K is for Kill Me Now: Timmy Reed

I received the Advance Reading Copy in a giveaway, so I'm not sure if anything that I comment on is different in the final publishing.

I was at first turned off by the style of writing and the way the narrator spoke and acted. It was so against everything I stand for that I had a really hard time not putting the book down. I had to remind myself that that was the point of the book: the grunge and grime and all the dirty details of Miles' life.

When I was able to get past the grunge and appreciate the book for what it was, I did appreciate it.

Miles is so human and realistic and very easy to bring to life as you read. Reed creates the world and the person so true to life that it's almost impossible not to feel like Miles exists as a child you know from the neighborhood next door.

Usually in a book like this, the narrator goes through something which forces him to grow or learn something, and I found it really fascinating that Reed was able to pull this book off without anything like that happening. Each day, something happened to Miles and he "learned" something. He never really changed, and he never really grew up, but this novel takes place over just a few months in his summer. He doesn't have much time to grow.

I appreciated that ability of Reed's, but I also would have liked to see Miles learn something, mature, or grow up in some way, and I was a bit disappointed when the Miles at the end of the story is the same as the Miles in the beginning.

I was annoyed throughout the novel with the random words that were completely capitalized. This definitely took away from my enjoyment. It was distracting to me to have these emphasized words randomly throughout the book. I understand why Reed did that, but every time I came across a capitalized word, I was taken out of the story.

I also have a very difficult time placing Miles as a fourteen year old. The words he uses (for example "copacetic," even though he spelled it wrong: I'm not sure if that's supposed to point to his age or if that's a typo in the ARC copy) don't seem like his age or his personality. Or when he's talking about the TV and how he hate the machine but can't stop watching, that doesn't sound like his age or the personality we are led to believe he has. Sometimes it seems like his thoughts are too real or too deep or too old for the character Reed has created him to be. It's all very misleading to me.

I appreciated the last sentence and the irony of it. Reed did well there; it made me laugh but it also made me think about what I'd spent the past few days reading and made me ask myself why I read it.

J is for Jane Eyre: Charlotte Bronte

Jane Eyre was such a heartwarming read. I fell in love, I cried, I laughed, and I jumped. Bronte's method of writing was so captivating and real that I fully felt part of the story. 

I've always struggled with (and just now finally got over) the drawn out beginning. Jane has a really difficult childhood, and I sympathize. I feel badly for her because she does have it rather rough. But it goes on and on and on. Even when the school is reported and someone else takes over and things should start to get better for Jane, there's nothing but sadness for her, it seems. We don't hear anything happy about her life until she reaches Thornfield Hall. I suppose one could argue that her life wasn't happy or didn't start until she came to Thornfield.  

After I got through that beginning, I loved, loved, loved the novel. I love the way Jane and Mr. Rochester fall in love, and I love all of their interactions. I love that Mr. Rochester makes Jane think he'll marry Miss Ingram, because poor Jane becomes so distraught, but I like it because it forces her to admit her feelings and "stand up" to this guy. Of course, Mr. Rochester sees through every facade of Jane and knows all along what she's feeling. Theirs is such a lovely relationship. 

The twists and turns of the story made it hard for me to go to work and put the book down. I knew Jane and Mr. Rochester would end up together, but I didn't know how. And Bronte just kept leading me astray! First with Miss Ingram, then with Rochester's wife, then with St. John, and I never felt comfortable in their security. I really enjoyed that. Bronte made me long to keep reading, and I need that in a book. 

The big question in this book comes from Mr. Rochester in chapter XX: He asks Jane, "To attain this end, are you justified in over leaping an obstacle of custom-a mere conventional impediment, which neither your conscience sanctifies nor your judgment approves?" And again he asks, "Is the wandering and sinful, but now rest-seeking and repentant man, justified in daring the world's opinion, in order to attach to him forever, this gentle, gracious, genial stranger; thereby securing his own peace of mind and regeneration of life?" Is he justified? Is he right? 

I have to give some thought to this question. I appreciate a book that makes me think, and Bronte has certainly made me think. Certainly it would be right for Mr. Rochester to remain faithful and loyal to the woman he married, but at what point does Mrs. Rochester cease to be the woman he married? She's not in her right mind, but does that release Mr. Rochester from his vows? I just don't have an answer. I greatly appreciate that I have this serious question to consider because of a book.

Jane, later on when she's giving her own thought to the matter asks, "Whether it is better, I ask, to be a slave in a fool's paradise at Marseilles-fevered with delusive bliss one hour-suffocating with the bitterest tears of remorse and shame the next-or to be a village school-mistress, free and honest, in a breezy mountain nook in the healthy heart of England?" (chapter XXXI). 

My only regret with this book is that I didn't read it sooner. I fully understand why it's a classic novel and why it's on so many book lists. Really great novel and I highly recommend it.

I is for An Irish Country Doctor: Patrick Taylor

I picked this book up because I found it at a thrift store, so it was pretty low-priced. I've always loved reading books that take place in Ireland, so the title appealed to me.

I'm so thankful I grabbed it!

