Sweet Valley Confidential is a hot mess of a book that is bookended by an awkward beginning and a nauseating ending. It almost becomes a not entirely terrible book, but tragically-slash-comically crashes and burns in a sugary, taffeta-and-chiffon-covered mess in the last 30 pages or so.

Between watching the show and reading the 500+ Sweet Valley books I owned, I spent a large chunk of my childhood enthralled with the World of Sweet Valley and desperately wanting to be like the smart, pretty, responsible, well-meaning, but somewhat conservative Elizabeth Wakefield. I decided in middle school that I wanted to be a journalist because Elizabeth was a journalist. Elizabeth liked tall, brown-haired boys who liked to write and so did I. She wore a single-strand, lavaliere necklace and so I did, too. My sister’s name is even Jessica!

But lets face it, Sweet Valley was always sort of, well, drivel, for lack of a better word. It’s a sappy-sweet world of silly drama surrounding the Wakefield twins, Jessica (the wild/fun twin) and Elizabeth (the good/holier-than-thou one). So, my expectations for Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later were low. Like, really, really low. Nevertheless, I pre-ordered it and, despite being overwhelmed by schoolwork, read it from cover-to-cover the day it came out.

In the very first Sweet Valley book, Sweet Valley High #1: Double Love, published in 1983, Jessica tries to steal Todd Wilkins away from Elizabeth, who has a crush on him. From there, the series continues to be peppered with Jessica’s schemes in various contexts, and as the series proceeds, Todd is described to be Elizabeth’s “steady” and is the only recurrent character in Elizabeth’s love-life to crop up in the various spin-off series.

As Confidential opens, Elizabeth is now in her late twenties and is working as a journalist, having escaped to New York after her discovery of an affair between Todd and Jessica. Jessica, former cheerleader and general silly flirt, now works for a cosmetics company; and, Todd, our basketball star-turned-alcoholic-turned-vagrant loser is now a successful sports writer. The primary thrust of the book is the upcoming family event that Elizabeth is expected to go back to Sweet Valley for, which Jessica and Todd – who are now a couple – will attend as well.

In addition being written in a weirdly stilted voice that is littered with wanna-be technospeak, this world of stereotypes and sickly-sweet people has now transformed into a cast of sad, lonely, bitter people. Steven, the twins’ older bother, cheats repeatedly on his wife, who responds by baking like a madwoman. The loveable class clown, Winston, made it rich and now is isolated and surrounded by strangers and users (he eventually drunkenly falls to his questionably accidental death). Lila cheats on Ken and is divorcing him. The class gossip is as mean and empty as ever. Sweet but homely Enid is now an arrogant doctor and kind of a jerk. Elizabeth, too, finds herself compromising her principles and values as she plots to bring a hot bartender to the occasion, trying to prey on Jessica’s tendency to stray in order to sabotage Jessica’s relationship with Todd.

Perhaps this cast touches base a little closer to reality than the original characters, but it’s clearly an overly pessimistic view. While it could be construed as some sort of social commentary that addresses the characters’ original unrealistic superficiality…that’s probably giving the book too much credit. At any rate, it is a sad and angry world, but devoid of the introspection or depth that one would hope to see accompany such a stark view. In lieu of internal reflection, a vapid petulance seems to accompany the unhappiness that pervades the new Sweet Valley.

And, by some miracle, as the book approaches and descends upon the actual event — it actually starts to have something substantial to say. Elizabeth is, for once, somewhat more human in her failings, which seems more sincere, but the book’s real source of insight (well, relative to the rest of the series) is seen between Jessica and Todd. Because of the nature of the inception of their relationship, despite their mutual good intentions, they struggle — “just two guilty people” who feel trapped by their feelings of isolation and the shame that burdens their relationship. Knowledge of their mutual infidelity colors their relationship with the rest of the community, Todd is unable to trust Jessica, and Jessica is resentful of her alienation from her sister. Eventually, Jessica leaves Todd and reunites with Elizabeth.

