#23: Ape House

Gruen, Sara: Ape House. New York: Random House, 2010. Print. 303 pages.
-
SETTING: The Great Ape Language Lab in Kansas City (a fictional institution inspired by the real Great Ape Trust in Des Moines, Iowa) and the fictional town of Lizard, New Mexico.
-
SUMMARY: An explosion at the Great Ape Language Lab seriously injures Isabel Duncan, a researcher at the lab and the individual the six bonobos at the lab trust the most.  Journalist John Thigpen finds himself captured by the story not only because of its journalistic potential, but also because of his keen interest in better understanding the beautiful and yet very strange (at least to him) relationship between Isabel and the bonobos.
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "It had not escaped John that the bonobos had managed to acquire human language, but that humans had not crossed over in the other direction." - Chapter 27, page 215.
-
I read Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen a few years ago and remember absolutely loving it!  I meant to watch the movie when it was in theaters, but it somehow slipped by and I keep forgetting to rent it.  Doesn't matter very much, I guess, considering the book is always better!  Anyhow, I saw this book at the library and because it's by Sara Gruen and I liked the cover art, I decided I'd probably enjoy it at least a little bit :P.
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. An interesting read!  I finished this novel very quickly.
2. It's about animal rights and the ethical treatment of animals.
3. It inspired me to do my own research on the great apes.  Any book that wants me to learn more about the subject at hand is great.  
4. Going along with #3-- the author definitely wrote a successful book.  At least, she did with people who responded to the book in a similar way as me.  The point of this novel is to raise awareness about nonhuman great apes (humans are a subcategory of the great apes) having basic human rights.  This was a topic I had never even thought about before, and this book got me thinking about it!

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. There isn't enough character development.
2. The story could have been developed much better!  While reading the novel, I got the feeling that the author was rushing to finish the manuscript and forgot to think about key parts of the plot.  There are holes throughout the story while reading it, and it would have been great if they could somehow magically get filled.
3. The side storyline with John Thigpen and his wife definitely felt underdeveloped and like it was haphazardly thrown in.

-
Although the storyline is a little lacking, this novel is great!  I applaud the author for going on this journey.  A novel is hard enough to write, but having a greater purpose behind writing the novel must have made it even more difficult.  I definitely enjoyed Water for Elephants more, probably because it had a magical feel to it, but Ape House will definitely receive an equally hearty recommendation to read.  I've decided I need to do a better job about educating myself on the topics of animal research and animal rights so I can develop my own stance on the many subcategories that fall below the two.  I also really like the quote I chose as my "favorite quote" from the novel.  It really makes you think...
- 
Recommend?  Yes!  Also read Water for Elephants.

#22: Cat Among the Pigeons

Christie, Agatha: Cat Among the Pigeons. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal, 1959. Print. 297 pages.
-
SETTING: Majority of the novel takes place at the Meadowbank School for Girls (fictional institution) in England, but significant parts also occur in Ramat, an incredibly wealthy country in the Middle East.
-
SUMMARY: The murders of teachers at the prestigious Meadowbank School for Girls are believed to be tied to the earlier death of the Prince of Ramat and a set of missing jewels worth three-quarters of a million pounds (assuming this is the 1950s value; worth multiple millions in today's currency, at the very least).
- 
FAVORITE QUOTE: "Miss Johnson had had a sizable dollop of brandy administered to her to pull her together after her discovery of the body.  The result was a slightly added loquacity." - Chapter 8, page 111.
-
I thought I had read all the Hercule Poirot mysteries by Agatha Christie because I read the Hercule Poirot Casebook, but I idiotically failed to pay attention to the fact that those are a collection of 50 Poirot short stories Christie wrote, and not a collection of all of her novels featuring Poirot.  In retrospect, that was a VERY stupid thing to miss, seeing as I had read some of her Poirot novels before, and they were all definitely lengthier than any of the individual stories in the Casebook.  Anyhow, I'm glad I was mistaken because Poirot is my favorite detective in Christie's mystery novels, and it's great to know I haven't exhausted all of the Poirot novels in existence.  I checked this book out of the local library in my hometown yesterday and finished it yesterday.  Yes, that should be an indication of how much I love Agatha Christie's work.  I eagerly fly through them in a single day if given the time!  And, might I add, it's fantastic having so much time on hand!  Winter break is AWESOME.
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. Agatha Christie!!!  One of my favorite authors.  Hands down.
2. Hercule Poirot!!!  One of my favorite detectives.  Hands down.
3. The espionage element of the book.
4. Parts of the book take place internationally.  Christie's novels are great because they take you to different parts of the world.
5. Julia Upjohn's character.  She's one of the few sharp pupils introduced from the School.
6. What they end up doing with the stash of jewels.  The story concludes nicely :)

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. Poirot is not brought into the novel early enough.  I really love his character, and was patiently waiting for him to pop up, and he did so in the last quarter or so of the novel.  I was disappointed by that!  The more Poirot, the better.
2. The storyline was a bit too simple.  Would have enjoyed a more complex mystery.

-
I thoroughly enjoyed this book!  It's a very quick and satisfying read, and Christie delivered, as usual.  I LOVE AGATHA CHRISTIE.  I did a book report on her in 4th or 5th grade after my mother introduced me to one of her novels, and I've been in love with her books ever since.  When I'm looking for a comfortable read that'll take me to a fantastical place, Christie's books are my first go to.
-
Recommend?  YES!  I love all Hercule Poirot mysteries by Agatha Christie, so a definite, hearty YES!

#21: Kindred

Butler, Octavia: Kindred. Boston: Beacon Press, 2003. Print. 264 pages.

