Devouring Books: Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer

Eating Animals is genuinely one of the most eye-opening books I've ever read, as well as making the best case for vegetarianism I've ever encountered. This is mainly because Foer, as he says many times throughout the book, isn't trying to make a case for vegetarianism, but rather trying to weigh up all the evidence and decide what the best eating choices are for himself and his young family. Obviously I'm in a place at the moment where I don't really want to eat animals anyway (see: giving up meat for Lent) so in a lot of ways this was the best possible book to read at the best possible time. But also, as well as that, it's amazing.

Firstly, there's the writing. I've read both of Foer's novels, and while I thought the writing itself was AMAZING, I always felt like something about the story was lacking (form, or structure, or something). In non-fiction, where there is still a story to tell but it's form is less clearly defined, good writing is a complete bonus, and the one thing that is guaranteed to keep me reading non-fiction (Naomi Klein and Bill Bryson, whilst wildly different non-fiction writers are both amazing). Eating Animals, then, quite aside from the issues it raises, is a really well set out, clearly thought out argument; and it is, of course amazingly written. All of this, then, contributes to the effectiveness of the argument (or, as he claims, not an argument, but merely a lot of statements) that Foer has set out in this book.

And oh, the argument. The dizzying, sickening, stench filled world of factory farming, carefully described (without, I would say, a lot of sentiment) and torn down logically, carefully, and in the way a good philosophy graduate knows how. I realise that might sound like an insult depending on how you feel about philosophy majors (I feel great about them, considering my degree is a joint honours English and Philosophy one) but I mean it in the best possible way- Foer lays out all these facts about factory farming, and then lays into them, with the resulting conclusion being that he doesn't really understand how, knowing this, anyone could still eat meat from factory farms.

Except, he kind of does know how this happens, because it's something that he describes early on in the book. On relaying his previous experience of vegetarianism (which sounded fairly similar to my own- on and off, until he remembered how good bacon, or whatever, was, and started eating meat again) he describes how people have a certain mechanism that means they can forget exactly what they're eating, or at least remember something that seems more important to them, like how good having turkey on Thanksgiving makes them feel. And this made so much sense to me, because meat has been a massive part of my eating life, especially since I'm not a fan of many foods, and so the fact that it makes me feel good and tastes nice is something that mostly overrides all other thoughts when making food choices. But when that lovely experience comes out of something horrible, and I actually know about it (and believe me, I really do know about it now) do I have the right to enjoy it any more? The philosopher in me says no, as does the animal lover, but the vicious carnivore? Well, she's just going to have to shut up.

If I was going to criticise Eating Animals (the book rather than the practice) in any way, I would just have to say that Foer doesn't really go into mass cow-factory farming, which I have to assume is because he has made the decision to carry on eating dairy products. Which is his prerogative, obviously, but it feels a bit like getting fobbed off- he says that he thinks that cattle farming is the most ethical of all factory farming, but since this is like getting the best bed in Auschwitz (I'm not comparing this to the Holocaust. At all. Seriously. I just can't think of another analogy), I would have appreciated a little more investigation there. Also, some of the arguments he makes are a little bit Philosophy 101, i.e. I have heard them before, but I fully understand that most (i.e. normal) people aren't philosophy scholars so I appreciate that he had to kind of start with the basics and then move on to his own thing. He does adopt my favourite ever argument though- if people say 'well, animals are born to be farmed and to be meat for us, and they don't know any other way of life', then you say 'so if human babies were born to be farmed and make meat for us, it would be ok to eat them?' and then wait to see all the people faint. Logically, it's  a top notch argument!

But anyway, in spite of those few niggles, I'm in absolute awe of Eating Animals. I would honestly recommend it to anyone, even if you feel like you'd just shrug your shoulders at the end and continue gnawing on your chicken drumstick, just because it's really so well written. For me, I'm utterly convinced about the inherent and disgusting cruelty of factory farming, and I'm fairly sure I'm off pork products for life (I did make a sausage sandwich for my dad today and was kind of drooling, but that's just learned behaviour, right?) but the important thing for me is to keep remembering the things I've learned- that the chicken on my plate lived its life in a tiny cage, was pumped full of antibiotics and basically couldn't walk, that the bacon in my sandwich was once a piglet that was stacked in a cage on top of rows of other piglets, and that factory farming is the biggest cause of greenhouse gases in the world. By far. If I can just remember all of this, and that there are things that are more important that what I feel like, I think I can really do this not eating meat thing. I really really want to.

