Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Books

Mysterious Romances

2012-02-10T00:08:00.001-07:00

Some people (like Sherlock, here) seem to think that mystery and romance don't go together. But out of all the romances I've read, some of my favorites have a great mystery plot. Here are a few that spring to mind:

When Night Falls by Jenna Ryan (review here)

This time-travel romance is about two people who are trying to find Jack the Ripper. Although I liked the romance, what really kept me reading was the question of who the murderer was. There's a long list of suspects, each more likely than the last. The mystery runs out of steam before the end of the novel, but there was a twist I didn't see coming.

Captives of the Night by Loretta Chase

This novel is one of my most favorite romances of all time! Leila Beaumont is a woman artist in 19th-century Paris. Her husband, Francis, is in love with the mysterious Comte d'Esmond, who is in love with Leila; but she doesn't want anything to do with either of them. Then Francis is murdered and she and d'Esmond join forces to find his killer.

Aside from the characters and setting, the thing I love most about Captives of the Night is that the murder mystery is solid--it would be enough to carry the book just on its own. I had no idea who the murderer was until Leila and d'Esmond figured it out; and when they did, it was such an obvious solution I couldn't believe I hadn't thought of it.

A Woman of Virtue and No True Gentleman by Liz Carlyle

Both of these novels contain very decent mysteries. In A Woman of Virtue, Cecilia, the heroine, is being stalked by a serial killer. I enjoyed this mystery more for the atmosphere than anything else. No True Gentleman is more of a proper mystery, with a very Bogart-and-Bacall chemistry between the hero and heroine.

There are also plenty of mystery novels with a strong romantic sub-plot. Some of my favorites:

The Gilded Age series by PB Ryan

This series takes place in Gilded Age Boston, with not-quite-lily-white governess, Nell Sweeney. Her partner in crime solving is the über-sketchy Dr. William Hewitt, the son of Nell's employer and the black sheep of the family. William survived in Andersonville Prison during the Civil War, while his elder brother died; and now dude's got some major problems, like drug addiction and gambling.

I love the relationship between Nell and Will in this series, and the kiss they share in the train station at the end of Murder In the North End was one of the best literary kisses I've ever read. I highly recommend these books!

Vicky Bliss mysteries by Elizabeth Peters

Vicky Bliss is an art historian who is involved with a dashing art thief, Sir John Smythe. An art historian and art thief--could there be a better partnership for dramatic potential?

Reading Group mysteries by DR Meredith

Megan Clark is a forensic archaeologist in Amarillo, Texas, who also happens to be a huge mystery fan. When people are murdered, she and her book club, Murder by the Yard, decide to investigate. The only voice of caution is Ryan, Megan's best friend.

Meredith has a history of May/December romances in her novels, and this is no exception. Ryan is 30+ years Megan's senior (if I remember correctly), and certain that she could never be attracted to an old geezer like himself. Megan, much like Brennan on Bones, remains oblivious. I loved the sweet romance between these two, but Meredith has an absolutely nasty habit of hitting the reset button on Megan and Ryan's relationship between one book and the next. Perhaps it's for the best that she stopped writing this series.

Do you have any favorite novels that cross over between mystery and romance?

Interview with RJ SILVER

2012-02-08T00:19:00.000-07:00

Today I'm pleased to have a chance to interview RJ Silver, who writes wonderful, entertaining short stories such as The Princess and the Penis (review here) and The Ballerina, the Gymnast, and the Yoga Master (review here), and My Third-World Girlfriend (review here), all of which are must-reads if you enjoy romantic comedy. I thought it would be fun to ask RJ a few questions about his books and being an alien.

Tasha: Welcome, RJ! What inspired you to start self-publishing short stories?

RJ Silver: I got fed up with the publishing establishment. I had one of the top literary agents in the world, and my thrillers were making the rounds with senior editors in the biggest publishing houses, but they seemed to want to cookie cut me into a marketing package, often requesting changes to my books solely to satisfy marketing demographics. That was a disheartening commercial end to my long creative journey, so I said “the hell with it” and decided to write just for fun.

Tasha: Do you consider yourself a "romantic" writer? In content, not personality. ;)

RJ: Well, first of all, you’re asking a man a question with the word “romantic” in it. There’s not a man on this planet who can tell you what that word means, as we rely completely on women to explain it to us. I do believe in love, however. And long-term relationships. And positive, uplifting thoughts. You mix all those together with a little humor, and that pretty much explains why I write the stories I do.

Tasha: You're obviously well-traveled. What's your favorite book store in the world? Or, alternately, what's your favorite pub?

RJ: You know, I was never a bookstore guy. I tended to get hooked on certain authors, then go from store to store buying everything that author ever wrote. As for pubs, there have been so many (blush). I like little quirky places, full of oddball characters and good-natured buffoonery. You know, some place I easily can fit in.

Tasha: Do aliens like cats?

RJ: Not this alien. Well, it’s not that I don’t like cats. I just don’t understand them. I mean, you treat a dog well, he’s going to lick your face. Cause and effect are very clear. But with a cat, I never know what its thinking. I’ve tried to be affectionate with some, only to have them hiss and claw at me. Others, I’ve completed ignored, only to have them jump on my lap and purr. I’m starting to think they’re collectively messing with me, then getting together to chuckle about it afterward.

Tasha: Since you're an alien, have you thought about writing science fiction? Attack of the Amazonian Aliens, etc.?

RJ: As I’m a huge sci-fi fan, I’ve definitely thought about it. But you have to remember that, given where I’m from, writing about humans is science fiction!

Tasha: In My Third-World Girlfriend, is there a connection between sexual, cultural, and economic dominance?

RJ: Totally. Actually, it goes further than that, becoming outright exploitation of poor women by rich men (relatively speaking). Worse still, it’s exploitation that all too often ends in broken hearts. I see it every day here in Bangkok and it disgusts me, which is what compelled me to write My Third-World Girlfriend in the first place. Being in love with a smart, well-educated, strong Thai woman, I also wanted to combat the stereotype of Thai women as being all bar girls and prostitutes. That part of society does exist here, but the vast majority of Thai women are a lot more like Kinlaya (and thus Jan).

It’s been very interesting to observe the reaction to this book, incidentally. I think most of my fans (predominantly women) didn’t really like me venturing into quasi-serious subject matter, which kind of surprised me, because usually women are telling me to grow up and act more responsibly. But when I’m writing, they seem to prefer the other me, you know, the one they make sit in the corner three times a day for lengthy timeouts.

Tasha: You like to play off of stereotypes in your stories. What's one cliche you would love to satirize that you haven't yet?

RJ: Ooh, don’t get me started. I have so many characters I’m experimenting with. The ultimate pessimist, for example. I’m such an irrepressible optimist, I think it’d be fun to invert that perspective. I’ve had so many clashes and with bureaucracies and authority figures in my life, I’m definitely going to poke some fun at one of them at some point. And we still live in an age of such repressed female sexuality (despite having come a long way), I see a sexually voracious female character in my future, too (a kind of reflective satire, where you satirize something by way of its opposite).

Tasha: What would you recommend a Western visitor in Thailand never do?

RJ: Go to Bangkok’s red light district. There’s a lot of human suffering down there. Don’t feed it.

Thank you, RJ! Please check RJ out on the webbernets at his Blog, Twitter, FaceBook, and GoodReads.

Review: MY THIRD-WORLD GIRLFRIEND by RJ Silver

2012-02-07T00:53:00.000-07:00

Gerry is a middle-aged man depressed by his life-long history of failed relationships and women throwing things at him, not necessarily in that order. He's doing some soul-searching in the airport when he overhears a trio of dedicated rakes (for lack of better adjective) planning to move to Thailand where, they believe, the women will be easier to deal with because they haven't heard of women's liberation. Soon Gerry finds himself in Thailand, torn between the age-old conundrum of trying to please his new girlfriend and his old buddies, whom his girlfriend naturally hates because they are dicks.

I really liked RJ Silver's The Princess and the Penis (review here) and The Ballerina, the Gymnast, and the Yoga Master (review here). My Third-World Girlfriend is a little more serious than either of those stories, but it's also more grounded in reality--comparatively speaking, of course.

There's a definite connection drawn in this story between economic and sexual dominance. The West has a long history of going into Asia and doing whatever they want, and Gerry's three buddies continue that with the justification that people in Thailand don't know any better. "...if finances are going to force us to settle down now, I'd rather find a woman less inclined to violence," one of them says. Another of the three states, "The Chinese are too capitalist now. The vomen [he's German] there vant so many things, vee'd have to share von just to split the costs." And, once Gerry moves in with his girlfriend, she controls the household budget.