SETTING: 1976, over a period of a few weeks (about early June to July), in Altadena, California, and 1800s Maryland.
-
SUMMARY: Dana Franklin finds herself unwillingly transported back in time to different years in the antebellum South (between the early and mid 1800s).  She discovers that each time she is transported, it is so she can save Rufus Wyelin from some stupid act he has done that has placed him in a perilous, life-or-death situation.
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: “Repressive societies always seemed to understand the danger of ‘wrong’ ideas.” - page 141.
-
This book was generously lent to me by a classmate after I placed out a call for a novel.  Lucky, though, that a good novel came my way (versus a book that would end up feeling like a waste of time) because I was actually willing to take up any book.  As stated to the left in the little blurb box, I like having a book with me at all times; it's a security blanket that makes me happy.  :D <-- like that.  I actually finished this novel about a month ago, but, as usual, I had no time to update until... today!  Happy blog reading!
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. The storyline.  I've never read anything like this.  The author does a beautiful job creating a very emotional read.  The main character's journey of going from 1970s California, during the civil rights movement, back to the 1800s South and having to deal with slavery, and become a slave herself in order to survive, is pretty crazy!
2. The time travel aspect of the novel.
3. That the author is brave enough to undertake the creation of such a story.
4. Takes place in Southern California, my home!

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. The dialogue.  I would have enjoyed the dialogue more if it was more complex and intricate.  Then again, I think this novel is written for high schoolers/freshmen undergrads, and the focus is probably the storyline and not the complexity of the dialogue. 
2. The story felt somewhat incomplete, like it was a compilation of half ideas that the author could have spent much more time on.  Certain scenes should have had more detail and certain themes could have been delved into more deeply.
3. The ending is definitely not satisfying.

-
After a very long time, I found myself having to stop in the middle of reading a novel because I was becoming too emotionally invested.  Overall, I think this book could have been written much better, but the theme of the novel and the storyline are, again, very daring and I applaud the author for creating such a piece.  
-
Recommend?  Yes!  It's a quick read and definitely worth the time.

#20: The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest

Larsson, Stieg: The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest. New York: Knopf, 2010. Print. 563 pages.

-

SETTING: April 2005 to December 2005; various cities in Sweden, but mostly Stockholm.

-

SUMMARY: A rogue unit of the Swedish security police is making every attempt to ensure that Lisbeth Salander is condemned to a psychiatric institution for life with final diagnoses of psychosis, being incapable of caring for herself, and a danger to herself and others.  Mikael Blomkvist, along with a group of Salander's closest "friends", are now fighting to not only save Salander from this fate, but to also uncover and make public all the injustices Salander has had to face since her childhood.

-

FAVORITE QUOTES: "As the situation developed, the futility of attempting suicide in the middle of a hospital became apparent." - Chapter 7, page 129.

"Faste knew better than to argue with a doctor, since they were the closest things to God's representatives here on earth." - Chapter 15, page 276.

[I couldn't decide which one I liked better, so I included both.]

-

Hands down, this book was the best out of the three!  Unlike the other two, this one was quick and seat-clenching from the first page.  As I mentioned in the post about the second book (The Girl Who Played with Fire), this third book is a continuation of the second's story.  And I apologize if this post seems a bit out of ends.  I actually finished reading the book a few weeks ago, but haven't had time to write this post until recently.

-

Things I liked about this book:

1. Super fast paced.  I finished this book very quickly, but only because I didn't want to put it down!  I was also helped (if that's the right word to use) by the recent storm that passed through the east coast.  For fear of losing electricity, I spent every electricity-filled moment either studying or reading.  Being stuck inside for two days also provided a great incentive to take advantage of this guilt-free reading time, considering it's impossible, for me at least, to study 24/7. 
2. The ending is very satisfactory.  Everything is tied together well, and most of my questions were answered (please see point 1 under "Things I didn't like about this book".).
3. Going off of this last one, how neatly all the subplots tie together.
4. Salander's personality keeps developing, even through this third book.
5. Blomkvist's lawyer sister, Annika Giannini.  I just really liked her character.
6. The title of the book is very appropriate.  Salander really did kick a hornet's nest.
7. Dr. Jonasson, the physician who cared for Salander.  His personality is so awesome that he is able to quickly gain Salander's trust, something that's nearly impossible for most of the characters in this story.

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. I'd like an epilogue, please!  I want to know what happens in Salander's and Blomkvist's futures, mostly in regards to their personal relationships.  Unfortunately, we're cut off forever, considering Stieg Larsson has passed.  There is no hope for an epilogue...

-

LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the entire series!  There's not much else to say, really.  Give it a go, and I'm sure you'll enjoy it too.  

-

Recommend? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#19: The Girl Who Played with Fire

Larsson, Stieg: The Girl Who Played with Fire. New York: Knopf, 2009. Print. 630 pages.
-
SETTING: December 2004 to April 2005 (the years are a guess based off of the timeline from the first book and details from this book); St. Georges, Grenada and Stockholm, Sweden.
-
SUMMARY: After the harrowing experience surrounding the Wennerstrom affair, Lisbeth Salander cuts off all ties and makes an attempt at creating a completely isolated life.  Things start going awry, however, when a hit is placed on her by a disgusting, sadistic man she is blackmailing (with good cause).  In the meantime, Mikael Blomkvist finds himself intertwined in a sex trafficking investigation that once again brings him into a partnership with Salander.
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "The girl lifted her coffee cup and took a sip without releasing him from her gaze.  Her eyes had no warmth at all.  He suddenly felt vaguely uneasy." - Chapter 11, page 211.
-
If you'd like to read my review of the first book (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), here you go: http://artemisiaeupraxia.blogspot.com/2012/06/11-girl-with-dragon-tattoo.html.

