ikuo1000's reviews
467 reviews

I enjoyed this book at least as much as Pride and Prejudice - maybe even more!

Where Pride and Prejudice had wit, Emma has humor. Emma is downright funny! It is a light-hearted and entertaining read; very approachable. I was delightfully engaged from the beginning, and Jane Austen's characteristic dialogue did not disappoint. As usual, I was impressed by Austen's keen insight into human nature and by the timelessness of the described emotions. She skillfully leads the reader through the evolution of Emma's self-awareness and feelings towards others, and she ties everything up nicely in the end, in a very satisfying way, just the way I like it. There was a full cast of characters with idiosyncrasies and neuroses, and I dare say I saw in Mr. Woodhouse a bit of what I might become, if I don't keep myself in check!

Addendum: Now that I've watched three screen adaptations, I have to admit that the adaptations opened my eyes to more significant meanings behind several scenes in the book! Many small hints were dropped along the way regarding a surprise towards the end, and I'd like to think that I would have discovered these meanings myself upon subsequent readings. :P In any case, these discoveries only increase my regard for Jane Austen's writing, because she didn't lay everything open at the very end; while she did provide sufficient explanation to answer lingering questions, she still gave her readers credit and left some things unsaid for the readers to interpret themselves.

Like Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion starts off kind of slowly, giving background information on rather unlikeable characters. But, I was in no way deterred, and Jane Austen came through, as expected. I probably sound like a broken record by now, but in Persuasion - as in all of Austen's books that I've read so far - I was pleased with and entertained by how keenly Austen understood and could put into words the delicate and complicated emotions that are as common today as in her own time. Even though all her books are about young women in the English countryside and their adventures in securing a suitable husband - including perhaps a jaunt to London or Bath - Austen manages to come up with fresh characters and situations for each book. Where her other novels had young, fresh-faced, optimistic young men and women, Persuasion had mature characters who viewed love and marriage from a perspective that appreciated loss and regret.

Persuasion is a comparatively short novel, and I dare say I didn't get quite as invested in the characters as I did with those in other Austen books. The dialogue wasn't as memorable, either. But, given the relative length of the material, I have high hopes for the screen adaptations!

I wish half-stars were possible, because I'd really give this one 4 1/2 stars. If I read this book independent of other Jane Austen novels, I would probably give it 5 stars, but in comparison to the others, my actual reading enjoyment was just shy of what I experienced with Pride and Prejudice and Emma.

I did very much enjoy Mansfield Park, even though it didn't have the wit of Pride and Prejudice nor the humor of Emma. It has a decidedly more serious tone, and it is not so much a discourse on love and marriage (as other Jane Austen books are), as it is on morals, principles, and even parenting.

Characters are complex and well-developed. Jane Austen believably depicts shades of character, and though it was sometimes inconvenient to not know exactly how I should feel about one person or another, it was certainly a realistic portrayal of relationships - because how often, in real life, do we ever unchangingly regard other individuals in one single way, regardless of circumstances?

My wished-for ending fluctuated as the story progressed, and at more than one point I wondered how Jane Austen would bring about the satisfactory ending that I was sure she would provide. Not surprisingly, once I finished the book, I was not disappointed!

My only disappointment in finishing this book is that it marks the end of my project to read all six of Jane Austen's completed novels. I have no more Jane Austen books to look forward to!

This one reads more like a young adult novel, and in some ways it is a coming-of-age story. Catherine Morland is young and naive, but we see her grow and mature as she navigates new friendships and learns from her mistakes. While Catherine's relationship with Isabella is deftly crafted, perhaps her friendship with Eleanor Tilney could have been elaborated upon a bit more. Henry fits the bill perfectly as the object of desire, and his speech on the over-use of the word "nice" is exactly as I have always thought myself!

Without having read any of the Gothic romance novels of which this book is a satire, it's easy to imagine what those books must be like. For the first time in a Jane Austen novel, however, I found myself losing interest as the author expounded upon a topic - in this case, some aspect of Gothic romance novels. But since even those accounts lasted only a mere paragraph or so, they weren't so much a detraction.

