Book Review of Gone Girl by: Gillian Flynn I gave this book three out of five stars. This book is disturbing, well written, and grotesque on many levels. The first mystery thriller I was not able to predict the ending to in a long time. I think the “Who’s Afraid if Virginia Woolf” reference was the best example of where the book was headed. Like the play, this book imposed a similar disorienting disgust and wonder on me. Reading the end of the book I immediately thought of the end of the play. For some reason the equivalences made the unresolved conflict palatable for me. I’m not sure I would have been happy with the ending otherwise. What I liked: 1) The parallels drawn to the real life Scott Peterson case. It was the perfect case to reference since it captured the nations attention so completely and for such a long period of time. I also smiled at all of the crime television references made. 2) The writing is good. The prose fit well into the heads of a book staring two self absorbed snarky writers. My favorite internal dialogue was Nick’s when he explained where his life was before Amy. How he was bored or blanketed in malaise because “the second hand experience is always better”. It was like reading a prettied up personality outline of a generation X attitude. 3) I like how Flynn keeps the reader guessing by adding details you may or may not need to know. I thought the Nick’s father was a brilliant embellishment. What I didn’t like: 1) The characters. I was fascinated really, to read a book where so many of the characters were offensive and not endearing. Character attachment had nothing to do with why I finished the book. I kept cautioning myself to not infer the author shared the character opinions, but it was difficult with so many characters espousing similar haughty views. The character Rand sums up every narrative description or observation made of the Midwest when he say’s: “I have to tell you, it’s really quite ugly here.” 2) Inconsistent Characterization. I was disappointed when Amy lost her smart sociopath edge. I liked hating her and seeing her as a calculating, OCD, list making nut case. What happened at the roadside inn, and her reaction was not smart. If she is so cunning and forward thinking that never should have happened. Did it make her more human, sure. Do I really believe she cooked up what eventually happened with Desi while she was curled up in the fetal position at a rest stop for forty-five minutes? No way. 3) The plot. Since when do sociopaths include their own demise as part of their revenge plan? She’s a narcissist not depressed. You could see where Flynn may have said, “I don’t know what to do now” when Amy’s at the roadside motel. Why wasn’t milk-spitting Amy executing some clever plan against these two “redneck” offenders? Once Amy meets up with Desi, her character really falls apart. She let’s Desi pen her up for how many days? Seems like her ultimate solution for him could have been carried out within the same week she’s brought to his lake lodge. It was a little too convenient for Desi to be who he was originally rumored to be. At the end I don’t believe the police or FBI would just shrug their shoulders and go home. Not really how a situation like this would play out in real life, but this is a fiction book. If the ending mirrored real life then there would be too much light in what is meant to be a dark book.

Book Review: Dragon Keeper (Book One of the Rain Wild Chronicles) by: Robin Hobb.

I give this book three out of five stars.

A vividly real read from start to finish. I adore the authors endearing and flawed characters. I would like to have given this book four stars, but the ending or lack of one killed my affection for all of the other very good things found in this book.

What I liked:

1) How real the characters are. They are presented with flaws, or make mistakes, and have quirks. The characters are varied, Hobb introduces you to a fairly large cast, but she has made it easy to like and get to know each one.

2) Hobb has a gift for creating a new and vividly real world. You get to see life in a city nestled high in the canopy of the rain forest. The life of another city nestled on dry land, and then the life in cities excavating ancient cities below them. We see the brilliant idea of a “living ship” and witness life aboard a river barge. She takes you into a dragon’s point of view. You feel the exhaustion from a serpent migration, the taste of mud as she built an encasement, and then the exhausting hunger as she emerged to a new life as a dragon. There are social rules, history, and culture that effect and add contrast to this story.

3) I like how the author kept me guessing about which of the keepers Thymara might eventually have a romantic connection to. How she see’s each of her three prospects differently. Feeling jealousy over one, comfort from another, and strange desire from one she doesn’t really like. It was a wonderful way to mix both plot and characterization into the unfolding action of the book.

What I did not like:

1) No more back-stories Ms. Hobb. Cease and desist from writing anymore sad childhood memories, and recollections from the past. These would have had more impact if used sparingly. The dragons memories were needed to provide understanding of this world. Alise’s established her character, and Leftrin’s successfully added drama by way of hidden secrets. However the rest could have been edited out. Sedric’s was especially annoying, where it was placed in the book made the story drag, read as redundant, and provided little to no new information. I just don’t know why the author thought it was needed because I felt she did well establishing Sedric and Hest in a devoted relationship. I was hoping for more drama when their big secret was revealed. While these memories told us for certain our suspicions were correct, they told us nothing more we did not already know. I would rather have the depth of the Hest/Sedric relationship confirmed in a scene between Sedric and Alise. I also think every scene from Hest’s point of view could have been eliminated. He would have been a better bad guy without them, and the drama of Alise’s failed marriage would have increased.

