Question: What is the story like?

A mix between "Eyes Wide Shut", "National Treasure" and Oliver Stone's "JFK", Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is an exciting novel wrapped in intrigue, suspense, and controversy.To criticize the book for offering one dimensional characters, silly plot twists, and predictable discoveries about conniving figures who we thought were good-guys would be disingenuous on my part, since I particularly enjoy entertaining stories without much depth. Curator Jacques Sauniere is murdered in the Louvre, and professor Robert Langdon, innocent yet the primary suspect, and cryptologist/granddaughter of the victim Sophie Neveu go on a wild adventure running separately from the cops, the tall limping albino Opus Dei monk who really committed the murder, and the secret "Teacher" orchestrating the crime, while at the same time trying to figure out the mystery behind the hidden secret Sauniere was killed for. We find out that Sauniere was part of a secret society, the Priory of Sion, that has and protects the true identity and nature of the Holy Grail. The Albino monk is Silas, a member of spooky Catholic organization Opus Dei, working for his mentor Archbishop Aringarosa and the unknown Teacher, to seek out the Grail for ad majorem dei gloriam. French police chief Bezu Fache seems too religious, and arouses suspicion about his motives in pursuing Langdon. Luckily, Langdon knows Sir Leigh Teabing, a prominent Grail scholar eager to help in their search, in the hopes of revealing the "truth" of the Grail to a world that has been denied it by the "evil" Church. But, would Sauniere really have wanted the truth revealed?It would be simple if this work of fiction were really just a lighthearted work of fiction. However, Brown offers a disclosure stating that certain parts of the book are true. Yes, he is sure to point out that, while the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei exist, the main characters who are members are fictional, and while pointing out that descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are true, he never makes any claims about the historical theories put forth by the characters. Yet, it is these claims by the characters that have excited the popular imagination and must be confronted.Both Langdon and Teabing refer anachronistically to "the Vatican" when criticizing past historical actions of the Church. Whether or not the claims made about the Church are true, it is incorrect to refer to the actions of "the Vatican" in the 15th century, much less the 3rd and 4th century. Vatican Hill, the location in Rome where St. Peter's Basilica and Vatican City are located, has only in the last few centuries been the seat of Church governance. Before then, the Pope's home base (and still the official Cathedral Church of the diocese of Rome) was the Cathedral of St. John Lateran in Rome. The 4th century, the era most derided in the book, the Pope was not in practical terms "in charge" of the Church, and East and West were still more than half a millennium from splitting. The Catholic Church as we know today, and Teabing loves to bash, was not around then. There was a Catholic Church, but it included both West and East, Latin and Greek, unlike today, where it is just Latin and few Eastern Rite Churches.Teabing and Langdon's major theses involve the idea that the Holy Grail is not the chalice of the Last Supper, but the blood line of the children of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, a 2000 year old secret that would shock the world. We learn in the book that the Priory of Sion heroically protects the secret by meeting and having "Eyes Wide Shut" style orgies. But, why keep this fact a secret? Why not tell the whole world that Mary Magdalene and our homeboy JC got...it...on? Then we can all have orgies.Book claim: "Constantine made Jesus divine." But you see, Teabing tells Sophie when Langdon and she seek refuge in his mansion, the Church has suppressed this truth. All the early Christian followers "knew" that Jesus was just a swell guy, descended from the royal blood of David who married Mary Magdalene of the royal line of Benjamin to make a super royal bloodline. But, Emperor Constantine ruined all the fun. He had the JC-MM marriage written out of the Bible, and decided to "make" Jesus divine at the Council of Nicea in 325, in what turned out to be a real close vote. Now, since Jesus is divine, no one can challenge the Christian religion of the Empire. A divine Jesus could not have a wife, so Mary Magdalene gets hush-hushed. From then on out, Christianity phased out the pagan practices of goddess worship, cut out the divine feminine, and the world started stinking.My rebuttal: Whether or not Jesus is divine is matter of faith. However, from a historical perspective, it is incorrect to claim that Constantine is the first to call Jesus divine. Since the time of Jesus, there have been many followers who have considered Jesus to be God, to be one with the Father. Yes, there also were followers, such as Arius, who placed Jesus as less than God, and the merits of the decision at Nicea is a much wider topic than a book review, but it is historically false to claim that there were not early Christians who believed in Christ's divinity. Also, the vote at Nicea was not close. It was an extreme majority that voted in favor of the Creed.Book claim: "Jesus married Mary Magdalene." It is claimed by Teabing and Langdon that Jesus must have married Mary Magdalene because he loved her, references to kisses he gave her in apocrophal (non-canonical) gospels, and the "fact" that all Jewish men married then.My rebuttal: However, in reality there is solid evidence against the view that Jesus married. NOT all Jewish men married. There was always a place for asceticism in Judaism. The Dead Sea Scrolls, just discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945, were not early Christian texts, as mentioned in the DaVinci Code, but rather Jewish religious texts written by the Essenes, one group among a number of Jewish celibate ascetics, the equivalent of later Christian monks. While most Jewish men married, it was not unheard of for some to remain celibate. And, since marriage was looked highly upon, and all the great Jewish leaders from the Old Testament were married and had their wives mentioned, the only reason not to mention a wife of Jesus was that he probably did not have one. After all, at this time, it would have made Jesus look better to have been married. The only reason not to mention it is it is not true.Book claim: "Sex is sacred." We can see the true colors of the Priory of Sion, the defenders of the "truth" of the Grail, in Sophie's traumatizing experience that drove her from her grandfather. An orgy to show that sex is sacred? Actually, this is not a "new" idea. All of the ancient pagan religions believed that sex was divine, and many practiced ritualized sex. This is supposedly in contrast to the Church, which through the "fictional" story of Original Sin, has made sex dirty and shameful.My rebuttal: It is true that the Church does not consider sex to be divine. Unlike the straw-man that is set up to be torn down in the DaVinci Code, the Church also does not consider sex to be evil or dirty. Sex is a normal human activity. Not demonic or divine. It is good and a gift of God, but thoroughly human. And, frankly, whether one is someone who believes that sex is only for marriage or that sex is for any two (or more) consenting adults, I think we can all agree that it is kind of creepy and weird to call sex divine or sacred or religious. It does not cure cancer or make you fly or anything. It's sex. Even animals do it.Book claim: "No need to reveal the "truth" of the Holy Grail." Let's pretend for a second that there really was a big cover up, and the Church has kept the Priory of Sion, under threat, from revealing the truth, and that is why they have to keep the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene a secret, only meeting once in awhile to perform some, um, rituals. Teabing is secretly the Teacher orchestrating the murder of Sauniere and seeking out the Grail because he thinks the "truth" that JC and MM married should be shouted from the rooftops. Langdon hedges, because Sauniere, the Grand Master leader of the Sion's, did not want it told, and, as Langdon says, "if you and I could dig up documentation that contradicted holy stories of...belief, should we do that?" After all, "those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical," i.e. religious faith is based on fantasy, and it does not matter what one believes if it makes him feel good and he is nice to others. Plus, as we find out from Sophie's long lost grandmother who is not really dead like we earlier thought, the "truth" about Mary Magdalene and Jesus' marriage is found in art, historical objects, writings, phallic objects, and nature. Riiiiight. No reason to tell people the truth. We are the enlightened ones who have it.My rebuttal: Obviously, this is very patronizing. It conjures up images of the Grand Inquisitor who "knew" there was no God, but burned heretics to spare people the unbearable truth of a life without hope. If something is true, why not reveal it? And, the idea that the "important" truths are meant to be hidden and only known by the enlightened few is not Christianity, but Gnosticism. True Christianity is for everybody. Jesus did not come for just for the enlightened few. His message is for us all.If Jesus is just a man, and not divine, what is the point of worshipping him, or Mary Magdalene, or their "sacred" bloodline? The reason why Christians worship Jesus, and do not just revere him as a prophet like Moses or Muhammad, is because we believe him to be the God whose love is stronger than death, who offers us hope for new life after this one. And, far from disgracing Mary Magdalene's name, the Church honors her. Who but she is revered as the one who is definitively present at the empty tomb to witness the Risen Lord?

