In Which Snickers Tackles the B&B Industry.

The Book:

Title/Author: Running a Bed & Breakfast For Dummies by Mary White.

Published: April 13 2009 by Wiley Publishing, Inc.

How I Got It: I happened across it at the library.

Why I Read It: In the simplest terms, I felt like it.

The Review:

The only reason why I didn't give Running a Bed & Breakfast For Dummies 5 stars was for the simple fact that I have no intention of actually owning a B&B myself. Hence, I have no outlet with which to practice White's insights and tips - and she includes a lot of them!

Running a Bed & Breakfast For Dummies is extremely user-friendly. It's organized in such a way that if I wanted to skip ahead to access certain information, I could - I didn't have to read the entirety of the book in order to get there.

Not only did this book give great insight as to how the B&B industry operates, it also has excellent marketing and bookkeeping strategies that could be applied to businesses outside of innkeeping. The idea of accounting software hadn't occurred to me, and I certainly could use help in that department! It even includes great cleaning tips and recipes.

Even though I read this book more or less for kicks, I visited some of the online directories and some of the websites of the various B&B's  mentioned, and I've discovered quite a few inns I'd like to visit!

In short, if you're thinking about starting up a bed and breakfast (or have nothing else better to read), give Running a Bed & Breakfast For Dummies a shot. It'll be worth it, I promise.

The Rating:

4 stars.

In Which Snickers Tackles Society Girls

Title/Author: Splendor (Luxe, #4) by Anna Godbersen

Published: October 13 2009 by HarperCollins

How I Got It: I didn't feel the need to waste my money, so I took a trip to the library.

Why I Read It: Sigh. Mostly just to see if Godbersen redeemed herself any from what she did in Envy, and to finish the series so that I could move on to better things.

The Review:

Godbersen has a gift for descriptions that continue to display her abilities as a writer. In this, Splendor matches its three preceding books in its effective descriptions that are not, as in other young adult novels, abused by an overuse of adjectives (can someone say Brisingr?). I could clearly see every scene in my mind's eye as if it was a movie playing just for me.

That said, Splendor's purpose as a novel became painfully clear to me towards the end: a book to tie up loose ends of the plot. While I as a reader regained some measure of the respect I had lost for Diana in Envy, I felt her particular ending to be overly predictable for a character with her personality. As a whole, she plays the overdone part of the strong, independent heroine to a T, and yet it caused me to ho-hum in all its tediousness. The same kind of circumstance can be applied to Carolina's character, as well: a girl who plays the bumbling, lying fool who in the end owns up to her mistakes, and yet still receives a happy ending (though never the one this kind of character expected).

The remaining two females, Elizabeth and Penelope, are different in that there appears to be a sense of forethought and originality on Godbersen's part in their respective personalities, particularly that of Penelope. The selfish, bitchy girls readers love to hate don't often receive their due in their own point-of-view; it was thus a delight for me to be able to follow Penelope in such an intimate way throughout the series. Her character in particular enchanted me until the end. In this respect, Godbersen did not disappoint.

Even so, there was something distinctly missing in Splendor, and with how it met its conclusion. Not quite would I describe it as predictable, but rather that it gave me a nagging sense of "Haven't I seen this somewhere before?" Even after I finished it, knowing this to be the proverbial The End, I couldn't - and still can't - shake the feeling that there HAS to be more to it than what's written in Splendor. Godbersen clearly has talent as a young adult fiction writer, but it may be that she hasn't fully developed and primed her skills yet; I feel she has the potential to have done better with Splendor as a concluding novel.

For what it is, the Luxe series carries its appeal all the way through 'til the end, that appeal being directed towards a young adult audience. For a more mature and experienced reader, however, he or she might find something wanting in Splendor just as I did.

The Rating:

2 ½ stars.

There's really not much to say as to why it warrants 2 ½ stars. I think in this case, my review is self-explanatory.