If the book had ended there, it would have made sense in the context of the series. It would be a darker, less-bubble-gummy, and probably needlessly depressing book, but it would be an understandable accompaniment to the superficiality of the original series. Moreover, if the book was seeking to be more modernized, instead of stupidly name-dropping “facebook” and “Google,” it would reflect more modernized views of teaching girls to rely on themselves as opposed to defining themselves by their relationships to men, which the series has historically been prone to do. Finally, Jessica choosing Elizabeth over Todd would seem to take the series in a full circle and reinforces the theme of the whole series — the adventures of two sisters who are different, but love and learn from each other.

Of course, the book continues, and while I won’t get into the details because they are dumb, it really is like the book just popped a valium, did some speed and went on some hell-bent, crazy-happy writing bender for the remaining pages. Let’s just say loves are reunited, happy couples abound, everyone ends up as friends, and in classic Jane Austen-y style, it ends in a wedding! Oh, and there’s a badly written scene where there apparently is intercourse that is “over the top!” and also “spectacular!”

The book’s shortcomings are more than overwhelming. I could get into it further, but in short: there’s plenty of bad writing, some of it is just kind of kooky, the male characters are very obviously how women see men and not rooted in reality, the book has elements that are clearly holdovers from writers who are older and not “with it” … I could go on. The point is, die-hard fans will read this regardless. (I cried when Jessica and Elizabeth made up.) However — and this is a big however — it’s not a very good book, unfortunately. For a non-fan, the book will seem bi-polar and in need of some sort of intense counseling. Finally, I’m pissed off Todd and Jessica end up together. I’m just going to put that out there. That sucks. I should also note that I’ve been very generous with this book because I loved Sweet Valley. I think most people would just describe it as “hilariously bad.” One wonders if the creator secretly despised her sweet, cotton-candy world.

The only really good line in the book is delivered by the twins’ mom who, as the family dispute erupts, orders her husband to “bring out the fucking cake.”

In fact, HP has a 3-year manufacturing failure rate (as opposed to accidental damage) of just over 25% compared to Asus, Toshiba and Sony which each have failure rates hoving just above or below 16% over the course of the same three-year period. You can see the results of that study here (PDF file), though, it’s coming from a vendor of warranty protection plans, so take it with a grain of salt.

But aside from discussions of the book value of my laptop and manufacturing failure rates, I have, however, as a result of its shitty hardware, been reading more instead. Here are some of the recent ones.

Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood. Loved this. I’ve never been a huge fan of dystopian novels, mostly because anything taken to an extreme is bad, I think, but this world is so carefully constructed and her writing is so readable that it was hard to be such a cynic about it. I think my favorite part was the relationship between Oryx and Sandman. It’s an alternate reality; if you’re into that you should definitely read this (and probably already have). Otherwise, just read it anyway cause it’s good.

Girl’s Poker Night by Jill Davis. Eh. My sister gave this to me a while back. It was better than the average chick lit but not by a lot and not really worth reading unless you particularly are in the mood for that stuff.

My Name is Red by Orhan Pamuk. Huh. I liked this book in theory. I liked that it was almost a philosophical (regarding art) mystery. It’s a story about a murder among a group of miniaturists (read: artists), set in the Ottoman Empire (it’s translated from Turkish). The idea is that they are working on book of illustrations that reflects a style that is considered to be sacrilegious in that it is considered idolatry, detracting from the glorification of God, etc. There’s more to the plot line than just this, but the main character, Black, investigates by speaking to the suspects regarding their views on various aspects of art, and at the same time the unidentified murderer discusses his thoughts as well. Theoretically, you should be trying to figure out who is the murderer based on these discussions of art philosophy. It was good in terms of writing, pacing, etc., but I think my appreciation of this book is largely on an academic level. If you think you’d enjoy theoretical discourses on art, for example considering what “is” art and whether things like personal style detracts from art and the representation of “truth,” then you’d probably love this book.

The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie. Always good. I think this was the first Hercule Poirot novel ever. I thought I would be over my Agatha Christie phase by now, but I guess not.

Bel Canto by Ann Patchett. Very Oprah. Obviously unrealistic. But entirely enjoyable. A group of rich important people get kidnapped by terrorists who are good people at heart.