I finally got a hold of this book thanks to one of my classmates!  YAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!  I'm about four months overdue in reading the second book in this trilogy, but, to use the cliched phrase, better late than never!  I actually finished reading it about a week and a half ago, but life happened and I found myself with time to write this review today.  I read the first 200 pages in two days, and the next 430 pages on the third day.  This bit of information in itself should attest to the awesomeness of this book.  And with that spoiler (although I'm sure you've already guessed this will be a positive review), let's begin the lists!
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. Kick ass female protagonist!  Lisbeth Salander is slightly more awesome (which I didn't think was even possible...) in this book, but only because you see her character grow.  You're able to follow how the events she experienced and the lessons she learned in the first book have influenced her personality, thoughts, and morals.  
2. Action packed storyline!  Well, once you reach page 201.  It's a kapow! followed by a BAM! and another BAM! and much more!
3. How easily Salander can transform into a "normal" person (i.e. society's image of a normal person: no extraneous tattoos or piercings, dresses conventionally, etc.).
4. The chapter divisions.
5. The strange way the author ties math into the story.
6. Paolo Roberto!  A former professional boxer who plays a pretty major role in the story.  The integration of this seemingly random character was pretty awesome.

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. There is no actual ending to this book.  The second and third books are really a single, continuous story.  They could have been published as one, but most people (myself included) would be intimidated by a 1200+ page novel.  Luckily my classmate gave me the third book along with the second, otherwise I would have been really upset after finishing the second one because there's isn't much closure when you reach page 630.
2. The beginning, just like the first book, is reeeeaalllyyy slow.  Which is why it took me two days to read the first 200 pages, and one day to finish off the remaining 430 pages.
3. How the bad episode/occurrence/experience in Salander's life is called "All the Evil."  The author could have created a more interesting label.

Winner of "the most annoying and horrible character" award:

1. Hans Faste, the sexist police officer working to track Salander.  SUPER annoyed me.  But with that being said, the author did an incredible job creating a horribly sexist character that you can't help but dislike.

-
I enjoyed this book very much, and would have probably finished the third one by now if I didn't have to study and if I decided to be antisocial.  But I do have to study and I like being social so it may take me a while to finish the third book.  This review feels somewhat incomplete, and that's probably because the story isn't over!  After finishing the last book, I'll do a better analysis.  Promise.
- 
Recommend?  YES!!!

#18: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Stevenson, Robert Louis: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. New York: AMS Press, 1974. Print. 108 pages.
-
SETTING: 19th century London, England.
- 
SUMMARY: Confusion arises as the prominent and popular physician, Dr. Henry Jekyll, suddenly becomes reclusive and paranoid, leading his colleagues to surmise that something diabolical is amiss.  The prime culprit suspected of causing this character change is Mr. Edward Hyde, Dr. Jekyll's strange and mysterious beneficiary to all his assets upon his death. 
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "Rather, as there was something abnormal and misbegotten in the very essence of the creature that now faced me - something seizing, surprising, and revolting - this fresh disparity seemed but to fit in with and to reinforce it; so that to my interest in the man's nature and character, there was added a curiosity as to his origin, his life, his fortune and status in the world." - page 422-23.
-
The League of Extraordinary Men is one of my favorite movies, primarily because it brings a group of my favorite literary figures together to tell an incredibly entertaining story (Dorian Gray from The Picture of Dorian Gray, Captain Nemo from Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, Mina Harker from Dracula, and Tom Sawyer from The Adventures of Tom Sawyer).  Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde is another one of the main characters in this movie, so I was really excited when I saw this book was included in the three part Robert Louis Stevenson compilation I picked up at the undergraduate library on campus.  I already knew the main story line, but I was interested to see how RLS presents it.  After reading The Dynamiter, I went in with high hopes.  Were my expectations met?  READ ON!
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. IT'S AN AWESOME STORY.  Awesome, awesome, awesome.  Awesome.
2. The motivation behind Dr. Jekyll's decision to create Mr. Hyde.  Possibility this next part will ruin the story for those who haven't read it, so don't continue reading this paragraph if you're willing to give this story a read!  OK, here we go: Dr. Jekyll is a very nice, well-mannered, all around good guy.  After spending his entire life living as a straight edge, he decides he is tired of the do-good lifestyle and wants to bring out his evil side.  However, he's determined to do so in a manner that will preserve the community's polished impression of him.  In comes crazy experiments to create an elixir that literally bring out the evil, an entirely separate character he names "Edward Hyde."  Although at first glance this seems like a totally mental idea, upon further reflection I realized that I can somewhat understand what drove Dr. Jekyll to become Mr. Hyde.  We all have moments where we decide to not act on a certain notion or desire because our outward persona and the impression people have of us won't match the action.  It sometimes takes a great deal of courage to let go of those inhibitions and  just act without having to consider how the action will be perceived by the greater community.  Dr. Jekyll's method of dealing with this is obviously based off of an extreme thought and goes horribly wrong, and his desire to bring out a totally evil side is crazy, but I get the core motivation that leads him to transform into Mr. Hyde. 
3. Organized really well.  Again, RLS is fantastic at presenting his stories in a methodological manner.  
4. Hyde is a completely separate person.  Jekyll can't influence Hyde's actions, and vice versa.  This total separation of character is what causes both Jekyll's and Hyde's ultimate demise.  
5. Jekyll's account of how he could feel Hyde slowly taking over.

