor’s frequent use of the phrase “the creature” certainly brings back memories of the way he will regard his eventual monstrous creation.

In short: Oppel doesn’t disappoint in his second super-creepy installment about the world of young Victor Frankenstein.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.

Cover & Title: The title works, but I kept waiting for a character to say it in the book. Not a fan of the “photo shoot” cover picture, but I will say Victor’s black armband to mourn his brother is a good touch.

Where I got the book: Shelves of the local library.

Review: Seraphina by Rachel Hartman

Summary: Four decades of peace have done little to ease the mistrust between humans and dragons in the kingdom of Goredd. Folding themselves into human shape, dragons attend court as ambassadors, and lend their rational, mathematical minds to universities as scholars and teachers. As the treaty’s anniversary draws near, however, tensions are high.

Seraphina Dombegh has reason to fear both sides. An unusually gifted musician, she joins the court just as a member of the royal family is murdered—in suspiciously draconian fashion. Seraphina is drawn into the investigation, partnering with the captain of the Queen’s Guard, the dangerously perceptive Prince Lucian Kiggs. While they begin to uncover hints of a sinister plot to destroy the peace, Seraphina struggles to protect her own secret, the secret behind her musical gift, one so terrible that its discovery could mean her very life.

(Summary Source: Goodreads)

Review:  It’s hard to find a book that balances good world-building, well-developed characters, and  an interesting plot. Seraphina is one of them.

To start off, it’s not much of a spoiler to talk about Seraphina’s “secret,” which is revealed to the reader fairly quickly. She is half-dragon, which leaves her with a number of abilities and traits that she struggles to conceal, considering that her society considers the idea of dragon-human hybrids an abomination. In this universe, dragons have the ability to take on human form, and even after years of peace and interaction with dragons, the humans are still very wary of them.

Seraphina tries to keep a low profile in her job managing the court musicians, but the prince’s mysterious death draws her into a web of intrigue as she helps Captain Lucian Kiggs investigate the murder. What makes Seraphina stand out is that it’s not a typical swords-and-dragons high fantasy book. It’s a good old court intrigue drama in a setting that feels vaguely like 16th-17th century Western Europe. All of the many characters (don’t worry – there is a glossary in the back) are fascinating, from the goofy musicians to the royal family to  a group of exiled knights. Seraphina’s agony over acceptance and her dual heritage also rings very true.

In particular, Hartman creates a really interesting mentality and culture for the dragons. To make a Star Trek comparison, their logical, brilliant minds and rejection of emotions reminded me of Vulcans. Besides Seraphina, my favorite character in the novel definitely has to be her Spock-like dragon uncle, Orma. Early on, my brain decided to picture Benedict Cumberbatch portraying him, and that stuck with me the whole book. Weird and unintentionally funny as he is, he’s Seraphina’s only friend and confidant and therefore plays a very important role in her life.

Two final things I loved about Seraphina? It’s clearly the first of a series, yet the first book wraps things up enough that I was reasonably satisfied while still wanting to know what happened next. Finally a first book that is not just setup for the rest of the series. Sweet relief!

Second, there is romance, and it is appropriately agonizing, yet Hartman avoids the hair-pulling-in-frustration pitfalls common to so many other young adult series. The characters are flawed humans* yet they are also smart humans who do not do stupid contrived things to stretch out the plot.

Final note: This is the kind of YA book that adults would also very much enjoy. On that note, I will add that some of the content (references, though. Nothing too racy.) does mean that the target age for this book is older teens.

In short: Seraphina is a unique, excellently-crafted novel that is sure to entertain anyone looking for something a little different than your average dragon book.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars.

Something similar: I’m not going to bring up Paolini’s work because I still haven’t gotten over how disappointing the last book was. Honestly, if you were anything like me in middle school, you’ve probably already read a ton of those dragon-centered fantasy books. At times Seraphina did remind me of Robin McKinley’s Pegasus. However, Seraphina is much more interesting in my opinion (though I still do love Robin McKinley).

