Literary Giveaway Blog Hop!

Update: This giveaway has now been closed, winners selected and will be announced as soon as they email me back. Thanks to everyone who entered, and I hope to do another one of these soon because they're super fun!

Well, hello hello hello! Welcome to my very first giveaway, about which I am extremely excited and also, fortunately for you, very generous feeling! Entries are until 12pm GMT on Wednesday 19th October, and I'll announce the winners right here on Thursday 20th. Aren't we all just really excited?!

But maybe just save your excitement until you know what I'm giving away! In honour of Orwell October (my own little attempt to read the things that Orwell wrote) I'm giving away a copy of 1984, that has actually been read by me! (You know like how people want Britney Spears's chewed gum? That's the kind of response I'm looking for with this. And also to let you know that it's not a pristine copy. Yeah. Although I haven't chewed it like gum, because that's not the analogy I was going for with this. Also you should probably just ignore me.)

So that's that. And if you don't know what it's all about, then seriously, you need this book.

Also up for grabs is an actual pristine copy of Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh, which I haven't  read, but I have two copies for no reason known to anyone sensible, so if you want it, you may be able to have it if you ask really nicely...

And it's kind of the same story with Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky- I have two copies, one of you lucky people may have one of them (and I'm going to be honest, it's the one I like the look of least... I love you guys, but I love me more...)

And the superfun bonus prize is Emily Dickinson: Selected Poems which I have to say upfront has some highlighting and really bad notes I've made in it (stuff like 'this is a rhyme' and things because I never know what to say about poetry). So I'm fully aware that it's possible that nobody will want it. Which will make me sad, but I will understand. Sniff.

'But Laura!' (I hear you cry) 'How can I get my hands on such amazing books that have been touched by hands such as yours?!' Well, patience my dear ones, I'm about to tell you! So, if you would like one or many of these books then all you have to do is leave me a comment saying which one/s you would like, with an email address at the end that I will be able to contact you on. If you also say something amusing or witty, then I will love you greatly, and I might give you an extra entry or something. Note: You DON'T have to be a follower to enter, but if you want to read someone's gushings on Stephen King and generally want to be amazed into a state of awe and excitement, then why wouldn't you want to follow me?! But, again, you don't have to.

And it's pretty much as simple as that! Again, don't forget to tell me if you want more than one of these books (I won't think you're greedy or anything, don't worry!) and then I'll put your name in the hat for both/three/all four/you get the idea books. This may or may not involve an actual hat, I haven't decided yet (but there probably will be). So yeah, enter, cross your fingers, do whatever lucky things you do, and then move on to all these other lovely blogs to see what goodies you can get from them. Good luck to you all!

Leeswammes Devouring Texts The Book Whisperer Seaside Book Nook The Scarlet Letter (US only) Rikki's Teleidoscope Bibliosue Curled Up With a Good Book and a Cup of Tea The Book Diva's Reads Gaskella Lucybird's Book Blog Kim's Bookish Place The Book Garden Under My Apple Tree Helen Smith Sam Still Reading Nishita's Rants and Raves Ephemeral Digest Bookworm with a View The Parrish Lantern Dolce Bellezza Lena Sledge Blog Book Clutter I Am A Reader, Not A Writer (US only) The Blue Bookcase Book Journey (US only) The House of the Seven Tails (US only) In One Eye, Out the Other (US only) Read, Write & Live Fresh Ink Books

Living, Learning, and Loving Life (US only) Bibliophile By the Sea Laurie Here Reading & Writing Reviews Amy's Book World (US only) Teadevotee Joy's Book Blog Word Crushes (US only) Thinking About Loud! Kinna Reads Sweeping Me Minding Spot (US only) Babies, Books, and Signs (US only) Lisa Beth Darling Tony's Reading List SusieBookworm (US only) Tell Me A Story Close Encounters with the Night Kind Nerfreader Mevrouw Kinderboek (Netherlands, Belgium) Boekblogger (Netherlands) In Spring it is the Dawn No Page Left Behind Elle Lit

Orwell October: Coming Up For Air

My review for this book originally contained one word: BORING! Having spent a few days thinking about it, I can't think of any more words that are appropriate for it, because I really got very little out of this book. It is boring, and honestly, I expected more from you Georgy. Its basic message is that you can't go home again- something which by now seems like a hackneyed sort of message and one that is self-evident- that, no matter how hard you try, you can never recapture your youth, and things can't go back to how they were because the world spins ever onwards.

