Eat, Pray, Love, Rant.

Yes, I know, it’s rich to start posting about the next book on the bookclub list when you haven’t even read it yet! Our September-October pick is Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert.

Now, for various reasons, I come into this book with a lot of bias. Why? I’m not exactly sure, but I have a bias towards this book. My friend who recommended this book loves it and it is a book that she feels strongly about and that helped her through a very difficult time in her life. I want to keep an open mind so I can come to the book with no expectations and just let the experience of the book wash over me as I read.

I think my real problem comes from the description on the back of the book. The summary says that the author “…had everything a modern American woman was supposed to want – husband, country home, successful career….” Now, I am not American, but let us, for the purposes of this post, presume that the term is intended to mean North Americans as opposed to merely Americans from the United States of America. At any rate, who decided that this is what I am supposed to want? That this is what is supposed to make me happy? Sure, some women would be happy with those things; others may define success and happiness differently.

What really gets me on edge is this creation of an “ideal” by, well, by whom? Who decided to tell me what I am supposed to want? Who died and made this imaginary person boss? How arrogant to lump all women together into one category and to imply that all they need to be happy are a husband, successful career, and home. Happiness is not defined by what you have but by what you are. And I don’t need the summary on a back of a book to tell me that, or to define what I am supposed to want.

That is where my problem lies – the fact that Elizabeth Gilbert is rebelling against an artificial construct. So you feel trapped – because what you have what you’re “supposed” to want. Well, by lumping all women together into this artificial definition, and defining yourself by an imaginary standard, of course you’re going to feel trapped! If anything, Elizabeth Gilbert defines this by “running away” from her supposed “picture-perfect” life to find what she really wants. If she’d only realized before that the standard of what she’s supposed to want is to be set by her, and not by some magical and unseen “them”, she probably wouldn’t have needed to write the book.

So it's not really the book that I'm biased against, it's the marketing of the book that is giving me problems. At any rate, once I finally get to the book, I will try to leave my bias at the inanity of some artificial construct telling me what I’m supposed to want, and just enjoy Elizabeth Gilbert’s quest for her own personal happiness. I want to give the book a fair chance and I will try really hard to leave my own bias behind while I’m reading it.

Gardening in Colour

I am trying not to turn this blog into a gardening blog, but it's something I'm really interested in right now, hence my reading lots of gardening books and posting my thoughts on this blog. Those of you uninterested in gardening will just have to wait for the next post.

Lately, I've read a bunch of books on gardening design, as opposed to specific plants (seen recently: tulips, roses, trees). These books talk about the overall process of gardening and how to put a bed together. They're more of a broader-picture point of view.

The first book I looked at was Garden Color, one of the Better Homes and Garden books. (It was extremely difficult not to write "Colour" in there!) This book discusses different colours and colour combinations, and ends with some photos of some artists' gardens.

Garden Color was okay. It was not quite as helpful as I'd hoped. It had lots of photographs, but little specific text on how to achieve the look seen in the photograph, and eventually it just devolved into a blur of pictures of plants that I can't grow in my zone anyway. The book began by discussing all the different colours and the mood each colour projects, as well as where in the garden it looks best and other colours to combine it with. (Note: the book had purple and lavender in different categories. Isn't lavender just a shade of purple?) I would have liked a list of plants of each colour included as well, instead of just a few plants pictured.

Next, the book looked at different colour combinations as well as colour in different seasons. This is where there seemed to be too many photographs. I would have preferred one example garden for each type of garden (example: one white garden for monochromatic) and instructions on how to create that look at home. Otherwise, it was kind of a blur of different flowers that all blended together.

For more specific bed and border plans, I turned to Beds & Borders: Simple Projects for the Weekend Gardener by Richard Bird. This book discussed different border styles that could be created in a garden, presumably by someone with limited time. I'm not sure if you could accomplish all of his plans in a weekend, but he has some interesting ideas. My favourites were the mixed border and woodland border, but I also thought the brick parterre using vegetables was a really cool idea - although a little too formal for my house! (A parterre is a very formal style of garden where the plants are laid out in formal beds which create a pattern. The beds are edged with a shrub or other type of edging and the paths can be gravel, lawn, or brick. Think of the kind of garden you'd see at a formal house and you'll get the idea.)

There are 20 different projects in the book, and Bird gives instructions on how to complete each one, along with an alternative planting for a different look. He accompanies each project with an artist's rendering of the mature garden, along with an overhead view of the bed - done in colour! I thought that was a great idea and am making plans to draw out my bed plans and then colour in each plant to ensure that all the colours do go together as well in real life as they do in my head! I did not like how he only used Latin names for all of the plants. I am not that conversant in horticultural Latin quite yet and would still like the common names for plants so I know what he's talking about!

A similar type of book is Theme Gardens by Barbara Damrosch. I didn't get to read the whole thing (library constraints!) but it was very similar to Beds & Borders in that it gave step-by-step instructions on how to create various kinds of gardens, including: colonial, rose, butterfly, scent, Shakespearean, and moon! (No, not plants to grow in a "moonscape" but plants that primarily flower at night.) It was similar to the above in that it contained several different projects, and each project had a drawing of the garden in full bloom, as well as a garden plan in colour. But what I liked about Damrosch's book is that she drew three plans (or so) for each project: showing the garden at different times of year, such as spring, early summer and mid-summer. Thus you could clearly see what plants are in flower at what times, and what colours are together. That was quite handy and helped me picture the garden - maybe it's something I'll try with my own garden plans.

As we slowly wind into fall, I think my quota of gardening books will only go up - what else is there to do during a long, cold, winter except read gardening books and daydream! But now I have a few more ideas for my gardening plans to put into place next spring.

Did You Know?

As a child, I was constantly bugging my parents with statements like: Did you know that Henry VIII had 6 wives? Did you know that Americans eat 75 acres of pizza a day? Did you know that the Greek national anthem contains 158 verses? Fortunately my parents were blessed with an extra helping of patience and tolerated my endless chattering.

I read two books this week that satisfied my urge for trivia. The first, while not necessarily dealing with trivia, does provide the reader with an interesting supply of facts: Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt (the economist) and Stephen J. Dubner (the journalist). The second is totally trivial: Brainiac: Adventures in the Curious, Competitive, Compulsive World of Trivia Buffs written by none other than Jeopardy's! greatest champion (and my hero) Ken Jennings.

