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!

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?

Les Miserables: From Page to Stage to Film

I read the abridged version of Les Miserables about a month ago. I saw the musical a week ago. And the first movie trailer was released earlier today. Sounds like a good opportunity for a Les Mis post!

I’ll admit up front that I’m new to all this. Les Miserables is a musical that was a hit years before I was born, and I’ve only just discovered it…

…last Thursday (May 24) at the Queen’s Theatre in London, to be exact.

But it all started a while ago. Have you ever heard of something and thought, I think I want to be a fan of that? It sounds premature, but sometimes it’s easy to have a pretty good idea of what you might like. I saw Phantom of the Opera on Broadway last July (yes, it’s been a great year for me and theatre), and it largely shares its fanbase with Les Mis. A great yet tragic story? Epic music? Memorable characters? Sad French people? Count me in. When I found out I’d be going to the United Kingdom in May on a school trip, I seized my chance to see Les Mis live and booked my ticket.

Book or Brick?

I wanted to be prepared for the musical by reading the book (typical English major), but I didn’t quite understand what I was getting into when I got the free download of the novel for my Kindle. Even though I’ve read my fair share of long books, I didn’t make it past the bishop’s background. Instead, I then opted for an abridged version from a little used bookstore in my university’s city. Although at times I felt I was “missing something” from the story, for the most part I really enjoyed the book. I got emotionally involved enough to rage against the unfairness of the characters’ lives, share in their few sweet triumphs, and mourn their losses.

Do You Hear the People Sing?

The musical surprised me by sticking closer to the book than I thought it would.  And I certainly didn’t expect to see some of the more complex bits of the book, such as the runaway cart and the journey through the sewers, retained for the stage. Clearly I had already forgotten what a little theatre magic and imagination could do. I didn’t know about the rotating set, so it was a great surprise to see it come alive onstage. The barricade scenes were fantastic. It was especially exciting to be sitting in the Upper Circle when Valjean started shooting at the “sniper.” Although I was indeed “spoiled” of all the dramatic deaths and plot twists, I’d glad I had an idea of the story to begin with. I feel I would have had a more difficult time keeping track of all the characters if I were totally new to them. Sometimes key lines can be hard to catch the first time.

Since the stage production itself is very familiar to most people, let’s talk about the cast. Having never seen the show before, I didn’t have much of a basis of comparison, but I did have in idea of the characters’ personalities from the book. I wasn’t crazy  about David Shannon’s voice at the start of the play. However, it soon grew on me once I realized what he was doing. It sounded rough and manic at the start when he is still “24601,” yet grows more refined after Valjean turns his life around. Still, the old desperate sound peeks out again at key points. I figure that a lot of actors playing the role do this, but I still thought it was neat and very effective.

About Javert: I saw the 25th Anniversary Royal Albert Hall production of Phantom of the Opera in the movie theatre with friends last October. I had no clue who this Hadley Fraser person was, but I really couldn’t stand the way he played Raoul. I am very happy to say that the role of Javert fits Fraser’s voice and demeanor much better. He sang wonderfully and had a very memorable performance.

As for the rest: Caroline Sheen as Fantine was fittingly heartbreaking. Marius in the book could be pretty dense at times, causing me much frustration. He was slightly less so in the musical, and Craig Mather’s performance had some good moments. I found adult Cosette bland as a character, but her high notes were chill-inducing. I believe Helen Owen was the understudy for Eponine that night, and she was fantastic! One of her key scenes was definitely the most emotional for me (and considering what all happens in this musical, that’s saying something). We also had an understudy for one of the Thernadiers…I don’t recall which…but their cringe-worthy yet often humorous antics were spot-on. Scott Garnham was the understudy for Enjolras, and he and the other revolutionaries brought the appropriate fire and energy. I don’t know which Gavroche I saw, but he totally stole every scene he was in, as well as the audience’s hearts! The applause he received for one of his scenes almost rivaled Javert’s!

