So for those of you who don't know yet, because I don't believe I've done much with them on this blog so far, I am an avid romance reader. As in, you'll see my Goodreads feed full of them, with a sprinkling of Fantasy and Science Fiction and YA and maybe a very small dash of non-fiction in the form of memoirs. I LOVE romance novels. That being said, my baseline rating on Goodreads is three stars. Which means I liked the book, but it wasn't necessarily phenomenal enough that I would get super animated when telling you about it unless it pertained to a conversation we were already having; that's reserved for four star books. And five star books are those that I suggest everyone read even if I know it's not their usual cup of tea. But I digress. Today, you all get to experience my love of romance novels because I'm going to review one for you: The Unhoneymooners by Christina Lauren.
Now, Christina Lauren is actually two separate authors writing as one. They've written a lot of romances, and most of them that I've read I've enjoyed. And the book is written seamlessly enough that, as far as I personally can tell, you don't notice that there is more than one author. Christina Lauren's books are usually fun, snarky, and a nice break from the world, and The Unhoneymooners does not disappoint on that score. Like some of the other books I've read, this is an "enemies to lovers" contemporary romance, but there's also a little twist: turns out, the heroine's twin sister just married the hero's older brother. In a non-romance novel, this wouldn't necessarily be a big deal. It may cause a little extra strife during holidays, but as long as no one actively tried to kill someone life would go on. But this is a romance novel. Which means that things do go wrong, and it results in the heroine and hero going on the honeymoon meant for their siblings. Our heroine has to pretend to be her sister, since the honeymoon is paid for by contest winnings and anyone other than the winner going is considered fraud. The hero is, of course, off the hook, since he has the same last name as his brother and the "designated guest" of the winner was only listed by last name. So these two new in-laws who hate each other now have to pretend to be married or the whole thing goes up in flame and she has to also pretend to be her sister. To up the stakes, as though they weren't high enough already, her new boss is there and his ex-girlfriend who broke his heart is there, both thinking that our heroine and hero are themselves and married, all while the resort staff think they're other people and married. In short, it's a mess. But this is romance! So it all works out in the end. ;) I enjoyed this book a lot. I don't normally go for "enemies to lovers," because sometimes it feels icky depending on how the author presents it. This particular arc was based on a misunderstanding and some duplicity on the part of the recently married husband (SPOILER: he's a jerk, and much stronger words too). While that's still a little problematic, it's not as worrying as some of the stories I've read that include power differentials between the characters that make it more like blackmail and/or harassment. If you're looking for a fun, snarky, and romantic read for the summer, I definitely suggest this book. Do be aware that there are explicit sexual scenes though. What's a summer read you suggest? Let me know in the comments. And if you end up reading this book, let me know so we can talk about it. Happy reading!
0 Comments
These past few days most of the world has been dealing with a heat wave. And what a heat wave it has been. As someone who prefers cold to heat (not that I don't get cold easily, but I'd rather bundle up than have to deal with social codes regarding how much I can take off; not to mention it's easier to add more layers and become somewhat comfortable, but I digress), the temperatures lately have been what I imagine the classic Christian version of hell looks like. Because I'm sorry, there's no way hell has dry heat, no matter how many fires are burning. Humidity would make the whole thing that much worse, which means the traditional Christian version of hell is likely to have a boatload of humidifiers working overtime to keep up with all the fire. And I digress again. With temperatures in the high nineties and dew points in the seventies, it's not at all comfortable to venture outside for anything. Which is why it's the perfect weather to stay in and read. ;)
Which is why I finished four books over this weekend...This does not mean I also got everything else I needed to do this weekend done. The opposite in fact. I should have been packing up boxes. But reading! And I had the perfect excuse too! It's too hot and muggy and gross outside to do something productive outside or do errands, so I might as well stay in and read. Of course, this is going to make the coming week when I actually have to get everything but two suitcases worth of my apartment packed up and shipped out that much more stressful and void of reading. And when I'm freaking out about packing, and writing my sort of poetry performance for a Moishe House event, and writing my speech for my work, I will most definitely be kicking myself in the butt. But right now, I'm just happy that I've been able to read the books that I have this weekend. They were quick and easy reads, but definitely enjoyable. And barring one, Purity in Death by J.D. Robb, they didn't bring to mind the steaming heat outside. So today's post is sort of just a testament to the fact that as a bookworm, I can find an excuse to sit down and read a book in pretty much any weather. Be it rainy, windy, snowy, or sunny, it's always the perfect day to read something. And that concludes today's post, because today I just enjoyed being myself and reading a good book. Happy reading! Edit: I just saw the following picture on my FaceBook feed, and I believe it pretty much encapsulates this post... Right, so I'm going to mention this only because I almost spit water all over my laptop when I heard of it, but it doesn't really have any bearing on the rest of the post so feel free to skip to the next paragraph if you wish. Can we just appreciate that the Christian group calling for Good Omens to be removed from the streaming service because it was, you know, not very reverent to their point of view, got the wrong platform? I mean, I find it incredibly unlikely that no one in that group double checked to make sure it was, in fact, Netflix that was producing and streaming this show that is apparently so terrible. I find the lack of competence in that whole deal disturbing. Of course, there likely was someone who saw they got it wrong and fixed it up pretty quickly, but the internet moves incredibly fast these days (I wonder if Crowley has any influence in this particular happenstance? ;) ) and unfortunately human beings are all too willing to rag on each other about small mistakes. The internet just makes it easier for us to do so. And yes, I am fully aware that I just did the same exact thing as the rest of humanity. It is something I have to work on still. Sometimes though, I just need that little bit of absurdity to lighten my day and stresses. Anyway. Onward!
