The Book Thief by Markus Zusak

4
This story recounts a small section in the life of one Liesel Meminger, a nine-year-old foster child, as she lives in Munich during World War II and the people she comes into contact with during this small period. And the narrator of this story? Death himself.

Reading that little summary, I myself would have doubted how good this book could be and would have thought it liable to be extremelye preachy and generally dislikable. This was not the case, and even early on in the book, I feel this is made clear. Death, the character, isn't some figure of malevolence; he is funny, insightful and (despite the irony) remarkably human. It is only towards the end that it made clear that he is not human- he is something more. But the book does not dwell on such things. This is the story of Liesel, not death's job during World War II. Personally, I felt in some ways death was used as the narrator because in our minds he is as unsympathetic and as cruel a thing we can think of, especially in a War environment. Many would see him as snatching away their children- why not let them survive? But he makes it clear that it is his job to collect the souls and allow them to move on. He takes no life prematurely- he has no choice in the matter of taking them.

The story is ultimately about the power of words. It begins as reading and how that helps Liesel escape and then it begins to transform. Seeds of ideas are planted in her, and they grow and take on new life to her. She begins illiterate and yet she becomes a force to be reckoned with- this small German girl. There is the wonderful passage when she is angry and it says how the words which until then had merely moved beneath the surface suddenly break through. Then she knows what to say, how to say and, most importantly, why it needs to be said.

The setting of World War II is fantastic for showing this because Hitler himself is well-known as being a great orator. He managed- with words and manipulation- to unite a struggling country and keep them united despite almost all hardship. I do not deny ths importance of Nazi military might or any of the more heinous things he did, but he began as man who spoke with zeal and could inspire those around him. (Maybe I'm baffling a bit; half of my A-Level- a pre-University qualification- is based on Germany in the 1900s.)

When it comes to characters, I thought they were all brilliant. I loved Rudy, Hans, Rosa and Max because Zusak wrote such believable and wonderful characters. They didn't fall easily into the stereotypes we have of people living in that era (within reason). Part of the way he did that was by not letting the era define them. War doesn't touch Munich very much until well into the book and even then it is mostly sporadic. This distance from War both allows for comparison and stops this book becoming preachy.

But my favourite character was Death himself. Liesel was smart, hopeful and reaslistic girl but at the same time she was the hero and, frankly, I find her less interesting in comparison to Death. Part of the reason she is important and notable is because Death sees her as such. But Death has a personality and a colourful (no pun intended) one at that. Though it isn't expressly said, I feel as though he dislikes death. He talks about the colours of the sky when he collects a soul, since he doesn't want to look into another dead face, another pair of empty eyes. His eternal existence has also left him cynical and often poetic. Perhaps it is ironic that Death enjoys quite simple pleasures as an interesting phrase (but then, that is what I saw the theme as).

I think that this is too long a book to sum up, and the ideas it explores render near impossible to sit down and narrow my thoughts of this book down concisely and precisely. The only other thing I much mention (without giving away anything) is the end. Simply put, it was the kind of ending you accept as inevitable but dislike all the same.

Anna Dressed in Blood by Kendare Blake

4
(You have probably heard what the story is since this novel did its rounds on blogs ages ago, but in case you didn't...) This book follows Cas Lowood who, like his father before him, is a killer of the dead- ghost or otherwise. In addition to this he has to contend with being a teenager and trying to make a somewhat normal life for himself. When he and his mother come to the town of Thunder Bay, his usual method of killing the dead is disrupted by something he never expected.

I have to say I was highly wary about approaching this book. By the time it had my interest, the hype had been so built up and so great that I doubted it would live up to my expectations. I spent some time convincing myself that it wouldn't reach this hype because (a) it's not what I would consider my kind of book and (b) the hype was way, way too high.

Yet I do think this is a fantastic book and is truly gripping. Some of the elements of horror didn't really feel scary for me (and I'm really jumpy) so this may bug some people, but I don't think it is meant as a scary book. And anyway, it wasn't important. And the single thing that made this book so awe-inspiringly awesome was Anna herself. I think she is probably one of my favourite characters ever.

On one hand, she appeals to my urban fantasy side. I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying she is an insanely powerful individual, which I just loved when reading about it. So many romances seem to like making romance interesting or edgy by giving one of the participants a dark mysterious past, or by simply telling us how the protagonist feels threatened. Now, Blake does all this BUT she before doing us she shows us without a shadow of a doubt why exactly you don't mess with Anna and how she is the genuine article of bad-assery.

And then on the other hand, she's simply a great character. Her back-story is so, so sad and soul destroying that despite the horror surrounding her, you can sort of understand her. And then when the whole "Goddess of Death" thing starts to come into perspective, you can begin to understand her as the shy, adorable individual she is.

