I immediately liked the casting on this film. Although I have enjoyed other Austen adaptations much more than this one, I think the actors chosen were much closer to the characters described in the novel than in other films. Amanda Root (no offense intended) is not a Keira Knightley, but neither was Anne Elliot, the character she plays. The film’s direction, however, made me give it a lower rating than the acting deserves. I felt it was at times too heavy handed and at others too light, as if it was being directed by two people. The choices during sound editing jarred me a few times as well – for example there would be no music for great stretches of time and then there was too much. Production was very good, as Austen films sometimes tend to take on a staged feeling – some scenes in this film felt very real to me (lovely to see a room actually lit by candlelight, not just one candle lighting an entire room). Those who hate any adaptation which isn’t 98% faithful to the source will like this movie a lot, but I would prefer a few risks in the accuracy department that result in a more compelling film. Overall a pleasant movie, but probably not one I’ll revisit anytime soon.

Stones from the River is a unique story of a dwarf woman’s life in Germany during the first half of the twentieth century, a nice combination of underexplored perspectives in literature. Hegi expands beyond the life of Trudi Montag and encompasses several generations of the residents of Burgdorf as they deal with WWI’s aftermath and WWII. The novel is rich with detail and characters which range from complicated to quirky. My only complaint about the novel was that it was well-crafted – an odd complaint, I know. To me the novel gave me the feeling that the writer was someone well-versed in literature, who knows how to tell a story, someone who has studied the art of the novel and can very competently mimic the great authors, but it lacked a certain spark of genius that would have really set the book apart. I guess it was the problem of a well-written book with an interesting plot and well-developed characters, which just feels a little bit too rehearsed. But there are much worse things a book could be, so I still enjoyed it.

From the description on the back of the book, I must confess I wasn’t incredibly excited about the prospect of the book. Not being religious, I can’t say I knew much about Jesus’s 40 days in the desert besides the fact that he was tempted by the devil. And I wasn’t really looking forward to learning more about it. However, Crace’s writing is beyond superb – the story is breathtaking – simply incredible. Mostly it follows six people who were also going through their quarantine (some forced, some optional) in the same area as Jesus. Although the story focuses on religion, I highly recommend it to everyone, regardless of faith or belief.

My main problem with this book was that Moore spent an inordinate amount of time describing the scenery and customs compared to the amount of time he spent on the characters and plot. It was interesting and well-written, but so much detail about the setting made it seem as if he was trying to either 1.) flesh out a very sparse plot, or 2.) use all of his research.

“Here on Earth” was a mixed bag for me. The good: The writing was lyrical and Hoffman did such a great job of creating the world of Jenkintown that it seemed to actually exist. The same cannot be said about her characters, however. They never felt real, or even well-written, for the simple fact that they all had a very singular raison d’etre. It was not only March who loses her free will; none of the characters seemed to have any free will of their own – they were very obviously just pawns of the plot in Hoffman’s head. Especially when, towards the end, some characters act in ways that do not fit with their personalities (Susie goes all of the way to Florida to find out about Hollis, but can’t be bothered to try and seriously stop her friend from getting abused?). It doesn’t destroy the book, but it does make it seem kind of hollow. I thought I was going to hate this book while I was only halfway finished because up to that point it is simply a story about obsessive, narcissitic love between two people who were incredibly distasteful. The plot does manage to pick up in the second half of the book, however. Although I don’t recommend it, I won’t tell you not to read it. Generally I have liked the books Oprah has chosen for her book club, but this one seems to be the kind of book that people would read, roll their eyes, and say, “Of course, Oprah recommended this.”

“Elizabeth Costello” features an aging author as she (reluctantly) travels the world and gives her opinions, mostly through lectures but also in conversations, on an assortment of topics – from cruelty to animals to censorhip. To begin with, I don’t recommend this work for you if it is your first J.M. Coetzee (as it was for me). I found out afterwards that the character of Elizabeth Costello was a character in one of his previous novels. Most of the speeches Coetzee assigns to Costello throughout the book are actually reworkings of his own previously published writings. It ends up feeling muddled – how much is autobiographical, how much is fiction? Coetzee plays with the process of writing, of being an author, throughout the book, but in the end I kept feeling myself pulled away from the book by his presence – as if he was standing over my shoulder as I read. Especially during “The Problem of Evil” in which Costello meets and critiques a real work by a real (and living) author, Paul West.

