Tuesday, May 27, 2014

A Few of My Bookish Pet Peeves

Greetings.


Ever since my most recent post, in which I offered several book recommendations (you should read it if you haven't already; I worked quite hard on it and am exceedingly proud of it) I've been wanting to do a sort-of follow-up in which I discussed some book-related annoyances of mine. Well, I suppose it's only a follow-up in the sense that, like the previous post, it relates to books, but several of my posts do that, so...... anyway. And of course, most of my previous book-related posts have been talking about books or authorly choices that annoy me, so I suppose this post is an extension of an already-existing list of pet peeves. But now I'm starting to ramble.


Ahem.


When I'm More Intelligent than a Book's Main Character(s)


There are few things that I, as a reader, find more irritating than those instances when I figure out the twist ending or see the red flags or guess the location of the next clue before the morons in the book, and am then forced to sit back and watch them blunder around like idiots, wondering where to go next or trying to figure out who the murderer is or, most frustratingly, revealing detailed versions of their plans to the obvious bad guy(s). Over the years, there have been an upsettingly large amount of characters who are so dense they make me feel brilliant by comparison, and more than once such a character has been the difference between me liking a book and (figuratively) throwing it across the room in disgust.


When The Only Good Thing About a Book is the Writing


Twice within the past two months, I have come across a story (one standalone book and one series) with this fault, although the two cases have been different. With the standalone book, which I started almost a month ago and haven't finished yet (it's taking me an uncommonly long amount of time to read for reasons I'll explain in a moment) the goodness of the writing is found in its beauty. Elegantly and oftentimes almost poetically descriptive, the narrative passages are probably some of the best I've ever come across. In addition, the book contains some profound, comforting, and wonderful insights into the concept of home. The book series was nothing like this, and was instead "good" because it was crafted in such a way that it was addictive (I had to finish it, I had to know what happened next, I had to know where everybody was going to end up, etc.). However, despite their drastically different writing styles, these two stories have one thing in common: they both contain insufferably annoying characters and hateful plots.


So maybe I shouldn't complain about good writing. Really, I think the writing was only an irritation in the book series, when I hated the main characters and all the likable characters died and the plot grew more complicated and preachy with each ensuing book but I couldn't bring myself to yank out my bookmark because the author had so thoroughly sucked me in. I'm actually almost enjoying the standalone book on virtue of the writing alone, because it's just that good (although I haven't picked it up in days because I'm so done with the characters).


I don't know. I'm not at my most eloquent this evening, so I'll just say one more thing before moving on: It's annoying to encounter good writing and talent which is not backed up by the creation of likable characters and situations.


When a Main Character Changes in the Last Book


I might be able to guess what you're thinking. "But, Pearl, characters are supposed to change in books. That's called character development." Yeah, I'm not actually talking about character development. Character development is totally necessary and (if done well) not even remotely annoying. I'm talking about when a character experiences a drastic and unnatural physical or mental transformation in the final book of a series, a phenomenon which I have encountered at least four times (well, five if you count Twilight, but I'm not counting Twilight for a number of reasons). Why does this seem like a good idea? I mean, seriously, I haven't been following these characters and growing fond of them and getting all invested in their fates over the course of three or four books just to have them be forcibly changed so that they're no longer properly themselves. Seriously, does anybody enjoy twists like that?


Allow me to be more specific. The four final-book transformations I can think of off the top of my head are 1) four main characters getting their memories wiped so that they completely forget the events of the entire book series, 2) a main character's memories being substantially altered so that his personality radically shifts, 3) the main character, a teenage girl, being transfigured irreversibly into a unicorn (that was a weird series), and 4) one of the main characters getting injected with genetic modification material which noticeably alters her appearance and enhances her senses.


So, now that you know the specifics, I ask again, do any of those endings sound pleasant or satisfying to you? Maybe they do to you, but I just don't see the point of them. As an aspiring author myself, I can't imagine changing the memories or the DNA of one of the characters I'd painstakingly crafted over the course of multiple books. It feels like a cheap, easy, immediate way of introducing new plot points or resolving old ones. It's silly, it's irritating, and I'm tired of encountering it.