And now, some words from our author:

"A British reader who cares about the issues raised in this book should not find any peace in being British." (Damn...)

"For thousands of years, farmers took their cues from natural processes. Factory farming considers nature as an obstacle to be overcome."

"I felt shame for living in a nation of unprecedented prosperity- a nation that spends a smaller percentage of income on food than any other civilisation has in human history- but in the name of affordability treats the animals it eats with cruelty so extreme that it would be illegal if inflicted on a dog."

"Two friends are ordering lunch. One says 'I'm in the mood for a burger' and orders it. The other says 'I'm in the mood for a burger,' but remembers that there are things more important to him than what he is in the mood for at any given moment, and orders something else. Who is the sentimentalist?"

"From 1935 to 1995, the average weight of 'broilers' [chickens we eat] increased by 65%, while their time-to-market dropped 60% and their feed requirements dropped 57%. To gain a sense of the radicalness of this change, imagine human children growing to be three hundred pounds in ten years, while eating only granola bars and Flintstones vitamins" (This is SO disturbing! Also, completely random aside, I'm really sad that we never had Flintstones vitamins in England! They would have been so cool...)

"It's possible that you can't afford to care, but it's certain that you can't afford not to care."

"Whether we're talking about fish species, pigs, or some other eaten animal, is such suffering the most important thing in the world? Obviously not. But that's not the question. Is it more important than sushi, bacon, or chicken nuggets? That's the question."

Sunday Sundries

This Week, I've been:
Mainly stalking two websites: Least Helpful, which showcases the absolute worst, but also hilarious reviews from Amazon and various other places; and The Vagenda, which in Frances's immortal words, 'I assume it stands for the vagina agenda.' Either way, The Vagenda is not only hilarious, but is also smart and just the right amount of angry- it basically takes British women's magazines and deconstructs them to show their gross, anti-feminist, fowarding the patriarchy ways. You know, in a hilarious way! Frances recommended this to me after I tweeted about how much I fucking hate Cosmo, after buying it in a moment of weakness because Christina Hendricks was on the cover and, well, I love her. This post on The Vagenda sums up everything that I had a problem with in the magazine, in a funny little nutshell. But seriously, I really do fucking hate Cosmo...

Anyway, ranting aside, I really didn't do that much of great interest this week. I did cook like two new dishes from scratch which I'm pretty proud of, as well as baking (and burning, slightly) some red velvet cheesecake brownies, which sound amazing, and yet in practice are relatively... meh. Mind you, I should have known that I wouldn't be that enthralled with them because I don't really like baked cheesecake, but they always look so good that I forget such things! Foolish child... I made them on Monday anyway, and I guess they put me off any more baking exploits for the week!

I also didn't have masses of time to bake because my mum decided to go and be (extra) ill this week. While this didn't really mean there was anything extra for me to do practically, psychologically it was a bit upsetting to see her kind of listless and being all temperaturely. A later than I would have liked doctor's visit basically diagnosed her with an infection (I say from the operation, she vehemently denies it) and some antibiotics have gotten her temperature down and her pretty much back to normal. We also had a hospital visit on Monday, which was a bit of a mixed bag- on the one hand we found out that 14 of 21 lymph nodes were 'involved' (i.e. had a bit of cancer in them) and so she has to have chemotherapy, which wasn't a confirmed thing before, but they got a healthy margin on the tumour they did take out, and so she doesn't have to have a mastectomy. So, not exactly jumping around news, but not the worst case scenario either. Her first appointment with the oncologist is on Friday morning, so I guess that's when we'll find out a time frame for things happening and stuff.