The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society by Mary Ann Schafer. I liked reading this, minus the romance. Its seems like a solid novel who had an editor who forced in some contrived romantic plot line so there would be was more of a plot arc, but it was just distracting. It’s about the German occupation of Guernsey (not fictional), as told through a conversation in letters (entirely fictional). It begins when a writer receives a letter from someone from the island and ends up conversing with various people to find out about their experiences during the occupation. It’s Hallmark-y in it’s way, but interesting from a historical perspective.

Baby Proof by Emily Giffen. This was sitting on my self for, like two years. It’s chick-lit, but I liked the premise of this book, mostly because I liked the idea of exploring the trade-off between decisions about kids and someone you’re into. Oddly enough, it was something I recently had a conversation with someone about so I finally picked it up and went ahead and read it. Overall, it was pretty good as far as this genre goes, but the ending was such a disappointment and waaay cheesy.

I’ve been trying to mix it up in my reading repertoire terms of genres. The Poisonwood Bible was more on the serious side of drama. For the most part it’s set in the Congo during its short-lived bid for independence from Belgium. However, the story actually spans three decades and is told through the wife and four daughters of a zealous preacher, Nathan Price, who move to a small village there, Kilanga, to do missionary work. As one expects with these sorts of fish-out-of-water-type premises, it changes them more than they change it. However, it’s well written and thought-provoking in other ways, though it is clearly bent on challenging certain Westernized, I guess, attitudes for lack of a better word (the author doesn’t use such terminology, thank goodness) and on criticizing the U.S. and other foreign involvement in the economic and political affairs in the Congo.

While most of the story focuses on the difficulties of the Price family, the political/social message comes through in bits and pieces and finally comes to light more fully as they are forced to flee. In short, Belgium colonized the place and essentially handicapped the country (by not allowing non-whites to get an education, not building infrastructure, etc.). After the people rose up and demanded their independence, President Eisenhower, in cahoots with other foreign leaders, gave orders to have the elected leader of Congo assassinated because these leaders of white men were unhappy with the negotiations regarding the sale of the country’s natural resources (diamonds, in particular). They fixed the following election to have him replaced with a puppet figure instead and corruption ensued (the U.S. began building a power system in Congo they knew would fail in order to saddle the country with billions in debt, ensuring that the flow of resources would be unhindered in the future). There are also non-politically geared messages in the book as well — about people, human nature, etc.

Overall, I liked many parts of book. For example, one of the daughters, Adah, is has a lame leg and her mother chooses to save another childed, one who is not “crooked” like her, over her when a natural disaster occurs. While Adah manages to survive, she recalls wanted to be saved and feels confusion that others, her mother included, would deem her undeserving of being saved. In Adah’s voice, Kingsolver writes that “even the crooked girl believed her own life was precious. That is what it means to be a beast in the kingdom.”

However, my gripe was that the book lacked a certain subtlety or sense of balance when it came to getting its message across and to depicting certain characters. Kingsolver’s characterization of Rachael as some vapid self-centered blond seemed kind of unfair. In fact, all behaviors of the characters that were native to Congo tended to be forgiving and understanding and behaviors that were used to characterize those from the U.S. took on a more judgmental tone — they were excessive, uncaring, etc. Her attitude seemed to be that the behaviors of those in Africa are simply products of their environment and that in the U.S. and Europe it’s just the result of arrogance and ignorance. For example, people that look out for themselves there do it to survive, people here are simply self-centered — which may be true, to some extent, but I think, more likely, that all people are capable of a wide gamut of behaviors, kind or unkind as they may be, and that certain environmental, social, economic and political circumstances can diminish or enhance those behaviors at time. (As a side note, I think that as a society our goal should be to create a infrastructure, legal and otherwise, to bring out and incentivize the good in people, though obviously it’s not a straight-forward task.)