In Which Snickers Tackles Royalty and Children's Books

Title/Author: Eleanor: Crown Jewel of Aquitaine, France, 1136 by Kristiana Gregory Published: November 2002 by Scholastic Inc.
How I Got It: Once upon a time, I owned it, but it disappeared with the passage of time. So I utilized the wonderful library.
Why I Re-read It: I stumbled across it on Goodreads, and had one of those "Oh, YEAH! I remember that book!" moments. I figured I should re-read it since I didn't really remember much, since I first read it as a kid.

The Review

Eleanor: Crown Jewel of Aquitaine feels like a front: a way to teach kids "history", presented in the point-of-view of one of their own. Yes, I realize that's the whole point of the Royal Diaries books, but I expected a little more creativity presented in the story than what I received. It shouldn't FEEL like a front when you read it. I perceived this even as a kid, which is probably why I forgot all about Eleanor until I stumbled across it on Goodreads and was reminded of its existence. Gregory is very careful to remain true to both the diary format and the ADD mindset of a fourteen-year-old girl. As a girl, I read all of the Royal Diaries books, and I honestly don't recall any of them being quite this scatter-brained. It made it hard for me as a reader to remain engaged with the story. I remember what it was like to be a fourteen-year-old; I KNOW how hard it is to stay focused. But really, Gregory, for the sake of the story KEEP IT TOGETHER.

I should have gleaned more of Eleanor's personality than I did, especially considering that it's written in her point-of-view. Eleanor seems to have been deeply religious, or at the very least, unusually pious for a young teen. Other than that, I learned nothing particularly unique about her as a person. She had few wants and worries aside from her father's safety, and was never truly rebellious - sneaking out of the castle from time to time hardly counts as rebellious behavior in my book, as I would've done the same and more. She had opinions and observations about the world around her, but they don't make for a decent read. As a result, I perceived Eleanor to be a generally uninteresting person.

This is odd, considering that in the historical note at the end of the book, it is stated "That she was headstrong and spoiled is undisputed." (p. 161) I didn't get that impression at all. In fact, both the epilogue and the historical note were more entertaining than the actual story. I learned more about Eleanor than I would have otherwise, and lo and behold, she's a fairly interesting historical character. Who would've thunk it? The only time Eleanor displays originality in her actions and thoughts is her rather unorthodox way of meeting her husband-to-be, Louis VII: she marches down to where the prince is camped, only to decide that she'd rather jump in the river instead. One guess on who pulls her out of the river.

This is the only memorable part of the story, folks. Here's the page numbers (p. 124-126) so you can jump right to it thus avoiding all the uninteresting crap.

One could make the argument that "Oh, it's meant for kids and young teens, so it doesn't have to be quite so detailed as other historical fiction novels." To that I say, "Yes it does." I use Marie Antoinette: Princess of Versailles, Austria-France, 1769, another Royal Diaries book, as an example. It remains true to the diary format, and yet manages to be historically accurate AND engages the reader throughout the duration of the story.

It's also a kid's book. Imagine that.

I realize that Marie Antoinette and Eleanor are different people from very different eras. As a result, there's more information to go off of on Marie Antoinette than there is on Eleanor, simply because of the different times they lived in. I get all that; really, I do... but I expected more from Eleanor: Crown Jewel of Aquitaine.

The Rating:
1 and ½ stars.

Eleanor gets 1 and ½ stars because while I didn’t hate it, I wasn’t entertained enough to give it an ok-rating of 2 stars.

In Which Snickers Tackles Alice Hoffman and Tasseography.

The Book:
Title/Author: Fortune's Daughter by Alice Hoffman

Published: 1985 by Berkley Trade
How I Got It: Borrowed it from the library.
Why I Read It: I was seduced into reading it by the alluring cup of tea on the cover.

The Review:
Warning! Spoilers Included.

Hoffman is a master at portraying the raw humanity of her characters. It's that portrayal of those raw emotions that we all feel - but could never explain - that makes her such a popular author. We can relate to her characters because of this, even though outwardly we have nothing in common with them. As Practical Magic was my first Hoffman novel, the bar was raised fairly high for the rest of her books. Fortune's Daughter doesn't even come close. It's not a stretch for me to say that it was a disappointment.

