On the Inkheart series: Inkdeath was suspensful but the only problem I had with it (meaning, plot problems not preferences that I didn't enjoy in the book) was that there was a constant juggle of the winning strike between the antagonists and the protagonists that made the book drag some. I guess that's what happens usually when writing that thick of a book? And I echo what Val said- (except, I didn't really enjoy

Anyways...

I finished Hope's Crossing and The Wizard of Oz, both of which I enjoyed. I picked Hope's Crossing randomly and was hoping that there wouldn't be anything questionable; thankfully there wasn't and it was pretty okay.
The Wizard of Oz was equally good, too. The illustration there was of Toto was *so* cute. ^^

Aistb,

I enjoyed all three Ink books, and that's all I'm going to say about that.

P.S."Brooklyn!"

I've joined a Spring Reading Event! You can read the post on my blog about it below. The books I've chosen to read for it are listed on the post as well .

http://bookishfancies.blogspot.com/2010/04/spring-reading-thing-2010.html

The impression I've always had of the Wizard of Oz is that the Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow

When I was thirteen I read Inkspell and LOVED it but I think that was mostly because of the romancey stuff which I thought was pretty cool I'm not a big fan of it now though. Whoever it was up the page who said Corneila Funke's writing style changed from Inkheart to the other two was right. There's just something more magical for me about the first book, which I do REALLYREALLY love.

OH ME TOO. I only really liked Inkspell because of all the Farid/Meggie stuff. Fortunately, I've recovered, and out of the three my love only remains for Inkheart. Definitely agree about the magicalness of it.

Lately I've been writing to-accomplish lists for myself every week, and I've resorted to writing down books to read that week as well. School is sucking my life away. This week I wrote down Enchanted Glass by Diana Wynne Jones, and since I'm getting over a cold I spent most of today reading it instead of doing other things I should have been doing otherwise. It was good, but not awesome, alas. But now I have the rest of the week to read another book! Yay.

Has anyone read The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie? I've heard it's amazing, but I don't know anything about it. I bought it because A Conspiracy of Kings wasn't anywhere in town and I needed something to ease my pain, and because the back of it said that it's about a girl named Flavia with a passion for poison.

(I haven't been on NWeb in so long, I don't even remember what I have as my avatar. )

Inkheart series: I wasn't convinced that I even enjoyed the story until the end of Inkspell. For whatever reason, the endings of both Thief Lord and Inkheart rubbed me the wrong way, and Inkheart was much more palatable as the start of a trilogy. I was satisfied with the way Inkdeath ended, but I think too much time was spent on the more predictable parts, and the parts where the Inkworld had a chance to shine seemed thrown in as an afterthought.

Has anyone read anything by Hilary McKay?

*looks McKay up* Why, yes I have. I've read Dog Friday and its sequel The Amber Cat.

I'm waiting for my books on hold to come in at the library. Then I'll go on a Katherine Patterson binge. The Master Puppeteer, Sign of the Chrysanthemum...

My mother was trying to read Inkdeath recently, but she ended up having to stop. She thought it was too dark and depressing.

GB

yeah, it is a bit depressing. I was able to finish it, but I have not read it since!
it kind of goes on and on.

I am going to admit to doing something very shocking in the book world, perhaps even up there with cutting pages out of books and writing in books: I read an abridged piece of classic literature! Shocking, isn't it? Actually, it wasn't so bad, although I know better than to judge the book and story off of the abridged one, as well as the writing style and characters since I'm pretty sure the original book contains much more volume and depth. The book was The Three Musketeers, something that I've had for years (in fact, it was one of the very first books I remember buying, so I must now have owned it for twelve years or so), and read once, quite some time ago, but never really "got". So now I read it again. It was alright, but I have a question for those who have read the real, full length novel. A few questions, actually.

Firstly, is there anything in it that is explicitly immoral, of a quite mature level, or something not worth reading at all? (I think those who participate in this thread know my standards, and also know what I'm talking about) If so, can it be skipped, or is it a prevalent thing throughout the novel? Secondly, if there is anything in it, is it condemned as wrong, or accepted as being okay/not condemned? I have heard things about the original novel (mainly from wikipedia though, so I can't say how accurate it is, hence I come to you here) that make me wonder if it is worthwhile reading as a piece of entertainment. In the abridged version I saw at least two things that I didn't like , and I'm just wondering how far it goes if it is a part of the full length novel. Any help in this matter would be most appreciated, if the novel is worth reading, then I'd very much like to read it. I have The Man in the Iron Mask which I'd like to read, but I kind of would like to read the series in order, as much as possible. Thanks again!

On other reading topics, I went to the library today to return some books, and I borrowed a couple Nancy Drew, The Two Princesses of Bamarre by Gail Carson Levine, and The Perilous Gard, so I hope I'll enjoy them.

I am itching to hear if anyone has read A Conspiracy of Kings yet. Anyone at all? The copy I had a hold on came in at the library on Thursday, so I've had plenty of time to read (about twice) by now. I did enjoy it, though it's not my favorite in the series. There's much more I could say about it, except I seem to have misplaced my spoiler box...