There are lots of funny one-liners in this novella, but I think what makes My Third-World Girlfriend feel more heavy than Silver's other stories is that Gerry's buddies have absolutely no redeeming qualities. In both TP&tP and TBtG&tYM, there are very few characters who aren't likable, even if they are misguided. In My Third-World Girlfriend, more than half of the characters--Gerry's friends--are totally hopeless. It kind of makes the story almost a battle between good and evil. You want to be like, "Don't listen to Hank the Relationship Yoda, Gerry!"

My Third-World Girlfriend wasn't quite what I was expecting, but then I don't think Silver's novellas have ever been what I was expecting, and that's a good thing. I would definitely recommend it for anyone who enjoys funny, romantic stories.

Musical Notes: "Only Daddy Who'll Walk the Line" by Waylon Jennings

Movie Review: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

2012-02-04T00:26:00.000-07:00

Originally released: 2011
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Kathy Bates, Adrien Brody, Marion Cotillard, Carla Bruni, Michael Sheen
Directed by: Woody Allen
Based on: Woody Allen's imaginings of the phrase "midnight in Paris."

Gil, a Hollywood writer and aspiring novelist, is in Paris with his fiancée. He loves the romance of Paris, but she cares more about following around her pedantic friends. From the start, it's pretty clear this relationship isn't going to go anywhere. Then, after trying to make his way to his hotel one night, Gil is pulled into an olde-timey car by a bunch of partiers and swept away to 1920s Paris, an era he idolizes.

It would be more than fair to call Midnight In Paris a love letter to the City of Lights, but the portrait it paints is distinctly America's love affair with Paris, not Paris as she actually is. The places Gil visits with his fiancée are in every travel guide you can pick up, and the people he meets on his forays to the past are predominantly American ex-pats: Cole Porter, Josephine Baker, Ernest Hemingway, Man Ray, Gertrude Stein. This isn't a film that strives to shine a new light on Paris; it buffets you with every romantic stereotype of the city there is.

The best parts of Midnight In Paris are, of course, the scenes that take place in the 1920s. Gil goes to the coolest parties, meets everyone worth knowing, and gets writing advice from his idols. Who wouldn't love this scenario?

Of all the characters he meets in 1920s Paris, Ernest Hemingway was my absolute favorite. I literally gasped when he first appeared on-screen. Ernest freaking Hemingway! I hate the guy's books and even I would geek out if I got to drink with him. Plus, he gets the best lines in the entire film (Gertrude Stein gets a few good ones in, too), and talks just like you would imagine Hemingway would talk if he was reading one of his own books aloud. It's hilarious.

As for the other 1920s characters, like Dalí, Stein, and the Fitzgeralds, their personalities felt watered-down in order to be more palatable and attractive. But I was surprisingly okay with that. This movie is pure fantasy, after all, and doesn't make any claims toward historical (or contemporary, for that matter) accuracy.

There are two connected thematic threads running through Midnight In Paris: one is the fear of death (it IS a Woody Allen movie, after all). Hemingway says, "You'll never be a great writer if you fear dying. Do you?" "Yeah, I do. I would say it's my greatest fear," Gil replies. I would say his fear of FAILURE is more of what's keeping him from taking chances in his writing and his life, but whatever you say, Ernest.

The second theme is one of romanticizing the past. It seems ironic that someone whose greatest fear is death would idolize only dead writers, but it's also appropriate. As I said, Gil is more afraid of failure--of living--than he is of death. The lives of artists in the past is comforting to him because from the perspective of the present, it seems as if they knew more or less what they were doing. But they were just as in the dark and uncertain as we are.

Midnight In Paris is a good movie--it's perfectly paced, hits all the right notes, is gorgeously shot, and Owen Wilson is ideally cast as the lead. It's funny and romantic and whimsical. If you love Paris or literature, you HAVE to see this film.

Quotable Quotes:

Gil: I would like you to read my novel and get your opinion.
Hemingway: I hate it… If it's bad, I'll hate it because I hate bad writing. If it's good, then I'll be envious and hate it even more. You don't want the opinion of another writer.
________________________

Hemingway: If you're a writer, declare yourself the best writer! But you're not as long as I'm around.
________________________

Hemingway: It was a good book because it was an honest book, and that's what war does to men. There's nothing fine and noble about dying in the mud unless you die gracefully, and then it's not only noble but brave. [Makes no sense]
________________________

________________________

Gertrude Stein: The artist's job is not to succumb to despair but to find an antidote for the emptiness of existence. [LOVE this one]
________________________

Gil: You can fool me, but you CANNOT fool Ernest Hemingway! [LOL]

Discussion: THE FLIGHT OF GEMMA HARDY by Margot Livesey

2012-02-02T00:43:00.000-07:00

Today I'm discussing The Flight of Gemma Hardy by Margot Livesey with Colette from A Buckeye Girl Reads. This is part two. To read part one, please head over to Colette's blog, then come back! :)

Did you notice that whenever someone drove Gemma around, they braked for small animals?

Tasha: Yes. This book was filled so many random details. Maybe it's a symbol of something, but if so, I don't know what.

Colette: You are right, they always did break for small animals. I'm sure it was a metaphor for something. However when I read I don't look for metaphors, so when used in books they are always lost on me unless it's super obvious. There were a lot of random details in this book, and I'm sure they all were connected in some way that we are missing.

Tasha: I do read for metaphors and symbolism, and if the details represented anything, I think it was an unwillingness on Livesey's part to kill her "darlings." Perhaps she added extraneous detail because she wanted the novel to sound "Victorian" and didn't understand that the detail was there to make a point? I did like her writing style, but this book needed a lot more work and a heartless editor.

Birds are mentioned a lot throughout the book, what do you think they were trying to symbolize?

Colette: At first I thought the bird thing was there just to connect us to the original story of Jane Eyre. Now, though I'm thinking that it could have been a metaphor for how much Gemma changes... and the different birds mentioned show her changing from someone with little confidence to someone who is sure of herself. I thought birds were an odd hobby for a young girl to have in the era this book was in.

Tasha: I thought the birds were a symbol of Gemma's longing to be independent and an adult. That's probably why she and Sinclair reunited on the plane.

Why did you keep reading?

Tasha: lol Well, when I was in the first part, I was holding out hope the second part would be better, even though you warned me it wasn't. And at first I did really like second part, with the description of the Orkney's; but then it started to feel like it wasn't flowing naturally and things were just happening because they happened in the original Jane Eyre, you know what I mean? By then I wanted to finish it just so I could whinge about it, haha. ;)

Colette: I did love the Orkneys landscape. The descriptions were beautiful. I think you are right, the problem with the second half is that things were happening with the original version, only updated to match the time period of this book.

What did you think of the ending when Gemma goes to Iceland to reconnect with her mother's family?

Colette: I hated the ending. I liked her going to Iceland, but unlike in Jane Eyre, I didn't understand why her family couldn't contact her after her uncle died. Why not hire someone to do it? Why do think they had Gemma be from Iceland instead of England? I couldn't figure that out... except to have it be a reason for her aunt not liking her.

Tasha: The whole Iceland thing did seem pointless. For one, she was doing fine without her family, I didn't get why finding them was such a pressing issue she HAD TO STEAL MONEY FROM HER FRIENDS to go there (again, unlike Jane, Gemma's actions strike one as selfish at best and amoral at worst). For another, that wasn't much of a family; and even if she did find them, who cares? They live in frigging Iceland! This isn't going to make a significant difference to her life. Good luck making international calls, Miss I-don't-know-how-to-use-a-phone.

What did you think of the book overall?

Colette: This is one of those books that when reading reviews on GoodReads on I felt like I read a completely different book then everyone else did. I can't help but wonder if it's because I was expecting a little romance and didn't feel like that part of the book came through very well at all. Do you think that is why we, as romance lovers had such a hard time with this book?

Tasha: I think it's reasonable to expect some romance in a novel that advertises itself as a Jane Eyre adaptation, but the main reason I didn't like it was because of Gemma. Jane Eyre is about a woman who never compromises her ideals to make her life easier, but still gets what she wants. Gemma is like the female version of Meursault from The Stranger. She doesn't have ideals, she's just out to get everything she can for herself... and also the characterization was really weak.

Although Colette and I didn't hate The Flight of Gemma Hardy, it definitely didn't get better as it went on, and the ending was horrible. You'd be better served to spend your time reading or rereading Jane Eyre over this trying-too-hard-but-still-not-getting-it adaptation. We would like to thank the publisher for providing us with copies for review, though!

Jane Eyre Approximately

2012-01-31T00:15:00.000-07:00

There haven't been a lot of Jane Eyre adaptations (thank god) when compared to other classic novels like Pride & Prejudice; but there are a few! Here are some I've personally come across:

Jenna Starborn by Sharon Shinn
Sharon Shinn is one of my favorite authors, and Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books, so you can imagine my excitement when I heard about this novel. If you just read the summary and not the book itself, it might seem like Shinn did a good job of adapting Jane Eyre to a sci-fi setting; but in practice I didn't see what the point of Jenna Starborn was, because it was so similar to the original.

