Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1380 KP) rated Digging Deep (Digging Deep #1) in Books
Aug 13, 2019
my STAND OUT book of the year!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
I want to just say a few words about this book, cos if I let myself have free reign, the review might be as long as the book!
Outstanding!
Brilliant!
Best book of the year!
Drake is a midwife with more than a few problems, most of them centring around his Crohn’s. When he gets arrested for using the loo, Caleb is the arresting officer and is immediately and totally smitten with Drake. Drake, though, holds Caleb at arm's length and then some. Making sure Caleb knows exactly what he is getting into with Drake is the only way to make Caleb see that Drake is not boyfriend material. But Caleb? Batchelor that he is, he doesn’t back down from Drake’s all doom and gloom and it takes a flare up for Drake and a shooting for Caleb to make both men see that they are perfect for each other.
So, picture the scene. It’s miserable out, you’ve a glass of wine, and an early night and a new book to start. Bear in mind, you have to be up at 6am for that darn day job and it is already after ten.
And the next thing you know, the book is finished, the wine sat untouched, it’s 3am and you just put your kindle down and go “oh.my.god”
There are no other words that floated in my brain when I finished this book, none at all. All I could think was “oh.my.god” just that!
And trust me when I say, that is a very VERY good thing!
Drake is a prickly sort, he’s a male midwife, he’s gay and he has a life altering condition that requires a huge amount of adjustment for him, let alone anyone else. Caleb is happy, plodding along with his very uncomplicated life. And Drake knocks Caleb for six, quite literally. Drake also pushes Caleb away so darn hard, I felt it. But Caleb, he’s a stubborn sort, and when Drake wants wooing, Caleb woos! Oh yes, that boy does wooing beautifully!
There is a huge, massive, MAHOOSIVE amount of talk about what Crohn’s means to Drake and what that would mean to a prospective partner. And really, it is absolutely needed here. Caleb needs to know, right down to the itty bittiest detail what it means to live with this disease, and what Caleb should expect. And Caleb?? Caleb laps it all up and throws the hole darn pile of poop right back at Drake!
The level of research into Crohn’s is amazing and either the author worked her bloody socks off, and/or has first hand experience, because it shows! There is a lot of information, yes, but the way Drake delivers it to Caleb, it’s all absorbable for the lay person to take in.
I loved these two! So very different, but so very matched. They are funny in places, and deeply emotional. Sexy in places, and downright filthy too.
Oh I could rant all day about this book, I really could!
This is only the THIRD book that Hogan has written, and the second I have read. I need more! I really do! Cos if Hogan can deliver THIS level of writing after only 3 books, I’ma on the end of the next one, oh yes, yes I am!
So, in case you did NOT get how I felt about this book, and ya’ll know I’m all about my book feelings:
This is my outstanding book of the year!
I’ve filed it on my “Masterpieces” shelf too.
And as if I could give it anything other than:
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
I want to just say a few words about this book, cos if I let myself have free reign, the review might be as long as the book!
Outstanding!
Brilliant!
Best book of the year!
Drake is a midwife with more than a few problems, most of them centring around his Crohn’s. When he gets arrested for using the loo, Caleb is the arresting officer and is immediately and totally smitten with Drake. Drake, though, holds Caleb at arm's length and then some. Making sure Caleb knows exactly what he is getting into with Drake is the only way to make Caleb see that Drake is not boyfriend material. But Caleb? Batchelor that he is, he doesn’t back down from Drake’s all doom and gloom and it takes a flare up for Drake and a shooting for Caleb to make both men see that they are perfect for each other.
So, picture the scene. It’s miserable out, you’ve a glass of wine, and an early night and a new book to start. Bear in mind, you have to be up at 6am for that darn day job and it is already after ten.
And the next thing you know, the book is finished, the wine sat untouched, it’s 3am and you just put your kindle down and go “oh.my.god”
There are no other words that floated in my brain when I finished this book, none at all. All I could think was “oh.my.god” just that!
And trust me when I say, that is a very VERY good thing!
Drake is a prickly sort, he’s a male midwife, he’s gay and he has a life altering condition that requires a huge amount of adjustment for him, let alone anyone else. Caleb is happy, plodding along with his very uncomplicated life. And Drake knocks Caleb for six, quite literally. Drake also pushes Caleb away so darn hard, I felt it. But Caleb, he’s a stubborn sort, and when Drake wants wooing, Caleb woos! Oh yes, that boy does wooing beautifully!
There is a huge, massive, MAHOOSIVE amount of talk about what Crohn’s means to Drake and what that would mean to a prospective partner. And really, it is absolutely needed here. Caleb needs to know, right down to the itty bittiest detail what it means to live with this disease, and what Caleb should expect. And Caleb?? Caleb laps it all up and throws the hole darn pile of poop right back at Drake!
The level of research into Crohn’s is amazing and either the author worked her bloody socks off, and/or has first hand experience, because it shows! There is a lot of information, yes, but the way Drake delivers it to Caleb, it’s all absorbable for the lay person to take in.
I loved these two! So very different, but so very matched. They are funny in places, and deeply emotional. Sexy in places, and downright filthy too.
Oh I could rant all day about this book, I really could!
This is only the THIRD book that Hogan has written, and the second I have read. I need more! I really do! Cos if Hogan can deliver THIS level of writing after only 3 books, I’ma on the end of the next one, oh yes, yes I am!
So, in case you did NOT get how I felt about this book, and ya’ll know I’m all about my book feelings:
This is my outstanding book of the year!
I’ve filed it on my “Masterpieces” shelf too.
And as if I could give it anything other than:
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
To the farm!
Book and Education
App
* Nominated for the prestigious Cybils Awards 2012 in the Books category * Best10APPS said: "The...
Human Anatomy Atlas – 3D Anatomical Model of the Human Body
Medical and Education
App
Note: There is a more robust version of this product available: Human Anatomy Atlas 2017 Edition!...
Case Files Anesthesiology, 1st Edition
Medical and Education
App
“The book targets medical students, but even junior anesthesia trainees would find it very...
Infected by Scott Sigler
Podcast
Across America a mysterious disease is turning ordinary people into raving, paranoid murderers who...
A Chakra Meditation by Glenn Harrold
Lifestyle
App
A Chakra Meditation is a superb high quality hypnotherapy App by the multi-million selling...
Eye Exerciser Free - Eye Training
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
** The app is not working under iPad 4, iPhone 6 Eye Exerciser is an eye training program designed...
MyKeto - Low Carb Keto Tracker
Health & Fitness and Reference
App
What is the Ketogenic Diet? The Ketogenic diet is a fast-growing low carbohydrate, high fat (lchf)...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Falling Short in Books
Oct 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first found out about Falling Short, written by Lex Coulton, the blurb promised to be ''fresh, funny and life-affirming''. I am sorry, but no. That is not correct. This book was none of those things. It wasn’t bad at all, but I would prefer describing it as a slow-paced, and confusingly complex in an unsatisfying way.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?