Search
Search results
TwoNav GPS: Premium
Navigation and Sports
App
TwoNav brings you the best GPS application for smartphones, featuring dual navigation to ensure...
Rachael Moyes (404 KP) rated The Gospel of Loki in Books
Jul 8, 2017
Fantastic take on the character of Loki
‘The Gospel of Loki’ by Joanne M. Harris is the story of the Norse Gods from the point of view of Loki, the Trickster. I’ve always found Norse Mythology very interesting and Loki is by far my favourite of the Gods. I first heard about this book about a year ago and I finally managed to grab a copy from my local library earlier this week, then proceeded to read the whole book in two days. It was just that good!
Odin rules the nine worlds from his fortress of Asgard. When this book starts his people, the Aesir, have finally made peace with the Vanir and members of both groups make up the Gods of Asgard. The world is split into Order and Chaos, with Odin and the Gods trying to maintain Order over the nine realms. Loki was born from Chaos and is essentially a demon with no physical form (or Aspect) living in the realm of Pandaemoniem under the evil Lord Surt. But Loki was curious about the worlds where Order and Chaos co-existed so he left Chaos and traveled to the worlds above where he gained a physical Aspect, met Odin and was invited back to Asgard where he became the 25th God.
He did not receive a warm welcome from the other Gods, however, and soon lived up to his names of Wildfire and the Trickster. This book, which I would imagine takes place over a number of years, tells the story of many of Loki’s exploits in the nine realms including when he tricked a builder into fortifying Asgard’s walls without paying him, cut off Sif’s golden hair (to Thor’s outrage), got Thor to dress up as a bride to infiltrate the Ice Folk and kill their enemies, met the giants of Utgard and their own Trickster Utgard-Loki, all the way up to Ragnarok and the final battle between Order and Chaos.
Okay, I’ve just tried to describe the plot fairly simply above and I don’t know how much sense it will have made if you’re not familiar with the Norse Gods, but hopefully it wasn’t too bad!
I’ve always found Norse Mythology very interesting, mainly, I think, because of the diverse characters and fanciful stories. We get to meet all those characters in this book; Odin, Thor, Frey, Freyja, Balder, Frigg, Sigyn, Skadi, Gullvieg-Heid & many more. And as this book is written in first person from Loki, we see them all from his point of view. I also loved Loki’s illegitimate children, particularly Hel, the ruler of the Underworld and Fenris the werewolf.
I know a fair bit about Loki from things I’ve read online and books about mythology so I was a bit wary going in about how historically accurate Joanne had written her character, but I have to say that I found her version of Loki spot on! She voiced him perfectly and I also found the other characters to be very close to what I’ve read about them.
I really enjoyed the author’s writing style and the story flowed so well that I found it really difficult to put down. Loki’s storytelling was both informative and engaging and each of his stories flowed into each other very well.
This book is very heavy on the Norse Mythology (obviously) and I think it’s probably best to go into it with a little bit of knowledge beforehand. I think that if I knew nothing of the subject before, I might have found it a bit overwhelming mainly due to the amount of characters and worlds. But saying that, it is so well written and well explained that I think anyone could read it, I just think you’d get more enjoyment out of it if you knew a bit about some of the characters first. There is a very useful character list at the beginning that you can go back to.
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who loves Norse Mythology, especially Loki and Odin but I think anyone who likes a good fantasy novel would enjoy it :)
Odin rules the nine worlds from his fortress of Asgard. When this book starts his people, the Aesir, have finally made peace with the Vanir and members of both groups make up the Gods of Asgard. The world is split into Order and Chaos, with Odin and the Gods trying to maintain Order over the nine realms. Loki was born from Chaos and is essentially a demon with no physical form (or Aspect) living in the realm of Pandaemoniem under the evil Lord Surt. But Loki was curious about the worlds where Order and Chaos co-existed so he left Chaos and traveled to the worlds above where he gained a physical Aspect, met Odin and was invited back to Asgard where he became the 25th God.
