Book Review: The Grand Tour

The Grand Tour

Or, the Purloined Coronation Regalia

Although I'm not talking about sewing, I am continuing the Regency theme by reviewing the sequel to Sorcery and Cecelia. I must say, I like books that have interesting subtitles. I love the Regency/magic combo. This book was in a journal format, and I like that almost as much as epistolary.

But I am sorry to say, this book disappointed me, in several ways.

• First off, I was unhappy with the lack of uncomfortable content in the previous book. There was nothing terrible in this book, but there were several things that made me feel uncomfortable. A reference was made to "fallen women," to a girl having "no reputation left to lose," and a veiled reference to prostitution which would likely go over the heads of younger girls. The two worst spots were with Kate and her husband Thomas. First, a scene in which Kate, Cecy and Kate's mother-in-law are chatting, the evening after their wedding. The mother-in-law says something like "you know what you're supposed to do, right" and Cecy replies something to the affect of "How can you live in the country and not know," while Kate says "My aunt explained it once." The book then says that the mother-in-law proceeded to give Kate a better explanation; later Thomas comes in and Kate feels awkward around him, before the scene closes. The second and worst part was when, later on, Thomas quotes part of the current wedding vows to Kate, "With my body, I thee worship," and adds "we'll have some of that later." I was not at all pleased by the authors' insertion of this sort of thing into the book and almost stopped reading. Less bothersome in my opinion, but noteworthy, that there was one or two uses of d---n.
• Honestly, I found Cecelia quite annoying in this book. At several points, her husband would scold her for doing something foolish, and she would reply with something like "But I didn't die" or "But nothing did happen." That's not the point, woman! Something might have happened and if you don't start behaving more sensibly, the next time something probably will. And I won't feel bad for you. She also seemed to find immorality in women (and the discomfort of men when the subject was brought up) frankly amusing. And when a man was murdered, she and Kate both seemed happy about it. Kate admitted to feeling bad about her cold-heartedness, but Cecy didn't think she needed to.
• I wasn't a big fan of Thomas, Kate's husband. He was supposed to be romantic but I thought he was just a little annoying and grumpy. Kate was okay. I did like James.

Plus there was something about Cecy which reminded me of Lydia.

The plot was still interesting, and I have still started the third and last book. However, I cannot recommend it as enthusiastically as the previous one. 

Book Review: Sorcery and Cecelia

I just finished one of the best books I've read in a while. (Other than Lord of the Rings and Bleak House and maybe one or two others that I'm forgetting.)
This book is written in an epistolary style, set in Regency England, but with magic. And one of my favorite childhood authors co-authored it! Naturally, when I heard about this, I told my library strongly that they must buy it. They refused. Undaunted, I forced them to get an interlibrary loan of it. (Apparently this is a costly, rigorous process. Pah. They get paid with taxes for the very purpose of advancing the needs of readers.)
Having secured the novel, I proceeded to devour it in the course of a few days. Needless to say, I liked it excessively. The story is about two cousins, Kate and Cecelia, who are separated by the former going to London. In addition to participating in the multi-faceted social structures of the time, matching gloves to gowns and practicing their stitches, they also have to maneuver through magical difficulties.

In my opinion, the dedication said it all, even before I started the thing. Paraphrasing:

To J. R. R. Tolkien, Jane Austen, Georgette Heyer [and somebody else I didn't recognize], who have all, in their various ways, inspired this book.

Now, this is a lighthearted, recently written fiction book. The authors started writing letters to each other (Ms. Wrede as Cecelia and Ms. Stevermer as Kate, respectively) purely for fun. Bref, It is not the best quality book you will ever read. The romances are not detailed love stories about how each character grows and discovers each flaw and quirk in the other (though there is some of that, of course.)
But I hardly feel that it is meant to be a book of prodigious quality. It would be the outside of enough to make an epistolary novel set in Regency England with magic be a serious work, or one that conveys great meaning; and when the two coauthors have an agreement never to discuss plot, that part of the story is not going to be the most complex work of art you've ever read.
The book was reminiscent of Howl's Moving Castle, another lighthearted sort-of-old-fashioned story + magic.
There is one (perhaps two) use of d--n, and one (perhaps two) reference to an illegitimate child. Besides this, there was no objectional content — and I here include stupid dialogue, completely unrealistic scenes, obviously forced situations, and characters that make no sense, as "objectional." This book had none of that. I'd say that's a pretty good book, for today's YA fiction!

Now if only the library would get a hold of the sequels.

The Lord of the Rings: Why I Love It

I haven't often spoke of my affinity for J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings on this blog.

I think Tolkien's signature is super cool.

But I assure you, my affection for this book is strong, and to demonstrate this, my post-that-is-technically-for-the-classics-challenge is more enumeration of things I love than a proper review. I shall endeavor to be as spoiler free as possible, but I give no promises as to conciseness. 