Cover & Title: The name “Seraphina” means “fiery.” And the wood-cut-engraving-style cover couldn’t be more perfect. (However, I did just realize that the smudgy red ink/blood is actually part of the cover, and not from some previous library patron carelessly staining the cover of the copy I checked out. Wow.)

Where I got the book: Shelves of the local library.

*humans, dragons, human-dragon hybrids. To bring up Trek again, “Everybody’s human.”

Can you tell I’m behind on reviews? Two in one day, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey review coming soon (hopefully).

Review: The Raven Boys by Maggie Stiefvater

Summary: “There are only two reasons a non-seer would see a spirit on St. Mark’s Eve,” Neeve said. “Either you’re his true love . . . or you killed him.”

It is freezing in the churchyard, even before the dead arrive.

Every year, Blue Sargent stands next to her clairvoyant mother as the soon-to-be dead walk past. Blue herself never sees them—not until this year, when a boy emerges from the dark and speaks directly to her.

His name is Gansey, and Blue soon discovers that he is a rich student at Aglionby, the local private school. Blue has a policy of staying away from Aglionby boys. Known as Raven Boys, they can only mean trouble.

But Blue is drawn to Gansey, in a way she can’t entirely explain. He has it all—family money, good looks, devoted friends—but he’s looking for much more than that. He is on a quest that has encompassed three other Raven Boys: Adam, the scholarship student who resents all the privilege around him; Ronan, the fierce soul who ranges from anger to despair; and Noah, the taciturn watcher of the four, who notices many things but says very little.

For as long as she can remember, Blue has been warned that she will cause her true love to die. She never thought this would be a problem. But now, as her life becomes caught up in the strange and sinister world of the Raven Boys, she’s not so sure anymore.

(Summary Source: Goodreads)

Review: 

Basically, Blue finds out that when she kisses her true love, he’ll die. Which is depressing especially because the next thing she knows, she’s hanging out with four interesting guys.

But this book had less romance than the summary may lead you to believe, which wasn’t a bad thing at all in my opinion. The plot centers around the search for the burial place of Glendower, a Welsh nobleman who may not be as dead as everyone thinks. It isn’t long before Blue’s supernatural connection to Gansey gets her involved in the search.

It took me a little while to warm up to Blue and the group of boys, but they all grew on me over time. I liked Blue once I got to know her a bit better, though some of her “quirks” like her “creative” clothing choices seemed a little like cliche afterthoughts to me. Gansey could be annoyingly pretentious, but this is tempered by the fact that he himself is aware of his own flaws. Ronan had me rolling my eyes, and you could almost forget that Noah is there, but that’s the way his dynamic works in the group. Though Adam came across as bland at first, he became my favorite character by the end of the book. He’s a classic nice guy, even if he falls squarely into “woobie” territory. Part of the fun of the book stemmed from watching the developing friendships and general horsing around.

As always, Stiefvater’s writing is lovely, and she deftly combines interesting everyday details with the supernatural, giving the characters an interesting world to roam around in. The town of Henrietta, Virginia mountains, and mysterious forests are all part of the backdrop.

For some reason, the book did feel lukewarm compared to Stiefvater’s other efforts. Like The Scorpio Races, it unfolds at a leisurely pace, yet The Raven Boys does seem like mere setup for the next three novels, and ended a little abruptly.

In short: While its characters take some getting used to, The Raven Boys is a beautifully-written opening to what will likely be a very enjoyable quartet.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Cover & Title: The title works, and the painted look of the cover is fantastic. Something about the white background makes it really stand out. The crossed lines under the title are also significant…

Where I got the book: Shelves of the local library.