**SPOILERS**
I found it hard to even pretend that I had something in common with Rae and Lila, the two protagonists. While they display the same open emotions as Hoffman's other characters, it just comes across as being wishy-washy instead of endearing. Rae just couldn't decide whether she should stay with her inattentive, detached boyfriend, or if she should do what the reader is screaming at her to do: leave him already, woman! See what I mean? Wishy-washy. Lilia, who began as a somewhat intriguing character, simply goes bonkers by the end of the novel, what with the whole summoning her dead baby's ghost and keeping it in her dresser drawer thing. Yeah. THAT. If you're thinking, "WTF?", then you're not alone. No, Hoffman does NOT clarify the reason for this display of insanity.
**END SPOILERS**

The character I wished I would have learned more about was the old fortune teller, Hattie. She was such an influential character - after all, it was she who taught Lila Tasseography (the art of reading tea leaves), and as another Goodreads reviewer noted, it was with her that the real magic in Fortune's Daughter seemed to lie. I found myself hoping and praying that she turn up later, but she never did - and somehow, this was the biggest disappointment of all. Maybe this was the point: Hattie would always remain a mystery, to both the readers and Lila. However, since she was the only interesting character, the point is almost lost on the reader, who meanwhile struggles to remain interested in the protagonists.

The Three Sisters, for which Three Sisters Street was named (and where Lila and Richard lived), pop up unexpectedly toward the end of the book, and get a whopping page and a half devoted to their story. I honestly don't understand the point of this, seeing as how they had no previous importance whatsoever in the plot, other than a street being named for them. They seem cool, really, they do. They just have no real place in this particular story. Maybe if the plot was changed to echo that of The Probable Future or Practical Magic, in which the most important characters of all are the ones who came before to leave a soft whisper of their legacy. In Fortune's Daughter, which centers mostly around the young ones, the babies, any generation that goes beyond that of "mother" simply has no reason to be included.

One last observation/complaint. Hoffman has a knack for describing the weather in her stories. She manages to intertwine the little things, like the weather and landscape, with the emotions of her characters. It acts as an amplifier and makes it all so REAL. Hoffman realizes that the weather really does have an effect on human emotions; that it tells the truth of the feelings we have yet to acknowledge ourselves. She uses this to her advantage, and wields it elegantly.

Except when she's so blatantly WRONG. I am a California native, born and raised. I can honestly say that there is no such thing as "earthquake weather", and anyone who says otherwise hasn't spent much time in California - Hoffman, this means you. There is no real way to predict earthquakes; the only reliable way to tell that something's wrong is to watch the animals. Note that I said "something", not "earthquake". Has Hoffman ever even been to California?

She puts so much emphasis on this earthquake thing in the beginning of the story. You just KNOW it's going to come in to play again later, and in a big way. Chapters upon chapters go by, and you start to think, "Well, it's Hoffman. I'm sure she'll tie it in somehow with her characters' lives, and it will be splendid." But nothing happens until somewhere near the end of the book, and it is neither monumental or significant. It reads as if Hoffman was plodding along, when suddenly it occurred to her, "Oh yeah! I made a big fuss at the beginning about an earthquake. I should throw one in there. Maybe no one will notice that I forgot about it." Oh, I noticed. I especially noticed how she failed to tie it in with her character's emotions.

To summarize: this book was a disappointment. If you're undeterred in your motivation to read it, go for it. Just don't expect it to live up to the standards of Practical Magic.

The Rating:
2 stars.

I didn't hate it enough to give it one star, nor did I care enough to bother with half-stars. Fortune's Daughter gets a solid 2 stars because it IS Alice Hoffman, after all - it's hard to hate her writing.

In Which Snickers Tackles Nora Roberts and Southern Charm.

The Book:Carnal Innocence

How I Got It: The library’s a wonderful thing.

Why I Read It: I got an email from Borders, promoting a new cover for Carnal Innocence, so I figured I’d check out the old cover before I decided whether or not to waste my money on a new cover… it’s the stuff in the middle (ya know, the typed pages with words on them) that counts anyhow!