To start, I would like to say that I watched the movies before I read the books. In general, it's better to read the book first, but there are some cases where it doesn't much matter (e.g. Ella Enchanted). This is not the case with The Lord of the Rings. I strongly recommend that you read the book first. Read the book first. Please. Don't follow my example. Although I fell in love with the story from the first moment of hearing Galadriel's voice, and afterward wanted to read the book, and did so, I would have had a greater appreciation for the book if I had not first read the movie. For, one tends to be more partial to the first thing, and so I started the book with a "this isn't like the movie" perspective, rather than a "what a wonderful story" perspective.

The movies, albeit very good renditions of the book, and truly spectacular films in and of themselves, are not as good as the books. Things are changed, obviously. Not just rearranging scenes and cutting dialogue because it has to be shortened, but other changes which do bother me. (I shall shortly link to a guest post that I wrote for The Red Book where I go into more detail about these changes.) Not to say that I don't recommend it — don't even get me started on that glorious soundtrack!

One objection that is often — and with reason — given against the movies is the violence and gore. There are three major battles, many skirmishes, and frankly, not a few disgusting orcs. (Plus Sméagol's transformation.) The book, however, does not tell us all the details of rolling heads and dripping blood. The battles are tastefully described, Tolkien apparently feeling that he "had no right to wound our feelings by attempting to describe" gore.*

Not having heard any else AGAINST The Lord of the Rings, I shall proceed to share the many reasons FOR it.

1. The themes. The classic struggle between good and evil is so poignantly played out. Although the dialogue is not from the book, this scene almost makes me cry. "But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow." That theme, if not the line, is in the book. Yes, I know Tolkien did not intend his book to be an allegory, but when a strong Christian writes a thing, Truth will show, and in the temptation of the Ring, the temptation of sin that we face each day is well-portrayed. If you've already read the book or seen the movie, this page talks about Christ figures in the book, and I found it quite interesting. It does contain spoilers.

2. The words. Oh, there's so many quotes I could quote. I love Tolkien's description (and the dialogue is good too, but I quote mainly the description because it's just so great.). He uses personification and metaphor generously.

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. This was unexpected and rather difficult. There was some scattered clapping, but most of them were trying to work it out and see if it came to a compliment.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Deserve it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For the even the very wise cannot see all ends.

The quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.

In this high place you may see the two powers that are opposed to another; and ever they strive now in thought, but whereas the light perceives the very heart of the darkness, its own secret has not been discovered.

The day waned, and dusk was twined about the boles of trees.

Cold clammy winter still held sway in this forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed up in the mist like ragged shadows of long forgotten summers.

There was a deep silence, only scraped on its surfaces by the faint quiver of empty seed-plumes, and broken grass-blades trembling in small air-movements that they [the hobbits] could not feel.

For a while they stood there, like men on the edge of a sleep where nightmare lurks, holding it off, though they know that they can only come to morning through the shadows. 

The level shafts of the setting sun behind beat upon it, and the red light was broken into many flickering beams of ever-changing color. It was as if they stood at the window of some elven-tower, curtained with threaded jewels of silver and gold, and ruby, sapphire and amethyst, all kindled with an unconsuming fire.

3. The poems. There are quite a lot of poems in this book, so I could hardly name my favorite. Here are two that I particularly love, incidentally both composed by Bilbo:

All that is gold does not glitter,

Not all those who wander are lost;

The old that is strong does not wither,

Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,

A light from the shadows shall spring;

Renewed shall be blade that was broken:

The crownless again shall be king. 

The Road goes ever on and on

Down from the door where it began

Now far ahead the Road has gone,

And I must follow, if I can,

Pursuing it with eager feet,

Until it joins some larger way

Where many paths and errands meet.

And whither then? I cannot say.

I also like the song of Nimrodel, but it's rather long to quote here. (And basically all the rest of the poems.)

Oh, okay, two more (the first by Sam):

The finest rockets ever seen:

they burst in showers of blue and green,

or after thunder golden showers

came falling like a rain of flowers.

Where now the horse and rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?

Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing?

Where is the hand on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing?

Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?

They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;

The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.

Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning,

Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?

4. The characters.  If anyone can watch all three movies or read the book and not adore Samwise Gamgee, I'm not sure what I think of this person. Sam is so loyal, humble, hardworking. He is very hobbity — not a noble king, not an all-knowing wizard, just a simple hobbit with a love for simple beauty and goodness. Yet he is as strong as any of the more dashing heroes in the book, or stronger. I have heard other people make disparaging remarks about Frodo, calling him "weak" and mocking how he *SPOILER* fails in fighting Shelob. *END SPOILER* Okay, how about you carry the embodiment of evil around your neck into Hades, let's see how strong you act. Frodo is very strong. To keep going when all hope is gone, to just keep walking, is no light thing for one in his situation. Frodo — hobbits in general, really — is undervalued. Which is rather ironic, because a good deal of the book is about how undervalued they are.