Thing I didn't like about this book:

1. An explanation wasn't given behind why/how Jekyll picked the name "Edward Hyde" for his alternative personality.  I would have had fun reading about that.

-
I enjoyed this story very much!  As you can see, there aren't many things I didn't like about this book. It's concise and to the point, without unnecessary embellishments that don't add to the overall story.  I've also come away with what I consider to be an important point: don't change your personality based off of what others think or expect, otherwise there's a huge possibility you'll go super crazy later in life, doing irrational things to soothe your regrets regarding everything you didn't do.  I can't assess if this is what RLS hoped the reader would take away after reading this story, but I think it's a good and useful point.  

On a different point, I'm ready for a different genre now, so I won't be reading the third story in the compilation.  I'm definitely glad I gave Robert Louis Stevenson's other works a try.  I'm impressed with his writing style, and will definitely give his other pieces a read when I'm again in the 19th century British literature mood, which will likely be very soon.
-
Recommend?  YES!

#5a. The Happiness Trap (Revisited)

Since first reading this book 4 months ago, I've implemented many of the ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) principles and have found that I am an even happier, healthier, and productive individual.  I have a better grasp of how I should react to whatever emotion decides to cross my path on any given day, it has become habit to make every action meaningful and mindful, and I've become even more content with life.  I spent the last two days skimming through the main points of this book, and because I still think it's a fantastic resource, I've decided to advertise it a second time :]

I've been feeling somewhat burned out recently, and with this, my brain also decided to amplify other issues which weren't a big deal up until yesterday, mainly how much I miss home, my family and friends, and, most of all, my old life in Los Angeles.  I decided I needed a quick "Happiness Trap" refresher, and it's done the trick!  True, the feelings of longing for home and the familiar haven't disappeared, but I've accepted their presence and, as soon as I've posted this, will redirect my thoughts and energy to chiseling away at my ever growing mountain of school work, instead of brooding, which is what I've been doing for the past two days.

SO, if you haven't read this book, I still recommend you put in the time to do so!!!  Who couldn't use a few extra pointers on how to better lead a mindful and meaningful life?  

Here's the link to the review I wrote in May:

http://artemisiaeupraxia.blogspot.com/2012/05/5-happiness-trap.html

Happy reading!

#17: The Dynamiter

Stevenson, Robert Louis: The Dynamiter. New York: AMS Press, 1974. Print. 334 pages.
-
SETTING: 19th century London, England.
-
SUMMARY: Three young men, bored and broke, decide to take on the next adventure that crosses each of their paths.
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "He was younger than the others; and in a somewhat meaningless and altogether English way, he was a handsome lad." - Page 23
-
As predicted, school is eating up my life.  After averaging a book a week when I was living in Los Angeles and commuting to school, this change to barely making a book a month is sad!  Of course, there's no where else I'd rather be blah blah blah, but I do miss reading often.  This book was a random pick from the undergraduate library on campus (Finally took a trip there!).  It's actually part of a three piece collection of works by Robert Louis Stevenson (RLS), so if my current literature mood stays intact, the next two reviews will be pieces by RLS as well.  Since it was my first visit to the undergrad library, I was trying to orient myself and figure out which aisles had my type of books.  I was actually hoping to find Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, but they didn't have it :(  RLS was right next door, and I remembered liking Treasure Island so I figured I'd give another one of his books a try.  
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. It's super well organized.  This book is basically a collection of short stories that are intertwined.  It relates the three adventures experienced by the three male protagonists, and does so in a way that I've never seen before.  Each friend has an independent adventure, but all three adventures are connected and in a sequential order.  The second adventure ties in very neatly with the first, and the third with the first two.  RLS definitely mapped this one out well, and I'm definitely not adequately expressing how impressed I was by the organization.  Let me make another attempt: I was THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS impressed.
2. RLS collaborated with his wife to write this book!
3. The ending- the third friend marries the woman who conned the first two.  
4. Clara Luxmore, the female con artist.  She's evil and all, but that woman definitely has some skills in the art of lying and knowing exactly how to play to people's egos, especially men.

Thing I didn't like about this book:

1. Kind of slow at times.  I found my mind wandering and had to reread a few pages.

Thing I found amusing about this book:

1. RLS makes the three male protagonists really stupid and naive.  I couldn't help but feel sorry for them at times, while other moments left me shaking my head in a slow, pendular motion.

-
This book was a fun read, but apart from how amazed I was by the way it was organized, it wasn't anything extraordinary.  I wasn't particularly hooked to any parts, nor were there any great cliffhangers that made me keep reading.  I'd often stop reading the book in the middle of a paragraph, and had no trouble picking up where I had left off.  But RLS is an excellent writer, so it was worth the time to read this book.
-
Recommend?  Yes!  Only because I feel like you should read books by RLS.  He was good at what he did.  Also, he spent his last few years of life in Samoa, and actually put much effort into adopting Samoan culture, which speaks volumes about his personality (Yes, I sometimes pick books based on the fact that I think the author is/was awesome).