Another display of the author’s at times judgmental and unbalanced attitude becomes clear through the villain, of sorts, of the story. The novel paints an extremely unflattering portrait of Nathan Price, an immovable and damaged man, set in his ways to his and others’ detriment — obviously not meant to be a sympathetic character. Fair enough, sometimes people end up sucking and end up in situations where their suckiness come shining through. In an addendum, however, the author mentions that she’s been on the receiving end of numerous letters who feel this is anti-missionary/anti-Christian and states that these people don’t understand literary symbolism and probably don’t read enough novels. Now, even as I was reading it I, despite not being Christian, felt that it was uncharitable in not presenting a balanced picture of the positive intentions and contributions that I am sure resulted from the work, but it seemed to be an error of omission and information that admittedly wouldn’t contribute to any of the points she was trying to get across, so fine. However, assuming that any detractors are simply ignorant is a pretty bold and judgmental assumption.

For a book that is clearly well written, well researched and with such strong messages, I think it tripped itself up by being needlessly polarizing. I think I would have liked it better if it had just been in one voice instead of pretending to be something it’s not. In some ways it came off as disingenuous — the book claims to be in perspective of five different characters, but in the end I could only find the author’s voice. I guess I liked many parts of the book, but came off disliking the author. Hmm.

At any rate, I’ve started applying to law schools now. The basics of my applications are finished, my personal statement and resume, etc. so I’m glad to finally have my life back to some extent.

In fact, I finally finished Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke, which I really enjoyed. It’s about two magicians, set in England during the Napoleonic Wars. When the story begins, magicians are almost an anachronistic remnant of Britain’s past (according to the story, magic once abounded but has since disappeared). Instead, there are only theoretical magicians, as opposed to practical magicians, who study magic in an academic manner. However, two “practical magicians” appear on the scene and attempt to rediscover magic, piecing things together.

All in all, it’s long, but it’s funny (a sort of dry, British humor) and very enjoyable. Plot-driven and well-conceived, IMHO. To quote Wikipedia: “It has been described as a fantasy novel, an alternate history, and an historical novel.” I’m not much for fantasy (with the exception of the Harry Potter series, obviously), but I liked this take on magic. Recommended. A solid 4 stars.

So yeah, the book is this woman’s memoir about her travels to Italy, India and Indonesia following her divorce. Obviously, it’s not for guys (or intellectuals), but I laughed out loud many times, especially in the beginning (i.e. Italy), which is always a big plus for me. Her spiritual discourse — this is the India part — is actually interesting though it clearly is barely skimming the surface (but I suppose her editor probably wouldn’t have allowed it any other way). I thought the most interesting parts re:cultural differences were in the Indonesia section.

All in all, the book is sort of a mixed bag — kind of like a 3-for-1 deal cause each section is so different. Honestly, there’s not many people that I know that I think I’d recommend this book to, but I think most people could find something to like about it. This probably isn’t the best review I’ve ever written, but oh well. 3 and 3/4 stars.

As a novel, the book is part historical mystery and part Intro to Financial Markets for Morons (Wait!! You mean when you tell people the stock is going to go up they start to buy?!? Like that.) with a little romance thrown in for good measure. And while it doesn’t manage to present a particularly compelling mystery nor does it serve to educate at any level that would be useful (the romance is so poorly done, it’s not even worth mentioning again), a quick pace and eventful plot keeps the book from becoming mired in its (numerous) shortcomings. My instinct was to dislike the book, but somehow it managed to keep my interest and wasn’t unenjoyable.

So, yeah, the writing isn’t anything special. And no, the characters herein would never finangle their way into any Literary Hall of Fame. And yeah, you have to really strech reality to believe that this bumbling bully would ever really manage to unravel any sort of mystery without getting himself killed (the villians in the book just hand him information). But hey — it’s a good subway read and divides up neatly into 20-minute chunks. Three (maybe two-and-a-half if I’d had a bad morning) stars.

Basically, the book is summed up as: boy meets girl. Girl marries someone else. Boy waits for her husband to die and has a lot of sex. Over half a century later, boy and girl hook up.

