Why I don't read as diversely as I could

Yesterday I started reading "Don't Let Anything Dull Your Sparkle: How To Break Free of Negativity & Drama" by Doreen Virtue.  Although Doreen Virtue is known for her spiritual/new age books, this one (so far?) appears to be a non-spiritual book.  At least, that's what I'm hoping for.  One of the things I enjoy about human life is how events, thoughts, ideas, etc. all mix together in the mind and then sometimes combine to make a better idea or to create an epiphany.  This happened to me yesterday.  I was reading the Doreen Virtue book after spending hours listening to book-related podcasts (The Readers, Book Riot, and Books on the Nightstand to be precise).  And that's when I read this:

Studies show that we can become traumatized by hearing about another person's trauma." (p.4)

 I realized that this is why I do not read as diversely as I could.  I didn't know the exact reasoning behind why until now.  Although I am sure that the books I pass up for this reason have their own merits and value in the world, I find I just cannot read books about abuse, violence, manipulative psychopaths, war, etc.  Everyone has been raving about "Gone Girl" by Gillian Flynn.  I listened to the Overdue podcast episode about it just so someone who had read it would tell me what the big deal/secret was: manipulative psychopaths.  Frequently, books by diverse authors and authors of colour are books about overcoming hardship.  Typically, that hardship takes the form of abuse, violence, and/or war.  "Beloved" by Toni Morrison deals with the topic of slavery, and according to the synopsis on Goodreads '[Sethe] has too many memories of Sweet Home, the beautiful farm where so many hideous things happened'.  Who wants to read about hideous things?  Despite reading the Book Riot article in defense of reading offensive books, I will continue to read whatever I want to read even if it's not as diverse as someone else thinks it should be.  However, I am not saying I will never read a book that has diverse settings, topics, authors, etc.  I voluntarily read "To Kill A Mockingbird" by Harper Lee last year because it was not in my assigned reading in school.  I enjoyed it very much.  I'm guessing because it was pretty tame as far as racism goes and didn't have gory details.  I do not like being scared; this is the reason why I don't read murder mysteries or crime novels either.  Sure, I could read diversely and feel so much better about my somewhat-privileged white North American life.  But as a person who reads for plot more than anything else, I highly doubt many diverse books would appeal to me.  I recently read "The Book of Speculation" by Erika Swyler.  If the main characters had been of a different ethnic background, I would still have enjoyed the book.  I read and enjoyed "Life of Pi" by Yann Martel.  I enjoy a fair amount of LGBT writing, especially that of Ivan Coyote and Caethes Faron.

So I guess I could say that I read diversely in the same way that I read in general: by whim.  If a book plot sounds attractive enough for me to read the book, I don't care about the gender and/or ethnicity of the author and/or characters.  To me, reading is all about the content and plot.

Read on,
Paula

"The Book of Speculation" by Erika Swyler

Synopsis:
Simon Watson, a young librarian, lives alone on the Long Island Sound in his family home, a house perched on the edge of a cliff that is slowly crumbling into the sea. His parents are long dead, his mother having drowned in the water his house overlooks.


One day, Simon receives a mysterious book from an antiquarian bookseller; it has been sent to him because it is inscribed with the name Verona Bonn, Simon's grandmother. Simon must unlock the mysteries of the book, and decode his family history, before fate deals its next deadly hand.

Review:
Fascinating, captivating, enchanting.  I read the edition with the above image; my only complaint about the book is that this image bears no resemblance to the contents of the book.  And without reading the synopsis before reading the book, you don't find out until the second page that the story is from a male main character's perspective.  Given that I am a female and there is a female on the cover, I figured it would be a female narrator...I was wrong.

Okay, so based on the synopsis, you know that there is a mysterious book involved.  So I can say that I love how the mysterious book moves forward and the main plot moves backward through time until they meet up.  As I was nearing the end of the book, I suspected what would happen.  I came home with 10 pages left to read but didn't read them at work, fearing that I would cry at the end.  As always, I love a happy ending so I'm glad I was only mostly right.  I loved this book.  I think I would have loved it more if I had been able to read it in fewer chunks (work/life gets in the way of reading time).  Because the two stories are interwoven in the novel, it can be disjointing to read, especially if you don't have enough time to get caught up in both stories.  That happened later in the book for me.  That's why I would like to reread it so that I can absorb more of the details that probably got lost on me because of the choppiness of my reading time.  I did love this book though.  I loved the imagery and the details in the writing.  And this is only Erika Swyler's first novel.  I will keep an eye out for her future work!

