This was an okay book, but definately nowhere near as good as Emma. I enjoyed it, but it wasn’t a page turner in the slightest, although the last volume did pick up a little bit. I really didn’t understand Jane’s character at all during her time with Rochester. I failed to see any redeeming qualities regarding him. If you compare him with Mr. Darcy of Pride & Prejudice fame, the dullness is even more obvious. You can completely understand why Elizabeth hates Darcy, as much as you can completely understand how and why she eventually falls in love with him. He ends up being a thoroughly charming man. Mr. Rochester, on the other hand, seems dull in comparison, and I rarely believed that Jane loved him. Her thoughts and actions really didn’t prove her amorous feelings for her master. I can put it down to the social climate of the time, but I haven’t had this doubt over a character from a classic before. Albeit, I’ve not read that many classics yet, so we’ll see how I take with the next heroin I read.

Nice little mystery, I dont know much about Asimov, but I know a lot of science is involved in his books. With regards to this one, you don’t have to be a science buff to read it. I’m a big fan of mystery stories, and this one is not too shabby. I’m not sure how the protaganist figured out who the killer was to be honest, it didn’t sem too credible to me, but I liked how he got the killer to confess. Whilst Asimov didn’t give the game away and kept you guessing  until the end, he did include a couple scenes where the killer (as you later find him out to be) acts oddly, and it sticks out in your mind, but not enough for you to jump to any conclusions. It had the same feel to Dan Brown’s books in fact, for instance the cliffhanger style of writing at the end of every chapter. This however, is no reflection on Asimov’s book!!!

All in all, a nice little mystery story. Not the best I’ve read, but I enjoyed it.

I thought this book was better than The Da Vinci Code, but still nothing special. It was a good thriller story with a MUCH better ending than Da Vinci, but it was nothing more than that. One thing I noticed (well, more like it stuck out like a sore thumb), was how similar these two books are. Robert Langdon’s story starts with him being waken up by, as we later learn, one of the main characters. Langdon is involved in a race against time to overthrow some evil religious organization. He has a trusty and sexy sidekick who he falls for. The killer controls an unimportant puppet to do all the dirty work for him. Etcetera etcetera. Robert Langdon is a good character, but not one that deserves this much adoration and books, there are definately thrillers out there which are just as good, if not better. Still, it’s a nice read. 3/5.

I know Wind in the Willows like the back of my hand from watching the TV show as a child, and later watching the Monty Python version with Steve Coogan as Mole. I wasn’t sure if I had ever read the book as a child, but as I was reading it, it became clear that I hadn’t. I find this quite disappointing, as I loved the stories as a child, and I always knew they were from a book, but I never read it.
 
The book is set out where each chapter unfolds a new tale. Some chapters are apart from the main story, but all create a lovely image of the animals’ riverbank. Maybe one or two parts of the stories bored me a little, but overall I enjoyed reading it.  The TV show and film obviously helped the characters come alive as I was reading it, but even if they hadn’t, the different personalities of each of the animals jump out at you. The techniques used by the author to tell the tale are powerful. You feel as annoyed at Toad as Ratty is, you feel the homesickness that Mole feels, and you feel the lasting friendship between the four as strong as they do.
 
It’s a lovely little children’s book, with a TV tie in and movie that only help to accentuate your enjoyment, not hinder it.

This book cannot be faulted. It has the two most perfect ingredients – the classic literature of Jane Austen, and zombies. How can you NOT love this book!?

Not only are the added unmetionables a work of literary genius, but the tone of the book is brilliant. At times, it felt as if you were reading Pride & Prejudice, but then the tone of the written voice would change so subtely, but so effortlessly, it was as if Austen had written the words herself:

“He found her as handsome as she had been last year; as good natured, and as unaffected, thought not quite so chatty.”

I’m a zombie fan so there’s no way I couldn’t not like this book. I’d still recommend it to everyone and anyone though, such a breath of fresh air!

Warning – Spoilers from the beginning!!