I’ve always felt like I should like Gabriel Garcia Marquez more because he’s supposed to be so wonderful, but it was pretty painstaking to get through this novel. I have to admit I found the first few chapters engrossing, but as the story line played out and the characters developed…eh. And I disliked Chronicle of a Death Foretold even more (summed up: blindly following traditions is bad). I read Chronicle for school, however, so I always assumed that I disliked it mostly due to my associating that book with classwork. Guess not.

Baring some use of symbolism that maybe some English majors would appreciate more than I do (symbolism tends to not enhance the value of books by much for me because it serves neither to educate or entertain), I failed to find anything particularly notable in this book. Also, it provides some insights into the aging process I guess, but I think just I’m not in a position to fully appreciate it at this point in life. I get that Marquez can string together a pretty sentence, obviously, but I just didn’t enjoy this book. I’d give it three-and-a-half stars, but a personal rating of two-and-a-half.

I did a little bit of the things I said I would do – LSATs, sleep, getting together with people, etc. I didn’t make as much progress on the LSATs as I hoped. I still think I could do better on the logic games if I studied some more — it just takes me too long to chart out those problems right now. I want to get to the point where charting them out is second nature. I think I’m okay on the rest.

I’m surprised how many people I ended up seeing over break. It seems Marie, Sid and Nita (who I did not see) are all planning on law school as well. A bunch of people are doing i-banking or finance-related jobs: Hemal, Bo, etc. Lots of med-schoolers. Also, I finally, finally saw all the Yalies, who have been alluding all of us for the past few years. We had an awkward New Years’ party at Khang’s house — we ended up washing champagne glasses as it hit midnight because they were too dusty to toast with, haha. Also, for future reference, twist-off champagne bottles don’t “pop,” regardless of what the warning on the bottle may say.

We also managed to get in some ice skating, even if Jules, Kasey and Bo were two hours late. Yeah, thanks. Seven minutes my butt, Jules. Haha. Howie and Karen came, too. Ann and Aaron showed up together (but not “together”), but Aaron was unwilling to skate because he is a scaredy-cat. You may tell him I said that because I never got invited to that LAN party to play Diablo 2. I’m very upset. I also had a weird night out with the boys — I attempted to get into the wrong person’s car (v. awkward) and we went to a place that played explicit music videos from the late 80′s and early 90′s. Very weird, but I met Sid’s cousin. Cool.

What else…I ended up going to three movies over break. First, Enchanted with Marie, where I missed the first hour because I went to the wrong movie theater, proving, unequivocally, that I am indeed a genius. Second, Enchanted (again!) with Tina, Amy and Jeanne, wherein I finally got to see the full movie. Finally, I saw Charlie Wilson’s War with Daniel and Aaron. I would say both movies were slightly better than mediocre, but whatever.

Recently Read Stuff:

Pillars of the Earth, by Ken Follet; I actually really liked this book. I’ve been in a historical fiction and mystery phase recently. (Obviously, this falls in the first category.) It was probably the lengthiest book that I’ve read continuously. Usually, I get bored at some points in more “epic” novels. It got a little overwrought with drama at some points, but I guess that’s to be expected from a former writer of horror/thrillers. Oh, it’s about building a cathedral.

The Dante Club, by Matthew Pearl; I have a feeling (however potentially unfounded) that things that are described to be facts in this book give way to much more entertaining fictions, but it’s about a group of Dante translators who discover that a murderer is going around killing off sinners in a Dantesque fashion. However, this is set at a time when Dante is relatively unknown and still only in Italian so the murder must be among their ranks. Drama ensues.

Freddy and Fredericka, by Mark Helprin; I enjoyed this, but I honestly can’t think of a single person I’d recommend it to. It’s about a royal couple who – for various reasons – get sent, penniless and with only one another, to make their own way in America. It’s a little more bizarre than I’d expected, but if you’re willing to suspend reality, you’ll probably find yourself rooting for the two main characters. One caveat, it’s a little condescending when it comes to making assumptions about the perceptions of the “common people” but whatever.

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie; Good. Someone gets stabbed in the back. House full of people — whodunit?

The Clocks by Agatha Christie; Also good. A a stranger finds a dead body in house surrounded by clocks set to the wrong time. Hercule Poirot comes to the rescue.