This would have normally meant 'yay! Hardly any hospitals this week!', only that procedure that my dad was meant to have last week didn't happen because there were no beds, so he's having that this week instead. For some reason he thinks that means he's going to be in hospital all week, but he could be home the next day, we're just not sure yet. Either way, it's still a step on the way to getting him better than he has been in years. I would complain more about the fact that there were no beds this week, but I really don't want you to get the wrong impression about the NHS- it's the greatest thing about this stupid country, and without it my parents would probably both be dead, and if not that then definitely bankrupt. So yeah, healthcare provided by the government: it's all good. If David fucking Cameron would just leave it alone, then that would be great, kaythanks!

It probably hasn't escaped your attention that it's March, and I don't know about things where you are, but here the weather's actually taken a turn for the worse! It's really disgusting and freezing and raining today, and it's just been basically like 'meh' for four days, which essentially describes the mood I'm in most days... Anyway, it's really pissed me off today because there are these trees down my nan's road that are gorgeous in the spring and covered in blossom:

photo from last year. Obvs.

and according to my mum, yesterday they were in beautiful bloom, but because of all the gross wind and rain, today they're basically bare again! Which obviously makes me go *wail* *snivel* *sob* etc, because damn I love the blossom. Hmph.

And that's about it folks! I was supposed to go to a gig with my friend this week, but I cancelled because I was really worried about my mum and wanted to stay and look after her- this isn't something I regret, because she was really ill on Thursday and I don't really trust anyone else to look after her, but at the same time, I think I do need to get out of the house so I don't drive myself crazy. Again. So, we'll see how well I do at that. No big reading plans for this week- I'm reading two books that I'm not crazy about, so I'm just trying to get through them as quickly as possible so I can move onto better things. Jillian's reading plans for March have inspired me to re-read Little Women (because they're the Marches! Get it?!) so I'll probably start that this week. Yay! And read it in between hospital visits. Boo! It's set to be a mixed week all round, I guess...

Revisiting Books... Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

Note: This is going to be vaguely spoilerific if you don't know the basic plot of Jane Eyre. So you probably shouldn't read it. But you should definitely read Jane Eyre, because, hello, where have you been all your life?!

I've probably read Jane Eyre about 4 or 5 times now, and every time I read it, I think that it can't possibly be as good as I remember it being, and then promptly realising that, actually, it's a LOT better than that. Reading it, I'm constantly surprised at how clever and brilliant and utterly modern it seems- Jane is massively ahead of her time in terms of feminism, and generally being her own woman, always true to what she believes in and what she thinks is moral and right. I love Jane so much that I don't even mind all the religious stuff that, in this particular re-reading of Jane Eyre seemed to stand out so much more to me.

Because, yeah, it's totally centred around religion, which isn't that surprising considering that the Brontes were the daughters of a curate and all, but it surprised me how little I'd noticed it before. Because, thinking about it now, Jane starts off as being relatively non-religious in her thinking, in that she thinks that you should harm others if they harm you; then she meets Helen (I LOVE Helen so much, even if her part in the book is minimal- I think that her effect on Jane's character reaches far further than that) who teaches her to forget the wrongs done to her on earth because all wrongs will be put right in heaven. And so Jane takes this with her, and constantly pledges not to do wrong, going as far as to leave the man she loves because she can't live in sin and be happy for a limited amount of time, and be damned forever; and it is only after a time of penance for both of them that she's able to go back and they're both rewarded for her having done the right thing.

I think it's kind of difficult for modern audiences to grasp the whole Jane-leaving-Mr-Rochester thing (and by this I mean it was difficult for me, anyway) because she loves him so much and so enduringly, that all we want is for them to be together in whatever circumstances they need to be. Since we live in a time where divorces are easy to obtain and love rather than previous obligations (and definitely religion) is what seems to matter, it's kind of difficult to see how Jane could possibly leave Edward, considering the strength of her love for him. Taken in the context of religion, though, it's clear that Jane, because of what she believes, and who she is, can't possibly do anything that she considers immoral, even if it means having all the things she's dreamed of. It kind of looks like a cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face situation to us, but in a deeply religious society, and more importantly, a deeply religious character, it is the only possible thing she can do. It's not necessarily something that I agree with (I'd be his mistress quicker than you can say 'madwoman in the attic') but I think you've got to admire a girl with beliefs, and an author who gives you a nice big twist in the middle of a wedding!