#16: Sense and Sensibility

Austen, Jane: Sense and Sensibility. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003. E-book. 380 pages (actual text: 340 pages). 
-
SETTING: 19th century England, primarily in the southwestern county of Devonshire.
-
SUMMARY: Per law in 19th century England, property and assets were inherited by the next male heir.  As such, after Mr. Dashwood's death, his home is inherited by his son from his first marriage, and his second wife and three daughters are forced to leave their comfortable home in Norfolk county for a cottage in Devonshire, many miles away.  The two elder Dashwood sisters are transformed in character as they are made to fend for themselves in this patriarchal society, while at the same time having to face the joys, sorrows, and, above all, heartbreaking disappointments that come with love.
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "Marianne was silent; it was impossible for her to say what she did not feel, however trivial the occasion; and upon Elinor, therefore, the whole task of telling lies, when politeness required it, always fell." - Part 1, Chapter 21, page 140.
-
I've always been able to adapt to new situations quickly; at the same time, I hate change.  This move from the West to the East Coast has been the biggest environmental change I have had to encounter thus far in my life, and, although I'm loving it so far, it's nice to have a piece of home within reach when I have those "I MISS CALIFORNIA!!!" moments.  So, to get that sense of comfort and familiarity, I decided to re-read my third favorite Jane Austen novel (Pride and Prejudice is obviously #1, followed by Persuasion) because well read and well-loved books are a part of what makes my home.  I also haven't had time to explore the local library or the undergraduate library on campus, so paying a visit to my favorite novels may be happening until I do make the time to scout out my new literary-fix providers.  
-
Things I like about this book:

1. Elinor Dashwood.  Her strong personality combines with the perfect amount of class and etiquette to create this power woman who knows what she wants.  She's able to control her emotions in horrible situations, and is the most rational and level-headed character in this book.  She deserves more than Edward Ferrars, but if a dope like him is really going to make her happy, I guess I shouldn't judge?  If I were to write a sequel to Sense and Sensibility, it would have Elinor leaving Edward for someone far more intelligent and rational, someone on her own level of awesomeness, because Edward plain ol' sucks.  See point 2 under "Things I don't like about this book" please.
2. 19TH CENTURY BRITISH LITERATURE.  My favorite!
3. The entire story line.  The beginning is as strong as the middle, which is as strong as the end.
4. It's an "and they lived happily ever after" story!  As I was discussing with my roommate earlier today, real life has provided more disappointments in the romance and love department, but fiction!  Fiction can always be relied upon to end well.  Because it's not real life.  :]

Things I don't like about this book:

1. Marianne Dashwood.  "Selfish," "irrational," and "immature" pretty much sum up her character.  I'm also grossed out by the fact that she marries someone approximately 20 years older than her.
2. Edward Ferrars.  Another selfish character who needs to man up.  Straight and simple.
3. Lucy Steele.  She is annoying.
4. How forgiving Elinor Dashwood is of Edward Ferrar's cheating love.  Perhaps I should see it as a virtue that she is so forgiving, but I don't understand how anger doesn't overshadow and beat down the need to forgive him.

-
I love 19th century British romances because the heroines' lives are the complete opposite of my own life.  It's an escape from reality for me, and in a strange way, these books make me re-realize that I love life and the opportunities I have.  3 centuries ago (and even 100 years ago), women would not be able to do what I'm doing in life.  In no way do I want to assume the lifestyle women had in the 19th century, but it's fun to read about it and feed the horribly skewed perception I have of that time.   
-
Recommend?  Yes!!!  Read this book, and we will be the best of friends.  Read P&P and we'll be super friends for life.

#15: The Physiognomy

Ford, Jeffrey: The Physiognomy. New York: Avon Books, 1997. Print. 218 pages.
-
SETTING: The Well-Built City, a world ruled by a merciless man, called The Master, who believes it is appropriate to exterminate people based on their physiognomies in order to create a utopia.  
-
SUMMARY: Physiognomist Cley uses his observations and measurements of people's physical features (i.e. eye color, width of the bridge of the nose, length of the great toe nail, whether or not a mole has a long strand of hair on it... I can keep going but for brevity's sake, I'll stop here.) to assess their characters and then use that information to kill or imprison the characteristically impure members of that world in order to stop them from marring it.
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "'It doesn't matter what we were, Cley.  I was no innocent; none of us were.  We will head for paradise.  There is no room for hatred there.'" - Chapter 13, page 89.
-
Although I'm from Southern California, I have a love for the Bay Area that Los Angeles can never hope to compete with.  I had to visit San Francisco and Berkeley one last time before leaving for the East Coast, and during that week long trip I headed to Moe's Bookstore, one of Berkeley's biggest used book stores.  Not only is Moe's full of used books, but it has FOUR FLOORS of used books!  (For those who don't know or don't remember, I prefer used over new books because used books have so much more character and history.)  It's been a few months now since I bought this book at Moe's, but I somehow forgot about it.  Oops!  It was a completely random pick too, chosen because I liked the title.  And, hoooooooly crap!  This is by far the weirdest book I have ever read.  EVAR.
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. A whole lot goes on in a little more than 200 pages.  It's quite impressive.
2. It's so bizarre!!  The author definitely has some strange things going on upstairs, but it's undoubtedly brilliant.
3. The protagonist's arrogance is literally smacked out of him after about the first quarter of the book.  I wish this was a more common occurrence in reality... there are way too many arrogant people out there who are not nearly as awesome as they think they are.
4. The sulphur mine workers eventually turn into sulphur statues.  The explanation goes as follows: they spend so much of their lives exposed to the sulphur dust that it mixes with their biology, eventually taking over and solidifying the former mine worker into a statue.  Somewhat parallel to what mine workers, throughout history and in present time, experience(d), no?  They spend their adult lives working in the mines, only to die of some, usually respiratory-related, illness for which their exposures to dust and toxins in the mines were the direct cause.
5. The protagonist's arrogance leads him to botch a plastic surgery on the woman he is in love with. Her face is so damaged that anyone who looks at her is instantly killed.  Great example of how carelessness and arrogance can have serious consequences.  If you haven't picked up on it yet, I can't stand arrogant people!