As usual, the story is tied up rather nicely, and quickly, in the last few pages. And I don't care what anyone says - I love Jane Austen's "happily ever after" endings!

I would give this book 3 1/2 stars if 1/2-stars were allowed.

When Ken first mentioned this book to me, I admit I was a bit indignant. Being just in the middle of reading all six of Jane Austen's novels, and thoroughly enjoying the experience, I thought, "I am getting so much out of these books, do I really need to read what some other random person got out of them?"

To my surprise, my cousin Shan mailed me this book a couple days after I finished Northanger Abbey, the last of her novels that I read. I was just starting to feel a bit of Jane Austen withdrawal, and now having the book in hand, I jumped at the chance to read it. (Thank you, Shan!)

I was immediately impressed upon realizing that the author is a man! Throughout all my readings, I totally pigeon-holed Jane Austen as the chick lit of the classics, what with her topics of love and friendship and relationships in general, her study of human nature, personal growth, and character. Approaching the book from a man's point of view would certainly give me a fresh perspective on the novels.

Secondly, the author turned out to be not a completely random person, but a former professor of English with a PhD in literature. So, he could offer legitimate literary analyses of the books, which I had not attempted myself.

Overall, this book is a quick and pleasant read. It is an excellent companion to the novels. I would suggest, however, that you should first read all six novels yourself before reading this book. Even though the author tries not to give away the endings, he does reveal quite a bit about characters and plot development. Also, because he frequently makes passing mention of characters from all the books no matter what book he is focused on at the time, I think readers would be better able to appreciate the author's discussion if they, too, were familiar with all the characters.

I especially liked that the author provided bits and pieces about Jane Austen herself. He even included several excerpts from her letters, and filled in the major details of her life. In fact, before reading this book, I was thinking of reading a Jane Austen biography, but now I think my curiosity on that front might already be satisfied!

He even made a small mention of some of the screen adaptations, which I also particularly liked because seeing all of them (and I mean all of them!) is also part of my own personal Jane Austen Project.

The only drawback, I think, is that the author seems to stretch a bit when he tried to relate the lessons of Jane Austen to his own life. The memoir portions are kind of quaint, and I can't fault him for trying, since his learning applicable life lessons from Jane Austen was basically the whole premise of the book. Also, since he focuses on the lessons he learned, I feel like he left out quite a bit about lessons that other people might be able to learn from Jane Austen.

All said, I think any Jane Austen fan would find this book enjoyable. If nothing else, it serves to praise Jane Austen and her works.

I love this book! From the moment I read the opening line ("It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.") and the ensuing dialogue, I couldn't put it down.

I think I first read Pride and Prejudice in early high school, and though there are certainly reasons for reading classics as a teenager, I am sure I didn't fully appreciate this book until I read it as an adult.

The book starts right off with witty and humorous dialogue. Even though conversations have the formality of 18th/19th century English, they are surprisingly readable. And though the book is primarily concerned with what many people might call frivolous - the trials and tribulations of finding a husband in a society that considers marriage the ultimate goal for all young women - the human nature and emotions described are remarkably relevant, even 200 years after first being published.

The story itself is much like a modern-day soap opera, including the way each character is somehow connected, however tangentially, to other characters. It's a really diverting read. I don't know why I never read other Jane Austen novels, or even seen any of the movie adaptations, but I will now surely add them to my to-read and to-watch lists.

Oh, this is probably more like a 2 1/2 star book.

I'm not sure what I was expecting, but somehow this brief collection of fairy tales from the wizarding world fell short.

The first three stories kind of bothered me because I wasn't fond of the messages they sent. In "The Wizard and the Hopping Pot", it seemed like the wizard only decided to help others out of fear of being punished if he didn't - not exactly the type of motivation we generally want to instill in children. In "The Fountain of Fair Fortune" (which reminded me of The Wizard of Oz), I didn't understand why Sir Luckless was considered worthy of Amata's hand and heart - he tagged along accidentally and practically against his will (he first tried to back out), and he didn't do a single useful thing along the way. Seems to me like Amata could have done a lot better. And then, in "The Warlock's Hairy Heart", the literally heartless warlock actually had a change of heart for a woman's sake, but instead of allowing for a happy ending, the warlock was doomed to pay the ultimate price for his youthful folly - the message being that even if you want to change for the better, you can't.