But oh, I do love the love between Jane and Mr Rochester while it lasts. Because it's not just all like 'oh wow, you're so pretty and I'm handsome so this is perfect!' because Jane calls Mr Rochester ugly at least twenty times throughout the book, and he calls her plain, but their SOULS are perfectly matched and they respect each other and it is PERFECT only not in a horrible cliched way, but just in a wonderful and realistic, and then also beautifully written way. I love how Jane refuses to sink into sentiment with him, and doesn't let him call her an angel, or sweetheart or anything of the sort; ostensibly because she doesn't want to get too attached to him before they're married (which, considering the circumstances, is totally a good thing) but it's something that just massively appeals to me, in that they don't have to be all disgusting and sickly with each other because they both understand exactly what they're feeling, which is something that's much deeper than all the surface things. And then, there's also this:

"My future husband was becoming to me my whole world; and more than my whole world: almost my hope of heaven. He stood between me and every thought of religion, as an eclipse intervenes between man and the broad sun. I could not, in those days, see God for His creature, of whom I had made an idol."

Even I, in my infinite ignorance about Christianity, know that making false idols=very very bad news, from a God-ish point of view. So, even apart from not wanting to live as Mr Rochester's mistress, I think Jane has to leave him because she has forsaken God by worshipping a man, and so she has to get over this whole thing and get back to God (which I guess being near St John Rivers [who, by the way, I completely thought was like Saint John, rather than Singeon because I am sane and the English language isn't] did for her because of his boring and irritating religiousness) before she's allowed to have him. It's all very punishy and deprivationy, but at the same time it's following a theme through to the bitter end, and considering the end of the story isn't so bitter, who am I to complain?

So. There are kind of three sections to Jane Eyre, and the middle one is clearly my favourite because the love! and the mystery! and Mr Rochester dressing up as an old gypsy woman and nobody figuring out it was him! Literally, there are no better things. And the last section I always find kind of boring because I'm like 'for fucks sake, just get back to Mr R and marry him already' even though it's really nice and awww, look at these people who love Jane, I just can't be doing with it. But the first part, the bit where she's a sad lonely child, and then she goes to school where she's slightly less sad but much more hungry, that bit I find interesting- because we get to see the making of Jane, and also because I honestly love Helen so much! I mean, putting her religious outlook aside for a minute, her basic ethos is one that's so simple, and yet so perfect- put all the bad things that have been done to you behind you, because all that matters is that you are and do what is right according to what you believe. It's simple, and it's something that Jane takes with her and lives by in the rest of the novel, and it's the main reason why she's so admirable, and, yes, why I love her so much!

I've probably gone on about Jane Eyre for long enough now, only I haven't said nearly a fraction of the things I actually felt about it while I was reading it. Suffice to say, this won't be the last time I read it, and I suspect that next time, my focus will be on something other than the religious aspects of it (I'm just justifying that second Jane Eyre blog post next year here...) It's definitely one of my favourite ever books, and it's really just so perfect that it's the perfectest perfect thing that ever was perfect. Or something. Let's just say that, after this re-reading, I might have to admit that it's an even better novel than Wuthering Heights...

World Book Day!

I was all set to post my review of Jane Eyre today, when I woke up and everyone kept saying it was World Book Day. I'm not kidding- Twitter, the TV news, the radio; all of them were trying to provide people with information and places they could go to read about books, but hey, don't worry guys, I've got this one covered. For me, every day is World Book Day.

According to Huffington Post Books (@HuffPostBooks) on Twitter, though, it's apparently only World Book Day in the UK: the real one (actually worldwide) is on 23rd April, or, to those in the know, Shakespeare's Birthday (also Saint George's Day, but, you know, what has he done for us lately?) Anyway, since I am a UK resident, I guess it's ok for me to talk about 'World' Book Day anyway, but this fact is one that strikes me as seriously odd- are we so contrary and irritating that we need to have our own Book Day that we pretend is the world's too? Apparently, yes, and clearly my patriotism still knows no bounds...