Things I didn't like about this book and/or found strange:

1. Loads of violence and gruesome torture methods are used throughout the entire book.
2. The characters in this book use an opiate called "sheer beauty."  It is used intravenously, which led me to conclude that it is probably something along the lines of heroine.  What was really disconcerting was that the protagonist feels the need to use it while doing procedures because (a) he's addicted and (b) he thinks it enhances his performance as a physiognomist.  
3. The author could have done a lot more with this story.  It seemed like it was only half developed.  Perhaps he was going for that, but I would have enjoyed it more if it had a stronger story line.

-

Again, this was such a strange book!  There were some amusing parts that made me smirk, but it was otherwise just one weird occurrence after another.  I won't go so far as saying it was a waste of a read, because there is rarely such a thing (I can't say never because I have read some books that felt like a waste of time (case in point: the second and third Hunger Games)).  However, the history behind physiognomy and its use in the past to assess character is very interesting.  In all honesty, I think I had more fun researching the history of physiognomy than reading the book, but its the book that inspired me to conduct the research, so for that I'm grateful.
-
Recommend?  No.  But yes if really weird dystopias are your cup of tea.

#14: Dracula

Stoker, Bram: Dracula. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2003. E-book. 433 pages (actual text: 372 pages).
-
SETTING: late 19th-century London, England and Transylvania, Romania.
-
SUMMARY: In an attempt to increase the population in his vampire empire, Count Dracula takes measures to relocate from Transylvania to London, but is met with resistance by a group of four men and one woman.
-
I've avoided e-books since their first launch, but I received a tablet as a gift from the birthday/graduation/farewell party my parents threw me prior to my departure from Los Angeles.  Considering the long journey I had to DC (my sister and I took a 7-day road trip from LA to DC via New Orleans), I had to make use of it.  The tablet came with a few free classics already downloaded, Dracula included.  I think I may have started reading Dracula at some point in high school (or I might be confusing that with my attempt to start Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which is also on my mental to-read list), and thought this would be a great opportunity to read it.  It's portable and easy to read in the car, and unless the tablet decides to crash (which it did twice), you're unlikely to lose your spot.
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. Mina Harker, the female protagonist.  Throughout the entire novel, the four male protagonists comment on how women are of a weaker disposition and therefore shouldn't do or be involved with [fill in the blank].  Mina disproves every assumption they make regarding women's abilities, and does so in a supremely intelligent and elegant fashion.  She always succeeds at everything she puts her mind to and is the strongest character in the novel.
2. The story is entirely related with a series of journal entries, letters, and newspaper clippings.  I've never read a book that presents its information solely using this format.  It was great!
3. Dr. Van Helsing is a physician, a lawyer, and awesomely brilliant.  He is my new fictional role model.
4. Get to re-learn all the myths surrounding vampires/vampirism.
5. It's an interesting story that somehow manages to keep you attentive to all the details.  

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. The second-class view the male protagonists have of women.  Thank goodness for Mina's character, otherwise I would have hated the book!
2. For the most part, Dr. Van Helsing spoke in impeccable English throughout the novel (German is his first language); however, there were random moments where he didn't use proper grammar, and I wasn't able to pick up on any pattern as to why the author did this.
3. Not quite something I didn't like, but I would have enjoyed it if the author provided an epilogue or something along those lines that expanded on the role and lives of vampires in his fictional world.  The story was about a contained, singular experience, and it would be interesting to read an extensive account of Dracula's world.

-
I've avoided e-books solely on principle because I like the idea of reading a physical book.  The smell, the texture of the pages, the overall ambiance that comes with an appropriately published and formatted book, etc. etc.  This is the first e-book I've read and it actually wasn't as horrible an experience as I expected.  It helped that I was reading an interesting novel, but the e-book experience can in no way replace the "traditional" book reading experience.  Since I received this tablet as a present, I'll continue to use it when it is convenient (i.e. during traveling), but I can now fairly say that I'll always prefer reading an actual book versus an electronic book.  Also, vampires are still as awesome in the 21st century as they were 2+ centuries ago.
-
Recommend?  Yes!  It was a fun read.

#13: All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten

Fulghum, Robert: All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. New York: Random House, 1988. Print. 196 pages.
-
SUMMARY: A collection of random thoughts by the author with the premise that "most of what [he] really need[s] to know about how to live and what to do and how to be [he] learned in kindergarten."
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "In fact, the only change [with Crayola crayons] has been to rename the 'flesh' color 'peach.'  That's a sign of progress." - page 48.  
-
This is another book that I've passed by frequently in my parents' home.  It's been lying in the same spot on the bookshelf in my childhood room for years, most likely left there after my sister read it years ago.  It seemed like an interesting read, but apparently not interesting enough until recently I guess.  It's kind of fun to think that all the major lessons in living were learned by the age of five...
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. It's a collection of the author's own records of his stream of thought at various times in life.  Any written record of conscious thought is amusing to read.  Just think about how amusing your own thoughts are, and then think about how much fun other people would have reading these thoughts.  I completed a similar task sometime in elementary school.  We were given 5 minutes to write and write and write every little thought that crossed our minds, and it was a fun and freeing exercise.  Even in adulthood, I find it beneficial to carry out this exercise when I have a cluttered mind, and I highly recommend you giving it a go.
2. The author writes extensively about really random, not often thought about topics, like jumper cables, butterflies, and mowing lawns v. leaving it au naturale.  
3. It's a quick, easy, leisurely read.