Read on,
Paula

Warning: a proliferation of exclamation points ensues (my review of "Ratscalibur" by Josh Lieb)

Can't I please give it 10 stars instead of 5?  Pretty please?

Oh man, it's like a rat King Arthur meets Lord of the Rings!  It's an adventure fantasy story with all the tropes associated with those genres.  It's got humour, sadness, a tiny bit of romance, and lots of ragic (rat magic).  Gondorff the Grey, Ravalon, and the Spork in the Scone!  Come on, who wouldn't want to read that?

I listened to the unabridged audiobook version and loved it so much that I'm buying myself a hardcover copy so I can read it to my pet rats.  And best of all?  There's a cliffhanger!!!  That means there will be more!!!  (And maybe the series could be turned into a movie?!?!)  Finally, a rat-positive book...and it's awesome!

Oh, and the mom is a redhead.  Two thumbs up for that.

Read on,
Paula

"Go set a watchman" controversy

I loved "To Kill A Mockingbird".  Despite all the rumours and conspiracy theories floating around regarding "Go Set A Watchman", I do intend to read it.  I wasn't going to at first.  The thing that changed my mind?  Jeff O'Neill of the BookRiot Podcast made a very important point: regardless of all that's going on now, Harper Lee wrote the book with the intention of publishing it.  Even though her publisher convinced her instead to write what became "To Kill A Mockingbird", Harper Lee meant for this book to be published and read.  Unless it has been edited prior to publication, it probably won't be quite as honed and polished as TKAM.  But I am still willing to read it based on how much I enjoyed reading TKAM.

Read on,
Paula

The complete Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle

First off, I have to say that I did myself a disservice by reading "Dust and Shadow" by Lyndsay Faye before reading the original source material because Doyle's writing style is MUCH simpler.  I loved Faye's Sherlock Holmes pastiche novel about Jack the Ripper and am aware of the global fascination/adoration for Sherlock Holmes.  I read "The Hound of the Baskervilles" in high school but could only vaguely remember it.

I liked "A Study in Scarlet" because not only was it a mystery solved by Sherlock but it was also a story told by the culprit about the history of Mormons in Utah and the civil war in India.  The writing style and historical detail made it a fascinating story that I thoroughly enjoyed.

I liked "The Five Orange Pips" for the historical lessons about the Ku Klux Klan that sent me to Google about their disbandment in 1869.

Perhaps when the short stories were published in a magazine for the general masses they may have been more suspenseful and exciting.  The more of them I read, the more formulaic they seemed to me.  They weren't thrilling mysteries to solve but threads to follow to the end where everything was neatly tied up.

One of the most annoying things about the Sherlock Holmes stories was the sprinkling of untranslated foreign phrases where context couldn't help with deciphering.  I was thoroughly happy to discover that someone had compiled them all in one spot and explained them.

The way people talk about Moriarty, I figured he would be in at least more than one story but he's NOT.  I was completely disappointed because the whole mythology behind Moriarty as Holmes' arch nemesis has no basis other than Holmes' own word in the one story.  So much has been made of Moriarty that you just expect to see him show up in more than just one story.  And then the actual writing of Moriarty was a let-down because other people's interpretations are far more detailed than the original story where Moriarty himself is more of a shadow figure than a real character.

Much has been made (and implied) about Holmes and Watson's relationship, considering that they lived together as roommates.  So I was utterly surprised when Watson meets his future wife in "The Sign of the Four" and is already married in "A Scandal in Bohemia".  Holmes and Watson don't actually live together for very long until after Holmes' faked death.

