Instead, I’ll talk about Los Angeles in general. The weather is so perfect it almost makes me wish I’d chosen another law school. Almost. Also, I had a celebrity sighting the first weekend I was here — it was Paul Dano at Katsuya in Studio City. It was actually Harry and his friend who recognized him; I had no clue but whatever. Oh, and I live a street away from a Jamba Juice, which is one of my favorite things. Yay.

Mostly, I’ve been reading a lot now that all law school stuff is completely done. I first read some fluffy stuff such as Mini-Shopaholic and some mysteries, but now that my brain feels rested again I’m reading Robert Graves’ I, Claudius, Shirley Jackson’s We Have Always Lived in the Castle, and I’m almost done with The Thirteenth Tale by Diane Setterfield. I was recommended Thirteenth by a roommate of mine four years ago and haven’t had a chance to get to it until now. So far I like it a lot. It’s definitely a book for book lovers.

Oh, one of the head honchos in my office mentioned to everyone that he really excited to go see Neil Gaiman talk — the co-author of Good Omens, which is in my top 5 of books and is the book I recommend to people the most — and I really wanted to commiserate with him about how awesome the book is since it’s not often I find people who have read it, but couldn’t without sounding like a total suck-up to everyone else. That crushed my spirit a little.

Still, all in all, things are good. The biggest gripe I have about my life here thus far is that I don’t have internet at my place since it’s still getting fixed and it sucks and is making my life difficult.

Personally, I like Barnes & Noble and have no moral qualms with large companies so long as their business practices do not edge on outright coercion or unfairly anti-competitive behaviors. That being said, I really do think Barnes & Noble is one of the last companies that should be using such allusions. I mean, I get that it’s also about the size of the devices, but it just sounds silly.

Anyway, I’ll chalk this up to an advertising fail. But I just had to point this out because seeing the ad first thing this morning literally made me laugh and get water all over the place.

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.”

When I began typing this, I started off planning on writing a post about my qualms with getting information from newspapers reporting on scientific discoveries, but then got off on a tangent about why I want a puppy and when this might happen, etcetera…but I’ve removed that section now and we’re back in business (that was pointless, I know).

So anyhow, my point was that when things are reported, issues are oversimplified and that important nuances are removed to an extent that is counterproductive to people trying to make crucial decisions about their health or lives or whatnot (e.g. one article says that something is always great, another say that the same something can kill you, but in actuality whether one or the other result will obtain is dependent on whether the party in question meets specific criteria).

Sometimes, there’s enough specificity to be useful, but a lot of the time the arguments are completely one-sided or it seems like the reporter just settles for a “hey, this happens and but sometimes it doesn’t happen” without enough detail for anyone to understand why one situation would occur versus another.

The problem is, the information gets condensed and not expanded from there and most people would not bother to delve into the topic further before forming conclusions. Almost no one would be able to find the source material, and instead other sources will cite, summarize and further overgeneralize the already over-broad information. Eventually, word gets around in some snarky, 140-character form.

Anyway, I wanted to launch into some discussion about media and how it’s changing to suit consumers, and the various issues with journalism as it is currently moving to be more accessible. The problem, of course, is that I think it has been and is already sacrificing a disproportionate level of integrity for the sake of “user-friendliness,” and that no form of media other than books seem to have found a way to inform that manages to be sufficiently accurate.

I was also going to talk about how people who look to movies and television instead of reading to glean insight on the human condition or philosophy or politics are being sadly mis-educated. I love movies and television, but I go to them for entertainment and inspiration, not information. If you want to learn, you gotta read.

Blah, blah, blah — ergo I heart books and people should read more. The end. I was going to write something more cogent, but it’s such a preachy thing (I know) and anyone who would bother to read it (out of my readership of like 3 people) would probably not be the people I would ideally like to direct the message at anyway, oh, sweet irony…my point is, I really do think people should read more.

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.

The past few weeks have been filled with temporary, but pleasant influxes and outfluxes of people coming in and out of the city — Thomas, then my mom, followed by Chris moving to Jersey and then Ali, Dan and Tina, etc. I am, of course, always happy to see them, but tired of the “please summarize the last X months/years of your life”-type conversations and inevitable partings…

It’s not that I don’t like New York City — I’m actually pretty happy with the job and the living situation, grateful to have people I know here, and I love the museums, the broadway shows and the amazing restaurants, etc. That was all as advertised, I admit.

But each time someone comes and goes from the city, I’m faced with a reminder of the transience of my current lifestyle — an extended, meandering vacation from my actual life: law school, career, family, etc. I have an apartment, yes. But the lease is only until August, and I could always sublet. I also have a job here, fine — except who knows how long that will last (with “these troubled economic times…”) and even if they didn’t lay me off, I could easily walk away; it’s a job and a paycheck, not a career.

