Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1202 KP) rated Mirror Image in Books
Feb 13, 2024
Not really for me.
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is a short story collection, with tales of reaping what you sow. Of being held accountable for your actions, whether recent or a long time ago.
I think what I struggled the most with was this: the whole book is 85 pages, and there are 24 stories in this collection. So they are VERY short, some only a page or two. And I wanted to get my teeth into them a little more, but couldn't.
Each story is well written, from various points of view. Some are aacrier than others but I read them all. I didn't find myself with a favourite, though. I didn't see any spelling or editing errors to spoil my reading.
It really was just the SHORTNESS of all the stories, that I struggled with. I was just getting into them, and boof! All finished.
What I wanted to know, was where did the mirror come from? How did it come to be in everyone's presence?
I am curious to read something else by this author. Something longer and deeper. I tried to read another short collection some time ago, but didn't get very far with that one and it was only coming to write this review that I clicked it was the same author. So reading a longer book, will tell me one of two things: I like this author, but only their longer work; or this author is not for me. Time will tell.
I did finish the collection, and was suitably cringed at some of them, so:
3 good, but maybe not for me, stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
This is a short story collection, with tales of reaping what you sow. Of being held accountable for your actions, whether recent or a long time ago.
I think what I struggled the most with was this: the whole book is 85 pages, and there are 24 stories in this collection. So they are VERY short, some only a page or two. And I wanted to get my teeth into them a little more, but couldn't.
Each story is well written, from various points of view. Some are aacrier than others but I read them all. I didn't find myself with a favourite, though. I didn't see any spelling or editing errors to spoil my reading.
It really was just the SHORTNESS of all the stories, that I struggled with. I was just getting into them, and boof! All finished.
What I wanted to know, was where did the mirror come from? How did it come to be in everyone's presence?
I am curious to read something else by this author. Something longer and deeper. I tried to read another short collection some time ago, but didn't get very far with that one and it was only coming to write this review that I clicked it was the same author. So reading a longer book, will tell me one of two things: I like this author, but only their longer work; or this author is not for me. Time will tell.
I did finish the collection, and was suitably cringed at some of them, so:
3 good, but maybe not for me, stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Debbiereadsbook (1202 KP) rated Hidden Rooms in Books
May 3, 2024
4 very VERY good stars
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian via BookSirens, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is the author's debut novel, and I reckon she nailed it!
Riley's sister-in-law to be, Beth, is murdered, and her brother Ethan, is the prime suspect. Riley knows he's innocent, and sets about to prove it.
What I particularly liked about this, was being kept on my toes! Until it all came out, I didn't know whether Ethan did it or not!
Beth is keeping secrets, and those secrets cost her, but again, it takes time for things to come out.
Everything does take a time to come out, and I suggest, if like me, you weren't liking the slow pace, KEEP AT IT! It does speed up and move at pace. I am glad I kept with it.
Riley tells a great tale, even with this illness that rocks her through much of the book. I enjoyed her, especially as she is the only voice in the book. I liked the way the illness was dealt with, or not for much of the time!
I think I might not have enjoyed this so much had someone else had a say, which is contrary to my usual "I wanted to hear from everyone" thing, I know, but I really did like Riley.
It's well written, and well delivered. There is just enough suspense, once it kicks off, to keep you fully engaged and invested with this group of people.
As an ARC reader of many years, my primary genre is romance. Once in a while something different will come through and my interest is piqued. I am certainly glad I took this one on, and will absolutely read more by this author as and when.
4 very VERY good stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
This is the author's debut novel, and I reckon she nailed it!
Riley's sister-in-law to be, Beth, is murdered, and her brother Ethan, is the prime suspect. Riley knows he's innocent, and sets about to prove it.
What I particularly liked about this, was being kept on my toes! Until it all came out, I didn't know whether Ethan did it or not!
Beth is keeping secrets, and those secrets cost her, but again, it takes time for things to come out.