When the First Book in a Series is not Properly Labeled


I really shouldn't have to explain why this is annoying, but I'll make an effort to anyway. This is another problem I have encountered multiple times in recent months. I read two books in a row that in no way indicated they were anything but freestanding stories. The first ended in such a devastating cliffhanger I didn't know what to do with myself for quite some time afterward (I now know that said book is the first in a planned trilogy, and that neither of the two sequels have even tentative release dates), and the second, while featuring a much less shocking and discomfiting ending, still left many unanswered questions and intriguing possibilities (I don't know how many sequels this one's going to have; I also have no idea when the next book's coming out). Luckily, I didn't love either of these books, so I'm not frantically pining for the sequels, but...... still.


What's especially upsetting about this is how incredibly easy it is to indicate that the book is the first in a planned series. You just write on the cover, "The First Book in the (Insert Series Name Here) Series". Or maybe finish the author bio with, "So-and-so is now working on the sequel to the book you're holding". There are other possibilities. There are oodles of ways to tell readers that they are not picking up a complete story besides just letting them reach a cliffhanger ending and make their own conclusions. It's not that difficult. It's not even remotely difficult. SO WHY DON'T PEOPLE DO IT??????


And lastly (for now),


When People Quote Characters but Cite Authors


In my freshman year of highschool, I was in a British Literature class. On the first day, our teacher handed out the syllabus and proceeded to read it aloud to us. The first lines of the syllabus were "Emily Bronte once said, 'I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas: they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.'"


How lovely.


Except for one little detail, and you'll have to excuse me because I'm about to yell.


EMILY BRONTE DIDN'T SAY THAT.


Catherine Earnshaw said that.


Yeah, Emily Bronte wrote that. But she didn't say it.


I wouldn't be surprised if Emily Bronte experienced mind-altering dreams in her life and expressed the feelings said dreams gave her through the lips of Catherine Earnshaw. And sure, it's probably not unreasonable to think Catherine Earnshaw might share character traits with Emily Bronte. But you can't just attribute a Catherine Earnshaw quote to Emily Bronte, because they are two different people who might very well have completely different outlooks on things.


I feel like people do this a lot, too. They quote a character but the name following the quote is the name of the author who created the character. And every time I see it I get annoyed. So maybe I'm overreacting, but I think it's ridiculous to assume authors agree with their characters all the time.


Think about it: imagine you're an author writing a book. For this book, you create a character whose viewpoint on a certain matter is the complete opposite of your own. But you're a fair, talented, and diplomatic sort of an author, and so you're able to give this character you disagree with a beautiful speech extolling the virtues of the viewpoint opposite to yours. In fact, it's so beautiful that all sorts of real people with that opposing viewpoint start quoting that speech to defend their view. And who do they cite as the original speaker?


You.


So now you're known as one of the greatest and most eloquent champions of a viewpoint you don't even begin to agree with because apparently nobody around you realizes that an author writing something is not the same thing as an author saying something.


Now I'm going to use a slightly more ridiculous example to further drive my point home.


As I've said before, I'm an aspiring writer, and for several months I've been working on a manuscript about (among other things) a war. There is, in this manuscript, a character who is a soldier and also a complete jerk. At one point, he returns from a great victory and is met by his sister, who scolds him for never writing to her and demands that he tell her what all he and his fellow men did while out campaigning. In reply, he says this:


"Fine. We beat the Llenyen soldiers back until they cried for their nasty Llenyen mamas, and then we violated their women, ate their children, and crushed their mangy grasshoppers beneath our superior feet."


(I'd like to note here that he's kidding.)


Quite frankly, I love that line. I'm proud of that line. That's a good line. But if ever this manuscript is published and for some bizarre reason I have fans who are quoting that line, they'd better attribute it to the character and not to me. I didn't say that. I would never say anything like that. I only wrote it. And I presume that a lot of other authors feel similarly about certain lines their characters say. So as a general rule, I say that even if you consider a character to be based on their creator, you should still cite the character as the speaker if they're the one who said the line.


That's all for now, folks.


~Pearl Clayton


PS. Okay, I lied, one more example to demonstrate why you should cite characters and not authors.


"Though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass." - William Shakespeare


Ya see why that should say "Dogberry" instead?   


             

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

16 Book Recommendations From a Newly Fledged 16-Year-Old

Hello there!


