This is my second Brandon Sanderson, following his YA take on the superhero novel, Steelheart, which I also loved.

This is one of the best fantasy novels I've read in awhile.

Characters: I loved Kelsier and Vin. Kelsier's motives were sufficiently obscure until the very end to make him a believably flawed character. I loved the secondary characters as well, especially Vin's watcher, the Terrisman, Sazed. I would say that Sanderson's greatest strength isn't in complex character development, but he does manage to avoid filling his novel with wish-fulfillment characters that are all to common in fantasy novels.

Magical system: I was really on the fence about the whole concept of this novel when I read the synopsis. But, in Sanderson's capable hands, allomancy is, in my opinion, the best part of this book. I love the metal pairings. I love the Misting/Mistborn concept. I love it that he created convincing and plausible rules, and, especially, that he made sure that his magic system was partially subject to the rules of physics. It was elegant.

The world-building: again, I was sort of on the fence about an ash covered world. I'm still a bit skeptical about the plausibility of a world where the climate is so dark/ashy. Would it actually be possible to grow crops? And, wouldn't there be famines as a result of the climate issues? (I have this same problem with Martin's Game of Thrones, and the winters that last for years, only bigger. How do they feed themselves in decades long winters?). But, in the end, Sanderson provided enough detail about the agricultural activities that I was willing to suspend my disbelief and go with him.

I am not quite so sure about the "romance" between Vin and Elend. I didn't find it particularly convincing, nor am I sure that it was completely in character for either of them. It felt really tacked on, to me, & I am not quite sure that it is necessary. I would've been more convinced with a friendship among a pair of misfits that develops into a romance in the second book.

Overall, I really, really enjoyed this book, and plan to move on to the second book in the series once I finish up some reading projects that take priority. I think it is super cool that Book 2 begins at the point that fantasy epics usually end - with the rebuilding of the world after the evil oppressor has been vanquished.

Have you ever noticed how it's actually harder to review a series that you love? Especially if, like me, you wait until you've read 7 books in the series to review the first.

It's almost impossible to be objective about any individual book, barring one of them just being a massive disappointment. Plus, it is really hard to go back and reread with any objectivity, knowing how much I love the whole.

This is the first in Julia Spencer-Fleming's brilliant mystery series centered around Reverend Clare Fergussen,a (female) Episcopal priest and the Millers Kill police chief Russ Van Alstyn. Russ and Clare meet when a newborn baby has been left on the doorstep of Clare's church, with a note asking that the baby be given to one of the parishioners to raise. The baby is otherwise healthy and well-cared for, and the investigation into who is the mother of the child begins. Shortly thereafter, the first body turns up, a young woman who has been murdered and left in the kill where she died of hypothermia.

Read on after the cut.

So, I'm browsing my groups this morning, and someone (cough, BookwormR, cough) posts a reference to the Anna Karenina book referenced above. Being totally confused about the idea that someone would adapt Anna Karenina for toddlers, I sought additional information.

The books above are five examples of "board books" that have been created by a particular writer for small children.

And I just don't get it.

I've read all of the (original) books. None of them are even remotely kid friendly. We have Anna Karenina - a lighthearted romp through infidelity and suicide. We have Wuthering Heights - a primer on abusive relationships and psychopathic stalkers. Dracula - bloody and death-filled. And, as the piece de resistence - Romeo and Juliet. A tragic story of two teens who fall in love and die.

And then I look at the reviews, which doesn't help me understand any better than I did when I started thinking about this. Because there are two kinds of reviews. The first talks about how awesome it is to be able to introduce a small child to works of classic literature. And to this I say, shut up.

Because there is no chance that any of these books are actually about the stories contained in the books. This version of Romeo and Juliet cannot possibly end with the death of two teenagers. It just can't. And there is no way that Baby Lit Anna Karenina involves a depressed and reviled woman who has abandoned her family for her lover and then commits suicide. It is not possible.

So, the books ARE NOT adaptations of classic literature. (Edited: I just noticed that the books don't even bother to put the original author's full name on them. Now I am doubly - tripley- offended. Little Miss Bronte? Seriously? Fuck you Jennifer Adams. Fuck you very much.)

The other kind of review complains about the facts that I have just asserted above. That the books are a great idea, but they aren't actually adaptations of the classic stories. They are simple, well-illustrated counting/color/whatever books.

