THE ANATOMY OF DECEPTION

by Lawrence Goldstone



"In the morgue of a Philadelphia hospital, a group of physicians open a coffin and uncover the corpse of a beautiful young woman. Within days one of them strongly suspects that he knows the woman's identity . . . and the horrifying events that led to her death. But the most compelling moment is yet to come, as young Ephraim Carroll is plunged into a maze of murder, secrets, and unimaginable crimes." (From the CD container)

The mystery of the young woman's identity and what happened to her is very good all on it's own, but the coolest part of The Anatomy of Deception was easily the information regarding the history of medicine in general and of surgery specifically. It's one of those reads that had me searching the Internet to see which characters were real and if the stories of them told in this book are true. I love when that happens! And I'll tell you that while the details that make up the main story in this book are not real, it looks like much of the background story is. I'm very, very happy I didn't live when modern surgical procedures were in their infancy.

The overall feel of this novel is dark but not grotesque. It's not an attention-grabber that I couldn't put down, but it was fascinating every time I picked it up. I can't say I would go out of my way to look for other work by this author, but if I happened to come across another of his books, I would certainly give it a try!

KILLER SUMMER

by Ridley Pearson



"Sun Valley, Idaho -- playground of the wealthy and politically connected -- is home to an annual wine auction that attracts high rollers from across the country, and Blaine County Sheriff Walt Fleming is the one who must ensure it goes off without a hitch. The world's most elite wine connoisseurs have descended on Sun Valley to taste and bid on the world's best wines, including three bottles claimed to have been a gift from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams. With sky-high prices all but guaranteed for these historic items, it's no wonder a group of thieves is out to steal them." (From the Uncorrected Proof of Killer Summer)

I haven't been accepting many ARCs lately, but when I was asked if I would like to review Ridley Pearson's third and newest Walt Fleming novel, I couldn't pass it up. I'm still mourning the end of his Lou Boldt series, but I'm warming up to Walt and I definitely wanted to keep up with his story.

If you decide to pick this one up, hold on to your hats! The plot moves so quickly that more than once I had to check to make sure I hadn't missed a page somewhere. It read like an action movie. It wasn't overly complicated, but there were enough twists to keep things interesting. Walt's personal life gets tangled up in the mystery which results in a few of his relationships being brought to a new level, some better, some worse. It will be fun to see where those go in future installments.

I'm still not as sold on this series as I was on Lou Boldt, but as I've said before, that is not the fault of Pearson's writing. Killer Summer is a very entertaining read and a perfect beach book. And when I give you my thoughts on the next Walt Fleming novel, I won't even mention Lou Boldt. I'm finished whining. I promise! :-)

Are There "Chick" Books and "Guy" Books?

I would like to share this exchange from the comments in a previous post, because I would love to hear all your thoughts on the topic! I mentioned that I believe myself to be a bit of a literary tomboy. I'm not much of a romantic and I was born with a severe lack of maternal instinct, so there are a lot of books out there that many women I know just adore, but they don't appeal to me at all. Because of this and the fact that I think of Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice as a "girl book", I was worried that I may not see in it what so many other women see and love. This prompted the following comment from Damned Conjuror:

I don't think it's specifically a female book, do books have genders? I suppose that women are more inclined to enjoy an Austen book but I don't think that dictates whether it's for women or men. I don't know really, I'm just thinking that we do assign genders to books albeit being arbitrary e.g. a wartime action novel would be for males and a book about horses would be for females. Hmmm.

That was a great comment! It made me stop and think about how I do tend to label books. Not all of them, but I'm definitely guilty of the practice. Here was my reply:

I meant the "'girl' book" comment only as a generalization. No, I don't think books are really "girl" or "boy" books specifically, but there are some that seem to my mind to be more appealing or marketed to one gender than the other. For me, P&P falls into that category. And I understand that I'm making this judgment totally arbitrarily. :-) Weirdly, I would be surprised to see a guy reading P&P, but not a woman reading, for example, Patrick O'Brien's "Master & Commander". I think that just speaks to my own prejudice of believing that women are more open minded about crossing those imaginary lines than men are.

I want to open up this discussion to all of you. Are there books out there you tend to think of as "girl" books or "guy" books? And if so, do you tend to "cross the line"? Are you surprised to see a guy reading what you would think of as "chick lit"? How about the other way around?

And I'd like to thank Damned Conjuror for providing some fun food for thought on a Friday morning! I was near to comatose before I started thinking about this. :-)

Austen and Zombies and Sea Monsters! Oh, My!

In my world, Joanne from The Book Zombie broke the news. Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters will be released in September. (Thanks, Joanne!)

I have a question for all of you Jane Austen fans out there. I have never read a Jane Austen book. You read that right. Never. Not on purpose. It just has turned out that way. So, am I ruining it for myself if I read these fun versions without ever having read the "real thing"? Or can I just jump right into the fun with this one and the ever popular Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?