Answer: A mix between

<hl> A mix between "Eyes Wide Shut", "National Treasure" and Oliver Stone's "JFK", Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is an exciting novel wrapped in intrigue, suspense, and controversy. <hl> To criticize the book for offering one dimensional characters, silly plot twists, and predictable discoveries about conniving figures who we thought were good-guys would be disingenuous on my part, since I particularly enjoy entertaining stories without much depth. Curator Jacques Sauniere is murdered in the Louvre, and professor Robert Langdon, innocent yet the primary suspect, and cryptologist/granddaughter of the victim Sophie Neveu go on a wild adventure running separately from the cops, the tall limping albino Opus Dei monk who really committed the murder, and the secret "Teacher" orchestrating the crime, while at the same time trying to figure out the mystery behind the hidden secret Sauniere was killed for. We find out that Sauniere was part of a secret society, the Priory of Sion, that has and protects the true identity and nature of the Holy Grail. The Albino monk is Silas, a member of spooky Catholic organization Opus Dei, working for his mentor Archbishop Aringarosa and the unknown Teacher, to seek out the Grail for ad majorem dei gloriam. French police chief Bezu Fache seems too religious, and arouses suspicion about his motives in pursuing Langdon. Luckily, Langdon knows Sir Leigh Teabing, a prominent Grail scholar eager to help in their search, in the hopes of revealing the "truth" of the Grail to a world that has been denied it by the "evil" Church. But, would Sauniere really have wanted the truth revealed?It would be simple if this work of fiction were really just a lighthearted work of fiction. However, Brown offers a disclosure stating that certain parts of the book are true. Yes, he is sure to point out that, while the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei exist, the main characters who are members are fictional, and while pointing out that descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are true, he never makes any claims about the historical theories put forth by the characters. Yet, it is these claims by the characters that have excited the popular imagination and must be confronted. Both Langdon and Teabing refer anachronistically to "the Vatican" when criticizing past historical actions of the Church. Whether or not the claims made about the Church are true, it is incorrect to refer to the actions of "the Vatican" in the 15th century, much less the 3rd and 4th century. Vatican Hill, the location in Rome where St. Peter's Basilica and Vatican City are located, has only in the last few centuries been the seat of Church governance. Before then, the Pope's home base (and still the official Cathedral Church of the diocese of Rome) was the Cathedral of St. John Lateran in Rome. The 4th century, the era most derided in the book, the Pope was not in practical terms "in charge" of the Church, and East and West were still more than half a millennium from splitting. The Catholic Church as we know today, and Teabing loves to bash, was not around then. There was a Catholic Church, but it included both West and East, Latin and Greek, unlike today, where it is just Latin and few Eastern Rite Churches. Teabing and Langdon's major theses involve the idea that the Holy Grail is not the chalice of the Last Supper, but the blood line of the children of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, a 2000 year old secret that would shock the world. We learn in the book that the Priory of Sion heroically protects the secret by meeting and having "Eyes Wide Shut" style orgies. But, why keep this fact a secret? Why not tell the whole world that Mary Magdalene and our homeboy JC got...it...on? Then we can all have orgies. Book claim: "Constantine made Jesus divine." But you see, Teabing tells Sophie when Langdon and she seek refuge in his mansion, the Church has suppressed this truth. All the early Christian followers "knew" that Jesus was just a swell guy, descended from the royal blood of David who married Mary Magdalene of the royal line of Benjamin to make a super royal bloodline. But, Emperor Constantine ruined all the fun. He had the JC-MM marriage written out of the Bible, and decided to "make" Jesus divine at the Council of Nicea in 325, in what turned out to be a real close vote. Now, since Jesus is divine, no one can challenge the Christian religion of the Empire. A divine Jesus could not have a wife, so Mary Magdalene gets hush-hushed. From then on out, Christianity phased out the pagan practices of goddess worship, cut out the divine feminine, and the world started stinking. My rebuttal: Whether or not Jesus is divine is matter of faith. However, from a historical perspective, it is incorrect to claim that Constantine is the first to call Jesus divine. Since the time of Jesus, there have been many followers who have considered Jesus to be God, to be one with the Father. Yes, there also were followers, such as Arius, who placed Jesus as less than God, and the merits of the decision at Nicea is a much wider topic than a book review, but it is historically false to claim that there were not early Christians who believed in Christ's divinity. Also, the vote at Nicea was not close. It was an extreme majority that voted in favor of the Creed. Book claim: "Jesus married Mary Magdalene." It is claimed by Teabing and Langdon that Jesus must have married Mary Magdalene because he loved her, references to kisses he gave her in apocrophal (non-canonical) gospels, and the "fact" that all Jewish men married then. My rebuttal: However, in reality there is solid evidence against the view that Jesus married. NOT all Jewish men married. There was always a place for asceticism in Judaism. The Dead Sea Scrolls, just discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945, were not early Christian texts, as mentioned in the DaVinci Code, but rather Jewish religious texts written by the Essenes, one group among a number of Jewish celibate ascetics, the equivalent of later Christian monks. While most Jewish men married, it was not unheard of for some to remain celibate. And, since marriage was looked highly upon, and all the great Jewish leaders from the Old Testament were married and had their wives mentioned, the only reason not to mention a wife of Jesus was that he probably did not have one. After all, at this time, it would have made Jesus look better to have been married. The only reason not to mention it is it is not true. Book claim: "Sex is sacred." We can see the true colors of the Priory of Sion, the defenders of the "truth" of the Grail, in Sophie's traumatizing experience that drove her from her grandfather. An orgy to show that sex is sacred? Actually, this is not a "new" idea. All of the ancient pagan religions believed that sex was divine, and many practiced ritualized sex. This is supposedly in contrast to the Church, which through the "fictional" story of Original Sin, has made sex dirty and shameful. My rebuttal: It is true that the Church does not consider sex to be divine. Unlike the straw-man that is set up to be torn down in the DaVinci Code, the Church also does not consider sex to be evil or dirty. Sex is a normal human activity. Not demonic or divine. It is good and a gift of God, but thoroughly human. And, frankly, whether one is someone who believes that sex is only for marriage or that sex is for any two (or more) consenting adults, I think we can all agree that it is kind of creepy and weird to call sex divine or sacred or religious. It does not cure cancer or make you fly or anything. It's sex. Even animals do it. Book claim: "No need to reveal the "truth" of the Holy Grail." Let's pretend for a second that there really was a big cover up, and the Church has kept the Priory of Sion, under threat, from revealing the truth, and that is why they have to keep the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene a secret, only meeting once in awhile to perform some, um, rituals. Teabing is secretly the Teacher orchestrating the murder of Sauniere and seeking out the Grail because he thinks the "truth" that JC and MM married should be shouted from the rooftops. Langdon hedges, because Sauniere, the Grand Master leader of the Sion's, did not want it told, and, as Langdon says, "if you and I could dig up documentation that contradicted holy stories of...belief, should we do that?" After all, "those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical," i.e. religious faith is based on fantasy, and it does not matter what one believes if it makes him feel good and he is nice to others. Plus, as we find out from Sophie's long lost grandmother who is not really dead like we earlier thought, the "truth" about Mary Magdalene and Jesus' marriage is found in art, historical objects, writings, phallic objects, and nature. Riiiiight. No reason to tell people the truth. We are the enlightened ones who have it. My rebuttal: Obviously, this is very patronizing. It conjures up images of the Grand Inquisitor who "knew" there was no God, but burned heretics to spare people the unbearable truth of a life without hope. If something is true, why not reveal it? And, the idea that the "important" truths are meant to be hidden and only known by the enlightened few is not Christianity, but Gnosticism. True Christianity is for everybody. Jesus did not come for just for the enlightened few. His message is for us all. If Jesus is just a man, and not divine, what is the point of worshipping him, or Mary Magdalene, or their "sacred" bloodline? The reason why Christians worship Jesus, and do not just revere him as a prophet like Moses or Muhammad, is because we believe him to be the God whose love is stronger than death, who offers us hope for new life after this one. And, far from disgracing Mary Magdalene's name, the Church honors her. Who but she is revered as the one who is definitively present at the empty tomb to witness the Risen Lord?