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. The book was separated into multiple sections, but I was unable to pick up on any pattern as to how the author decided on the partitions.  It was not organized enough for my liking.
2. It ends really abruptly, which is done on purpose by the author (he tells you he is going to end in this manner), but, as the reader, it left me feeling wholly unsatisfied, like I didn't get the main point behind why the author decided to write this book.

-

It's a short little read, and thus I will make this a short little review.  Read the book, take it for what it is, and enjoy it :)

-

Recommend?  If you have a free minute, then yes.  No rush to get to this one.

#12: The Tragedy of Richard III

Shakespeare, William: The Tragedy of Richard III. New York: Washington Square Press, 1960. Print. 148 pages.
-
SETTING: 15th century England.
-
SUMMARY: Chronicles the events that contributed to Richard III's coronation as King of England, and his subsequent death two years later.
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "Murderer 2: The urging of the word 'judgement' hath bred a kind of remorse in me.
Murderer 1: What? Art thou afraid?
Mur 2: Not to kill him, having a warrant; but to be damned for killing him, from the which no warrant can defend me.
...
Mur 1: Remember our reward when the deed's done.
Mur 2: Come, he dies!  I had forgot the reward.
Mur 1: Where's thy conscience now?
Mur 2: O, in the Duke of Gloucester's purse." - Act 1, Scene IV, lines 111-116 and 127-131.
-
As you can see, June wasn't a particularly productive reading month; however, it was productive in many other ways.  For example, I spent loads of time with family and friends, and also developed an obsession with the TV show Futurama!  To get back into the groove of reading, I decided to pick up one of Shakespeare's plays.  I absolutely hated Shakespeare when I was younger, and actually wrote a short essay in my high school freshman English class about how much I "loathed him" (I actually did use the word loathe).  Now I understand that I was just too stupid to appreciate his brilliance.  Luckily, my brain has acquired some smarts since then, and I gave Shakespeare another try earlier this year.  Not so surprisingly, I found that I love his work now!  I usually split my reviews into a section about things I liked about the book, and things I didn't like.  Because I don't think I have an adequate knowledge of Shakespeare's time to assess logistical points of the play that I didn't like, I'm going to switch that out with a "characters I hated and things that really upset me in this play" section.
-
Things I liked about this play:

1. England!  Monarchy!  Kings, queens, dukes, duchesses, and all the fantastical, false images that surround such times and topics.
2. It's a play, and I really enjoy reading plays now.  Especially witty plays taking place in ye-olde-England (I stole this phrase from a friend).
3. The format of the play, which makes it easy to follow the characters and keep track of who is speaking when.
4. Gives an insight into just how horrible life really was back then.  Speaking for myself, I have this weird mish-mash in my head that jumbles the evils that I know existed during that time with the romantic notions that surrounds monarchies and royalty.  Throw in the skewed view I have of romance thanks to Jane Austen (whose stories take place in the 19th century, a whole other time period), and you end up with a horrible mess.  Plays like this one serve as a nice reminder of what reality was probably like in 15th century England.
5. The series of ghosts of the people Richard kills throughout the play that appear in one of his dreams.  They all tell him to "despair and die" right before the big battle at the end of the play.  Discouraging, no?  And rightly so!  He is an evil man.
6. The fact that Queen Elizabeth (Richard III's sister-in-law) doesn't give in to Richard's request that she woo her daughter (his niece) for him.  An uncle marrying his niece?  BARF.

Characters I hated and things that really upset me in this play:

1. Richard III.  He is pure evil.  Pure, pure evil!
2. Anne Neville.  She is pure stupid.  Richard III kills her husband, and somehow he managed to convince her to marry him.  Granted women had very little stability during that time and had to rely on men for their very livelihood, but I'm sure there were other options available apart from the man who murdered her husband!  And whom she claims to hate five minutes prior to accepting his proposal!  Fickle indeed.
3. Speaking of fickleness, the last thing I hated was the overall fickleness of nearly every character in this play.  Their loyalty changes sides every other moment, and they are the precise definition of the phrase, "every man for himself."

-

I spent the summer of 2011 in Mexico doing a research project, and supplemented much of my free time reading historical fiction novels about women who reigned in 15th/16th century England.  I was even more excited to read this play because I read The White Queen by Philippa Gregory during that summer; the novel is entirely about Queen Elizabeth (Richard III's sister-in-law).  It was interesting to now read a literary piece with Richard III as the main character and Queen Elizabeth as a supplemental character, because it added to my knowledge about the two historical figures.  Of course, I have to include the disclaimer that there is no way of knowing just how many of the facts that the fiction is based off of are truly facts.  But if we indulge ourselves and do believe all the facts are true, this play gave me a slightly better understanding of the history behind the House of York, House of Lancaster, the Plantagenets, etc.  Still, British royal history is really confusing, and I totally understand how people who are truly invested in the subject need to dedicate their lives to understanding just a small slice of that world.

-

Recommend?  Yes!

#11: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Larsson, Stieg: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. New York: Knopf, 2008. Print. 465 pages.

-

SETTING: December 2002 - December 2003, Stockholm and Hedestad, Sweden (along with other various towns/cities in Sweden.  Hedestad is a fictional town).

-

SUMMARY: Mikael Blomkvist, a disgraced journalist, is persuaded to take on the task of solving a 40-year-old murder mystery involving a member of a wealthy Swedish family.  Blomkvist hires Lisbeth Salander, an unconventional surveillance agent, to help him with this task. 

-

FAVORITE QUOTE: "Three days later she delivered a report which, with equally exhaustive source references, transformed the outwardly pleasant young yuppie into an unreliable bastard." - Chapter 2, page 34.