Everything does take a time to come out, and I suggest, if like me, you weren't liking the slow pace, KEEP AT IT! It does speed up and move at pace. I am glad I kept with it.
Riley tells a great tale, even with this illness that rocks her through much of the book. I enjoyed her, especially as she is the only voice in the book. I liked the way the illness was dealt with, or not for much of the time!
I think I might not have enjoyed this so much had someone else had a say, which is contrary to my usual "I wanted to hear from everyone" thing, I know, but I really did like Riley.
It's well written, and well delivered. There is just enough suspense, once it kicks off, to keep you fully engaged and invested with this group of people.
As an ARC reader of many years, my primary genre is romance. Once in a while something different will come through and my interest is piqued. I am certainly glad I took this one on, and will absolutely read more by this author as and when.
4 very VERY good stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Splice (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
I consider myself a pretty well educated horror-movie buff. As a child, my brother lovingly showed me movies like Critters” and Ghoulies, along with the Halloween and Friday the 13th series. Freddy Krueger scared me no more than Ronald McDonald did (and no, I don’t have a fear of clowns). I have pretty much grown immune to horror films and their ilk, so it takes a lot to get a rise out of me. Sadly, like many many others, Splice failed miserably in doing so.
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Brian Cox's Wonders of the Universe
Reference and Education
App
Take a mind-blowing 3D tour of the Universe with Professor Brian Cox as your guide. The official...
Me Before You
8.3
Rate It
Book
THE NEW YORK TIMES NUMBER 1 BESTSELLING NOVEL THAT IS LOVED AROUND THE WORLD, NOW A FILM STARRING...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Chief Zabu (2016) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
“Chief Zabu” Captures 80s America With A Comedic Twist
Greetings & Salutations Everyone!
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
Vizzywig 2017 - Video Editor 4K Multicamera Studio
Photo & Video and Entertainment
7.0
Rate It
App
Winner… MacWorld “Best of Show” Award! Patented... U.S. Patent No. 9,117,483 HD, 4K & 5K for...
Debbiereadsbook (1202 KP) rated To Love and To Cherish (Vows #3) in Books
Dec 13, 2017
4 solid stars for the book and narration
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted the AUDIO file of this book.
Nash needs a new job, and Emmett (apologies if I've spelt it wrong, I listened! ) needs a live nurse for his grandfather. But Emmett also heard Nash say he wants love, a partner in life. Nash agrees to Emmett suggestion, and then is involved in a accident that causes him to lose the last four months. Nash falls in love with Emmett, and then his memories return.
I listened to this, David Gilmore narrates. He is a new to me narrator. Overall, I found him a easy to listen to narrator, his reading voice is deep and clear, and I had no trouble following what was going on with multiple character conversations. I DID find his voice for Nash came across a little too young sounding, and Harley and Oliver too, they came across too young, for me anyway. This is the only reason I gave the NARRATION 4 stars.
I liked the book, it was an easy listen. I liked that, while not telling Nash the whole truth about how they came together, Emmett did not LIE to Nash, when he couldn't remember.
I gave the book 4 stars because of one reason only. Only Nash has a say. Yes, yes yes I know I say it often enough, but I think if Emmett had been given a say, this would have been a 5 star read! Because, let's face it: Emmett is asking Nash to marry him, then Nash has his accident and Nash can SEE the love in Emmett's eyes when he looks at him. So Emmett MUST have had such deep feelings for Nash waaaaaaaaaaaaaay before this. And I NEEDED to hear from him, I really did.
New to me author and narrator, will certainly look for more.
4 stars for the book
4 stars for the narration
4 stars overall
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Nash needs a new job, and Emmett (apologies if I've spelt it wrong, I listened! ) needs a live nurse for his grandfather. But Emmett also heard Nash say he wants love, a partner in life. Nash agrees to Emmett suggestion, and then is involved in a accident that causes him to lose the last four months. Nash falls in love with Emmett, and then his memories return.