Don't get me wrong, Cas is great and the story about the Dad and how everything ties in is gripping and makes for great reading, but I doubt I would have loved this book as much if not for Anna. I actually thought the story itself was predictable and I guessed what would happen when the cat growls near the start.

One thing I thought might have perhaps been better if it had been looked at a bit more was the whole disjointedness of the romance. It was never going to be like Lia Habel's Dearly, Departed; but I do believe more should have been made of it. The limit of consideration was "This is weird, but it doesn't matter because love surpasses all."

So overall fantastic. You should read this just to see Anna in action.

Top Ten Authors I Wish Would Write Another Book

(Debut authors, authors who seem to have taken a hiatus, OR for those who read classics authors you wish would have written another book before they passed.)

1. Jane Austen (Deceased) I haven't read all of Austen's books, but I think I've read half in less than a year. I feel as though I don't want to finish all her books because then I would dislike knowing there is no more. I could re-read, but there is no feeling like picking up a book for the first time and discovering a great love for it. Also, Austen's kind of my rock. If I have many bad books, I know can find Austen and rediscover a happiness in reading.
2. David Eddings  (Deceased) He wrote my favourite series of books and though he did write others, he never revisited this series. I don't want to say he left things unanswered, because I felt he did round off everything satisfactorily, but there were still other things I wanted to know about, other things I wanted to watch as they grew. I adored these characters and people too much.
3. Erin Morgenstern Though I doubt it happening, I'd love being able to dive back into the Night Circus either by her writing a new book or by an extension/sidestory. I just love this too much.
4. Kathryn Stockett I couldn't say she has taken a break or anything because with the film and her life, I imagine she's been ever so busy. Still, I loved the book and would appreciate another.
5. Michelle Paver I've read a lot of what she has written, and I find her a really engaging author that creates wonderful atmospheres and brilliant antagonists. She has other books, but I don't think I'd like them like I'd like her most recent writings. I actually don't mind what genre she's in. The series I read was YA/Teen Fantasy but another stand alone book was a Ghost Story; I loved both equally.
6. Douglas Adams  (Deceased) I imagine anyone who has read anything by him- either the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, the radio script, or his other series can appreciate his unique wit and way of making people confused without ostracising them. He does it in a friendly, funny way. I always feel sad to think that he died, especially after reading stuff Stephen Fry wrote in his autobiography.
7. Muriel Barbery She's written something else and though I went to buy it, reviews warded me away. They said it wasn't bad, but if you'd read The Elegance of the Hedgehog (which is my favourite book) you might dislike her other book. Still, I may relent at some point since I loved her novel so much.
8. Stieg Larsson  (Deceased) I can think about him without feeling sad: he wrote all the books, left them with his publisher, and died before he could see them published. I wonder how he would feel knowing the response people had to them. And even though he lost me sometimes, he did have an insight into something that doesn't get a lot of press/
9. Anthony Horowitz Now he is neither my favourite writer nor one with remarkable skill: but he's good at coming up with stories and ideas for stories. The only reason I put him here is that he has written 4 books in a five book series but hasn't done the last one yet! When he did he publish number 4? 2008. Grrr. 
10. Stephen Chbosky Perks of Being a Wallflower is a well-known and well respected book, and I'm not asking that he write a sequel or anything, but I can appreciate his ability to write and craft really superbly realistic characters. I adored the book (are you seeing a trend in this list?) and I'd enjoy being able to buy something else by him and have him lose me in a great story I'll recommend to every passer-by.

The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern

5
A highly engaging and slightly confusing book that follows a circus in which two magicians are involved in a competition neither really understands. This has to be one of my favourite books this year. It's been a while since I've read a new fantasy book (part of a series or otherwise) that has kicked in my obsessive-reader streak. I just could not pull myself away.

First off, the circus is amazing. I've only been to a few circuses in my life, but they don't even compare to the Le Cirque des Rêves (Circus of Dreams) and I wonder if I've ever enjoy a circus after being transported to this one. Reading about it is immersive in a way I can't describe. I could smell the caramel, see every performance and every performer, feel the energy of the crowd. I can't remember being so transported by a book, and for that alone I would give it five stars. Interspersed with the actual plot, we are told about the experiences in various tents and the things we see. It helps to break from the plot and make the character transitions seem smoother.

But then we have the actual story. As I said, it two magicians in a kind-of contest (all is revealed later on in the book) and the circus is the venue for this. So everything in the circus is the spawn of their imagination, their dreams. Every tent, in its own way, implies something about the maker, hints at the plot and present feelings. I'm reading into it, I admit, but it seems all so cleverly interwoven, much like the circus itself.