I used to dislike Tom Bombadil (another unfortunate effect of watching the movies first), but now I like him, though I find him very enigmatic. He seemed too silly and confusing to fit the rest of the book, but now I appreciate him. Not everything needs to be explained. And I like that his inclusion makes the Ring and Sauron smaller. There is no evil so great that good is not stronger.

Aaaand there's Aragorn, of course, who I fell in love with from his first scene in the movie. Humble, noble, wise, skillful, courageous.

Of course, Gandalf is amazing also. He is so wise. And puzzling. And while he certainly can't do everything, he is a very useful person to have in a tight spot.

Theoden is also wonderful. Like Gandalf, he is not a perfect leader, but he sincerely tries to do what is best for his people. I pity him and admire him.

I love Faramir in the book. He treats the hobbits with greater honor and consideration than the movie shows. (I have always preferred him to Boromir, since I've never identified with the strong war-loving type.) Instead of seeming unfair, he does consider carefully the hobbits case, and makes a decision in their favor, which puts himself at risk.

I have not even mentioned Legolas and Gimli, or Bilbo or Eowyn. But this post grows long. Suffice to say they're very well done too.

All in all, I'm very fond of most of the characters in the story, and I think that's a good deal of what's necessary for a good book. If you don't care what happens to the characters (*coughcoughdivergentcoughcough*), you aren't likely to care about the story, or for that matter, keep reading it at all, especially when it's a thousand pages long.

5. The world of Middle Earth. It is so creative and detailed. Each race — elves, dwarves, hobbits, Men, orcs, wizards — is unique. Tolkien created languages for these people. The hobbits get the most description in the book itself, but the appendices is full of further information on the others. The many places they visit are differentiated too. Contrast the simplicity of the Shire with the grandeur of Minas Tirith, or the darkness of Mordor with the peace of Rivendell. Even places which are more similar — Rivendell and Lothlorien, or Gondor and Rohan — are still unique. Gondor has much more of a High Middle Ages feel, while Rohan has a distinctly more Beowulf character.

Rivendell

6. The story line. It's difficult, without giving spoilers, to draw out the story line so that we can all stand back and admire. It's sad, triumphant, and stirring by turns. I would say it is realistic, but this risks giving the impression that it is one of those depressing modern novels where everyone is suicidal, that people try to defend by saying "it's realistic." No, that's just bleak. Or perhaps it is a realistic picture of what life would be like with everything of God removed (of course, then there would be no earth or life at all). Tragic things happen (the party tree! sniff), which are not always reversible. People die. But "A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer." (Once again quoting lines from the movie, but the feeling from the book.)

Bonus: I love how disparagingly Tolkien talks of "progress" and industrialization. For, I feel the same way!

Do I recommend this book, and to whom? I certainly would. It is suitable (content-wise) for any age, but I will say that when I first read it (age 10 or so) I did not appreciate is nearly as much as I do now. I felt *cough* that it was too descriptive. Bear in mind that at this age I also thought Jane Austen should speak plainer. I had not yet learnt a real love for words, in and of themselves. 

The word "d--n" is used once or twice.

Your servant, Mr. Baggins—

*And I quote Colonel Brandon from Sense and Sensibility. Incidentally, I love this line because of the contrast between this scene with Elinor and Willoughby's "explanation" to Elinor, in which he tries to wound her feelings.

An Announcement and a Review

Bonjour, mes amis! Having a great deal of school to do, I have but time to deliver an announcement and a brief review.

First, the fleas are GONE, praise the Lord!!! My dear little cat is out and the daily vacuuming is over.

Second, I have just finished Louisa May Alcott’s Hospital Sketches (as I'm wrapping up my study of the Civil War) and, since I mentioned it in my post on Little Women, thought I'd deliver a short review.

It's a very thin volume and her witty, engaging style makes it a quick read (much appreciated by moi, as I'm surrounded by books to be read). Originally published serially as six “sketches” that she adapted from letters she sent home, it was compiled in 1863. Louisa was a nurse for only about a month before she contracted typhoid and went home, but her sketches are a moving, interesting and occasionally amusing glimpse of the nurse’s side of the war. Three of my favorite passages:

(Describing her bedroom at the makeshift hospital) It was well ventilated, for five panes of glass had suffered compound fractures, which all the surgeons and nurses had failed to heal… A bare floor supported two narrow iron beds, spread with thin mattresses like plasters, furnished with pillows in the last stages of consumption… A mirror (let us be elegant!) of the dimensions of a muffin, and about as reflective, hung over a tin basin…

The three meals were “pretty much of a muchness,” and consisted of beef, evidently put down for the men of ‘76; pork, just in from the street [pigs wandered freely in the city]; army bread, composed of saw-dust and saleratus; butter, [salty] as if churned by Lot’s wife; stewed blackberries, so much like preserved cockroaches, that only those devoid of imagination could partake of with relish; coffee, mild and muddy; tea, three dried huckleberry leaves to a quart of water…

(Describing passerby officers) Some of these gentlemen affected painfully tight uniforms, and little caps, kept on by some new law of gravitation, as they covered only the bridge of the nose, yet never fell off; the men looked like stuffed fowls, and rode as if the safety of the nation depended on their speed alone.

