Tuesday, April 28, 2009


Finished reading on 4/22/09:
MICHAL, by Jill Eileen Smith, 2009.
I read this in order to write a review for the Historical Novel Society, but I wanted to read it anyway, as I enjoy historical fiction concerning King David and his wives. Have read quite a bit of it by this point in my life, and found this to be an enjoyable story. The author did a good job in her portrayal of Michal and David especially--it showed the struggles Michal faced in being loyal to her family, to David, to her faith in God, and to herself. Even though she at times turned away from God, and against David, she redeemed herself and made peace with her inner turmoils, and her faith in God grew stronger for her troubles. David is shown as being charismatic, courageous, caring, and heroic, as he slays Goliath, keeps himself out of Saul's clutches, and remains a friend to Jonathan. This isn't a preachy book, but a gentle one. Good, accurate historical details, good characterization, fleshes out the Biblical passages from Samuel without straying from the traditional stories.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Finished on 4/10/09:

THE RIVER WIFE by Jonis Agee, 2007.

An unusual historical novel set in Missouri, along the Mississippi River. Jacques Ducharme, who rescued Annie Lark during the New Madrid earthquake of 1811, married her, and then founded the family, was a fur trapper and river pirate. His influence lasts well into the next century, as Hedie Rails, married to Jacques' descendant, Clement Ducharme, discovers in Annie's family journals. Misunderstandings, family secrets, infidelity, betrayal, horrific violence, paranormal experiences, and seduction play out the drama. Lots of period detail concerning life on the Mississippi, pirating, farming, horse breeding, etc. Worthwhile, if a little on the peculiar side.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009


So I've now watched all of the first season's episodes of "The Tudors" on DVD, and while I found many errors and inaccuracies in the whole thing, I was still entertained by it and felt compelled to keep watching. I don't know why, as I was so frustrated over many things. SPOILERS HERE
It didn't seem as though much time passed in the story, although historically YEARS went by during the King's Great Matter. The make-up people didn't have Henry VIII age much, nor Anne Boleyn, nor many of the other characters, except poor Katharine of Aragon. The whole deal with combining Henry's sisters Mary and Margaret into one character, Princess Margaret, having her marry the old King of Portugal, then murder him (by smothering him with a pillow!), marrying Brandon, and then having her die several episodes later with consumption (throwing up huge gouts of blood, no less) was insulting and preposterous. Wolsey's committing suicide by cutting his own throat was outrageous and awful. Some characters had no point to the story--Thomas Tallis anyone? The power-hungry Duke of Norfolk seems to be less powerful here than usually portrayed and Thomas Boleyn much more of a dynamic aggressor. Henry Fitzroy did not die as a mere child of plague; Bessie Blount was not married when she was Henry's mistress, nor was she LADY Blount--she got a husband as a gift from Henry after he was finished with her and she was a commoner when Henry's mistress; Charles Brandon's ward was Catherine Willoughby--not Brooke--so many unnecessary changes and inaccurate things and general silliness. And those who don't know any better will believe it all.

That being said, I found it kept my attention, it was compelling drama, well staged, pleasant sets and costumes (although some of the women's headdresses were questionable), and some of the performances were very watchable. Sam Neill is very good as Wolsey; Jeremy Northam an interesting Sir Thomas More; Maria Doyle Kennedy is excellent as Katharine; Henry Cavill a boisterous and thrilling Brandon; and Jonathan Rhys Meyers gives a fine portrayal of a young, athletic, sexually charged Henry VIII. This whole series is definitely meant to appeal to a younger, edgier sort of audience. But couldn't it all have been done more accurately and still been just as dramatic and exciting? These people led such interesting and drama filled lives as it was, why does TV need to create/change/disregard history?

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Finished reading on 3/30/09:

THE KILLER'S WIFE by Bill Floyd, 2008.

I stayed up past midnight to finish this page-turner about a woman who is married to a serial killer for some years without knowing it. When she discovers the truth, she turns him in, sees him tried & sent to Death Row, then takes their young son and moves to the other side of the country, changes their names and starts over. Flash forward: a victim's father tracks them down, the nightmare starts again, including a copycat killer. Fast moving, quick read set in Research Triangle area of North Carolina. Poses the question "how well do you really know the person sleeping beside you?" A good change of pace book for me to read in between things I enjoy more.

Sunday, March 29, 2009


I don't know exactly why I enjoy watching "Remains of the Day" so much that I have watched it multiple times. Is it that it strikes a chord in me, or makes me nostalgic for something that I never knew, or maybe it's just the beauty of the film... I watched it the other night for the first time in several years, and it made me realize once again what a touching movie it is. I have read the novel, as well, but I think this is a case in which the movie is almost better than the book. The pairing of Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson, as Mr. Stevens and Miss Kenton, is exceptional, their characters are beautifully portrayed. Even with no dialogue between them, so much is conveyed by their looks and actions. Hopkins is the epitome of what a perfect English butler should be, in thought, word, and deed, even though the world is changing around him, and Thompson's professional and spirited housekeeper is struggling to control her longings for an emotional relationship with Mr. Stevens. That last scene between their characters when they meet 20 years later after so much has happened in between times, is just totally heart-wrenching to me every time I watch. Guess I'm just a sucker for lost romance! The whole feel of the film is so right--the scenes of the Oxfordshire countryside between the wars, the nobility of Darlington Hall, the beauty of the mounted foxhunters riding across the grounds, the automobiles of the 1930's, the huge dinner parties, all those period details make it such a wonderful experience. I enjoyed Hopkins & Thompson together in this one much more than in "Howard's End"--seemed a better fit for them somehow. It's also interesting to see Hugh Grant and Christopher Reeve in rather interesting supporting roles. All in all, it's a film I have enjoyed revisiting over the years.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Finished reading on 3/25/09:

THE SISTER by Paola Kaufmann, 2007.

I must not have been in the right mood for this novel. It was written by an Argentinian, and is the story of poet Emily Dickinson and her family as told by her only sister, Lavinia. It just did not read well for me. It was rather slow and plodding, although there were interesting tidbits about their lives in Amherst, their brother Austin, the broken love affairs, scandal over Mabel Loomis Todd, Lavinia's struggle to publish Emily's poems after Emily's death, etc. It had its moments, but overall it was not very compelling. Perhaps it was just too literary, or maybe it was the translation, but it was not as enjoyable as I felt it should be.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

I watched "Dead of Winter" recently, a 1980's thriller that stars Mary Steenburgen and Roddy McDowall. Had seen it way back, and remembered it as an enjoyable flick, but couldn't remember a lot of the details. Well, I enjoyed it all over. Steenburgen actually plays 3 roles in this, and McDowall is one of the villains. Good suspense, woman in peril, woman as villain, eerie house in the country replete with secret passages and dead bodies, and snow storm kind of movie. It was worth another look. Some good scares and jumps in this one, and the gore factor was almost zero--violence, yes, but no gore. Yes, there are some holes in the plot, but I didn't care. Very watchable, edge of your seat thriller.