NetGalley ARC | The Night House

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley

Rating | ⭐⭐1/2

With a cover like this I expected some scares. Instead I got a completely bizarre sometimes nonsensical book that started out so strong and had me hooked, then grew gradually weaker until the end when I just kind of went, "...meh?"

When Richard is fourteen, his parents die in a house fire. He is sent to live with his aunt and uncle in a small town called Ballantyne. He is an outcast from the start, but manages to convince one kid to hang out with him. But when Tom disappears, everyone thinks Richard has tossed him in the river. No one believes him that they made a prank phone call from a telephone booth and then the receiver ate Tom right up. Richard begins seeing things and hearing voices, then a second classmate vanishes. Richard is unable to convince everyone that Fatso, as he was rudely nicknamed, morphed into a giant bug and flew away after having dinner at Richard's house one evening. Richard is sent away to a correctional facility, where strange events continue to happen.

I love love love unreliable narrators, but Richard was on a whole other level, to the point this just bordered on absurd. Richard was awful and unreliable, which is also not typically a deal-breaker because some of my favorite characters have been not-so-great people. They're just that well written. And it's not that Richard isn't well-written, he's just such a little jerk. He's mean and always looking for trouble, nevermind the homophobia and misogyny. He was just so mean that when everything started happening, it was hard to feel bad for him. I kept reminding myself his parents had died, but eventually I just did not care because he's unlikable and not in a fun way.

The first part of the book was the best and I was so into the story, had no idea where it could go. Part two is told with Richard as an adult. Not the worst, but the feel of the story shifted and I wasn't as into it. Part three...I don't even know. It felt like a big letdown but I can't even explain why because, spoilers.

Overall I can't say I really recommend it, unless you want a bizarre read that leaves you thinking, "...WHAT? OH. Oh. Well...eh."

NetGalley ARC | The One That Got Away with Murder

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐.5

This should have been exactly the read for me. Questionable narrators and murder are kind of my things, yet here we are.

We have two brothers, rich and handsome, who basically are untouchable - despite both boys' girlfriends ending up dead. Robbie's ex drowned at the family's lake house and Trevor's supposedly overdosed.

Enter Lauren, transferring across the country to finish her senior year at a new school. Clearly has some stuff of her own going on that we find out in pieces. She starts hooking up with Robbie, not knowing any of the stuff about him or his brother at first. But she gradually finds out more info from her fellow teammates when she joins the soccer team - of which Robbie's ex was the star before she died. When she spends a weekend with Robbie at the lake house, she finds evidence that Robbie really could be guilty.

All of this, the cover, and the title were enough to get my attention. Combined with the promise that it was 'perfect for fans of Karen McManus', I wanted to love it SO much.

The first half of the book really pulled me in, but as I went along, it started to fall apart. Lauren's story was slowly revealed - a bit too slowly for me - and it really interrupted the flow of the story. I don't mind main characters who have their own demons; that usually makes a story more interesting.

My issue is that it took far too long to find out exactly what was going on with her and what she was running from. Chapters alternated between the past and present, but I don't feel like that pacing was well-done at all. It honestly kind of made me lose interest in her backstory, and forget about it half the time. So as more was introduced, it felt kind of disjointed and clunky.

The writing itself is good, how the story unfolds is moreso my issue, if that makes sense? And the ending wrapped up way too neatly for me. There were some decent twists, but I did have a good idea who the killer was before it was revealed. That doesn't impact my overall opinion, because it happens more often than not at this point, just because I have read so many YA thrillers in the last few years.

I don't know that I would go as far as not recommending it at all, because others might still like this one. It just wasn't for me.

NetGalley ARC | The Tudors in Love: Passion and Politics in the Age of England's Most Famous Dynasty

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Review ⭐⭐

I am truly not sure why this one did not work for me, I have enjoyed so many other of Gristwood's books. It could be that I knew a lot of the info it contained, though I can appreciate the direct lens she looks at said info with. The author examines how the concept of courtly love impacted the Tudor dynasty both at home and abroad.

The legend of King Arthur, his queen, and his knights, was enthralling to many of England's rulers, but no one believed he embodied those chivalric qualities the way Henry VIII believed he did. The Tudors were excellent at claiming lineage from King Arthur himself, to further validate their very tenuous claim to the throne. But there was no propoganda machine like the Tudor Propaganda Machine, and so court life was infused with the games of courtly love.

Gristwood does an incredibly thorough job with her research and is clear in laying out how those legends shaped Henry's life and marriages.

To do this, Gristwood begins with the legends themselves, as well as looking at how previous monarchs also looked to the legends. This includes my girl Eleanor of Aquitaine, who I always like to read about. Gristwood then moves on to the Houses who combined under the rule of the first Tudor king, the Yorks and Lancasters.

Gristwood does an excellent job exploring the relationships of the Tudor monarchs and their courtiers, who were also invested in the game of courtly love. However, some background knowledge is helpful, as there are a lot of names thrown around.

Again, I am not sure why this one didn't work for me as well as the author's previous books, She's written four others and I enjoyed them all. I love non-fiction and read it almost exclusively, so that is not the issue.

I would still recommend this one to others who enjoy this period, as the issue in the case seems to be me.

BookSirens ARC | The Girl I Never Knew

I received a free digital ARC via BookSirens in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐1/2

The author's book details her investigation into the unsolved murder of 19 year old Melissa Witt in 1994. Witt disappeared from a bowling alley where she had gone to meet her mom for a burger, and despite blood on the scene and signs of a struggle, no firm leads went anywhere. A month and a half later Witt's body was found deep within Ozark National Forest. Humphrey has dedicated nearly seven years of her life tracking down leads, witnesses, suspects.

The case itself is interesting and important; all victims deserve justice. But the author and I were not clicking. I don't think this was the author's intention, because she seems very sincere in her quest to solve the case, but sometimes the book became too much about her and what she was thinking and feeling. I understand that perhaps she included so much of herself to show how it was impacting her and how she dedicated is, but it is SUCH a fine line to walk when it comes to true crime - authors are always in danger of inserting themselves into the case even when they do not intend to. Like I said, I don't think that was the author's intent, but that's how it came across. It made me so uncomfortable.

Another thing that I truly hate with the fiery passions of one thousand suns is re-created conversations in non-fiction books. I have tossed many a book aside when that happens and it always seems to be such a fixture in true crime books. There is no way someone remembers every single conversation about every single instance the case was discussed unless the conversation was recorded and thus trascribed. I absolutely abhor it, and it drives me bonkers. Unfortunately, it happened a lot here.

There was also a bit of filler relating to other cases. There are times when the author mentions various suspects and gives the reader background on them and why they make sense as a suspect. But sometimes various people are introduced who have literally nothing to do with the case, were not a suspect in any way, and did not belong here. Not often, but should not have been included at all.