Nine Coaches Waiting by Mary Stewart
This is probably one of the best adaptations I've read, although it still falls short of the original. One of the reasons it's good is that Stewart is a neogothic writer, so her writing style is already perfectly suited to an adaptation of Jane Eyre. Another point in her favor is that she definitely puts her own spin on the story and adapts it to a contemporary (at the time) setting.

Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier
Du Maurier is another neogothic suspense novelist whose style is perfectly suited to putting her own twist on Jane Eyre. Rebecca is more of an "inspired by" than "copied after" adaptation. Like Stewart, du Maurier lets her own characters and setting move the story, not the original Jane Eyre.

Jane by April Lindner (review here)
In this version, Mr. Rochester is a rock star. It's very Jane Eyre-lite, but was enjoyable, if totally ridiculous.

Jane Slayre by Sherri Browning Erwin
I've seen this book around and have managed to avoid it. I suppose I could be persuaded to try it if someone told me it was good, but I haven't seen any reviews of it.

The Flight of Gemma Hardy by Margot Livesey
This is another novel where I'm not really sure what the point of writing it was. It's very similar to Jane Eyre in the plotting, but with none of the great characters and emotions that come with the original.

Have you read any adaptations of Jane Eyre?

Weekend Cooking: Cheese Please!

2012-01-28T01:32:00.000-07:00

According to Chuck Hughes from Chuck's Day Off, there is a renaissance of artisan cheese making happening in America right now, and I really have to agree with him. In the '80s it seemed like there were only three kinds of cheese: Velveeta, Kraft, and Philadelphia. Admittedly I was pretty young in the '80s, so my recollection might not be that great, but nowadays you can get so many different specialty cheeses in the grocery store. That definitely wasn't around when I was a kid.

When I was living in Oklahoma, there was a fromagerie--aka cheese shop--in the town I lived in, and I started to become obsessed with all trying all the different types of cheeses that were available. Then, while watching The Big Cheese one night, I started to wonder if there was a way to make cheese in a home kitchen. Although I doubted it (I figured you needed raw milk and specialized equipment I definitely wasn't going to buy), I put the question out on twitter. I probably could have googled it, but sometimes I just like to ask questions on twitter to see what will happen. Sandy from You've Gotta Read This said she'd just gotten a book called Artisan Cheese Making at Home that looked like something I'd be interested in.

My library had it. Yay! This book has absolutely fabulous, delicious-looking photographs that make me crave cheese like a crazy person, and recipes for everything from marscapone cheese to Stilton; as well as yogurt, butter, and recipes for dishes to make with your home-made cheeses. It's also very informative about the types of cheeses you can make and starts out with the easier stuff (ricotta, butter, yogurt, etc.).

That being said, I had the same problem with this book that I did with many of the bread-making books I looked at last year: even though the recipes are scaled-back for home kitchens, they still require a lot of special equipment and ingredients. In other words, it's written by a chef (Mary Karlin, in this case) who is writing what are "simple recipes" from the perspective of a chef, which is still way more time, money, and work than the average person wants to put into it.

Just for example, Karlin's recipes are in what she calls "small batches" of ONE OR TWO POUNDS of cheese. Do you know how long it would take my family to eat a whole pound of cheese, assuming they would even agree to eat it? That is not a practical-sized batch for the average household. Another pet peeve of mine: her butter recipe requires a food processor, which 1. isn't listed in the required equipment chapter, probably because she just assumes EVERYONE must have a food processor; and 2. is something I don't have. Even Karlin's simplest recipes require ingredients I've never heard of. Take the ingredients for her ricotta recipe, one of the first in the book:

1 gallon pasteurized or raw whole cow's milk
1/2 cup heavy cream
1 teaspoon citric acid powder
2 teaspoons kosher salt

What the heck is citric acid powder? How many people just have that sitting in their cupboard? The recipe also calls for sterilized equipment, nonreactive-strainers, -bowls, and -pots, and butter muslin instead of cheese cloth. Cuz that's totally necessary.

Fortunately, Sandy also gave me a link to a simpler ricotta recipe she found in Food & Wine magazine by Helm Sinskey; otherwise I never would have attempted to make cheese. By comparison, this recipe uses easily-found ingredients and the batch is 1/2 the size of Karlin's:

Ingredients:
    1.    2 quarts whole milk, preferably organic
    2.    1 cup heavy cream, preferably organic
    3.    3 tablespoons white vinegar
    4.    1/2 teaspoon kosher salt

Directions:
    1.    In a medium pot, warm the milk and cream over moderately high heat until the surface becomes foamy and steamy and an instant-read thermometer inserted in the milk registers 185°; don't let the milk boil [note: at high altitudes, milk will boil at this point. wah-wah]. Remove the pot from the heat. Add the vinegar and stir gently for 30 seconds; the mixture will curdle almost immediately. Add the salt and stir for 30 seconds longer. Cover the pot with a clean towel and let stand at room temperature for 2 hours.

    2.    Line a large colander with several layers of cheesecloth, allowing several inches of overhang. Set the colander in a large bowl. Using a slotted spoon, transfer the curds to the colander. Carefully gather the corners of the cheesecloth and close with a rubber band. Let the ricotta stand for 30 minutes, gently pressing and squeezing the cheesecloth occasionally to drain off the whey. Transfer the ricotta to a bowl and use at once, or cover and refrigerate.

Make Ahead The fresh ricotta can be refrigerated for up to 4 days.

Notice that this recipe also uses less salt and more cream than Karlin's. I followed this recipe (halving it), and it turned out fabulous! Very fluffy and creamy. It takes about three hours to make, but only thirty or so minutes of that requires your attention. Here are some pictures:

Making the cheese:

Of course, once I'd made the ricotta, I had to figure out what to do with it. Here are some of my recipe attempts:

I decided to make this after Memory from Stella Matutina said she liked ricotta with honey. This has honey and pepper sprinkled over it. It was okay, but a little bland, and not very filling.

I got this recipe from Real Simple. It's ricotta, butter, lemon zest, parsley, tarragon, and chives. I added a ton of herbs and pepper, but it was still very bland--okay, but definitely missing something.

This bruschetta was pretty good. I squeezed out the tomato's juices into the bread, then chopped the tomatoes, which made them easier to eat. The basil and prosciutto added a lot of flavor.

This is a pretty similar recipe to the bruschetta, but adapted for pizza. This was by far the best of the snacks I made. The only thing I would change is to add more tomato paste.

I also wanted to try making a dessert with the ricotta, and chose this recipe from Noshtopia for ricotta chocolate pudding. I had my doubts about turning cheese into a chocolate pudding, but it was really good!

So that was my cheese-making experience. It went pretty well (I count any cooking experiment that doesn't end with me in the ER a success at this point), and I am definitely encouraged to try to make different cheeses and butter. However, I don't think I'll be trying the recipes in Artisan Cheese Making at Home any time soon. They probably do taste better than the very basic cheese and butter recipes I've found so far, but I'm looking for easy at this point. It's a great resource if you're an experienced cook ready to put a lot of time, patience, energy, and money into making cheeses; but I think for the average person it's more like a book of food porn than something for practical use.

Weekend Cooking is open to anyone who has any kind of food-related post to share: Book (novel, nonfiction) reviews, cookbook reviews, movie reviews, recipes, random thoughts, gadgets, fabulous quotations, photographs. If your post is even vaguely foodie, feel free to grab the button and link up over the weekend.

Love Is a Leap

2012-01-26T01:03:00.001-07:00

Does anyone besides me remember The Butcher's Wife (the trailer is too cute!)? It's a romantic comedy from the '90s starring Demi Moore and Jeff Daniels. Demi plays a clairvoyant named Marina who travels to New York City with her new husband, a butcher. Her husband is freaked about Marina's ability to see into the future, so he sends her to a psychiatrist played by Jeff Daniels. It has so many elements that I love in a story: charm, humor, a sense of community, destiny, clairvoyance, self-discovery, and love of course. It's what so many romcoms strive to achieve but never do.

There are tons of great lines in this film, but the one that's stuck in my head the most is "Love is a leap that won't be denied." TOTALLY CHEESY, I know, but it must have permanently affected my prepubescent brain, because I completely buy into that concept. Not necessarily in real life--the jury's still out on that one--but narratively? Heck yeah.

Think about it: how much does denial really build romantic tension in stories? Personally, I hate that trope, especially when the characters deny their attraction for no good reason. Then eventually all obstacles are removed and they still STILL deny it (I'm looking at you, Castle and Bones), because the writers are under the mistaken belief that if their characters don't get together, then all romantic tension will be lost.

The thing is, people in general want to do things to ensure their own happiness. And typically being in a loving relationship does equate to happiness on some level. Ipso facto, one expects characters to take the chance on love at some point no matter the obstacles, external or internal, put in their path. There comes a point where the dithering grows tiresome and they have to either leap or find new fuel for the fire, and if that point passes with no action on the characters' part, the "romantic tension" becomes bullshit no one can buy into anymore.