So, books. They're bloody great, aren't they? I mean, I realise that basically my entire audience is comprised of people who have their own book blogs and so pretty much live inside a world of book orgies and whatnot (I'll just pause to let you have that image for a minute) and so nobody's exactly going to say 'but reading is soooo boring, let's just watch TV', but books. They do rock. I have no idea what I'd do without them (basically all of my time would be spent staring at walls if you took books out of the picture) and that goes triple for the times when I really need them- on the rough days, which have been coming in large frequencies of late, mostly all that will do is a comforting book and a warm bed. Hiding from the real world, maybe; but retaining some sense of normality and sanity at the same time? Fair trade, I think.

But that's not all that books are. What they really are, as I think we all know, are magic. Just 26 different letters, making up masses of words that combine to make a story, but after a while it's not just you reading words- it's an entire world that comes alive in your head, and the things that happen in this world can make you laugh, cry, feel scared, anxious, heartbroken, joyous, intrigued or amused. Most of all, they transport you, take you away, and yet even when they're done they stay with you- you can carry them round and think about all the things you've learned from them, and all the things they've made you feel.

Most of all, they make you feel that most elusive of things: Not alone. This isn't something that all books do for all people, but when you find one where the characters' views and thoughts and feelings seem to echo yours completely, you feel almost that the author has been looking inside your soul and just reporting what she or he finds there. The books that make me feel this, like I'm not just a lonely and outcast traveller, are the ones that I cherish, and will continue to cherish forever.

To summarise: Books- they're the thing. Go and read one, and allow yourself to be transported to magical lands, and that most magical land of all- your own imagination.

Devouring Films: Young Adult (aka hear me rant about UK cinemas)

I've seen Young Adult twice now (because I love it) but neither of those times was in a cinema in England, the rightful place, I think we'll all agree for doing things like watching films. But no: across the three major cinema chains in England, I think Young Adult was showing on about 30 locations, when combined they must have at least 350 locations in the UK. And this pisses me off SO much, because hey, what do you need to do to get your film widely distributed? Win an Oscar for your screenplay writing skills? Have an Oscar winning actress in the leading role? Direct Oscar-nomiated performances? Nope, none of that thanks, you just have to be in 3D, and, I have to assume, really really crap (I'm looking at you, Ghost Rider 2 *shakes fist at Nicholas Cage*).

This isn't even the first time I've been deprived of Diablo Cody-ness! United States of Tara (RIP) was never shown in the UK, for no discernable reason I can think of, other than some kind of strange vendetta against Cody. I think it might have been Cody herself who said that there's a lot less trust when women are involved in filmmaking, in that they're checked up on a lot more, and a lot less is invested in them (I may be getting that confused with Drew Barrymore, when she directed Whip It, another film that wasn't released anywhere, and where it was released it was out for about a week) and I guess that's something that's reflected in a limited release- if there's no guarantee that screens are going to be full, then no one wants to take the risk of putting out films that are slightly edgy/about anything interesting at all. I understand that a lot of movies that I would classify as being like this are also indie movies, and so they have all sorts of other problems with finances, but Young Adult was financed, at least in part, by Paramount. Who have plenty of money. Hmm.

Anyway, it's such a shame because Young Adult is a great movie that so many people aren't going to be bothered to seek out and watch, and so are going to miss out on it. It's funny, it's sad, it's disturbing, but above all else, it's real. I know I've waxed lyrical before about how much better indie films are than (most) big studio productions, because they reveal so much more about life and about ourselves; and Young Adult is no exception. Charlize Theron is brilliant and hilarious as Mavis Gary, a YA writer who does, herself, refuse to grow up and move on with her life. Upon hearing that her high school boyfriend has just had a baby, she decides to go back to her tiny hometown (for which she has plenty of contempt) in an attempt to win him back and so to get the life that she thinks she deserves.

Nothing about this decision strikes Mavis as slightly insane, and it takes a really great Patton Oswalt (as Matt, a guy who Mavis went to high school with who was crippled after some jocks beat him up because they thought he was gay) to attempt to reason with her, and make her see that her actions are unhinged/foolish/vindictive/not very well thought through. Not that he ever really gets this through to her, but he tries, and because he is the only person paying the kind of attention she wants to her, Mavis ends up hanging out with him more and more, as Buddy (her ex, played by the oh-so-loveable Patrick Wilson) repeatedly shows her how much he loves his wife and new baby.