I listened to this, David Gilmore narrates. He is a new to me narrator. Overall, I found him a easy to listen to narrator, his reading voice is deep and clear, and I had no trouble following what was going on with multiple character conversations. I DID find his voice for Nash came across a little too young sounding, and Harley and Oliver too, they came across too young, for me anyway. This is the only reason I gave the NARRATION 4 stars.
I liked the book, it was an easy listen. I liked that, while not telling Nash the whole truth about how they came together, Emmett did not LIE to Nash, when he couldn't remember.
I gave the book 4 stars because of one reason only. Only Nash has a say. Yes, yes yes I know I say it often enough, but I think if Emmett had been given a say, this would have been a 5 star read! Because, let's face it: Emmett is asking Nash to marry him, then Nash has his accident and Nash can SEE the love in Emmett's eyes when he looks at him. So Emmett MUST have had such deep feelings for Nash waaaaaaaaaaaaaay before this. And I NEEDED to hear from him, I really did.
New to me author and narrator, will certainly look for more.
4 stars for the book
4 stars for the narration
4 stars overall
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The Thinking Woman's Guide to Real Magic in Books
Jan 12, 2018
This book is FANTASTIC. I was enthralled from start to finish, and frantically looked up the author to make sure she is writing a sequel. (She is, thank goodness!) I absolutely loved the main character, Nora, and the acerbic magician Aruendiel. Even while cheering for the opposite side, I even enjoyed reading about Raclin and Ilissa, the villains of the novel.
In Nora Fischer, we have a modern, independent, feminist woman transported to a place and time where women are inferior (by nature, most think.) There are even linguistic influences that make them inferior; women speak with a lot of "um" and "well" type words in their speech, while men don't. When Nora protests that this makes women's speech sound weaker, she's told that that's "just how women speak." Seeing her confronted with the sexism ingrained within the medieval style culture, and seeing her confront Aruendiel with how sexist it actually is, was a wonderful sub-plot of the book.
The main plot was well-paced and interesting - after being kidnapped by Ilissa at the beginning of the book, and enchanted into being a beautiful, love-struck little ninny, Nora recovers herself with the help of Aruendiel, and spends the rest of the book evading re-capture and finding her place in this new world. The descriptions are colorful, the characters are deep and fascinating, and the land and culture itself shows just how much thought went into creating this world. This is an absolutely spectacular debut novel, in my opinion, and I cannot WAIT for the sequel, since Barker did leave a few questions unanswered at the end of the book. I really can't rave about this book enough. If you like fantasy, (or Pride and Prejudice, since this book, while not attempting to be a retelling or anything, had a lot of the same feel) you should really pick this one up.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
In Nora Fischer, we have a modern, independent, feminist woman transported to a place and time where women are inferior (by nature, most think.) There are even linguistic influences that make them inferior; women speak with a lot of "um" and "well" type words in their speech, while men don't. When Nora protests that this makes women's speech sound weaker, she's told that that's "just how women speak." Seeing her confronted with the sexism ingrained within the medieval style culture, and seeing her confront Aruendiel with how sexist it actually is, was a wonderful sub-plot of the book.
The main plot was well-paced and interesting - after being kidnapped by Ilissa at the beginning of the book, and enchanted into being a beautiful, love-struck little ninny, Nora recovers herself with the help of Aruendiel, and spends the rest of the book evading re-capture and finding her place in this new world. The descriptions are colorful, the characters are deep and fascinating, and the land and culture itself shows just how much thought went into creating this world. This is an absolutely spectacular debut novel, in my opinion, and I cannot WAIT for the sequel, since Barker did leave a few questions unanswered at the end of the book. I really can't rave about this book enough. If you like fantasy, (or Pride and Prejudice, since this book, while not attempting to be a retelling or anything, had a lot of the same feel) you should really pick this one up.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com