There are some positives here, and I truly do hope that Melissa Witt's killer will be brought to justice. Her friends and family deserve to know what happened and I do think it is important work being done by those who investigate these crimes when it seems like the police are not terribly interested anymore, or more often, do not have the man-power to dedicate the time necessary to cold cases.

The writing itself is fairly clear and concise - there are several suspects and pieces of evidence to keep track of, but it was never confusing. The author truly does have good intentions I believe, and explains how she came to learn of Witt and her murder. Based on the information provided by the author, I do believe she is on the right track and that she has spoken to the murderer in her quest to solve the case. I feel pretty certain that Humphrey also recognizes this, and the safety of her and her family is a concern. I don't know that there is some big conspiracy, but I am pretty sure even nearly three decades later, the man who killed Witt is not keen about that information going public.

Unfortunately there is no conclusion, because the case has yet to be solved. Her mother passed away in 2011, never knowing who murdered her baby. But we can hope that one day those left behind will finally have answers.

NetGalley ARC | Two Truths and a Lie

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐.5

***WARNING: There will be spoilers, so don't read on unless you're okay with that.***

I should have LOVED this book. Given the premise, it should be something that I could devour in short order and it was, but by the end it was for the wrong reasons.

So, here's the deal: Nell and her theatre friends, with their theatre advisor, are on their way to a competition. It's a big deal, they could get scholarships, etc. A blizzard forces them to pull off the interstate and seek shelter at a super sketch rundown motel. Soon another group of high schoolers arrive and claim to be on their way to a robotics competition. A couple randoms also arrive, a truck driver, and the dude who the robotics team picked up on the side of the road. They're adults and all have secrets of their own.

To pass the time, the kids decide to play Two Truths and a Lie. Nell's group's advisor tells the kids to let her sleep and pops a pill, disappearing into her room for the duration of the book. Totally a responsible thing to do. The other group's advisor is not much better. Oscar is super young and also kind of creepy in an I'm-the-cool-adult-who-flirts-with-high-schoolers kind of way. The adults basically wander off, letting the kids have the run of the place.

During the game of Two Truths, the kids are having fun, Nell is flirting with Knox, a boy from the other group. It's all good until Nell (of course) pulls a slip from the pile that has the following written on it:

1. I like to watch people die
2. My least favorite food is mushrooms
3. I've lost count of how many people I've killed.

Suddenly things aren't so fun anymore and despite Nell going on and on and on about how she does the backstage stuff, isn't an actor, blah blah blah, things felt like they were getting good because the mystery was beginning to unfold.

The kids are understandably freaked out, but try to rationalize it away saying someone must have made a mistake and wrote two lies instead of two truths. But no one will admit to it. So they decide each of them will take their own slip and then anyone without a slip will be the one who wrote it. Problem is, when they do this, each kid has their own paper and the creepy one remains unclaimed.

The maintenance guy, Travis, and the owner whose name I forgot already, share some of the history of the motel. The owner talks about how there had been a double murder twenty years ago and his parents tried to keep the business going but they were not successful and that's why it is so rundown now. Travis gives a lot more details on the murders. He has a scrapbook basically of articles and stuff.

He also talks about himself in third person. Obviously we need an OBVIOUS weirdo who could be a killer, but won't actually be, because it would be TOO OBVIOUS. He clearly has had some kind of TBI that makes him act and speak the way he does, and it was a shitty weird stereotype that I hated.

The kids find an Ouija board and decide to do a séance because, why not? Most don't take it seriously, but two do - one because she has done these before and one because his religious beliefs make him believe it is incredibly dangerous.

(Side note: if you have been around a while, you know all things paranormal are my jam. But even I draw the line at Ouija boards. I don't fuck around with that stuff, EVER.)

Then in the middle of asking the spirits about the murders, the power goes out. Don't forget, there is a blizzard raging outside and they are isolated. The board does not get closed properly due to everyone being startled by the outage, and everyone is freaking out.

Everyone decided to go to bed and, OH NO! One of the girls from the other team is MURDERED! She's found hanging in the common room where they'd all hung out the night before. THEN in another's girl's room, BLOOD IS FOUND, but NO BODY!

Turns out, the robotics group was really just another theatre group on their way to the same competition and they decided to play this SUPER FUNNY joke on Nell and her crew, because of how snobby and pretentious they'd been acting. Truthfully, all the kids were annoying in various ways, and did not always read like high schoolers. They seemed very young sometimes, or at least super immature, despite being in high school.

So the joke is that the two girls are not really dead, they just used theatre props and fake blood, etc. to make Nell's team think a murderer was loose among them. Apparently Knox, the boy who Nell is crushing on, is 'super convincing' - meaning he is a douche who is very persuasive, and he basically bullied his team into pulling this prank. And their advisor, Oscar, was okay with it because he basically bullied Oscar into it too. And he like, knows stuff about the others and blackmails them into doing this.

Naturally that should make Knox a suspect when the two girls who were supposedly murdered end up missing FOR REAL.

So that next morning when all this nonsense has come to light, the kids are running around, the adults are just background at this point, and NELL looks out the window to see ANIMAL TRACKS! The owner of the motel says he will take his snowshoes and head out to get help, many miles away. The blizzard continues on and off, Nell and one of the guys end up out in the storm trying to find the owner or something, a family of undocumented immigrants is discovered freezing in the trucker's truck...all kinds of WHAT THE FUCK stuff starts coming fast.

The worst part is the reveal of the killer, which I had a pretty good idea was coming. All the sudden it's revealed but it happened so fast that I had to go back and reread because I thought I missed something.

Turns out, nope. It really just happened that way.

As you might surmise, the pacing is all over the place and that's what makes this book such a letdown. You don't have time to be surprised by the final twist because it just barrels over you and the story keeps moving. For those who don't read YA thrillers often, this might be okay, but for seasoned veterans like myself it was ridiculous. I've often said that even if I see a twist coming, it doesn't typically ruin my enjoyment of a book if there are other positives going for it. That can't be said here unfortunately.

I think the book would have been better off without the "joke' played by Knox and his crew. I get why the theatre angle was played up, because HEY IT COULD ALL BE A JOKE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S REAL! But it fell kind of flat.

There was also nothing to really help distinguish the teens from one another. I kept mixing up which kid was on which team, because they all might as well have been the same person - except Knox and Nell OF COURSE.

So, between the twists that weren't, the depiction of Travis, the random family in the truck, the bobcat lurking outside (JUST KIDDING! The murderer faked the tracks to scare everyone), and awful pacing, and bland/annoying characters, this one didn't work for me.

There was so much promise in the beginning, but in the end I have to say I can't recommend it if you're looking for a unique read.