I know my plan was always to put my life on hiatus for the time being while I got sorted out, but I don’t think I realized the fungibility of my job and the current components of my life would bother me. In some ways, I know I longed for this — in college, I felt so tied down with commitments, both academic and extra-cirricular, and it was exhausting mentally and emotionally. Now I’m here, and it’s weird to think that everyone I’ve been interacting with on a daily basis will probably be a stranger to me by the time I graduate from law school. I also wonder what else I could have done with these two years; the thought of Mr. Parmer talking about “opportunity costs” crosses my mind right now.

I can’t remember where I read that people are naturally adverse to the idea of decreasing options. I feel like now that I’m a full-fledged adult, the idea that I could potentially run out of time to do the things I want to do is dawning on me in a subtle but entirely unpleasant way.

I’ve been reading a book by Margaret Atwood called Moral Disorders and Other Stories. She writes amazing things, and this one is solid, but probably not my favorite — it’s just the one that is the most relevant to me at this juncture. The entire book is a collection of stories about a female character, Nell, told in a series of short stories at various points in her life. Throughout these stories, she explores what Nell could potentially become, the different types of people, the various female roles and the decisions that are made which determine these things; I’ve had a nagging feeling of discontent, but it didn’t really hit me what it was until I was reading one of the stories on the subway to work — the idea of being scared of being tied down to one option, one lifestyle, but also fearing the other extreme of endless wandering is one that haunts me, just a little, and I worry the reality of it will creep up on me too soon.

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.

Anyway, the wedding was really nice and the whole thing took place at a really romantic beach-side resort in San Diego, CA. They are a pretty chill couple so the wedding took out a lot of the unnecessary pomp and circumstance that tends to make them really tedious; the whole ceremony took all of — 15 minutes? Yeah, shortest wedding ever, or so I’m told. Just walking up the aisle, short sand ceremony, him: I do, her: I do, kiss kiss, the end. It was fun to see all the family again though it was a bit unbalanced (her side: 42 people, his side: 7, haha). Overall, it was a really well-planned wedding, I think.

Well, I’m back at home now catching up on some reading. I’ve been trying to get through Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert, but I’m finding that it’s just a little bit much with all the spirituality and stuff. I mean, the parts when she is on her bathroom floor writing and telling herself it is the voice of God pouring forth from her hand (and this happens multiple times) — yeah, color me skeptical. Sorry.

I’ve had better luck with a collection of short stories by David Sedaris – I guess they’re technically essays, which is useful to know if you’re ever looking for his stuff in a bookstore – which I switch to each time the Gilbert book starts to get on my nerves. I’m still determined to finish it, but it’s definitely testing my willpower.

Finally, los videojuegos. I beat Fable yesterday. I actually really liked it. My sister’s friend Marc says it’s too short, but I thought it was a good length if you do all the optional sidequests (which I am wont to do) and take the time to find everything and try out different options. Lessee, I’ve also played The Movies (gets very boring around after 5 hours or so), the Sims Castaway Stories (waste of time, non-fun, WAY TOO LINEAR, gets boring after the first hour and a half), and I’m about three-quarters of the way through Neverwinter Nights. Neverwinter Nights is very long. I don’t know how long I’ve been playing but I’ve been trying to get through this game since prior to finals. Looong. But quite good. I think more hardcore gam3rz would appreciate the length/depth more than I do.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

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?

I’ve been keen on finishing it not because I was dying to know what happened – I mean, honestly, we waited for how many years? A couple days is nothing – but because I wanted to finish before some idiot accidentally mouthed off about what happens with me around. All in all, I’m pretty happy with how it ended. I’m surprised how thoroughly everything got answered – I almost wish a few more questions were left unanswered that people could debate endlessly about. My first instinct is to re-read all the books – my favorite thing about Harry Potter book is how you can go back after she reveals new information to see how the seeds were planted in the beginning novels, even if there was no way to know it at the time.

At any rate, that’s done. I need new reading material.

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.

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.

I, of course, am keeping my priorities straight and am updating this blog. This weekend was pretty hectic with Wheel stuff. I trained some new reps this morning and am really happy with how it went. Wrote a paper, blah blah blah.

Beyond that, I also got a chance to have some fun. Tracy’s 22nd was on Friday and I got breakfast the next day with a friend at the Flying Biscuit, which is a wonderful restaurant. It’s a pretty idiosyncratic place with lots of character, as you can see from the pictures. The food’s solid as well. I got a smoked salmon omelet and he got the Meggican Omelet (like Mexican, but with EGG inserted – get it? get it!?). EDIT Those two people in the picture aren’t us, by the way. I’m Chinese and uh…not forty.

Anyway, book reviews will be keeping me busy in the next two weeks. I’m reviewing Anatomy of a Boyfriend by Daria Snadowsky, an Emory alumni, for the Arts & Living section of the Wheel. Furthermore, I promised I’d finished my review of You Suck: A Love Story by Christopher Moore for Emory’s Hub magazine in the next two weeks.

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.