This is something that becomes clear to George Bowling, the 'hero' of the book (I resent calling him a hero, because he's really pretty boring and irritating), when he attempts to go back to his childhood town and go fishing, something which he did when he was a teenager and liked and blah blah blah I really don't care. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this is the only novel of Orwell's written in the first person, and what a boring person to choose! George (the character) is annoying and boring, and while he feels like he's really interesting and special, he really isn't. While I think there is sometimes some appeal in that in a character (their 'everyman-ness') I was just irritated and bored with George- about half the book is a history of his life so far, and let's just say that nothing has happened to him, other than he's been fishing a lot, and went to fight in the First World War, although all he talks about from that is that he almost went fishing but didn't. Please excuse me while I take a nap so I can cope with such thrilling tales.

I'll admit that the fact that nothing really happens might have something to do with the idea that George lives in the suburbs, and works for an insurance company, and so we can't really expect anything of note to happen to him. But did it really have to be pointed out in such a tedious way? George has this brother who runs off, and I almost want to find out what happens to him instead, but his story would probably just be a reprise of Down and Out in Paris and London, so I'm good without that as well. I'm actually struggling to say anything much at all about this book, because there was just nothing much to it- all fluff, and nothing much else.

Oh, ok, there is one thing. So George is all freaked out about the onset of war (which actually happened like 3 months after this novel was published, vastly different to the 1941 that is predicted about 20 times in it) and keeps imagining a future where either the fascists or the communists have taken over, which in the end leads to the same thing: "the after-war, the food queues and the secret police and the loudspeakers telling you what to think..." and somewhere else it says things about the slogans and the big faces staring down at you, and I don't know about you, but that all sounds like the seeds of the idea for 1984 to me. Which is sort of fascinating to see as the beginning of the idea for that masterpiece, but on the other hand, it's still not worth reading this book to have. Especially because I've just told you about it, so you don't need to!

I think basically, throughout this whole book, what Orwell is trying to say is that things are about to change irrevocably, and he's not sure which way they're going to go, but nothing looks good, and that's why people are compelled to go backwards and try to recapture a time when everything was better, except that that's something you can't really do, so you're always disappointed and just left wondering if anything will ever be good again. That's the sort of the feeling I had about this novel, but knowing that I only have Animal Farm and 1984 left to read soothed me somewhat- no danger of being bored out of my skull with them. So, Coming Up For Air- should have been better. But I will forgive you for boring me senseless Orwell, because I'm nothing if not forgiving to people who are (mostly) geniuses.

Devouring Films: Heartburn

Or... My Response to the Question 'What Could Be Wrong With a Film 1) Written By Nora Ephron, 2) Directed by Mike Nichols, and 3) Starring Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson?


As it turns out, a lot. The main problem with this film seems to be that it was made in the eighties, which means it has few redeeming features- the clothes are awful, the computers are rubbish, and people are so not aware of their carbon footprint (they fly from New York to Washington DC! Have they never heard of a train?!) More than anything, I feel like the eighties, being so awful as they were, somehow meant that no one could make films that had any kind of meaning or artistic power. I mean, that's the only explanation I have for Terms of Endearment winning all those Oscars that one time, because that is seriously one of the worst things I've ever seen.

