*wanders into the thread at the mention of To kill a Mockingbird*

I just finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird for my school, for the very first time! I liked it; it left me very thoughtful, and kind of depressed me. But I love, love, love the concept (mockingbird . . ). I knew what it was about, from watching the movie, but I think I enjoyed it more, because the movie always traumatizes me.

Ooh, I love that book! My sister wheedled me into reading it several years ago, and it's been a favorite ever since. I haven't watched the movie, actually -- is it any good? *wonders if she'll be traumatized as well*

I can't believe I haven't posted in this thread before. I've been reading several books lately:
- The Hobbit ( )
- Ghost Soldiers (Has anybody here read it? It's a really neat WWII book.)
- Night, by Elie Wiesel

Several I'd like to read this summer are The Thief, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, and Sense & Sensibility. We'll see where that goes, though.

I wish to address the Honorable Society of Patricia McKillip Junkies, as I have just finished The Bards of Bone Plain and think that, perhaps, I have identified what it is that makes the climax of the more recent McKillip's less than satisfying.

If you take Bards at face value, it has everything a reader is looking for, including a happy ending. The plot is more or less straightforward, though the prose is like a tangle of brightly colored skeins of thread, which one must tease one's way through eventually discovering the pattern and stepping back to see a tapestry. But then at the end, instead of being tied off into a fringe, or coming to a selvage, the colors fade away and if you start poking the story it unravels. Why? Because what is between the lines is nebulous--your answer is probably every bit as good as mine--and as a reader I'm looking for something concrete and solid, even if I don't agree with the conclusion.

I just read the Eagle of the Ninth. It was excellent! A very exciting story. I love Ancient Rome, so I really got into it. I 'm going to check out the sequel and take a look at the film when it comes out on DVD.

Was there any film made of Eagle of the Ninth? I'd have really loved to have seen it. The two sequels for that book are The Silver Branch, and The Lantern Bearers. The Lantern Bearers has to be my favourite of the series, though.

@Valiant, About what you say about character driven stories, rather than plot driven stories, I find modern day characters are more likely to admit they did things wrong, could have done things much better and that they do not always end up with a lot of kudos even if they did some things right.They are also more likely to swear.

Even rabbits. I love Watership Down, though. And watching the King's speech last weekend certainly showed swearing in a new light, as the King battled with his stammer, which made public speaking a nightmare for him.

I've always loved The three Musketeers, but didn't like Man in the Iron Mask very much. It ended too sadly.

Welcome, Miss Rosario!

I can't believe I haven't posted in this thread before. I've been reading several books lately:
[...]
- Ghost Soldiers (Has anybody here read it? It's a really neat WWII book.)

I'm reading that right now! It is indeed really neat. Also pretty horrific in some places, but I expected that. I've been reading it aloud to my mom, but some parts I just can't speak aloud - it's too awful.
Learning the situations that gradually lead to the Bataan Death March and the terrible treatment of the POWs has been very interesting.

As an interesting related item, check out this photo of our soldiers surrendering at Corregidor. Some of them would end up at the same camp we're reading about.

I actually picked up Ghost Soldiers at a Value Village recently after checking out a similar book from the library - Ship of Ghosts, the story of the USS Houston's tour of duty, sinking, and the experiences of her men in Japanese hands. I've only flipped through that one, but it seems like an equally worthwhile read.

Well, I finished Eagle of the Ninth. I really enjoyed it, and liked it a lot better then the movie. That's a shallow review, but right now I don't have much more to add.

Trying to catch up since when I last posted. . 0

*will check out Eagle of Ninth asap*

Thank-you so much for explaining TMWWT, Mel and Flam! It kind of makes sense to me, but now I have to go back and reread the beginning, because I put it down for some others. I will finish though, I hope, in the next two weeks!! (Ella finished it and told me to try read it with no allegorical ties, but just as a story (as I see Flam menttioned), so we shall see.)

Valia, thank-you! I have now learnt a valuable lesson never to read the back of books. It's terrible how people just put spoilers there! And, I have not read The Man Who Was Thursday yet, but I hope to soon. Ella read it though and was enraptured by it. She likes it lots.

What did you think of To Kill a Mockingbird? Aforementioned older sister read it, loved it, told me to read it, so I'm reading it. It seems interesting, but I haven't gone further than the first 4 pages.

Ooooohhh!! Read The Boy in Striped Pajamas, Miss R! Reeaaad it! It's such a good book and movie.
How are you liking The Hobbit? Is it your first time reading it, or a reread?