Freakonomics is a fascinating book that explores the unexpected connections in this world. By sifting through mountains of data and correlating the results, Levitt has come up with some pretty interesting theories about crime, cheating, success in life, and use of information. These theories are presented in an eminently readable fashion in this book - Levitt and Dubner make the obscure clear. If I was an economics student at the University of Chicago (where Levitt teaches) I would definitely want to take one of his classes.

Usually when one thinks of economics, one thinks of charts, graphs, formulas, supply and demand, guns and butter (the usual two examples presented in my first year economics classes). This is not that kind of economics. Sure, there is analysis of data, but in this book we've moved beyond the traditional theories of economics to apply its principles to other sets of data.

Let me give you an example about sumo wrestlers. Yes, sumo wrestlers. Sumo is an ancient and honourable sport, but lately it has been dogged by allegations of cheating. Apparently sumo wrestlers fight in several matches per year, made up of 15 fights each. In order to move up in the rankings, a wrestler must win at least 8 fights. Levitt and Dubner analyzed the data of what happens when, in the 15th match, a sumo wrestler with a 7-7 record fights a wrestler with an 8-6 record. The 8-6 wrestler should win slightly more than half the time. Instead, the 7-7 wrestler wins nearly 80% of the time! Are the wrestlers throwing fights? The data suggests so. [See pgs. 30-45]

Levitt and Dubner also talk about why drug dealers still live with their moms, the surprising reason for the decline in crime, and why a name is more than just a name. This book was fascinating. I was intrigued and interested by the hidden connections between different variables that one would never suspect. And lest you think the authors are just alleging that X causes Y, they do discuss the difference between correlation and causation and exactly how the data is manipulated. Just because two variables change, does not mean that change is caused by one variable. There could be an external force at work.

This book was an excellent and informative read - along with being thoroughly entertaining. Anyone who has ever asked why will want to read this book. And anyone who has every said "Did you know...." now has a new army of facts in his or her arsenal!

Speaking of facts....Brainiac was FULL of trivia. Every chapter had its fair share of trivia, AND the reader got to play along. Throughout the book Jennings asked trivia questions marked by superscript numbers. The answers are given at the end of each chapter.

This book includes trivia, but it is really about trivia. For those of you who aren't obsessive Jeopardy! watchers (yes, I do shout answers at the screen!), you probably won't know who Ken Jennings is. Ken Jennings is the mild-mannered, computer programmer, Mormon who (as of the date of writing) has the longest winning streak in Jeopardy! history - 74 games. He finally lost in his 75th game, losing to Nancy Zerg (potential Trivial Pursuit answer!) and her correct answer of H&R Block. Jenning's answer: Fed-Ex. (It was a question about seasonal employment) I still remember watching that game and the collective gasp from the audience when Jenning's answer was revealed and we all did the math and found our champion was dethroned.

Brainiac is about Jenning's journey from ordinary citizen to Jeopardy! champion. It's also about the history of trivia and its place in American life. The two stories intertwine well, and Jennings is a terrific author: humble, self-deprecating, humourous, and a good storyteller. As a Jeopardy! nut, I enjoyed the inside look at all the behind-the-scenes action. Did you know that all the episodes for a week are taped in one day? The contestants have to bring a change of clothes to perpetuate the fiction that the game they are playing is the next day. Jennings chronicles his test to get on the show, "training" before his first game, his first game - and first (close) win. He had to live a strange double life before the episodes aired because he couldn't tell anyone about his win. He details his strange, sudden fame, and ultimate loss. I love the anecdote on pages 145-146 where Jennings details his thought process to get to the answer of a question - from ringing in before he consciously knew the answer, to suggesting and discarding multiple possibilities, to finally pulling out the answer from his subconscious; all in a matter of seconds.

Throughout, Jennings discusses the American obsession with trivia and its place in our lives. He talks about the college quiz bowl circuit which I'd never heard of and was really interesting. I don't think we have the same here in Canada, but there was a show on TV here that sounds like it would be similar. In quiz bowl, questions are read out to two teams. The team has to buzz in and answer before the other team does. The earlier into the question your team answers correctly, the more points your team gets. This can either lead to some staggering leaps of intuition (getting the right answer after one word of the question was read) or hilariously incorrect answers (saying "crack cocaine" when the answer was "pecan pie", for example). [See pg. 127] Jennings describes a match at the National Academic Quiz Tournaments with all the excitement and drive of sportswriting and you are immediately drawn into the match.

Jennings also covers the invention of Trivial Pursuit; types of trivia questions; bar trivia; the rigged trivia game shows of the 60's; question writers for trivia shows; the town of Stevens Point, Wisconsin and its April 54 hour trivia event; and trivia book writers. Did you know that trivia book/encyclopedia/dictionary writers would often put false entries in their works to check for plagiarizing? If the false entry began to appear in other works, the writer would know that the trivia book/encyclopedia/dictionary had been plagiarized. Fascinating!

Speaking of false entries, I hope the mistake on page 78 is such an example of a false entry: Jane Seymour was the mother of King Edward VI, not King Edward IV. Easy mistake to make with Roman numerals. I think I may be writing the publisher to point that one out - in trivia, after all, it's important that the fact be right!

This book is a must-read for anyone interested in trivia, Jennings, Jeopardy!, or how my brain works. I found it incredibly interesting and fascinating. But, my friends and family, be warmed. Now I am armed with an entire new collection of random facts to pull out and bore you with at parties. Hey, did you know that Merv Griffin composed the theme song for Jeopardy!? [pg.102]

A Future Year

Our next pick for bookclub was The Year of Magical Thinking, by Joan Didion. I picked it up today, intending to start it, but ended up reading the whole thing in one sitting. And before you think that's an amazing feat, I will let you know that the book is only 227 pages long.

This book is about a terrible year in Didion's life. Her only child, Quintana was severely ill with pneumonia and in ICU in hospital just after Christmas. On December 30, 2003, Didion's husband, John Dunne, died suddenly in their home of a heart attack. This is Didion's account of her grieving/mourning process during that year. Her daughter recovered, only to fall ill again shortly after the funeral in March 2004. She never fully recovered (I think) and died in August 2005, after this book was published.

Given its subject matter, this is a hard book to critique. Can one say anything bad about it and not appear unfeeling? It is also hard in that I have never experienced an experience like the author went through - losing her husband of 40 years. Who knows how I would feel in such a situation and if it would be like what the author is feeling.

The book is not so much a description of her year as a series of disjointed thoughts and stories about her past with John and Quintana, and the present, in which she struggles to be there for Quintana and maintain a semblance of normalcy after her husband's death. As such, it is random, really without conventional structure. It is one of those books that you awake from it feeling fuzzy and disjointed.