All the characters are so real, and nothing about their actions is even that predictable or cliched. I've seen some criticism of this film where reviewers have said that it's kind of lame because Mavis doesn't grow or change as a result of the things that happen in the film. This has annoyed me considerably because 1) that's not really true, and although I can't really explain why because it's kind of a thing at the end that would be a bummer if I gave it away, 2) it's not the kind of film where the woman has to be a reformed character at the end because she's been less-than-perfect throughout- I mean, Mavis is genuinely unlikeable, but there's nothing to say that unlikeable characters suddenly have to turn likeable because a film is ending, and 3) in real life, she wouldn't change. She just wouldn't. Hence, a reinforcement of the 'real' thing, and really just another reason why I like this film.

At least, I'm pretty sure I do. Crappy audio, and fuzzy visuals do not exactly make for the best film watching experience, so ask me again when it comes out on DVD. Or better yet, ask the cinemas why they didn't give it a wider release. Because here's what I think. Sometimes people don't know what's good for them, and so will just go and see Ghost Rider 2 because, hey, you get to wear those fun glasses,  and Nicholas Cage isn't the most annoying human being ever or anything! Why make that easier for them by not even giving them the option of seeing something that's a lot more real, but still entertaining and engaging? Films like Young Adult are never going to make money when there's no confidence in them, and there isn't going to be any confidence in films like Young Adult while they're not making any money. It's a vicious, and kind of ridiculous cycle, and one that I'd like to stop, right now, please.

Devouring Books: The Falls by Joyce Carol Oates

You guys! I finally, FINALLY finished a book from my TBR list/ Off the shelf challenge! It's like some kind of miracle! I mean, I'm absolutely keeping in mind that this means I literally didn't read a book I already owned that I hadn't read before until February 25th of this year, whilst also having bought about, well, at least 10 new books in that time. But that's neither here nor there really, so we can just ignore that... *pushes fact under the carpet, whistling innocently*.

Right! Well, now that the self-congratulations are dispensed with, let's talk about The Falls shall we? Set in Niagara Falls (an area that I'm assuming Oates knows well, since quite a few of her books are set in Upstate New York) it explores not only the mystical and hypnotising powers of the falls, but also looks at one, not at all typical family living and growing up by them, just as their formation was ensured by them. And it's all dramatic, and there are murders and lawsuits and neuroses and children who all feel like they're inadequate, and less loved than their siblings. So, you know, all that usual life stuff and all.

Here's the thing with Oates. There is always a slight distance between the reader and the characters, so that, even as you feel like you know the characters pretty well, they remain universal enough so they could almost be anyone, at any time. Their fears, concerns, joys and successes are so real and so familiar that, in keeping slightly aloof from the characters, they could almost be members of our own families, or even ourselves. I think, though, that this way of writing characters has an impact on how the story reads, and it's either something you like or you don't. Love one Oates book, and you're pretty much going to love them all, but hate one, and you should probably avoid her. This isn't to say that all her stories are the same, far from it, in fact, but the style they are written in remains pretty constant, and it happens to be one that I really like.

So. A real closeness to the characters is almost impossible, but their emotions, and their thoughts? Those we can sympathise with. We can sympathise with Dirk Burnaby's (GREAT name, by the way!) moral dilemma between wanting to prosecute chemical factories for polluting areas and making a lot of people ill (literally all I could think of during that whole part was Erin Brockovich, which is a good thing to me- how you feel about it probably depends on how much you like Julia Roberts...) and wanting to stay friends with his friends who were involved with said chemical factories, and we can sympathise with Ariah's desire to not know anything, so that she also can't be hurt by anything. I mean, don't get me wrong, we can also criticise them for their decisions and believe that their moral dilemmas are really easy to decide on, and yet in our own lives, we can probably think of parallels and so, there's that sympathising again!