I think that's one of the things I like most about The Butcher's Wife--the characters leap. Sometimes in the wrong direction, but they take chances because they think it will make them happy. Occasionally I worry that we've become a society so afraid of taking chances, we're even too afraid to write about what might happen when you do.

What words of wisdom have you taken away from romantic comedies?

Book Review: SILENT IN THE GRAVE by Deanna Raybourn

2012-01-24T00:19:00.000-07:00

"To say I met Nicholas Brisbane over my husband's dead body is not entirely accurate. Edward, it should be noted, was still twitching upon the floor."

Thus begins Silent in the Grave, a book that people have been recommending to me for years. It took a while, but I finally got around to it and they were right--Silent in the Grave is exactly the kind of novel I enjoy.

Lady Julia Grey is a young widow. When Nicholas Brisbane approaches her to suggest that her husband, who had always been sickly, was murdered, she dismisses the idea immediately. Almost a year later, however, she finds a threatening note in her husband's office and realizes Brisbane was right. Can she and Brisbane manage to find out who poisoned Lord Edward with almost no clues to speak of? It wouldn't be much of a mystery if they didn't, now would it?

The beginning of Silent in the Grave was fabulous--very atmospheric and morbid, but in a humorous way, like an Edward Gorey painting. I loved Lady Julia's voice (the novel is told in first person), and I am a total sucker for books where the hero and heroine argue, which Julia and Brisbane did quite a lot of. I had no idea how they were going to discover the murderer, but I wanted to find out!

That being said, the book started to lose me in the middle. I guessed who the killer was less than a third of the way into the story; Lady Julia began acting inconsistently, occasionally behaving like an idiot for the sake of dragging out clue reveals; and I didn't get any chemistry between her and Brisbane once they stopped fighting. WHY do they always have to stop fighting? Plus, Julia does tend to go on a bit. I started to skim through some sections.

Toby Stephens as Brisbane?

Brisbane is an interesting character, kind of a combination between Sherlock Holmes and Heathcliffe. But for some reason he didn't really interest me that much. Mainly all he does is brood (I'm sure he does other things, but while he's on the page it's mainly brooding). The clairvoyance struck me as cheesy rather than mysterious, and I guessed at his origins almost immediately.

Julia, meanwhile, is supposed to be going through a transformation into her own woman and all that good stuff, but I found the evidence of this was pretty shallow. A deep-cut dress does not a liberated woman make; just ask Marilyn Monroe. For the most part Julia remains as conventional as she was at the start of the story. I did like that she found nearly all the clues in the investigation; but then she does live in the house, and it took her long enough. Her family and her servants, on the other hand, were hilarious and awesome, and I wish they had had a more active role in the investigation.

So there were definitely some weak points in the story, and I'm not sure I want to continue reading the series--not because the book was bad, by any means, but because at this point I'm still not invested in Julia and Brisbane as characters, and I'm not sure I can handle another round of Julia wanting-Brisbane-to-pay-attention-to-her-but-really-not-that-much-attention. For the most part, however, I did enjoy this novel, if only for the fabulous Victorian feel of it, and I'm really glad I finally took the time to read it!

Musical Notes: "Blue Jeans" by Lana del Rey

Weekend Cooking Review: THE FOUNDING FOODIES by Dave DeWitt

2012-01-21T00:40:00.000-07:00

I was SO excited about Founding Foodies when I first saw it. I heart cultural history of any sort, whether it addresses dance, art, cooking, literature, film--you name it. Not to mention that one of my favorite things to eat is mac & cheese, and one of my favorite things to think about while making it is that Thomas Jefferson served the first dish of macaroni and cheese. How cool is that? In a way it ties me and Thomas Jefferson together. As a result, I've always been curious about Jefferson and his pals, and how their legacy can be found in food as well as politics. Since many of the men involved in the American Revolution were tavern owners and farmers, it stands to reason they knew their food.

Founding Foodies purports to tell us about the beginnings of "America's diverse food culture," as well as give us original Founding Father recipes like George Washington's beer and Martha Washington's fruitcake. How fun is that?! Unfortunately, the answer is not very fun at all, because this book fails on practically every level imaginable.

My high expectations of Founding Foodies started to plummet in the introduction. Perhaps it's just my years of being in school, but I expect the introduction of a non-fiction book to summarize the topic, lay out the central argument or point of the book, and provide a brief run-down of how that point is going to be made. What was in Dave DeWitt's intro? First, he talks about why he likes Jefferson (he went to the University of Virginia), and then he spends the rest of the introduction defining the terms "foodie" and "founding father." This was worrisome because both of these terms are generally understood by the North American public; so either we as readers are being talked down to, or DeWitt does not know what the fridge he is talking about.

Things, shockingly, did not improve from there. The first chapter doesn't start with the Founding Fathers at all, but with Sir Walter Raleigh, and it takes PAGES before food is even mentioned. The timeline jumps all over the place, from 1492 to 1850, and there is no central argument or point to be had anywhere in this book. Take the chapter on Thomas Jefferson, for example (I was sure DeWitt would at least manage a solid on this one, since he was such a self-professed Jeffersonian), which goes something like this: Thomas Jefferson, man of the world and lover of different cultures, founding foodie extraordinaire. Let's talk about him! Wait, let's talk about his slaves. He fed them! What a guy! Wait, let's talk about tomatoes. Now let's talk about ice cream, but let's discuss muffins while we're talking about that. Now let's talk about Jefferson's garden. What was his favorite vegetable? The debate rages. And why didn't we talk about tomatoes in this section? I don't know! UHG.

Even if there had been a point DeWitt was trying to make, the book is way too generalized to make it. Hey, did you know they served food at the White House? And people ate corn? It's true. They ate corn. I did like that DeWitt included a lot of information about what the slaves ate, but like much of the information in The Founding Foodies, it lacked a whole lot of context.

Furthermore, I really don't think DeWitt has any clue to what someone who would pick up a book like this would be looking for. Just as an example, at no point does he address the famous macaroni and cheese dish. If I've heard about it, it's got to be well-known; and it's one of America's favorite meals to this day. Yet there's NOTHING. ABOUT IT. ANYWHERE, other than a small note in the recipe section that Jefferson did serve a pasta dish with Parmesan cheese. No recipe, no date, no discussion. Does DeWitt know anything about his audience? Anything at all?

Frustrated, I flipped to the bibliography (there isn't a conclusion, which is probably for the best), and realized that was what I should have done in the first place, because many of DeWitt's sources are Wikipedia pages. HE LITERALLY CITES WIKIPEDIA AS A MAJOR SOURCE IN HIS BOOK! Not just a few times, but regularly. In the intro to the bibliography, DeWitt tries to excuse himself by saying he fact-checked Wikipedia to make sure it was correct. Oh, really?! You fact-checked Wikipedia? Why didn't you just use the sources you found while making sure Wikipedia was accurate then, hmmmmm?

To make it matters even worse, the writing style is stupefyingly boring. If I wasn't going to be put off by the total lack of logical organization and saddest excuse for research I have ever come across in a published book, the writing would do it. It's like reading the narration to a History Channel special, and I do not mean that in a good way.

So just to summarize: this author wrote a book that he basically researched using Google. And now we know why it sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about: HE DOESN'T.

There are some books that make me wonder how on earth people get published, and this is one of them. Even the index is a piece of crap, that's how bad this book is. You can do better. Might I suggest Wikipedia?

Weekend Cooking is open to anyone who has any kind of food-related post to share: Book (novel, nonfiction) reviews, cookbook reviews, movie reviews, recipes, random thoughts, gadgets, fabulous quotations, photographs. If your post is even vaguely foodie, feel free to grab the button and link up over the weekend.

Bookshelf Boredom

2012-01-19T00:52:00.001-07:00

I was contemplating my bookshelves the other day (as I do every day), and I suddenly realized two things: one, I'm running out of space. Again. And two, my unread shelves hadn't really changed all that much since I did my last book purge/donation to the library, and it's beginning to look like it's time to do another one.

But why are my unread shelves so static? I don't read as much as some, certainly, but I do go through the books. One would think there'd be at least some change in my shelves. Then it hit me: most of the books on my bookshelves aren't books I bought. They're either books someone has loaned or given to me, or books I got for review. The books I most want to read and are excited about are usually books I get from the library (indeed, I'm reading a library book right now) because I can't afford to buy books.

Of the dozens of unread paper books I own, only a few are books I've bought for myself, and none of them are purchases made in the last year--maybe even longer than that. If I happen to buy a book these days, it's a 99-cent or $1.99 eBook (or, even better, a free eBook).