The whole book, though, is filled with Louisa’s particular style, which is quaint and pleasant. I especially like the many clever literary allusions she uses. I recommend this to about 8th grade and up.

Classics Challenge: A Tale of Two Cities (June)

I have so much I could say about this book. First of all, I LOVED it. The only Dickens I'd read previous to this was A Christmas Carol and a Great Illustrated Classics Oliver (yes, Author, we owned an abridged book). I'd mostly heard he was paid by the word, and therefore longwinded, dry, and dull.

Ohhhhh no. Was he ever far from dull! Did I already say I loved it?

Lucie Mannette from the Broadway musical. There's also a ballet of TOTC!

The audio book was almost 17 hours long and it has been my companion during many loads of dishes, several batches of laundry, and a fair amount of laundry. I even considered listening to it while driving [in our new car!], but since I've had my license only a few months I decided that was a bad idea.

I'll greatly miss Doctor Mannette and Mr. Lorry and Darnay and Pross. Even Jerry Cruncher.

Anyway. How to explain this wonderful book without spoilers is tough.

The first paragraph describes well the French Revolution:

"IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

And then there was the haunting repetition "Buried how long?" which really intrigued me. I really appreciated that I knew nothing about this book because I was very confused at first, but it made it so hard to put down. The plot is long and complex and I was so curious to know what would happen next! *SPOILER* I will say that I did predict was Carton would do at the end, and also I guessed who Solomon was before he identified himself. But don't let this make you think it was predictable! Personally I like books where you can figure out a few things if you're paying attention. *END SPOILER*

The plot is, as I said, very complex. Everything that is ever mentioned is tied back in somehow. A character barely mentioned will return, I assure you. Something that happened years ago will come back in.

It's also a really funny book. I liked it when Mr. Lorry (I love him!) keeps insisting "A matter of business!" when you can clearly see he cares.

I found it very difficult to find a picture of Mr. Lorry. He has spectacles, people! But I like this one of Miss Pross.

Then it's filled with food for thought. Comparing Darnay and Carton (more on that later) is an obvious one, but also think about the two leading ladies, Lucie Mannette and Madame Defarge. They both have very good reasons to be bitter towards a particular character, but their actions and choices are so different!

  *HUGE MAJOR SPOILERS* Granted Lucie didn't know this about D. before she married him. Still, if she DID know, perhaps she wouldn't have married him, but it's clear she would have still acted in forgiveness (it wasn't his fault to be born into his family) rather than being consumed with vengeance like Madame Defarge. *END THE TERRIBLE SPOILERS*.

I like Doctor Mannette too. He seems weak, at first, but of course this isn't so. He's incredibly brave and strong, but years of suffering take their toll on a person. I love how his relationship with his daughter restores him. He's so selfless, this man. He always thinks of his daughter (and we only learn the depth of this at the end). *SPOILER* I like how we get to see him being the strong one at the end, cleverly using his influence and his popularity for the sake of those whom he loves. When we walks in at the end of Chapter 12 ("Darkness"), oh, OH! :( *End SPOILER*

I liked Charles Darnay from the beginning. I mean, anytime someone is put on trial for his life you kind of feel bad for the guy! 

"The Jackal"

I was at first confused about who Sydney Carton was and confused Stryver and Carton (audio books do that kind of thing to you). *SPOILER* But by the end I was enamored with Carton and frequently whispered to myself as I switched laundry and listened enthralled, "I love Carton!" It's rather fascinating how he, who at first appeared to be a random confusing lawyer person, really becomes the hero of the book. I started out thinking Lorry would be the main character, then Dr. Mannette and his daughter.  *BIG HUGE MAJOR ENDING SPOILERS* Then Darnay enters and it's kind of easy to say "Love interest" and I rooted for him. But really? Which of the "twins" is the more heroic one? We can't say whether Darnay would have died for Carton (though really, Carton died for Lucie, not Darnay), so perhaps that's not answerable. What we can say is that Carton is a lot more complex than Darnay, who's basically just "the good guy". I don't think he's as clever as Carton (but then, one could argue that he came to France when he did not because he was stupid but because a poor innocent servant required his assistance, and he was going to help whether his life was at stake or not). Also Darnay puts Carton down (after the latter had left) to Lucie and Dr. Mannette, which was unkind too poor Carton. Personally, I would have preferred that Darnay died and Carton married Lucie. (No, not really, because Carton was so wonderful in giving his life for love of Lucie, so that she could be with the husband she loved. Oh, Carton. :( ) *END ALL SPOILERS*

It was much harder to find a satisfactory picture of Carton than Darnay. I think that's telling.

