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.

Scalzi, John (Zoe's Tale)

Ok, THAT'S why this book seemed so darn familiar. I get to the end and read the Acknowledgements. This book is essentially a remake of the end of the true trilogy, The Lost Colony, only told from Zoë's point of view, about what she did to help save the colony, how she met the werewolves, and what the Obin are really like.

And it's a load of romping fun because Scalzi got to write in his own voice, and by that I mean his blogger voice. Plus, I will admit to tearing up at the end when the Obin talk to her individually, one by one. But... really, Scalzi? This is not up to snuff.

For instance, name me one teenage girl who talks like Zoë does. In fact, I'm fairly sure that 98% of the people I work with are not as clever as Zoë is. As much as she talks about how nervous she is and that her stomach is roiling and she's completely unsure of the path she's taken, all these amazingly smart and sure and thought-out and prepossessing things come out of her mouth when in the presence of much more important or dangerous personages than herself. I'd call that facile, and not somewhat facile.

Plus I hated it when Scalzi killed off a certain important person in Zoë's life. It was completely unfair and uncool and mean. And I like it when stories take a weird or unseen twist. I will chalk this book up to not at all one of his best, and move on.

Grafton, Sue (V is for Vengeance)

Another better than usual entry in the Alphabet Series. Better than the middle section of the alphabet for sure, and definitely better than most mystery series out there. I was somewhat disappointed by the plot, though.

Grafton does something different here by adding chapters specific to two other characters besides Millhone, told from their point of view. It's clear this is done to garner support and sympathy for these characters, but there's no getting around the fact that this is the weakest part of the book. If she hadn't done this, we, her audience, would feel complete disdain for them. With the chapters added in, we only feel a slight twinge of guilt in liking them and rooting for them at the end.

And why should we root for them? Grafton's hook in this book is the crime of shoplifting, and the toll it takes on retail outlets. She builds the case for being incensed by this almost invisible crime, and then garners sympathy for those who make it happen. It's an odd thing to do. And I'm convinced she needed almost none of it to build the story she did, except maybe to build up her page count.

Even though the novel has some strange choices, Grafton still has a marvelous grasp of language, and there are bits and pieces in here I really enjoyed, chief among them her creation of a bogus government employee paid to count how many cars turn into a particular road. That, and the subsequent "policing" of it, were hysterical. Plus, Millhone does all her usual things, and we love her all the more for it.

Oliver, Lauren (Delirium)

What a fascinating novel. I am conflicted in almost all my feelings about it, so I think a list is the best way to describe what I'm thinking.

1. I loved the setting. It hearkens back all the way to Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" in its bleak portrayal of a society that very possibly meant well and then turned into the worst of totalitarian environments. Her description of the border fence and the regulators made my hair stand on end.
2. I liked, but did not love, the pervasive and insistent discussion of love. Yes, it is absolutely hands-down the most important part of the novel. But the discussion of it gets bogged down in too many details, and that gets tiring. We all already know why love is important! I mean, perhaps teens do not, and that is of course the audience for this book. I can imagine a teen starting to roll his/her eyes as well, though.
3. I did not like how long it took to get to the point. If you are not thoroughly aware of where this book is leading, i.e., its last page, by the time you are halfway through, then you need to read a lot more books and watch a lot more movies! The plot is obvious, and it's frustrating to wait for Lena to figure out how horrible her society really is, and that there is a better way.
4. I am, of course, relieved that this is planned as a trilogy. The setting is intriguing enough that I want to see how Oliver plans to continue this tale.

King, Stephen (The Stand)

Argh. It really stinks when you don't bother reading the fine print on the Kindle store edition, explaining that this particular version is the unexpurgated version, meaning absolutely everything King blarfed up and put on the page for this tale. I really like his stories, so this was a sad trudge. And Amazon? Why in hell's name do you only make the unedited, uncut version available on the Kindle??

So, the first bit was great, i.e., Act I in which you meet all the important characters and everyone starts dying. Then-- poof!-- you're not in a flu epidemic fantasy, but in a Christian fantasy, i.e., Act II in which all the important characters travel far distances and start getting freaked out about good vs. evil. And lastly, you see what happens to evil and what could happen to good, i.e., Act III in which the same characters travel more distances and learn more about themselves and humanity.

Act II is where you want to smash your Kindle into tiny itty bitty bits. I really liked Acts I and III, they made sense and they were exciting, but in Act II all you get is what my choir director would call noodling: "Yo, altos, here you're noodling because you're unimportant and we really want to listen to the tenors!" So you get quieter and listen harder to the tenors. The problem with Act II is that EVERYTHING in it (and it goes on for about 500 pages) is noodling-- why do we have to listen to our favorite characters worry themselves about whether the town of Boulder is going to be okay with their 7 person committee, and how well Stu Redman can talk at an assembly, him being a hick and all, and... Blah blah blah blah. Get to the POINT. We know what's going to happen in Act III because we are not idiots, for heaven's sake, so get there. Sooner than later would be good.

So all that blather about King's books always being page turners? That's only when he has an editor.

Egan, Jennifer (A Visit from the Goon Squad)

The first thing I have to say about reading this is that it is very difficult on a Kindle. Our wonderful new-fangled devices don't make it easy to read something that consistently requires you to remember what came in earlier chapters. While you can skip back through chapters, it is time-consuming and doesn't yield what's needed faster than flipping paper pages.

Egan's novel is at its heart a set of stories, each interrelated-- so you can see the difficulty here. These relationships are also not as easy to maneuver as they may sound. A character's high school buddy may be easy to recognize in two earlier chapters but almost invisible in the final chapter, until Egan gives you hints. I find it difficult to remember using hints, and I'm also absolutely terrible at names. So, more work than I wanted.

But it's not the case that this was entirely unenjoyable. Any book with an entire chapter of graphs is at least humorous! If, instead of working so hard, you take each story as its own mini-cosmos, each of them provides an immense amount of well-crafted detail. It certainly felt as if I fully understood each major (and sometimes more minor) character. But because each character is so tightly woven with the others, I wanted a full resolution for all of them at the end, and that (I don't think; again, I could have missed this!) you do not get.