This is quite sad, no? It's no wonder I'm feeling bored with my bookshelves lately. But what should the solution be? Should I focus on reading all the books I've bought for myself and then weeding out the loans and gifts? I've already done that three or four times, and I do want to read most of the books people get me... eventually. There just aren't any books that I'm dying to read in my collection and it doesn't seem like there will be for a while.

What do your bookshelves consist of? Library books, books you own, or books people have given you?

Book Review: WONDERSTRUCK by Brian Selznick

2012-01-17T00:09:00.001-07:00

After reading The Invention of Hugo Cabret, was there any question of me picking up Brian Selznick's next book? Not really. Wonderstruck has very similar elements to Hugo Cabret: once again there's an orphan boy alone in a city, looking for answers about his father, and receiving help from another child. But in this case the setting is the American Museum of Natural History in 1977, not a 1930's Paris train station. Juxtaposed against Ben's story is that of Rose, a girl in 1927 New Jersey who runs away to New York City. Her story is told mostly in pictures.

Wonderstruck isn't as charming and doesn't have the same fantastical feel as Hugo Cabret, possibly because the setting is much more modern and closer to home (at least for this American reader). But I also think the way Selznick tells this particular story is grittier and more grounded in reality than Hugo Cabret was. We're more directly confronted with the death of Ben's mother than we were with that of Hugo's father, and the tools and clues Ben uses to reconnect with his father's past are much more practical. That's not to say I didn't enjoy Wonderstruck, but the tone is definitely different. While we can imagine Hugo and Isabelle cavorting among the stars in the bright lights of Paris, these characters remain firmly in the gutter, so to speak.

I loved the opening sequence of this book simply because it highlights what is so great about Selznick's novels: the illustrations aren't afterthoughts or superfluous, they really are an essential part of the book. In this case the illustrations at the beginning did a great job of pulling me right into the story, which I finished in about two hours. Selznick keeps you reading by switching between Rose's and Ben's story at the just the right moments so you want to find out what happens next, but not so often that you start to feel whiplashed.

One of the themes in Wonderstruck is that of collections and how they tell a story about the person who owns them. They're called mini-museums, and collectors are amateur curators. Ben owns a box filled with "treasures" that he carries with him and that reveals stories about his past. That made think about my own collections--to be honest I don't collect that much. I don't like spending money on things with no practical purpose; plus I never saw the point of gathering things that are just going to collect dust. The one notable exception is images--I "collect" images of St. George and the Dragon, for example, not by actually buying them (unless it's a postcard), but by writing down where I saw it and/or taking a photograph of it. It also seems like most of the trips I take develop image themes. The image theme for my trip to Washington DC, for instance, was boats. I suppose in a sense I am curating an museum of images in my mind, although I thought of it like that before.

In any case, I think this novel will inspire readers (adult readers, anyway) to look at their collections in different ways, and I do think it's a good book that's worth reading. I definitely wasn't disappointed.

Weekend Cooking Review: WHAT I EAT by Peter Menzel and Faith D'Aluisio

2012-01-13T23:57:00.000-07:00

Several months ago, when I reviewed What the World Eats by Menzel and D'Aluisio, Amanda Gignac suggested I try out What I Eat: Around the World in 80 Diets by the same authors. Although it contains similar content--photographs of what people eat from around the world--Amanda was totally right when she said that What I Eat is a lot better than What the World Eats. It has better photographs, essays, and doesn't have as many generalizations or preachy moments.

In What the World Eats, Peter Menzel and Faith D'Aluisio photographed families from around the world with a week's worth of food, focusing on how much each family spent. Although it was an interesting idea, the format invited large generalizations. By comparison, What I Eat focuses on individuals and what they eat during the course of one day. This is much better, because it connects food more specifically to a person's lifestyle rather than their nationality. A trucker, for example, logically gets most of his/her food from gas stations and fast food restaurants and needs something that can be eaten one-handed; a German biermeister is obviously going to drink a lot of beer!

The book is organized by how many calories each person eats in a day. I really had no idea what the average calorie intake for an individual was before I started reading this book, but it seems like most people eat between 2200 and 3000 calories per day. Below 2000 calories is mostly athletes who need to be light (my aunt, a competitive rower, once told me she limited herself to 1200 calories a day during racing season--now I know just how low that is!), extreme dieters, workaholics who don't have time to eat, or people living in poverty. Even the fashion model Menzel and D'Aluisio photographed, Mariel Booth, eats 2400 calories a day. One might think that at the other end of the spectrum--people who eat 4000 calories or more per day--there would also be athletes who need energy. But actually, this group is almost entirely made up of men who work outdoors, particularly cold outdoors--with the notable exception of an English housewife who binge eats at 12,000+ calories.

If there's one thing I've learned from this book, though, it's that how many calories you eat doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with how much you weigh, despite what we hear on television. Viahondjera Musutua from Namibia eats about 1500 calories a day and weighs 160 pounds, while João Agustinho Cardoso from Brazil eats more than three times as much--5200 calories a day--yet weighs twenty pounds less! How many calories a dish has and how much food you're actually getting through it also seems to vary wildly: even though extreme dieters Rick Bumgardener and Mackenzie Wolfson eat less than 2000 calories a day, there seems to be a lot more food in their calories than there is in Chinese student Chen Zhen's 2600.

Part of the reason, as explained in Bijal P. Trivedi's excellent essay "The Agony and the Ecstasy of the Calorie," is that all calories are not created equal. When calories were "discovered" by Wilbur Olin Atwater in the 19th century, he was basically looking for a way to measure the amount of energy a person can get from food. But each calorie is made up of different values and behaves differently depending on what you do to it (processing, cooking, etc.), so what exactly goes into a "calorie" and how it will affect your body can be extremely variable.

There are several good essays in this book, which helps to mitigate the preachy tone I didn't like in What the World the Eats and elevates What I Eat to a more serious study of how humans relate to food. Trivedi's essay and Michael Pollan's "The End of Cooking," where he talks about the irony of America's obsession with foodie television and the fact that less and less people are cooking for themselves, were my two personal favorites.

Overall I found this to be a book worth tracking down and think it should definitely be of interest to anyone who likes reading about food. It would also be a great resource if you're planning a trip to any of these countries and want to find out what a typical meal might be.

Weekend Cooking is open to anyone who has any kind of food-related post to share: Book (novel, nonfiction) reviews, cookbook reviews, movie reviews, recipes, random thoughts, gadgets, fabulous quotations, photographs. If your post is even vaguely foodie, feel free to grab the button and link up over the weekend.

Book Review: WHEN NIGHT FALLS by Jenna Ryan

2012-01-12T23:51:00.001-07:00

Remember a few months ago when I ~~begged~~ asked for help finding two books I'd read a really long time ago? Well, this was the first book! I actually found it!

When Night Falls was published in 1993, which means I was either 12 or 13 when I first read it, and my recall of the details was actually pretty spot-on. Cassie, a crime scene photographer in London, follows a mysterious figure from the scene of brutal murder, straight into 1790. The man she followed, Anthony Lazarus Morgan, is a butler in the house of a baronet--and in his spare time, he travels through time investigating crimes. It turns out the murders in Cassie's London were committed by Jack the Ripper, who is also a time traveler, and he's now in 1790. Dun dun dun!

I'm happy to report that this book is as much fun as I remembered. Here are some of the things I heart about this book:

The hero is a butler. Morgan isn't a lord something-or-other (not even a secret one), or someone who is rich, but a butler. Hallefreakinglujah! A hero with an actual profession, can you imagine?!?
It's set in Georgian England! This is actually a little odd, because the atmosphere of the book feels very Victorian, and there are a lot of references in the book--everything from Charles Dickens to Courier and Ives--that come from the late 19th century. But I can see why Jenna Ryan pushed the setting back another century, because it gives a fresh twist to the whole Jack the Ripper plot thing.
Mystery! Although the mystery starts to seriously drag in the second half of this novel, it's my favorite part of the book. There are tons of suspects who are all interesting, and Ryan keeps you guessing as to which one is Jack the Ripper. Even having read the book before, I was surprised when the killer was revealed.
It's the heroine's story. This isn't the type of romance novel where it's all about the hero. The star of the show is Cassie, and it's upon her that the main action in the book hinges. She's smart, tough, quickly adaptable, and also the sexual aggressor in her relationship with Morgan.

Of course, there are some inconsistencies in the story I don't remember noticing when I was 12. Why is Morgan allowed at every crime scene and why do people keep asking his advice on how to investigate, for instance? I don't know! It's a time travel romance, maybe he altered time so that butlers are considered good crime scene investigators. It also bugged me that women of Georgian England kept being referred to as weak-willed and passive, especially when two of three Georgian-era females in this book were pretty damn bossy and clearly in charge of their own domains.

