#61: Endless Night

Christie, Agatha: Endless Night. New York: HarperPaperbacks, 1967. Print. 245 pages.

-

SETTING: Centered around Gipsy [sic] Acre, the name of a newly built home in a small village in England.  Small scenes also take place in other European countries (France, Germany, etc.). 

-

SUMMARY: Michael Rogers, a self-proclaimed adventurer, finally makes it big: he marries a beautiful woman, becomes rich, and owns the home of his dreams.  But the cliched saying holds true for Michael: all good things come to an end...

-

FAVORITE QUOTE: "What a mysterious thing sleep is.  You go to bed worrying about gipsies [sic] and secret enemies and detectives planted in your house and the possibilities of kidnapping and a hundred other things, and sleep whisks you away from it all.  You travel very far and you don't know where you've been, but when you wake up, it's to a totally new world.  No worries, no apprehensions." - Chapter 17, page 169.

-

So... I know I said I wouldn't be back until August.  Well, I lied!  I realized that it isn't possible for me to study 24/7, and I found a used bookstore near the place I just finished rotating through!  I bought two books, including this one for $2.50 (!!!), and am so glad I did.  I love reading!
-

Things I liked about this book:

1. Agatha Christie book!  I love everything she's written that I have had the pleasure of reading.  I love her writing and narrating style, and although I prefer her Poirot novels, I've recently been trying out her other series, and have really enjoyed them too (but not as much as the Poirot ones, of course, because those are the best).
2. The murderer!  Oh.  My.  Goodness!  Such a twist.
3. The ending!  The murdered got what he deserved.  Unfortunately, no justice for the victim.
4. Ellie.  So sweet and naive.  She was knowledgeable about business matters, but the underlying naivete allowed so many to take advantage of her.  I wanted to wrap her in a blanket and make sure no harm came to her, especially by the end of the novel.  She was only ever surrounded by greedy sharks.
5. The murderer's personality after he is caught.  He has a mental breakdown of sorts and his personality changes.  Well, I'm not sure if "changes" is the right word, actually... Might be more accurate to say that the details of his personality are finally revealed, and he is shown to be a complete narcissist.  This part of the book was written very well, and was very fun to read.

-
People/things I didn't like about/in this book:

1. Michael Rogers.  He's such a lazy bum.  He became incredibly annoying at times and Ellie deserved someone who worked harder, not someone who lived off of her money.  I just wanted to slap some sense into him.
2. All the characters who took advantage of Ellie.  I won't name any names, of course, because that would give away the story, but I really hated them.
3. A little slow.  I was bored for about half the book, but the ending definitely made up for the boredom.  If this book was written by any random author, I probably would have at least contemplated giving up on it, but a Christie book?  Never!  I will always finish any book written by Agatha Christie.  She is the Queen of Mystery and my experience has taught me that she always delivers. 

-
I loved this book!  The beginning was blah and I didn't think I'd like it, but I shouldn't have had any doubts.  The ending is incredibly sad, but such a great twist.  I finished reading the book at night, and was still thinking about it the next day.  Agatha Christie is Queen and excellent in her trade.  My favorite author of all time :)

-

Recommend?  Yes!!!!!!

#60: The Alchemyst: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel

Scott, Michael: The Alchemyst: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel. New York: Random House, Inc., 2007. Print. 369 pages.

-

SETTING: San Francisco, California, but some parts are in other cities in California.

-

SUMMARY: Sophie and Josh Newman have always had anything but ordinary lives.  The twin children of archaeologists, they've lived their entire lives moving around the United States, going on one adventure after another with their parents.  But their lives are meant to be even more unordinary.  Everything is turned upside down in a matter of seconds when they find out the owners of their local bookstore, Nick and Perry Fleming, are not only hundreds of years old, but magicians protecting a very old magic.

-

FAVORITE QUOTE: "'To remain unknown in this modern world: that, indeed, is real power...'" - Chapter 4.