Naturally, the music was terrific. I got actual goosebumps down my arms during “One Day More,” which is significant since I was quite warm and toasty. I sat in row A of the Upper Circle, having bought a £25 “under 25″ discount seat. Unfortunately, my particular seat made watching Les Miserables a bit of a miserable experience in itself. The row was pretty cramped, and the row in front of us had to lean forward to be able to see over the large balcony wall and lighting rigs. This meant the head of the person in front of me was directly in my way unless I sat on the edge of my seat and also leaned forward. Add to that the fact that London had been unseasonably warm of late. There was no air conditioning up there, and my friends and I were dripping with sweat by intermission. So…if I ever get the chance to see Les Mis live again, hopefully it will be in more comfortable conditions!

…Singing the Song of Happy Fans?

Compared to the terrific stage version, the 2004 Phantom of the Opera movie was a disappointment to many hardcore fans (though it did bring new phans, like me, into the fold). The good news is that it looks like the filmmakers of Les Miserables are attempting to learn some valuable lessons from the Phantom film and avoid its mistakes.

First, the cast. It’s got a big slew of box office stars, but more than that, the majority of them are known to be able to sing!  Yes, they are actors first, but at least they can carry a tune in a bucket to begin with…unlike Gerard Butler. (Gerry fans, don’t get mad at me. He’s a good actor and he worked very hard on his vocals, but he was just miscast as an “Angel of Music” type character.) To digress, I remember the days when I was ten and listened to Anne Hathaway’s cover of “Somebody to Love” ad naseum.

Second, the supporting cast. The diehards will certainly have fun with all the West End cast member cameos in the background. I might be missing others, but from what I know at the moment, two of the key roles are even played by West End vets: Colm Wilkinson plays the Bishop and Samantha Barks plays Eponine. Wilkinson of course was the original Valjean, so it’s totally fitting that he play the character who sets Valjean on his way within the story. I’ve seen part of Barks’ performance at the 25th anniversary concert and found her rendition of “On My Own” incredibly moving.  I’m looking forward to seeing them both in the film.

Third, the fact that the actors are recording their vocals live onset and not prerecording them in a studio. I imagine this will do wonders to capture the immediacy of a live stage performance.

The trailer gave us our first taste of Anne Hathaway’s rendition of the musical’s closest thing to a theme song, “I Dreamed a Dream.” It was different than I expected. I’m not sure Hathaway has the vocal power of some of the West End/Broadway Fantines, and she doesn’t even attempt that route. Instead of a strong belting performance, hers is intimate, broken, and wavering. It’s a different approach from the stage version, but it’s clearly what the director is aiming for. It has the potential to be very effective onscreen… just different from the stage musical.

This brings us to the fourth thing in favor of the film: the director.  Tom Hooper known for The King’s Speech, a wonderful character study where you really got inside people’s heads. Isn’t that a huge part of Les Mis? In addition, musicals always require some suspension of disbelief, but the sets, costumes, locations and makeup we’ve seen in the trailer and released stills look nice and gritty. The sight of the barricade also made me super excited…

Twenty Years to Go?

More like 6 months. While I wait, I plan to

1)acquire the Original London Cast recording

2)watch the 25th Anniversary performance at the O2 (recorded on my DVR)

3) most importantly, figure out how in the world you pronounce Enjolras!

See you at the theater in December!

(It seems that this is my longest post yet. I would apologize but it seems somewhat appropriate given the original source material!)