He did not receive a warm welcome from the other Gods, however, and soon lived up to his names of Wildfire and the Trickster. This book, which I would imagine takes place over a number of years, tells the story of many of Loki’s exploits in the nine realms including when he tricked a builder into fortifying Asgard’s walls without paying him, cut off Sif’s golden hair (to Thor’s outrage), got Thor to dress up as a bride to infiltrate the Ice Folk and kill their enemies, met the giants of Utgard and their own Trickster Utgard-Loki, all the way up to Ragnarok and the final battle between Order and Chaos.
Okay, I’ve just tried to describe the plot fairly simply above and I don’t know how much sense it will have made if you’re not familiar with the Norse Gods, but hopefully it wasn’t too bad!
I’ve always found Norse Mythology very interesting, mainly, I think, because of the diverse characters and fanciful stories. We get to meet all those characters in this book; Odin, Thor, Frey, Freyja, Balder, Frigg, Sigyn, Skadi, Gullvieg-Heid & many more. And as this book is written in first person from Loki, we see them all from his point of view. I also loved Loki’s illegitimate children, particularly Hel, the ruler of the Underworld and Fenris the werewolf.
I know a fair bit about Loki from things I’ve read online and books about mythology so I was a bit wary going in about how historically accurate Joanne had written her character, but I have to say that I found her version of Loki spot on! She voiced him perfectly and I also found the other characters to be very close to what I’ve read about them.
I really enjoyed the author’s writing style and the story flowed so well that I found it really difficult to put down. Loki’s storytelling was both informative and engaging and each of his stories flowed into each other very well.
This book is very heavy on the Norse Mythology (obviously) and I think it’s probably best to go into it with a little bit of knowledge beforehand. I think that if I knew nothing of the subject before, I might have found it a bit overwhelming mainly due to the amount of characters and worlds. But saying that, it is so well written and well explained that I think anyone could read it, I just think you’d get more enjoyment out of it if you knew a bit about some of the characters first. There is a very useful character list at the beginning that you can go back to.
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who loves Norse Mythology, especially Loki and Odin but I think anyone who likes a good fantasy novel would enjoy it :)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
Art Of Brick Laying
Productivity and Reference
App
This is a series of 236 tuitional and informative videos all on the art of brick laying and more! ...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Natural Cycles, Birth Control
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
Natural Cycles helps you keep track of your ovulation, period and fertility. The app will show you...
Road to Hana Maui GyPSy Guide
Travel and Navigation
App
GyPSy Guide GPS driving tour of the Road to Hana is an excellent way to enjoy a sightseeing trip on...
Kauai GyPSy Guide Driving Tour
Travel and Navigation
App
GyPSy Guide GPS driving tour of Kauai is an excellent way to enjoy a sightseeing trip to explore the...
Beautiful well-written story with lovely characters
In 2017, Abby Zimet is struggling. Things are tough at home--her parents can barely stand to be in the same room together. Plus, Abby and her girlfriend, Linh, broke up in June. Abby thought it would only be temporary, but now school has started, and here they are: still friends, still broken up. Abby can't seem to concentrate on school or her senior project. That is until she discovers 1950s lesbian pulp fiction. In particular, a book called "Women of the Twilight Realm." Abby becomes obsessed with the author, who wrote under the name Marian Love. If Abby can somehow track down Marian, maybe life won't be so bad after all. Cut to 1955, where eighteen-year-old Janet Jones is in love with her best friend, Marie. It's a huge secret: one that could destroy their lives and that of their families. Marie is trying to get her security clearance with the State Department, after all. But when Janet finds a book at the bus station by an author called Dolores Wood, which features women falling in love with women, she starts to realize she isn't alone. And Janet, an aspiring writer, begins to wonder if there's more out there than the life that's always been planned for her.
"Janet had never understood, not until she turned the thin brown pages of Dolores Wood's novel, that other girls might feel the way she did. That a world existed outside the one she'd always known."
I loved this book so incredibly much that I can't even really explain it. It was captivating and beautiful and tragic and just appealed to me on so many levels. I have always been interested in lesbian pulp fiction since doing a project on it for a Queer Studies class in college, so it was so fascinating to read about Abby's research within the pages of this novel.