First, this was an easy read, perfect for a vacation book. I finished it in a few days, and it was easy to pick up and put down as time came. There weren't any moments where I felt like I just couldn't put the book down, which was nice at the time, as I had just finished reading a thriller and was ready for something more light and easy.

I absolutely loved the setting. The world created by Taylor is so amusing and beautiful and appealing. I want to pack my bags and head to Ballybucklebo, and I'm very sad that it's fictional. Taylor made the world come to life through his multitude of characters. Bringing in an outsider is a great way to subtly describe the setting without overwhelming the reader, and Barry provided me with enough details to still leave some up to my imagination. Other details of the world of Ballybucklebo were provided through the dialogue, attitudes, and relationships of the other characters in the town. Having lively, human characters come to life on the pages brought the world they lived in to live even more.

I loved meeting all the characters and learning all of their quirks and how that impacts the surgery. Taylor created some fantastic characters with some of the most outrageous issues, and it was fun to read about them, and watch them develop (or not develop at all, which is also great because they're so entertaining and lovable as they are). He made each character human, with flaws that were funny but very serious at the same time, causing me to laugh while reflecting on myself and how that flaw can be seen in myself.

I quite enjoyed the relationship between O'Reilly and Barry, and it was fun to watch that grow after the rather unconventional first meeting. It was fun to see whose "team" I was on throughout, and I often found myself rooting for O'Reilly and his crazy ways rather than Barry and his by-the-book school of thought. It made me happy when Barry jumped on board with O'Reilly, and by the end, I felt like he would definitely be a great fit in Ballybucklebo.

I'm excited to read the next books in this 11-book series, because I can't wait to get more about these people: I want to grow with them.

This was a great book to read on vacation, sitting on the front porch, drinking a cup of coffee, and watching the sun rise. The sun warmed my skin, but this book warmed my heart. That's really what this book was: a heart-warming, laugh out loud, fall in love with the setting and characters kind of book, and I highly recommend it.

H is for The Handmaid's Tale: Margaret Atwood

I read 1984 by George Orwell in high school, and I remember that it was an easy read for me (as in I got through it really quickly) and I remember liking it, but I couldn't remember many details about it. When I picked up The Handmaid's Tale and saw on the back cover that someone was liking it to 1984, I admit, I was a bit hesitant. I thought that what was done in 1984 couldn't be reproduced. I should have realized, though, that the comparison didn't mean equality of themes, plots, and ideas. The two works are very different in the best ways.

The Handmaid's Tale does warn about the potential future of our lives, but it takes a different spin from 1984. In this world, women are given the sole purpose of reproducing, and if you fail to do that, you're banished.

I wish I could have read it when it was first published, because I think I might have taken the premise a bit more seriously. Things have greatly changed now, and so I can't even imagine the world turning into this. It's such a stretch, it seems, that we would revert back to the things the world has been fighting for for so long: granted, much of that I don't agree with: right to choose and abortion. However, these women aren't allowed to read. They aren't allowed to drink coffee or do anything that might hinder their chances of reproduction. Most of them don't get to be married and have to live bouncing between houses hoping to provide a baby for the couple they're serving at the time. These are things that sound so barbaric to me in this day and age, and it doesn't seem like anything we could expect.

This brings up another point: I'm torn up about the lack of backstory in this novel. Part of me really appreciates the fact that Atwood can weave a tale and create a world so fully without providing any background on how the world came to be. She mentioned a few small points like which country invaded America to enforce this lifestyle on them, but she gives no reason as to the how and whys. And the other part of me hates that she gives no how and whys. Had I known the history, I might have been more convinced of these changes. It's so difficult for me to believe all of the changes that the world had to go through in order to become what it is, when I see where we are now and can't see how the changes came about.

It obviously didn't take too long as Offred could remember her childhood being nothing like this, and she was married and had a baby before everything fell apart, and she was only in her 30s. The process from normality to this new life under the Eye must have only taken five years? Maybe less? That seems a bit unreasonable to me, but again, because I don't have the full story or the history, I don't really know.

The book itself was really easy to read. Because of the content, though, it took me a bit longer to get through it than to just read it. It was full of very heavy concepts, themes, and ideas. I was continually shocked by the neutral way all of the people in the story talked about the rapes and slavery and murder that was going on around them, especially as this generation knew life before the Eye took over. At one point in the story, one of the teachers mentioned how it would be easy with the next generation because all they'll know is this life and they won't know what it was before, in the past. Which is true in theory, but for Offred, she simply accepted what she had. It was just what she had to endure. She even had a husband and a child to fight for. I'm sure it wasn't easy to fight, but even when she had the chance to join the rebellion, she didn't.

I was very stricken with the themes Atwood wrote on, and the story caused me to think quite a bit about the life we have now and everything we've fought for. It's great that this story causes readers to stop and think about the freedoms and choices we have today and imagine the possibilities should those freedoms be taken away. I wasn't scared by reading this book, though, as some critics said would be the case. As mentioned earlier, this was too far-fetched seeing where we are today.