And speaking of Terms of Endearment, there were apparently only two male actors who were worth casting in the eighties- Jack Nicholson and Jeff Daniels are hot off the backs of the grand success of Terms of Endearment (success being apparently in equal proportion to how horrible a film is) and straight into another film that fails to set the world on fire. And let's talk about the Jack Nicholson casting decision- does anyone really start a film by getting that man married?! He's the ultimate bachelor, and while I love him, I just don't find him convincing as a husband, much as I would like to believe that he and Meryl Streep (who was, by the way, excellent as always) would get married, I just didn't. Also, a very small point, I'm pretty sure that Mark is meant to be Jewish, and Nicholson really isn't. Just sayin'.

The main problem apart from the whole eighties thing, was that the order of the film really doesn't match up with the order in the book, and that gives away all of the dramatic edge of the story. Nicols and Ephron have gone for a linear tale of love gone wrong, which is fine, and obviously the way things actually happened, but dramatically, it sucks. The book begins with a seven-months pregnant woman fleeing from her cheating husband with an infant child, the film begins with Meryl Streep eyeing up Jack Nicholson at a wedding and obviously enjoying his infinite sexiness (like any normal woman). I mean, that's nice and all, but where's the drama everyone?! If you don't know what's going to happen (which I did, having read and greatly enjoyed the book) then the film literally has no direction for the first 40 minutes or so. And it sucks.

All I can think is that everyone involved with the movie was snorting coke, and couldn't really understand that what they were doing was a great disservice to film and their own legacies- although, now that I think about it, while I love The Graduate and Angels in America, they are pretty linear in terms of structure, so maybe Nichols can't cope with the idea of a non-linear story... I just don't know! I can't tell you that it was entirely awful, because Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep sing songs about babies, and it's fucking amazing (I was going to post a video of that fabulous, but I can't find one. So here's Meryl singing Itsy Bitsy Spider with a small child instead):

Oh yeah, and that song in the background as they're walking to the plane? Totally the only song in the movie. I'm deadly serious. And at the beginning it says 'Music by Carly Simon', and by the end I was like, 'yes that's true... BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE SONG IN THE MOVIE!'

Sorry. But honestly, that's what this film does to you. In a different time, with different people, maybe this could have worked. But as it is, I suggest you skip the movie and just go straight to the book, which has more funniness and charm in one page than is in this entire movie, Meryl Streep excepted. It just could have been so much better...

Update: I have to rescind my point that nothing good was made in the 80s, because When Harry Met Sally was freaking awesome. But apart from that...
I also forgot to mention that Kevin Spacey, looking extremely young and 80s-ish (basically Daniel Day Lewis in My Beautiful Laundrette) is in this movie! It was weird, but also awesome. So there, I managed to think of another good thing about the film- yay!

Orwell October: The Road to Wigan Pier

At first, I thought I wasn't going to get on with The Road to Wigan Pier. It's a non-fiction book, and because it's Orwell it deals with a lot of the social problems prevalent in the 1930s, and I mean, while I have sympathy for the miners (both in and out of work) of the thirties, reading a whole book about them and their woes wasn't exactly my idea of a good time. Fortunately for me, the second half of the book proved to be surprisingly interesting (well, that sounds harsh, but you know what I mean) and informative to the state of Socialism in the thirties, and it actually taught me a lot about the ways in which socialism can fail.

The first part was a bit of a slog though, I've got to admit, because there's a lot of talk about shillings and the way that miners lived, and while interesting, it's difficult to relate to because the social problems that exist now are so different, although no less serious. I've got to admit that I sort of skimmed over this section, and didn't really get much out of it other than, you know, it was (and I'm sure still is) really hard being a miner. What did still completely ring true though, was the things Orwell writes about unemployment- the fact that it's completely crushing, and depressing, and just an awful state to be in, especially when there actually are NO JOBS (this is just a description of my life for the past year, and it's really no surprise considering that we're in the middle of the worst depression since the thirties, I think?) Orwell says so many things that are just true about unemployment, and this is possibly the best:

"There is no doubt about the deadening, debilitating effect of unemployment upon everybody, married or single, and upon men more than upon women. [ok, so that I don't agree with, obviously. But that probably was slightly more true in the thirties, which isn't a good thing but still the way things were.] The best intellects will not stand up against it... to write books you need not only comfort and solitude - and solitude is never easy to attain in a working class home - you also need peace of mind. You can't settle to anything, you can't command the spirit of hope in which anything has got to be created, with that dull evil cloud of unemployment hanging over you."