*chuckles* Queen S, you and I seem to be reading the same books at the same times. (of course, you're ahead, having read both...) What did you think of the Eagle of Ninth?

And for what I'm reading:

So... I have 10 overdue book reports, so I have to read some books.. just finished
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, Student Edition. I enjoyed it.
Some other various nonfiction, a book on prayer by E.M. Bounds, Landmines by Charles something (can't recall atm), and the list goes on.

I finished a reread on Treasures of the Snow which I really enjoyed. I last read it a couple years ago, so it was nice to go back and enjoy the prose instead of just remembering the story as I did when I was younger. The way rereading a book you haven't in years brings memories is really a nice experience!

And! Finally, I got Heaven by Randy Alcorn. Although, I will have to start from the beginning because I forgot some of the basic theology behind the book and now have to go back and read what he's trying to say.

...that's it for my literary reads. It feels good to finally have time to read again!

Thank you, Adeona!

I'm reading that right now! It is indeed really neat. Also pretty horrific in some places, but I expected that. I've been reading it aloud to my mom, but some parts I just can't speak aloud - it's too awful.
Learning the situations that gradually lead to the Bataan Death March and the terrible treatment of the POWs has been very interesting.

You're kidding! I read it for the first time several years ago, and am now enjoying a re-read. You're right: some of the details included are gruesome, and there is some strong language as well. The story is so interesting, however; it's one of those against-all-odds rescue missions, and even better because it's true!

WWII books fascinate me - I'm not sure why. It's not like I enjoy reading about blood and cruelty, but a lot of the stories written about that time period are so interesting. And there are so many of them, too.

Interesting photo! I wonder if those guys knew what they were in for. And thanks for the suggestion, I'll see if our local library carries Ships of Ghosts.

Ooooohhh!! Read The Boy in Striped Pajamas, Miss R! Reeaaad it! It's such a good book and movie.
How are you liking The Hobbit? Is it your first time reading it, or a reread?

I saw the movie several weeks ago for the first time -- it was so good! *dabs eyes* And yes, I've been looking around for the book! Two of the libraries I checked don't carry it, however, so we'll see.

Ooh, and you're beginning To Kill a Mockingbird? Hurray! Do tell me what you think. (And don't put it down -- it gets spectacular at the end.

I can relate with your liking for WWII novels, Miss R. Sometimes it's hard to explain, because it's not that the cruelty entertains me, but WWII things have a way of leaving me speechless.

I'm glad you liked the movie!! [a little off topic] Did you know what would happen in the end, or did it hit you unexpected? [/off topic]
Aww, I really hope you can find it! In a way, it isn't one of those books that you miss out much if you watch the movie first, as it is with most books. I hope you can find it!

Haha, now you and Ella are both telling me to keep reading To Kill a Mockingbird. I shall tell as soon as I get into the story!
So far, I have not read it yet, but from the bits Ella told me to read while she was reading it, I can sort of tell Atticus and Jem will be big favourites for me.

Finally finished Heaven by Randy Alcorn. It took me quite awhile to read but mate, it was so good! Brilliant book! Now I'm reading Planet Narnia. It's a much tougher read but good so far.

Miss Rosario: The movie adaptation of TKAM is actually pretty good. My parents love it and Gregory Peck won an oscar for playing Atticus. The thing is, my parents hadn't read the book when they saw it. In my experience, people who have find the movie underwhelming. It simply can't capture the book. My parents later read the book and agreed that it was far better.

I have a bit of a conundrum I'd love to discuss. I was watching the adaptation of Anne of Avonlea last night (yes, I know, it's the movie, but it applies to the book as well) and was struck by similarities between Anne and another feisty, writer character: Jo March. I started to think about it and there is really a lot of overlap between them. Both of them are writers who love sensational stories who try to get them published, but it isn't until they write about the things they know, or as (movie) Gilbert says "without any high falutin mumbo jumbo,' that they end up feeling accomplished.
They both have something of a "boy complex." Anne isn't as tomboyish as Jo, who wishes she could go to war and do things men do, but she does wish she was a boy so she could stay at Green Gables with Matthew and Marilla.
Then there's just their personalities--they're both precocious, dreamy, prone to accidents and scrapes, awkward (at least at first), and chummy with a similarly tempered boy. They choose career over marriage, but can't resist love when it comes their way and eventually choose to settle into housekeeping.
Both are later featured as supporting characters in stories about their children.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to prove here, because I desperately don't want to conclude that they're some kind of stock character or that Montgomery was ripping Alcott off. Do you see these characters as more similar or different? What do you think causes their similarities?