The Review:
Warning! Spoilers Included.

It is clear that Carnal Innocence is more of a murder mystery than it is a romance novel, and don’t make the mistake of believing it’s a blend of the two – the romance is thrown in haphazardly. It seems like an afterthought, as if Roberts had forgotten that she’d promised her publisher she’d live up to the novel’s name. More to the point, there’s not much “carnal” about the relationship between Tucker and Caroline. It’s hurried and rushed, contradicting Tucker’s continual sermons on how everything in the South moves slowly.

Southern small town charm rings throughout the whole of Carnal Innocence, filling the romance quota more so than the actual romance between Caroline and Tucker. Innocence romances the reader, and one would find it hard to be immune to its charms. While Roberts failed to interest me in the romance between the characters, she certainly succeeded to hold me in captivation at the appeal of Innocence, Mississippi: a delightfully unexpected, but pleasant surprise. It was indeed a romance of sorts: a sweet, simple love of the town and the people in it, each one filling roles unasked for but quietly needed; I got the sense that Innocence would not be the same without each unique character. The citizens know it, too: despite some serious conflicts between characters, everyone cared about each other in the way that only a small town in the South can. I adored this strong sense of community; and to a certain extent, I identify with the small-town social hierarchy, coming from a relatively prominent family in a small town myself. Like Caroline, I will always have a place there if I so desire to be a part of it. I did covet the ease with which Caroline acclimated to Innocence’s way of life and to the various personalities and families within. Blood ties run stronger than moonshine in the South, and Caroline’s ancestry spoke for her, guaranteeing her a place in Innocence’s small society, no matter what.

**SPOILERS**
The ending ticked me off, plain and simple. It felt forced, as if Roberts decided at the last minute to change the identity of the murderer as a “surprise ending”. While Josie’s motivation makes sense, it just doesn’t come across as the “Oh my god, that was totally unexpected, but HOW COULD I HAVE MISSED THAT? IT’S SO OBVIOUS” feeling I wanted out of it. Combined with the fanfiction-esque romance of Tucker and Caroline (seriously, if I wanted a fanfiction, I would’ve read one instead), it made me want to give Carnal Innocence only 1 star. It gets two-and-a-half simply because as much as I hate to admit it, I fell for Innocence’s irresistible Southern charm.
**END SPOILERS**

The Rating:
<

The only reason I didn’t give Carnal Innocence one star is because Innocence, Mississippi charmed my pants off. My rating of two and a half is simply because I like to be charmed once in a while – and there’s nothing wrong with that.

In which Snickers tackles short stories and Breakfast at Tiffany's.

The Book
Title/Author: Breakfast at Tiffany's: A Short Novel and Three Stories (Modern Library) by Truman Capote.
Published: The copy I read was published January 13, 1994 by Modern Library (first published 1958)
How I Got It: Oh, library, how I do adore you.
Why I Read It: I read it for the Goodreads College Students group. It was one of two books selected for June.
My Rating: 3 stars.


The Review

There's something freaky about short stories. They have the nagging tendency to haunt you - you get the feeling that the characters are looming ominously over your shoulder as you read.

Breakfast at Tiffany's was much the same. The actual "Breakfast at Tiffany's" story was delightful. It was different in lots of ways from the movie, the first being that Holly was generally more of a brat. I don't think that Audrey Hepburn, fantastic actress though she is, has the capability to really bring out what a childish and selfish and fashionably bratty character Holly is. Audrey's just too classy, and Holly's too brash - the two don't mix. Secondly, while the plots were more or less the same, the beginning and ending were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the movie. I won't go into details (since that would spoil the fun), but don't expect the happy ending you've swooned over in the movie. Still, the story is excellent in its own right - especially considering we would have never met the infamous character known as Holiday Golightly without it.

That was the enjoyable part, the part I would have given 4 stars.