Yet I think the characters are what make it interesting. We have our magicians, Marco and Celia. They are designed to opposites (that's why they were chosen as the competitors) so they match, even compliment, each other perfectly. It means we get two distinct voices and views, and two ways of seeing the same world. And their magic is wrought in different ways. Hers physical, his with charms and symbols; he is more considering, she more impulsive. It amazing. We also have Bailey, who story we jump into, as well as characters like Mr. Barris, Poppet and Widget, Tsukiko, Chandress, Prospero (Hector), Mr. Alexander, The Burgess Sisters, Friedrick Thiessen, Isobel and others I've likely forgotten. They make the book amazing, and each one is distinct in my mind and has their own story. I can't express how pleasant it is to read so many connected characters but not once become confused.

The Circus itself becomes almost a character too. Almost. I'm always aware it's a circus, but it has personality and is so well loved and talked about as though alive that one cannot help but consider it a character also.

Their is also romance in the book. It becomes integral, but the book does not become a complete romance, which I appreciated. It was fantasy and stuck to that like glue to paper. Certain events pre-empted this, and I think anyone could have guessed this would happen a quarter of the way into the book when Marco first sees Celia. And guess what? No love triangles! Huzzah! (You could argue otherwise, but I disagree. I never believed that romance.) It was much more interesting to see them interacting with each other and facing problems in their own relationship.

It's also set in the late 1800s, early 1900s. On one hand this was great for the lack of technology, the clothes, the atmosphere, and the people themselves. It's also handy since it meant it wasn't based at a time when there were huge events happening in history. There were events, but none so far reaching they could affect the story or have the characters being split. This story isn't about conflict, I feel. It seems odd since it's a competition, but I think it was more about working together than against each other.

I'm going to say something bad because I have to, but this didn't really bother me: I found some of the explanations hard to follow. Sometimes they were just concerning magic and its mechanics, but I expected to understand more than I did. I had to just move past it, but I didn't expect to understand. Part of the magic (pardon the pun) of this book was that we didn't know everything. The mystery was alluring, and the discovery sweeter for it; regardless of the comprehension. That's why I wasn't bothered by the mystery around the contest. This books hinges on not knowing anything, and we are made to get used to this idea very early on.

The novel is a treasure of a book and of a story. Never would I dare part with it. And it's wondrous element is well suited to the Christmas season. Buy this for yourself for Christmas. By it for anyone who loves fantasy, or someone who's faith in romance in a book is fading. My adoration for this book cannot be put into words; I am a rêveur through-and-through. Buy it, love it, but don't thank me.

I think this has earned the highly acclaimed spot as My Favourite Book of the Year.


After publishing/writing this, I've found a site for people interested in the books to kind of experience and live the books again. It's okay, but slow-going; many people would hate it. Link.

The Fellowship of the Ring by J. R. R. Tolkien

4.5
The Fellowship of the Ring by J. R. R. Tolkien is considered to be the epitome of epic fantasy by many people, and though it is not for me, I understand where everyone comes from. The book, as most know, follows nine mortals on a journey to destroy the one ring. It superbly written and an excellent story, and I'm annoyed that I avoided it for so long (I didn't want to be disappointed!)

The plot of the story is very linear. Yes the party stops from time to time for various reasons, but ultimately there is very little side tracking that I don't expect to be later involved in the story. Well, almost. I felt that Tolkien went into history a bit too much at some points and I completely glazed over reading about these details. I don't think you'd really see that nowadays since everything should be important, but I think I remember something saying that he wanted to write it as a work of fiction, but like a factual account of something. This in mind, I can forgive his wanderings into lore.

I'd seen the film many times before reading, so I didn't struggle following the story. The problem I had was that the company of people seemed to have less dynamic and chemistry between them. I thought of them as a hobbits and their protectors and no more than that; the film presents it otherwise. I kind of preferred the camaraderie of the film, but the description (and the fact that was the rue version) meant I did prefer the book.

I felt the characters were not overly important in this book. Sure, they were clearly themselves and enjoyable to read about, but they felt a bit flat to read and I didn't get a feel for them. And there was hardly any proper conversations between them. It was mostly should we do this or that. And Gandalf proclaiming the wonder of Hobbits- give me a break! I think I am biased though. The films were more about the characters than teh book, maybe because they had access to all teh material with which they could move about and give a more gradual development of relationships. This is something I hope improves.

One of the things I did really like was the songs and poems interwoven with the story because I couldn't resit chanting or singing (quietly) to myself as I read. I had one poem ear marked as my favourite (Bilbo's one to Frodo in his rooms) because it had the best rhythm and feel to it. I'm not a big poetry person, so I'm surprised I liked this element. And while I'm on the topic, I have to say that I love how Bilbo played a much larger part in the book than he did in the film which is definite improvement: Bilbo is quick, whimsical character that I think makes me smile.