 Ain't that the truth though, George?

The second part of the book, anyway, is a lot more interesting in relation to now, and has a lot to say about why Socialism just wasn't working in the thirties, and why it wasn't the least likely thing that Fascism could become the new political structure because Socialism just wasn't good enough to fight against it. I found this interesting, because in my eyes, Socialism is the complete opposite of Fascism, but, according to Orwell's reasoning (which, to be honest, I found faultless) the ultimate end of Socialism is a form of Fascism. This was ultimately a terrifying and hideous thought, but, as Orwell puts it, it's all ok- as long as Socialists remember that, at the root of everything they do is "Liberty and Justice", then all will be well.

I learnt so much about Socialism from this book, actually, that hadn't ever really crossed my mind before, and it's definitely given me a lot to think about. One thing that was most surprising, was the idea that Socialism is all about having a fully mechanised society, having machines to do things people could do, and in general having everything scheduled and perfected down to a point where nothing spontaneous can be done, so nothing bad happens, but at the same time, nothing really happens at all. This was so interesting to me because, whenever I think of Socialism, I think of a happy, smiley world, where everyone helps each other and everyone is well provided for and whether or not you get healthcare doesn't depend on whether you can afford to pay for it or not, and all other crazy ideas like that. I don't dispute Orwell though, because obviously one way to make things better for everyone, is to make everything easier for them. This whole vision of the machine driven world is a pretty horrible one when taken to its extreme, and it is clear in Orwell's telling of this just where the roots of 1984 were coming from.

Orwell, as he always does, has some bright ideas for the future of Socialism, and they are ones which I think still stand true today. Above all, he considers himself a true Socialist (thankfully!), and in order to prevent Fascism from seeming like an appealing prospect, Socialism must change the way it appears from the outside. While those promoting it may well fully believe what they do, the way they act, by being basically giant hippies (before there even were hippies) is not the best way, Orwell believes, to spread their cause. I think this makes sense (much as I love hippies)- if you think about an average Working Class person in the 1930s, who really believes to his core that he's entitled to the same things as any other person, but who is completely put off of the Socialists by their crazy hippy clothes and hair and their vegetarianism, and sort of back away thinking that, these people who are so different to them, can't possibly help them. What Orwell suggests is that, what's really important for Socialists is to not think of class as being about upbringing and accent and all other superficial things like that, but rather in what people earn- Orwell himself, for example, earns not much more than a working class man, but he has a middle-class upbringing (and an upper-class education) but, as long as everyone can get past all the superficial stuff, then they can really work together to effect real, positive change.

So, The Road to Wigan Pier turned out to be full of hidden gems. I recommend it as part of the whole Orwell experience, but there is little in the first section that really needs to be read (at least nowadays) and so much in the second section that still seems relevant today. There is also some discussion of Down and Out in Paris and London, and how that book came about, so if that's one of your favourites (as it is one of mine) this book provides a fun little addition to it. The main point of this book: Socialism=yay, as long as you do it the Orwell way. So, what are you waiting for? Off you go and spread Socialism, you lovely people!

Top Ten Tuesday

There's something about reading a book for the first time that can never quite be recreated- nothing like turning the pages, not knowing what's about to happen, but knowing what's happening within you, and that this new thing you're reading is really really exciting. It's wonderful, and while re-reads show the books to still be wonderful, it's not quite the same, because you're not quite the same as you were upon the first reading. With that in mind then, here are the:

Top Ten Books I wish I could read again for the first time


1. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky- I really needed this book when I first read it, and while I haven't re-read it yet, I can't imagine it having quite the same effect on me now. It is utterly wonderful, and I'm so jealous of those who haven't read it yet (also, you guys: read it.)

2. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee- Just... remember when you were 15 and you wanted to change the world and this book made you see that there are bad people, but on the side of the good we have Atticus and that means everything is going to be ok? I kind of still get that feeling when I read this book, but it's not the same as the very first time.

3. Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk- This is more of a plot thing than anything else, but remember not knowing what Fight Club was really all about, and so being completely drawn in by it, only have to have the shockingest shock revelation thing happen near the end? It was pretty great, I've gotta say.

4. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime by Mark Haddon- To be completely fair I can't remember much about this book, so when I do finally re-read it, it will be sort of like reading it for the first time. But only sort of- I'm not sure if I'll be able to recapture the magic of reading for three hours solidly, and barely noticing that anything else was going on in the world at all. Simply mesmerising, which I hope it can be again.

5. Harry Potter by J K Rowling- Harry Potter comes up suspiciously little on these lists, but this is one I really couldn't keep it off because OH MY GOD, remember how good Harry Potter was (or were- all of them are great) the first time you read it/them, and you felt like you were the only person in the world to discover how great they were? I mean, don't get me wrong, they're still captivating and all, but it's not quite the same once you know all the things that happen...

6. Blonde by Joyce Carol Oates- I know I've only read this recently (my not at all gushing review is here) but I definitely feel like I won't be able to recapture the feeling of reading it for the first time, barely being able to concentrate on anything else for wanting to read this book, and that was along with a cold, which normally means I can't focus on anything. I love it fiercely, and I think I always will, but it won't be quite the same the next time around.

7. Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier- This is another one of those 'plot points that I won't be able to recapture not knowing' things- I remember being completely taken in by the whole 'Rebecca was fabulous and everyone adored her and you'll never be able to live up to her' thing, before realising that that wasn't precisely the case... Rebecca's definitely not the same once you know what happens (or what has happened), so reading it for the first time is definitely the best.

8. The History of Love by Nicole Krauss- It was so beautiful and wonderfully crafted and just unspeakably lovely that, while I think a re-read would reveal a lot more about it to me because I pretty much just whizzed through it, I'm not sure it can recapture the heart soaring American Beauty feeling that it gave me upon its first reading. But I hope I'm wrong about that.

9. Angels in America by Tony Kushner- Once you pretty much know what all the characters are going to say, it loses its power a bit. But only a very tiny bit. One of my favourite things in the whole wide world ever.

10. Basically every Stephen King book I've read- I mean, I love him for always. But seriously, after the first time, it's just not the same because it's just not as scary (except for It, at which, I swear, I'm always terrified). Even though you pretty much know that Stephen King books have a relatively happy ending, you can never be entirely sure of that until the end of the books. If you've read them before though, and you know that they do... well, nothing can really be scary any more! Sort of...

So that's my top ten. I'm hoping that everyone's lists will involve books that I haven't read, so that I actually can read them for the first time and be enthralled and amazed and just weep with joy and incredulity! Hey, it could happen... it's happened before (see above).
10.

Orwell October: Keep the Aspidistra Flying

I'm now halfway through Orwell's novels (and actually I only have one more to read that isn't a re-read), and while I do love him, I do have to say that it is so clear that he went to Eton. He slips so often into public schoolboy speak (saying things like 'beastly' and 'spiffing') that it would annoy me so much if I didn't like him so much, and annoys me a fair bit anyway! Keep the Aspidistra Flying, being about a fallen public schoolboy and all, is not immune to this slight issue, and hey, guess what, there's a guy living in poverty again! Yay! If I didn't like Orwell so much...

I feel like I'm being slightly unfair because I'm reading all these books really close together which, quite frankly, would probably make anyone a little tired of the repetition of similar themes. This isn't really a criticism of Orwell because I'm pretty sure he's just writing what he knows, but compared to the highly original themes and settings of Animal Farm and 1984, it's a little disappointing. Luckily, though, the writing style that's present in those books is already here, which still makes these books better written than your average, but there's still a fair bit of repetition of themes that is a bit much to deal with within a short space of time.