Review: The Jumbee by Pamela Keyes

Summary: The life of Esti Legard changes drastically when her father, a world-renowned stage actor, dies of cancer. Looking for a new life, she and her hippie mother move to Cariba for her senior year of high school. Facing a prima donna vying for the attention of talent scouts, Esti gets involved in a stage production of Romeo and Juliet. A phantom voice from the darkened stage begins coaching Esti, and as a murder and other disturbing events begin to occur, Esti wonders if she can trust this “jumbee” (West Indian word for ghost). Things get even more complicated when her childhood-friend-turned-bad-boy Rafe comes into the picture, and it’s unclear whether this drama will end in tragedy…

Review:  Considering what I’ve been involved in recently, this book was quite a serendipitous find for me. Over the summer I saw The Phantom of the Opera on Broadway for the first time, went to see my university’s…experimental production of Romeo and Juliet, and heard a director/actor who worked with the Royal Shakespeare Company speak in my theatre analysis class. After that, it was difficult not to imagine him as Esti’s charismatic British father!

All this being said, I think this book is a lot more enjoyable for people who love and are familiar with The Phantom of the Opera (and can at least tolerate Romeo and Juliet). The plot and characters loosely follow the plot of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical, but I became so engrossed in the story that pages would fly by before I realized “Oh! This character is Madame Giry” or “This is the Masquerade scene!” Finding the parallels between the musical and this book were a large part of the fun. Some of the connections were subtle (Esti’s real name) and some were a bit…much. For instance: “She saw endless volumes of Shakespeare, and classic literature as timeless as Straparalo and Leroux.” Gaston Leroux is of course the author of the original novel The Phantom of the Opera. But is this world like BBC’s modern-day series Sherlock, where the Arthur Conan Doyle stories never existed?  Does Leroux’s Phantom actually exist in the world but the characters don’t notice all the parallels? The author is clearly winking at the reader, but it’s more confusing than clever.

The West Indian setting and culture make for a very unique retelling of the story, and though the backstory of the “ghost” is slightly hard to follow on the first read, it’s definitely original. The problem with a modern version of Phantom is that the reason for the “haunting” requires a certain suspension of disbelief, but I felt largely willing to cooperate with this. Those who find Christine’s actions frustrating at points of the musical will likely get frustrated at Esti as well, but overall she is a likeable heroine, and her complex relationship with her famous father rings true. Her “phantom” is appropriately mysterious, pitiable and charming by turns, and the transformation of occasionally-foppish Raoul into an edgier, bad-boy character is a great spin on the original.

As always, I do have a few nits to pick. I wasn’t overly fond of the way that Ms. Keyes wrote dialogue. The high school students’ “teen-speak” felt forced. Although the “jumbee” and Esti are “theatre people” and like to quote Shakespeare, their conversations usually seemed strangely stilted, dramatic and formal.

Another thing – though I’m a sworn hater of love triangles, the romantic dynamics of Phantom have always been one of the most interesting aspects of the story to me. Keyes handles this pretty well, but through much of the book Esti seems obsessed with getting a kiss from one guy or the other. She switches back and forth so much, it seems as though either one would do for her – she just needs to be kissed. Even for a hormonal teenage girl, it was too much at times.

This is completely random, but the novel opens with the line “Paul is dead!” I immediately assumed that this was meant to be a humorous reference to the Beatles urban legend, but no, a character named Paul has actually just died tragically. I don’t know if the author meant to connect to the Beatles intentionally or not. Perhaps my love of that band is distorting my perceptions…

In short: Perfect for fans (phans?) of The Phantom of the Opera or just theatre in general, The Jumbee is an enjoyable, romantic read that had me turning pages at a rapid pace.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.

Something similar: Of course, the original novel The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux is a must read. It’s a strange and haunting book, but it’s a classic. My Phantom: The Memoir of Christine Daae by Anstance Tamplin is a retelling of the novel that changes a whole lot but is a great take on the story. For Shakespeare fans, check out the trilogy beginning with Wondrous Strange by Lesley Livingston.

Cover & Title: The title makes sense with the context of the novel, but I’m guessing that most Americans (myself included) would have no idea what a “jumbee” is. The mask, piercing blue eyes, and flowers are all tied into the story, but the cover feels a bit jumbled to me (no pun intended). Something simpler without so many visual elements would have been more aesthetically pleasing.

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