<hl> A mix between <hl> "Eyes Wide Shut", "National Treasure" and Oliver Stone's "JFK", Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is an exciting novel wrapped in intrigue, suspense, and controversy.To criticize the book for offering one dimensional characters, silly plot twists, and predictable discoveries about conniving figures who we thought were good-guys would be disingenuous on my part, since I particularly enjoy entertaining stories without much depth. Curator Jacques Sauniere is murdered in the Louvre, and professor Robert Langdon, innocent yet the primary suspect, and cryptologist/granddaughter of the victim Sophie Neveu go on a wild adventure running separately from the cops, the tall limping albino Opus Dei monk who really committed the murder, and the secret "Teacher" orchestrating the crime, while at the same time trying to figure out the mystery behind the hidden secret Sauniere was killed for. We find out that Sauniere was part of a secret society, the Priory of Sion, that has and protects the true identity and nature of the Holy Grail. The Albino monk is Silas, a member of spooky Catholic organization Opus Dei, working for his mentor Archbishop Aringarosa and the unknown Teacher, to seek out the Grail for ad majorem dei gloriam. French police chief Bezu Fache seems too religious, and arouses suspicion about his motives in pursuing Langdon. Luckily, Langdon knows Sir Leigh Teabing, a prominent Grail scholar eager to help in their search, in the hopes of revealing the "truth" of the Grail to a world that has been denied it by the "evil" Church. But, would Sauniere really have wanted the truth revealed?It would be simple if this work of fiction were really just a lighthearted work of fiction. However, Brown offers a disclosure stating that certain parts of the book are true. Yes, he is sure to point out that, while the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei exist, the main characters who are members are fictional, and while pointing out that descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are true, he never makes any claims about the historical theories put forth by the characters. Yet, it is these claims by the characters that have excited the popular imagination and must be confronted.Both Langdon and Teabing refer anachronistically to "the Vatican" when criticizing past historical actions of the Church. Whether or not the claims made about the Church are true, it is incorrect to refer to the actions of "the Vatican" in the 15th century, much less the 3rd and 4th century. Vatican Hill, the location in Rome where St. Peter's Basilica and Vatican City are located, has only in the last few centuries been the seat of Church governance. Before then, the Pope's home base (and still the official Cathedral Church of the diocese of Rome) was the Cathedral of St. John Lateran in Rome. The 4th century, the era most derided in the book, the Pope was not in practical terms "in charge" of the Church, and East and West were still more than half a millennium from splitting. The Catholic Church as we know today, and Teabing loves to bash, was not around then. There was a Catholic Church, but it included both West and East, Latin and Greek, unlike today, where it is just Latin and few Eastern Rite Churches.Teabing and Langdon's major theses involve the idea that the Holy Grail is not the chalice of the Last Supper, but the blood line of the children of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, a 2000 year old secret that would shock the world. We learn in the book that the Priory of Sion heroically protects the secret by meeting and having "Eyes Wide Shut" style orgies. But, why keep this fact a secret? Why not tell the whole world that Mary Magdalene and our homeboy JC got...it...on? Then we can all have orgies.Book claim: "Constantine made Jesus divine." But you see, Teabing tells Sophie when Langdon and she seek refuge in his mansion, the Church has suppressed this truth. All the early Christian followers "knew" that Jesus was just a swell guy, descended from the royal blood of David who married Mary Magdalene of the royal line of Benjamin to make a super royal bloodline. But, Emperor Constantine ruined all the fun. He had the JC-MM marriage written out of the Bible, and decided to "make" Jesus divine at the Council of Nicea in 325, in what turned out to be a real close vote. Now, since Jesus is divine, no one can challenge the Christian religion of the Empire. A divine Jesus could not have a wife, so Mary Magdalene gets hush-hushed. From then on out, Christianity phased out the pagan practices of goddess worship, cut out the divine feminine, and the world started stinking.My rebuttal: Whether or not Jesus is divine is matter of faith. However, from a historical perspective, it is incorrect to claim that Constantine is the first to call Jesus divine. Since the time of Jesus, there have been many followers who have considered Jesus to be God, to be one with the Father. Yes, there also were followers, such as Arius, who placed Jesus as less than God, and the merits of the decision at Nicea is a much wider topic than a book review, but it is historically false to claim that there were not early Christians who believed in Christ's divinity. Also, the vote at Nicea was not close. It was an extreme majority that voted in favor of the Creed.Book claim: "Jesus married Mary Magdalene." It is claimed by Teabing and Langdon that Jesus must have married Mary Magdalene because he loved her, references to kisses he gave her in apocrophal (non-canonical) gospels, and the "fact" that all Jewish men married then.My rebuttal: However, in reality there is solid evidence against the view that Jesus married. NOT all Jewish men married. There was always a place for asceticism in Judaism. The Dead Sea Scrolls, just discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945, were not early Christian texts, as mentioned in the DaVinci Code, but rather Jewish religious texts written by the Essenes, one group among a number of Jewish celibate ascetics, the equivalent of later Christian monks. While most Jewish men married, it was not unheard of for some to remain celibate. And, since marriage was looked highly upon, and all the great Jewish leaders from the Old Testament were married and had their wives mentioned, the only reason not to mention a wife of Jesus was that he probably did not have one. After all, at this time, it would have made Jesus look better to have been married. The only reason not to mention it is it is not true.Book claim: "Sex is sacred." We can see the true colors of the Priory of Sion, the defenders of the "truth" of the Grail, in Sophie's traumatizing experience that drove her from her grandfather. An orgy to show that sex is sacred? Actually, this is not a "new" idea. All of the ancient pagan religions believed that sex was divine, and many practiced ritualized sex. This is supposedly in contrast to the Church, which through the "fictional" story of Original Sin, has made sex dirty and shameful.My rebuttal: It is true that the Church does not consider sex to be divine. Unlike the straw-man that is set up to be torn down in the DaVinci Code, the Church also does not consider sex to be evil or dirty. Sex is a normal human activity. Not demonic or divine. It is good and a gift of God, but thoroughly human. And, frankly, whether one is someone who believes that sex is only for marriage or that sex is for any two (or more) consenting adults, I think we can all agree that it is kind of creepy and weird to call sex divine or sacred or religious. It does not cure cancer or make you fly or anything. It's sex. Even animals do it.Book claim: "No need to reveal the "truth" of the Holy Grail." Let's pretend for a second that there really was a big cover up, and the Church has kept the Priory of Sion, under threat, from revealing the truth, and that is why they have to keep the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene a secret, only meeting once in awhile to perform some, um, rituals. Teabing is secretly the Teacher orchestrating the murder of Sauniere and seeking out the Grail because he thinks the "truth" that JC and MM married should be shouted from the rooftops. Langdon hedges, because Sauniere, the Grand Master leader of the Sion's, did not want it told, and, as Langdon says, "if you and I could dig up documentation that contradicted holy stories of...belief, should we do that?" After all, "those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical," i.e. religious faith is based on fantasy, and it does not matter what one believes if it makes him feel good and he is nice to others. Plus, as we find out from Sophie's long lost grandmother who is not really dead like we earlier thought, the "truth" about Mary Magdalene and Jesus' marriage is found in art, historical objects, writings, phallic objects, and nature. Riiiiight. No reason to tell people the truth. We are the enlightened ones who have it.My rebuttal: Obviously, this is very patronizing. It conjures up images of the Grand Inquisitor who "knew" there was no God, but burned heretics to spare people the unbearable truth of a life without hope. If something is true, why not reveal it? And, the idea that the "important" truths are meant to be hidden and only known by the enlightened few is not Christianity, but Gnosticism. True Christianity is for everybody. Jesus did not come for just for the enlightened few. His message is for us all.If Jesus is just a man, and not divine, what is the point of worshipping him, or Mary Magdalene, or their "sacred" bloodline? The reason why Christians worship Jesus, and do not just revere him as a prophet like Moses or Muhammad, is because we believe him to be the God whose love is stronger than death, who offers us hope for new life after this one. And, far from disgracing Mary Magdalene's name, the Church honors her. Who but she is revered as the one who is definitively present at the empty tomb to witness the Risen Lord?


Question: What do you think about imagery?

I want to recommend a book I just finished reading. The Book Thief is a very wonderfully written & touching story. It's not a new book (2006) but I just recently ran across it. I decided to read it because I've never seen a book that's been on the New York Times Bestseller List for over 230 weeks.From the write up on it you wouldn't think this is a beautifully written book ("Narrated by Death" - yikes!) but Zusak's writing style is quite lyrical and achingly beautiful in some passages... "At those times, in the enormous mileage of sleep, she had never felt so completely alone." ... `the enormous mileage of sleep'... I like that.I highly recommend this book!

Answer: quite lyrical and achingly beautiful

I want to recommend a book I just finished reading. The Book Thief is a very wonderfully written & touching story. It's not a new book (2006) but I just recently ran across it. I decided to read it because I've never seen a book that's been on the New York Times Bestseller List for over 230 weeks. From the write up on it you wouldn't think this is a beautifully written book ("Narrated by Death" - yikes!) <hl> but Zusak's writing style is quite lyrical and achingly beautiful in some passages... <hl> "At those times, in the enormous mileage of sleep, she had never felt so completely alone." ... `the enormous mileage of sleep'... I like that. I highly recommend this book!

I want to recommend a book I just finished reading. The Book Thief is a very wonderfully written & touching story. It's not a new book (2006) but I just recently ran across it. I decided to read it because I've never seen a book that's been on the New York Times Bestseller List for over 230 weeks.From the write up on it you wouldn't think this is a beautifully written book ("Narrated by Death" - yikes!) but Zusak's writing style is <hl> quite lyrical and achingly beautiful <hl> in some passages... "At those times, in the enormous mileage of sleep, she had never felt so completely alone." ... `the enormous mileage of sleep'... I like that.I highly recommend this book!


Question: What is write?

While I've been known to exaggerate on occasion, I promise you I'm being completely serious when I say Breaking Dawn is the worst book I have ever read.  The writing was atrocious, there was no drama and/or real conflict, and Meyer broke her own rules.  Repeatedly.Let's begin, shall we?First, the writing itself was a huge problem.  It's nearly impossible for me to believe Meyer was an English major in college.  Maybe she was technically a literature major, but either way, she should have been exposed to enough decent writing to know how to produce it herself.  And if she couldln't produce it from her own head, she probably had enough references to replicate it.  Instead, Breaking Dawn reads like a terrible fanfiction.  Meyer tends to overuse adjectives and adverbs, but does so in the least descriptive way possible.  How did Bella look on her wedding day?  I couldn't tell you, since Meyer never bothered to describe her dress other than to say it was satin-y.  And how about the rest of the wedding ceremony?  There were flowers "everywhere" and everyone looked "amazing."  Thanks.  I can totally picture that.Bella is also the ultimate Mary Sue, which doesn't help Meyer's writing skills in my eyes.  Bella is SO PERFECT.  Everyone LOVES HER.  Meyer's lame attempts to make Bella relatable by making her clumsy fall flat (pun intended), because the other characters think injury-prone Bella is adorable.  Will Charlie object to Bella Sue getting married at 18?  Of course not!  Will Bella Sue become the most graceful vampire ever, even though she was the world's clumsiest person?  You bet!  Bella gets everything she wants in Breaking Dawn and sacrifices nothing.There was also a conspicuous lack of drama and conflict in what should have been an epic conclusion to a series.  As I mentioned above, Bella had no problem convincing Charlie that marrying Edward was the right decision.  I was expecting more of an objection from the ol' sheriff.  Denied.  Jacob does make a small attempt to talk Bella out of turning into a vampire, but what could have been another interesting conversation is brushed aside by Bella.  Why would she miss anybody she knew as a human?  She'll be with her beloved Edward for all eternity; that's all she needs.The sexy-time was also lacking.  I'm not much of a smut fan, but I was hoping for more than a cheezy "fade to black" when Edward and Bella finally do the deed.  After three books of anticipation and denial, Meyer doesn't have the balls to give us more than Bella walking toward Edward in the water.  Seriously, Meyer?  You can show Bella vomiting "a fountain of blood" but kissing before sex is too shocking?  Nothing interesting here, folks.There is also the issue of Bella's pregnancy.  Nowhere in the previous three books, and I mean NOWHERE, did Bella mention a desire to be a mother.  But as soon as Edward gets his vampire sperm inside her, she decides that motherhood is the most important thing on Earth.  (Inconsistent much, Meyer?  Another sign of bad writing!)  I was expecting Bella to freak out, get angry at Edward, and blame him for ruining her life when she thought she could never get pregnant!  But instead, Bella is inexplicably calm and instantly bonds with her "little nudger."  Again, any drama that could have been just melted like an ice cube in Death Valley.  The plot floats along...The previously mentioned "fountain of blood" happens when Bella goes into labor.  To make a long and rather gruesome story short, the baby almost kills Bella, and would have, had Edward not turned Bella into a vampire.  Bella lays on a table for a couple of days until the venom stops her heart.  She's dead!  Let the crazed baby vampire gather her bearings!  She's dangerous right now!  Right?  Wrong.  Bella Sue is the perfect vampire, so graceful and strong.  She requires almost no adjustment time, even though Meyer told us in previous books that new vampires are totally out of control.  Again, all conflict nipped in the bud.This leads us to Meyer breaking her own rules.  Bella is totally in control of herself as a new vampire even though, according to Meyer's own words, it's totally normal and EXPECTED to have a lenghty adjustment period.  Jasper struggled for years, but Bella gets the hang of things in a day.  Of course.  Meyer breaks the rules so Bella Sue can have her perfect life.Meyer also gets into a sticky situation with Bella's pregnancy.  According to Meyer, speaking through (I believe) Carlisle, vampires don't have any liquid in their bodies except for their venom.  Last time I checked, sperm isn't venomous.  Getting Bella pregnant should have been impossible if Meyer followed her own rules!  That entire plot device (which only served to give Jacob something to imprint on) was an amateurish cop out that I would expect to find in fanfiction, not a novel written by an adult with a college degree.Oh yeah, they named the baby Renesmee.  Vomit.And then Jacob imprints on it.  Double vomit.Allow me to backtrack for a second. I forgot to mention another scene that should have been exciting but wasn't: the confrontation with the Volturi.  Yep, the leaders are back and they want to kill the Cullens for making an "immortal child."  Finally, some action!  The Cullens invite some vampire friends to gather at their house and fight the Volturi, which should be the epic conflict we've all been waiting for!  Except it most definitely is not.  It turns out that Bella has a shield she controls with her mind.  All the does is put the sheild around everybody and they're impervious to weapons.  The Volturi stand around and talk for a while and then... leave.Breaking Dawn was a letdown in every sense.  Meyer's writing didn't improve (it got worse, actually), there wasn't any tension or action, and a lot of the rules established in the first three books got thrown out the window.Avoid this book at all costs.(Note: Don't be fooled by the high number of five-star reviews; a lot of them are two sentences long and say things like, "BELLA AND EDWARD ARE IN LOVE!!!!1!11one"  They may very well be, but that doesn't make it a good book.)