Overall, though, this is a pretty entertaining read. The romance is much more of a subplot than the mystery is, but it develops over the course of the novel and there's no instalove or -lust going on. Jack (the Ripper) also gets his own scenes, which are weirdly enjoyable because he's basically Norman Bates in the 18th century. I'm super-happy I found this book and I'm never letting it out of my sight again! Exclamation mark!

Musical Notes: There's really no logical reason for this, but "Walk Like a Man" by Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons kept running through my head while I was reading this.

Book Review: DARKER STILL by Leanna Renee Hieber

2012-01-11T00:30:00.000-07:00

In 1880's New York City, a young girl who is mute falls in love with a painting. This may seem like an usual plot, but actually there's a long tradition of stories and fables where art either comes to life, traps a live person, or seems to be alive to the point where someone falls in love the subject. What do they all have in common? They all have something to do with sex and the gaze. They all suggest that a truth lies in the image that's hidden by ordinary life. And they're all more interesting than Darker Still.

I really wanted to like this novel. Leanna Renee Hieber was one of the first authors to connect with my blog because I reviewed her first book, and I think she's a great writer. As an art historian, I tend to read every book that has something to do with art I come across and, in a very weird coincidence, I wrote about runes in painting for my master's thesis. Also, Colette from A Buckeye Girl Reads got a copy of Darker Still signed and then mailed it to me! Wasn't that nice of her?

With all that, one might think this book and I would be sure bets--I certainly thought so--but I wound up not finishing it. Perhaps it might be because I know too much about the subject, but I don't think so. I don't expect total historical accuracy from novels, especially in a subject as obscure as the occult in art. However, I DO expect a good story, and that simply didn't happen here.

Darker Still started out okay. It's "framed" in the way novels from the nineteenth century tend to be, as part of a police file that includes the main character's journal. At first I thought this was pretty brilliant and clever, but I was quickly bothered by the fact that the "journal entries" didn't read like journal entries, but like a regular novel in the first person.

When I really knew this book and I wouldn't get along, though, was the first time Natalie sets eyes on the portrait of Lord Denbury. This is basically the meet-cute of the book, yes? Even if it's just a painting, I expected something--some spark, some chemistry, or at the very least something interesting--to happen. But alas, nada. I read over the scene three times just to make sure I hadn't missed a key word or sentence that would tell me why everyone found this portrait to be so intriguing.

To be sure, the portrait has a somewhat curious history (although nothing sensational) and the subject is handsome--or so we're told. But the problem is that as a reader I cannot see this portrait. I'm told Denbury is handsome, but the way he's described makes him sound like Zoolander. The rest of the painting was related in a very stark, bare-bones manner, and sounded like a totally orndinary portrait. Rather boring and old-fashioned, in fact; certainly nothing to cause a Madame X-level of buzz.

Furthermore, while reading about the painting I kept being distracted by inconsistencies that pulled me out of the story. For example, Natalie describes Denbury thusly: "Tiny traces between his nose and the corners of his pursed and perfect lips indicated that his mouth would grow lines of an often wide smile as he aged." First of all, that's a pretty tortured sentence (one of many). And second of all, what seventeen-year-old thinks about how a person is going to age? The whole scene is wrapped up by Natalie declaring, "And yet, there was something terribly compelling about him." UHG. Insta-love much? Not only is that the romance cliche to end all romance novel cliches, but I don't find him compelling, and there's no reason why Natalie does beyond the fact that everyone else seems to.

I kept reading in the hopes the book would improve when Natalie went into the portrait, and it did a bit, but Denbury seemed silly rather than mysterious, and the villains were cartoonishly obvious. I was laughing a whole hell of a lot, and not because the book was trying to be funny. It was because of cheesy scenes like this:

I studied the particulars of the scene. The book The Girl remained jutting out from the shelf.

And then I noticed a new shift. Something else out of place. Different.

On his desk, the pristine blotter bore droplets of ink, and the quill was lying on its side rather than upright in the shaft of the inkwell. Two words seemed to scream up at me from a note that faced my direction on his desk.

Yes, you!

Haha! Denbury wants YOU! Yes, you! Just in case you thought he was telegraphing the cat. Or when Natalie finally meets this supposed 19-year-old heart-throb and he commences with the desk-pounding and exclamation-marking:

"Denbury pounded his fist on his desk in fury. 'The bloody bastard!'"

Two pages later...

"'I'd just begun to live!' He pounded his fist against the desk..."

At this point I'd started to feel like Darker Still was an adaptation of The Nutcracker and Mouse King, where a young girl becomes nonsensically obsessed with a painting instead of a nutcracker. But rather than turning out to be a prince, the guy is a bombastic octogenarian Whig; and instead of sweeping her off to an enchanted palace made of candy, he takes her to a 9x11 office cubicle with a fake fireplace. Très romantic.

On top of all this, I really hated Natalie as a character. Her personality basically IS that she's mute. That's it. There doesn't seem to be any reason for what she does beyond the fact that someone else wants her to do it, or any reasoning behind her ideas other than someone else thought it. Of course, she never really NEEDS to think, seeing as how who is good and who is evil and what exactly is going on and what she needs to do about it is all telegraphed to her, in a painfully obvious fashion. Snorz!

I heard a saying the other day that "A cat sat on a mat is not a story. A cat sat on another cat's mat is a story." This book is about a cat who sat on a mat. Everything just happens, with no conflict or intrigue to keep the reader engaged. There's no sense of atmosphere, historical place and time, characters with personalities, or stakes. And this why it read so young to me--as if it was written for 8-11 year-olds rather than teens or adults--because there's really no depth to the story at all. What you see is what you get, and that's pretty damn boring in art, life, and literature.

Downton Abbey Season Two Episode One Recap!

2012-01-09T13:05:00.002-07:00

Today I'm co-recapping the fist episode of Downton Abbey's second season at Edwardian Promenade. Check it out and share with us what you thought!

Weekend Cooking Review: FED UP WITH LUNCH by Sarah Wu

2012-01-07T00:08:00.000-07:00

You know those people who tweet about what they had for lunch? Well, Sarah Wu made a whole blog about it and then turned it into a book! Blogging "undercover" as the anonymous Mrs. Q, the elementary school teacher mobile blogged pictures of her and students' lunches every day for a year, along with descriptions of what the food was, how it tasted and looked. What did Wu learn from her Supersize Me-like experiment?

I had never visited (or even heard about) Wu's blog, Fed Up with Lunch, until this book came out; but in the interest of learning more about the author and where she's coming from, I looked over her lunch posts. I can definitely see why Fed Up with Lunch is so popular--the blog is really fun and interesting. Most of the attraction lies in Wu's photographs, which aren't professional by any means, but offer a fascinating glimpse into another world. Because most of the food is prepackaged or an appetizing shade of brown-ish, you have no idea what it is until she tells you. The writing itself is really lively and vibrant, but also short--probably about 100-300 words per post. It's said food is a window onto a culture--if that's the case, then the culture of the Illinois school system is like something out of the Jetsons. Their lunches are really bizarre and look like they came out of a space port.

Don't expect any of that from this book, though. This is a memoir of how and why Wu started the blog and her experiences with it, including meeting Jamie Oliver (she had the good fortune to start her blog just as Oliver was airing Food Revolution), being interviewed for Good Morning America, and so on. The pictures of food, which are the heart of Wu's blog, are reduced to 1-inch-square images so small you can't tell what you're looking at, and Wu actually doesn't describe the food she ate that much at all (with the notable and horrifying exception of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich).

Wu states in her book that she felt like a journalist, and I can see that on her blog, but it doesn't translate to this book. If this book is journalism, it's of the fluff variety. She says up-front she's not a food expert, which is fine, but it also shows in that the book reads more like the ruminations of a mom on how we need to watch kids' nutrition, etc. etc. While that's certainly true, as a call to action it's not terribly effective.

There was one really good chapter in the book based on Wu's experiences in the food industry. She worked for Kraft for several years (something she only bothers to mention in chapter seven?), and talks about how food corporations need to show an increase in sales to keep their stock prices up, even though food consumption naturally remains steady. That was really interesting and explained a lot about how food is produced in America.

If you watched Oliver's Food Revolution, you're probably aware that communities' reaction to changing their school food system tends to be met with anything ranging from apathy to antagonism. This book certainly doesn't do any better job than Oliver's TV show at changing that attitude--I have to admit, I'm kind of stuck on apathy at this point. If anything, I'm less inclined to care than I was before, and Wu's really preaching to the choir when it comes to me! While feeding kids freshly-made gourmet meals in cafeterias sounds nice in the abstract, in the concrete I have to wonder if, first of all, kids will actually eat this food; and second of all, who's going to pay for it? Wu didn't persuasively address either question in this book.

If anything, this memoir is an argument for parents to take a more active role in learning about food and cooking freshly prepared meals in their own home. If a revolution begins at home, then Wu did so with her own life, and I think Fed Up with Lunch may influence other parents to do the same.