I also really liked Tom Bombadil, who didn't appear in the films (this now annoys me). I mean, I really, really liked him. He was my favourite character because he was so weird and unpredictable. I would read a book on him without question because I found his remarks and remarks made of him so hinting a greater, longer life than we are given and his character is odd that we wonder if he's always been like that.

I'm glad I finally read this after many years of worry on my part and urgings on everyone else's. I was impressed with the book, and look forward the the sequel, prequels and companions. I've started down a long road that I hope to walk many times, one might say. And Gandalf used magic (with magic words too!) which wasn't really in the film I felt. It was there, sure, but it wasn't so obvious that I could know it was there. As a real lover of magic and those necessities of epic fantasy, I was glad to see the books seemed to stick to this better.

Emma by Jane Austen

4

Emma by Jane Austen follows the story of intelligent, but prejudiced, Emma Woodhouse in the various machinations of Highbury. I’ve only read Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen so I can’t personally compare it to all her other works, but I’ve read that she departs from the typical story of a lady trying to find love (a husband) and also financial security. The reason I decided to read this was because I read Pride and Prejudice and loved Austen’s writing. I intend to read everything she wrote now.

The story in Emma is not really there, but that didn’t bother me. The main chunk of story was looking into Emma’s head and seeing what she thought about events and how she planned to react to each of them. The romance of the story is the most important because Emma considers herself quite the match-maker originally. And even when she turns away from this, we can still see how she can’t help herself just a little. Though it is not overstated humour, I genuinely found this extremely amusing to read- especially when she catches herself doing something she shouldn’t.

The characters are strong in the book, as they have to be to make up for plot, but some of them are a bit too perfect. Harriet is the soul of love and innocence, Mr. Knightley (who, only late on, I realised his name was George) is the perfect gentleman. But otherwise, most have some depth, if only a little. I’ll talk about Emma, because she is easily the most important.

Emma is, in Austen’s own words, “…a heroine whom no one but myself will much like…” and though her potential lack of likability shows through, I liked Emma. And I saw myself in her, which is understandable considering these are quite realistic characters, but I could understand everything she did. This is a little bad, but it led to me really liking Emma. She is quite funny, and insightful, but mostly spoilt. You can see how, as clever as she is, she’s a bit dense because she judges everyone by her very high standards. Her influence is that she can inspire gentility, but also makes people believe they are of a much higher standing and expecting too much. Emma herself said she won’t marry because she has everything and doesn’t want to leave her father- who is much too concerned about herself which was amusing, but kind of annoying as well. Despite adding the conflict in some of Emma’s choice and a bit of humour, he was a little useless and I found him a tad tiresome. Obviously, I am not overly suited to be a Georgian Gentleman.

Jane Fairfax was also quite an interesting character, probably because of Emma’s ideas about her and their reconciliation. I think I may look at getting Joan Aiken’s Jane Fairfax: The Secret Story of the Second Heroine in Jane Austen's Emma.

The time of the story is in the nineteenth century but no more specific than that. In my experience with Austen, there is a sense that the local community, some other near areas, plus London comprises the entirety of their worlds, so any events at the time are irrelevant because the people do not connect with it. Anyway (revenons à nos moutons), I was going to say that I really like this century, it turns out.  The manners and politeness (as well as the implied ‘cattiness’) always make for interesting reading and, luckily, I’m doing the 1800s for my History A-Level which means I can defend reading this as ‘revision’, kind of. The most interesting thing to read is a woman’s response to how life was.

The romance between Emma and her ‘sweet-heart’, putting it so to avoid spoilers, was always there, but even I was convinced by his apparent friendliness that was nothing more, and a supposed alternate attraction. It was the kind of couple that I thought would actually work. Personally, I think that this type of more classical romance is much more believe than a lot of romance in books I read. I accept that I don’t really read romance anyway, but I think that I’m a bit more of a traditional romantic and like the way it used to be done compared to nowadays. And it isn’t that skin-crawling instant love I’ve come to hate. It dawns upon characters, and what follows is restlessness until their other halves return. It’s much more pleasant and readable for me.

NB. I just smiled writing that last paragraph, so I hope this demonstrates how much I prefer this romance.

I can’t think of much more to say, because I really love Austen and what would follow would just be gushing about inconsequential things I liked, and the nonsensical reasons why I love them. The only thing (since there must be one) that I would say bothered me is that everything always works out in these books. As much as I like classic novels, I sometimes wish everything was so well-ending. It just doesn’t happen.

Emma is a fantastic book for anyone who likes classic romances, and any one who has read Austen should like this book. I am incredibly biased, and would have given the book an easy five, but I feel that that is just my fanatical Austen-obsessed side show too much. The story is believable, well characterised,  but perhaps a bit too fortuitous sometimes.

EDIT: Look at the pretty word cloud! Emma Review