Book Review | If You're Going to a March

Rating ⭐⭐1/2

I had high hopes for this one, but ended up being disappointed. It is a very white perspective on what protests look like. It does not address what marches and protests often look like when People of Color are the ones on the front lines. One only needs to look at the obvious differences between what happened when a bunch of backwater hicks stormed into state capitol buildings around the country with their weapons out, threatening governors and attempting to get into Chambers. No officers in riot gear and gas masks there as these white men got in their faces, yelling and screaming. Only face masks to protect from COVID. Yet, one can imagine how very different those scenes would have played out had it been POC, or Black men in particular, doing the exact same thing. In fact, you don't have to imagine it. You can see it by looking at videos and images of the protests and marches that have been going on since George Floyd was murdered by four men on a street in Minneapolis. Protesting and marching does not look the same for People of Color as it does for white people, and unfortunately this book does not address that.

I do appreciate that the illustrator did show a great amount of diversity within the pages. We see families of all colors, in all shapes and sizes, preparing to attend a march. We see families arriving by all modes of transportation, people of all ages and cultures. This diversity continues page after page as the march moves through the streets.

Another major issue I have with the book is how it addresses both the presence of the police and the media also at the march.

"There will be police officers at the march. Their job is to keep people safe."

This line nearly made me want to throw the book across the room. We can argue day and night about good officers vs bad officers but here is the reality: If you have five bad officers who do bad things, and you have five supposedly good officers who look the other way though they themselves do not DO bad things, then you have ten bad officers. That is a fact. And if you read my account of the protests I have attended in recent weeks, it will be glaringly obvious that I had zero fear of my fellow protesters. But I made damn sure I always knew where the officers in our area were, because rubber bullets were constantly shot and people got hit with strays all the time. I feared the officers, NOT my fellow protesters.

"There will be reporters, too. Their job is to tell the truth. If you want to answer their questions, speak in a loud, clear voice."

This is also not true. One must only look to Faux News to see how their coverage of the protests is so blatantly skewed, they are telling out-right lies. I think this statement is far more true on a local level, usually. For the protest I mentioned that I took Eleanor to, along with a good friend and her children, this statement was 100% true. The reporter and her camera crew asked to interview the girls, and it was beautiful to see Eleanor and her BFF holding hands. They are truly a symbol that hate is something that is taught, not something you are born with, because these girls have loved each other since they first met in dance class four years ago. They've known each other more of their life now than not, and it has never once occurred to either of them that they are any different from one another just based on their skin. So many people around us were in tears listening to the girls talk, and it made me feel such pride.

I would obviously not have taken Eleanor to the first protest I attended a few weeks ago, given that the protest the night before had turned very violent with tons of rubber bullets, water bottles, and tear gas flying. I would not have trusted that I could have kept her safe from the tear gas or flash bangs or rubber bullets, because in truth it was the officers who were so unpredictable. Protests and marches can be chaotic though, without the violence, and the author really pushed the narrative of the peaceful protest. While I agree that is a good message to send to kids, I also think it is unreasonable to expect peace at this point looking at it through the lens of the protests for George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks. People of Color HAVE protested peacefully, and nothing has changed. We are still right back here again, the same place we were when Michael Brown was murdered and left in the street for hours.

I recognize that perhaps my own outlook is also still too narrowly focused at this time to appreciate this book in full. There are many things to protest in addition to the murder of Black men by police officers. But that is where the attention is right now, and when I was searching for picture books to add to my #BlackLivesMatter Reading List, this is one that came up over and over.

I appreciated the 'how-to' parts of the book, preparing kiddos for what they will need to bring with them, how to get to and from the march, and also how to conduct themselves around those who disagree with why they are marching. The book never actually says what the protest march is for, but the kids carry signed that say "Speak Up" in rainbow letters, "Do the Math (and Science", "Peace begins with me" and "Hate Has No Home Here". As the protesters march, at one point we see barricades have been put up on a sidewalk and a couple people with frowning faces watching the march go back. Of this the narrators says, "If you see people who disagree, be polite." I think that is also important, but also not always realistic - again especially when thinking about the current protests and marches happening here and around the world in response to the murders of Floyd and Brooks.

I will still read this one to Eleanor, but I will also address each point that I have mentioned above as things that bothered me while reading. I do not want to scare Eleanor away from her budding activism but I also want to be realistic. We have discussed many times what happened to George Floyd and how we are protesting to stop other Black men from being hurt or killed by officers who are supposed to protect the entire community. We've talked about how we see each person, color and all, for who they are as whole people. (Side note: Let's stop with this colorblind bullshit, okay? When you say you don't see another person's color, you are denying seeing part of who they are. Stop it.) We talk about how all colors of skin are beautiful, all cultures have great things to offer our world, and that we will remain on the right side of history, fighting, marching, protesting for justice that has too long been denied.

Book Review | Ghosted

Rating ⭐⭐

This is definitely not the typical 'thriller' type fiction I have been reading lately, because it is not a thriller at all. But there was still a mystery and I just had to know what happened.

Sarah and Eddie had what are repeatedly described as six wonderful/perfect/amazing days together, and the Eddie disappears. Sarah has been ghosted and she goes to great lengths to find out why. She believes something has happened to Eddie, that what they had in that short time was real, and he would never simply ghost her and never contact her again. At the end of this time together, Eddie is off on a vacation that he had booked before they met. He tells Sarah he will call from the airport, but never does. He ignores all attempts that Sarah makes to reach him and drives her to the brink of insanity. Okay, to be fair the 'insanity' part is my interpretation, because was pretty crazy-obsessed. She continued insisting to her friends that what they had was real, that it was not just her feeling this way, etc. Her friends continue to tell Sarah to forget about him and move on, but she can't. Sarah believes there is an explanation, and that she deserves to know said explanation. She won't stop until she gets it. Despite sharing so much of their histories one another in those six days, there is one event neither discuss and that is the very thing that links them together beyond this chance meeting, in quite an awful way.

So this one took me forever to even figure out how to rate. I honestly kept going only because I wanted to know why Eddie ghosted her. It is important to note that these are two adults in their late 30s. Both behaved in the most immature of ways. If we could have seen more of the 'relationship' develop in those few days, maybe I would feel differently about Sarah's behavior once Eddie had ghosted. Maybe the author wanted us to just trust her that they had fallen in love so quickly and so intensely, and by trusting that we could then just believe it to be totally realistic in the way they both acted afterward. We get little snippets of their time together, but that's it. Sarah comes across as a super whiny stage-five clinger and Eddie is the douche that never called. If they had been twenty years younger, I probably would not have found the behavior by either of them as ridiculous. However, being in that age range myself of late-30s, I was absolutely put off by Sarah's obsession with getting the truth from Eddie. There was no way for the reader to understand their connection, because we did not see it develop. I honestly did not care one way or another if they actually ended up together, I just wanted to see how it all played out.

Given the thrillers I have read lately, and those I have loved in the past, I found myself hoping that Sarah would turn out to be one of my most favorite kinds of characters - the unreliable narrator. At least then we would have some kind of reason for her level of obsession with a guy she only knew for six days. Sadly, this was not the case. She is simply a 19 year old trapped in a 39 year old body. Too bad.

