Collins, Suzanne (The Hunger Games Trilogy)

I am pleased I waited until the end of the trilogy to write this review. Because while the first book is really very good and is one of the few pageturners I've ever read, and the second is good as well (if not as good as the first, but sophomore efforts are so difficult you can't blame her here), it's the third that will knock your socks off.

I'm not entirely sure how she did this. She took a pretty horrible tale to begin with-- a game where children are pitted against children until all lie dead except one victor-- and made it so horrific by the end that Katniss' nightmares became my own (literally!). I think it's safe to say that no one under the age of 15 (maybe a bit older?) should read this book. But everyone over that age should.

It isn't so much the gruesome quality of the killing, it's that the story is relentless and there is no happy ending. All the things you want to come true for our flawed heroine, well, they don't happen. I don't think I'm giving too much away by saying that. Because I flew through these books (I read the last one in 24 HOURS) I am probably not the best choice to ask about the writing itself. It's certainly good enough to pull you along, although I'm going to bet that's because Collins' plotting is stellar.

If you read her acknowledgements at the end of the last book, you'll see why she wrote a book like this. And good for her, really, really, because it is worth the entire ride. It's just definitely a young adult book, not a teen or a children's book.

Berg, Carol (Transformation)

Compared to Berg's prior book that I just read, this one is about 1 million times better: more intriguing, better written, characters who matter, just everything works in this one. It makes me wonder about first novels sometimes. The author has so much more time to spend on a first novel than on any following ones-- does that often make a first novel more robust and fleshed out?

I adored this world. It's too bad I've been told that the next two in this series are really not as good as the first (yeah, well, see above paragraph). I can't decide whether I want to "ruin" the vision she gave me here. I think she's a fantastic writer, and I imagine that any misstep will already rise head over heels above the rest of the genre, but... I'll give it some time.

I'm pretty sure you'll fall in love with our two main characters: Aleksander and Seyonne. They are beautifully described, as flawed as any of Berg's characters, and they almost never do the right thing in their quest to save the worlds they love. Oh, and those worlds? So flawed.

Berg is also not perfect in her plotting. There were a few, relatively minor, plot constructions that almost shouted that they were put there for the purpose of making the story work towards its end. I forgive her. Clearly the moral of all her stories is: nobody's perfect.

Zielin, Lara (The Waiting Sky)

Third time is definitely the charm.

The most fun of paying attention to a particular author is to see how her writing transforms over the years, from the first book onwards. It is beyond clear that Zielin's confidence in her writing has vastly improved since the beginning: I may have loved Donut Days but I really LOVED The Waiting Sky.

In part, this is because Zielin has adeptly tackled a very difficult subject: that of alcoholism and how it affects entire families. I learned a ton reading this book-- that interactions among family members are beyond complex when a disease of this type takes hold, that self-awareness of one's feelings on this subject are incredibly difficult to decipher, and that it takes one tough cookie to work out the solution to these problems. I'll admit I stayed up way, way too late to finish this novel one evening because the last 75 pages would not let me go. I had to know how our protagonist worked her way through everything being thrown at her.

Plus, it has tornadoes in it! I also learned a boatload about their destructive capabilities. And no, you will not catch me as a tornado tourist at any point in the future. Yipes.

With these double (or triple) whammies, there is no doubt in my mind that this novel will have a cult following when it comes out this summer.

Berg, Carol (Song of the Beast)

Definitely popcorn fare. But satisfying popcorn fare.

What I like the most about it is that Berg doesn't make it too fairy-tale. The dragons? They're angry, hateful, horrible beasts, caught in a web they haven't been able to escape from, but still not cuddly monsters by any stretch of the imagination. Her protagonists are extremely flawed people, and she changes up their allegiances, hopes and dreams at almost every step of the way. That's what keeps it interesting to read. She may not be the most skilled fantasy writer in the world, but she knew how to create this story and create it well. I enjoyed it for precisely what it was.

Ferris, Joshua (The Unnamed)

I felt nothing special about this book when I started it, and for about halfway through it. It seemed an intriguing tale about somebody with a completely unique "illness" that no one understood, and while I recognized that the surrounding passages were describing the impact of someone with a strange disease, and how this affects those around the person, I didn't see it as more than a tale of that. Until I hit about the 2/3 mark.

At this point, the book changes rather dramatically, and without giving anything away, it's safe to say here that its focus is completely altered. Instead of talking about how illness affects the body, Ferris starts talking about how illness affects the spirit. The unexplainable nature of this particular illness is not as important, then, as it was in the beginning of the tale.