Shopaholic & Baby by Sophie Kinsella; Actually pretty entertaining. I thought her previous Shopaholic book (the & Sister one) kind of … was not great. Anyway, this one was more like the previous ones, thank goodness. Basically, our Becky has a baby, but suspects that Luke is stepping out with her doctor. It’s good, clean fun.

Other Stuff:

I booked tickets to London! Whoo hoo!

Anyway, in the book he tells a story about a king of a kingdom and the sorcerer who attempts to ruin him. The sorcerer poisons the water source in the kingdom to drive people to madness. The king, on the other hand, drinks from a private water source. Things go according to plan and the people go crazy. The king, trying to stop the madness, tries to take security measures, but everyone thinks he’s the crazy one. In the end, in order to rule, he ends up drinking from the poisoned water source himself. Once he is like everyone else, they believe he has regained his sanity. And, in this secluded kingdom, the crazy king and all the crazy people lived happily ever after.

I liked this story. It leads me to believe Paulo Coelho knows what it’s like to do group projects.

That said, I went to Barnes and Noble the other day to browse and was dismayed to see the following page in a “novel” on the New Fiction table –

It’s a page out of Mark Danielewski’s newest “novel,” Only Revolutions. Every page out of his new book looks like this. Actually, if you flip the book upside down and read it from the other side, it tells the other side of the story. Isn’t that cute? It’s like some sort of toy, except it’s supposed to be a book. I think I had journals when I was twelve that did something like that. On one side, it had a sun and if you flipped it upside down it was practically like having a SECOND JOURNAL! Because there was a moon and all the pages from that side had moons on them. So cool. So, so cool. I love moons. Moons are totally cool.

The most depressing part of all this is that this crap is just not enjoyable to read. It’s a pain in the ass to read/decipher experimental fiction. I’m only left to imagine that the thing that drives on the people who read this stuff is pure pretensions, the pleasure of declaring various jumbles of text as being “bold” and “daring.” I’m pleading now – please, please get over yourself and just try picking up a good book.

And yes, I realize how pretentious I sound. Yes, see that it’s ironic. Okay?

Until now, of course, and it was wonderful. Oddly enough, he cites a quote in two instances which happens to be one of my favorite quotes. I won’t recite it here – it seems cheesy when taken out of an appropriate context.

I think my delay in reading it might be because I knew I loved Vonnegut so much that I was worried I’d read it and be disappointed – with most of the writers I’ve loved the most, one day I pick up a book I thought I really loved and find that it’s not what I thought it was. I suppose maybe it’s cause I read a lot of stuff when I was young and gave more credit them than they deserved. But who knows.

At any rate, knowing that I wanted to concentrate on reading the new Harry Potter tome, I went ahead and tried to tie up some loose strings by finally finishing the book. I ended up having to start over since it was so long since I’d read the beginning, but it was well worth it. The whole time, I kept thinking about how it hit me when I found out Kurt Vonnegut was dead. It was on the Georgetown bus in Washington D.C. on our way to the business strategy case competition, day of. It was on the left column on the front page of the Post, and it made our little competition seem very insignificant.

The downside of working a lot is that it’s hard to do things during the week. I basically have no time whatsoever from Monday through Friday. I actually didn’t do laundry for the first time until this past weekend – I just kept buying more clothes and underwear, no joke. Right afterwards, I went online and bought more stuff from Victoria’s Secret so I could toss the crap I’d purchased from Duane Reade. Yuck.

Instead, I keep most of my social engagements on the weekends so that I don’t end up canceling on people all over the place and feeling like a jerk. Luckily, people have been in and out of New York every weekend so it’s been pretty fun with sooo much good, delicious, savory, flavorful food. For example, Heartland Brewery has really good mini-burgers.

My first weekend after starting work, I spent most of the time with Rita shopping in Soho and checking out little boutiques. At some point, we went out to a little restaurant called the Barking Dog, where we ate outside in this stone fountain area thing. Quite lovely with pretty good food, depending on what you order. Later we went to Cafe Zaiya because they have really great cream puffs. I also got together with Bo and Chen, who are both also working in the city, but we basically walked around, ate at Monster Sushi and ended up going to the Mac store for some reason. Whatever.