In the end the story comes together, but man it was a slog to get there. I would not consider this romance at all, because there is no romance to be seen. It is a bit of a mystery, but not the thriller-y kind at all. I don't really know how to classify it, to be honest.

One thing the author did well was showing how the different characters connected to the BIG SECRET responded in their grief. Grief looks so different on everyone, and that is at least one positive I can give for this book.

While it is not a book I am going to jump up on a soapbox and recommend to everyone, I am sure there is an audience for it. I am just not part of that audience.

NetGalley ARC | An Alternative History of Britain: The Tudors

I received a free digital ARC from Pen and Sword via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐

I would probably even be willing to give 2.5 stars on this one. I am not quite sure what it is, but it was not as good as I hoped it would be. The author takes a look at the possible outcomes of crucial events in the era of the Tudor monarchs. The historical research is there, and Venning clearly knows the period well. None of the possible outcomes are crazy or outlandish, and any one of them could have happened. Even so, I was not enthralled by this one, which is unusual because I do enjoy alternative/speculative histories about my favorite periods and historical figures.

Venning explores some fantastic avenues of the 'what-ifs'. My most favorite situations to play this game with were all discussed here, such as what might history look like had Arthur lived to be crowned king? Same with Edward VI as well, what might things look like had he not died so young? The problem with those two questions, however, is that they were so young when they died, we have literally no idea what kind of men they would have grown to be. Thus, it is impossible to even capture all the possibilities of how the course of history might have changed had either of them ruled. Venning also looks at the what-if regarding Henry Fitzroy and his potential rule, had he not died young as well. Based on everything I have ever read about Henry and his illegitimate son, I think it was entirely possible he was setting the stage for Fitzroy to be crowned, should he have no other sons. Henry could do whatever he wanted, and no 'stain' of illegitimacy was going to stop him.

Venning also considers the possibility of Queen Jane retaining the throne, another of my favorite what-ifs. Now, I am firmly a supporter of Queen Mary taking the throne, as was her right as the eldest child of Henry VIII. I feel nothing but pity for Mary, who was deeply scarred for life by the actions of her father. But, research has also shown that Jane was quite intelligent and astute. Imagine if she had reigned, perhaps she would be the Tudor monarch called Gloriana. The problem would always have remained, however, that the scheming Dudleys were the family to married into and no doubt his father would have pushed for Guildford to rule instead.

When it comes down to it, I think the writing style itself might be to blame for my mixed feelings about this book. In theory it is one I should love; the period and the scenarios, the endless game of what-if; all of that is exactly what I love about history. But sometimes there would be these incredibly long tangents and if it was easy for a Tudor buff like me to get lost, I can only imagine how a more casual reader might come away feeling. Shorter and more concise phrases/sentences would help immensely.

I do wish the author had explored how these various scenarios would have impacted England as a whole. The focus remained on the Tudors themselves, and their court/government. But surely had the Spanish Armada been successful, life for the commoners would have changed drastically as well, and probably in a much more violent and harsh way. Life as England knew it would have been radically altered, not just for the ruling class.

In the end, I would still recommend this to Tudor history enthusiasts, because there is some good here. Just keep in mind the issues I have briefly addressed.

NetGalley ARC: Ghosts of the Grand Canyon

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review

Rating: 2.5 Stars

I am not what you would call and "outdoor girl". In fact, I am pretty much what Jack thinks of when he calls Rose and "indoor girl" the first night they met. I don't like nature (close up, at least. I can admire from afar), I don't want it to touch me, I don't want to be in it, I don't like humidity and being sweaty and gross (winter is a whole different story, I love winter and I love snow). Even so, there is something about the Grand Canyon that draws me in, that I would be willing to set aside all my 'nature rules' in order to go hiking up, down, and all around. So when I saw a new paranormal book up on Llewellyn's page AND it was specific to the Grand Canyon, I was pretty interested.

Sadly, this one was not a favorite - and I have read a ton of these types of books that Llewellyn offers.

First, I want to address the issue of the errors in the proof. This is not the author's fault in any way and what I am about to address did not impact my rating in any way. However, this is now the second or third book from Llewellyn where the proof copy has been terrible. I don't mean typos and such, those are expected at least somewhat in an uncorrected proof. This issue goes beyond that. Any time a word should have had an 'ff', that set of letters was missing. There is another combo as well, I believe either 'if' or 'fi', I can not recall, but it was hugely distracting. And as this is not the first proof I have found that in recently, I am wondering what the purpose is? Sometimes it was obvious was the word was meant to be, and other times it made a different word, which then lead me to believe there were many typos, until I caught on to the pattern of what was missing. Again, this part did not impact my rating, but it was suuuuuper annoying.

As for the book itself, as it went on, I found myself skimming toward the later half, especially when stories became very similar. I don't to discuss anything too in-depth about the kinds of experiences people had and continue to have, because there are some great stories. But I do think some of the more repetitive ones could have been left out. Another major frustration and part of the reason for the score of 2.5 stars instead of 3 has to do with the fact that there is little verifiable information. We often do not even get dates or a time frame for when any of the experiences supposedly occurred. I understand that putting a date to all would be impossible, given the fact that so many stories are passed on from one staff member to the next, and information gets lost over time, but it certainly would have lent some credibility to some of the stories if there was more meat to them overall.

The authors are very familiar with the setting, living and working in the area. I mistakenly thought when I first grabbed this one though, that these were all their personal stories and I should have read the synopsis a little more carefully. They do share some of their experiences, but overall the majority are accounts that other people have reported to have had. I realize there simply is no real plausible way to do any kind of investigation within the canyon, the amount of contamination in the evidence would be astronomical. Even so, I would have appreciated some more concrete evidence within some of the stories.

Something else I think the authors did well relates to their knowledge of the Grand Canyon. We get plenty of historical information not only related to the supposed hauntings, but of the canyon itself and its surroundings. I think that part is just as important, so readers and would-be investigators get a feel for why a place might attract spirits or why guests might linger, long after their earthly body has departed. I also have never really given much thought to what a vast complex of buildings must cover the site at this point, and it was interesting to learn about that aspect of the history as well.

Review Bomb: True Crime

I am really trying to be productive this weekend. I have nearly 50 books on my 'Upcoming Reviews' page. Luckily, most of them are older so they can be given these mini reviews. But I also have plenty of ARCs that will need their own. Yikes! How did I let myself get so far behind?

 3 Stars

Prior to reading this book, I had no idea who Belle Gunness was. And to be honest, I still don't really know her and I never will. Over half the book is dedicated to the mysterious circumstances of her death, and whether or not she really died at all. Her children certainly did, as well as the scores of men she lured to her farm. But did Belle? That's the question destined to remain unanswered, which is what made the book frustrating. I am not big into true crime, but this one interested me because Belle is so unique. It is a very rare thing to come across a female serial killer and combined with the time period, I was hooked on her story.