For those of you who don't know, as of the fifth of May, I am officially sixteen years old. Hooray me etc. A short while ago a thought came into my head (and when I say a thought came into my head, I mean that it was intentionally placed there by someone else) (namely my mom) that to commemorate the occasion I should compose a short list of book recommendations and post it on my blog. My mom considers me to be unusually well-read for someone my age and therefore uniquely qualified to give brilliant guidance to fellow teenagers struggling to find something worthwhile to read. (In defense of my creativity, she only suggested I post some recommendations; it was my idea to make it a birthday thing and thus shell out sixteen.)


Here's a catch: While I do read a lot, I tend to gravitate toward more obscure literary choices. I don't mean so-obscure-you-can't-find-them-anywhere literary choices, just not-what-most-experts-say-high-schoolers-need-to-read literary choices. For example, I haven't read To Kill a Mockingbird, or The Great Gatsby, or Of Mice and Men, or The Catcher in the Rye, or many of the other books which are constantly taught in American high schools. I have read a bunch of other old books which aren't taught in high schools, however, and those are the sorts of books you'll see recommended below.


What I'm trying to say is that this won't be your average list of "Great Classics You Need to Read". I won't list the works of Shakespeare or Mark Twain. I won't be obvious. I'm too weird to be obvious.


Here's another catch: You're not going to find just sixteen books recommended below. I tried. I really tried. But I have way more than sixteen favorite books. I used a couple of methods to narrow down my main selections, such as "don't list something so random people will have trouble finding a copy" and "only list books that you can defend as educationally significant" and "try to list only books that are reasonably simple reads". So there will be other books mentioned in the explanations of why you should read certain books, and a couple "books" which are in fact not books but rather authors. You'll understand what I mean in a minute. Also, I'm leaving out a bunch of books I love, but I was making a concerted effort to keep the number of books mentioned as close to sixteen as possible.


Note that I'm not at all ashamed of this. I merely figured I should forewarn everybody.


Finally, I've divided the recommendations into sections, because my personality demanded it.


And now, without further ado, 16 Book Recommendations From a Newly Fledged 16-Year-Old


Old Books/Classics


1. The Scarlet Pimpernel by Emmuska Orczy
This is one of my favorite books. Well, technically all of the books on this list are my favorite books, but this one is a favorite among my favorites, if that makes any sense. The writing is beautiful without being overly wordy or complex (at least in my opinion), the characters are by turns heroic, hilarious, and memorable, and the book's uncompromising portrait of The French Revolution lends it educational value. There's not really much else I can say about it. I love it and it's awesome, so read it and stuff.


2. North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell
Another favorite among favorites. This one will be a bit harder to get through than Pimpernel, due to the more complex language and the greater length, but I think it's worth it. It comes with many of the same pluses as Pimpernel; great, brilliantly written characters, incomparable writing (both narration and dialogue), and educational value coming from its depiction of a historical era, in this case the fight for worker's rights that took place during the Industrial Revolution (I guess revolutions make for great literature). I also recommend the BBC miniseries adaption of it starring the very handsome Mr. Richard Armitage (and I'm not just saying that because RA is handsome).


3. Dracula by Bram Stoker
I think that in our modern era, where we (thankfully) seem to be nearing the end of a flurry of media depicting vampires as misunderstood, tortured, lovable, desirable creatures, it's important to remember that vampires used to be portrayed as quite creepy (although I've heard that when Dracula first appeared, innocent nineteenth-century girls and women drooled over him in much the same way that they drool over Edward Cullen now; I'm not entirely sure if that's accurate, but wouldn't that be hilarious?). It's spooky and well-plotted, revealing important details gradually like all good mysteries should, and uses the not-overly-common storytelling method of speaking through multiple narrators to give itself a distinct strain of originality. And of course, the villain is just awesome.


