chesilbeach

Finished Second Chance by Jane Green at lunchtime. It was okay, but not her best, and thought her next book The Beach House was much better. A couple of things niggled me, and I think her knowledge of living in England, and the scenes in Gloucestershire, seemed a bit outdated. Perhaps she would be better sticking to setting her work Stateside now, as she's settled there and of her recent works, the American settings have seemed more realistic and contemporary to me (probably because I only have fiction and films as a frame of reference for American society!).

Like you, it was the unique style of the covers of Jasper Fforde's books that drew me in, and I read The Eyre Affair in a day, then went onto the rest of the books in the series within a month (although I had to hunt out the whole series in about five different bookshops as none had a copy of every book in the series)! I think Jasper Fforde is one of the few writers who succeeds in comedy - like you said, not laugh out loud, but definitely clever and firmly in chuckle and smile territory. I was lucky enough to go to a talk and book signing he gave, and he's an excellent raconteur - not something you can say about a lot of authors - and witty and charming to boot! My signed copy of First Among Sequels is now a cherished item.

I think as long as I don't buy any more books, then I'll probably stick with the order I've chosen. I have already bumped a few up the list by a couple of places, but I think it'll pretty much stay the same. I'm hoping to read most of them by the end of the year, which isn't that far off so I think I'll be okay leaving them in that order. If you've got that many on your TBR list, why not just pick out the next 20 or so that you're desperate to read, and then prioritise those? At least it gives you a bit of a plan, and then you can start to think of the next 20 or so, when you've only got a few left of the original 20.

No! Stop! Don't change a thing! I know you're only joking but this is for everyone ... do whatever suits you best. If it works for you, you'll continue to do it, but if you change and start to feel self conscious about your writing and reviews, you'll eventually get too hung up on what you think is the quality of your work and give up writing them all together. Each type of review has its own merits, and this thread is really a chance to see what other people do. RoxiS.C. writes fantastic in depth reviews as well as condensed versions which allows each type of reader to get something from her reviews and find out whether they will like the book, whereas I tend to write shorter reviews but just explain my feelings on the elements that have stood out in a book for me, or why I think the author has moved on from their earlier works. Some people give a rating out of five or out of ten, and others don't give a rating at all. Everyone's reviews are different and that's why they are interesting to read, not because we all write the same style of reviews. If you write notes as you read the book and these develop into your review at the end, then that's fine. If you're like me, you just read the book and then after you finish you reflect your thoughts in your review without planning, that's fine too. The important thing is just to let the reader know how you felt about the book. So, by all means look at this thread to see what others do, and if you've never written a review before, maybe get some ideas from other reviewers comments, but however you write, if it suits you, stick with it!

As I mentioned, I don't write a review of everything I read. If I feel strongly about a book, I write a review on my blog, then if there isn't already a review on here, I'll write another one for here as well (it will probably be a slightly abridged version of my own review, and usually a slightly more informal style). If there is already a review on the forum, I'll add my own thoughts, agreeing/disagreeing with points others have made, and adding comments about elements that haven't already been mentioned. I don't know if I'm a freak, but I can pretty much remember what I felt about every book I've ever read, and just by having a quick glance at the title or cover usually reminds me what I thought about it. There are only a few books that when people have mentioned them, I know I've read but can't remember much about them, so if I go back and have a quick skim read through a few pages, or look at the blurb on the back, it usually jogs my memory. The chances are if I forget what I felt about a book and go to look for it, if it isn't on my bookshelf anymore, I've given it to the charity shop soon after reading it, because I didn't have any strong feelings about it, and knew I would never read it again. I do love a good list though, so I've kept a full list of every book I've read for the last few years, including date started and finished, and if I read it for a book group or special event. In fact, only earlier today, I was looking back at the reading lists on my blog, where I started keeping a list of the books I read starting in about February 2006, and I can't believe how long ago it was that I read them, as I can recall them all as if it was just a few months ago. And, looking up at my book shelves now, I can see books I read at least 15 years ago, and again, I know which ones were particularly good or bad, and why, so perhaps that's why I don't feel the need to review everything. I rarely write any notes while I'm reading a book, and start with a blank screen to write my reviews. But, I do tend to wait at least a day, if not two or three before writing a review, just to allow myself time to consider my feelings on the book. If I'm writing a review on my blog, I might also write the review but only in draft format, until I've decided if there's anything else I might want to add before publishing.

Thanks for the compliments again! Back to the reviewing though, and the reason I don't review every book is that I just don't have the time! It's also that I find that if a book was okay, but not very bad or very good, that my reviews tend to be a bit bland in that it usually means nothing particularly stands out about the plot or the characters, and I don't have anything the criticise or praise, and it feels a bit of a waste of time (which is better spent on reading the next book which might be great!). Basically, I need a book to have provoked a reaction that requires me to put my fingers on the keyboard and have my say.