I'm going to preface this post by stating that it has been about a year since I read the book Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett and therefore I don't remember things as well as I might have if the "movie" (yes, I know it's a mini-series but close enough in this case) had been out when I finished reading it. This, coupled with the fact that Neil Gaiman himself wrote (or at least had a great deal of influence in the writing of, though I'm pretty sure the wrote the entirety of) the screenplay, means that I can't really pick out huge, glaring issues. Now, this does not mean that there weren't any big changes from the book to the mini-series, it's just that I didn't notice them. So while this post is supposedly a "Book Vs. Movie" post, it's more going to be a few paragraphs about how awesome the mini-series was and how I think everyone should read the book and watch the mini-series if possible. I do not, however, think you should purchase AmazonPrime simply to watch the mini-series. Surely it will be out at some point on DVD and you can watch it there, or you can potentially get one of those free trials and cancel before you have to pay, or maybe you know someone who has Prime for a completely different reason and you can have them help you access it. The point is, don't spend $110 a year for a single series. But you should still watch it if at all possible. Here's why. Regardless of whether you believe in G-d or not, whether you're a part of an organized religion, or if you believe the stories/prophecies written in the book of Revelation in the Newer Testament of the Christian Bible, there are lessons (I tend to talk about those a lot here on this blog somehow, so I'm going to switch it up and call them themes for the rest of this post) that pretty much everyone could benefit from. If they're willing to listen. Now, these themes I'm going to speak of are the big ones that resonate with me. There's probably a whole lot more in the book/mini-series that other individuals can pick out. As such, communication is key. So if you think I missed something, let me know in the comments. Or if you want to talk about one of the themes I bring up, mention it in the comments. I'm always up for a lively discussion. One: When there are only two sides there's usually a cluster-something-or-other. Yes, there is a specific word you can insert there that makes it sound much shorter and sweeter, but as many of you know, cursing is not something my mother approves of and while I do not mind others cursing in my presence I try and keep my own to a minimum so I don't shock her when I visit. Anyway. There are two big sides in the book/mini-series. Heaven and Hell. And the two main agents of these sides have been left far to long in the world and neither quite agrees with their side anymore. But there are only two. So they have to make a choice even when both choices result in Armageddon which they would rather avoid. Sound familiar? Two choices, especially ones that are supposedly black and white, usually result in not so great things. Spectrums seem to be a better choice overall. Why do you think there's the stereotype about two Jews and three opinions? Because choosing between two things ends up being not much of a choice at all. You tend to choose "the lesser of two evils" because there isn't an actual good answer. Now, that's not saying that there's always a "good" answer, a choice that is "correct." But having more options means that even if all the answers are somewhat "bad/wrong," you can still end up with one that's "better than all the rest and actually somewhat positive" rather than "the best we can do and it still sucks." I'm not going to get into the issue of too many choices here. But I much prefer the Dungeons and Dragons version of possibilities (Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Neutral Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil) better than a cut and dried "you're either with us or against us" motto. More than two options allows for redemption and openness to other people more than "good and evil" does. But that's just my opinion. Two: It's never too late. This is important. Spoiler alert for those who haven't read or watched, but Adam starts Armageddon. It's coming. The four horsemen are here, nuclear war seems inevitable, and both sides are ready to battle. And then it stops. Yes, there's more detail to it than that, but that's the gist of it. They were able to stop it, to avert disaster, to make things, well, maybe not right but at least relatively normal again. All it took was never giving up, a bit of ingenuity, and a solid team. If Adam's friends hadn't been there to help him, and fight for him, things would have ended up differently. So make connections with people and don't give up on the world just because some grown-ups messed it up. That's a reason to fix it, not destroy it. Three (last one for this post, I promise): Stand with your chosen family. Most people have heard the phrase blood is thicker than water. And then some people mention that a less condenced version of the phrase is that blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb. And then you start getting into which quote was the original one, and did it originate in this German text in the 1300s or was it this Arabic text in 1400 and so on and so forth. Also, Wikipedia wormholes exist and they are incredibly dangerous. Should we blame (or thank depending on your opinion) Crowley for that too? Anyway. The point of the phrase above could be that your loyalty to your blood family should be stronger than the water in the river of friendship. Or alternatively, that the loyalty you have for your friends of choice, honed through the trials of blood, should be stronger than the water in the womb you share with your family. My perspective: get rid of the concept of blood and water. They confuse things. In many cases, yes, I believe that family is very important and protecting your family is important too. But, not everyone has a family like mine. And even in mine, I can see where in some cases