ForeverFan, I read most of The Three Musketeers last year and I just did not care for it at all. The D'artagnan plot point you bring up in your spoiler just got under my skin...I know it was a different time and practices were different back then, but it really irritated me to no end and prevented me from enjoying the book more. That and the endless philosophizing by some of the characters...about halfway through the book I was fully pulling for Cardinal Richlieu because his points seemed more reasonable to me and he wasn't involved in the shenanigans the "heroes" were. This was one of the very rare cases where the movie was better than the book, in my opinion.

I had a hard time grasping that it was written by the same guy who wrote The Count of Monte Cristo, a far superior book.

Silva, you could post in depth on Conspiracy of Kings in the Special Feature on Attolia here where all kinds of lovely spoilers are hidden by enclosing the word spoiler in square brackets []. The usual tag closing rules apply.

FF, I read an abridged version of The Three Musketeers too, (as well as the much nicer Wishbone version ) and based on the plot point you brought up in your spoiler I certainly wasn't interested in reading an unabridged version at the time... I suppose another way of looking at it would be to ask, how abridged was it? I believe I read the Junior Classics version, which was about 200-250 pages of reasonably small text, whereas, say, a Great Illustrated Classic would run more at 100 pages.

I think you will enjoy Perilous Gard though. Good stuff!

Thanks Shadowlander and Mel for your thoughts- I think I'll just stick with The Three Mesquiteers instead.

I was fully pulling for Cardinal Richlieu

That was one thing I was confused about in the version I finished today, I always assumed he was the antagonist but now I'm not sure... One thing is sure, I'm never big fans of books where I'm confused about who is the villain and who is not. I like my good guys and bad guys clearly defined.

I had a hard time grasping that it was written by the same guy who wrote The Count of Monte Cristo, a far superior book.

That thought crossed my mind as well when I was reading about The Three Musketeers- I read The Count last year and really really enjoyed it, so when I read about this next piece of his work, I was a bit surprised at what I read. But then, did the author not have a ghost writer or something of that sort? Perhaps he had a different one for each of the books...

I believe I read the Junior Classics version, which was about 200-250 pages of reasonably small text, whereas, say, a Great Illustrated Classic would run more at 100 pages.

Ah, The Great Illustrated Classic version. We have that one, but thankfully it was not the one I read. Although I must say I flipped through it today looking at the illustrations... Mine is about 185 pages of medium size text, about 19 chapters in all. It's from the Abbey Classics series, if that helps any. (It also has the name "Brown Watson" on the side, which I presume is the one who published it?)

I think you will enjoy Perilous Gard though. Good stuff!

Oh good! The premise looked quite unique and interesting, and I got it because I knew people here had liked it.

I had to return The Fellowship to the library again. Just at the part where it was getting interesting again too . So until I get another copy out of the library, I'm going to read Inkheart, at least after I catch up to where I should be in Desiring God. Btw Little Dorrit is one of the books on my Spring Reading Thing list...has anyone read it? Is it good?

I think I'll just stick with The Three Mesquiteers instead.

Oooh, shiny. *looks up William Colt MacDonald, but doesn't find Law of the .45's* *reserves The Riddle of Ramrod Ridge instead*

A quick check of Amazon indicated that you read something approximately 2/9's of the original, while I got a little closer to a third (The version I read is 320 pages!). I feel reasonably confident that there is more content we would be just as happy to avoid in it; and it's too bad that the stuff we might be interested in reading rarely makes the abridged versions. (For example, the Cardinal rarely got any screentime except when he was scheming against the protagonists, and then he didn't get to say "this is why I'm doing x...")

I wonder how The Man in the Iron Mask compares; but then, I can only base my thoughts on it on The Mutt in the Iron Muzzle.

Oooh, shiny. *looks up William Colt MacDonald, but doesn't find Law of the .45's* *reserves The Riddle of Ramrod Ridge instead*

I shall have to check out his work someday, I wonder if his books are available from Amazon... at present I'm only familiar with the 1930s/1940s film series (which I quite like), so it would be extremely interesting to see how the films measure up to the stories.... (Especially Riders of the Whistling Skull) *looks* Well, what do you know! It looks like you can get them through the Amazon marketplace for reasonable prices. *bookmarks that*

Thanks for the information on the abridgments of The Three Musketeers, is it safe to assume that what I read was pretty much the bare bones of the story? Maybe those who have read the book can just fill us in on the Cardinal's motives & etc....?

it on The Mutt in the Iron Muzzle.

And that made me laugh! Once I've read The Man in the Iron Mask, I'll be sure to post my thoughts on it here as to morality wise and such.

Btw Little Dorrit is one of the books on my Spring Reading Thing list...has anyone read it? Is it good?

Yes! To both your questions- I read it, and it is my favourite Dickens. I hope you enjoy it! It was quite good.