This makes the last 1/3 of the book the strongest part of the story. To some degree, however, I feel that Ferris wasn't entirely sure how to handle this change, and the supporting characters around our main character lose clarity and seem to be around merely to guide the timeline. This is unfortunate; I think Ferris could have pulled off something truly spectacular if he'd had a better idea of what to do at this juncture.

Of course, this doesn't mean the book is not worth a read. I consider it one of the best books I've read in the past 6 months.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott (The Great Gatsby)

This is probably not a book you should read in many, many, itty, bitty sittings. In other words, don't make it a bedstand book. It's short, and can be read in one afternoon without any trouble.

This being a classic, I'm wary of saying anything at all about it that hasn't been said a million times by everyone, especially by much smarter people than myself. So, maybe just some general feelings instead.

• The writing is gorgeous, especially his descriptions of places. I especially loved his description of the lawn outside Gatsby's house and how it creeped up to the house itself. What a bizarre and moving way to describe a lawn!
• He is also a master of describing the elements of a scene in as few words as possible, while at the same time providing enough words to give you a completely full picture of that scene. Is there anyone else who has ever achieved that?
• The story is really just a noir on the face of it. I know there's a ton of symbolism under that face, but I am usually pretty bad at recognizing these even when they're thrown in my face, so I won't pretend to tease that all out.
• The last few pages felt to me like a clue to Fitzgerald's thoughts on American culture, and the divide between East and West, which harkened back to the rest of the book, but made you try to re-evaluate the entire book after you set it down. I have ambivalent feelings about that kind of novelistic approach.
• If nothing else, the book really makes you hate rich people. Or at least, rich, amoral people.

Scalzi, John (The God Engines)

This is by far one of the best science-fiction stories I have ever read. In fact, if Scalzi does this well with novellas, all his books should be this length. At least all his books that have one very vital thing to say about our culture and our path forward.

I don't want to say much more about it. I fondly hope that those who are a) already sci-fi fans and b) haven't read it, will seek it out and devour it as I did. I will say three things, though. 1) it is not what it seems it will be 2) the subject matter takes a detour you are likely not to expect and 3) it is a thoughtful review of one of the deepest divides in our society and societies around the world.

Brontë, Emily (Wuthering Heights)

It is true that I never read this classic in high school (I think we were the Jane Eyre class instead). I will never stop wondering how I would have felt about it if I had read it then as opposed to now.

(Note: I am not reading any commentary on the novel before writing this. On the other hand, that is something I will definitely do before book club.)

It is clearly a clever person's writing. Not even because of its structure, which is a story within a story (within a story, in parts). But for its time, and not forgetting that it was written more than 30 years after Pride and Prejudice, the writing style is exactly what I expected: verbose, formal, passionate. What it is that I was NOT expecting was the gothic horror play that pervades it.

Really. I knew nothing about this book, and had never watched any adaptation on film or TV. I thought it would be dreamy, that the characters would be unforgivable or misguided or awful to each other (but of course, oh so formally) and then everyone would be redeemed through a series of experiences and events that unfold as the story continues. Not even remotely the case here! I am more than eager to find out what history knows of Emily Brontë's life, because it must have been a desperately troubled, and perhaps abusive, one. How else would she be able to drag such hatred of humankind from her characters?

Yes, yes, there's a love story. But it is so deeply hidden for most of the book that it sank into the mire for me, and I forgot it. And ended up having to focus on horrible, nasty, no-good people. Blech. I appreciate the writing, but I am not enamored of the tale.

Fitch, Janet (White Oleander)

I was going to write that I couldn't be more conflicted about this book, but then I realized that I only had one positive thing to say about it.

Negative #1: The writing. It should be obvious within a few pages that this is a poet writing a novel. The problem with a poet writing a novel is that these are two different art forms. I think it's likely extremely difficult to move from one art form to the other, and this book is evidence of that. The flowery descriptive language is beautiful in and of itself, and it does match the story as it evolves but...

Negative #2: ...the plot is ridiculous. Not the foster homes part; I am certain that is as awful in real life as it is here. But when your protagonist, at barely 14 years of age, becomes, without a word of warning, a sultry, confident seductress, all believability in the character flew out the window. Plus there's the dog attack scene. And the whore next door. I mean, really.

Positive #Only: However, her mother is gorgeously drawn. You admire her and hate her and wonder at her sanity and all these conflicting feelings can only come as written from a daughter's perspective. If you read interviews with Janet Fitch, she makes it obvious that this is the only thing she did not make up in this novel. No wonder it rings with truth.

Ottaviani, Jim (Feynman)

Yes, this is a bit ridiculous, posting this review but I'd like to say the following: having proofed all his prior self-published work (because where else do you get cheap labor than at home?), I can say this is far and away his best work. Because it had a professional editor (and proofer)? I will say no more.