Second weekend, Kasey and Jules strolled into town – yay! So, all us IB kids got together again and went to some very, very random Chinese restaurant in (where else) Chi-town and got gelato afterwards in Little Italy. Also, there was this French restaurant later where Bo tried to hit on the waitress. The great thing about hanging out with other Asian people is that we can do family-style food which is always fun. Chen brought some friends and gave me a sew-it-yourself Monster doll — I’m waiting for a time to do it when I can give it the full attention it deserves.

Oh, when I met up with Rita and her friend Chelsea, we went to this really cute restaurant painted in blue that I need to remember to get the name of. We had a really overzealous waitress who listed off specials for at least a couple minutes. It was a little weird. That, and the crepe place (called Crepe Creations) we went to afterwards that had no food. Seriously. We tired to order stuff and each time they said they didn’t have chocolate, or didnt’ have “fluff” whatever that is but it’s in half their menu or whatever else. When they finally had the stuff, they ran out of apples in Rita’s apple crepe and they ran out of whipped creme and substituted powdered sugar on mine. I know the guy was no Mario Batali, but come on – whipped cream and powdered sugar are so not the same thing.

The weekend after that was busy, to say the least. My sister was in town, so we got together with two of her friends, Monica and Theresa, both people from Plano. Also, Rita came in again, but with James and Ben, so of course we have to get together. It’s funny how people always seem to be colliding here — at the same time, both Brown and Beam – Emory people – were in town, too, and they managed to run into Suhas in the subways on the one day she came into town. My sister and I ended up hanging out with her friends during the day and my friends at night, basically. It’s not worth detailing out everything that went down, but it essentially was a really fun weekend. I also went to, like, five really good restaurants that weekend and ate a lot.

RESTAURANTS INCLUDED:
Havana with the Asian crew, New Yeah Shanghi Deluxe as well as Sala with Monica and Geg, Smorgas Chef and Choux Factory thanks to Theresa (and Geg), and finally I think the Emory kids went to Tigerland but I’m not sure. It was good.

My sister managed to miss her flight out three times in a row (okay, twice it was because she was standby, but still.) The last night she was here, we went to a Japanese restaurant near my place, and for dessert, we ordered some banana sushi concoction out of curiosity. After some slight confusion regarding complementary green tea ice cream (I wanted to know where the bananas were) – it was actually really good.

Finally, this past weekend, my fourth weekend in New York, marking my first full month to be in the big city, was Rita’s birthday! Her not-quite-surprise party was held at Gyu-Kaku, and I met a ton of her friends from high school. Justin showed up because he was in town visiting Stephanie, as well as James and Jimmy-James. Justin ditched us to go to a ballet. Uncool, man. Uncool. Chaussie was also in town for Rita’s 21st, so we all hung out afterwards (Halal on 53rd and 6th, Dylan’s Candy Bar and the ever-reliable Jamba Juice), as Rita went out and got crunk with her high school people.

Anyway, that’s my story up until this point. I have half and hour before work starts, so off to breakfast. Ciao!

Anyway, the premise of it was cute – a guy gets a job harvesting souls as a being working for the underworld. He also has a new baby girl to deal with. Very cute. She gets two puppies, except they’re not so much puppies as they are large black hellhounds. Less cute, but funny.

All in all, not a bad book. I’d give it a solid three-and-a-half stars.

Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman – [5/5] a wonderful, hilarious book. I started reading and couldn’t stop. Iris told me to read it a while back, but I didn’t get to it until now. It’s about good and evil, the end of the world and a bunch of other stuff. It’s one of those books that pretty much anyone can enjoy.

Ignorance by Milan Kundera – [3/5] I have to say, I was a bit disappointed. It’s about memories and the experiences of expats of the Czech Republic. I guess I expected more out of the author of the Unbearable Lightness of Being, which I’ve been told is quite good. It reminded me of reading Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground. Like Notes, it was clearly written by a capable author (and Kundera is – in my opinion – easier to read than Dostoevsky), but also felt like it skimmed the surface of the topic. Both are more novellas than novels (e.g. they’re short) that read like an abstract for a more in-depth work. Brian suggests I try The Joke, another one of his novels, so I might do that. I mean, again, it’s still a good book, I was just expecting more.