"Sadly, sadly, the sun rose; it rose upon no sadder sight than the man of good abilities and good emotions, incapable of their directed exercise, incapable of his own help and his own happiness, sensible of the blight on him, and resigning himself to let it eat him away."

(Sob sob)

Of other characters, we mustn't forget Miss Pross, Lucie's companion/nurse/servant. She's so devoted and strong, and also provides a lot of the humor of the book with her high standards for her "ladybird". Nor Mr. Cruncher, whom I disliked a lot at the beginning. I felt so bad for poor Mrs. Cruncher! Yet even Mr. Cruncher was dear to me by the end, and I think some consistent hardwork in the company of such kind people like the Mannettes was good for him. *LITTLE SPOILER* He did promise to stop interfering with Mrs. Cruncher's "flopping, you know. He improved. *END SPOILER*

No summary of characters would be complete without speaking of the Defarges.

Though shown in a much less favorable light than the Mannettes, they are definitely main characters also. They're well-developed. At first I thought Madame Defarge was just a random lady who was always knitting and I found that hilarious. Of course that was the last of the hilarity we got from her, as she's a woman with horribly twisted femininity. Bitterness and a desire for vengeance has consumed the gentleness and beauty that ought to have been hers. "We can kill as well as the men when the place is taken!" she shouts to other women at the forcing of the Bastille. Though just as lustful for blood as she, Ernest Defarge is less awful. Maybe because she is a woman, and therefore what her character has become the antithesis of her God-given nature.
  *THIS IS A BIG SPOILER* As awful and twisted as Madame Defarge is, when we learn her history it is easy to feel sympathy for her, if not acquit her of all her crimes *END BIG SPOILERS*
 Side note, I loved the showdown between Miss Pross and Madame Defarge. *VEILED SPOILER* But I was shocked by what happened afterwards. It wasn't Miss Pross's fault, after all, so that was a sorry reward for her loyalty. *END SPOILER*

Another thing I really liked about this book besides the witty writing, the well-developed characters, and the enthralling plot, was how Dickens shows both sides of the Revolution. I'm a person who believes there's two sides to every thing, and I don't like it when people assume one person or set of persons is the "good" group and the other is the "wrong". Though the Revolution is rightly shown to be a terrible thing and a horribly unjust time, Defarge is still a realistic human and one we can empathize with. The Marquis St. Evremonde is a consistently awful person, whose crimes no one will condone. We understand that the aristocrats weren't just poor innocents wrongly accused who need rescuing by The Scarlet Pimpernel. Did that happen? Oh yes it did, as this book also shows many examples of. But it's not just "the evil Saint Antoine people" vs. "the poor aristos".

Although I'm not sure that Charles Dickens was a Christian (he believed in God but hated "dogma" and was really rather more of a Deist or a Unitarian; plus he had a mistress for a time), his characters are, and the Bible is quoted on more than one occasion. I love reading about other people's faith in times of trouble, and this was no exception. (Particularly Carton's at the end...)

Random fun fact: France is on their fifth republic, and their motto is STILL Liberty, Equality and Fraternity! That just shocks me. And you probably already know that they still celebrate Bastille day. It just seems very odd.

Do I recommend this book, and to whom? Yes, I would recommend this book to anyone I see who can read. Ha. Probably 13+, because there is a little violence (it's the French Revolution, after all). I think d---ed is used a few times. But yes. I wholeheartedly recommend it.

Old Friends and New Fancies: A Book Review

I saw Old Friends and New Fancies mentioned on Miss Dashwood's blog, and liked the description of it: "The first Jane Austen sequel". So I got it from the library, and was... rather disappointed.
I have high standards, mind you. The plot was good, the writing decent, but some of the characters were not written as I should have liked. Of course I didn't expect, nor receive, the wit of Jane Austen. So mostly what I was disappointed about was the portrayal of some of my favorites. I think that the author and I had different characters that we liked. For instance, I like Emma Woodhouse. I think I'm like her in some ways. I know some people find her intolerable and can't even get through the book. I am not one of them, but I believe Sybil Brinton might be.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. First, a brief synopsis. The book is set a few years after Jane Austen's six published novels. It includes at least a few characters from each: from Emma, only Emma and Mr. Knightley; from Northanger Abbey, James Morland, Eleanor Tilney, Isabella Thorpe, and John Thorpe; from Pride and Prejudice, there are Jane, Elizabeth, Mr. Bingley, Mr. Darcy, Kitty Bennet, Miss Bingley and Mrs. Hurst, Georgiana Darcy, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, perhaps others. Mansfield Park gives us Mary and Henry Crawford, Tom and Julia Bertram, Mrs. Grant, Mr. Yates and William Price; Sense and Sensibility brings Elinor, Mrs. Jennings, Robert Ferrars, the Steele sisters, and Mr. Palmer; and Persuasion has Captain Wentworth and the Elliot family.