It doesn't help, with Keep the Aspidistra Flying, that the main character, Gordon, is a complete and utter dick. I'll admit that, at first I thought he was kind of exciting and interesting- a kind of anti-capitalist hero, fighting against the materialistic values du jour and trying to find something deeper, hence why he's a poet. But no, that's not what he was all about at all! Instead, what we've actually got is a severely dysfunctional dude, who, rather than trying to live well without money is utterly obsessed with the fact that he has none, and uses it as an excuse to push people away from him, rather than trying to find anything deeper and better from life. He completely refuses to allow anyone to lend him money or buy him dinner, and yet when he finally gets a bit of money (which, for a supposedly unmaterialistic man he gets a bit too excited about for my liking) he acts like a complete twat and instead of blaming himself he once again blames money. He's completely exasperating and not in a 'ooh, he's so hot and sexy when he's all angry' way, but in a 'why the fuck are you being such a dick, just take that job you don't want and be happy, you utter moron!' way.

Because, oh yes, he does have a job waiting for him that would basically instantly pull him out of poverty, but he doesn't want it because... that would mean he would have money and that would mean he would have a chance to be happy (not because money makes you happy, but because poverty definitely doesn't) and he's basically just a pig-headed idiot. The only real saving grace of the whole thing though, is that it is quite clear that this is also the way Orwell feels about him- that he kind of contradicts himself continually, by wanting to disregard money whilst also being obsessed with it. I actually kind of got the impression that Gordon was possibly not unlike Orwell at a certain stage in his life, although I don't really have any evidence for that- the sort of struggling writer thing was a bit of an indication, but I could be really wrong about this...

Anyway, ignoring Gordon (because he's really annoying), I did like Rosemary, his pragmatic and totally feminist girlfriend (she wants to pay for him sometimes so they can actually, you know, do stuff, but he refuses to let her because he's a dick) and his rich friend Ravelston, who tries to be a socialist, but pretty much fails because he's rich- but he's still lovely, if a bit ineffectual. What either of them is doing around Gordon is never really discussed, but he must have charms beyond what Orwell goes into, since, when he is really down and out, they refuse to let him sink to the depths he actually wants to descend to: "Going to the devil isn't as easy as it sounds. Sometimes your salvation hunts you down like the Hound of Heaven." It's just up for debate whether the reader really wants them to...

Well, look at that. I've managed to go through a whole review without managing aspidistras! An aspidistra is a plant that looks like this (I didn't know this before I google-imaged it, so I had a completely different plant in mind while I was reading):

But anyway, the point of the aspidistra is that it represents the sort of middle class, settled, 'money-worshipping' life that Gordon despises and fears. But here's my problem with him- SPOILER once he does finally settle down, he immediately goes out and gets an aspidistra! It's like he can't see a middle way between being obsessed with money, and shunning money entirely, so he's kind of got to be miserable whatever path he takes. It made me grrrrrr a fair bit the whole way through END SPOILER. So yeah, aspidistras are a big, albeit frustrating, symbol of settling.

I feel like I've been overwhelmingly negative about this book, and I don't think that's necessarily reflective of how I felt while I was reading it. Whilst Gordon did frustrate me terribly, I don't think that you have to love a character to enjoy a book, and while I didn't love Gordon at all, I did think he was reflective of a certain kind of self-defeating personality, that won't let themselves be happy if it means having to make an effort at something they might not massively want to do. He's also a lousy poet. On the whole, I would actually say that I liked this better than A Clergyman's Daughter, even though I liked the protagonist a lot less, and rooted against him almost exclusively. Don't we all need to do that every once in a while though?