-

I've consistently heard positive things about this book (and both movies), but for some reason I kept forgetting to place it on my mental "to read" list.  Luckily, while at the public library near my parents' home, I saw the bright yellow spine staring out at me from the sea of books on that shelf.  I immediately picked it up, started reading it, and became attached.

-

Things I liked about this book:

1. The female protagonist, Lisbeth Salander.  The first comment everyone who has read this book makes is how awesome she is!  And I am no exception.  I think we all want to adopt a small portion of Salander's personality, mostly because she is completely disconnected from everything around her.  Although I'm sure it's a lonely existence, to some extent it also seems liberating.  When someone is at the point where she is in life, he/she is able to just do for themselves.  Here are a few bullet points behind why I think she's awesome:
• She's totally independent.  There are many negative points and life experiences that influence her independence, but her independence is awe-worthy nonetheless.  It's not weak to rely on other people, but her level of independence is borderline kick ass.
• She's intelligent.  SUPER intelligent.
• She's a go-getter.  When she has a goal or plan in mind, she is guaranteed to follow through with it.
• She has a closed off personality, but at the same time, her personality allows her to just be.  She is who she is.  The end.
2. The overall story.  It's a fun and addictive read!  A planned hour at a coffee shop down the street turned into three hours and me finishing the first half of this book...
3. Great character development, especially with the male and female protagonists.  I ended the novel with a satisfactory understanding of their personalities.  
4. The dates associated with each chapter.  You get the opportunity to grasp exactly how much time is passing and when in relation to the year-long commitment Blomkvist makes to solve the mystery.    
5. Takes place in Sweden.  Allowed me to become the tiniest bit more knowledgeable about Sweden and Swedish culture.

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. It's graphic!  Yes, you need the graphic descriptions for this book to be what it is, but I did not enjoy reading those parts.
2. The beginning seemed to drag on.  I found myself growing impatient for the background information to end and the real story to begin.  The background knowledge is necessary to understand the present events in the novel, but I would have appreciated a more condensed version.
3. Some parts, especially in the beginning, seemed a bit choppy, which is probably due to the fact that the two protagonists' lives had not yet intertwined in the story line.  The author went back and forth between their lives a bit too hastily, and I think it could have been presented with a bit more finesse.

-
I went straight to the library after finishing this book with the plan of checking out the second in the trilogy, but, alas, someone had beat me to it!  As soon as the second book is within my reach, I'll make sure to check out the third at the same time so I won't have to experience this break in reading the trilogy again.  I am a big fan of series, and tend to read them all in one go if given the opportunity, especially in a series like this where I've found myself totally rooting for the female protagonist and desperately want to know what the next step in her life will be.  In the meantime, my plan is to watch the European film adaptation of the book (that's the version on Netflix instant) and I'll watch the English version as soon as I have the opportunity to do so.
-

Recommend?  Yes!

#10: The Great Gatsby

Fitzgerald, F Scott: The Great Gatsby. New York: Scribner, 2004. Print. 180 pages.

-
SETTING: 1922, Long Island and New York City.
-
SUMMARY: Nick Carraway, a WWI veteran, Yale graduate, and bonds salesman, tells the story of the mysterious Jay Gatsby.
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "He smiled understandingly - much more than understandingly.  It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life." - Chapter 3, page 48.
-
I read this novel in the 10th grade (I think), and I clearly remember enjoying it, but not nearly to the extent that others have raved about this story.  It's undoubtedly a well written and thoughtful story, but I don't find the story line to be so extraordinary as to warrant the fame it has acquired.  I'm sure popularity is the telling marker of whether or not a book will enter the "classics" category, but overall the entire process of how a novel becomes a classic is still a mystery to me.  Anyhow, I decided to reread this novel after recently watching the trailer for the upcoming film adaptation.  Why?  BECAUSE AMITABH BACHCHAN IS IN IT.  Now, I'm not into Bollywood films at all, but when you have a famous (possibly the most famous) South Asian actor in a Hollywood film, it's incredibly exciting (I'm South Asian, for those who don't know).  Since I have so much time on my hands right now, I decided it would be the perfect opportunity to reread the novel in preparation for the movie.
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. Nick Carraway!  He's the embodiment of goodness and honesty, and his character is used very well to contrast the faults and vices in the other characters.
2. The story reads like a diary.  It's a personal account, and I usually don't like first person narratives, but this is comfortable and flows well.  It also doesn't describe the narrator's emotions and thoughts as much as it is a storytelling of the other characters.
3. The setting.  When time travel is a reality, 1920s New York will be one of my destinations.
4. Gatsby's unwavering love. 
5. The creepy eyes from the ophthalmologist's billboard!  I love how it's randomly mentioned throughout the story.
6. The underlying theme of how people sometimes do find themselves living in the past, clutching desperately to memories and notions of "what life was like," and how it really can ruin a person.

Things I didn't like about this book

1. Tom and Daisy Buchanan.  If I am to ever meet such people, 99.6% chance I will not be their friend.
2. It is assumed that the reader is privy to the atmosphere of the 1920s United States.  I would have appreciated it if at least a few pages were dedicated to a detailed description of that time period, especially because the book was written in 1925.  A description from the author would have provided an authentic understanding of the 1920s, versus the assumptions the 21st-century reader will make based off of history lessons and movies.

-
All in all, this story does not leave me with happy feelings.  I'm glad I reread it because I had completely forgotten the story line, but unlike what usually happens with books I reread at this age, I didn't finish the story with any greater insights than when I first read it.  Although I must say that I do have a better appreciation for Gatsby's love, and am probably sadder this time around than I was after the first read.
-
Recommend?  Of course!  It's a classic...