Hitched by Carol Higgins Clark – [2.5/5] Argh! I want so badly to like these books. Carol is the daughter of the more well-know (and better) Mary Higgings Clark, who I like. Great airplane and waiting room reads. The younger Clark tends to write with more levity, which is why I want so badly for her books to be a less serious version of the elder Clark’s books. Unfortunately, that is not the case – I’ve read three of her novels now, and each one is a bit unsatisfying. Her novels just don’t unravel as well. Oh well.

The Areas of My Expertise by John Hodgman – [3.5/5] a book of faux trivia, haha. I just happened to pick this one up and start reading it. At first I thought it was a book of random knowledge until it said something about Yale’s Whiffenpoofs being some sort of foreign defense unit (that just happens to be masquerading as the first all-men a capella group), wherein I figured something was up. Anyway, it can be comical, but you have to be in the mood for some pretty dry deadpanned humor.

That said, I actually liked Mitch Albom’s newest, For One More Day. I’d been avoiding reading anything of his for a while for the reason listed above, but people seem to like him. Anyhow, according to the back of the book, it’s “the story of a mother and a son, and a relationship that lasts a lifetime and beyond.”

And yes, the novel itself is as sappy as it sounds. The chapter titles say things like “Times When My Mother Stood Up for Me” and “Times When I Did Not Stand Up for My Mother” — that sort of thing. However, the book’s saving grace is the mom character, who is actually quite likable. Moreover, the ending actually surprised me quite a bit, which I wasn’t expecting (please ignore the redundancy in that sentence, thanks).

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by the book (but maybe a little disappointed in myself).

Intriguing premise, but the story felt flat to me. The story seemed pretty predictable and packaged. The characters were interesting and thinking of Walter Fane as Edward Norton was a plus, but beyond a lesson on altruism, I didn’t think there was much to the novel. It kept me interested, but I suppose I was hoping for something else.

I don’t have much to say about it. I’ll update this post (maybe) after I watch the movie.

Like Encyclopedia Brown who runs his business (remember? NO case too small, 25 cents per day) from his garage, the detective gets asked by city investigators to assist in a case involving a murder and a stolen parrot – a bird with a curious habit of rattling off streams of seemingly insignificant numbers. Set at end of World War II in England, our retired detective reluctantly sets off to help a mute Jewish boy find his pet.

It’s a whodunit (was it the jealous husband? the irascible son? the stranger?) mixed in with a bit of military and political intrigue that has all the elements of a solid mystery novel. Though it’s a bit longer than Encyclopedia’s average case, Chabon’s novel still retains the gratifying “reveal” at the end of the book that makes it all worth the while. Short, sweet, and altogether satisfying.

The primary thread through the story is a young girl who discovers her father’s research into Vlad Tepes, otherwise known as Vlad the Impaler or by others as Dracula. Part historical fiction, the novel takes the reader though temples, old archives, Cold War Europe, and copious amounts of Byzantine and Ottoman history. It pulls the reader along with little cliffhangers and an understated romance. It’s a pretty rapid read, given it’s length, but anyone who lacks patience for historical topics should shy away. Otherwise, it’s a trek into an – albeit romanticized – hunt for Dracula that’s satisfying, entertaining, and even suspenseful at times.

Kostova writes passably in the male voice but I suspect for most guys it would be even less convincing than it was for me. I know that most wold say that The Historian is no literary feat, but I think it’s definitely worth a read for historical fiction buffs or Dracula enthusiasts.

For a novel dealing with a very Big Question and the topic of adultry, it’s still a light read. It touches upon different methods of measuring happiness and what various philosophers have said regarding the topic, but doesn’t delve deep enough to make you think. The storyline of the novel is nothing spectacular, but again, it’s not bad. This would be a good beach-type novel for people who don’t want to be caught reading chick lit.