Georgiana Darcy (with Mr. Darcy behind her, and Elizabeth with her back to us)

The story drops into the minds of multiple characters, so it'd be hard to say who is the "main" character, but I would say the book is from the perspective of Elizabeth or Georgiana Darcy the most. The story opens that Georgiana, who is now twenty and lives at home still, has just been engaged to Colonel Fitzwilliam, but neither of them are happy about it. Elizabeth convinces them to break the engagement (despite Lady Catherine's disapproval of the action), giving both relief. Darcy, Elizabeth and Col. Fitzwilliam accompany Lady Catherine to Bath, where they meet several old and new friends. Colonel Fitzwilliam becomes acquainted with Mary Crawford while there, but she is affronted by Lady Catherine, which puts a divide in their growing relationship. Darcy and Elizabeth return to Pemberley about this point, and Kitty Bennet comes to stay with them.

It's difficult to explain much more without giving either my opinions or spoilers, so I'll just start into the review.
First, I must say that the writing style is not Jane Austen's. Not even close. It lacks the wit and cleverness that characterizes all of Jane's works. However, it's not insipid, either. The storyline is a bit slow, and the half-dozen romances are predictable (but aren't most? When Mr. Bingley walks into the room we KNOW he and Jane are going to fall for each other, and no on thinks for a minute that John Thorpe can hold a candle to Henry Tilney), but the writing isn't bad. For a non-Janeite, I wouldn't recommend it, simply because on its own it doesn't have that much to offer (I would instead recommend Pride and Prejudice). It's unfair to expect someone to live up to Jane's standard, though.
For a lover of Jane Austen, I would say it's fun to think about how the characters would interact with each other, and to fancy what their lives are like after the last page of each book. In some places, I disagree with Ms. Brinton's thoughts. All the "good" characters like all "good" characters and dislike all the "bad" characters. Would Elizabeth Bennet really be good friends with Anne Elliot and Elinor Dashwood? I'm not so sure. She would appreciate Anne and Elinor's strength of character, but honestly I don't think she'd like Elinor. *SPOILER ALERT* I'm also not sure whether or not Kitty could fall for a minister. *END SPOILER*
In my addition, anyway, there were also several typos and a few inconsistencies (ie, a "theatre party" is proposed in the beginning of Chapter X, then called a "water party" towards the end of the chapter, and in the next chapter is an "exploration party").
One thing that I really didn't like was how Emma and Mary Crawford were treated. A little while back I heard someone say that you either like Mary Crawford or you hate her (and the same with Fanny Price). Personally, I like Fanny. I identify with her in many ways (and it really bothers me that many modern movie makers think they need to convert her personality into Elizabeth Bennet's to make her a likable heroine— but I'm getting sidetracked here). I've never liked Mary Crawford. At her core she is a selfish, vain woman without modesty. Ms. Brinton, I believe, is in the class that is fooled by attracted to Miss Crawford's wit and perhaps sees more than self-gratification in her treatment of Fanny (I don't); in any case we are supposed to cheer on her marriage to a good man. Ms. Brinton also dislikes Mr. Yates, who in Mansfield Park is portrayed as a good-natured, if loose-moralled, young man.

Mary Crawford at her harp. Note: I have not seen and therefore can't recommend this adaption of Mansfield Park.

I could overlook Miss Crawford, but not Emma. Emma may be vain and sometimes thoughtless, but she really does want to help people. Ms. Brinton seems to believe that Emma seeks the matrimony of her friends for her own silly amusement only, not because she wants to be helpful. She isn't a kind woman, but annoying really. A quote to illustrate the point:
"It was always a little difficult for Emma to realize that people had important affairs of their own; and that they should have had any existence apart from that which she had chosen to imagine for them constitued the surprise." (She then spends a man's entire visit acting bewildered that he isn't in another town or in love with another girl).
One wonders that Mr. Knightley would marry such a person!

Emma Woodhouse

Is Emma as perceptive as she thinks herself at the beginning of the novel? No, but she is somewhat perceptive— and by the end of the novel she has realized her own failings and is humbler for it. She's also a well-bred hostess. She doesn't sit acting bewildered and practically ignoring a guest who she knows she won't see for some months. She may be scheming, but that isn't her main characteristic (she also isn't as obvious as Ms. Brinton makes her be).