4. Something by a Bronte Sister
I have read four Bronte works: Jane Eyre, written by Charlotte Bronte, which is arguably the most famous of the lot (it's certainly the most filmed; I've personally seen four versions of it, all of them made since 1980, I can think of one other one off the top of my head, and there were undoubtedly a slough of other versions made before 1980), Emily Bronte's only novel Wuthering Heights, and Anne Bronte's two novels, Agnes Grey and The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. My favorite of these four is most definitely the last one, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, although I also like Wuthering Heights. Agnes Grey is frankly rather boring. As for Jane Eyre, well... okay, I'll admit it, I kind of hate Jane Eyre, but I say if you can get through the thick, heavily descriptive language and the often disheartening themes, it's worth reading on account of its fame if nothing else. Someday I'd love to sit down with someone or a group of someones and have a long, thorough discussion of Jane Eyre's popularity. What innate quality does it have that has led to its being adapted into film or television at least five times in the last thirty-five years? Man, that would be a fun subject to discuss. But I'm starting to get a tad rambly.
The reason I'm grouping all of the sisters' literary creations together is twofold. First, they're included because they all have a feeling of rarity to them. The Brontes lived in desolate countryside and had rocky, traumatic childhoods. They were practically bred to be dangerously imaginative and unafraid of society's judgment, and so their works take leaps and provide commentary so shocking for the day that few other writers, especially those of the female variety, would've dared write similar. Second, I think they should be studied as a group and then compared and contrasted because of the striking similarities in their makeups. The writing, always very good, is similar enough that at one time just after the various books' initial publications it was widely believed that they were all written by the same person. Characters sprung from the minds of different sisters have uncanny resemblances, but, perhaps most interesting of all, are judged differently. The romantic hero in Jane Eyre is at times almost indistinguishable from the cruel villain in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.
My point is, they're fascinating reads penned by fascinating women. If you've got some time on your hands, consider picking one up.


5. Something by Louisa May Alcott
The obvious move here would be to simply recommend Little Women, which I certainly do. It's a homey, comforting, sad, triumphant, and bittersweet tale about growing up, plans changing, and the unpredictable but still wonderful nature of life. I've read it twice, once around Christmas, which was especially nice.
The reason I'm leaving the heading vague is a book called Eight Cousins (the alternate title of the book is The Aunt Hill, which I consider to be exceedingly clever) (get it, because she has a lot of aunts and they all live on the same hill?). I read it once years ago and don't remember too much about it. I only know that I really liked it and should read it again as soon as I can. For some reason, it is one of Alcott's least-well-known works. Most people have only heard of Little Women itself and maybe its sequel(s). I consider this highly unfortunate because, while I must reiterate that I recall next to nothing from Eight Cousins, I know that I wouldn't remember its existence at all if it wasn't worth reading.


6. Any Jane Austen
And thus we come to my first obvious recommendation. I have read all six of Jane Austen's novels. If I had to choose a favorite, I would probably insist on adding an "s" to the word "favorite" and then, after much humming and hawing, reluctantly select Sense and Sensibility and Northanger Abbey (in case anyone's interested, my least favorite is unquestionably Emma), but I think all six books are worth reading. Why? Because, despite many peoples' dismissal of her writing as inconsequential or too sunshiney or just plain shallow, I view her as a great satirist and a creator of likable characters, good comic relief, and believable romances. I also think that if you read one book, you should read them all, because each one satirizes and praises different character traits. They all poke fun at the often ridiculous rules of manners and propriety that Austen was exposed to, but each pinpoints a different aspect of high society to mock. As for praise, I've heard at least one negative Austen critic say that they dislike Pride and Prejudice because it seems to glorify the main character, Elizabeth's, fiery, stubborn nature while dismissing the gentler, quieter bearing of Elizabeth's sister Jane. My response? Read Mansfield Park, whose main character, a girl painted as good and lovable and worthy of admiration, is basically an even gentler version of Jane.
I will confess that I might be slightly biased, as I've been watching film versions of Jane Austen's books since I was about five. Misters Darcy and Knightley and Colonel Brandon and Captain Wentworth were to me what Disney princes were to certain other girls my age. I cannot understand anyone disliking Jane Austen because I've loved her creations for almost as long as I can remember, and consequently I want everybody else to love her too.


7. Watership Down by Richard Adams
This book doesn't align very well with my original heading, as it's by no means an old book and I'm not entirely sure it's a classic, but I was originally going to head this section just "Classics", and I think this book ought to be considered a classic if it isn't already. It's a story about a group of rabbits who leave their warren and go on a dangerous journey to find a new home, and then on another even more dangerous mission to rescue a group of does (that is, female rabbits) from the cruel dictatorship in another warren.
I'm recommending this book mainly because I feel that it successfully does something a lot of other fiction writers unsuccessfully attempt to do: it creates a world. The rabbits have their own language, a well-thought-out mythology and history, and a way of looking of the world noticeably different from that of us humans. In short, it's very well-written. So go read it.