For six years Belle Gunness placed countless ads, luring men to their deaths. Some of the men were wealthy bachelors, others hired hands. With only one exception, all of them were murdered, butchered and chopped into little pieces, then buried in various locations around the farm. Belle's home was eventually consumed by a fire one evening and Belle supposedly perished there, though that is open for debate, and there are plenty of notes to argue either way. personally I have a hard time believing this psychopath would kill herself, though she had no qualms about killing her children - she had done it before. The only piece of the puzzle then would be, who did the body really belong to, and how was the dental work to be explained?

One thing I could have done without is the author's repeated misogyny and dare I say, racism. He constantly tells us how ugly/fat/etc Belle was, almost as if he could not believe that any of them men who answered her ads/letters would have stayed for any time on the farm once they met Belle face to face. It was enough that I almost DNF-ed it. For example: "Even in her 20s, however - as an earlier photo attests - she was a notably unlovely young woman, with a large head, short nose, and a wide, fat-lipped mouth that, when set in a frown, bore resemblance to a frog's." I don't know if I am crazy or what, but I do not consider Belle ugly, based on the cover photo. It was almost like the author wanted to make sure people understood she was a monster - as though murdering a bunch of men would not get the point across. We get it, seriously. She was a monster on the inside, no need to try to make her outsides the same. Secondly, there is a woman in the story by the name of Elizabeth Smith who was repeatedly referred to as "N****r Liz". regardless of the fact that this was viewed as an acceptable way to refer to someone in the early 20th century, it is not now, nor has it ever been. She could have just as easily been referred to as Ms Smith, or Smith, instead of the racial slur which seemed to crop up often. Not cool. The author also took several shots at this involved  who were perceived as having less-than-average IQs. It seems like the author always chose the more derogatory way to refer to someone, instead of being objective. And that is where I have a problem with True Crime. If you can not simply relate the facts, and you find yourself putting forth your own biases into the narrative, then maybe True Crime writing is not for you. Or, you need a really good editor to catch the bias as it comes up. Those issues distracted heavily from what is otherwise a well-researched book and, to my knowledge one of the few, if only, biographies of Gunness. But seriously, every time he said how ugly she was I would look at the cover and wonder if I was seeing a completely different person.

And to be clear, this IS a well-researched book. I read it on my Kindle, where only 65% was devoted to the text itself. The following 20% was notes, with the bibliography afterward. Much of the book was eventually dedicated to Belle's own (possible) murder. After the first quarter or so, where we learned about Belle's life and victims, there is a fire. The house burns completely to the ground, there is hardly anything left. A woman's body is found in the fire, decapitated. Dental work both IDs the woman as Belle, and gives pause in that identification. Weird, right? Yet another True Crime mystery that will never be solved. Despite the major flaws in the author bias, I would still cautiously recommend this one to those who are not familiar with Belle's story. Other reviews I read indicated there was not a lot of new material, so take that for what it is worth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 2.5 Stars

First of all, the sub title is ridiculous. It screams desperation and seriously, is that not what we all might have thought when we picked this one up? To be fair though, it was not as terrible as I expected. When I first came across it, I thought it would just be another rehashing of everything we already know, but someone who barely knew her HALF BROTHER. Turns out I was a little right, but she did at least become close with Scott, it seems. And I get it, I can't even imagine loving two people, then finding out what of them murdered the other. But the signs were there long before Bird arrived at the 'Guilty' judgment for Scott. I do question the parts where she talks about how she loved Laci and they were good friends - that part did not really ring true for me. Not sure why, if it was the writing or the presentation or what. it just felt off. Maybe insincere or manipulative of the situation.

The sub title is also as misleading as it is ridiculous. The focus of the book is more about the author and her family, and how Laci's murder and Scott's trial impacted them. We do get to see those "33 Reasons" listed out for us late in the book, but we also get to keep seeing the crazy that is Scott's mother - and the author's too (she was given up for adoption, years before Scott was born. Bird then makes an awkward statement with something to the effect of how Scott was the one their mom "kept" and look how he turned out, or something. It was not those exact words, but there was discussion on how Scott was the "Golden Child" who could do no wrong. So, those statements felt kind of like a stab at Bird's birth mom for giving her up for adoption, but keeping her later children.) I was also left wondering how much Jackie even liked Laci; she always seemed to be making snide comments, or making Laci feel bad about something, in general.

Overall, this is nothing great. I believe Scott murdered Laci and Connor. If you also believe so, skip this one. If you think he is innocent, this probably won't change your mind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 3 Stars

Right off the bat, I am going to start with something that pissed me off to the extreme. Over halfway through the book Fuhrman writes, "We will never know and could forever speculate about Simpson's intentions at this point or what Nicole might have done to provoke him into a murderous rage. Perhaps she told him, again, that their relationship was over, or perhaps she ridiculed or insulted him."

UM, REALLY? WHAT. THE. FUCK.

Let's try to stay away from the victim-blaming, shall we? How completely disgusting and abhorrent. Nothing she could have said or done would ever justify what happened to her and Goldman that night. Nothing. NOTHING. 

I feel a little better. But only a little. On to the review.

I was 11 when Nicole Brown Simpson was so brutally murdered, along with Ron Goldman (something else that is none of our business but that Fuhrman addresses, whether or not they were in a sexual relationship.) I remember watching the Bronco chase, I remember the uproar, the arrival back at his home, the speculation of the news crews as they followed him along the freeways, I remember everything. I also remembered people standing on the sides of the roads, cheering him on. That made me feel so angry because even at 11 years old, I recognized that innocent people don't run away and that exactly what Simpson tried to do. I was only 11/12 as the trial went on, and was limited in what I was allowed to be exposed to as the trial progressed. At the time I did not know about such extensive forensic evidence, something Fuhrman goes into great detail about. On the blood evidence alone, ignoring all other fibers, hairs, etc, that alone should have been enough to secure a guilty verdict from any rational jury. I knew he was guilty, why didn't they?

Well, a lot of reasons actually.

The first reason being the author himself, Mark Fuhrman. I remember a lot of accusations thrown at him during and after the trial - that he was a racist cop who planted evidence. I never heard any of the tapes and I don't want to. After reading the book and his words, I'm still not convinced he isn't racist. However, I never thought he planted evidence and I still don't. Seeing how things went now, I don't know how it would have even been possible.

I also can not believe how badly the prosecution bungled this slam-dunk of a case. I didn't see it as a child of course, did not understand the intricacies of the defense and prosecution, but holy hell, do I see it now. What arrogance on both sides of the court room. And unfortunately in the end, the arrogance on the side of the defense won out. They hardly had to do much, despite them all seeming to know he was guilty (Robert Kardashian's involvement, anyone?), since the prosecution let the whole thing blow up in their faces. This is also something Fuhrman addresses and yes, hindsight is 20/20. So many things should have gone differently. FFS, there were witnesses who saw OJ speeding away from the crime scene! Why was this not brought up? When Fuhrman's integrity was called into question, why was his partner not put on the stand? Or any of the other officers working the case? COME ON!