And to this I say: call the child abuse hotline. Because what kind of a parent thinks that telling a toddler the story of, oh, say, Romeo and Juliet is a good idea? Not a good parent. That's for damned sure. Unless, of course, the parent actually has no idea what the underlying story really is, in which case, why do they want to introduce their child to classic books that they themselves have demonstrably not read.

So, if the books aren't about the classic story, then what is the point? And if the books are about the classic novel, then that's just fucked up.

Or, could it be as simple as, these books are a transparent and pathetic attempt to appeal to narcissistic parents who want to be able to tell their friends that their toddler is "reading" Tolstoy? Can it be? Really?

Anyone?

I read this for The Alcott Event, happening in a private group over on TSTWNBN. When I began reading this, I mistakenly believed that it was one of her early novels. I was quite wrong about that - according to Wikipedia, it was published in 1873, after both Little Women and Little Men, as well as after her melodramatic stories that were published in the 1860's. So, looking at it with this in mind, some of what I thought were the seeds of Little Women are really more recycled bits from that particular book.

This is not Alcott's best work, which makes sense, since it is a largely forgotten story. Written for adults, it is more overtly political even than her other books, with very obvious feminist and abolitionist overtones. Well-worth reading, Alcott is somewhat heavy-handed in her moralizing.

The book generally tells the tale of a young woman, Christie Devon, who leaves the care of her resentful uncle and long-suffering but loving aunt and seeks employment to make her way in the world. She is engaged in various fairly menial jobs: governess, companion, actress, seamstress, and struggles to support herself. Many issues are addressed, and Alcott's abiding abolitionist beliefs are openly articulated.

There were a couple of things that I found particularly interesting about the book. First, reminiscent of the proposal of Laurie and Jo's refusal to marry him, Christie also turns down a proposal from a wealthy gentleman. There are shades of Pride and Prejudice, as well, in the dialogue from this section of the book. Christie initially turns him down politely, and when he reacts badly, we have a very "Lizzie Bennett" moment where she calls him out for his sense of superiority. It left me wondering if Alcott had read P&P close in time to writing the book - the scenes were so similar.

In addition, it has a bit of a WTF ending. Alcott is a deeply religious woman, and believes fervently (as many of her era did) in a heaven. The book takes place during the years of the Civil War and much is made of the heroic sacrifice of the men and women who fought for the union and who died, or had loved ones die, in the war. Louisa always was one for the grand sacrificial gesture - if you are looking for a traditional happily ever after for our heroine, well, you're not going to get one.

Anyway, it was an interesting read. A bit too sweet and preachy for my taste, but, still, Alcott was a very principled woman, and it was interesting to read something that is so clearly feminist and egalitarian from the early part of my nation's history.

Next up from the Alcott canon is Eight Cousins. This one is much more fun than Work.

Status Updates:

This is the second in Croggon's epic fantasy The Books of Pellinor. There are obvious homages to Tolkien's masterworks. The world of Pellinor shares commonalities with Middle Earth, but it is not a cheap copy of Tolkien. She has taken care to develop an extensive mythology for Pellinor, similar in idea of The Silmarillion, but quite different in execution.

Done. Review forthcoming.

91%

"Love is one of the truest mysteries," he said, at last. "The truest and deepest of them all. One thing Maerad: to love is never wrong. It may be disastrous, it may never be possible, it may be the deepest agony. But it is never wrong."

80%

I got totally sucked into this book last night, which is woohoo, because with all the dramalamaramadingdong on GR, I've had a hard time concentrating on actually reading. So, I made it to 80% and desperately wanted to finish, but I really needed to sleep!

So much going on in this book. Maerad is really suffering and struggling. Cadvan is absent, possibly permanently. The Winterking is fascinating - very morally ambiguous. And the three sides of Maerad seem to be in a pitched battle with one another as her elemental aspect seems to be gaining in predominance. It feels like we are climbing a hill, but I don't get the sense that the climactic events will take place in this book.

I know that book 3 focuses on Maerad's brother. I am not particularly excited about changing from Maerad's narrative to Hem's narrative. But, I am interested to see where the story goes next.

30%

Stormdog lullabye. This book is so good! I need to spend less time obscessing over GR and more time reading this book!

23%

Maerad just magically turned a bad guy into a rabbit. A mangy rabbit. Hee hee.

I am at 20% of the second book, and at least one of the creation myths has just been revealed.