Answer: the writing itself was a huge problem

While I've been known to exaggerate on occasion, I promise you I'm being completely serious when I say Breaking Dawn is the worst book I have ever read. The writing was atrocious, there was no drama and/or real conflict, and Meyer broke her own rules. Repeatedly. <hl> Let's begin, shall we?First, the writing itself was a huge problem . <hl> It's nearly impossible for me to believe Meyer was an English major in college. Maybe she was technically a literature major, but either way, she should have been exposed to enough decent writing to know how to produce it herself. And if she couldln't produce it from her own head, she probably had enough references to replicate it. Instead, Breaking Dawn reads like a terrible fanfiction. Meyer tends to overuse adjectives and adverbs, but does so in the least descriptive way possible. How did Bella look on her wedding day? I couldn't tell you, since Meyer never bothered to describe her dress other than to say it was satin-y. And how about the rest of the wedding ceremony? There were flowers "everywhere" and everyone looked "amazing." Thanks. I can totally picture that. Bella is also the ultimate Mary Sue, which doesn't help Meyer's writing skills in my eyes. Bella is SO PERFECT. Everyone LOVES HER. Meyer's lame attempts to make Bella relatable by making her clumsy fall flat (pun intended), because the other characters think injury-prone Bella is adorable. Will Charlie object to Bella Sue getting married at 18? Of course not! Will Bella Sue become the most graceful vampire ever, even though she was the world's clumsiest person? You bet! Bella gets everything she wants in Breaking Dawn and sacrifices nothing. There was also a conspicuous lack of drama and conflict in what should have been an epic conclusion to a series. As I mentioned above, Bella had no problem convincing Charlie that marrying Edward was the right decision. I was expecting more of an objection from the ol' sheriff. Denied. Jacob does make a small attempt to talk Bella out of turning into a vampire, but what could have been another interesting conversation is brushed aside by Bella. Why would she miss anybody she knew as a human? She'll be with her beloved Edward for all eternity; that's all she needs. The sexy-time was also lacking. I'm not much of a smut fan, but I was hoping for more than a cheezy "fade to black" when Edward and Bella finally do the deed. After three books of anticipation and denial, Meyer doesn't have the balls to give us more than Bella walking toward Edward in the water. Seriously, Meyer? You can show Bella vomiting "a fountain of blood" but kissing before sex is too shocking? Nothing interesting here, folks. There is also the issue of Bella's pregnancy. Nowhere in the previous three books, and I mean NOWHERE, did Bella mention a desire to be a mother. But as soon as Edward gets his vampire sperm inside her, she decides that motherhood is the most important thing on Earth. (Inconsistent much, Meyer? Another sign of bad writing!) I was expecting Bella to freak out, get angry at Edward, and blame him for ruining her life when she thought she could never get pregnant! But instead, Bella is inexplicably calm and instantly bonds with her "little nudger." Again, any drama that could have been just melted like an ice cube in Death Valley. The plot floats along... The previously mentioned "fountain of blood" happens when Bella goes into labor. To make a long and rather gruesome story short, the baby almost kills Bella, and would have, had Edward not turned Bella into a vampire. Bella lays on a table for a couple of days until the venom stops her heart. She's dead! Let the crazed baby vampire gather her bearings! She's dangerous right now! Right? Wrong. Bella Sue is the perfect vampire, so graceful and strong. She requires almost no adjustment time, even though Meyer told us in previous books that new vampires are totally out of control. Again, all conflict nipped in the bud. This leads us to Meyer breaking her own rules. Bella is totally in control of herself as a new vampire even though, according to Meyer's own words, it's totally normal and EXPECTED to have a lenghty adjustment period. Jasper struggled for years, but Bella gets the hang of things in a day. Of course. Meyer breaks the rules so Bella Sue can have her perfect life. Meyer also gets into a sticky situation with Bella's pregnancy. According to Meyer, speaking through (I believe) Carlisle, vampires don't have any liquid in their bodies except for their venom. Last time I checked, sperm isn't venomous. Getting Bella pregnant should have been impossible if Meyer followed her own rules! That entire plot device (which only served to give Jacob something to imprint on) was an amateurish cop out that I would expect to find in fanfiction, not a novel written by an adult with a college degree. Oh yeah, they named the baby Renesmee. Vomit. And then Jacob imprints on it. Double vomit. Allow me to backtrack for a second. I forgot to mention another scene that should have been exciting but wasn't: the confrontation with the Volturi. Yep, the leaders are back and they want to kill the Cullens for making an "immortal child." Finally, some action! The Cullens invite some vampire friends to gather at their house and fight the Volturi, which should be the epic conflict we've all been waiting for! Except it most definitely is not. It turns out that Bella has a shield she controls with her mind. All the does is put the sheild around everybody and they're impervious to weapons. The Volturi stand around and talk for a while and then... leave. Breaking Dawn was a letdown in every sense. Meyer's writing didn't improve (it got worse, actually), there wasn't any tension or action, and a lot of the rules established in the first three books got thrown out the window. Avoid this book at all costs.(Note: Don't be fooled by the high number of five-star reviews; a lot of them are two sentences long and say things like, "BELLA AND EDWARD ARE IN LOVE!!!!1!11one" They may very well be, but that doesn't make it a good book.)

