This is turning into a monthly thing, and I'm OK with that. Book reviews, here we go!
Delirium, by Lauren Oliver. (Put me in a master's program and watch how quickly my reading material gets heavy on the YA.) I wanted to like this book more than I did. I liked Before I Fall by the same author - in that book, I thought Oliver took a familiar, straightforward plot and made something special out of it. But in Delirium, it's just a familiar, straightforward plot. Nothing special about it. If you've read The Host or Uglies (especially Uglies), then you've essentially read this book.
Adrift, by Steven Callahan. I gave this 3.5 stars (out of five) on Goodreads. This book reminded me so much of Taken on Trust. It had the feel of having been written by someone who spent A LOT of time alone in dubiously survivable circumstances. It was an enjoyable read but slightly too oblique for my taste.
Clockwork Angel, by Cassandra Clare. Sometimes you just want someone to tell you a story. That's what this book was for me. Just a pleasant story, interesting enough to hold my attention but not much more. I thought its plot was really similar to the books in the series to which it is a prequel but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Also, there is a line in this book that says, "His mouth tasted of metal and rage." I just wanted to point that out. (And no, it's not describing a kiss, sicko.)
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, by C.S. Lewis. Miriam really liked this one. And it was fun for me to revisit all those good-creepy feelings from reading about the edge of the world when I was a kid.
Devil's Gate, by David Roberts. Uh, you might not want to get me started on this. Short answer: Look, there are a lot of bad things you could say about my religion that are true. I'm adult enough to admit that. So why do people (including Jon Krakauer, whose books I adore and love and worship except for the aberration that is Under the Banner of Heaven) insist on saying bad things about Mormons that are untrue and based on sloppy research? It drives me crazy in general, and it drove me crazy in this book. Long answer: click here.
Hunting Eichmann, by Neal Bascomb. This book didn't hit its stride until about halfway through. The beginning was very weak - aside from Eichmann, there is no one standout character. It's all a mess of 20- and 30-something newly minted Israeli Jewish men cluttering up a crowded background. I needed a hero to root for, to get behind, and there really wasn't one. The narrative suffered as a result. I realize that may have been how it was in real life, BUT: if you take a look at the footnotes, Bascomb took plenty of liberties with the story (choosing one version of "truth" over another equally "truthy" version), so he could have spun a central hero out of one of the men while he was at it.
But once Hunting Eichmann hit its stride, it was quite good. Still, I think I'll re-read One Day in September soon - that's a finer specimen of a Revenge of Mossad story.
The Graveyard Book, by Neil Gaiman. I didn't actively dislike this book. Well, maybe I did, a little bit. I felt like it wasn't worth the time I spent reading it. If it had been a quicker read, or a more complex story, I could have liked it more. (Possible SPOILER ahead) But the whole book long, we're wondering what the mysterious reason is that Nobody's family was murdered. At the end, after a long, meandering, sometimes disturbing story, we find out that his family was murdered...drumroll...FOR A MYSTERIOUS REASON. Lame.
Hush, Hush, by Becca Fitzpatrick. Ahem. I feel like I need to explain myself re: this book. It is unashamedly derivative of City of Bones/Twilight, true. But of all of the books of that genre that I've read, this is my favorite one. I cannot believe I'm admitting this, but I LIKED IT.
I think the reason I rolled my eyes at The Hourglass Door/Wings/Shiver etc. but went along with this one is because Hush doesn't take itself seriously. It knows exactly what it is. It is very self-aware and makes sure to hit all its marks. It reminded me so much of those Hardy Boys books where the mystery is kind of cheesy and obvious and the bad guys are always bursting into monologue before killing anyone and the hero/ine makes foolish, unrealistic decisions in order to advance the plot, but it's done in kind of a "wink, wink" way so all is forgiven.
Matched, by Ally Condie. (Full disclosure: the author is a friend of a few people I knew in Ithaca, which I didn't find out until after I heard about this book.) The weird thing is, out of all the u/dystopian books I've read, THIS is the one where I wanted the heroine to just fall in line and be good. Is that wrong? Matched was beautifully written, so earnest, and so genuine. I enjoyed it and I will definitely be reading book 2.
Stiff, by Mary Roach. I just didn't have the stomach for this book. I told Jeremy I was having trouble reading it, and he asked if it was too gruesome. I told him, "Oh no, there's nothing inappropriate...inappropriate for a book about cadavers, anyway." In other words, it's not this book, it's me. The first three chapters and a couple of the last chapters were really hard for me to read. The middle was super interesting. (Fact: the day after I finished reading this, I got an email from my dad saying, "Hey, I'm reading this book called Stiff and I think you'd really like it..." A great coincidence, especially considering this is not a new book.)
Inheriting Syria, by Flynt Leverett. RIVETING. I loved this book. It was so informative and well constructed. The prose is very spare and although it is not a short book, it consists of only five chapters. It reads more like an extended, in-depth Foreign Policy article than a book, but it was so intelligent and clear that I still found it very readable.
That said, I don't think the audience for this book is a very wide one. If you are not already interested in Syria under the Assads, this book will not whet your appetite. It assumes a certain baseline knowledge of the country's (and region's) history and current condition. If you don't have that, I can't imagine this would be a very interesting read for you.
But wow, for me, having lived in Syria during the exact critical time period focused on by the author, it was an amazing read. And I may have more to say about it soon.
But once Hunting Eichmann hit its stride, it was quite good. Still, I think I'll re-read One Day in September soon - that's a finer specimen of a Revenge of Mossad story.
I think the reason I rolled my eyes at The Hourglass Door/Wings/Shiver etc. but went along with this one is because Hush doesn't take itself seriously. It knows exactly what it is. It is very self-aware and makes sure to hit all its marks. It reminded me so much of those Hardy Boys books where the mystery is kind of cheesy and obvious and the bad guys are always bursting into monologue before killing anyone and the hero/ine makes foolish, unrealistic decisions in order to advance the plot, but it's done in kind of a "wink, wink" way so all is forgiven.
That said, I don't think the audience for this book is a very wide one. If you are not already interested in Syria under the Assads, this book will not whet your appetite. It assumes a certain baseline knowledge of the country's (and region's) history and current condition. If you don't have that, I can't imagine this would be a very interesting read for you.
But wow, for me, having lived in Syria during the exact critical time period focused on by the author, it was an amazing read. And I may have more to say about it soon.