2) Did I mention redundancy? If I didn’t, or if you the reader are not keeping up, let me mention it again, there’s redundancy in the book. Yes this is a fantasy fiction book and many authors build redundant descriptions into the narrative to teach the audience about this fictional place. However in this book, some of these character and place establishing lead in’s went from annoying to insulting. I wondered about it after awhile. Were these remnants of an old outline that never got cleaned up in the editing process? Did some suggest Hobb restate these basic facts over and over again? Does she really think her target market has this low of an IQ? I would read these and hear myself grumbling, “No kidding, we’re 300 pages in.”

3) The ending was a disappointment. Not only was the main plot not resolved, but none of sub plots were either. The ending of this book is not an ending. This ending was not even something I would classify as a cliffhanger. To me the book just stops mid story, as if the author was only allocated so many words by her publisher, or this was the best place to stop according to her editor. This did not throw me too much. I have the next two books in my pile of “to-read’s” at home. However I caution anyone who needs resolution from their books, to have the next book on hand.

Book Review: Life After Life, By: Kate Atkinson

This was a book my mind had fun chewing on when I was not in the midst of reading it, and because of this I gave it four out of five stars. I thought about this book a great deal, not because of the characters or the ideas posed by the author, but mainly because her plot was so much fun to think about. I enjoyed trying to anticipate what would happen during Ursula’s next go round, much like I would a mystery novel.

What I liked about the book:
1) I had a terrific time following the lives of Ursula Todd. Her mother, Sylvie, I could do without and I was grateful when the main point of view shifted from her to Ursula. In the middle of the book I couldn’t wait to see how Ursula would die next. Morbid, yes, but there is a good deal of morbidity in the book.

2) I liked watching Ursula become conscious of her many lives. It was interesting to see her evolve from someone things happened to into someone who made deliberate choices. 

3) I really enjoyed the historical view into the civilian life of living in London during the air raids. Then seeing the opposite view of civilian life in Berlin before Russia’s takeover. The author’s historical research really came to life, depicting everything from food, to the sounds of explosions, the routines of the people who remained in London, and the hardships suffered in both Britain and Germany. She did not hold back showing the raw brutality of being a civilian casualty during war.

What I didn’t like about the book:
1) The philosophical journey, while a bit much for me, was still appropriate to the book. I was most bothered by Ursula’s first meeting with her psychologist. It was not believable to me for a ten-year-old girl to grasp, have an interest, and carry forward the philosophical information posed by Dr.Kellet. It also failed my logic test for an educated man to be talking about such things with a child.

2) The maturity of Ursula begins in each of her lives around the age of eighteen. I found her remarkably worldly at this stage as the book progresses. I understand the carry over and impressions her previous lives are suppose to have on her current, but it again did not seem logical for her to pass from life to life with an advanced philosophical understanding, while still being naïve as to why men made inappropriate advances towards her. I found it odd the sexual trauma she endures after her “first time” did not leave a strong enough impression to transcend to her future lives, aside from when she avoids the offenders. Shouldn’t she have a little more anxiety over the act, or strange memories of the wallpaper again? How can she forget this trauma yet retain less meaningful bits of information in her future lives. Her second, “first time”, is glossed over and Ursula has a remarkable sexual sophistication going forward in the book. I thought that was odd considering the trouble she went through after her first time, getting a book from the neighbors in order to learn about human conception. How did she become a savvy mistress to an Admiral her second time being deflowered, but towards the end of the book she did not understand Sam Cole was having an orgasm? 

3) I think Sylvie’s plot arch became totally lost on me. Either that, or it became so layered in symbolism and vagueness I just stopped caring enough to try and follow it. I did not like the author’s choice to showcase Sylvie as the only other person with the ability to change the events of her future lives. If Sylvie can change her life events then all of the characters should have been doing this, and there should have been a broader spectrum of events taking place each go around.

At the end of the book life seemed to be rendered inconsequential. Ursela is awakened to the fact that she will be back, to do it all over again, and she goes crazy. After this there is only one time where her life seems to take on purpose and meaning. She kills herself and has a plan for her next life. However she dies and once again she is back in the snow, running through her life hurdles trying to stay alive again. So aside from this single plan, Ursula is a woman things happen to, and she goes through her life only correcting events enough to stay alive. Stay alive for what? Fox Corner? This home she dreams of with fields, flowers, and fresh cut grass. Is that really all she (or we the reader) is living for? I would have liked the protagonist more if she corrected her life events not only to stay alive but to find the right man, challenge herself to try something new, or explore the depth of her connections to her family.