I can't really say that I enjoyed the book, but I'm not sure this is the kind of book you can enjoy. Did it make me feel sad? No, not really. I don't know Joan, John, and Quintana, and even after reading this book I still don't really feel as if I did. I hope it helped the author to write this book - maybe it was cathartic for her. However, I think grief and mourning is such an individualistic process that the book may not be comforting for those who are experiencing such a great loss, and may be distancing for those who haven't experienced a loss of that magnitude. For I did feel, throughout the book, that the author was keeping me at arm's length, to a certain extent, and not really letting me in and letting me get to know her and her family. I couldn't put myself into her shoes to feel what she was feeling.

Perhaps I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm at a stage of my life right now where I can't get it. And that's fine. I can always try again later, if I need to. There are many books I've come back to when I'm older and found something new in. I thought that once I was an adult, that would change, but that is not so. I think this is one I will have to come back to when I'm a little older, a little more experienced. I'll try reading it with fresh eyes in about 10 years or so, and see what my thoughts are on it then.

On slightly more positive note, I am happy to say that the bookclub has decided to keep going into the fall! Instead of a book a month, however, we have decided that (with the increased busy-ness of fall) to read a book every two months. Our September-October pick: Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert.

Regency Romance Run Rampant

Recently I received from the library a large quantity of Heyer Regency romance novels. I have been reading my way through them in between various other books, and thought I would summarize them here in one fell swoop. Please note that all discussions may contain spoilers.


The Convenient Marriage


The title of this book is descriptive – the novel does concern, in fact, a marriage of convenience. However, the back of the book is quite misleading. “When the eligible Earl of Rule offers for the hand of the Beauty of the Winwood Family, he has no notion of the distress he causes his intended. For Miss Lizzie Winwood is promised to the excellent, but impoverished, Mr Edward Heron. Disaster can only be averted by the delightful impetuosity of her youngest sister, Horatia, who conceives her own distinctly original plans…”. Based on this, one assumes that Horatia schemes through the entire book only to finally have the Earl of Rule fall into her trap at the end. No – that is not so! Instead, Horatia proposes to the Earl of Rule in the Second Chapter, and they are married by Chapter Five! The rest of the book focuses on Horatia’s wild life of fashion and gambling in London. Lizzie Winwood and Mr. Heron are barely mentioned at all – Lizzie makes no return appearance and Mr. Heron comes back at the very end. Horatia’s proposal is the catalyst for the book, not the climax at the end of it.

Even after I got past the misleading description, I still did not like this book as much as I usually like Heyer’s work. Horatia seemed quite an interesting character in the first few chapters, but soon her wit and charm evaporate and she seems mindless and silly – fluttering around to the various balls, card parties, and other social events of her time. She is a terrible gambler and loses vast sums at the tables without drawing the ire of Lord Rule. I cannot see what Lord Rule sees in her to fall in love with her so. Further, she has a stammer. Now, I understand, people have stammers. They can’t help it and I am patient. An author can help from giving a character a stammer. It makes Horatia’s dialogue terrible to read. I also highly disliked the character of Horatia’s brother (Pelham) . He is a young buck, vaguely foppish, who also gambles away vast sums, thereby necessitating the marriage of a (poor but noble) Winwood sister to the (rich yet rakish) Rule. And the sisters seem to excuse it! Oh, it’s not the poor brother’s fault, it’s in his blood, it’s what all the young men do. He is not a very likeable character either. There is some confusion at the end about a lost brooch, and the highwayman scene is excruciating! I think it is supposed to be broad comedy, but I didn’t care for Pelham nor his friends and did not find it at all amusing to have to spend so much time with them embarked upon some absurd adventure.

Also, on a side note, this book is not actually set in the Regency time period, but prior to that time period. Judging from the references to dress and Marie Antoinette, the book would appear to be set in the period prior to the French Revolution, say about, 1776-1780? At any rate, it does not matter when it was set, as it is not one of my favourite Heyers and will not find a permanent home on my shelf.


Bath Tangle


Fortunately, this was more my usual Heyer – and true Regency as well! (Based upon references to Princess Charlotte’s engagement and marriage, one can conclude this book is set in 1815-1816.) It is primarily set in Bath, and seems to have vague overtones of Jane Austen’s Persuasion.

However, the heroine of this book is vastly different from Austen’s gentle Anne Elliot. Lady Serena is an Earl’s daughter and a true aristocrat. Raised without reference to propriety, she is strong and independent. Her father dies and the entailed estate is passed to a cousin. Her father also leaves behind a widow – the sweet and timid Fanny – who is also several years younger than Serena! Fortunately, Serena has inherited a fortune from her mother. However, this fortune is tied up in a trust, to be released to her upon marriage. Unfortunately, the Trustee is the Marquis of Rotherham – Serena’s former fiance whom she jilted shortly before the wedding. Not only does the Marquis control her fortune, he must give his consent to Serena’s marriage. Serena and Fanny remove to Bath, where Serena meets an army man she once loved several years ago. They secretly renew their attachment and become engaged. Rotherham also becomes engaged – to a local gentleman’s daughter scarcely out of the schoolroom. Various romantic entanglements ensue, but suffice it to say that everyone who should be together is by the end of the book.

This is true Heyer Regency Romance – likeable characters, gentlemen and ladies, fortune, fashion, gossip, and love. Serena is passionate and fiery – the gentle and shy Fanny is an excellent foil for Serena’s more vibrant character. There are quite a few characters, and a lot of gossip to retain, but it is an enjoyable and frothy afternoon read.


Faro’s Daughter

This heroine of this book is a departure from the usual well-bred Heyer heroine. That is not to say that the lovely and charming Miss Deborah Grantham (Deb) is ill-bred – however, her aunt keeps a gaming house and Deb is a dealer in her aunt’s fine establishment. Needless to say, this has caused her to gain the reputation of a woman of low virtue. Unfortunately, this does not stop the highly eligible bachelor Adrian, Lord Mablethorpe, from falling deeply in love with her. A marriage cannot take place immediately because, sadly, Adrian is not yet of age. Further, although he is in love with Deb, Deb, while fond of the charming young man, is not in love with him. However, she does accepts his proposal after Adrian’s uncle and trustee, Mr. Max Ravenscar, tries to pay her a sum of money to not marry Adrian. Deb is highly insulted, refuses, and is determined to have her revenge against Ravenscar (although not to the extent of having to marry Adrian!). Add to the mix the sweet, beautiful, and helpless Phoebe Laxton (saved from a forced marriage to an old rake by Deb and Adrian), the insufferable Kit Grantham (Deb’s soldier brother) and Ravenscar’s vivacious and spirited sister Arabella, and you have the makings of a delightful Regency romance.