I do see some similarities, but I would say that their personalities are definitely different. (I have recently reread the Anne books, but not Little Women, or the sequels, so I'd be more sure of things on the Anne books.) Anne is more dreamy--or rather, I should say her dreams are different. Jo dreams of things she could do or accomplish. Anne does too, but she also invents fancies about dryads and fairies and things like that, which I can't picture Jo doing. I think that's kind of the main difference between them.
And the bare storyline of their stories is pretty basic. There can be a ton of variations on it, depending on the characters and what they're like.

As for my own reading--still rereading the copy of The Last Unicorn that I got for my birthday. It has the most beautiful cover.

I agree there are definite differences between L.M. Montgomery's Anne Shirley and Louisa May Alcott's Jo March. There is the timing and the different countries for one thing. Little Women was set during the American Civil War, whilst LM Montgomery was speaking from a distinctly Presbyterian/ Prince Edward Island point of view. Although the proximity of Prince Edward Island to the border with USA perhaps makes these differences less obvious to people who live in those places?

There is also the different local issues and politics which bother the characters and which influence their outlook. One of the bits I adored about Anne of Green Gables when she hit Gilbert over the head in class because he called her 'Carrots'. I can't see Jo March doing this to Lawrence, the rich boy next door neighbour, and I can't see Jo March being put in the position of giving up a place at college to help on the farm, to help Marilla, the way Anne Shirley did.

On the other hand, I can see that both writers participated in what might be called a genre of children's, specifically girls' literature. Other examples include Katy Carr from What Katy did, or Judy Woolcott from Ethel Turner's Seven Little Australians. On the surface all four characters are girls growing up, and might be considered slightly tomboyish.

That is to say, they get up to mischief, do things a ladylike girl should not do, have new ideas and definite characters. But Judy is sent to a ladies' college in the Blue Mountains, runs away, develops TB and finally is killed protecting her baby brother from a falling tree. And neither Judy nor Katy Carr, or even Anne Shirley really felt constrained by their feminine role in society in quite the same way as Jo March might have done. It is significant to me that, unlike Judy Woolcott, the character who dies in Little Women is not Jo March but Beth March, the shy, delicate and very feminine third child of the March family.

It is hard to tell which author influenced which others without knowing who wrote their books first. I think LM Montgomery and Ethel Turner tended to be the later authors, especially Ethel Turner, as there wasn't an Australia, strictly speaking, before 1901, when Federation took place. Whilst Anne Shirley in one of the later Avonlea books, loses one of her sons to World War 1.

I finished A Severe Mercy (about the second read through) this morning; made me cry, and happy, and convicted. It's really a marvelous, beautiful book.

Ooh, I love that book! My sister wheedled me into reading it several years ago, and it's been a favorite ever since. I haven't watched the movie, actually -- is it any good? *wonders if she'll be traumatized as well*

I think the movie is really good; I may be a bit biased (:P), but I did like most of it. I would encourage watching it.

- The Hobbit ( )

A first read?! How fun! Have you read LotR?
@Kate: I think in a lot of ways they are alike - in technical ways, and yet their personalities seem so different. The writing styles of both authors are vastly different and I think that has a huge influence on it. And I don't think L.M. was ripping off Alcott. Jo is a very, very strong personality, and in her circumstances, much more of a tomboy and etc. Even when she has grown up, and is a mother, she still is much more "wild" than Anne.

As for my own reading--still rereading the copy of The Last Unicorn that I got for my birthday. It has the most beautiful cover.

Read that once, awhile ago, and I believe I LOVED it. The Lindbergh's are so wonderful.

I just finished That Hideous Strength by CS Lewis and I absolutely loved it! I'm afraid I can't say which of the three I liked more. Out of the Silent Planet was one of those instant grabbers. Perelandra was a little slow during the first Chapter, but I loved the setting. That Hideous Strength was a bit slow in the beginning but the ending I thought was far better than its predecessors

I just started Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton yesterday

I'm on the 5th chapter of To Kill a Mockingbird. I've read the first chapter of the book multiple times, though I never went any further. I'm not sure why, since I always enjoyed it. And yes, I am loving it so far.

It looks like a lot of people are reading that book right now...

~Riella