After those three stories, I took a step back and reminded myself that these are supposed to be fairy tales, and not fables. I mean, what's the worthy message in stories like Sleeping Beauty, anyway?! So I shouldn't be so hard on them. But then, in Dumbledore's notes on "The Tale of the Three Brothers", he clearly discusses a moral - so then, maybe it's not wrong to look for the moral in each story? Then again, I reminded myself that there are fairy tales like Sleeping Beauty that seem to have entertainment value only, and then there are stories like The Three Little Pigs, which does have a moral. So... maybe I should just stop over-analyzing these made-up fairy tales!

The best parts of the book, actually, were Dumbledore's notes. While the fairy tales themselves were only so-so, Dumbledore provided some context and background for each story, and his commentary was usually better than the story itself.

I feel bad rating this book so poorly, because it was recommended to me by someone whose taste in books I usually share. But she actually hadn't read the book before suggesting it to me, and I am now really curious to find out what she thinks of it, when she reads it herself!

This book is not for Jane Austen fans. Anyone who admires Jane Austen's writing will be sorely disappointed. Jane Austen was a master of dialogue, of showing rather than telling the reader what was going on. The relationships of her characters, the events they experienced, were engaging, meaningful, and sometimes surprising. In this book, however, the writing was uneven and poorly worded (I sometimes had to re-read sentences just to figure out what they were trying to say!), the plot development loose and predictable, and the dialogue actually cringe-worthy. If anything, Austenland is really written for young, hip fans of Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy in the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. The book is chick lit that reads like a made-for-TV chick flick.

Austenland's main character is named Jane. Really. It's a bit much, right? And she is nothing like the main characters in Jane Austen's novels, though she flatters herself by comparing herself to them. Elizabeth Bennett was witty and clever, Emma Woodhouse was charming and poised, Fanny Price was self-aware and principled - and none of them needed a man. Even though these characters were surrounded by women who wanted nothing more than to find a suitable husband, they themselves were strong and independent, and they found love and marriage despite the fact that they didn't go looking for it. Jane Hayes, on the other hand, was co-dependent and desperate to find a man. She was the complete opposite of a Jane Austen heroine. Instead of sympathizing with her, I started to side with her ex-boyfriends. Who would want to marry her!? When two guys fell for her at Pembrook Park, I honestly couldn't figure out why. What was so great about her?

Jane Austen's novels gave me a beautiful and charming impression of Regency England, but the "Austenland" described in this book didn't sound remotely interesting to me. Do such places really exist? If so, I hope they plan their retreats better than Mrs. Wattlesbrook did. With a one-to-one ratio of men to women, only three clients at a time, and a lecherous drunk hanging around, the place sounded pathetic, boring, and even a bit creepy.

The book almost redeemed itself with a solid ending when Jane walked away from Mr. Nobley and Martin with her head held high. THAT was a perfect ending, in which Jane learns that she is a smart, confident woman whose self-worth is NOT dependent on having a man. Unfortunately, it all got thrown out the window when the book continued on to its actual ending. Jane DOES need a man after all, and even though she hadn't really felt attracted to this man before, she would throw herself at him just as she had thrown herself at Martin less than three weeks previously. And based on the Jane I met in this book, my money is on the relationship crashing and burning within a month of the plane's landing.

Well, it turns out that in The Two Towers, even more so than in The Fellowship of the Ring, liberties were taken when the movie was made. I can't believe I had forgotten so much of the book!

In the book, both the Ents and Theoden King are decisive, unafraid, and eager to take on the challenge of confronting Saruman and Sauron, respectively. For some reason, the movie made them out to need convincing in order to defend themselves. Maybe to build up the characters of Aragorn, Merry, and Pippin, who did most of the convincing. Faramir, also, was portrayed a bit differently. In the book, he is much more thoughtful and wise.