I don't write a review about all the books I read, only if I feel I have something to say about the book, either good or bad. I don't have a set plan, but I start off with a short synopsis (without giving away any spoilers) and maybe a bit of explanation about the style or genre of the book. Then I write about the most important element(s) of the book that made me want to write the review in the first place, whether that's the plot, the characters, the style, the writing, etc. I try to explain and give examples of why I liked/disliked the particular element(s), and if appropriate, suggest authors or books that if you've read and enjoyed might mean you'd like the book I'm reviewing.

You're welcome. You should probably be able to download the interview in the podcast for the next 24 hours or listen again on the BBC iPlayer, but it will only be there until the next episode of the programme tomorrow night, if you want to listen to it.

I came up with a plan a couple of weeks ago ... with about 80 book still on my TBR list, I decided to put them in the order I was going to read them to reduce the changeover time between books! I rated the books from 1 to 5 based on how desperate I was to read them, 1 being desperate and 5 being no immediate nagging need being quite harsh to try and spread the ratings evenly. Then within each ranking, I sorted the books so that I had a different type of book each time, e.g. a YA book followed by a classic followed by a chick-lit followed by a contemporary fiction etc. This way, I know what book I've got coming next, so even if I'm not too impressed with the book I'm reading, I know exactly what I'm looking forward to reading next, to encourage me to keep going! It took me half an hour to do and it's taken all the hassle out of choosing the next book. I'm not so rigid that I can't change my mind if I feel like something different when I do finish each book, but I know what my next book of each genre was on the list, and I can adjust the plan if necessary. I know, I'm really sad, but I'm a sucker for lists, and it genuinely has helped!

I've read 35 of them, and have a few already in my TBR pile, plus a few others on my wishlist. 1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen 2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien 3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte 4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling 5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee 6 The Bible - 7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte 8 1984 - George Orwell 9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman 10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens 11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott 12 Tess of the D

Synopsis (from waterstones.com) 'I see murder in this unhappy hand!' When Mrs Robinson, palmist to the Prince of Wales, reads Oscar Wilde's palm she cannot know what she has predicted. Nor can Oscar know what he has set in motion when, that same evening, he proposes a game of 'Murder' in which each of his Sunday Supper Club guests must write down those whom they would like to kill. For the fourteen 'victims' begin to die mysteriously, one by one, and in the order in which their names were drawn from the bag! With growing horror, Wilde and his confidantes Robert Sherard and Arthur Conan Doyle, realise that one of their guests that evening must be the murderer. In a race against time, Wilde will need all his powers of deduction and knowledge of human behaviour before he himself -- the thirteenth name on the list -- becomes the killer's next victim. This is actually the second in a series of Oscar Wilde Murder Mysteries that Gyles Brandreth is writing. I hadn't read the first, but it was no barrier to this book, and from the start you're quickly drawn into this Victorian crime novel, with real people as characters in this tale of murder. The writing is very evocative of the era, using dialogue that seems to fit comfortably with the Victorian times as you would read in a novel written in that period. With real people as characters, such as Oscar Wilde, Arthur Conan Doyle, Walter Sickert and Bram Stoker, the book comes alive with small references to their lives and works, and is a very good whodunnit to boot! I'm not a huge reader of crime as I don't particularly like reading about graphic violence or disturbing real life crimes, but tend to read more quirky period or comic crime novels, and this one suited me perfectly. With lots of little nuggets of information being planted throughout the book, it was a joy to get to the end and find out which ones I'd managed to figure out for myself. I will definitely be going back to find the first novel in the series, and will be reserving the next one at my local library when it comes out in hardback in May this year.

I'm a big fan of chick-lit, but I've yet to read any of Marian Keyes books, but I will definitely try some once I've reduced my TBR pile. There was an interview with her on the Claudia Winkleman show on Radio 2 this weekend, and one of the things she talked about was about the label "chick-lit". Claudia said that lots of female writers think chick-lit is a degrading thing, but that Marian has been quoted as saying it should be celebrated. Marian's response was that (and if you've heard her speak before, you'll know this is the correct length of her sentences!) she thinks it's the literature of post-feminism, because it is about our lives, and when it first erupted onto the scene in about 1994 we were told as women that feminism was over, the war was won, everything was equal, but that on the ground we knew that was not the case as we were at war with our bodies, worried about our food, trying to get to the gym, we didn't have the same prospects that men did, we were trying to juggle children and jobs. Chick-lit was meant as a pejorative term, and given to that genre to try and degrade it, but she thinks it is a very powerful genre, because it's honest, it's honest about our lives, our sexuality, our jobs, and articulated the things we didn't know how to express, and she thinks it's wonderful and empowering if we let it be! I've paraphrased some of this because she talks very fast and I couldn't catch all of it, but it was a lovely interview with her.