I highly enjoyed Deb as a character – she is charming and witty and has a independent, stubborn streak that I admire. However, I perhaps did not quite understand to the extent that she was insulted by Ravenscar at the beginning, and thought it to be in somewhat poor taste for her to use Adrian as a pawn in her scheme. Further, the romance between her and Ravenscar seemed to come out of nowhere in the end. Heyer must match up all of the characters at the end (and I do understand that a good marriage was the goal for every eligible young woman of the time), but I would not have minded seeing Deb stay alone, since I couldn’t get any sense of her having any positive feelings for Ravenscar by the end of the book. A good Heyer, but not nearly as delightful as Arabella or Frederica.

Cotillion

Another sweet and charming Heyer novel. The plot goes as follows. A young lady was adopted by an irascible and childless penny-pincher. The miser has amassed a fast fortune and will leave the entirety to the young lady, provided she marry one of the miser’s numerous nephews. If she does not, she will be penniless. The bride – sweet and somewhat silly Kitty Charing. The potential grooms – her “cousins”: the intellectually inferior Earl, Lord Dolphinton; the prudish and straight-laced minister, Hugh Rattray; the fashionable and dashing young gentleman Frederick (Freddy) Standen; and the rakish and raffish Jack Westruther. (The rough and rowdy soldier cousin does not enter into the plot at all, being inconveniently obliged to go fight wars on the continent.) Kitty quickly enters into a sham engagement with Freddy, the least objectionable, in order to get away from her sheltered country existence and go to London. There, she hopes to meet a suitor who is not one of the “cousins”.

Kitty has cousins of her own – French cousins – and meets one of them in London, the Chevalier. He quickly falls in love with Kitty’s new friend, Olivia Broughty, whose mother has pushed her into London society, determined that she make a connection (whether through marriage or otherwise) with a wealthy benefactor. Kitty must also deal with her hapless cousin Dolphinton, his manipulative mother, and Dolphinton’s lower-class true love. Kitty does find love at the end – although it may not be with whom you suspect!

Contrary to usual, I did not see the “twist” at the end and predict correctly who Kitty ended up with. I will, however, mention that the “subplot” featured on the back of the book which stated that Jack was Kitty’s biggest rival for her hand, rarely featured in the narrative. I understood that there was some childhood tenderness between Kitty and Jack, but there were hardly any scenes between the two that would justify any sort of romantic feelings between them or indicate that part of Kitty’s acceptance of Freddy’s proposal was to get back at Jack. However, generally, I liked the characters. That said, they were, kind of, well, dumb. Not that I expect every character I read about to be an intellectual genius, it’s just that I didn’t feel that I could identify with them sometimes. (And not that I’m an intellectual genius either!) Freddy seemed extremely preoccupied with dress and deportment – the usual Heyer characteristics of a foppish young man. By the end of the novel, he has developed into more of an action man, but still retains his fashionable ways. So there was some character development – I just didn’t necessarily identify with everything the characters did.

This is also perhaps the most risque of all the Heyer novels I’ve read to date. The characters talks quite openly about Olivia Broughty’s mother and her plans for her daughter. Olivia is to make a rich marriage or find a wealthy lover. The wealthy lover? None other than Kitty’s cousin Jack, who is notable for his short-lived conquests. Olivia seems to be about the same class as most of Jane Austen’s girls – a gentleman’s daughter, so it is interesting to have her potential fall from grace discussed so openly. Further, there are hints of something going on between Jack and Freddy’s married sister Meg. Only hints, however. And, finally, there is some discussion between Kitty and her “cousins” that she is the illegitimate daughter of the miserly uncle. (Which she is not.) Those risque developments aside, this was a pleasant read. Not, perhaps one of Heyer’s best, but still worthy of your time.

Cousin Kate

This is a slightly different Heyer work – set in the very early Victorian era (or even perhaps during the reign of William IV [1830-1837]), it has a Gothic feel – somewhat like Jane Austen’s Gothic send-up Northanger Abbey.

The titular Cousin Kate is Kate Malvern, the daughter of a noble soldier and a lady of “inferior lineage” (as Heyer puts it). Having just been fired from her position as a governess, she returns to the London home of her old nurse, Sarah, while she ponders what to do next. Her idea of going out to work as a lady’s maid (an abigail) or dresser is firmly scotched by Sarah, who takes it upon herself to write Kate’s estranged Aunt Minerva, her father’s half-sister. Kate’s father was cut off from the family as a result of his marriage, and Kate was brought up in Spain following her soldier father. Much to Kate’s surprise, Minerva swoops down to London and brings Kate back with her to Staplewood – the estate of the Broome baronet, Sir Timothy. Timothy and Minerva have one son, the heir, Torquil. But there is something wrong with Torquil; Minerva describes him as being ill and sickly, but Kate soon suspects more – in fact that he is mentally unbalanced. Kate realizes that Minerva is suppressing Kate’s letters to Sarah. Kate also becomes more and more concerned about Torquil’s strange behaviour – he tries to strangle Kate, a rabbit is found killed, and Torquil steals a gun from the gunroom and ends up nearly shooting Kate while attempting to shoot a puppy. (Don’t worry, the puppy is okay and makes no further appearance in the novel.)

While at Staplewood, Kate meets Torquil’s cousin, Philip Broome, next in line to the estate should anything happen to Torquil. Despite Torquil’s assurances that Philip is trying to kill him, Kate and Philip fall in love and become engaged. Kate finally realizes that Torquil is insane, but thinks that Minerva and Timothy must not know. Her assurance in this fact is shattered when Minerva tells Kate why she brought her to Staplewood – to marry Torquil and produce an heir before Torquil goes completely mad, to ensure the unbroken continuation of the father-son line of the Broomes at Staplewood. However, Kate is saved from a horrible fate by the timely intervention of her nurse Sarah. The book wraps up neatly as Minerva is strangled to death by Torquil, who then drowns himself in the pond, leaving Philip the heir to Staplewood.

Despite all the potential for action in this book, nothing much really happens. Sure, there are some scary moments by moonlight, but Kate is never in any real danger in the book. Nor is the plot to have her marry Torquil anything more than a plot – it is only mentioned to Kate by Minerva, and then Sarah shows up before anything can happen. There is no forced marriage by midnight, no locking Kate in her room until she agrees to marry Torquil; while I don’t want my heroines to suffer very much, this book (especially if it’s going to be Gothic in style) could have used a little more drama.