Mike from the Book Fight podcast wants to know: "Is Sherlock Holmes supposed to be a giant dick? Why does Watson keep working for him?"  I wondered this often myself.  "The Hound of the Baskervilles" triggered this question when Holmes sends Watson off to work on the mystery without him and then later in the story reveals that he's been working the case anyway.  In "The Final Problem", we meet Moriarty (for the only time) and the story ends with Moriarty and Holmes falling into the gorge at Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland.  In the next story, "The Adventure of the Empty House", Holmes has been 'dead' for three years when he suddenly reappears and can't understand why Watson faints at the sight of him.  When Watson recovers and asks how Holmes survived and where he's been the last three years, Holmes basically says, "We'll talk about it later.  Right now we have work to do."  The deeper I got into the Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes, the less I liked him.

I decided not to finish reading all of the Sherlock Holmes stories.  I gave up at the beginning of "The Adventure of the Six Napoleons" when Holmes mentions vampires in Transylvania.  I was severely disappointed in the source material.  For me, the widespread popularity and legend of the Sherlock Holmes character is blown way out of proportion from the original source material.  Although I like his logical skills of deduction, the man himself is not a very nice person.  Dr. Gregory House of the TV show "House, M.D." is supposed to be a Sherlockian character with similar logical skills of deduction.  In the beginning of the series, I very much liked the show but, over time, House, like Sherlock, shows that he's not a very nice person and I lose interest.

I wouldn't mind reading more Sherlock Holmes pastiche such as "The House of Silk" by Anthony Horowitz but I doubt any of them will be as fascinating and gripping as Lyndsay Faye's novel.

Read on,

Paula

Forgetting books; and book blogging

The Readers podcast had a great episode recently.  One of the main topics they discussed was forgetting books: forgetting almost everything about a book shortly after you've read it and/or forgetting you've read a book.  I am afflicted with this.  Like Thomas, I don't think it's because I read too fast (especially now when I am lucky if I make it to 50 books a year) but that I probably don't read closely enough.  Looking through the list of books I've read, I know I've read them because I can remember something about the time in my life when I read it or I can remember something about the book...but not always.  I plan to institute something similar to Simon where I take notes while reading. 

Thomas from The Readers says that forgetting books is the reason he started book blogging and I am using that as inspiration.  I love books and I love reading but my blog has been a bit of an unfocused venture.  Going forward, I intend to be more detailed in my reviews so that I can remember my favourite parts, quotes, and it may be heavy in spoiler alerts.  This is something I have struggled with and never gotten any advice on: how much of the plot should you give away in your review?  Granted, I am not a reviewer for a major magazine or newspaper but (theoretically) someone out there will read what I've written.  I wouldn't want to spoil the plot of a book that prevents someone from reading the book itself.  So maybe I won't go into ALL of the details but I will be more descriptive in what I liked about the book.  Consider yourself forewarned!

Read on,
Paula

Age-Appropriate ; Goodreads Reading Challenge 2015

Age-Appropriate (from Booking Through Thursday)

Do you read books “meant” for other age groups? Adult books when you were a child; Young-Adult books now that you’re grown; Picture books just for kicks … You know … books not “meant” for you. Or do you pretty much stick to what’s written for people your age?

As an adult, I read whatever interests me, regardless of target audience.  If a picture book has an interesting title, appealing illustration, or a great story, I will read it.  I have read juvenile fiction and Young Adult titles.  Basically, I will read anything that appeals to me for whatever reason it does so.


In other news,  I have set my goal for the 2015 Goodreads Reading Challenge.  I decided to keep it at the same goal as last year (50) with the great hope that I will fly past it now that my reader's block has passed.

Read on,
Paula

Year-end book review 2014

1.  Best book(s) I read in 2014: "The Storied Life of A. J. Fikry" by Gabrielle Zevin

2.  Most disappointing book of 2014: "The Art of Sleeping Alone" by Sophie Fontanel

3.  Most surprising (in a good way!) book of 2014: "Redshirts" by John Scalzi

4.  Books I recommended most to people in 2014: "No Relation" by Terry Fallis

5.  Best series I discovered in 2014: The 'Measure of Devotion' series by Caethes Faron

6.  Favourite new author(s) of 2014: None this year

7.  Most thrilling, unputdownable book of 2014: All three books in the 'Measure of Devotion' series by Caethes Faron

8.  Book I most anticipated in 2014: "No Relation" by Terry Fallis

9.  Favourite cover of a book I read in 2014: "The Storied Life of A. J. Fikry" by Gabrielle Zevin

10. Most memorable character in 2014: Earnest Hemmingway from "No Relation" by Terry Fallis

11. Most beautifully written book of 2014: None this year

12. Best book that was out of my comfort zone or was a new genre for me in 2014: "Invisible Chains: Canada's Underground World of Human Trafficking" by Benjamin Perrin

