This was my second attempt at reading this. This time I won! But only because I so badly wanted to get to the end of it in order to be able to lay claim to a real opinion (in contrast to the measly half-opinion I could offer after drifting off around p200-ish on my first reading).

Really, I think my problems this time round were similar to my first try, albeit mitigated a bit by enjoying the “in-betweeny” stories someone else mentions below, the first of which I hadn’t got to by the time I gave up first time round. His writing style and I don’t seem to gel. And I note this with surprise, because I enjoyed his ‘Sandman’ stuff; and didn’t half-mind ‘Stardust’; but it might be the same problem I had with ‘Neverwhere’ some several years ago, and certainly that made me had to stop ‘Good Omens’ halfway through (though at that point I blamed it on Pratchett’s involvement). Thematically there’s nothing about it that bothers me, and it’s smartly done and all, but I just feel like there’s something missing… depth? I couldn’t get up an interest in Shadow’s character at all. The other characters even less so, but it’s particularly bothersome in a main character, who felt to me all surface and nothing of any interest beneath. Maybe it’s just thinking about it in light of the reviewer below who mentions her “very feminine bookclub” reading this, but it reads to me as more masculine than I’m into in writing style.

The story, hard to get into, all came together in the end, but I just didn’t care by then, just wanted to get to the end and move onto the next thing on my list. I’m sorry to report I really didn’t get much of anything out of this one. Bummer!

An article by the author of this that I just came across and think’s worth linking here for some authorial context—in particular, I’m thinking, with reference to my earlier feeling that this book’s a bit conservative in its definition of ‘the family’:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html

Just FYI.

Good but I was hoping to find at least one cooperative co-parenting-whilst-parents-aren’t-together tale in here and there was none, which was a lack. I was looking to read about more nuclear-family-disruptive experiences than I found here, where it seemed a bit like the nuclear family’s roles got tweaked a bit but remained generally intact, with satellite people moving around it even as they’re not truly part of any redefined version of it. Think something queerer would’ve made it a more rounded-out book. But I guess everyone’s got their pet interest and a book’s only got so many pages. Worth the read anyway.

I really enjoyed the summary of philosophies that comprised the earlier parts of this, and hoped honestly to stay with the author, tempted by the prospect of an easy answer, a temptation I ought well to know invariably winds you up with hopes dashed on the rocks. ;) Alas, the convincing arguments of the author for things unknowable are his own downfall when he starts pushing theories of his own that see him raising his own perspective to a position he’s already laboured to convince us is impossible for him to argue anything about: where he’s pushing his ‘knowledge’ of things supposedly unknowable. Also, heterosexist in at least its thoughts around sex. I only skimmed from that point, put off. Shame, cuz he’s a good explainer and I did enjoy the groundwork.

Watched for a book club for the Stephen Fry connection, but I have so seen this before—just can’t remember when or how or why, which is the most irritating thing! Anyway, well-worth the re-watch, whether you’ve forgotten your first viewing of it or not. ;)

This was a re-read, since I’m interested in writing a YA novel of my own at present and this was one that had some impact on me when I was young. I think I originally read it about age 14, and then at 16 it was on the reading list for senior year and people liked it then. (16’s pretty old for a YA novel to be read and enjoyed, as I understand it, so that’s not unimpressive at all.) So, unsurprisingly I suppose, as an adult it’s still a pretty compelling read: certainly up there with the best of any YA I’ve read. It’s stood the test of time pretty well too in terms of relevance (though that may say as many bad things about the sad state of multiculturalism in Australia as it does about the book, hrm). I picked up a copy with Pia Miranda (a la the movie) on the cover, but I’m adding it to All Consuming with the cover I originally read it in… honestly I think they set a completely different scene! No surprises here that I like my original reading more than the movie’s one. So, ner. ;)

Think this series came into its own in Season 2 – not unusual for a TV show. After Buffy’s oh-so-dorky first season growing into what it eventually did, I’ve grown willing to let a show take a season or so to really get into its groove, if there’s enough in the first season to keep me coming back. Big Love managed that partly because of the theme song (heh heh), but mostly because it was just so different—I wanted to see how the content was treated. In Season 2 I found myself appreciating the writing more: with all that’s happening now and with so many characters being increasingly fleshed out and involved, there’s so much they seem to be having to integrate neatly, and it continually strikes me they’re doing it beautifully. I read Season 3’s supposed to take off with even more craziness! I’m looking forward to it!

Agreed with other reviews of this: it hasn’t taken over my existence like some other TV shows have in the past (Buffy, Six Feet Under, Firefly, Weeds… is where I’m coming from) but I’ve definitely grown attached enough that in the couple of weeks since I finished the last episode of Season 2, I’ve been missing it a touch. I think it got off to a little bit of a slow start, too, that said: Season 2 I got more into than Season 1.

I lost my copy of this! :( Is it worth buying another? I’d only made it a few chapters in. Grrr!

This was good enough for me to not feel right giving it a rating of ‘wishy washy’, but I do think it wasn’t as good as the hype: themes weren’t anything particularly outstanding, or dealt with in any particularly outstanding way. That said, of course it’s worth consuming for the simple fact that it’s something different. I think perhaps its “ground-breaking”ness was more about managing to attract mainstream attention as much as it did, than anything else - something that says at least as much about contemporaneous audiences as about the flick itself—but that’s no less interesting a reason in light of which to watch it.