While I've been known to exaggerate on occasion, I promise you I'm being completely serious when I say Breaking Dawn is the worst book I have ever read. The writing was atrocious, there was no drama and/or real conflict, and Meyer broke her own rules. Repeatedly.Let's begin, shall we?First, <hl> the writing itself was a huge problem <hl>. It's nearly impossible for me to believe Meyer was an English major in college. Maybe she was technically a literature major, but either way, she should have been exposed to enough decent writing to know how to produce it herself. And if she couldln't produce it from her own head, she probably had enough references to replicate it. Instead, Breaking Dawn reads like a terrible fanfiction. Meyer tends to overuse adjectives and adverbs, but does so in the least descriptive way possible. How did Bella look on her wedding day? I couldn't tell you, since Meyer never bothered to describe her dress other than to say it was satin-y. And how about the rest of the wedding ceremony? There were flowers "everywhere" and everyone looked "amazing." Thanks. I can totally picture that.Bella is also the ultimate Mary Sue, which doesn't help Meyer's writing skills in my eyes. Bella is SO PERFECT. Everyone LOVES HER. Meyer's lame attempts to make Bella relatable by making her clumsy fall flat (pun intended), because the other characters think injury-prone Bella is adorable. Will Charlie object to Bella Sue getting married at 18? Of course not! Will Bella Sue become the most graceful vampire ever, even though she was the world's clumsiest person? You bet! Bella gets everything she wants in Breaking Dawn and sacrifices nothing.There was also a conspicuous lack of drama and conflict in what should have been an epic conclusion to a series. As I mentioned above, Bella had no problem convincing Charlie that marrying Edward was the right decision. I was expecting more of an objection from the ol' sheriff. Denied. Jacob does make a small attempt to talk Bella out of turning into a vampire, but what could have been another interesting conversation is brushed aside by Bella. Why would she miss anybody she knew as a human? She'll be with her beloved Edward for all eternity; that's all she needs.The sexy-time was also lacking. I'm not much of a smut fan, but I was hoping for more than a cheezy "fade to black" when Edward and Bella finally do the deed. After three books of anticipation and denial, Meyer doesn't have the balls to give us more than Bella walking toward Edward in the water. Seriously, Meyer? You can show Bella vomiting "a fountain of blood" but kissing before sex is too shocking? Nothing interesting here, folks.There is also the issue of Bella's pregnancy. Nowhere in the previous three books, and I mean NOWHERE, did Bella mention a desire to be a mother. But as soon as Edward gets his vampire sperm inside her, she decides that motherhood is the most important thing on Earth. (Inconsistent much, Meyer? Another sign of bad writing!) I was expecting Bella to freak out, get angry at Edward, and blame him for ruining her life when she thought she could never get pregnant! But instead, Bella is inexplicably calm and instantly bonds with her "little nudger." Again, any drama that could have been just melted like an ice cube in Death Valley. The plot floats along...The previously mentioned "fountain of blood" happens when Bella goes into labor. To make a long and rather gruesome story short, the baby almost kills Bella, and would have, had Edward not turned Bella into a vampire. Bella lays on a table for a couple of days until the venom stops her heart. She's dead! Let the crazed baby vampire gather her bearings! She's dangerous right now! Right? Wrong. Bella Sue is the perfect vampire, so graceful and strong. She requires almost no adjustment time, even though Meyer told us in previous books that new vampires are totally out of control. Again, all conflict nipped in the bud.This leads us to Meyer breaking her own rules. Bella is totally in control of herself as a new vampire even though, according to Meyer's own words, it's totally normal and EXPECTED to have a lenghty adjustment period. Jasper struggled for years, but Bella gets the hang of things in a day. Of course. Meyer breaks the rules so Bella Sue can have her perfect life.Meyer also gets into a sticky situation with Bella's pregnancy. According to Meyer, speaking through (I believe) Carlisle, vampires don't have any liquid in their bodies except for their venom. Last time I checked, sperm isn't venomous. Getting Bella pregnant should have been impossible if Meyer followed her own rules! That entire plot device (which only served to give Jacob something to imprint on) was an amateurish cop out that I would expect to find in fanfiction, not a novel written by an adult with a college degree.Oh yeah, they named the baby Renesmee. Vomit.And then Jacob imprints on it. Double vomit.Allow me to backtrack for a second. I forgot to mention another scene that should have been exciting but wasn't: the confrontation with the Volturi. Yep, the leaders are back and they want to kill the Cullens for making an "immortal child." Finally, some action! The Cullens invite some vampire friends to gather at their house and fight the Volturi, which should be the epic conflict we've all been waiting for! Except it most definitely is not. It turns out that Bella has a shield she controls with her mind. All the does is put the sheild around everybody and they're impervious to weapons. The Volturi stand around and talk for a while and then... leave.Breaking Dawn was a letdown in every sense. Meyer's writing didn't improve (it got worse, actually), there wasn't any tension or action, and a lot of the rules established in the first three books got thrown out the window.Avoid this book at all costs.(Note: Don't be fooled by the high number of five-star reviews; a lot of them are two sentences long and say things like, "BELLA AND EDWARD ARE IN LOVE!!!!1!11one" They may very well be, but that doesn't make it a good book.)

Let's begin, shall we?First, <hl> the writing itself was a huge problem <hl> .


Question: What do you think about his chapter?

This is probably the best overall look at Lincoln in respect to the 1860 presidential election and his presidency. It goes into vivid detail about the men he was running against, their beliefs, their backgrounds, and their platforms. It also describes their strengths and weaknesses and delves into how possibly the least likely candidate Abraham Lincoln earned the nomination.This book is very well-written which is amazing considering how far reaching this story is. Aside from just profiling all the candidates, which in itself could be confusing, it goes into exacting detail. It could be a little dicey keeping the issues and the candidates straight, but Kearns manages to create order out of possible chaos.The biggest draw is that this book is very readable. Instead of reading like a history, the treatment here is more like a novel. History comes alive, it is interesting, involving, and gives the reader the sense that they are there.One of the major points I extracted from this book is Lincoln's ability to recognize the strengths of his rivals and learn how to work with them as his closest advisors. I suspect this adds a new dimension to the adage of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer. Ultimately though, it comes down to pooling resources and working for the common good of the people in trying times.While a long and sometimes complex book, I loved it. It was a wonderful trip back in time.

Answer: This is probably the best overall look at Lincoln in respect to the 1860 presidential election and his presidency

<hl> This is probably the best overall look at Lincoln in respect to the 1860 presidential election and his presidency . <hl> It goes into vivid detail about the men he was running against, their beliefs, their backgrounds, and their platforms. It also describes their strengths and weaknesses and delves into how possibly the least likely candidate Abraham Lincoln earned the nomination. This book is very well-written which is amazing considering how far reaching this story is. Aside from just profiling all the candidates, which in itself could be confusing, it goes into exacting detail. It could be a little dicey keeping the issues and the candidates straight, but Kearns manages to create order out of possible chaos. The biggest draw is that this book is very readable. Instead of reading like a history, the treatment here is more like a novel. History comes alive, it is interesting, involving, and gives the reader the sense that they are there. One of the major points I extracted from this book is Lincoln's ability to recognize the strengths of his rivals and learn how to work with them as his closest advisors. I suspect this adds a new dimension to the adage of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer. Ultimately though, it comes down to pooling resources and working for the common good of the people in trying times. While a long and sometimes complex book, I loved it. It was a wonderful trip back in time.

<hl> This is probably the best overall look at Lincoln in respect to the 1860 presidential election and his presidency <hl>. It goes into vivid detail about the men he was running against, their beliefs, their backgrounds, and their platforms. It also describes their strengths and weaknesses and delves into how possibly the least likely candidate Abraham Lincoln earned the nomination.This book is very well-written which is amazing considering how far reaching this story is. Aside from just profiling all the candidates, which in itself could be confusing, it goes into exacting detail. It could be a little dicey keeping the issues and the candidates straight, but Kearns manages to create order out of possible chaos.The biggest draw is that this book is very readable. Instead of reading like a history, the treatment here is more like a novel. History comes alive, it is interesting, involving, and gives the reader the sense that they are there.One of the major points I extracted from this book is Lincoln's ability to recognize the strengths of his rivals and learn how to work with them as his closest advisors. I suspect this adds a new dimension to the adage of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer. Ultimately though, it comes down to pooling resources and working for the common good of the people in trying times.While a long and sometimes complex book, I loved it. It was a wonderful trip back in time.

<hl> This is probably the best overall look at Lincoln in respect to the 1860 presidential election and his presidency <hl> .


Question: How is the story?

"The things that knock you down in life are tests, forcing you to make a choice between giving in and remaining on the ground or wiping the dirt off and standing up even taller than you did before you were knocked down. "RECAPSky Linden Davis, has always lived a sheltered life with her mother. With not being allowed to have any technology around Sky spends her time with her best friend Six and reading. But she also spends her night making out with boys to just escape the real life and feel "numb". But senior year its different, after coercing her mother to allow her to attend public school Sky realizes what the world really hold outside her home walls. One of those realizations is Dean Holder.Holder has spent the year in a state of despair. He didn't lose one girl he loved, he lost two. So he does what guys do best, he rebels. When Sky shows up on his radar Holders life changes drastically, he knows she looks familiar. He takes it upon himself to get to know her. Even if getting to know her turns out to hurt both of them.When secrets unfold will Sky and Holder be able deal with them? Or will the secrets destroy both their lives?MY TAKEOkay, this book came highly recommended by numerous book lovers so I couldn't wait to get into it.  I was ready for the romance, the angst, the tears, and the secrets unveiling. I was ready and prepared to love this. And I did enjoy the story and the premise of it. I saw the twist coming a mile away but I still enjoyed learning all of the facts and all about the characters.Sky is completely sheltered from social media, television and cell phones. She was a teenager starting to learn how to find her way in life. I liked her character at the beginning of the book and loved her inter-dialogue. The turn in that changed when she became consumed with Holder. Don't get me wrong who wouldn't enjoy Holder? But I just thought she had more of a backbone in the beginning when she didn't "need" him for everything. This is not to say that I didn't feel bad about what happened. Even though I saw it coming I was still sad for what she had to go through and for her having to relive it.What I loved is their connection with each other.  "It's what happens when two people become one: they no longer only share love. They also share all of the pain, heartache, sorrow, and grief." Holder was the perfect rock and perfect person to help her through the devastation, even if he kept secrets. Both characters feel hopeless during the book but both together bring hope to each other.  Holder shows, not only Sky, but himself as well, how to live, how to ask questions even if the answers are scary, and how to always have hope.Then there are the secondary characters that play a part in this book. Six,  yes that's her name, is Sky's best friend and although she's gone most of the book she is on of those friends that is a bad influence but honest and faithful to the core. Six's words to Sky set the stage for this story which is why her character made such an impact, "Not everyone gets a happily ever after. Life is real and sometimes it's ugly and you just have to learn how to cope."  Breckin, the new best friend in the whole wide world, is awesome and such a sweetheart. He is nonjudgmental and is present when needed. Karen, Sky's mom, I just can't say how much I adored her. She was your typical protective mother but her story in this book is so heartbreaking. Her strength, her courage, her love for Sky is what a mother's love should always be.This book is filled with love, loss, and pain. The only reason this was a 4 star is because Sky's character annoyed me at parts, her reactions were a little selfish and judgmental, and I thought the book was a little too drawn out. But don't miss out on this story.BUY it. READ it. LOVE it.HAPPY READING!!