8. The White Company by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
And now for a deep dark confession: I haven't actually read The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes yet. I'm going to. I'm totally going to. In fact, one of my favorite birthday presents was a beautiful leather-bound copy of The Complete Sherlock Holmes, all shiny and glorious with plaid endpapers, courtesy of the bestest best friend to ever exist ever. But my point is, I can't in good faith tell you all to read Sherlock Holmes just yet. (Go read them anyway.)
Instead, I am recommending another ACD work, The White Company. This story radically differs from that of the intrepid sleuth. It is the classic archetypal story of a medieval knight, complete with plump comic relief knights, villainy, swordfighting, and a beautiful damsel. There are also pirates. It's cheesy, predictable, and utterly delightful. I'm also recommending it as a favor to the dear old Scot, who was famously annoyed by Sherlock's popularity and rued the day of A Study in Scarlet's first appearance until the day he died. The White Company was reportedly his favorite of the books he wrote, and I figure that since nothing's going to stop us all from adoring Sherlock Holmes, we should at least endeavor to love Doyle for his other contributions as well.


Modern Book Series


9. The Charlie Bone Series by Jenny Nimmo
Charlie Bone is my favorite book series. No question. I've read it three times in less than six years. I don't know if I can necessarily explain my obsession. Suffice to say that the obsession exists. Charlie is, in my opinion, the amazingly awesome book series that Harry Potter could have been if J. K. Rowling had fewer issues. People might get mad at me for saying that. I don't care. I desperately want Charlie to become more popular, and so I'm constantly recommending it to my friends and family members. I'm sure it annoys them and they're just not telling me. I don't care. I think everybody who likes tales of magic and mayhem with shining heroes, endearing antiheroes, and villains transparent or multi-layered, but especially Harry Potter fans, should read Charlie Bone. That is all.


10. Alex and the Ironic Gentleman by Adrienne Kress
I was torn as to whether I should include this book and its sequel, Timothy and the Dragon's Gate, or another book series, The Mysterious Benedict Society by Trenton Lee Stewart, in this spot. The two series have similarities, namely young but brilliant and resourceful main characters and hilariously witty narration. I ultimately chose to spotlight the one I did because I think it has more of both, but the two series are equally good and equally well-written.


11. The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
I honestly have no idea what to say about this one, partly because I'm already been writing for rather a long time and have all but run out of gushy descriptors, and partly because I kind of think everyone probably already knows why they should read these books. I view LoTR as the definitive fantasy epic. As far as I know, before its release there weren't a lot of books that could be considered fantasy stories. There were fairy tales and horror stories, certainly, but not many tales of dragons and goblins and the like (of course, I could be completely wrong; if I am, could somebody let me know?). But nowadays, fantasy is by far one of the most common book genres, especially in YA fiction. If LoTR had never been written, would we have Harry Potter, or Eragon, or Game of Thrones? Maybe, but you can bet they wouldn't be quite the same. Every fantasy novel written in a post-LoTR world shows Tolkien's marvelous influence. And I know I keep saying this, but LoTR is the landmark that it is because of its great characters and simply splendid writing, in addition to the uncommonly thorough nature of its mythos and universe. (For basically all the same reasons listed above, I also recommend The Chronicles of Narnia, the fantastic and fantastical literary contribution of Tolkien's BFF C. S. Lewis.)


12. Tiffany Aching by Terry Pratchett
Like I said above, I'm slowly running out of steam, so this one's going to be short. This series has little blue Scotsmen who are hilarious and adorable (but don't tell them I said that, they want to be viewed as fearsome beyond description), satire, one of the best main characters ever, witchcraft, diplomacy, good conquering evil, the most realistic dream sequences I've ever encountered, and the beating of bad guys with frying pans (I'd also like to point out that these books came out before Disney's Tangled). What more could you possibly ask for?