-

A while back I was looking for a fictional series to read that could give me as much enjoyment as the Harry Potter series did.  I searched through numerous lists, and many of them recommended The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel.  I tried to find it at my local library a few summers ago, but was unsuccessful.  I forgot about it until recently, when I saw it at my school's bookstore and decided to finally give it a try!
-

Things I liked about this book:

1. Magic!  I love books that deal with magic!
2. Easy read.  I actually started this book two weeks ago, but I was reading other books at the same time, so it took me longer to finish than it otherwise would have.  It's a book written for young adults, so it is very easy to read and follow along.  If you're looking for something that doesn't require a whole lot of thought, this book might be an option.  A side note: most of the books I've been reading recently probably count as beach reads.  I promise when I have time off in a few weeks I'll read some thought provoking books.  
3. Each person's aura has a different odor.  The good characters have nice smells, while the bad characters have putrid ones.  I really liked this concept.
4. Historical references.  The author did a great job incorporating major historical events into the story line.  
5. Takes place in San Francisco.  He incorporated some of the touristy spots into the story.  It's always fun to have stories take place in familiar parts.
6. Hekate, the three-faced elder.  I liked the concept of her character.  She ages throughout the day, taking on three faces: (1) a young girl in the morning, (2) a young woman in the afternoon, and (3) an elderly woman in the evening.  But throughout all of these changes, her eyes remain the same, and the description of her eyes is pretty scary.
7. The use of necromancy.  Creepy!  

-
Things I didn't like about this book:

1. That the author spells the word "alchemyst" instead of "alchemist."  I get that he's trying to use the old timey spelling, but it bothered me.  My brief Google search taught me that the world "alchemist" is from either the French alchimiste or Medieval Latin's alchemista.  Neither of these have a "y" in them, and through my preliminary search I actually didn't find that the medieval spelling of the word was with a y.  He was trying to be original and give the book that extra flair, but I didn't like it.
2. Josh Newman.  He was really annoying.  Super whiny and talked at all the wrong times.
3. Nicholas and Perenelle Flamel changed their names to Nick and Perry Fleming in order to fit in better.  These changes aren't too far from the originals.  Yes, it makes it easier for the reader to identify who they are from the beginning of the book, but as far as making themselves anonymous from those trying to find them, not the most creative choice.
4. Slow at some parts.  I found myself feeling bored more than once while reading the book.

-
Overall, I'd say this book was okay.  It felt really slow at times, and by the end I was just rushing to finish it.  It wasn't really all that interesting, and I am disappointed with it.  It was on so many lists that said it would satisfy the reader in a way similar to Harry Potter, and it definitely did not.  I'm still on the lookout for another series that will give me a sense of awe and wonder while reading it, like I experienced while reading Harry Potter, and I would love any suggestions.  I've tried Lord of the Rings and A Song of Fire and Ice, and although the books are written well, it definitely didn't give me what I was looking for!

Also, with all the studying I have going on right now, this will probably be the last novel I read for the next 6 weeks! :(  Will hopefully be back in August with more posts!

-

Recommend?  Meh... If you haven't read the Harry Potter series (I am judging you just a little bit right now if you haven't...), then of course read those books first!  If you have read those books, and you have a lot of time, then by all means read this book.  I, however, am stopping right here with this series and have no plans to read the second one.

#59: Hostile Witness

Forster, Rebecca: Hostile Witness. Signet Fiction, 2004. E-book.

-

SETTING: Hermosa Beach, California.

-

SUMMARY: Giving up on criminal law after a traumatizing experience with a client three years ago, Josie Bates moves to Hermosa Beach, California, a quiet town that allows her to hide from both per personal and professional lives.  As soon as she starts becoming content with her life, she's once again thrown into the fast lane.  A college friend shows up at her doorstep one night, begging her to represent her 16 year-old daughter, who has been charged with the murder of her step-grandfather.  Initially reluctant, Bates finds herself putting her all into the case, thoroughly believing in her client's innocence. 

-

FAVORITE QUOTE: "Kip Rayburn was nothing to look at.  He wasn't unattractive, simply unmemorable." - Chapter 11.