Weekend Cooking is hosted by Beth Fish Reads and is open to anyone who has any kind of food-related post to share: Book (novel, nonfiction) reviews, cookbook reviews, movie reviews, recipes, random thoughts, gadgets, quotations, photographs. If your post is even vaguely foodie, feel free to grab the button and link up anytime over the weekend.

Mystery vs Suspense in THE MADNESS OF LORD IAN MACKENZIE by Jennifer Ashley

2012-01-04T00:44:00.000-07:00

One of the linchpins of a good story, I think, is the element of mystery, which obviously isn't the same as suspense. Mystery is more cerebral while suspense is more visceral. I think that's one of the reasons why suspense works so well in movies. You eat pictures with your eyes but you eat words with your brain, especially when those words are on paper.

In Little Women (the movie with Winona Ryder), Jo says something that has stuck in my head for years: books aren't about what you know, they're about what you don't know. You have to want to know about the characters or what's going to happen to keep reading. Unlike in movies, where information is limited to what's before your eyes, in books your mind has to be engaged. You have to wonder about something. That's why mysteries took off with the rise of the novel.

Unfortunately--I think probably because of the dominance of TV and movies in our lives now--this art of capturing one's interest and stringing it along with questions is really pretty rare in fiction these days. Most of the books I read seem to follow Hitchcock's edict that it's better to have an audience know about a bomb under a table for fifteen minutes than surprise them with an exploding bomb for five seconds. Of course, Hitchcock was making suspense movies, not writing books.

That's why it was nice to read The Madness of Lord Ian Mackenzie, because the author, Jennifer Ashley, does a great job of telling this story by building up the reader's questions about the Mackenzie brothers and then surprising us with turns in the story. "What is up with these Mackenzies, why are they all crazy?" you wonder soon after the story starts. Along with, "Why does Detective Fellows have it out for Ian?" The characters don't act like tropes, but like actual characters with motivation, and I loved how unconventional Ian and Beth were. Beth is a window who, through a series of unlikely events, has risen out of an East End London workhouse to become an elegant heiress. Ian, the younger brother of the Duke of whatever, probably has Ausberger's or a mild form of autism, and was institutionalized as a young boy. But he's not the only odd person in his family--all of his brothers are crazy and obsessive, and as the story unfolds we begin to understand why.

I really loved this book and can't believe I waited this long to pick it up! Even the murder mystery in the novel was very well-done and had me engaged and guessing until the end. The Madness of Lord Ian Mackenzie restored my belief that great story-telling is still to be had in historical romances.

Au Revoir, Romance Month

2012-01-01T13:06:00.000-07:00

It's January, which--the last time I checked, anyway--follows December. That means Romance Month is over. Sadface. Thank you to all the people who wrote guest posts and read along with me this month! You deserve cyber cuddles, which sounds uncomfortable but is totally worth it. {{{cuddles}}}

In case you like lists, here are all the posts for 2011's Romance Month:

Counting the book I'm currently in the middle of, I read five romances and chucked seven mid-way through, which aren't the greatest stats in the world. I feel like I accomplished a lot more than that! I think I've become a very jaded romance reader at this point in my life, which is why there were so many DNFs. I really wanted my interest to be engaged and to be shown something new, and that didn't happen with a lot of the books I picked up.

I predict I will read more romances in 2012 than I did in 2011, but right now there are bunch of YAs calling my name. :) I hope you all enjoyed romance month as much as I did, and thank you again to everyone who joined in!

What Was Exciting and Awesome In 2011?

2011-12-30T01:23:00.000-07:00

Looking back time! What did I write and think about the most this year?

Harry Potter!
Ah, Harry. Not only did I finish making my way through all the audiobooks, the final movie came out this year as well. Sadface. I gushed over Snape, wrote about HP's connection to WWII, completed surveys, and basically did all I could to break down, revive, and hold dear the series.

Twilight!
With Breaking Dawn, Part 1 coming out in November, naturally I came down with a touch of Twilight fever and reread New Moon, rewatched all the movies (Eclipse was actually pretty good, weirdly), and ate Twilight chocolate. Good times.

Photographs!
Wow, I read a lot of books about photography this year. Photographs of Yale and Detroit; photographs by George Hurrell, Emile Zola, and Man Ray; and a book about 19th-century western photography.

Jane Austen!
Okay, so maybe Jane Austen pops up frequently on my radar every year. But it seems like there was a lot of Austen-related articles and news and spin-offs this year, no?

Classic Hollywood!
I read about it, I watched it. I now know what the phrase pre-code means. I'm all up with it.

Drinking games!
I amused myself muchly this year by inventing drinking games, both for movies during Hitchfest and for books like The Magician King.

Caw, caw.

Ballet!
For some super-odd reason, this was the year of ballet for me. It all started when I saw Jennifer Homans, author of Apollo's Angels, on Charlie Rose. Then I read her book (well, actually just the first chapter, because that's all I could get for free on the Kindle). Then there was Black Swan, which I saw in the theaters; The Nutcracker that I wound up researching and then reading ETA Hoffmann's Nutcracker and Mouse King; I read The Ballerina, the Gymnast, and the Yoga Instructor; and I watched Mao's Last Dancer on TV. Why is ballet all of sudden the 'it' thing? And why am I watching movies about it? Do not know.

What was trending in your life this past year?

Audiobook Review: O JERUSALEM by Laurie R. King

2011-12-28T00:59:00.000-07:00

Dang, this book is long.

Mary Russell is the young partner-in-detection to the officially retired Sherlock Holmes. In the first Mary Russell "memoir," The Beekeeper's Apprentice, there is a small side note that she and Sherlock Holmes went to Palestine on a secret mission for the British government (and also to get out of the country) that's treated basically like this: "We went to Palestine for a year and it was kinda awesome and also the longest trip evar. Then we got back, yay!" O Jerusalem, the fourth book in the series, jumps back to that time period to tell us everything that went on during Russell's and Holmes' briefly-mentioned trip, to wit: they wander around Palestine for what isn't forty years but definitely feels like it; there are a lot of sheep; Sherlock Holmes gets almost-killed a bunch of times; and then they finally get to Jerusalem, where Russell starts geeking out and they stop a terrorist plot.

I can understand why Laurie R. King gave Russell's trip to Palestine its own book, because there was not way to do justice to it otherwise. As I mentioned before, this book is long. And meandery. It isn't quite that it doesn't have a plot, because it does; the reader just doesn't know what the plot is until maybe the final quarter of the book. They wander around and around with what appears to be no direction, and at some point it's like, "Just get to Jerusalem already!" Even worse, I listened to this on audio, which I really only do while cleaning or folding laundry, and thus it took me two months to finish.

I'm not going to say this book should have been shorter--mainly because I can't remember everything that went on at this point--but it does require a considerable amount of patience. It's well-researched and -written, as are all of King's novels; but I'm not a huge fan of "journey" books to begin with, and mystery books where the mystery is incidental outright annoy me most of the time, so I can't say I'm a huge fan right now.

What I did find really interesting, though, were the dynamics of Russell's and Holmes' relationship. Chronologically this is several years before they get married, before we even get a hint that their relationship is anything other than platonic. But in O Jerusalem, you definitely get the sense that the foundation of their marriage is being formed here, especially on the part of Holmes. It was more sentimental and sexual than I was expecting (not that, I'm sure, I would have interpreted it that way had I read the books in chronological rather than release order), and I think it's an awesome way to tell the story--to play with what we already know about the characters and add more layers to them that what would otherwise be there.

This probably won't be listed among my favorite Russell and Holmes books, but if you're already reading the series, naturally you want to read this one. If you're not reading the series, you're missing out on some great writing!

Book Review: THE THORN AND THE BLOSSOM by Theodora Goss

2011-12-27T00:28:00.000-07:00

Proposed alternate title: It's Not Easy Being Green

Evelyn is an American studying at Oxford, when she decides to traipse down to Cornwall for a week. While there, she wanders into a used books shop and meets the handsome son of the store's owner, Brendan (this is my dream, by the way). But will they ever be able to get together after her vacation?

This book is marketed heavily for its binding, which is in an accordion style, with Brendan's story on one side and Evelyn's on the other. Hence the subtitle of "A Two-Sided Love Story" (fun fact: one-sided love stories are also called stalking). Plus, it's nicely illustrated and designed. Although the binding is an unusual idea, I wanted to read this book because of the story, not its packaging.

The story is based on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (or at least a Cornish version of it), which I really enjoyed. I am totally down for any book that bases itself off Arthurian romances. You see, Evelyn and Brendan are locked in a 1000-year cycle of falling in love but never being together, thanks to a giantess' curse. The cyclical nature of these star-crossed lovers' relationship is reflected in the binding of the book. Clever, eh?