By far my favourite part of the book was the last part, which was all about Dirk and Ariah's three children. Partly, I think, because in knowing their origins, it's like we know everything there is about them, but also purely because they're all less insane than their parents (well, than Ariah. Dirk's ok). Through three random events in each of their lives, we get a pretty comprehensive idea of what they're like and who they are, and we get to know that hey, they're ok; and also that an overbearing mother and absent father don't have to mean that they're irrevocably damaged- in fact, they all manage to break free of the roles assigned to them by their mother, and forge out their own lives, even if that means breaking away from 'The Family' (Family= a big thing in this book. Although not in a mafia way. Probably.)

So. I'm glad I finally read this book, especially since I started it about 4 years ago and never picked it up again, and now I won't have to look at it on my bookshelf every day and idly wonder what it's about. It's not my absolute favourite of all the Joyce Carol Oates books I've read (that would be Blonde) but I liked it plenty.

Sunday Sundries

This was the week that I: 

Figured out that Instagram literally can't improve on nature (at least the pretty parts)... Marvelled that it was warm enough to read outside, although admittedly I did have to put on some fingerless gloves in the end... Baked bread for the first time in about 10 years, and thoroughly enjoyed eating it!... Knitted a hat! Which is slightly absurd looking, but also only the second thing I've knitted that wasn't a blanket, and therefore I love it!

Not pictured: lots and lots of cooking and cleaning, and oh sweet lord the washing. I mean, I washed some clothes on Monday, and then I was horrified that by Friday the washing basket was completely full again! I was so not cool with that. I am cool with the cooking though, since as you may have seen on Wednesday, I've given up meat for Lent, which is something that my mum never lets me do properly, in that she goes 'well, there's just this bit of pork mince leftover...' and I feel bad for being an inconvenience to her so just agree to eating the meat, only there's always 'just a bit...' leftover because she KEEPS BUYING MEAT! It's annoying, but anyway, now I'm cooking, I get to make the choices! So, yay! I've got some yummy chinese food planned for tomorrow night, so if that ends up looking pretty, I'll take a picture of it and display its glory here next week!

Only one hospital trip this week (that I went on, anyway) to get my mum's drain taken out and have her dressing changed, which literally took 10 minutes, but she also had a bone scan (apparently a standard thing/next step along the cancer road) on Friday that I decided not to go to and I'm way glad I didn't because she had to wait ages, and then go to another hospital (it's a bit tricky to explain, but there are basically two hospitals linked together almost as one that the staff go between on different days, but they're like 20 minutes away from each other... all very confusing!) because the radiographer thought she had an infection, but she just had fluid on the breast, which is apparently normal, so 1) phew!, and 2) a bit of a palaver of a day, I think! Tomorrow I'm going with her to see the consultant who's going to talk about what the next steps are going to be, which I wasn't too worried about until mum started going, 'I know they're going to say it's spread to somewhere else, and I'll have to have a mastectomy and chemo', and I went 'shut up, shut up, shut up!' and so yeah, now I'm worried! But we'll see how that goes. Oh yeah, and my dad's going into hospital on Tuesday so he can have a nephrostomy, and I would explain why but my dad's medical history should perhaps be saved for another day... ANYWAY, lots of hospital this week. Le sigh.

Reading-wise though, I actually finished a book this week! And not just any book, but a book that's on my TBR Challenge list, and so one that's been on my shelves for about four years! This literally excited me so much, and I've already written the review so hey, there'll be at least one blog post about books this week! Yippee! I'm also progressing well with Jane Eyre (just over a hundred pages to go) so who knows, 2 book reviews this week? Can such a thing be done?! Maybe. I really don't know what to read next though- all I know is that I shouldn't read more than one book at once, and so I'll probably be reading 5 this time next week. Such is the craziness of my brain.

Finally, what I should be doing tonight is watching the Oscars, only to do that you have to have Sky Movies Premiere, which is a channel that I don't have because my dad is stupid and would rather have sports channels than movie ones. I'm blaming Murdoch for it though, because he's EVIL and SELFISH and doesn't want anyone to be happy EVER. I can't even be bothered to stay up and watch all the dresses go down the red carpet, so I'll just go to bed early (have to be at the hospital at like 9.15 tomorrow anyway!) and be all pissed off. And find out who won on twitter in the morning! One day I will watch the ceremony though guys. One day...