BBAW 2009 Coming Sept. 14-18, 2009

I'm so excited! Hard-working Amy from My Friend Amy just announced Book Blogger Appreciation Week 2009!! It even has it's own blog this year! If you weren't around for the fun last year, you are in for a huge treat!

Stop on by the official BBAW 2009 blog, get your blog registered, and get ready for one of the most exciting events in the book blogosphere!!

My *Other* Addiction

I don't have any book news, but my alter ego has broken down and picked up a new pair of platform boots for the new and improved Diva Disco sets for this fall. Check these out! (I bought the black patent version.)


I've been wearing platform boots for my shows for a couple of years now, so I have a lot of practice, but any bets on how long before I break my neck in these babies? :-) I'm going to have to be a singer for the rest of my life just so I have an excuse to wear all these cool boots I'm accumulating! Darn. LOL!

THE GREAT STINK

by Clare Clark



"It is 1855, and engineer William May has returned home to London and his beloved wife from the horrors of the Crimean War. When he secures a job transforming the city's sewer system, he believes it will prove his salvation, as, in the subterranean world beneath the city, he begins to lay his ghosts to rest. But when the peace of the tunnels is shattered by a violent murder William loses his tenuous hold on his sanity. Implicated as the killer, plagued by nightmares and visions, he is no longer sure: Could he truly have committed the crime?" (From the book jacket)

Ever since I read Clare Clark's The Nature of Monsters, I've wanted to read her debut novel, The Great Stink. I finally got around to it, and I'm so glad I did, despite the silly title. Don't let it fool you!

The plot does not move along quickly, which may bother readers who prefer a faster paced read. Clark likes to explore the darker side of life, and she does it in extraordinary detail. Her settings are not opulent homes and her characters are not the rich and elite. The lives that populate her books are often from the wrong side of the tracks. They endure physical and emotional hardships I could never imagine. They live in places and times I am forever thankful I never have to live. But their stories suck me into the mire with them, and for a few memorable hours I live and breathe along side those to whom life has dealt a bad hand and I watch anxiously, hoping they'll pull through but never certain the end will be what they deserve.

I have a thing for dark, creepy, brooding novels, and if Ms. Clark keeps up the way she has in her first two books, she is going to work her way into my personal top ten historical writers very, very quickly.



A side note: Wendy at Musings of a Bookish Kitty recently had a wonderful post which brings up the fate of animals in books. My motto when it comes to this topic: Do what you want to the girl, but leave the dog alone. :-) In honor of Wendy and others who have the same enormous soft spot we do, I will reveal only a small spoiler here that has little to do with the plot: **MINOR SPOILER** No need to distract yourself through the whole book wondering if the author will let something hideous happen to the dog, Lady, adopted by one of the main characters. She is fine in the end.

No Negative Reviews = Wishy-Washy Reviewer? I Disagree.

Every couple months or so I see discussions crop up on various blogs regarding negative reviews and whether or not bloggers want to or should write them. The definition of "negative" is nebulous at times. Does it mean we shouldn't say anything bad about a book we didn't enjoy? Does it include constructive criticism or are we only talking about what could be called "nasty" or "snarky" reviews?

I believe each blogger needs to approach this issue in his or her own way. It's the distinct personality of a blog that draws loyal readers and commenters. And as blog readers, we will continue to visit and engage those who are the most entertaining and informative to us. Therefore, it's not the argument of what kind of reviews a book blogger should write that I want to draw attention to here. What strikes me when I see these discussions are the comments that imply a blogger who doesn't write any negative reviews is somehow being wishy-washy or dishonest or kowtowing to authors and/or publishers. I strongly disagree with this view. There are not a ton of comments along these lines, but every time I see one I get cranky.

I am one of those bloggers who dislikes writing outright negative reviews, and my reason is this: One Reader's Junk is Another Reader's Treasure. For every book I didn't like, there are numerous readers who will tell me it was their favorite book ever, and those are the people I'm hoping to reach when I write my thoughts on my reading.

In reality, books that I genuinely disliked are few and far between and even fewer that I would say I outright despised. I'm more apt to be ambivalent. That is because I know my reading tastes, and while I do explore out of my comfort zone fairly often, I can usually do it in a manner that still fits my personal likes and dislikes. On the surface, I seem to read a large variety, but I still have an inner criteria that goes into each choice I make. Yes, there are books that suffer the bad luck of being read at the wrong time -- I'm in a bad mood or I just finished a fantastic book and the next one just can't match it. Perhaps I was mistaken in what I thought a book was about. There are times I am aware that a book most likely won't be something I'll love, but I want to read it anyway for whatever reason. I keep all these things in mind when I sit down to tell you about them. If it happens that I didn't like a book, I'll tell you and I'll tell you why. But it won't be because "the author writes like an imbecile and couldn't plot his way out of a paper bag", because that may be true, but maybe he was really, really funny anyway.

Just my two cents. Anyone want to borrow my soapbox? :-)