I started with Evelyn's story. Unfortunately, I didn't like her character at all and I thought her story was rather pointless. There were a lot of inconsistencies between what we're told about Evelyn and how she acts that don't make her believable. She's supposed to be in her last year at Oxford, so one would assume she's spent some time in England, but she acts like she's fresh off the boat. She's supposed to be studying literature, but on a week-long vacation by herself, she doesn't bring a single book. She writes poetry and sees fairies, but is supposed to be cynical. And so on.

As for character development, I didn't get anything from her. Emotionally, it felt like her story started and stopped in the exact same place (location-wise, it did, actually--that didn't help). Oh, girl's got problems, but those problems have nothing to do with Brendan. It was like at the beginning of Beauty and the Beast, where Belle sings, "Little town, full of little people, every day like the one before." Now imagine if Belle had stayed in the town and married Gaston, and you have an idea of my frustration with Evelyn. She's stupefyingly conventional and never seems to think through her decisions.

Thankfully, Brendan's story saved this book for me. Although he seemed like kind of a prat in Evelyn's side of the book, he clearly is the hero of this story and I felt like there were challenges he had to face during the course of the book that helped him grow emotionally and wind up in a place where he could achieve his dreams. It's interesting that even in books with "two sides" to the story, and ones written by women to boot, the female is still written as such a passive character. Not that Brendan is a particularly active character, of course, but at least he made conscious decisions and used his own judgment.

Although this book didn't blow me away, there's a lot packed into its eighty pages. It's definitely not your run-of-the-mill romance, either in the binding or the way the story is told. I would definitely recommend it if you're at all interested, especially if you happen to be an Anglophile or a medievalist.

Obligatory Christmas Post with Haiku

2011-12-25T14:40:00.001-07:00

I'd like to share a
few Christmas songs here
as I do every year.

Be sure to click on
the snowflake at the
bottom for extra wassail

Happy happy lot
Happy happy much
Happy holidays to you!

The Girl Who Slept

2011-12-23T00:41:00.000-07:00

Johannes Vermeer, Girl Asleep, 1657

Have you ever noticed that women in romance novels sleep a lot? Naturally we all need sleep, but with something so ordinary it doesn't seem worth mentioning in a book unless there's a point, like going to the bathroom. So what's the point of all the sleeping? Tired writers? A zombified nation of near-catatonic workaholics who can only sympathize with people in a similar state of ennui? Or does it mean something?

While rereading New Moon last month, I couldn't help but notice that Bella kept passing out--or almost passing out--a lot. And not during entirely appropriate moments (like, you know, bed time), either. Of course, the story is based on Sleeping Beauty, so I figured that had something to do with it, and set the issue aside to think of it no more.

BUT THEN, since I was already thinking about it (despite my resolve not to), I kept noticing heroines in nearly every romance I picked up afterward had a similar problem! It seemed as soon as these women encountered an extremely tense, emotionally-wrought, or high stress environment, they decided they needed a nap because they were super duper tired. "Here I am, alone in the house of a rake who wants to ravish me. Snnnnooorrrrzzzzzzz." Really?

At first I guessed that it was some passive-aggressive way of avoiding conflict--kind of like how Scott Pilgrim runs off to the bathroom as soon as he's faced with a potentially awkward situation. But it seemed odd that so many heroines would fall asleep in different books and situations. "What purpose does this serve the story?" I wondered to myself (actually it went more like, "WHAT THE HEEEEEEECK?!?"). Reading about women who keep falling asleep isn't exactly exciting.

John Henry Fuseli, The Nightmare, 1781

It was an embarrassingly long time afterward that I remembered sleeping women in art history=SEX ALL OVER THE PLACE! Exclamation mark! The most famous example being Fuseli's wildly popular The Nightmare. Pointed toes, arched back, and expression of combined agony and bliss--that woman is totally having an organism. And what's being done to the horse behind that curtain? You don't know; and judging by its expression, I don't want to know.

Aside from the pulled-out chair and open doorway that suggests recently vacated company, Vermeer's Girl Asleep is, according to your friendly neighborhood symbologists, full of allegories for temptation, love, and intercourse. It also looks like there's someone under the table, and I don't think they're picking up silverware. IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

In literature, too, a sleeping women is often a symbol of passive sexuality--think of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, for instance. Again, this is reflected in Twilight: there's a reason why the dynamics of Edward watching Bella sleep puts mamas' panties all in a twist. Or take the scene in New Moon when Jacob sneaks into Bella's room to tell her the Very Important Thing about him being a werewolf and she can barely keep her eyes. Of course, the fact that she doesn't fall asleep while he's around could indicate that she's not as 'available' to him as he'd like her to be.

For hundreds of years, at the least, a sleeping woman has suggested a sexually available woman. Do I think romance novelists are deliberately using this imagery to make their heroines seem more sexualized? Perhaps--Meyer employs it very effectively--but I think at this point it's become such a part of our culture that we don't consciously take note of it, especially in contemporary-set novels. Most people aren't looking for allegories or subtext in books; if they were, it would make reading certain novels really uncomfortable (I'm looking at you, Lewis Carrol). Even if they aren't consciously aware of it, however, on some level it is clear that the heroine, while asleep, is more vulnerable to the hero. If she's dropping off to sleep, then obviously she trusts him.

Elizabeth Siddal, 1860. Photo courtesy of lizziesiddal.com.

Have you ever noticed this narcoleptic heroine phenomenon? Do stories where the power dynamic is reversed and a woman observes a man who's sleeping have the same subtext?

Guest Post by Becky R.: JUDGING A COVER BY ITS MAN-FLESH

2011-12-22T00:24:00.000-07:00

Our last guest post before the holidays is from Becky at One Literature Nut! A few weeks ago Becky casually made an observation about romance novel covers that I thought was pretty brilliant, and I ~~begged~~ asked her to write a post about it. I'll let her tell you about her theory and you can judge for yourselves!

A couple of months ago, my good friend Tasha at Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Books posted a great review of the romance novel Instant Attraction by Jill Shalvis. Having just come off a couple of quick contemporary romances myself, I thought it was interesting that the hero in the novel was a wounded soul. Here’s why that was interesting—the cover seemed to predict where we were headed. If our heroes could speak, here’s what I anticipate they might reveal to us:

Fully-Clothed Hero, Up Close:

"Hi. I’m a wounded soul. I’ve probably been through a terrible accident, been ditched by a woman, been a witness of a crime, or been emotionally shut down for years. Basically, someone close to me lets the girl know, and it melts her grown-girl, independent heart and allows her to wiggle into my world (take that as you will). I’m the quintessential softie that knows how to be a man’s man, but prefers to be a romantic bard at heart."

Partially-Clothed Hero, Up Close:

"I’m a bit trickier. Showing some man-flesh might just be showing my rugged, manly side to the world, but that’s not all to me. I still have a secret that keeps me aloof and yet strangely appealing to women. Even though I might act like a jerk, I’m probably profanely dedicated to my woman (to the point of murder), and once I reveal that gut-jerking wound, the bond with my woman is eternal. Don’t mess with me!"

Fully-Clothed Hero with Fully or Partially-Clothed Heroine:

"Listen, girl. I’m not the type to 'need' to chase you. I can seem intimidating in my power suit or native dress, to the point of being unapproachable, but women throw themselves at me every day. I probably 'get around' quite a bit—just enough to make YOU think I’m the ultimate bad boy that you need to tame. I like to think that you don’t get me, and I’ll hold out to the very last second to let you know what I think. In fact, you better have some serious take charge brutishness of your own or powerful boardroom woman-power to catch my attention. No worries. Once I get that we both wear the 'pants' (so to say), I’ll be your bad boy that is secretly your good guy that you managed to tame."

Partially-Clothed Hero with Fully or Partially-Clothed Heroine:

"Nowadays, I don’t like to jerk a girl to my chest just to watch her heaving bosoms rage or flowing hair escape into the moonlight. Nope. Now I like to grab a girl to me to look her in the eyes to show her she has underestimated or misunderstood me on so many levels. Yes, I might look ruthless in my bare chest and jeans or ripped open shirt and kilt, but I’m a man-beast with some serious rage over some past wrong. Oh, and don’t call me a man-whore, because it’s probably pretty likely that I’m nowhere near that title—people just think I am. Unlock my wound, show me some nurturing, and my eyes (ahem, I mean hot bod) will be yours forever."

Of course we have some funny exceptions to these general, four heroes, but when you really take a look at the romance novels you’ve read recently, you might see some of these traits playing out. Gone is Fabio with his long hair, open shirt, and half-dressed vixen. Today we’re seeing more modern themes, paranormal characters, and strong female leads to match their men. It is kind of interesting though to see covers start to reveal even more about those leading men!

Which male lead is your favorite, and have you seen any covers to match their description?

Thank you so much, Becky! I love the phrase, 'unlock my wound,' someone should definitely put that on a cover! :)
You can find out more about Becky on her Twitter page as well as her blog.