-

Another free e-book from iBooks!  I picked this one because the little blurb was interesting, and I always love a good mystery novel. 

-

Things I like about this book:

1. The storyline.  I read this book in two days!  I should have been studying... (I have a test coming up), but I couldn't put it down!  It was a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat type of book, and I haven't read one of those in a very long time!
2. Bates and Archer's relationship.  Archer is Bates' boyfriend, and they have a very healthy relationship with great boundaries and an understanding of how the other person works.  It's a very mature and realistic relationship.
3. Hannah Sheraton's character.  She is the accused in the novel and is such a complex person.  The author did a great job developing her and presenting her multi-layered character to the reader.
4. The exploration of obsessive-compulsive disorder.  This like is probably biased because I am currently in my psychiatry rotation, and it is always fun to see what you're studying in other settings.  Hannah Sheraton suffers from OCD and the author did a great job of defining it and fitting it into the story, especially into the crime.  Even better was the fact that the author explored why Hannah has OCD.
5. Linda Rayburn's thought process.  Linda is Hannah Sheraton's mother and she is a TERRIBLE mother.  I didn't like her character (see point #2 below), but I appreciated her view of things.  Her reasoning behind most of her decisions as a mother are terrible, but, the author makes sure to explain why she made those decisions.  And as the reader, I was able to see where she was coming from.  It served as a reminder that things aren't always black and white, and a person can make a terrible decision but have what they think is sound reasoning behind it.  This didn't make the decision correct or less despicable, but I found her thought process very interesting. 
6. Quick and enjoyable read.  It didn't take me long to finish the book, and it also didn't take a whole lot of brain power.  Kind of like a beach read.

-
Things I didn't like about this book:

1. Bates became really annoying in the middle of the book.  She was whiny and immature and her attachment to the case became unprofessional at times.  Lawyers are supposed to stay within the boundaries of the law, and there were times when her emotions completely disregarded this point of professionalism.  She did what she wanted to do because she thought it was good for her client, not taking into account what her client might want.  She sometimes had a holier-than-thou attitude and that is a characteristic I cannot stand.
2. Linda Rayburn.  I hated her for the majority of the book because she is a terrible, selfish person.
3. Judge Rayburn.  One twisted man.

-
I really enjoyed this book.  It isn't going to ever become a classic, and will probably be forgotten after a generation of readers, but it's fun and quick, and a nice book for summer when it sometimes gets too hot to even think.

-

Recommend?  Yes!

#58: The Lost World

Doyle, Arthur Conan: The Lost World. 1912. Ebook.

-

SETTING: London, England and an unknown area in South America (presumably near Brasil.  The author does not specify the exact location of the lost world.  Convenient for him... :P).

-

SUMMARY: Professor George Edward Challenger makes an astonishing discovery that is doubted by the entire scientific community because he lacks tangible proof.  Motivated by the desire to prove Challenger wrong, his arch rival, Professor Summerlee, decides to take up Challenger's offer to see this land for himself.  Summerlee embarks on this expedition with two volunteers: Lord John Roxton, an adventurer, and Edward Malone, a journalist.

-

FAVORITE QUOTE: "Brain, character, soul - only as one sees more of life does one understand how distinct is each." - Chapter 8, page 121.

-

I needed a book to read for my commute to and from the hospital, and decided a free book via iBooks would be my best bet.  So I picked this one.  The end.

-

Things I liked about this book:

1. The story line.  I wasn't really interested in it in the beginning, but the story suddenly grabbed my attention about a quarter of the way through.  By the time I finished the book, I was sorry to be done with it!
2. Challenger and Summerlee are "friends" by the end of the book.  I say "friends" because they still argue non-stop, but their joint adventure and facing death multiple times together make them appreciate one another at both the human and scientific levels.
3. The writing.  The story is very detailed and the reader is really able to appreciate the character's emotions.
4. The narration.  I like that it was from Malone's perspective, and that it's a combination of his real time writing and a transcript of his letters to his editor.
5. All the animals they see!  And going back to the writing, the awe the characters feel upon seeing these once thought to be extinct animals is truly appreciated by the reader.
6. Challenger's plan for escape to get back to civilization.  Even though it isn't utilized, it's ingenious.
7. What Challenger brings back as his ultimate proof.  I won't specify, in case you read the book, but it was very smart on his part, especially after all the dissent he received from his first expedition to the lost world.
8. Short and quick.  It was the perfect length for the content of the story, and it didn't feel like anything was lacking.