Yes, I'm in my thirties and I still read lots of them! Favourite author is Meg Cabot, plus I've loved the Alex Rider series by Anthony Horowitz and the Young Bond series by Charlie Higson, plus Twilight and Harry Potter series along with virtually everyone else! I also really enjoyed the first book of the Ingo series by Helen Dunmore, and am looking forward to getting the other two once my TBR pile has reduced.

Finished Small Steps by Louis Sachar today. It was okay, but didn't stand out as anything particularly special as Holes did. Nice easy, entertaining book, but maybe my expectations were too high.

According to fantasticfiction there are five books in the Little Women series: 1. Little Women: Or, Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy (1868) 2. Good Wives (1869) 3. Little Men: Life At Plumfield with Jo's Boys (1871) 4. Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag (1872) 5. Jo's Boys and How They Turned Out (1886) I've read the first two (but both about 25 years ago, so can't remember that much), but as I recall, the film versions of Little Women tend to be an amalgamation of both Little Women and Good Wives, but I might have that completely wrong!

Yes, I read the book just before seeing the film, which was a surprisingly good adaptation. I enjoyed the book a lot, so when I saw Small Steps in the 3 for 2 section, I couldn't resist!

Yes - so far it's catching up with Armpit and X-Ray after their release from Camp Green Lake

I'm dredging the bottom of the memory tanks now, but if memory serves correctly, I remember it being too sentimental as if the author was looking through rose tinted glasses, and came across as too syrupy and sweet for my tastes at the time, I think!

Came across this thread and thought it was quite interesting, so as I wasn't around when it was started, decided to resurrect it and add my memories of school books. Tried to remember what I studied at English - I was double entered for both CSE and 'O' Level English Language and English Literature, and so had to study twice as many books! These are the ones I can remember (as you can see from the fact it was CSC and 'O' level, it was quite a while ago, so bear with me) and I think some of them may have been earlier than when I started on the exam courses, but here goes ... Loved: Arms and the Man by George Bernard Shaw The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare Liked: The Pearl by John Steinbeck Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck A Taste of Honey by Shelagh Delaney Z for Zachariah by Robert O'Brien Disliked: Lord of the Flies by William Golding Cider With Rosie by Laurie Lee Brave New World by Aldous Huxley 1984 by George Orwell I'm sure there must have been more, but I can't drag them out of my memory, so they obviously didn't make much of an impression! What I notice looking back, however, is a distinct lack of female authors. Apart from the play A Taste of Honey, everything is written by men. I can't remember a single piece of poetry we studied, and to this day, it's a blind spot for me - I just don't get it. I'd love to go to a class on it, and have it explained to me. I've bought The Ode Less Travelled by Stephen Fry which was recommended, as although it is about writing poetry, it explains the concepts of verses, rhyme, meter etc, but I haven't plucked up the courage to start it yet. Hopefully, in the summer, I'll have more time and the inclination to have a go!

Once again Armpit was holding a shovel, only now he was getting paid for it, seven dollars and sixty-five cents an hour. Small Steps by Louis Sachar

Snap! This was my second ever chick lit novel after Bridget Jones Diary and I loved it. I've even re-read it a couple of times - one of the few chick lit books I re-read, along with Mr Maybe and Going La La by Alexandra Potter. I'll probably add The Beach House to that list, but I read it in hardback borrowed from the library, so will need to wait for the paperback version to come out before I stump up the money for it!

Savoured the second half of Nicholas Again this morning. These books are just so lovely, and my copies from Phaidon are gorgeous. A mixture of innocence and mischief, I'd imagine these would be lovely bedtime reading for young boys, with the odd titbit for the parent to enjoy as well. Smashing. I was out reading in my favourite place this morning, so had limited choice of books with me to start after finishing Nicholas Again, and eventually decided to go with Small Steps by Louis Sacher. It follows the story of two supporting characters from his successful novel Holes (made into a film starring Shia LeBeouf, Sigourney Weaver and Jon Voight). I'm enjoying it so far, and I'm about a quarter of the way through.

Sounds interesting. I've had my eye on this for a while, because I'm intrigued by a book set in New York with cricket involved! I've not heard much of the hype, so that hasn't bothered me, but I'm trying to resist buying books at the moment, at least until I've reduced the TBR pile significantly, so I probably won't get it for a while but I'm pretty certain I'll pick it up in the future.

Finished Oscar Wilde and the Ring of Death by Gyles Brandreth, which was everything I'd hoped it would be! A fabulous Victorian murder mystery, with the famous author starting a game of

I think I'd find them too heavy going for my taste. I admit that I saw The Tempest and Hamlet because of the actors starring in them, and not because of the play which I wouldn't have seen otherwise. I find I prefer the romantic, witty plays I've seen, and I just think I'd struggle with the tone and themes in the tragedies.