Also, I kept wondering about the plot-lines that didn’t happen. I would have enjoyed reading about Kate’s adventures as a dresser or abigail. How about the pretty young abigail who quickly ascends through the ranks of the servants to become dresser for a great lady and then falls in love with the handsome brother while ignoring the advances of the rakish cousin? Sounds promising. I was also interested in the plot-line of Kate marrying Torquil. Sadly, Kate is too good and not mercenary enough to marry Torquil for his money, position, and estate, but a book set a few years down the line would be interesting: once the heir is provided, Kate may find her own fun where she may while Torquil is locked up permanently on the estate. That would also be interesting reading. The plot-line as followed is perhaps not quite as interesting as the potential plot-lines that were ignored. That said, it is a fine Heyer – a nice afternoon read, but perhaps not quite one of her best. Or maybe I am less enamoured of the “Gothic” style than I am of the pure Regency style. That said, I think I need a break from the Regency Romance – next up is my bookclub book: The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion.

A Sad Tale

CBC News reported today that Emma Thompson has been hired by the publishers of Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit story to write a new Peter Rabbit story to celebrate the 110th anniversary of the Peter Rabbit tale.

What a horrible idea.

Now, don't get me wrong - I love Emma Thompson. She is a fabulous actor and those who like literary film adaptations should check out her radiant turn as Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing and Elinor Dashwood in Sense and Sensibility. I believe she's even won an Oscar writing so she has the chops. But she is not Beatrix Potter! It's not that I'm mad about Emma in particular writing a new tale - I would be mad about anyone writing a new Peter Rabbit story.

Beatrix Potter wrote beautiful tales about animals for children. Published in small books with extraordinarily lovely illustrations, they were a comforting and familiar part of my childhood. I used to fall asleep to book tapes of The Tailor of Gloucester, The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher, and The Tale of Jemima Puddleduck.

Beatrix Potter wrote 23 lovely little books. Can't we just leave her legacy as it is? No, of course not. The publisher isn't interested in preserving literary heritage: they just want to milk more money out of the Peter Rabbit story and have some other author demean the original creation by trying to write her own story. If Emma Thompson and the publishers are such fans, why don't the publishers have Emma Thompson write her own Beatrix-Potter-inspired story, instead of taking Beatrix Potter's original characters and putting them in situations that Beatrix Potter never would have intended for them to be in. Beatrix Potter created Peter Rabbit - Emma Thompson should create her own characters and write her own book - not use some other author's characters in a story not their own.

It just makes me mad that we can't leave well enough alone but have to go back to other authors' original creations and characters and use them just to increase the profit for some publishing house. Beatrix Potter isn't here anymore, but she left her legacy in book form. Don't tamper with it on the grounds of "celebration" when all you are doing is trying to make more money. Let children enjoy her stories as they are, without adding "knock-offs" to the mix.

Royals on the Shelf

In my giant pile of library books at home, I have a couple I grabbed on my customary tour through the non-fiction history section. They are Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown by Maureen Waller, and Becoming Queen by Kate Williams. Ungrateful Daughters is about the last Stuart sovereigns: Queen Mary II and Queen Anne. Their father was James II - the monarch who turned Catholic and fled the country with his infant son. Becoming Queen is about the childhood of Queen Victoria and the untimely death of her cousin Princess Charlotte (George IV's daughter) which led to Victoria's accession to the throne.

After getting these books home, I had a look at my historical bookshelf and realized that I had a number of books about royal women. I had always wondered what I'd do for a thesis if I ever took a History Masters or Ph.D. because my love of history is so far-ranging. Now I realize my theme - historical royal women. I have books on quite of few of England's queens, queen consorts, and princesses from pre-Conquest up to Victoria. Here they are - in historical order!

I begin pre-Conquest with Queen Emma and the Vikings - The Woman Who Shaped the Events of 1066 by Harriet O'Brien and quickly move on to the Plantagenets. I don't seem to have any books about the women of the Norman period - I would especially like a good biography on the Empress Matilda/Maude (mother of Henry II).

Quite possibly one of my favourite royal consorts of all time, and an amazing woman in her own right is Eleanor of Aquitaine, who is immortalized in the excellent Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Biography by Marion Meade. Eleanor was a great heiress to most of France in her own right. She married first King Louis VII of France and upon her divorce married the much younger King Henry II of England, bringing her immense territories under English control. She was the mother of Richard Lionheart and King John. She went crusading and travelled much of Europe. Eleanor ruled Aquitaine herself, despite being imprisoned for years by Henry. And she outlived him - living to around 80 years old. She was a truly amazing woman - not just for her time, but for all time.

For further Plantagenet history, I have Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe by Nancy Goldstone. These four sisters from the humble county of Provence married well and exerted a powerful influence on European royal history. All became queens: Marguerite married the King of France; Eleanor the King of England; Sanchia the King of England's brother, newly crowned King of Germany; and Beatrice the King of France's brother who was made King of Sicily.

And, in the later (and scandalous!) Plantagenets, check out Katherine Swynford by Alison Wier.
Katherine Swynford was the mistress of John of Gaunt - one of the most powerful royal dukes of his day. Later married, their children were legitimized but barred from the throne. However, Katherine became the ancestress of Margaret Beaufort - mother of the first Tudor King, Henry VII.

I have two books on the wives of Henry VIII:
The Wives of Henry VIII by Antonia Fraser and The six wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir. It is worth having the two books to compare the different points of view different authors have on each of the wives. Henry VIII also had two sisters - Margaret the Queen of Scotland and Mary the Queen of France. You can read about them in Sisters to the King by Maria Perry.

I seem to have skipped the Stuarts entirely but recognize the Georgian period in The Georgian Princesses by John Van Der Kiste. This little book retells the stories of the Georgian Princesses, often forgotten by historians. The aristocrats of this period get a mention in Aristocrats by Stella Tillyard. This book tells the story of the four fabulous Lennox sisters - Caroline, Emily, Louisa and Sarah. Descended from an illegitimate son of Charles II, the four sisters were at the centre of political and fashionable life in the Georgian era.

Then, of course, there's Victoria and her daughters and granddaughters:

An Uncommon Woman by Hannah Pakula - a biography of Queen Victoria's eldest daughter, Princess Victoria - mother of Kaiser William II.

Victoria's Daughters by Jerrold M. Packard - obviously about Queen Victoria's five daughters: Princess Victoria, Princess Alice, Princess Helena, Princess Louise and Princess Beatrice.