Modern Stand-Alone Books


13. The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane by Kate DiCamillo
This book has the unique honor of being the only book to ever make me cry real tears (as opposed to merely causing me to choke up). I've cried both times I've read it, the second time being quite recently. I'd also like to point out that it's just a novella. The second time I read it I read it over the course of a single day, and I could probably have gotten through it in one sitting if I'd set my mind to it. The point I'm trying to make here is that there's really absolutely no reason not to read it, unless of course you don't like sad books.
The story is both heartwarming and heartwrenching, and communicates more in its brief 198 pages than many much longer books do. It illustrates both the terror and the beauty of a long life, and sends an unmistakable message about love and loss simple enough a child could understand it (it is, after all, a children's book). Kate DiCamillo's most famous work is probably The Tale of Despereaux, which shares Edward Tulane's simplistic style and incredible goodness and should also be read by everybody, but if you can only read one, I'd say pick Edward. You might cry, but I doubt you'll regret it.   


14. Dragon Rider or any other Cornelia Funke
Cornelia Funke rocks. There's not much else to say. Like J. K. Rowling and many others, she writes tales of everyday children unexpectedly finding themselves in fairy tales. Dragon Rider is the first book of hers I read, and it's one of the best if not the best dragon-centered book I've ever read (and I am including The Hobbit in my consideration). Her first book series, The Ink Trilogy is, in addition to being a really good fantasy story, practically a love letter to all readers and writers. She also has books for younger readers, including one called Igraine the Brave which I'm pretty sure I read and loved.  
In this description I'd also like to call attention to another author, a sort of honorable mention: Gail Carson Levine, who writes fractured fairy tales. Her two best (in my opinion) are Ella Enchanted, a retelling of Cinderella, and Fairest, a retelling of Snow White. Speaking as someone who is absurdly overprotective and picky when it comes to fairy tales and who therefore can be a very harsh judge of the sudden inrush of fairy tale retellings that has appeared in recent years, Gail Carson Levine knows her stuff. Another book of hers, The Two Princesses of Bamarre, is also quite good, despite the fact that the ending always leaves me feeling slightly miffed.


15. Monstrous Regiment, or any other Terry Pratchett
And now for my second deep dark confession of the day: I've only read six books by Terry Pratchett, including the four Tiffany Aching books, despite the fact that he is one of the favorite authors of two of my favorite teachers ever and a good friend of mine. I AM GOING TO RECTIFY THIS. But for now, my unquestionable favorite of the six I've read is Monstrous Regiment, a grand banner hoisted in the name of a girl power and a shining tour de force in the art of toying with people's expectations. It's funny, it's joyfully unrealistic, it's random, it's just... well, you get the point. I also happen to think that if William Shakespeare were to read it, he would be greatly amused.
Now, do you see what I just did? Now you're wondering why Shakespeare would like it, aren't you? I've made it so you HAVE to read it to end the terrible suspense. Ha HA! I'm so clever......


16. Raphael and the Noble Task by Catherine Salton
There are, I think, a couple books, maybe a few movies, and at least one TV show, whose greatness I for some reason have had difficulty remembering. I'll step away from them for a while, and reflect on them saying things like, "Oh, yeah, that was pretty good," and then I'll reread or rewatch them and say with shock, "What was I thinking? I completely love this!". Raphael and the Noble Task was, for a while, such a book. I believe the problem may be partly connected to the fact that it's a Christmas book, and my parents have a strict policy about all Christmas decorations and media. From January to November, all Christmas-related belongings must be kept quarantined in our nearly inaccessible crawlspace. I don't mind this policy; I think it makes Christmas all the more meaningful, because the unearthing of all the Christmas stuff is the first magical happenstance to herald the commencement of the season. But it does unfortunately allow some things, like Raphael and the Noble Task, to pass out of mind just the slightest bit in the intervening months.
There are many books I know of that should be way more famous than they are. Raphael and the Noble Task tops the list. It should be a young classic well on its way to being listed alongside A Christmas Carol in the literature textbooks. Instead, it is not widely known about and a bit difficult to find. Ugh. From its hilarious first page (which I've almost memorized) through its story, which just makes me happy from beginning to end, it's comforting and beautiful and Christmassy and leaves a lasting impression in the form of a pulsating desire to find one's own Noble Task.


And thus we reach the end. Now you know some of my favorite books, and I hope that you'll at least consider reading what ones among them you haven't read already. I think this was my longest post yet, so thanks for sticking through to the end of it.


Happy Birthday to me, and may you all have a glorious summer, full of sunshine and freedom and, most importantly......


......books.


~Pearl Clayton