ok, really, i can't say too much about this novel anyway because one of the beautiful things about the story is how all the little details unfold slowly, teasing you into the lives of the characters so that you never want to let them go. it's a brilliant work of fiction. the brief above is probably the only thing that i can say without giving too much away. i did love this book and didn't want it to end. it was a great way to end the year on a high literary note!

if you have never seen mil millington's website http://www.thingsmygirlfriendandihavearguedabout.com/ then i highly suggest you drop everything for about 30 to 45 minutes, go over there, and laugh yourself silly. yes the page is horribly designed but that should not detract from the hilarity of the material displayed on said page. do yourself a favor and read it.

ok, now that you've read it and have laughed (and if you haven't then that means that you simply do not understand british humor and must therefore stop reading this review right now as you will never like the book i'm about to tell you about) go out and pick up things my girlfriend and i have argued about. it tells the fictional story of pel and his girlfriend, ursula, which is based upon millington's own relationship. pel and ursula have their differences, that's for sure, but it's their arguments over those differences that's the fun part. it's witty, it's fun, and it's a fast read. ultimately, it's not as funny reading the story the second time through but i still chuckled at all the truly hilarious bits. i highly recommend this one to anyone who enjoys good sarcasm... and that's pretty much all i have to say about this one.

oh dear reader, how i despaired over jane eyre! how i thought that she would be swayed by logic and righteousness that i despaired for her heart and above all her spirit. how wrong i was! ten years ago, i would never have gotten past the first five pages of this book. now, i read it everywhere i could: on the train, in bed, on the couch while my knitting laid neglected. i felt i knew jane. that she was my very best friend and was sitting beside me while i languished over her hardships and follies. that is the true mark of a well written novel. i begged her to go back to mr. rochester. i begged her not to be "stupid" and marry st. john. i nearly cried when i heard the fate of all those left at thornfield. sigh. will i ever be able to read jane austen again? jane eyre has set the bar far too high, i'm afraid. shall i read wuthering heights soon?

i've always been curious about autism. how does it occur? what does it mean for someone who lives with it? what does it mean for the family that lives with an autistic child, brother, sister, or friend? there are only so many articles you can read online before you become either depressed or completely inspired but still have no real inkling of what it's like to be autistic. the curious incident of the dog in the night-time is one way to wrap your head around this strange phenomenon.

mark haddon does an absolutely brilliant job of telling this story entirely from the viewpoint of an autistic boy, christopher. christopher is 15 years old but his mind is the equivalent of someone much younger. he loves math, the color red, and prime numbers. he absolutely hates the colors yellow and brown and to be touched. he lives at home with his widowed father in a town outside of london. he goes to school everyday where he learns how to interact with people with the help of his teacher, siobhan. on the outside he could be any normal boy but he's not. he can't understand people by their facial expressions. he can't tell lies. he doesn't understand humor. he's alienated from the world around him but it doesn't stop him from living. one night, he finds his next door neighbor's dog, wellington, dead in the neighbor's backyard. being a fan of sherlock holmes, christopher decides that he wants to solve the mystery of who killed wellington. he discusses the idea with siobhan and she encourages him to write a book about it. the result is the story that you're reading!

it's just so clever it would entirely work though i was a little disappointed with how early the mystery was solved and then the focus of the book shifted to christopher's family instead. not that i didn't think that his family was entirely interesting, it's just not what i expected the book to do. it happened almost too quickly. the book hit the climax way too soon but, admittedly, it still held my interest till the end. the concept of telling the entire story from christopher's point of view was awe-inspiring... so much so that i could believe that an autistic person actually wrote the novel! haddon, as explained in the author's bio, has worked extensively with autistic children so this is obviously where he got much of his experience to draw upon for the novel. putting aside the unconventional plot development of this novel, curious incident really struck me. i'm awed at the writing talent of today's authors.

the last ten pages of this book are the best. you're better off missing all of the stuff that comes before it and just skipping straight to it. damn, i was quite disappointed in persuasion. i expected something better than all the rest of austen's books—being the last that it is—but instead i just got a rehashing of all her old plots in one book! maybe you'll like it a lot more if you have never read any of her other works.

the plot is simple. ages ago, anne elliott was in love with a man and she was persuaded not to marry him by a close friend. now, she meets him again and they fall in love after a different romantic suitor is proven to be scum. it's a simple plot and the whole scum romantic suitor reminds me of willoughby from sense & sensibility. there's seriously not much here. the worst part was i didn't really care for anne as a heroine so, basically, the entire sympathy angle was thrown out the window. near the end, i just wanted to be done with it. boring.

so yeah, if you want good jane austen, try pride & prejudice and sense & sensibility (emma and mansfield park are also good but not as great as these).

i love jane austen. i really really really do. i know what some people say... she wrote sappy and stuffy novels that didn't even have any sex in them yet are still among the most romantic novels of all time. personally, i find early 19th century britain to be fascinating especially when juxtaposed with today's society. the time of mansfield park is the time of long dresses with modest taste, holding one's own tongue, and then—dear me!—eye contact between a man and woman could be very scandalous! today, with women popping out of their shirts and jeans, the state of society in austen's time is just, well, silly. i read pride and prejudice last year and it was one of the best books i ever read.

i liked mansfield park as well. the multitude of characters and storylines is enough to keep anyone interested. but, i didn't like fanny as much as i had supposed i would. she's the heroine and i expected her to be much more heroine-like; giving pithy come-backs to a gentleman's good humor or having some wild emotions at the very least. she has little to none of these qualities but she is always right. there's nothing to hate about fanny as she never does anything wrong! i love the penguin classic edition of this book. all of the footnotes are interesting and the afterword from tony tanner is right-on. he writes, "... fanny is almost totally passive. indeed, one of the strange aspects of this singular book is that, regarded externally, it is the story of a girl who triumphs by doing nothing. she sits, she waits, she does nothing..." how true this is. it wasn't until 5 pages from the end that i realized that fanny had never had a hand in her own fate from the very onset of the novel. she always heeded everyone else's thoughts and wishes. i was astounded that she could get so far and do so little. if that isn't fiction, i don't know what is.

fanny. fanny, i at once liked you and despised you. as a modern girl, i had a tough time relating to fanny (and i relate to ancient japanese women.. but i can't here. odd.) she was just so infuriating on so many levels! everything was improper and she never said what she thought. i got extremely anxious contemplating all the different things this girl had bottled up inside her. there was even a point where i thought she might burst from being so proper and uptight. i really didn't like her, though, i understand why austen would make her a heroine. it's almost as if fanny is the extreme of what society at the time demanded from women and austen was using hyperbole to point a finger at it; examine it and hope for change. the heroines in her other novels are examples of stronger women for the time so it's easy to see that fanny is more a statement than an actual character. i didn't enjoy the book enough to want to read it again, hence the lower rating. it's still worth the read and hopefully other's have a better experience.