Well, it's good. Not as good as the first and the second ones, but okay. It was kind of too long (almost 1000 pages), it should've been split into two parts or something. The plot is really interesting, especially the first third. The second third was good, but the last third was really slow and predictable sometimes. Nevertheless, it's good and you should read it.
Wow! Gaiman's quickly becoming one of my favourite authors. The novel sometimes has that Harry Potter vibe. Dead parents, a child almost killed becomes an orphan, witch, ghosts, werewolf, vampire...
After over 20 rereadings, I believe it's time to review "Harry Potter". To those of you saying that I'm crazy (like my mum) - mind your own business. And to those of you admiring me - thank you.
I'll try to keep these short.
POA is awesome. Mostly because we were introduced to the Marauders. The addition of Sirius and Lupin is great. I will always love them.
This one also shows us the first argument between Ron and Hermione. (the other being in HBP)
I will always cry during that final Quidditch match. Let's not forget Jordan's comments :)
I've never really noticed, but Ginny barely even appears in this one. She has a couple of lines in Diagon Alley and that's pretty much it. Weird for a major character.
Rowling started to expand this world with creatures. We're introduced to the Hippogriffs and Dementors as a representation of depression. They still scare me. I wouldn't want to meet them. Thumbs up for adding a werewolf Lupin as a metaphor for AIDS or basically any other decease and the prejudices that come with it. It also works for any other prejudices in life.
And let's not forget the Time Turner - one of the best and worst things Rowling introduced in POA. I understand that some things plot wise wouldn't be possible without it, but it created a whole lot of plotholes. It's no wonder Rowling destroyed them in OOTF. And getting them back for Cursed Child was a really, really bad idea.
FILM NOTES:
This is probably my favorite adaptation. Script is perfect and the direction is show more superb. It's no wonder given that it was directed by Alfonso Cuarón. Oh, yeah and fabulous casting. There should've been more Quidditch, though. And Harry getting Firebolt at the end is stupid. Timeline doesn't match up. It pretty much means that Harry didn't play Qudditch since his broomstick had broken. (7 months)
PERSONAL NOTES:
The third and the fourth novels are the first two HP books I've bought way back in 2005. I've gotten the first two from the library. show less
I'll try to keep these short.
POA is awesome. Mostly because we were introduced to the Marauders. The addition of Sirius and Lupin is great. I will always love them.
This one also shows us the first argument between Ron and Hermione. (the other being in HBP)
I will always cry during that final Quidditch match. Let's not forget Jordan's comments :)
I've never really noticed, but Ginny barely even appears in this one. She has a couple of lines in Diagon Alley and that's pretty much it. Weird for a major character.
Rowling started to expand this world with creatures. We're introduced to the Hippogriffs and Dementors as a representation of depression. They still scare me. I wouldn't want to meet them. Thumbs up for adding a werewolf Lupin as a metaphor for AIDS or basically any other decease and the prejudices that come with it. It also works for any other prejudices in life.
And let's not forget the Time Turner - one of the best and worst things Rowling introduced in POA. I understand that some things plot wise wouldn't be possible without it, but it created a whole lot of plotholes. It's no wonder Rowling destroyed them in OOTF. And getting them back for Cursed Child was a really, really bad idea.
FILM NOTES:
This is probably my favorite adaptation. Script is perfect and the direction is show more superb. It's no wonder given that it was directed by Alfonso Cuarón. Oh, yeah and fabulous casting. There should've been more Quidditch, though. And Harry getting Firebolt at the end is stupid. Timeline doesn't match up. It pretty much means that Harry didn't play Qudditch since his broomstick had broken. (7 months)
PERSONAL NOTES:
The third and the fourth novels are the first two HP books I've bought way back in 2005. I've gotten the first two from the library. show less
Well... That was, well, not bad, but certainly stupid.
So after a long affair, a college professor leaves his wife and marries his lover. And then he starts to question his new wife's previous relationships to the point of obsession which results in a murder and a suicide? It was unusual topic, but Graham had no reason to be jealous. As for her ongoing affair with his friend Jack, Graham shouldn't have done that. Killing for revenge is stupid.