Answer: friend Six and reading

"The things that knock you down in life are tests, forcing you to make a choice between giving in and remaining on the ground or wiping the dirt off and standing up even taller than you did before you were knocked down. "RECAPSky Linden Davis, has always lived a sheltered life with her mother. <hl> With not being allowed to have any technology around Sky spends her time with her best friend Six and reading . <hl> But she also spends her night making out with boys to just escape the real life and feel "numb". But senior year its different, after coercing her mother to allow her to attend public school Sky realizes what the world really hold outside her home walls. One of those realizations is Dean Holder. Holder has spent the year in a state of despair. He didn't lose one girl he loved, he lost two. So he does what guys do best, he rebels. When Sky shows up on his radar Holders life changes drastically, he knows she looks familiar. He takes it upon himself to get to know her. Even if getting to know her turns out to hurt both of them. When secrets unfold will Sky and Holder be able deal with them? Or will the secrets destroy both their lives?MY TAKEOkay, this book came highly recommended by numerous book lovers so I couldn't wait to get into it. I was ready for the romance, the angst, the tears, and the secrets unveiling. I was ready and prepared to love this. And I did enjoy the story and the premise of it. I saw the twist coming a mile away but I still enjoyed learning all of the facts and all about the characters. Sky is completely sheltered from social media, television and cell phones. She was a teenager starting to learn how to find her way in life. I liked her character at the beginning of the book and loved her inter-dialogue. The turn in that changed when she became consumed with Holder. Don't get me wrong who wouldn't enjoy Holder? But I just thought she had more of a backbone in the beginning when she didn't "need" him for everything. This is not to say that I didn't feel bad about what happened. Even though I saw it coming I was still sad for what she had to go through and for her having to relive it. What I loved is their connection with each other. "It's what happens when two people become one: they no longer only share love. They also share all of the pain, heartache, sorrow, and grief." Holder was the perfect rock and perfect person to help her through the devastation, even if he kept secrets. Both characters feel hopeless during the book but both together bring hope to each other. Holder shows, not only Sky, but himself as well, how to live, how to ask questions even if the answers are scary, and how to always have hope. Then there are the secondary characters that play a part in this book. Six, yes that's her name, is Sky's best friend and although she's gone most of the book she is on of those friends that is a bad influence but honest and faithful to the core. Six's words to Sky set the stage for this story which is why her character made such an impact, "Not everyone gets a happily ever after. Life is real and sometimes it's ugly and you just have to learn how to cope." Breckin, the new best friend in the whole wide world, is awesome and such a sweetheart. He is nonjudgmental and is present when needed. Karen, Sky's mom, I just can't say how much I adored her. She was your typical protective mother but her story in this book is so heartbreaking. Her strength, her courage, her love for Sky is what a mother's love should always be. This book is filled with love, loss, and pain. The only reason this was a 4 star is because Sky's character annoyed me at parts, her reactions were a little selfish and judgmental, and I thought the book was a little too drawn out. But don't miss out on this story. BUY it. READ it. LOVE it. HAPPY READING!!

"The things that knock you down in life are tests, forcing you to make a choice between giving in and remaining on the ground or wiping the dirt off and standing up even taller than you did before you were knocked down. "RECAPSky Linden Davis, has always lived a sheltered life with her mother. With not being allowed to have any technology around Sky spends her time with her best <hl> friend Six and reading <hl>. But she also spends her night making out with boys to just escape the real life and feel "numb". But senior year its different, after coercing her mother to allow her to attend public school Sky realizes what the world really hold outside her home walls. One of those realizations is Dean Holder.Holder has spent the year in a state of despair. He didn't lose one girl he loved, he lost two. So he does what guys do best, he rebels. When Sky shows up on his radar Holders life changes drastically, he knows she looks familiar. He takes it upon himself to get to know her. Even if getting to know her turns out to hurt both of them.When secrets unfold will Sky and Holder be able deal with them? Or will the secrets destroy both their lives?MY TAKEOkay, this book came highly recommended by numerous book lovers so I couldn't wait to get into it. I was ready for the romance, the angst, the tears, and the secrets unveiling. I was ready and prepared to love this. And I did enjoy the story and the premise of it. I saw the twist coming a mile away but I still enjoyed learning all of the facts and all about the characters.Sky is completely sheltered from social media, television and cell phones. She was a teenager starting to learn how to find her way in life. I liked her character at the beginning of the book and loved her inter-dialogue. The turn in that changed when she became consumed with Holder. Don't get me wrong who wouldn't enjoy Holder? But I just thought she had more of a backbone in the beginning when she didn't "need" him for everything. This is not to say that I didn't feel bad about what happened. Even though I saw it coming I was still sad for what she had to go through and for her having to relive it.What I loved is their connection with each other. "It's what happens when two people become one: they no longer only share love. They also share all of the pain, heartache, sorrow, and grief." Holder was the perfect rock and perfect person to help her through the devastation, even if he kept secrets. Both characters feel hopeless during the book but both together bring hope to each other. Holder shows, not only Sky, but himself as well, how to live, how to ask questions even if the answers are scary, and how to always have hope.Then there are the secondary characters that play a part in this book. Six, yes that's her name, is Sky's best friend and although she's gone most of the book she is on of those friends that is a bad influence but honest and faithful to the core. Six's words to Sky set the stage for this story which is why her character made such an impact, "Not everyone gets a happily ever after. Life is real and sometimes it's ugly and you just have to learn how to cope." Breckin, the new best friend in the whole wide world, is awesome and such a sweetheart. He is nonjudgmental and is present when needed. Karen, Sky's mom, I just can't say how much I adored her. She was your typical protective mother but her story in this book is so heartbreaking. Her strength, her courage, her love for Sky is what a mother's love should always be.This book is filled with love, loss, and pain. The only reason this was a 4 star is because Sky's character annoyed me at parts, her reactions were a little selfish and judgmental, and I thought the book was a little too drawn out. But don't miss out on this story.BUY it. READ it. LOVE it.HAPPY READING!!

With not being allowed to have any technology around Sky spends her time with her best <hl> friend Six and reading <hl> .


Question: What do you think of that movie?

I have read these books countless times. They are just wonderful. I'm glad the movies are still staying true to the books.

Answer: They are just wonderful

They are just wonderful .

I have read these books countless times. <hl> They are just wonderful . <hl> I'm glad the movies are still staying true to the books.

I have read these books countless times. <hl> They are just wonderful <hl>. I'm glad the movies are still staying true to the books.


Question: What is your feeling about this book?

Warning! This review is written differently then all my other reviews. It does contain spoilers throughout, but you will get a warning once spoilers will begin.The third and final book in the Hunger Games trilogy - Mockingjay has been one of the most anticipated books of fans of this much loved series. The first two books - The Hunger Games and Catching Fire - told a story rich in characters we all fell in love with and rooted for from beginning to end. With the release of Mockingjay readers were more then excited to find out the conclusion to this epic tale.Giving Mockingjay the 4 stars that I did was in fact a hard choice to make. Writing this review is tough. I thought giving myself a few days or longer might clear away the questions I had to make writing this easier, which needless to say didn't work out as planned. I usually don't write a review with spoilers, nor do I write reviews where I talk things out at such length, but it needed to be done and this time there's just no way around it. So, please know that from this point on I will be addressing key points that will give things away - so be warned there will be SOME spoilers laced throughout!****Spoiler Alert****First, I have to say that I read half of this book with my breath held and the other half with a kind of, the only way I can explain it was that I was lost. The characters felt so different from where we left them in Catching Fire that at times it was hard to recognize them from the previous two books.Katniss didn't seem like her normal fighting self. And I often wondered if that was because she questioned Coin and if she even wondered if things would be different with Coin as president. In the beginning of the book when they are trying to talk Katniss into being the Mockingjay there was a conversation with Coin that made me believe she felt she not only didn't have much of a choice in the matter but that she questioned just what Coin's true motives are behind everything. Is this why Katniss wasn't her normal fighting self? Was she just tired of running a race in a never ending up hill battle where she then believed no matter what she did the way of the world would never change? Or did she believe there was nothing she, just one teenage girl could really do to make positive changes in the world of Panem? Or was it the fact that she was pretty much injured throughout the whole book?The lack of Peeta was also hard and what little interaction these two had I enjoyed more so then I did with her and Gale. I found Gale to be more then lost within Mockingjay, and found how easily he went from the hunter, gather and provider to uncaring and cold soldier a bit too easily. I mean everything with the mountain and his answer to how to take it down was more then callous and shocking to say the least. However the flip side is, Panem is a rough place to live and was Gale finally pushed over the edge too? Still, either way you look at this, it just didn't feel like "Gale" to me. Sad but true.The ending was shocking. I felt it was rushed by many pages and left more holes in it then Swiss cheese. I mean, Gale is a HUGE character and to leave his story so open ended was wrong and extremely harsh. There was no closure with Gale - he's there one page and gone the next. I felt that Katniss's mother was selfish on so many levels. I understand all that her mother has gone through from before the beginning of book one, however Katniss has suffered through SO much for her whole family and all the people within Panem and her mother can't take a trip back to their home to make sure if her now only daughter is alright? That just didn't sit well with me and actually made me frustrated. I mean common! Look at all Katniss did and all she survived for the love of her family! And yes, I know Peeta and Haymitch had more of a hand in keeping Katniss alive then I'm giving credit here, however I'm really talking about how her relationship with her mother was within those last few pages of this book.These were the main aspects of the book that I didn't agree with or understand. However, I did give Mockingjay 4 stars and now that I worked through all the negativity and got that out of the way, I believe that in all reviews, the ending should focus on the good and that's just what I plan to do here.Peeta being tortured was a given, this wasn't a good thing, but... let me explain - anyone who reads Mockingjay will know its coming. However the degree to which this is done is not only epic but fit with the one character that I felt never changed - and that was Snow.Everything that was shocking to me in this whole series is what I found as part of the best of the best. Peeta being tortured and just how he was tortured was not only a key part in his story as mentioned above, it was so true to Snow that anything less then this just would have been far off course for this ruthless character. The struggles in Peeta because of just how he was tortured, and then within his relationship with Katniss - it opened up and showed a different side to the two. I might not have liked what I saw, but if you think back to their relationship throughout the whole trilogy this was just another uphill battle they are forced to climb to figure out what their relationship meant to each other.The story did give me many conclusions and endings to main and subplots. Where there might have been some holes, however there were answers and endings - both good and bad. The good surpassed the bad. The wedding between Finnick and Annie gave hope to everyone that was much needed throughout all of Panem. The little bits of strength that Katniss gains from Finnick were nuggets of gold within the pages of Mockingjay. Finnick, while suffering alone was able to rise above everything to be there for Katniss when she needed to be pulled up and out of the haze I often found her in.Collins writing was there shining through again in Mockingjay, and while I didn't agree with many parts of this conclusion, sometimes a clear happy ending just isn't in the cards and that alone is sometimes need and often is refreshing in books. In each of the three titles there had to be bad to get through to the good and it's the same with Mockingjay.I recently read something about how people are upset with the Epilogue and I can see where some would feel it was forced and some might find it a cop out. Yet I've read it a couple of times and I go back and forth on this one. Today I see how wonderful it is. For me, it shows that all Katniss struggled for wasn't lost. That in the end she won. Peeta won and that in the end they both found just want they needed in the world and each other. That nothing is perfect and everything isn't easy and sometimes you have to struggle to get to the good in life.All in all, Collins has written another book that many will be thinking and talking about for a long time to come. With the end of any much beloved trilogy or series there's always a chance people will be upset because of how things ended and without a doubt there might be people not pleased by various things in this book. There might be things I didn't agree with, nor understand; however, in the end, I do have to say that the good outweighed the bad. I'll be suggesting these books for a long time to come to other fellow readers and I'll look forward to rereading each of these books numerous times. I'm more then looking forward to seeing just what Collins writes next. Enjoy.For more info and reviews please visit my Book Review Blog here - [...]