Having played the Da Vinci Code video game prior to reading the book, I already knew the twist at the end about Sophie. Due to the game, and the fact that my boyfriend (who had read the book) agreed with it’s ending, I was under the impression that the book would end on this amazing twist, leaving the reader with a “wow!” feeling. It did not. In fact, it barely bothered about Sophie’s heritage, merely commenting on it in a small paragraph in the last few pages. It felt as if Brown had either run out of time, or had gotten bored, and had rushed the ending. Instead, he had Langdon running around once more for the Holy Grail, which I for one was left feeling uncertain about what the Grail actually was, even after it had all been explained!! When he eventually finds the Grail, I was still left feeling non the wiser about what it was, or even exactly where it was. Was it Mary’s bones buried inside a 3ft pyramid? If so, where were the documents that were supposed to accompany the bones inside 4 large boxes? Was it the space between the two pyramids? If so, what the hell?? And if it was all conceptual, and not actually a physical concept, then why the hell was he so pleased to find… well nothing? Was he that chuffed just to solve a puzzle? Or am I missing something? If Brown had made Sophie’s heritage a bigger deal, then I wouldn’t have these problems. But even after Langdon is told this pretty major discovery, he still goes looking for the Grail. Wasn’t it/she with him the whole time??

As you can probably tell, the ending was a major letdown for me. I am very interested to see the film’s interpretation of it. Don’t get me wrong, I was enjoying the book as I was reading it. I even made a mental note to put it on my bookshelf when I moved back to England. But after finishing it, I don’t think it will be going anywhere near my bookshelf!

Towards the end of the book, I realised what it reminded me of -  a really bad Agatha Christie novel. Christie always manages to surprise the reader with her endings because she keeps vital clues from the reader until the very end, making it impossible for the reader to guess ‘whodunnit’ before the Big Reveal. Brown seems to have adopted this technique, but it hasn’t really had the same success. Had the reader been in full possession of the facts, they would have deciphered Saunier’s codes in an instant. Fair enough. But my problem is that the reader more or less follows 3 experts, who basically should know certain things. Instead, Brown adopts the method of the ‘expert’ explaining things to the ‘non-expert’, for the benefit of the reader. What gets my goat is that the characters shouldn’t need to have these things explained! I dont know how many times I read one of them say “of course!” If you’re going to do a Christie, be subtle about it.

I didn’t think it was all bad though. As I said before, I enjoyed the bulk of the story. It was very easy to read, and adopted a cliffhanger style in almost all of the chapters, which made reading on a pleasure, not a chore. Still, I finished this book really angry and confused, feeling like I’d wasted my time. I knew there was a reason why I didn’t read it when it was ‘all the rage’. At least now I know!

I really enjoyed this book, although I was quite surprised at how rude it was! The style of writing was interesting, as it was badly written in context of the story. However, it was dangerous as I found myself thinking,and sometimes speaking, in the same way! It was written as letters to God, which I enjoyed, and although the latter letters form her sister about Africa I found a bit tedious sometimes, I was always left with the urge to read more. A nice and enjoyable read.

This book was recommended to me by my aunt, who often gives me books that her young children have read. It’s a sign of good literature when a 14 year old boy and a 26 year old woman have read and enjoyed the same book.

It comes as no surprise that The Book Thief is on the New York Times Children’s Best Seller list. It is a well written piece of children’s literature that tells young people about World War II from verious perspectives – German’s, Jew’s and…. Death’s. Bringing ‘Death’ into the story enables Zusak to bring the magnitude of the war into focus for the young reader.

I didn’t really like the fact that Death gave away many things in his narrative. I felt that it killed the suspense in the story. It felt to me as if the author had written certain parts that way as notes to himself, and had accidentally left them in the final edit.

As I was reading, I often found myself wishing that I was reading Liesel’s actual book, but after finishing The Book Thief and reflecting back on it, I think telling it from Death’s perspective makes it much more interesting and unique.

I thought the ending, although tragic, was superb. In all honesty, I’m a big baby, but The Book Thief had me sobbing my heart out as I read the final pages.