Unlike other Barnes' novels (this was my fifth) this one feels like a proper story (Just like my favourite "The Sense of an Ending"), but something's missing. It just feels stupid. I'll give Barnes a pass though because this was only his second novel. (Three years later he wrote wonderful "Flaubert's Parrot") He was probably still finding himself as a writer. Some elements are still here (deep analysis of actions, for example)
And there weren't enough memorable quotes. Only two or three I believe whereas in the others I had at least a dozen.
So after a long affair, a college professor leaves his wife and marries his lover. And then he starts to question his new wife's previous relationships to the point of obsession which results in a murder and a suicide? It was unusual topic, but Graham had no reason to be jealous. As for her ongoing affair with his friend Jack, Graham shouldn't have done that. Killing for revenge is stupid.
Unlike other Barnes' novels (this was my fifth) this one feels like a proper story (Just like my favourite "The Sense of an Ending"), but something's missing. It just feels stupid. I'll give Barnes a pass though because this was only his second novel. (Three years later he wrote wonderful "Flaubert's Parrot") He was probably still finding himself as a writer. Some elements are still here (deep analysis of actions, for example)
And there weren't enough memorable quotes. Only two or three I believe whereas in the others I had at least a dozen.
There are only three chapters. The first two are sort of biographical, while the final is autobiographical.
1) "The Sin of Height" - freedom of flight ~ (This part was mostly boring. It follows three balloonists in the 19th century.)
2) "On the Level" - A fictional relationship between Sarah Bernhardt and Fred Burnaby (I really enjoyed this chapter)
3) "The Loss of Depth" - Barnes tells us about his wife's death and his grieving. (This was the best chapter. It was so sad and hard to read. I've cried several times. I had to stop a couple of times. It was so overwhelming.)
This is my fourth Barnes' book . Even though this one differs from the other three, it was beautiful and really quotable. I really like that the chapters tell the complete story of life or as the title puts it "Levels of Life". Sometimes we're up in the sky and happy, sometimes it's just okay and sometimes we get our fair share of sadness. But that's life.
1) "The Sin of Height" - freedom of flight ~ (This part was mostly boring. It follows three balloonists in the 19th century.)
2) "On the Level" - A fictional relationship between Sarah Bernhardt and Fred Burnaby (I really enjoyed this chapter)
3) "The Loss of Depth" - Barnes tells us about his wife's death and his grieving. (This was the best chapter. It was so sad and hard to read. I've cried several times. I had to stop a couple of times. It was so overwhelming.)
This is my fourth Barnes' book . Even though this one differs from the other three, it was beautiful and really quotable. I really like that the chapters tell the complete story of life or as the title puts it "Levels of Life". Sometimes we're up in the sky and happy, sometimes it's just okay and sometimes we get our fair share of sadness. But that's life.
I like that the structure is different from the film, but overall, nothing special.
Boring. I had that "The Phantom of the Opera" song in my head while I was reading it, though.
Let me start by quoting Rosalind Miles:
"Yet some would say, why women's history at all? Surely men and women have always shared a world, and suffered together all its rights and wrongs? It is a common belief that whatever the situation, both sexes faced it alike. But the male peasant, however cruelly oppressed, always had the right to beat his wife. The black slave had to labor for the white master by day, but he did not have to service him by night as well. This grim pattern continues to this day, with women bearing an extra ration of pain and misery whatever the circumstances, as the sufferings of the women of war torn Eastern Europe will testify. While their men fought and died, wholesale and systematic rape—often accompanied by the same torture and death that the men suffered— was a fate only women had to endure. Women's history springs from moments of recognition such as this, and the awareness of the difference is still very new. Only in our time have historians begun to look at the historical experience of men and women separately, and to acknowledge that for most of our human past, women's interests have been opposed to those of men. Women's interests have been opposed by them, too: men have not willingly extended to women the rights and freedoms they have claimed for themselves. As a result, historical advances have tended to be "men only" affairs. When history concentrates solely on one half of the human race, any alternative truth or reality is lost. Men show more dominate history because they write it, and their accounts of active, brave, clever or aggressive females constantly tend to sentimentalize, to mythologize or to pull women back to some perceived "norm." As a result, much of the so-called historical record is simply untrue."