There were TONS of pieces of physical evidence. Tons. And from my understanding, the only thing Fuhrman discovered on his own was the glove on Simpson's property by the bungalow where Kato was staying. So how did it work out that the forensics did not win the case for the prosecution? I never knew before about the obscene amounts of blood in the Bronco, and all the evidence collected at Simpson's home. And I still can not get over how it is possible that the witnesses who saw OJ leaving the scene were never called. Perhaps if the prosecution had been a little more fluid in their timeline of events, the outcome might have been different. But when you box yourself in like that, you're screwed and a guilty man will go free, and that's exactly what happened.

I remember with great clarity the day the verdict came in. it was announced over the intercom at my middle school. There, in a suburb of Minneapolis/St Paul, Minnesota, our principal announced that OJ had been found not guilty, and it was like all the air went out of the room. A couple kids cheered, but for the most part it was quiet, even silent after that. We looked at each other and thought, "How is that even possible?" Again, this was in middle school. We all knew he was guilty, but 12 adults couldn't figure it out?

One thing I really did not appreciate was the use of certain crime scene photos. Until reading this book, I had lived 24 years without seeing the horrific photo of Nicole, her blood pooled around her and smeared all over the walkway, slumped by the stairs. I certainly could have done without seeing that for my entire life. But now that image is seared into my brain, right along with the statement: OJ got away with murder.

First Ladies of the Republic: Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, Dolley Madison, and the Creation of an Iconic American Role

I received a free ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review

Rating: 2.5 Stars

The book is best summed up in this way: Martha didn't want to be First Lady, Abigail was mad at everyone who didn't like her husband, and Dolley liked to party.

I wanted to like this one. I was stoked when I saw it on NetGalley, because I am just as interested in the First Ladies as I am in reading a biography of every president. Unfortunately this one fell short for me and was disappointing. The main issue I have is that it became so repetitive once we moved into the sections about Abigail and Dolley. This was especially problematic because Abigail was given the most coverage. Each woman was not showcased on her own, and their stories did entwine throughout but there is a point when enough is enough. I felt like we are constantly being told about Dolley being social. We get it, she was social. SHE WAS SOCIAL.

Now, I did only read an ARC and not the final copy. I know the book has been published now, but perhaps in a future edition the repetitiveness can be curbed so we can have a clear picture of the women in their time. On a positive note, the use of primary sources was fantastic and helped to really flesh out the women to help us understand how they fit into their roles and supported their husband and his politics. 

Substitute: Going to School With a Thousand Kids

Rating: 2.5 Stars

I received a free digital copy of this book via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

The premise of this book was interesting, but I felt like the execution was lacking. I worked as s substitute after getting my Bachelor's in elementary education, to see which schools I might like to work at. I then had a one-year contract and subbed more after that while working on my Master's in Special Education. Since graduating with my second degree, I have been employed full time in the Behavior Skills Program, a self-contained classroom within an elementary school for students with identified behavior disorders/emotional disturbances. As a result of my experience in being both a sub and a full-time educator, I know both sides very well. I've had days just like those he described in the first few chapters, but for this first bit I could not quite put my finger on what was lacking. The further I read, it became clear: we were getting minute-by-minute accounts of each day, from the early-AM call through the last bell of the day, but there was no real reflection on any of the days or what he learned from it about the state of education in the US today. 

As an aside, I find it alarming that in Maine one merely has to take one evening class, get fingerprinted, and boom, you're a sub. At least here, someone who is not in the field of education can only sub a limited number of days at least. Though it has been 5 years since I have subbed, so things may have changed.

I could readily identify with Baker when he said he felt like he had taught nothing all day. For the times I was in a one-day subbing position I felt like that also. Luckily, I rarely had those. I had several friends who worked at the same middle school as 6th grade teachers, and three of them had babies within two years, so I was lucky to get long-term positions and really get to know the kids. The other teachers on the team then began requesting me as well, and at one point I had subbed there so often that half the kids thought I was a staff member. This went on for three years and by the end of that time, I had strong relationships built with 8th, 7th, and 6th graders because I had subbed so long. As a result of the long-term jobs, I did teach new content - a lot of it. But in those random one day jobs, definitely not. As an educator myself, going on five years now in my position within the Behavior Skills Program, I very, very rarely leave any sub plans that involves subs teaching new concepts. It is not that I don't think they're capable, but it's the way kids are educated today. Unfortunately, particularly in math, students are taught even simple things like one and two digit multiplication in ridiculous, complex ways. They are expected to solve the problems that way on tests, not in ways we were taught 10-20 years ago.

If you have read any previous reviews, you might also know that I am wary of re-created conversations. Unless an author is recording the conversation or taking exhaustive notes, there is no way conversations are 100% accurate - especially considering the volume of those that exist in this book. There is simply no way he would even have had time to take notes, considering how much time he had to spend devoted to the actual students. So, I will go out on a limb and say they have to be fictionalized accounts, at least somewhat.

There also came a point where the book simply got repetitive. Each day started the same - the wake-up call from dispatch, driving to the school, the endless days, and so on and so on. I eventually started skimming, for a couple reasons. One being the repetitiveness as I mentioned, but also partly because I have already lived a lot of days like this. Some I am happy to recall, some not so much.

In the end, I will be the first to say that subbing is a tough gig. I subbed for a long time and there were specific schools and classrooms I would refuse to return to. I was just hoping for something with a little more thoughtful reflection on how an outsider views our educational system and a lot less repetition.

The Bling Ring: How a Gang of Fame-Obsessed Teens Ripped Off Hollywood and Shocked the World

Rating: 3 Stars...and that is generous. More likely a 2.5

Oh Sweet Baby Jesus.

I first remember hearing about the so-called Bling Ring when Orlando Bloom's house had been robbed and didn't think much of it again until 'Pretty Wild' started airing. I caught bits and pieces of the show and eventually started watching it because it was simply insane and I could at least rest assured that my life in grad school was no where near as terrible as these crazy girls and their crazy mom. I specifically remember the episode where Alexis Neiers was arrested and how she sobbed and cried and swore up and down that she was not involved, she had nothing to do with it, yadda yadda yadda.

Then here in the book we find out she was a consultant on the movie. I mean, it was pretty obvious from her overly dramatic reaction that she was completely involved.

I must admit that I kept watching the show, oh you sly Ryan Seacrest, you should do know how to hook 'em! But since it was only something like 10 episodes or whatever, my brain didn't rot too much, plus I had the whole grad school thing to help keep away the rot as well. The timing of the show airing was certainly interesting, given that the first episode is literally the one where Alexis is arrested - I missed out on the first couple original air dates and subsequently watched them out of order, so my memory may be a bit hazy on the timeline. Not to mention this all happened six years ago, and I read the book in July. But whatever.