Review: Scarlet by A.C. Gaughen

Summary: Will Scarlet is on the run from her past. That’s why she disguises herself as a boy and wound up becoming a part of Robin of Locksley’s little band of outlaws. Scarlet’s guilt and inner sense of justice leads her to help keep the local villagers alive under the brutal rule of the sheriff of Nottingham, even if she does have to steal and fight to do it. As the stakes rise and the ruthless Guy of Gisbourne gets involved, blood will be spilled and loyalty will be tested.

Review: What can I say? I’m a sucker for all things Robin Hood. And Will Scarlet reimagined as a girl? Count me in.

This novel felt unique in a number of ways. It clipped along at a fast past that went hand-in-hand with Scarlet’s no-nonsense tone of voice, and though it does built to somewhat of a climax, the format felt more cyclical than linear. It’s like a chess game where the Nottingham authorities and the forest outlaws take turns trading blows and setting traps. The pace felt pretty breathless, with the heroes unable to go five minutes without getting into some sort of scrape.

As for the “heroes” themselves, I have mixed feelings about them. There’s a larger cast of villagers, but the novel focuses pretty narrowly on the small band of outlaws: Robin, Scarlet, John Little, and Much (although he sometimes feels a bit like the “Ringo” of the group and gets the short end of the stick in terms of characterization). All four have altruistic motives, but their past experiences have left them pretty damaged and tortured (this is medieval England so that means physically as well as emotionally). This means the relationships they form to each other aren’t always the healthiest, which is realistic but also becomes frustrating to the reader when they fight with and yell at each other frequently.

Scarlet’s a really fascinating narrator. In many ways, she reminded me of Eponine from Les Miserables in that she’s very tough and stubbornly self-reliant to a fault, yet incredibly vulnerable as well. (In fact, her voice sounded exactly like Frances Ruffelle‘s in my head. Or it would if Scarlet didn’t have to pass as a convincing boy for the bulk of the novel). She was definitely a heroine I could root for, but her low self -worth, tendency to run off and sulk, and inability to go five minutes without fighting with one of the boys were starting to drive me nuts by the end of the book. I appreciated her ferocity in combat, but I thought her ability to endure pain bordered on superhuman.

As for the boys: Robin is likeable enough and a good leader, though haunted by his time fighting in King Richard’s Crusade. He seems to understand Scarlet better than anyone, but she thinks she doesn’t deserve him. John is quite a womanizer, yet has started to pursue Scarlet. Unfortunately, this is the making for a love triangle that inspired a bit of hair-pulling on my part. I didn’t doubt for an instant that I knew how it would all turn out; however, the interactions of the three got repetitious without really going anywhere. It’s enough to make the reader almost want Scarlet to end up with sweet little Much.  In addition, though the novel makes a point about how badly women were treated in this time and place, it bothered me to see these attitudes surface to a small extent in the behavior of both John and Robin towards Scarlet, which was a turn-off.

In spite of all this, I really did enjoy Scarlet. It was hard to put down, and the characters and scenarios felt familiar yet original at the same time. Showing just a “slice of life” in the outlaws’ experiences, the book doesn’t so much end as just stop, so I would definitely be up for a sequel.

In short: Though the character relationships are slightly problematic at times, Scarlet is still an exciting read that anyone who is a fan of Robin Hood will want to try.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.

Something similar: My all-time favorite Robin Hood book is still Robin McKinley’s Outlaws of Sherwood. It has a much slower, more leisurely pace than Scarlet, with a slightly neurotic Robin who isn’t even all that great of an archer. It still has a lot of tension and it’s loaded with subtly, dry humor that I appreciate anew everytime I re-read it. For another book about a clever thief who is also an unreliable narrator, try Megan Whalen Turner’s The Thief, which is set in a sort of fantasy version of Greece.

Cover & Title: I can’t think of a better title, and the cover is gorgeous. The artist captured Scarlet’s “moonstone” eyes and the scar on her cheek, even if she looks far too pretty to pass for a boy.

Where I got the book: Shelves of the local library.