First, I certainly hope that I'm not the only man who's read this book. Everyone should read it. This book really shines light onto the matter, in a much better an explicit way than any other book did before. It's interesting to see how the men, little by little, step by step rose to power while putting the women down just so that they can prove that they are more "superior". I think I have an idea for another speech on gender equality. show less
"Yet some would say, why women's history at all? Surely men and women have always shared a world, and suffered together all its rights and wrongs? It is a common belief that whatever the situation, both sexes faced it alike. But the male peasant, however cruelly oppressed, always had the right to beat his wife. The black slave had to labor for the white master by day, but he did not have to service him by night as well. This grim pattern continues to this day, with women bearing an extra ration of pain and misery whatever the circumstances, as the sufferings of the women of war torn Eastern Europe will testify. While their men fought and died, wholesale and systematic rape—often accompanied by the same torture and death that the men suffered— was a fate only women had to endure. Women's history springs from moments of recognition such as this, and the awareness of the difference is still very new. Only in our time have historians begun to look at the historical experience of men and women separately, and to acknowledge that for most of our human past, women's interests have been opposed to those of men. Women's interests have been opposed by them, too: men have not willingly extended to women the rights and freedoms they have claimed for themselves. As a result, historical advances have tended to be "men only" affairs. When history concentrates solely on one half of the human race, any alternative truth or reality is lost. Men show more dominate history because they write it, and their accounts of active, brave, clever or aggressive females constantly tend to sentimentalize, to mythologize or to pull women back to some perceived "norm." As a result, much of the so-called historical record is simply untrue."
First, I certainly hope that I'm not the only man who's read this book. Everyone should read it. This book really shines light onto the matter, in a much better an explicit way than any other book did before. It's interesting to see how the men, little by little, step by step rose to power while putting the women down just so that they can prove that they are more "superior". I think I have an idea for another speech on gender equality. show less
Boring. While Piper is certainly more likable, the other characters lack depth and are just plain compared to their Netflix's counterparts.
Clever plot, although a bit boring around the middle. Great book. Well done, Stephen King.
The book is a combination of a memoir and film reviews. Somehow it works.
Although "London" is better in terms of having a more interesting history, "New York" is an interesting book.
Edward Rutherfurd brilliantly shows both the rich and the poor, the Loyalists and the Patriots, the haters and the hated ones. He also wrote about several different Ethnic groups. Native Americans, African Americans, the Dutch, the English, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews and the Portoricans... They are all present in this book. Some are rich, the others are poor. Some lost their wealth, the others gained it. You can find the complete history of the USA. (~350 years)
Edward Rutherfurd brilliantly shows both the rich and the poor, the Loyalists and the Patriots, the haters and the hated ones. He also wrote about several different Ethnic groups. Native Americans, African Americans, the Dutch, the English, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews and the Portoricans... They are all present in this book. Some are rich, the others are poor. Some lost their wealth, the others gained it. You can find the complete history of the USA. (~350 years)
There's so much hatred among the characters. And they hate themselves as well. (especially Heathcliff)
Boring. There are a couple of interesting stories but this was a huge disappointment. But Gaiman has much better books than this. (American Gods, Ananso Boys, Coraline and others)
A Scandal in Bohemia - 10/10
The Red-Headed League - 10/10
The Speckled Band - 9/10
The Copper Beeches - 10/10
The other stories from "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" are missing from my edition, although there are several other stories, mostly from "The Return of Sherlock Holmes" (4 stories) and the "Final Problem" from "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes", but I will rate it as it is til I read the others.
The Red-Headed League - 10/10
The Speckled Band - 9/10
The Copper Beeches - 10/10
The other stories from "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" are missing from my edition, although there are several other stories, mostly from "The Return of Sherlock Holmes" (4 stories) and the "Final Problem" from "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes", but I will rate it as it is til I read the others.
Emma by Jane Austen
3.5/5 The first half was good, but the second was not that interesting with few exceptions.
I enjoyed this more than Emma. Emma and Elizabeth Bennett are so much alike.