Anyway, the book gave some interesting tidbits, such as the fact that Alexis' adopted sister-whatever was also a suspect in the burglaries. On the show it seemed pretty clear that Alexis was the only suspect. Tess was there when she was released from jail, and the paparazzi were snapping zillions of photos, but the book says Tess was never charged - implying that she was at least a suspect. The show definitely did not focus on that, and I am curious as to why they would do so. Surely TWO socialite-wannabes being charged with burglary is even more entertaining than one, no? In the book Nick (the ringleader) even says around 42% that he and Tess robbed Rachel Bilson's house together, yet she was never charged? It does not make sense to me, unless it was explained somewhere else in the book and I have forgotten. It said something earlier on that Alexis didn't rat her out, but why wouldn't Nick? He ratted our everyone else - including himself.

It is sometimes really easy I think for people to forget that these celebrities are human. They might be super shallow and self-absorbed humans (I'm looking at you, Paris), but they are still human. I really felt bad for Rachel Bilson in particular - not only because Summer Roberts remains one of my all-time favorite characters - but because of how deeply this impacted her and how she felt so violated in her own home and could not stay there. I think sometimes it is really easy for 'regular people' to look at celebs as animals in a zoo here for our entertainment and forget that they really are still people who deserve to feel safe in their own homes. But these punk kids thought it was perfectly reasonable and even acceptable for them to waltz in, take what they wanted - sometimes making numerous trips. It is so incredibly infuriating to see these brats doing stuff like this. This may also have to do with the fact that stealing is one of the things that truly pisses me off the most (especially being a teacher and all). You didn't earn it, you didn't pay for it, it does not belong to you.

There are other people to feel sorry for in this whole debacle though, not just the celebs who could obviously recover financially even if emotionally it took a bit longer. I could not really keep all the thieving kids straight, so I don't really remember most of their names, or their parents' names either. But I most definitely felt bad for the mother of the older guy who was fencing the stolen goods. It seemed from the book that her life had never been easy and suddenly all of this was happening and it was terribly unfair of these bozos to put their parents into such difficult positions.

My biggest issue with the book ended up being the author herself. It was an easy read and one I finished pretty quickly, but I was not there for any pseudo-intellectual dissection of why these kids felt entitled to help themselves to whatever they found lying around in the homes of these celebrities. I could certainly have done without her theories or sociological interpretations of the whys or the impact of reality television on people. My purpose for reading was to hear about the case and the crimes and I didn't have much interest in a magazine writer trying to make the book more academic-sounding. I skimmed over the parts where the author discussed pornography and modeling, and the impact these things have on society - especially for young boys and girls. Eventually the author did some kind of dissection on Bonnie and Clyde and compared them to Rachel and Nick, the leaders of these bored, dumb kids. At that point I was pretty much done.

Overall this one was kind of like watching a car wreck. You want to look away but for some reason you just can't. You have to know what happened. You can find out, if you tip-toe around all the pop-psychology bs, and if you can do so then by all means, have at it.

The Hollywood Book of Death: The Bizarre, Often Sordid, Passings of More than 125 American Movie and TV Idols

Rating: 2.5 Stars

I mean, eh. It was okay, but this is not the kind of book you read straight through, even though that is what I did. It's a sort of reference book with information about a variety of stars and how they passed away, divided by sections into murders, suicides, etc. In addition, for several of the stars, the author gives at least paragraphs-worth and sometimes pages-worth of information on the star's rise and fall. For quite a bit into the book I did not recognize any of the celebrities mentioned, save Jayne Mansfield and James Dean. And to be honest, I only know who Mansfield is to begin with because her daughter plays one of my most favorite television characters ever, the amazing Mariska Hargitay. An interesting fact about Mansfield's death (that I knew prior to this book) was that Hargitay and her brothers were in the backseat of the car when the accident occurred and none were seriously injured.

I went through a phase in college of being completely obsessed with celebrity gossip. This was when Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, and Lindsay Lohan were at their height. Oh how we begged they would go away, even while devouring every article we could about them. If only we had known that those three would give way to the Kardashian juggernaut. Ah, simply times. Anyway, seeing as how I still have some residual affection left over for celebs, especially those of the golden days of Hollywoodland, I was most interested in the book to begin with. It's morbid, that is for sure, but by nature I think we are all fascinated by death on some level and the death of celebrities is equally as intriguing because given their time in the spot light, we feel like we know them.

There were a lot of people I was interested in to read about and I learned some interesting tidbits that I did not know before, such as that Judy Garland tried to kill herself so many times before she died of an overdose, or that Marilyn Monroe's phone records from the day she died mysteriously disappeared.

The Phil Hartman bit was especially sad to me. He was one of my favorite SNL cast members and I loved NewsRadio. When he was murdered, it absolutely devastating to me. I was 15 at the time and watched the news cycles endlessly, as they replayed the stories over and over. I remember feeling so awful for their children, who were so young, and also because of the fact that they had been in the home at the time of their father's murder.

I can't even begin to discuss Farley's death. That was another one that hit me hard, as another cast member from what are arguably SNL's best years since Belushi, Murray, Ackroyd, etc.

There was a large section of text devoted to River Phoenix and I feel like until reading this book to jog my memory, I had completely forgotten that Joaquin and River are brothers. I was only ten when River died and I never really knew what the Viper Room was at that age, but I had watched Stand By Me by that time (I was a mature ten year old).

As I neared the end of the text (at 59%) I could not help but notice the absence of a couple young actors who I had liked as a youth and as an adult - Heath Ledger, Paul Walker, Jonathan Brandis and Brad Renfro, to name a few. Ledger's death hit me especially hard because he was so impossibly talented, he had a young daughter; it was all just too awful. I did not realize this book had been published in 2001, and that is the problem with books like this - they are hopelessly and forever out of date. So many celebrities have died since 2001, the book would easily be doubled in length to include new content. But it would also be in need of an update pretty much every year, and that is why I typically shy away from books of this kind.

The additional information in the appendixes offers a list of notable movie and tv stars who had passed away up to 2001 and those marked with an asterisk were included in the book (appendix A) and then a list of cemeteries where notables are interred (appendix B). The bibliography contained some interesting books I would like to read, mostly biographies I would like to read to gain a bit more in-depth knowledge of certain stars.

While this was interesting, I would definitely say do not buy it. As mentioned above, it is hopelessly out of date and that alone makes it not such a great investment. Luckily I snagged it via BookBub for I think $.99, so it was not so bad.

Hypatia of Alexandria: Mathematician and Martyr

Rating: 2.5 Stars

I hate math. I mean, I really hate it. It made me miserable for years. What made my misery ever worse is that my mom is really good at math, so I could never understand when she would try to explain my homework to me, and she could never understand why I couldn't understand her.