IMM/Mailbox Monday

I wasn't actually going to do an IMM/Mailbox Monday post for at least the whole of October (and, for the first time ever, I have October scheduled down to the very last post!) but this week was so good (or bad, depending on whether or not you live in my house) that I simply had to share all my new books with the whole world. So, without any ado, this week I got:

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins- I've really been wanting to read this for a really long time just to, you know, see what the dude's got to say. I'm hoping it'll be more scientific and sensible, rather than just going 'everyone who has religious beliefs is a MORON!' not because that'll offend me personally, but because, you know, hate ain't cool. So we'll see if Dawkins impresses me or not.













Marlon Brando by Patricia Bosworth- I may have mentioned this once or twice (or probably more than that in my Godfather review alone, actually) but I love Marlon Brando quite an unhealthy amount, even old fat Marlon Brando (only, you know, in a really different way). This biography is quite short, but it looks pretty promising as an account of his life- plus I've never read a biography of Brando before, so it should be illuminating no matter what!











The Awakening by Kate Chopin- I don't know why I've heard of this, or where I've heard of it from, but until literally this week I thought it was a chick lit book for some unexplainable reason. Actually it's a nineteenth century and (I think) feministy classic before feminism was a thing. But I might have just made that up because I read the back and it mentioned women. And I can't even be bothered to look it up on Wikipedia to see if that's true or not, so let's just pretend that it is. Anyway, I bought that!







Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky- Don't tell anyone, but I actually already owned this book! BUT, in this charity shop they had an Oxford World Classics edition, which is much prettier than my original copy (which I think is an old Wordsworth classics edition and is also tres ugly) so I thought, if I have a pretty copy, I'm much more likely to want to read it! I'm not sure what I'm going to do with the old copy, possibly give it away to another charity shop, or maybe even as a giveaway (the Literary Giveaway Hop is less than a week away...) but we'll see. I'm keeping the pretty copy anyway!







Pudd'nhead Wilson by Mark Twain- I genuinely know nothing about this book, other than that it's by Mark Twain, has a pretty awesome title, and cost 35p (which I guess is, I don't know, about 50 cents?) I don't think I really need to give much more justification than that for buying it!











Beloved by Toni Morrison- I've read quite a few reviews of this recently, and I'm really interested in it, hence the buying of it! There were actually three or four Morrison books in the charity shop I got this from, but I thought I'd just see whether or not I actually like her before I start going all crazy and buying everything she's ever written (see: Rose Tremain- I own like four books by her, and haven't actually read a single one...) I have been looking in libraries for this for a while too, so I'm definitely excited to have it.









Notes From A Big Country by Bill Bryson- Bill is another one of those authors whose books I own but haven't actually got around to reading yet... Alley from What Red Read actually recommended this to me when I read Stephen Fry in America, and I'm definitely thinking that this might earn the prestigious title of the second ever Bryson book I've read (the first being Shakespeare, which almost doesn't count because I read it for the Shakespeare element rather than the Bryson factor). I've really got to read something by him soon though, because my unread collection is really getting ridiculous.





The Finkler Question by Howard Jacobson- And finally.... If you've made it this far in the post then you're a trooper and you should probably give yourself a prize- go and have some Diet Coke and a cake, and then come back. Are you feeling more refreshed now? Good. I've wanted to read The Finkler Question since I read this giant review of it in The New Yorker (you know when they give a book a giant review that it's worth reading) and I was really excited to get a literally brand new copy of it from yet another charity shop. So, yay!





I'm done now, I swear. Tell me, if you can, are any of these books worth reading? And are there any I should just dump back to charity shops? And aren't you pleased at all the money I've donated this week?! To all those people who are new here, greetings! If you like George Orwell, then boy have you come to the right place at the right time, because all this month I'm reading Orwell books (I call it Orwell October because I'm a genius) and then saying stuff about them. So far, I've reviewed Burmese Days, Down and Out in Paris and London, and A Clergyman's Daughter, and stay tuned for some more Orwell fun! And if you don't like Orwell, well (haha) I'll stop with the madness in November and go back to reading superwickedawesome books that are by other people! So stick around for a while if you please, and if not then, you know, have a nice week anyway!