Talley effortlessly weaves so many narratives within this one that it sort of leaves you breathless at times. We have Abby's narrative, Janet's narrative, and then excerpts from the book by Marian Love that Abby grows to love so much, "Women of the Twilight Realm." The parallels are really striking between Abby and Janet, as each are discovering lesbian pulp fiction in their own era and using it to grow and learn about themselves.
Even more, we see how much things have changed between the 1950s and 2017. It's horrifying to see what Janet (and the entire gay community) had to endure, and the book really serves to educate on how terrible things were then. While I knew bits and pieces about the Lavender Scare, its ties to our actual characters here really brings it home. I have to say, I just adored Janet. She seems so incredibly real, and I just fell for her and her incredible strength and bravery. I think she will remain one of my favorite characters in lesbian fiction (and all fiction) for all time.
As for Abby, I really liked her too, although in some of her sections, I was more captivated by her research than her story. Still, she presents a poignant tale of a young bisexual trying to find herself, and I appreciated the diverse set of characters with whom she surrounds herself. Abby and her friends stand in stark contrast to Janet in their sexual freedoms, but, in many ways, they aren't so different at heart.
"That was the best part of being in love. The way it set the rest of the world on mute."
I just really really loved this book. It has so much of what I love--lesbians, diverse characters, passionate and realistic storylines, well-done research, literary references and ties. Reading Janet and Abby's stories took me back to a time when I wasn't yet out and when I had first come out--when the world wasn't yet so forgiving (not that it always is, but things were pretty different even 15+ years ago). I remember how much comfort books provided me, how wonderful it was to realize I wasn't alone in the world. I love how well this book shows that fact, and how the books-within-the book are almost their own characters.
Overall, I can't recommend this one enough. It's just a beautiful, well-written story, and, to top it off, it's informative to boot. The characters are lovely, the story is amazing, and it really leaves you feeling a bit awed. Highly recommend.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"Janet had never understood, not until she turned the thin brown pages of Dolores Wood's novel, that other girls might feel the way she did. That a world existed outside the one she'd always known."
I loved this book so incredibly much that I can't even really explain it. It was captivating and beautiful and tragic and just appealed to me on so many levels. I have always been interested in lesbian pulp fiction since doing a project on it for a Queer Studies class in college, so it was so fascinating to read about Abby's research within the pages of this novel.
Talley effortlessly weaves so many narratives within this one that it sort of leaves you breathless at times. We have Abby's narrative, Janet's narrative, and then excerpts from the book by Marian Love that Abby grows to love so much, "Women of the Twilight Realm." The parallels are really striking between Abby and Janet, as each are discovering lesbian pulp fiction in their own era and using it to grow and learn about themselves.
Even more, we see how much things have changed between the 1950s and 2017. It's horrifying to see what Janet (and the entire gay community) had to endure, and the book really serves to educate on how terrible things were then. While I knew bits and pieces about the Lavender Scare, its ties to our actual characters here really brings it home. I have to say, I just adored Janet. She seems so incredibly real, and I just fell for her and her incredible strength and bravery. I think she will remain one of my favorite characters in lesbian fiction (and all fiction) for all time.
As for Abby, I really liked her too, although in some of her sections, I was more captivated by her research than her story. Still, she presents a poignant tale of a young bisexual trying to find herself, and I appreciated the diverse set of characters with whom she surrounds herself. Abby and her friends stand in stark contrast to Janet in their sexual freedoms, but, in many ways, they aren't so different at heart.
"That was the best part of being in love. The way it set the rest of the world on mute."
I just really really loved this book. It has so much of what I love--lesbians, diverse characters, passionate and realistic storylines, well-done research, literary references and ties. Reading Janet and Abby's stories took me back to a time when I wasn't yet out and when I had first come out--when the world wasn't yet so forgiving (not that it always is, but things were pretty different even 15+ years ago). I remember how much comfort books provided me, how wonderful it was to realize I wasn't alone in the world. I love how well this book shows that fact, and how the books-within-the book are almost their own characters.
Overall, I can't recommend this one enough. It's just a beautiful, well-written story, and, to top it off, it's informative to boot. The characters are lovely, the story is amazing, and it really leaves you feeling a bit awed. Highly recommend.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).