It might seem strange then, that I am completely obsessed with Hypatia, a mathematician who lived over 1500 years ago. Part of the allure I think, is that we know so little about her - kind of like Boudicca, another fabulously fierce heroine my daughter will some day know all about. Or, know as much as she can, given how little concrete information we have about either of these women.

And therein, of course, lies the problem. There is so little information about Hypatia herself, that one can hardly write an entire book about her, Instead, one would have to not only include the facts we do know, but give explanation of the times she lived in, the math and philosophy she worked on, and so forth. 

That is exactly what the author does, and really it is almost too much. The math alone is very in-depth and academic. I am all for scholarly and academic texts, I read them often. But for someone like myself who is predisposed to hate math because that gene skipped me somehow, this was like reading a text book at times. I wanted to like this book and for it to be everything I was looking for, but it can't. That is no fault of the author, he did the best he could with the information he had to work with, but there is simply not enough know for certain to fill a book.

The author uses what sources still exist to flesh out Hypatia and at least give her a form - but in truth we do not even know what she looked liked. I appreciate though, that there is not a lot of conjecture here. In truth, very little of the book is about Hypatia. Without beating a dead horse too much, there just is not enough info.

So, I can really only recommend this one to people who love math. Hypatia is there of course, and we know what we can. Sadly though, that is not much and I fear that will never change.

In Defense of the Princess: How Plastic Tiaras and Fairytale Dreams Can Inspire Smart, Strong Women

Rating: 2.5 Stars

Review:

I received this book as an ARC via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

I absolutely loved this one for about the first half or two thirds or so. The rest was such a disappointment. This may come as a surprise, since I seem to be the target audience. After all, I myself am a princess. My name means 'princess' in Hebrew, I have the word 'princess' tattooed in Hebrew on my body, and I was pretty much raised like a princess, being an only child - and only grandchild for ten years. But the problem with this one is that the author applies modern thinking while making general statements about all princesses - that princesses are caring, protective of their kingdoms, etc. Disney Princesses, yes (more on these lovely ladies in a second), but REAL princesses, in the middle ages? They had no power themselves and lived to be pawns for their fathers to gain power through marriages. Princesses then were decidedly NOT powerful, so I think it is important that the author makes the distinction of being a modern princess who has autonomy and control over her own life.

I like how the book started out, specifically focusing on Disney Princesses. We love Disney in this house and I will never apologize for that. My daughter is two and a half and loves to watch Frozen, Tangled, and Brave especially. She dresses up in the Elsa and Anna costumes, then plays with her dump trucks and garbage trucks. I have zero worry that she is being damaged by unrealistic expectations that Disney supposedly promotes. So, I appreciate this aspect of the book and the author suggestions that these princesses display self-reliance, compassion, critical thinking, ingenuity, etc. However, lets be honest, that was not the message being sent when Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White came out decades ago. I do agree that these princesses were more on the weak side when compared today to the likes of Rapunzel and Merida. And before you tell me that Rapunzel waited for a man (Flynn Rider) to help her leave her tower, I must remind you that she had never left the tower and had also asked Mother Gothel to take her. It was not that she needed a man to protect her - she did that just fine on her own. She just needed someone to show her the way to the lanterns.

A quote I particularly liked in reference to this issue: "I'm not suggesting we negate all critical thinking when it comes to viewing Disney films with our children - but if someone tells me that Disney princesses possess zero redeeming qualities, I must and will protest" (8%). This, I certainly agree with.

Another positive: the author mentions Boudicca and Eleanor of Aquitaine in the same sentence and they are awesome. My daughter is named after Eleanor of Aquitaine and her nickname has evolved over the last two years to Boody, for Boudicca. It makes sense in my head and in hers, trust me.

My biggest issue with this book is that the author assumes that women and girls want to be princesses because of the qualities of kindness and compassion, caring for those around them, caring about the 'global and human implications of decisions and not just financial implications'...that is all well and good and OF COURSE we want to raise all our children, not just girls to be kind and caring people. But this assumes then that girls are not also competitive or things that might be perceived as more 'masculine' qualities, because the author uses the phrase 'scientifically proven' several times at the end when discussing the characteristics of women/princesses. Sorry I'm not sorry, but I am super competitive and I always want to win. If I win, that means someone else has to lose. That does not make me any less of a princess. I'd wear my tiara to work every day if I could, but unfortunately I live in the Midwest where people would look at me like I was crazy and I just don't want to deal with that. If I lived in New York or LA, no one would look twice. But I digress. Back to the topic at hand - the qualities the author says princesses have are not the ONLY qualities we possess and that is okay. It doesn't mean that I want everyone else to fail so I can win, and of course it depends on the situation, but still, she is supposing a lot.

Another issue that bothered me was when the author repeatedly discussed Prince William losing his hair in her section on Kate. The author previously made the point about not emphasizing beauty, yet she takes these little potshots at the fact that he is going bald. The first time, I let it go, but then the second mention came in the form of, "...back in the days when his cheeks had color and his head had hair"...and following up with this one a swipe later about, "...November 2010 when his eligibility came to an end and so did much of his hair." Why is it okay to do this and repeatedly comment on his looks, when we should not do this to women/princesses? Speaking of Kate - while I was among the many who watched the wedding, enthralled, I am a bit skeptical of the author's prediction that she will one day be known as 'Kate the Great'. Does the author know that only one ruler in the history of the country - from even before England was united as England - is known as 'the Great'? He goes by the name of Alfred and he busted his butt to secure Wessex and the surrounding lands, fight Vikings, promote religion and learning, create burghs. I am guessing she does not, since she also stated that the royal family of England goes back to the 400s AD. Um, no, they definitely do not. Roman occupation slowly dwindled out and the country eventually became divided into small kingdoms. It was not until Aethelstan, Alfred's grandson, that England even became united into England in Anglo-Saxon times. Please know your history when it is relevant to your topic.

As an aside, the author mentions a 12 year old girl in California who has discovered that all US presidents except one are directly descended from King John (That would be Eleanor of Aquitaine's youngest son, Richard I's brother who is possibly one of the worst kings England had, and thus came Magna Carta). I found this fact very interesting and wanted to know more about this, how she came across this information and what materials did she have access to in order to determine this?

In the end, I was highly disappointed in how the book devolved from how princesses could be strong, powerful and capable, to a diatribe about feminism. I do agree that you can be pro princess and a feminist. Feminist is not a dirty word, being a feminist simply means you recognize gender equality as a must in our world, so let's just get that out of the way. Yet the author goes on saying how we hate ourselves for buying Princess Diana biographies, and don't want our daughters to have princess-themed birthday parties...Um, please. My daughter's first birthday was Disney princess themed, complete with a three-tiered replica of the Disneyland Castle. I am entirely not ashamed of my princess-ness and no one else should be either. Being a princess is awesome.

And for the record, my toddler knows she is a princess too. She says it every day while she twirls around in her fancy dresses, surrounded by all her trucks.