Answer: There might be things I didn't agree with, nor understand; however, in the end, I do have to say that the good outweighed the bad

Warning! This review is written differently then all my other reviews. It does contain spoilers throughout, but you will get a warning once spoilers will begin. The third and final book in the Hunger Games trilogy - Mockingjay has been one of the most anticipated books of fans of this much loved series. The first two books - The Hunger Games and Catching Fire - told a story rich in characters we all fell in love with and rooted for from beginning to end. With the release of Mockingjay readers were more then excited to find out the conclusion to this epic tale. Giving Mockingjay the 4 stars that I did was in fact a hard choice to make. Writing this review is tough. I thought giving myself a few days or longer might clear away the questions I had to make writing this easier, which needless to say didn't work out as planned. I usually don't write a review with spoilers, nor do I write reviews where I talk things out at such length, but it needed to be done and this time there's just no way around it. So, please know that from this point on I will be addressing key points that will give things away - so be warned there will be SOME spoilers laced throughout!****Spoiler Alert****First, I have to say that I read half of this book with my breath held and the other half with a kind of, the only way I can explain it was that I was lost. The characters felt so different from where we left them in Catching Fire that at times it was hard to recognize them from the previous two books. Katniss didn't seem like her normal fighting self. And I often wondered if that was because she questioned Coin and if she even wondered if things would be different with Coin as president. In the beginning of the book when they are trying to talk Katniss into being the Mockingjay there was a conversation with Coin that made me believe she felt she not only didn't have much of a choice in the matter but that she questioned just what Coin's true motives are behind everything. Is this why Katniss wasn't her normal fighting self? Was she just tired of running a race in a never ending up hill battle where she then believed no matter what she did the way of the world would never change? Or did she believe there was nothing she, just one teenage girl could really do to make positive changes in the world of Panem? Or was it the fact that she was pretty much injured throughout the whole book?The lack of Peeta was also hard and what little interaction these two had I enjoyed more so then I did with her and Gale. I found Gale to be more then lost within Mockingjay, and found how easily he went from the hunter, gather and provider to uncaring and cold soldier a bit too easily. I mean everything with the mountain and his answer to how to take it down was more then callous and shocking to say the least. However the flip side is, Panem is a rough place to live and was Gale finally pushed over the edge too? Still, either way you look at this, it just didn't feel like "Gale" to me. Sad but true. The ending was shocking. I felt it was rushed by many pages and left more holes in it then Swiss cheese. I mean, Gale is a HUGE character and to leave his story so open ended was wrong and extremely harsh. There was no closure with Gale - he's there one page and gone the next. I felt that Katniss's mother was selfish on so many levels. I understand all that her mother has gone through from before the beginning of book one, however Katniss has suffered through SO much for her whole family and all the people within Panem and her mother can't take a trip back to their home to make sure if her now only daughter is alright? That just didn't sit well with me and actually made me frustrated. I mean common! Look at all Katniss did and all she survived for the love of her family! And yes, I know Peeta and Haymitch had more of a hand in keeping Katniss alive then I'm giving credit here, however I'm really talking about how her relationship with her mother was within those last few pages of this book. These were the main aspects of the book that I didn't agree with or understand. However, I did give Mockingjay 4 stars and now that I worked through all the negativity and got that out of the way, I believe that in all reviews, the ending should focus on the good and that's just what I plan to do here. Peeta being tortured was a given, this wasn't a good thing, but... let me explain - anyone who reads Mockingjay will know its coming. However the degree to which this is done is not only epic but fit with the one character that I felt never changed - and that was Snow. Everything that was shocking to me in this whole series is what I found as part of the best of the best. Peeta being tortured and just how he was tortured was not only a key part in his story as mentioned above, it was so true to Snow that anything less then this just would have been far off course for this ruthless character. The struggles in Peeta because of just how he was tortured, and then within his relationship with Katniss - it opened up and showed a different side to the two. I might not have liked what I saw, but if you think back to their relationship throughout the whole trilogy this was just another uphill battle they are forced to climb to figure out what their relationship meant to each other. The story did give me many conclusions and endings to main and subplots. Where there might have been some holes, however there were answers and endings - both good and bad. The good surpassed the bad. The wedding between Finnick and Annie gave hope to everyone that was much needed throughout all of Panem. The little bits of strength that Katniss gains from Finnick were nuggets of gold within the pages of Mockingjay. Finnick, while suffering alone was able to rise above everything to be there for Katniss when she needed to be pulled up and out of the haze I often found her in. Collins writing was there shining through again in Mockingjay, and while I didn't agree with many parts of this conclusion, sometimes a clear happy ending just isn't in the cards and that alone is sometimes need and often is refreshing in books. In each of the three titles there had to be bad to get through to the good and it's the same with Mockingjay. I recently read something about how people are upset with the Epilogue and I can see where some would feel it was forced and some might find it a cop out. Yet I've read it a couple of times and I go back and forth on this one. Today I see how wonderful it is. For me, it shows that all Katniss struggled for wasn't lost. That in the end she won. Peeta won and that in the end they both found just want they needed in the world and each other. That nothing is perfect and everything isn't easy and sometimes you have to struggle to get to the good in life. All in all, Collins has written another book that many will be thinking and talking about for a long time to come. With the end of any much beloved trilogy or series there's always a chance people will be upset because of how things ended and without a doubt there might be people not pleased by various things in this book. <hl> There might be things I didn't agree with, nor understand; however, in the end, I do have to say that the good outweighed the bad . <hl> I'll be suggesting these books for a long time to come to other fellow readers and I'll look forward to rereading each of these books numerous times. I'm more then looking forward to seeing just what Collins writes next. Enjoy. For more info and reviews please visit my Book Review Blog here - [...]