A few other small details that I don't agree with:

• I rather doubt that Julia would have William Price staying with her. He isn't the type of fellow to attract her attention and she is a very self-gratifying girl, unlikely to do things she doesn't like.
• The Elliots are poor. They took up residence in Bath. I don't think we'd find them in London, unless they'd been invited to stay at the house of a friend.
• Georgianna's character seemed inconsistent. She mostly goes about a lot and isn't shy, but then at other times she is very timid.

All that said, it really was interesting to think of what might happen to the characters at the end of their books (and fun to get to include screenshots from various movies!).

Kitty Bennet

Finishings

I like to finish things. It just feels so nice. I've recently been finishing books. For one, my mom just finished reading The Eagle of the Ninth to my sister and I. That is really good book. Well written. Rosemary Suttcliff is an amazing author. It builds, growing tenser and tenser, more horrible, until the climax, where, up until the second to last chapter, you don't even know if they're going to live. And then the tension slowly slacks off to the best ending it could have had.
And then I finished Mansfield Park today. Again, up until the last moment (the last few pages) I didn't think it could have a good ending. I would pour out my heart and spoil the ending for you all except my sister reads this blog and I'm going to have to make her read it. But OH! Jane Austen did it again.
A week ago, I finished Beautiful Outlaw. Seriously, that was the best Christian nonfiction book I've ever read. Every chapter, I could feel Jesus's presence. I loved renewing my relationship with him, getting to know him and understand him in ways I never knew I could. It was convicting to realize how the religious "fog" (to quote the book) has crept into my life and my worship, pretending to be piety or fear or something else entirely. John Eldridge wrote about Jesus and intimacy with Jesus in a way that I love. I love being able to share my life entirely with Jesus – every moment. Oh, Jesus, how I felt to really see you for who you are. I can't explain it. I can only urge you to read this book. It is not just another devotional.
And then, I just minutes ago finished True Freedom. Oh – you don't know that one. Because I just finished writing it.
Yes, my dear little Maurelle story. Finally finished, finally named. Not edited, of course. As a proud Mama, I can't just go edit it after I finish it (I'll have to wait a few years for that), so I am now putting it down happily, if a bit sadly.
This proud Mama would also like to inform her readers that her book is a walloping 21, 961 words long- 1, 961 words longer than my goal. That's 87.844 pages, peoples.
I really can't add any more to that. :)
So wiithout further ado, I bid you adieu. Until my next post,

Book Review: The Dark Foundations

Oh. My. Bananas.

Wow.

Greatest.
Book.
I've.
Read.
In.
A.
Long.
Long.  
Long.
Time.


So, this is part three of the Lamb Among the Star's series, and I might have liked this one best.

The Dark Foundations continues the epic story begun in The Shadow and Night (also sold in two separate volumes: The Shadow at Evening and The Power of Night.) Far beyond the tranquility of the Assembly worlds, Nezhuala, Lord-Emperor of the Dominion, is preparing a merciless and crushing attack on Farholme as a prelude to an onslaught on the Assembly. Back on Farholme, Commander Merral D'Avanos recovers from his wounds after the battle at Fallambet where the intruders were destroyed. Yet even as Merral dreams of a return to peace, he receives a warning of imminent war on a massive scale he cannot ignore. Amid the urgent preparations for battle, Merral and his friends realize the inadequacy of their defenses. Then, with weeks to spare before the predicted eve of ware, Merral receives an offer of assistance from the strangest of sources. But can it be trusted? As the wave of war finally crashes over Farholme, Merral must find the answer to other questions in the heat of battle: Can Farholme survive the growing internal strains? Who will pay the price for victory? Will his own weaknesses undo both him and his world?
  In the first book, I would basically describe it this way: for ten thousand years, evil has been caged. And the cage is breaking. So, in the first book, evil is only just starting to leak into their world. I love, I love, I love the way they look at evil in this first book. They treat ever sin as a monstrosity. I think that we (myself included) tend to rank evil. Example:

Rape- OH, HORROR OF HORRORS!
Murder- HOW HORRID!
Stealing 10 grand- That's awful! 
He told a lie- Well, I guess that's not that bad. I mean, you have to give them grace.

It's true. Liars need to be given grace. So do lesbians and murderers.
But in this book, Merral (the main character- I just love him) is so unused to sin that he freaks. out. over sins that we would take for granted (like couples arguing).


However. In The Dark Foundations, sin's cage has completely broken. Merral himself sins. He disobeys a major command that an angel gives him (well, God gives the command, but the envoy tells him). 
You would think I wouldn't like this. But I find Merral even more likable.