G is for A Grief Observed: C.S. Lewis

This book helped me get through a very difficult time. Although this is written after and in response to the death of Lewis' wife, he had many perspectives and thoughts that were very applicable to what I was suffering.

I appreciated that he didn't try to give us any answers to grief. He didn't try to show us how to get through the grief or get over the grief. Instead, he just acknowledges or observes grief, and it's very helpful, as someone who is also grieving, to read about the journey through grief and how someone else handled his grief. It helps provide a sense of camaraderie and fellowship which is often lacking in grief. It's easy to feel isolated, but Lewis gives us a partner through his writings.

It's difficult to offer any sort of review on this book, because I had such a great emotional response to his writing that I don't feel that I am in any position to critique it. Therefore, I'll leave it at this short analysis of how I felt when reading.

F is for Flags in the Dust: William Faulkner

I've never been able to decide how I feel about William Faulkner's writing. I read As I Lay Dying years ago, and I thought it was an okay book: very dark, sad, and almost twisted, but it was very well written. I can't deny that Faulkner was a very talented man. The biggest struggle I have with him is the dialect he creates for his characters to speak in. I have to work pretty hard to understand what they're saying, and I don't particularly like that, but I did get used to it after 100 pages or so. I am thankful that the narrator speaks without a dialect, giving readers a break from the concentration and thought they must have when reading a character's speak. It's hard to focus on the themes of the book when I'm working so hard to understand what's being said.

Speaking of themes, there are so many I could touch on. Holy cow, does Faulkner speak on a lot of ideas and concepts, and I can see when he is so studied. Any student could have a field day with his work. 

He touches on race, wealth, marriage, feminism, societal expectations, and so much more. I'm not going to delve into each of these topics because a full-fledged essay could be written for each. I will say that this helped me appreciate the novel all the more. There is so much to be said about every character Faulkner created, and that doesn't always happen. Even the minor characters aren't actually minor characters and either play a crucial role or present a crucial theme/idea throughout. 

I find it very interesting that when Faulkner's characters converse with each other, they all sound like country bumpkins, not very educated, working to put bread on the table, and just getting through the day to day. But then, a character is left alone and has pages of the most beautiful thoughts, where they're pondering deep questions and the idea of world peace while quoting Keats. This creates some tension for me because I can't figure out what kind of people they actually are. They must be intelligent and worldly and full of thought and philosophy. But when we hear them talk together, they sound like such simpletons. 

Then ending of this book is just so sad, but I guess I shouldn't have expected otherwise given the characters and their behavior. It is an ending that did not leave me feeling content, rather, I finished the book feeling anxious, restless, and unsatisfied. But I guess that's Faulkner for you.

E is for Emma: Jane Austen

I frequently say that Jane Austen is my favorite author, but it took me 22 years to read all the way through Emma, which I'm ashamed to admit. I'm very disappointed in myself for waiting that long, as it's a fantastic novel, which shouldn't be surprising considering Austen's talent. 

I firstly must say, poor, poor Harriet. She just has disappointment after disappointment, and it's hard not to blame that on Emma herself, leading and encouraging Harriet away from and towards the wrong men. But Harriet is often described as insensible and foolish, which can be seen in the way she easily follows Emma's advice, even when she longs for a different direction. But it works out for her 400 pages later. It just makes for a sad novel, when focusing solely on Harriet. Mr. Knightley does well to discourage the friendship.

Speaking of, I truly adore Mr. Knightley. I tried to decide who I like better between Knightley and Darcy, but I can't. I like how Knightley is basically perfect from beginning to end. He never has moments where characters are shown his arrogance and pride as does Darcy. But part of Darcy's appeal, I think is that he is so unlovable in the beginning. Therefore, I'm giving them a tie. Knightley is so perfect for Emma, and this can be seen in the very beginning in the way he teaches, lectures, and quite simply, adores her. Emma is just a bit foolheaded to wait 400 pages to realize her affections for him. She had ample opportunity to realize what they could be, but I suppose, had she realized it sooner, Austen wouldn't have written a novel at all, and then where would we be?

I don't care for Churchill at all. And I'm not sure if we're supposed to or not. Had Emma been less sensible and clever, she could have ended up heartbroken, and Knightley would have had to wait until she had healed to pursue her. Fortunately, Emma is sensible and doesn't fall for his tricks. He is simply a scoundrel, and I don't understand how Jane can love him. Even after the engagement is announced, I don't believe Austen provides enough of his "good" side to help me appreciate the character that Churchill is. 

I also wanted to touch on Miss Bates. Austen does such a great job with her utter nonsense or vomiting of words. I must confess that I skimmed and skipped a great many of her ramblings. I apologize to Austen for admitting that, but I don't think she would have blamed me. If it was something important, I think Austen would have someone more respectable say it, so I don't think I missed much by avoiding the pages of commentary by Miss Bates.

All in all, I loved Emma. Part of my affection for the novel might have come from me seeing the 1995 movie version with Gwyneth Paltrow: one of my favorite movies. I at first tried to dispel those actors from my mind as I read the novel, but I decided I liked the way they played their characters too well to completely forget about them, and I think it was nice to have a movie playing in my head as I read the novel.