The book is very academic. I tend to hate books like this (such as “Henderson the Rain King”) in which the characters simply exist to spout off well-rounded philosophical arguments. Coetzee manages to buy himself some leeway by starting the book with the chapter (or Lesson, as they are referred to in the index) on “Realism.” He, the author, leaves in paragraphs describing his method and style, preparing the reader for the fact that this is not a straightforward novel.

Most of the philosophical arguments throughout the novel are interesting and well put, even if I needed to put down the book several times to get a break from being lectured at. My biggest complaint with the novel itself was the lack of believability in the characters, especially the main character Elizabeth. In fact, I felt incredably let down when, upon reaching the last chapter “At the Gates,” the character finds herself unable to define what she believes in – after lecturing us for two hundred pages previously on all sorts of ideas. Is Coetzee making a statement on the impermanency of philosophy, or was it simply another work he wanted to through into the mix. The work is very disjointed between chapters, they don’t quite fit. They feel like what they are – reworked.

The book gave me lots to think about, to critique, and I enjoyed that (and I think that is what critics liked about it as well). It was definitely different, creative, and intelligent. But I also have a problem with overly-academic works like this when they fail to tell a story. Authors, as they go through their rituals and juggle philosophies, should in the end be storytellers first of all, in my book. To let the story suffer to indulge in clever arguments and other English department delights is a shame. This book feels aimed at the humanity professors Elizabeth’s sister lectures, with “inside jokes,” a plethora of literary citations, and a postscript that felt like a riddle to me. If you are going to read this, I suggest reading up on your Kafka beforehand, if not most of the Western canon. Otherwise you will probably feel very left out.

This book reinforced everything I love about Hardy. It is gorgeously written; I loved all of the details about Casterbridge and its range of inhabitants. It is both tragic and sweet (not as dark as some of his later works). I loved how Henchard was never allowed to be simply a doomed man, but a man who suffers because of his own poor judgment and hot temper. He was man who wanted others to respect him, but understood why they lost respect for him and who was endlessly hopeful of the possibility of making up for his mistakes. Loved it!

A sweet little movie about Beatrix Potter, creator of Peter Rabbit. I felt the movie lacked the kind of magical charm that it was clearly striving for with the animated drawings – like it was consciously trying to be another Finding Neverland. The plot was fairly threadbare, so not really for those who need huge developments. I felt Renee Zellweger was really miscast (and not because of her nationality like some critics) – she seemed to be forcing herself to smile almost the entire movie, and she never struck the right chord of eccentricity and charm. But, despite all the criticism, I enjoyed the movie and was moved during some of the better parts (the party especially – from Ewan singing, to spiking the chaperone’s coffee, to Renee’s storytelling). A pleasant little movie overall.

Barnes starts with a first chapter that reads like a wonderful short story about Martha’s childhood and her parent’s divorce. Then, completely changing tones, he moves on to the second part which felt much more like a novel-in-progress – characters in different stages of development, the “idea” being forced on you in ever-more-pretentious ways, and a digression into literal “potty” humor that I guess was supposed to be amusing but actually made me want to vomit. Finally, again changing tone, Barnes goes further into the future and gives an epilogue long on narration that feels like the end of a lecture. The entire thing felt very unfinished, rushed, undeveloped. The idea behind the book isn’t as witty as Barnes wants us to believe, and the long passages of his characters debating the Project of England, England grow more and more tedious and unnecessary. I can’t give it a “Not Worth Consuming” because of the gem of a first chapter and a few sparkles scattered throughout the rest of the book (Dr. Johnson in particular), but not something I would recommend to anyone.

Very, very good. There wasn’t a single weak part of the film – cast, writing, production. Of course Mirren was justly praised and awarded for the role, but I was equally taken by Michael Sheen’s performance as Tony Blair. And who knew the Queen Mother was so funny?