Warning! This review is written differently then all my other reviews. It does contain spoilers throughout, but you will get a warning once spoilers will begin.The third and final book in the Hunger Games trilogy - Mockingjay has been one of the most anticipated books of fans of this much loved series. The first two books - The Hunger Games and Catching Fire - told a story rich in characters we all fell in love with and rooted for from beginning to end. With the release of Mockingjay readers were more then excited to find out the conclusion to this epic tale.Giving Mockingjay the 4 stars that I did was in fact a hard choice to make. Writing this review is tough. I thought giving myself a few days or longer might clear away the questions I had to make writing this easier, which needless to say didn't work out as planned. I usually don't write a review with spoilers, nor do I write reviews where I talk things out at such length, but it needed to be done and this time there's just no way around it. So, please know that from this point on I will be addressing key points that will give things away - so be warned there will be SOME spoilers laced throughout!****Spoiler Alert****First, I have to say that I read half of this book with my breath held and the other half with a kind of, the only way I can explain it was that I was lost. The characters felt so different from where we left them in Catching Fire that at times it was hard to recognize them from the previous two books.Katniss didn't seem like her normal fighting self. And I often wondered if that was because she questioned Coin and if she even wondered if things would be different with Coin as president. In the beginning of the book when they are trying to talk Katniss into being the Mockingjay there was a conversation with Coin that made me believe she felt she not only didn't have much of a choice in the matter but that she questioned just what Coin's true motives are behind everything. Is this why Katniss wasn't her normal fighting self? Was she just tired of running a race in a never ending up hill battle where she then believed no matter what she did the way of the world would never change? Or did she believe there was nothing she, just one teenage girl could really do to make positive changes in the world of Panem? Or was it the fact that she was pretty much injured throughout the whole book?The lack of Peeta was also hard and what little interaction these two had I enjoyed more so then I did with her and Gale. I found Gale to be more then lost within Mockingjay, and found how easily he went from the hunter, gather and provider to uncaring and cold soldier a bit too easily. I mean everything with the mountain and his answer to how to take it down was more then callous and shocking to say the least. However the flip side is, Panem is a rough place to live and was Gale finally pushed over the edge too? Still, either way you look at this, it just didn't feel like "Gale" to me. Sad but true.The ending was shocking. I felt it was rushed by many pages and left more holes in it then Swiss cheese. I mean, Gale is a HUGE character and to leave his story so open ended was wrong and extremely harsh. There was no closure with Gale - he's there one page and gone the next. I felt that Katniss's mother was selfish on so many levels. I understand all that her mother has gone through from before the beginning of book one, however Katniss has suffered through SO much for her whole family and all the people within Panem and her mother can't take a trip back to their home to make sure if her now only daughter is alright? That just didn't sit well with me and actually made me frustrated. I mean common! Look at all Katniss did and all she survived for the love of her family! And yes, I know Peeta and Haymitch had more of a hand in keeping Katniss alive then I'm giving credit here, however I'm really talking about how her relationship with her mother was within those last few pages of this book.These were the main aspects of the book that I didn't agree with or understand. However, I did give Mockingjay 4 stars and now that I worked through all the negativity and got that out of the way, I believe that in all reviews, the ending should focus on the good and that's just what I plan to do here.Peeta being tortured was a given, this wasn't a good thing, but... let me explain - anyone who reads Mockingjay will know its coming. However the degree to which this is done is not only epic but fit with the one character that I felt never changed - and that was Snow.Everything that was shocking to me in this whole series is what I found as part of the best of the best. Peeta being tortured and just how he was tortured was not only a key part in his story as mentioned above, it was so true to Snow that anything less then this just would have been far off course for this ruthless character. The struggles in Peeta because of just how he was tortured, and then within his relationship with Katniss - it opened up and showed a different side to the two. I might not have liked what I saw, but if you think back to their relationship throughout the whole trilogy this was just another uphill battle they are forced to climb to figure out what their relationship meant to each other.The story did give me many conclusions and endings to main and subplots. Where there might have been some holes, however there were answers and endings - both good and bad. The good surpassed the bad. The wedding between Finnick and Annie gave hope to everyone that was much needed throughout all of Panem. The little bits of strength that Katniss gains from Finnick were nuggets of gold within the pages of Mockingjay. Finnick, while suffering alone was able to rise above everything to be there for Katniss when she needed to be pulled up and out of the haze I often found her in.Collins writing was there shining through again in Mockingjay, and while I didn't agree with many parts of this conclusion, sometimes a clear happy ending just isn't in the cards and that alone is sometimes need and often is refreshing in books. In each of the three titles there had to be bad to get through to the good and it's the same with Mockingjay.I recently read something about how people are upset with the Epilogue and I can see where some would feel it was forced and some might find it a cop out. Yet I've read it a couple of times and I go back and forth on this one. Today I see how wonderful it is. For me, it shows that all Katniss struggled for wasn't lost. That in the end she won. Peeta won and that in the end they both found just want they needed in the world and each other. That nothing is perfect and everything isn't easy and sometimes you have to struggle to get to the good in life.All in all, Collins has written another book that many will be thinking and talking about for a long time to come. With the end of any much beloved trilogy or series there's always a chance people will be upset because of how things ended and without a doubt there might be people not pleased by various things in this book. <hl> There might be things I didn't agree with, nor understand; however, in the end, I do have to say that the good outweighed the bad <hl>. I'll be suggesting these books for a long time to come to other fellow readers and I'll look forward to rereading each of these books numerous times. I'm more then looking forward to seeing just what Collins writes next. Enjoy.For more info and reviews please visit my Book Review Blog here - [...]

<hl> There might be things I didn't agree with, nor understand; however, in the end, I do have to say that the good outweighed the bad <hl> .


Question: How fascinating is the book?

I hadn't read the series and found I was an anomaly.  I found this book to be compelling and well written.  I now will be reading the next two series of the trilogy.

Answer: I found this book to be compelling and well written

I hadn't read the series and found I was an anomaly. <hl> I found this book to be compelling and well written . <hl> I now will be reading the next two series of the trilogy.

I hadn't read the series and found I was an anomaly. <hl> I found this book to be compelling and well written <hl>. I now will be reading the next two series of the trilogy.

<hl> I found this book to be compelling and well written <hl> .


Question: How is the detail?

This book is very good at the beginning, and I couldn't put it down when I first started reading it. The descriptions of medieval life and mystery at the beginning are very interesting. Here are the problems that caused me to give this book two stars instead of the four it could have easily gotten:This is a very long book, and I get the feeling that the author had to come up with filler to meet some length goal he had. There is a lot of redundancy in the book, where he explains technical details about things like masonry repeatedly. Also, there seem to be random, graphic sex scenes which become more and more frequent in the latter half of the book. Most of them added nothing to the plot, and I'm not sure if they were simply filler, a marketing ploy, or a result of the author just wanting to write about sex. I couldn't finish the book because the last hundred or two pages got too boring and started to resemble a harlequin soft-core porn novel. It's as if he ran out of fresh ideas when the book neared completion and started to substitute real content with sex scenes.There are also some problems with the characters. The main character at the beginning, for instance; the author makes it very clear that this man is deeply in love with his wife, and when she dies, he's crushed-- but then has sex with a woman he just met less than 24 hours after burying his wife. It doesn't make sense when you drastically change a character's values like that, and again, it seems as though the author was overeager to write about sex. It's a trend I've noticed in a lot of books these days. Also (and you'll see what I mean if you read the book), some of the other characters are introduced as truly good people, and then do some truly reprehensible things and have no regrets about it. It doesn't make sense. There's no consistency to most of the characters in this book. In fact, my favorite characters were the villains, because I could at least count on them to be consistently villainous, whereas I never knew what the "good" characters were going to do next.Two out of five. Not worth your money.

Answer: There is a lot of redundancy in the book, where he explains technical details about things like masonry repeatedly

This book is very good at the beginning, and I couldn't put it down when I first started reading it. The descriptions of medieval life and mystery at the beginning are very interesting. Here are the problems that caused me to give this book two stars instead of the four it could have easily gotten:This is a very long book, and I get the feeling that the author had to come up with filler to meet some length goal he had. <hl> There is a lot of redundancy in the book, where he explains technical details about things like masonry repeatedly . <hl> Also, there seem to be random, graphic sex scenes which become more and more frequent in the latter half of the book. Most of them added nothing to the plot, and I'm not sure if they were simply filler, a marketing ploy, or a result of the author just wanting to write about sex. I couldn't finish the book because the last hundred or two pages got too boring and started to resemble a harlequin soft-core porn novel. It's as if he ran out of fresh ideas when the book neared completion and started to substitute real content with sex scenes. There are also some problems with the characters. The main character at the beginning, for instance; the author makes it very clear that this man is deeply in love with his wife, and when she dies, he's crushed-- but then has sex with a woman he just met less than 24 hours after burying his wife. It doesn't make sense when you drastically change a character's values like that, and again, it seems as though the author was overeager to write about sex. It's a trend I've noticed in a lot of books these days. Also (and you'll see what I mean if you read the book), some of the other characters are introduced as truly good people, and then do some truly reprehensible things and have no regrets about it. It doesn't make sense. There's no consistency to most of the characters in this book. In fact, my favorite characters were the villains, because I could at least count on them to be consistently villainous, whereas I never knew what the "good" characters were going to do next. Two out of five. Not worth your money.

This book is very good at the beginning, and I couldn't put it down when I first started reading it. The descriptions of medieval life and mystery at the beginning are very interesting. Here are the problems that caused me to give this book two stars instead of the four it could have easily gotten:This is a very long book, and I get the feeling that the author had to come up with filler to meet some length goal he had. <hl> There is a lot of redundancy in the book, where he explains technical details about things like masonry repeatedly <hl>. Also, there seem to be random, graphic sex scenes which become more and more frequent in the latter half of the book. Most of them added nothing to the plot, and I'm not sure if they were simply filler, a marketing ploy, or a result of the author just wanting to write about sex. I couldn't finish the book because the last hundred or two pages got too boring and started to resemble a harlequin soft-core porn novel. It's as if he ran out of fresh ideas when the book neared completion and started to substitute real content with sex scenes.There are also some problems with the characters. The main character at the beginning, for instance; the author makes it very clear that this man is deeply in love with his wife, and when she dies, he's crushed-- but then has sex with a woman he just met less than 24 hours after burying his wife. It doesn't make sense when you drastically change a character's values like that, and again, it seems as though the author was overeager to write about sex. It's a trend I've noticed in a lot of books these days. Also (and you'll see what I mean if you read the book), some of the other characters are introduced as truly good people, and then do some truly reprehensible things and have no regrets about it. It doesn't make sense. There's no consistency to most of the characters in this book. In fact, my favorite characters were the villains, because I could at least count on them to be consistently villainous, whereas I never knew what the "good" characters were going to do next.Two out of five. Not worth your money.

<hl> There is a lot of redundancy in the book, where he explains technical details about things like masonry repeatedly <hl> .


Question: How is end?

With all due respect to the 5 and 4 star reviewers, I am not sure that I read the same book. I will not get in a long drawn out review as to why this book deserves only 1 star I will just keep it short and sweet. The ending of this book is terrible! I actually set there holding my kindle wondering what just happened. Terrible

Answer: The ending of this book is terrible

The ending of this book is terrible !

With all due respect to the 5 and 4 star reviewers, I am not sure that I read the same book. I will not get in a long drawn out review as to why this book deserves only 1 star I will just keep it short and sweet. <hl> The ending of this book is terrible ! <hl> I actually set there holding my kindle wondering what just happened. Terrible

With all due respect to the 5 and 4 star reviewers, I am not sure that I read the same book. I will not get in a long drawn out review as to why this book deserves only 1 star I will just keep it short and sweet. <hl> The ending of this book is terrible <hl>! I actually set there holding my kindle wondering what just happened. Terrible

<hl> The ending of this book is terrible <hl> !