-

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. Hard to keep track of the timeline.  It would have been nice if the author had put some sort of indication of the day and time each letter was written.  I don't necessarily mean specific dates.  Something as simple as "day 1" would have been sufficient and made keeping track of the time during their journey much easier for me as the reader.
2. Gladys.  Even though this character is what motivates the protagonist to embark on this journey in the first place, I'm glad he doesn't end up with her.  She's terribly fickle and superficial.
3. The derogatory terminology.  I'm sure the descriptors used for the groups of non-white, non-European people in the book were acceptable when the book was written, but I didn't liked it.  I cringed every time.

-

I enjoyed this book much more than I had expected, and I'm really glad I randomly picked it!  These free books on iBooks are probably going to introduce me to a large range of novels that I wouldn't otherwise pick up, and I'm excited for my future reads!  

-

Recommend?  Yes! 

Sherlock Holmes: the TV show v. the books

In my post about A Study in Scarlet, I said I'd create a list comparing the TV series Sherlock to the books and short stories.  I'm doing this for my own entertainment, as this blog has become a book journal of sorts for me.  I actually finished all three seasons of the show two days ago!  I haven't watched the 2013 Christmas special; it isn't on Netflix and I haven't tried searching for it elsewhere, but I will get around to that eventually.
-
Things I like about Sherlock:

1. It's set in the 21st-century.  I don't think using 19th-century England as the setting for the TV series would have cast as wide a viewership as it did, or lasted more than two or three seasons.  It is now going on season 4, and, in my opinion, it is still a very strong show with a story line that could keep the show going for many more seasons.
2. The friendship between Holmes and Watson is as I had imagined in the book.  Watson is Holmes' moral compass and he becomes the one person Holmes loves.  There are no ulterior motives behind his interactions with Watson, which is a rare thing for Holmes.
3. That Watson plays a very important role.  They could have easily made him a sidekick that stays in the background, but I'm so glad they didn't do that.  He has a very important role in the show.  Holmes is, of course, the front man, but Watson isn't too far behind.
4. Watson's blog in the show as the equivalent of his journal in the books.
5. ALL the parallels between the books and the show.  It's rarely an exact depiction of the scene from the book, but the clever way in which they turn something that happens in the book to fit the modern setting is so entertaining.  My favorite examples:
• Season 1, Episode 1: the villain's use of the two pills like they did in the story.
• Season 2, Episode 1: Irene Adler.  I actually liked her character in the book better, but they put an interesting twist on the character in the show.  I also liked that she was "the woman" in both the show and story.  
• Season 2, Episode 2: the main deal is still between two friends.  And the fear surrounding the hound is similar.  The modern adaptation of this story was done well.
6. Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson.  They are the perfect 21st-century versions of the characters in the books.  They did that beautifully.

-
The one thing I don't like about Sherlock: Two years between each season!  What?!  Tooooooo long, especially now that I'm caught up with all three seasons.
-

Things that are done better in the books:

1. The cocaine habit in the books versus nicotine in the show.  I understand why they don't have him use cocaine in the TV show, but that was a part of his character that I liked.  It was his one vice that he himself understood to be a vice.  He has an endless list of flaws according to the other characters in the stories, but he doesn't see those as flaws.  Rather, the things that others see as his deficiencies, he actually sees having those traits as a weakness of character.  
2. In the first season of the show, Holmes is portrayed as more obnoxious compared to the image I have of him from the books.  However, as the seasons progressed, he became less rude and started to mirror the picture I have created of Sherlock Holmes.

-

This list is much shorter than I had thought it would be.  If I remember anything else, I'll add it later :)