The other three stories, "House of Flowers", "Diamond Guitar", and "A Christmas Memory", are what makes this edition of Breakfast at Tiffany's freaky. I found myself reading them with a cautious eye, waiting, just WAITING for an axe murderer to leap out from the pages and split my skull in two. I'm sure that this is in part due to the first collection of short stories I remember reading: Stephen King's Four Past Midnight. As a child, I vaguely remember reading some generally terrifying collection of horror stories that gave me nightmares. I can't even remember the title of the collection, only the cover image - a tree, looming ominously in faint sunlight. It doesn't help that my most recent short story read was A Good Man is Hard to Find and Other Stories, by Flannery O'Connor - talk about spine-chilling!

So there's nothing wrong with the stories themselves; it was mainly just my reaction to them. "A Christmas Memory" left me gnawing on my hangnails - I was just WAITING for the grandmother to die some horrible violent death, thus scarring the little boy for life. "House of Flowers" was the same. I didn't react quite as negatively to "Diamond Guitar" for some odd reason - I think maybe it had something to do with the fact that these characters were already in prison. It was all upfront from the get-go, and I appreciated this ease in my anxiety.

The catch here is that they're not supposed to be scary stories. I was able to perceive this through my haze of paranoia, which only served to frustrate me. I wasn't able to enjoy the stories as just that - stories.

Breakfast at Tiffany's is certainly worth more than 3 stars, and not just for the title story, either - the others are just as good. In my case, though, it was my deeply instilled auto-reaction to the short story what caused me to give it three stars. Short stories truly are an acquired taste.


Respond:
For those of you who've read Breakfast at Tiffany's before, go ahead. Admit that you only read it for the Holly Golightly goodness, or for the Goodreads College Students group. You and I both know it's true. Do you disagree with my assumption? Please comment, and include why you read it, and what you thought of the OTHER stories, as well.

In Which Snickers Tackles Astrology, Version 1

The Book:

Title/Author: Born on a Rotten Day: Illuminating and Coping with the Dark Side of the Zodiac by Hazel Dixon-Cooper

Published: January 7th 2002 by Fireside

How I Got It: The library isn't just for picking up hot nerdy chicks, ya know.

Why I Read It: Aside from school, why does anybody read anything? For shits and giggles, of course!

The Review:

Born on a Rotten Day takes traditional astrology a bit further and gives insight on how to survive coexisting with each sun sign. The general descriptions made me laugh: the quality of my sign, Gemini, is described as "Mutable. Gemini is the human version of the revolving door." Each sign is divided into different categories: If You Love One - Man/Woman, If You Are One - Born Rotten, It's All Relative - The (Sign) Family, Office Party (each sign in the workplace), and Can't We All Get Along? (Basically, how to deal).

However, I had to disagree with some of the generalizations Born on a Rotten Day makes about my sign; this, of course, caused me to doubt the accuracy of the other sign descriptions. One worries that to keep the rotten, snarky tone of the book, Dixon-Cooper decided to forgo accuracy. Keep this in mind as you're reading; and try a little cross-referencing; I'd recommend Darkside Zodiac if you appreciate the bitchy, cynical tone in Born on a Rotten Day as I did.

I think the thing that bothered me the most, and is consequentially the reason I didn't give it 4 stars, is this: each sign supposedly has a back-up weapon of sorts against the other signs, EXCEPT for the other signs that have a shared element. Example: for Gemini, "You and the other Air signs, Aquarius and Libra, understand each other on a soul level, and therefore, rarely have serious confrontations." This is a load of bull. There has to be a way to get under Aquarius and Libra's skin, because despite having the shared element of Air, the qualities are all different. It is described this way for each sign, with the exact same phrasing; the only difference being the signs.
Understanding each other on a soul level, my ass. If every sign understood each other, well, we wouldn't be reading this, now would we?

Mostly, I'd recommend Born on a Rotten Day to anyone looking for a good laugh, not for someone who wants serious, accurate advice on how to live with someone born under a certain sign.

The Rating:

3 Stars.

I give it three stars because despite how much I tried to convince myself otherwise, I enjoyed the blunt, here's-what's-wrong-with-you attitude Born on a Rotten Day has. This quality redeemed the book right out of an otherwise certain two-star rating.