Among Queen Victoria's numerous grandchildren were five women who became Queen consorts: Sophie, Queen Consort of Greece (daughter of Princess Victoria); Maud, Queen Consort of Norway (daughter of Edward VII); Alexandra, Tsarina of Russia (daughter of Princess Alice); Marie, Queen Consort of Romania (daughter of Prince Alfred); and Victoria Eugenie, Queen Consort of Spain (daughter of Princess Beatrice). They are profiled in Born to Rule: Five Reigning Consorts, Granddaughters of Queen Victoria.

Other royal houses are not left out:
Marie Antoinette by Antonia Fraser
Olga Romanov: Russia's Last Grand Duchess by Patricia Phenix

And a few other interesting ones:

Daughters of Britannia: The Lives and Times of Diplomatic Wives by Katie Hickman. Obviously about women married to British diplomats, written by a daughter of a British diplomat.

Last Curtsey: The End of the Debutantes by Fiona MacCarthy who was one of the debutantes in the last year that debutantes would be presented - 1958.

As you can see - and much to my surprise - I seem to have quite a collection of books about royal women in history. I always knew I liked history, but it wasn't until recently that I realized that I predilection for stories about the experiences of royal women. So many of them have fascinating stories - better than fiction! I have most of the essential time periods covered, but there are a few gaps - time for another library trip!

And, just a note for those of you keeping track and following along at home, yes, it is August and the August bookclub book has been picked. It is The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion. Stay tuned for my thoughts and reactions once I've finished the book! (After a few historical non-fiction selections, however.)

Chick Lit

I wasn't going to write about Chick Lit today. However, I caught the very end of a CBC interview today with an author who objected to the term "chick lit" and the subject caught my attention. Should women be offended by the term "chick lit"?

The author in question suggested that the term "chick lit" be replaced with the phrase: "modern women's literature". Not quite as catchy as "chick lit"! Further, she was annoyed that men didn't really have the same type of literature ascribed to them - there is, in the UK anyway, as I understand, "lad lit" - the same type of books as "chick lit" but for men. However, the author contended that there was no equivalent male term for chick. Chicks are soft, fluffy, and juvenile and she resented those sorts of stereotypes being placed on modern fiction about women.

I am a woman, but I am not offended by the term "chick lit". In contrast with the author's definition of "chick lit" as "modern women's literature", I see "chick lit" as its own separate subgroup of fiction. Just as there is mystery, romance, thriller, adventure, there is "chick lit". For me, a "chick lit" book features a modern heroine trying to overcome the dilemmas of modern life and find an attractive partner along the way. The woman in question is often fluffy and scatterbrained, but ultimately relatable. Examples of these include Bridget Jones's Diary, and Confessions of a Shopaholic; both of which I own and quite enjoy upon occasion. The books are well-written and easy to read - enjoyable by the general public but primarily written for, and appealing to, women. Generally, I believe, these books are written by female authors as well.

This does not mean that all fiction featuring a female protagonist should be classified as "chick lit". To do that narrows the scope of literature in general. Are Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next books "chick lit" because they feature a female protagonist? No. How about Laurie R. King's Mary Russell series? Or Mercedes Lackey's 500 Kingdoms series? These all feature female protagonists and I would argue do not fit the "chick lit" model that I have described above. Not all books written about women are "chick lit". If "chick lit" is then equated with "modern women's literature", the definition becomes too narrow and exclusive and restricts writers and readers to a very narrow variety of literature. Do we really still have to get fussed over the definition of a certain kind of literature? Not all women writers write "chick lit". Not all books featuring female protagonists are "chick lit". Not all women read "chick lit". In short, "chick lit" is not the be-all and end-all of literature these days.

Further, how does one define "modern women's literature"? Are these books written by women? Books written for women? Books with female protagonists? What then is "modern men's literature"? Is that everything else that doesn't fall under the "modern women's literature" ambit? Are books that feature a female protagonist only for women readers? What about books featuring a male protagonist - are these books only for male readers? I do generally tend to read books featuring more female protagonists, but I am not adverse to reading books with male protagonists either. What I get annoyed about is that excellent and interesting books will be ignored by placing them in the category "modern women's literature", thereby restricting the readership to modern women. Shouldn't anyone who likes a good story read the book if it is good, no matter what the label? Labeling something as "modern women's literature" may then restrict the readership of that book.

On the other hand, labeling something as "chick lit" may also restrict the readership of the book. But in this case, it is more descriptive. I don't like reading horror books, so I avoid books in the horror section. If you don't like reading fluffy modern fables about women searching for love in the big city, don't read "chick lit". By calling "chick lit" "modern women's fiction", you risk alienating an audience from readers who are looking for something beyond the usual boy meets girl premise. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that "modern women's literature" seems like too scholarly a title for something as light and fluffy as I find most "chick lit" books. (Or at least the ones I've read.)

Your turn, my faithful readers. What are your thoughts on "chick lit", "modern women's literature" and books in general? Do you agree with my definition of "chick lit"? How would you define "chick lit" and "modern women's literature"? Let's argue it out in the comments below!

This Post is Classified.

Remember this?

The giant behemoth of a book I was making my way through several weeks ago? Well, I have finally finished it. That behemoth is Defend the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5 by Christopher Andrew.

It is the first time any historian/writer has been let in to the archives of MI5 to write a history on the service. It was MI5's 100th anniversary in 2009, so they celebrated by releasing this giant book. It is an extensive history of MI5, with unprecedented access to its archives. Of course, there are some things which remain classified, and the Secret Service Agents who were interviewed for the book cannot be named.

This is a scholarly book, but is nevertheless interesting for the amateur historian/spy. The book touches on all aspects of MI5's work. First, perhaps, to explain who/what MI5 is. MI5 is the agency responsible for intelligence within the borders of the United Kingdom. It is the UK's internal security service. While this essential mandate hasn't changed, how MI5 fulfills that mandate has changed over time.

We begin in 1909, when the Service started with Vernon Kell in a small office in London. Despite his lack of manpower, Kell was still able (with the assistance of the local police force) to discover and round up a number of German spies upon the breakout of World War One. In fact, the number of spies caught exceed the number of actual agents who worked for the Service at that time. The Service expanded rapidly during World War One and was notable for employing a large number of women - mostly for filing and typing as all information collected on various individuals was kept on index cards. That said, women continued to play an important role in the Service. The Service has always employed more women than any other government department, and women have headed MI5 twice. When the first female Director General (DG) was appointed, she was the first woman to be at the head of any intelligence agency in the world. Should any historians/history majors be looking for an interesting book/essay/thesis topic, I would advise one to look at the role of women in British intelligence.