Once again, a however, or, rather, two howevers. One, I thought at first that perhaps that Merral and co. get used to sin too fast. But on reconsideration, we all take to sin like fish to water, so maybe this is unfair. 
Two: Sin is unleashed in this book, so, naturally, this book has more things in it like sexual mentions than parts 1 & 2. There is even a demon or two. But considering the other books for teens and young adults on the market right now (Twilight, anyone?), I think this is a definite improvement.

BUT I CAN'T BELIEVE HE KILLED- oh, wait, that'd be a spoiler. :)


Positive Elements:


Spiritual Elements:
God is a big deal in this book. If you have a problem with that, you may not like this book.
Demons, angels, heaven, and hell are all mentioned. Merral and other characters pray, talk to an angel ("the envoy"), and fight with a demon (though their swords and other weapons have no effect on it, which I think fitting).


Sexual Content: SPOILER ALERT
Before reading this section, or reading the other sections, you have to understand something:  there are two main civilizations in these books: the assembly, which consists of Christians, population of approx. 1 trillion, spread over 16000 planets (*which are genetically modified to be like Earth*); and there is the Dominion, which consists of humans who broke away from the Assembly about 10,000 years ago. There are people from the Dominion in this book, so a lot of the sexual content has to do with them, particularly a character named Azeras. So, this looks like a huge section, but it's all really minor stuff.

So, the sexual content:
So, Clemant, Representative Corradon's advisor, is listing off some crimes to Merral on page 107; he says:
"What else? Petty theft - someone stole someone else's garden plants in Ganarat. Increasing sexual incidents. We had a rape the other day."
"Are you serious? Here?" Merral says.
"I'm afraid so."
"It's appalling!"
"I agree." Their conversation then turns to other things.

Azeras, from the Dominion, thinks it's silly that the Assembly has female pilots. I quote- 'Azeras shrugged. "Women have their uses: bed, kitchen - maybe the brighter ones can teach children."'
Later on, when he meets Perena, who is a pilot, he says:
'"A lady captain," Azeras said, and gave Perena a long and intense look. She flushed, and, taking a chair, moved it so she was out of his field of view.'
Later on, after their conversation, Merral says,
'"Perena, at the start something passed between you and Azeras. I was wondering what."
She blushed. "I wast just stunned by the way he looked at me with... a fire of lust. His eyes were almost stripping me bare. I've never felt that way before..."
Vero's face tightened.'
 Then Merral changes the subject.
An intelligent machine, Betafor, insists through out the book that she is a female. Later on, Merral and Vero ask her to take her jacket off so they can look through her pockets. Her reply:
"I refuse to take my clothes off. I am a female. It would be sexual harassment." It's more funny, though, than uncomfortable, because she's really just a machine and 'sexual harassment' is her excuse to try to stop them from looking in her pockets (where she houses poison).
Merral tells Azeras he will reward him, and asks what he would like. Azeras comes back with, "A house by the sea, a supply of wine, a woman." Perena then reprimands him, telling him that women are not objects to be gained, but people and that he should rethink his mindset about women.
Then, another dominion person tells Merral that if he signs this treaty, he can go back to his old line of work (preservation of the forests of Farholme) instead of being a commander in the army. He is strongly tempted, and then it says,
'Don't be silly, a second voice said, temptations are to do with power and sex, not trees.'

At a very dramatic and sad part, Perena says, "Hold me, Vero." He holds her for about 2 minutes and then she walks away.

Violent Content: SPOILER ALERT
There are a few [mostly small] battles, but they 1) keep it from getting too graphic, description-wise, and 2) Merral doesn't like fighting, and only the bad characters o(which I think is nice, compared to the war-loving characters of some books); Merral tries to avoid fighting.
Plus, in pretty much all of the battles, they are fighting Krallen, which are machines, so when, for instance, Lloyd stabs one, it says 'silver fluid leaked out' rather than 'blood poured from the wound, gushing onto the flour in a ruby cascade' like a lot of books do when they're fightin' people.

Crude or Profane Language:
Hell is said a couple times, but it doesn't bother me as it's used in context. Once or twice it says "Azeras said a word in another language that Merral presumed to be a swear word."

Drug/Alcohol content: 
Azeras mentions that he would like a supply of wine. I think someone drinks wine once or twice, but no one gets drunk or anything, that I remember (and I'm not likely to forget something like that).


Other Negative Elements:
It wasn't long enough!!!! I NEED the next book ASAP!!!


Conclusion:
Once again, wow. 'that was just about all he could say'. Wow. You. Should. Read. This. Book. I tried my best to not put too many spoilers in, and I shall review the other books, too, with as little spoiling as possible, because I don't want to ruin this book for you.
As I said, in this book, things are a little heavier, but it wasn't nearly as bad as it could be. I would give it 10 points, for mature 12 year olds, or 13 and up.