I can't remember the details of how the series ends, but I hope it answers a question that was posed in this book. At one point Galadriel sends Legolas a message and warns him to stay away from the sea. But why?!

Overall I was pleased with how much I enjoyed this book. In the movie, the Frodo and Sam parts were the least interesting - dare I say boring? - and I sort of expected the same for the book. But actually, I think I ended up enjoying Frodo and Sam's story - especially when Gollum or Faramir were involved - just as much as the Merry / Pippin and Aragorn / Legolas / Gimli story lines.

*** Warning: This review contains spoilers!!! ***

Okay, okay, I have to admit, I went into this book with a bias against it. I already knew the premise, and I just didn't think it was appropriate for middle schoolers to be reading about kids killing kids. (Amazon lists the book as being for ages 12 and up.) Once I started reading, though, I saw right away that the killings weren't actually a real focus of the book, so I lightened up. There are explicit descriptions of killings, but they are brief and infrequent, so I guess I can get over it. But, I still don't like the premise, and I still don't think it's appropriate for middle schoolers. Maybe it's okay for high schoolers. 

I do like the idea of parents reading this book along with their kids and having discussions about the bigger themes. When a society is made up of haves and have-nots, how does that affect the attitudes of the people within those populations? What does it say about the range of humanity that in some districts, being chosen as a tribute is feared, but in others, it's an honor? Though the premise of the book involves killings, how does the book actually turn attention to positive human emotions like compassion and loyalty?

The examples of compassion and loyalty were really my favorite parts of the book. I even teared up when District 11 sent a gesture of thanks for Katniss's kindness towards Rue. I really liked Peeta's devotion to Katniss - even though, once they teamed up, Peeta only seemed to weigh Katniss down.

I liked that the book was easy to read; the literary voice of the teenage girl was convincing. As a reader, I got a pretty good understanding of her confusing emotions regarding Gale and Peeta. But, with Katniss narrating, it seemed like there were only a limited number of possible outcomes, and I wonder if a third-person narration would have been more effective. And, after a while, her dense inability to see Peeta's true feelings got kind of annoying.

One thing that really kept bothering me as the book progressed was that even though the author chose to use this controversial premise of kids killing kids, she actually side-stepped all the difficult issues. Once the Hunger Games actually started, it was one cop-out after another: Katniss kills a boy basically in self-defense, after he kills Rue; Peeta accidentally causes the death of Foxface; both Katniss and Peeta "finish off" a dying competitor, presumably putting them out of their misery more than anything else; Cato kills Thresh so they don't have to. Conveniently, neither Katniss nor Peeta ever had to kill anyone in cold blood. Katniss wasn't even ever in a position to face that question head-on. Not that I would necessarily WANT them to be in that position, but for a book based on the premise of kids killing kids, I think it would have been worth exploring the difficult questions of whether or not Katniss or Peeta could have actually brought themselves to kill someone for the sake of killing, or what the psychological aftermath would have been if they did. 

Another thing that really threw me off was the arrival of the mutts at the lake. Where did that come from?! The book suddenly had a weird horror element. The idea of the fallen tributes being turned into monsters - rather than their bodies being sent home to their families - was truly horrifying. It seemed even to go beyond the level of inhumanity previously attributed to the Capitol. I just didn't see the point of that twist. Why not use killer wolf-like mutts without the human connection? Is the author setting the groundwork for something in one of the sequels?

One more thing - I was a little annoyed that the significance of the mocking-jay pin was never revealed. Why was Madge SO insistent that Katniss wear it into the arena? I can only hope it's revealed in a sequel.

Given that the book ended on a clear cliff-hanger, I will be putting the next book in the series on my to-read list. I admit, I'm dying to find out what happens between Katniss and Gale.

Overall, despite my misgivings about the premise, it was entertaining, and it was easy reading - like eating popcorn, Ken says - but I think it ultimately fell short of its potential.