After World War One, two new threats arose - the opposing forces of Communism and Fascism. Despite cuts in budget and staff (later restored) MI5 managed to expand its role and establish offices throughout the British Empire. However, the Communists were still at work, as this is when the famous spy ring - The Cambridge Five - were recruited by what would later become the KGB. (However, despite the excellent opportunity for intelligence gathering by these well-placed agents, it appears that the Soviets were not able to properly analyze the intelligence they received, as often the Soviet government was beset by internal conspiracy theories about the role of the West. Any intelligence which did not fit with these theories was discounted, and many spy runners told the government what it wanted to hear, and not what the spies were telling them.)

World War Two brought the Service's proudest moment - one of the greatest double-crosses ever seen in international espionage. MI5 was responsible for catching German agents who had been sent to Britain to spy. Not only was MI5 extraordinarily successful in catching these agents, it managed to turn many of the German spies into double-agents - feeding false information to their controllers back in Germany. This system of providing false information allowed the Allies to plan for a mock invasion at Calais, while simultaneously planning for and concealing their true plans to land at Normandy. MI5's double-agents were an essential part of the success of this plan.

After World War Two, England had to cope with the falling-apart of its empire. MI5 agents were key factors in the transfer of power to the former colonies. The governments in Malaysia, Kenya, Ghana, and India had good relationships with the MI5 agents. However, at home MI5 had to cope with increased Soviet penetration into intelligence and a large number of embassy or trade delegation workers who were actually spies. MI5 managed to successfully expel a large number of spies and agents in the 1970's. Successive governments worried about the effects of subversion and Communist penetration into unions, leading to strikes and increased vetting of people by MI5.

After the fall of the Iron Curtain and the break-up of the Soviet Union, terrorism also became an issue: nationals of other states would come to England to attack nationals of the same state; and more local terrorism with the rise of the IRA. It was interesting to read that Libya supported the IRA and gave it weapons - of which many shipments were caught by MI5. Of course, after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and attacks in London on the subway, foiling terrorist attacks became MI5's main priority.

As you can see, this is a lot of information packed into one dense book! It is an extremely interesting read. Of course, when faced with so much information, the author can only tell a general story about many things. Now I am going to have to get out some other books to read more about the Cambridge Five, the double-cross system during World War Two, and decoding Soviet transmissions. I can tell you that Wikipedia certainly got a workout while I was reading this book, as I was always chasing down further stories. This is a great introduction to the world of spies. But do set aside some time to read it - it is a great big book and is scholarly (yet entertaining). It will take some time to read.

Now that I have read this book, I may need to take another look at a book I have on my bookshelf: A Century of Spies: Intelligence in the Twentieth Century by Jeffrey T. Richelson.

This was my textbook when I took a History of Espionage class at university. From what I recall, it was quite interesting and sparked a definite interest in espionage. I always thought codes and code-breaking were interesting - and spying and spies (for those not in the business) have a romance about them for the ordinary person. Witness the success of the James Bond series. (Although I've never read a James Bond book.)

For my paper in that class, I wrote about the Special Operations Executive. While MI5 enjoyed remarkable success during World War Two with the double-cross system, SOE suffered a devastating defeat while trying to run agents in the Netherlands. The first agent was captured by the Germans, who then managed to intercept and capture or kill the remaining agents which SOE tried to send over to the Netherlands. Fortunately, the SOE had more success in other operations in Europe. According to the paper I wrote, I used a number of sources. However, the one that I seem to remember to be the most interesting is Secret War: The Story of SOE, Britain's Wartime Sabotage Organisation by Nigel West. I can't find it in the library to confirm that this is the one, but at any rate it would probably be a good place to start.

I hope this post has inspired you to seek out some spy fiction or non-fiction of your own! We don't all have to make it through Defend the Realm, but I now have several more avenues of intelligence I would like to pursue. Happy (and secretive!) reading!

Aspirational Gardening

There are two types of gardening books out there. First, there are the ones which dispense useful and helpful advice and knowledge for plants and conditions in your area. Then there are the ones with beautiful glossy photographs of gardens you can never achieve living in your half-frozen climate and without the services of a small army of gardeners. Be warned: the books in this post definitely fall into the latter category.

That said, it is fun to read such fantasy gardening fare from time to time. But until I win the $50 million and can buy my castle in England, I am stuck gardening here on Mother Nature's terms, and such pretty gardens remain fiction - the stuff of shiny photographs in big coffee table books. My most recent trips to the library have resulted in an armful of gardening books on various topics. I give you the results below.

I love flowers and no garden is complete without at least a few flowering plants. From the plethora of books showcasing individual flowers, I selected two: The English Roses: Classic Favourites & New Selections by David Austin, and Gardening With Tulips by Michael King.

Of the two, Gardening With Tulips was by far the more useful. After reading this book, you will want to turn your backyard into a field of blossoming tulips, a la the tulip fields of Holland. King discusses all the different varieties of tulips in detail, and discusses the origins and development of the tulip as we know it today. He also gives a lesson on how to plan gardens with tulips. This section is less helpful, as he doesn't always include photos of what he's talking about, and references numerous other plant species by Latin name, which does help to clarify which plant he's talking about, but is of no help to the beginning gardener who doesn't know what plant he means! Gardening is an inherently visual exercise, so more photos of the plants he wants to mix with tulips and the design combinations would have improved this book. One helpful resource, however, is a helpful section at the end which lists tulips by colour. You can look through the entire red section and pick out all of the red tulips you want, and so on by colour. This book has inspired me to scatter some tulip bulbs throughout my garden plans.

English Roses is significantly less useful. Apparently English roses are a specific kind of rose grown in England, developed by the author, David Austin. I would highly doubt that these roses would grow well in Canada without serious care and maintenance. Even the author discusses the wholesale use of spraying and pesticides on the roses. Some of the roses are quite pretty, but most of them are too fluffy and showy for my taste. With their multitude of petals, they look like overgrown peonies. If you want peonies, plant peonies. I want roses that look like roses - not fat pillows of curly petals. English roses, apparently, are not to my taste. Austin discusses the development of the English rose in quite exhaustive detail, and then discusses each new variety specifically, with a photo illustrating the rose. He does acknowledge that some of the roses look like peonies, but apparently these roses bloom all year, whereas peonies only bloom once a spring - which is fine with me! Further, any problem in your garden can be solved by these roses, apparently. They are perfect shrubs, perfect for climbing, perfect as a cut flower, etc.. This book is for English rose enthusiasts only.