it was better for someone to choose people outside of the "blood" to give loyalty to. A person shouldn't be forced to choose one side simply because they share biological material. So my thought is that while there are people we are biologically related to who might be considered our family, family is also a choice of the individual. I consider my closest biological relatives to be my family, and I consider many of the further out biological relatives to be my family too, along with their spouses and children and in-laws. But there are also friends, non-biologically related to me friends, who I consider part of my family. Friends who I have as much loyalty to as I do to my biologically related family. Friends like Crowley and Aziraphale. Friends like Adam, Pepper, Wensleydale and Brian. Chosen family. Family they stood with regardless of what they were up against. And yes, you could bring up the fact that Pepper and Wensleydale and Brian and Dog were going to "abandon" Adam, but that's another discussion that would make this post even longer than it already is, so I'm going to leap over that rabbit hole and continue on. You can choose who you consider family, and you stand by those chosen ones. This does not mean that you can't hold them accountable to their actions. But it does mean you stand with them even as they face consequences. Stand by them, and you might just help us all avoid Armageddon. So that was a super long post, and it could have been way longer. But I'll stop here. If you have thoughts, additions, corrections, etc., just post them in the comments. Like I said, I'm always up for a good discussion. Happy Reading! There are lot's of different types of readers out there. And about as many different types of categorizing them as there are stars in the sky. Genre, style, author, number of books read at a time, when they read, why they read, etc. But today's post is going to focus on a specific type of reader (though it can overlap a bit with the why they read and number of books read at a time categories).This reader is often on a spectrum, though it is usually skewed one way or the other with maybe a hint of mid-line. And that type is, drum-roll please, the re-reader. Now as I said, this isn't exactly clear cut. My style in this category definitely isn't exactly one or the other, but it tends towards one type, which is sort of the point. I get a lot of people mentioning re-reading books, which I understand. Every so often there's a series that I love so much I know I'm going to want to re-read them. Books by Sarah J. Maas and Diana Gabaldon come to mind. But I don't re-read most books that I come across. I'll read a book, like say, The Hobbit, and think it's a great book and really enjoy it. But I'm not going to re-read it. While the number of books I'll re-read is still growing (that happens when you read a large number of books a year) I feel like it isn't as high as some people I know, which is why I consider it a style of reader. Either you love to re-read or you don't. In my case, re-reading is often directly tied to whether I purchase books. If I think I'm going to re-read it, or if I find myself re-reading it, I might decide to purchase it and add it to my library. Otherwise, I'll get it from the library. Because while there's many a bookworm meme out there complaining about Marie Kondo (remember, she said ideally have less than 30 books), I get her point. Now, I haven't watched her show or read her book, so I might be missing something, but I believe her point was that books can cause a great deal of clutter and unless you care about the books as more than just a symbol of status you should get rid of them if you want a clean house. Or, you know, you could invest in more bookshelves, but that can be expensive and not exactly feasible if you already have a lot and are still overloaded. Owning books for the sake of owning books isn't necessarily a good thing. But if you're using those books over and over and over and you take notes and find the little gems that pop out at you every time you read it again, then yeah. Keep that book in your collection. Which brings me back to the reader. And whether you re-read or not. I tend not to. There are some books that I do re-read. And a whole lot more that I don't. If someone wants to discuss them with me I'll probably re-read them. Or if I'm in the right mood and all the other books I want to read are unavailable at the library for some reason I might pick up something for a second time, but on the whole I am not a re-reader. This does not mean I don't have a large collection of books. I do. Most of them were free ones that i picked up at conferences. Which is great, except I'm moving and I know that most of them are not going to be ones that I want to keep enough to move them with me. Which means I have some hefty reading to do before I leave. And potentially some giving away before I've read them but keeping the titles/authors so that I can read them eventually. I feel like my point got a little lost up there though, so here it is. I don't re-read that often. But I know some friends that do. Most of the time it's because of similar reasons to me (most people I know don't re-read books that they don't like) but I feel like sometimes the threshold for deciding to re-read books is different for each individual. So you might have one person who re-reads way more books than someone else because that threshold for "liking enough to want to re-read" is lower. Where do you think you fall on this spectrum? Are you an avid re-reader or is your threshold pretty high? Let me know in the comments. Happy Reading! |
AuthorThe author is a librarian who reads "too much" (is there such a thing?) and talks just as much. As an aspiring author she gets bogged down by grammar rules when she just wants to forget them to make a sentence flow, but never seems to be able to. She appreciates thoughtful comments and constructive criticism, but internet trolls beware, she's read enough fantasy novels to know how to defeat the monsters. Archives
October 2020
Categories
All
|