13. Book that had the greatest impact on me in 2014: "Do Less: A Minimalist Guide to a Simplified, Organized, and Happy Life" by Rachel Jonat

14. Book I can't believe I waited until 2014 to FINALLY read: "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" by Washington Irving

15. Book I read in 2014 that would most likely be reread in 2015: "The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality" by Julie Sondra Decker

16. Book that had a scene in it that had me reeling and dying to talk to someone about it? (A WTF moment, an epic revelation, a steamy kiss, etc.  No spoilers!): "Flee, Fly, Flown" by Janet Hepburn

Some fun stats:
Books completed: 54
Books by male authors: 19
Books by female authors: 35
Fiction: 29
Non-fiction: 25
Children's books: 3
YA books: 0
E-books: 24
Did not finish (DNF): 3
Re-reads: 1
Translated books: 2 (one Swedish, one French)
Big fat books (more than 500 pages): 0

Doing this year-end recap made it completely clear how much my reader's block affected my reading.  There are questions I just can't answer.  That hurts, actually.  It makes me wish for a 2015 with much more reading that I did in 2014.  I still haven't decided whether or not to participate in the 2015 Goodreads Reading Challenge.  I want to because it keeps track of my books for the year for me and their data makes it easier to fill in my recap.  Unfortunately, they don't provide as much data (book length, overall page total, etc.) as they used to.  And although I want to read more than 50 books in 2015, I do not like failing at a challenge and don't want to have to edit my goal down from my original (something I had to do this year).  I can always join it at a later date so I will continue to mull it over for now.

Here's to a merry book-filled year!

Read on,
Paula

"101 Letters To A Prime Minister" by Yann Martel

Synopsis: 
From the author of "Life of Pi" comes a literary correspondence — recommendations to Canada’s Prime Minister of great short books that will inspire and delight book lovers and book club readers across our nation.

Every two weeks from April 16th, 2007 to February 28, 2011, Yann Martel mailed Stephen Harper a book along with a letter. These insightful, provocative letters detailed what he hoped the Prime Minister may take from the books — by such writers as Jane Austen, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Stephen Galloway — are collected here together. The one-sided correspondence (Mr. Harper’s office only replied seven times) becomes a meditation on reading and writing and the necessity to allow ourselves to expand stillness in our lives, even if we’re not head of government.

Review:
-I found these letters to be presumptive literary snobbery.  I believe these letters were not written FOR Stephen Harper even though they were addressed TO Stephen Harper; I believe they were written specifically to be published as a book.  This becomes more apparent when Martel sends Harper a copy of the book in which the first 55 letters were published.  Martel also published the letters on a now-defunct website (formerly www.whatisstephenharperreading.ca).  And Martel wonders why Stephen Harper never replied in person to any of these letters?!

-Almost every letter, I feel, has some sort of slight or subtle insult at the Canadian government.  This is more overt in the letters that mention $45 million in cuts to arts funding in 2008.  To me, these letters are political whining disguised as literary criticism.

-I enjoyed Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" when I studied it in high school.  Of all of the reviews and criticisms I've heard or read about it, Martel's is the first to call it a Christian allegory.

-Sometimes a photograph of a group of people is just a photograph of a group of people and not some intentional representation of a book's title (get over yourself, Martel!)

-Of the 1o7 actual books that were sent to Harper, I have read only 11.  Perhaps my reading tastes not aligning with Martel's is also a reason that I did not like the book as much as I was hoping.

-I read this book because I liked Martel's "Life of Pi" and am always looking for interesting reading material.  I wanted to finish it because it's a book about books that I may or may not have read.  I got 294 pages in (of 426) before I just couldn't take any more of (my perception of?) Martel's tone and I had already been mentally cheering myself on just to keep going.  However, I have far too many other books I want to read to bother forcing myself to finish this one.

Read on,
Paula