Next, I turned to books to help me plan my garden: Trees for the Small Garden by Simon Toomer and Woodland Gardens: Shade Gets Chic ed. by C. Colston Burrell.

I had high hopes for Trees for the Small Garden to help me find some pretty trees that won't overwhelm my landscaping and dwarf my house. I was sadly disappointed. The book does have some useful general information at the beginning on selecting, planting, and caring for a tree, but it really lets you down in the tree index. Of all the 80 individual tree species listed as suitable for small gardens, there were exactly 15 that could be grown in Zone 3 (my climatic zone). Really? Now how helpful is that? According to the climate maps at the back of the book, the majority of Canada is in Zone 2 - which would render this book useless for the majority of Canadians, there being only 4 trees which are hearty to Zone 2 described in the book. Plus, there were a few trees that I have seen grown here rated as a Zone 4. And most of the trees which were rated a Zone 3 I already knew about and didn't want (such as many evergreens). I was looking for variety. I do have a tree section in my terrifically useful Best Garden Plants for Alberta (which I have talked about before), but I was looking for a book specifically on smaller trees for smaller lots, and not the giant oak and elm behemoths that would shade my entire lawn and tower over my house. I suppose I should take my own advice to stick to books from your own region when looking for specific plants.

Fortunately, I had more luck with Woodland Gardens. This sweet little book dispenses general advice on how to create a woodland garden in whichever region of woods you live in. It has some excellent basic tips on how to kill grass, for example, and how to pick plants. It has different pieces by gardeners who live in different areas on how they created a woodland garden that fits in with the climate and woodlands of their region. Finally, it has a list of plants specific to each region useful for creating a woodland garden. Anyone who has shade and is interested in gardening in the shade should check out this useful book.

Finally, I read an interesting book on restoring a garden (at an Edwardian English manor house, no less!) in Gertrude Jekyll's Lost Garden: The Restoration of an Edwardian Masterpiece, by Rosamund Wallinger.

I "discovered" Gertrude Jekyll when I was reading about roses in The Garden Primer. The author suggested I check out a book about roses by Gertrude Jekyll. I couldn't find that book, but found this one instead.

Gertrude Jekyll was a landscape designer and gardener. She designed several gardens and landscapes in England during a period of time that corresponded with the Arts and Craft movement. She was renowned for using plants in a way that suggested the plants were naturally growing, and for her broad strokes of colour. She is, I modestly suggest, the mother of modern gardening design.

The author purchased the Edwardian manor house with attached, overgrown Jekyll garden. On finding out that it was a Jekyll garden, and that, miraculously, the original plans for the garden had survived, the author and her husband decided to restore the gardens to their original condition - a back-breaking enterprise that would take years. Her story is recounted in this book.

The book inspires envy (jade-green lawns of grass in January!) and awe (patches of bluebells around a wood bench under new-leaved trees, a homemade wall with flowers growing out of the crevices, daffodils and other spring bulbs growing wild in the grass under a flowering apple tree...). It is interesting to read about the author's struggles and triumphs as she tries to restore the garden. It is hard to read Jekyll's writing on the plans, and many of the plant varieties she used are no longer available today. It certainly makes my attempts at landscaping seem simple! It was an enjoyable read about another gardener's struggle, and ultimate triumph.

So, until I get my English manor with its staff of gardeners, I will have to confine myself to reading about other's gardens while I work on my own little plot of earth.

Glossy Paper

I enjoy reading books, I really do. However, I don't always read as many books as I would like. (Yes, even me!) That's because, sometimes, I just want a quick read. I have a little bit of time to while away and I don't want to get sucked in to an excellent book with a thrilling plot and come to several hours later still in my PJs with the kitchen uncleaned! So, I turn to magazines.

I like magazines a lot. You get new ones monthly or weekly, and you can always find interesting ones at the supermarket checkout line to browse through. You don't have to devote a lot of attention to the magazine, and quite often they have nice pictures. Right now, I subscribe to 4 magazines: InStyle, Glamour, SELF, and Entertainment Weekly. (Although I am getting rid of my InStyle subscription.) That seems like a lot of magazines, but I come by it honestly - my parents subscribed to lots of magazines when I was growing up (and still do): Time, Macleans, National Geographic, Canadian Geographic, Nature, and various cooking, gardening, and weaving magazines. When I was little, I had subscriptions to Ranger Rick, Chickadee, OWL, and Cricket. As I got older I had a subscription to Seventeen, and bought a lot of other popular magazines, such as YM. Even now I pick up magazines such as The Hockey News, The Economist, People, and Papercrafts.

Of the magazines I currently receive, I think I enjoy Entertainment Weekly the most. It generally arrives once a week (although it doesn't seem to arrive on any set schedule - I often call it Entertainment Occasionally due to the vagaries of its arrival) and is an entertaining and informative read. After only a few hours of my time, I am up to date with all of the latest pop culture news and entertainment. I know what movies are playing, who's in them, and if they're any good. I know what albums are being released and what books are being sold. I know what's on TV (American TV, anyway). I'm in the loop without having to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get in the loop.

Further, the articles are entertaining! I enjoy reading about pop culture and the writers at Entertainment Weekly certainly are experts. Over the past few months, they've had articles on: Kelly Rowland's career after Destiny's Child; Bill Murray's varied career; the problems with the summer's movies; an exclusive book excerpt from a Star Wars making-of book; a list of the 100 greatest characters of all time; and a preview of all the movies coming out this summer. Plus, they have excellent columnists such as Mark Harris and Stephen King. (yes, that Stephen King. I won't read his horror novels but will read his column!).

Finally, I also like Entertainment Weekly's website. No, you don't have to subscribe to the magazine to surf their site, but it's kind of tied in to their magazine. I especially like the morning-after recaps. This is where a snide and snarky Entertainment Weekly writer will recap a show that happened the night before, with their own opinions and wit added in. Sometimes, I enjoy reading the recap as much as I enjoy watching the show! In fact, as I'm watching the show, I often wonder what the recapper will say. However, it's not just for shows you watch. I often read the recaps of shows I don't watch, like Grey's Anatomy. I am kind of interested in that show, but I don't want to take the time to watch it. Voila - the recap! I read the recap and then I'm up-to-date on what happened and can discuss plot points with all my friends that do watch the show. Really, it's a time saver. It takes me maybe a few minutes to read a recap as opposed to taking a good hour to watch the show. Time saved! Now more time to read those books....and magazines!