Cross Creek by Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings

The pressure was on. I have plans to visit the Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Historic State Park this coming Thursday. I had laid aside her memoir, Cross Creek, when I realized I wasn't going to be attending the April book club meeting where it was going to be discussed. I wanted the book finished by the time I went exploring at the park.

I really wanted to love this book. I love reading historical books about places nearby to where I live. Even after living in Florida for nearly six years, I'm still awed by the fact that "modern Florida" hasn't existed for all that long. I'm sure lots of what Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings wrote about Cross Creek was also true about the part of central Florida that I now call home. That was a part of the book that I loved.

I loved her love of rural Florida. She wasn't going to let the primitive lifestyle beat her.

Cross Creek was the spot in Florida where MKR lived while writing what is most probably her most famous book, The Yearling, which I still haven't read.  I'm glad I read this book. And might pick up The Yearling. While working as a substitute teacher, I started to watch the movie of The Yearling with a class. We didn't get too far into it. I might try to watch the movie again, after I read the novel.

So what didn't I love?

• This was really more of a memoir about Cross Creek than about Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings. I wish she'd included some background information on why she moved to Cross Creek, where she came from, why she was alone, etc.
• I would have preferred more of a narrative in chronological order rather than the little snippets that weren't really like short stories or anecdotes or even on the same subject.
• I found it difficult to keep track of the other residents of Cross Creek. I felt it almost didn't matter.
• While sometimes the language used in the book was lyrical, sometimes it was a bit too over the top for me. Often it made for very slow reading.

A final note

If you read the reviews on goodreads.com, lots of readers comment on how racist MKR was. Or how superior she felt to her neighbors. If the book was written today - about any time during the past 50 years, I would totally agree. Written in the 1940s, about the years leading up to that time, Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was speaking in language and beliefs that were common place during that period. I don't believe she was any more racist than was normal for most at the time.

Read about my visit to Cross Creek, the Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings State Park, here.

The Hypnotist's Love Story by Liane Moriarity

I started reading The Hypnotist's Love Story by Liane Moriarity on May 13. At the time, I was preoccupied with my cousin's failing health and thought Oh, perfect! Brainless chick lit to read while I can't handle something deeper. Then on May 16, my cousin was admitted to the hospital and by May 17, she was transferred to hospice. Reading was the last thing on my mind.

When I picked the book up again a few days ago, I was still thinking that that The Hypnotist's Love Story was a quirky little book. And maybe at other times in my life, it might have seemed so. But at this point in my life, anything related to death (and there are many deaths resulting in deep losses that are important to the plot) jumped off the page at me. The book is an easy read and I was determined to finish it before it was due back to the library (today, May 27).

The Hypnotist's Love Story is a book about relationships. Romantic relationships, family relationships, relationships between friends. Current relationships and past relationships. Some of these past relationships have an impact on current relationships.

I loved the premise of the story. But I saw so many missed opportunities for this to be a really good book. The way it's written, it's simply mediocre.  In this novel, Moriarity did too much "tell" and not enough "show." Ellen, the hypnotist (or more specifically a hypnotherapist) is in a new relationship with Patrick, a widower with a young son named Jack. As they fall in love, Ellen questions all the relationships she's had in the past and compares them to her relationship with Patrick. Patrick comes to the relationship with a lot of baggage. His wife, Colleen, has been dead for 5 years. Shortly after his wife's death, he was in a relationship with Saskia... who is every present, stalking Patrick at every opportunity. She just can't help herself. Patrick is pretty upfront with Ellen about his stalker. For some warped reason, Ellen is intrigued by the idea of this stalker. Okay, I guess that works in chick lit.

What didn't work was that Moriarity hand fed us too much information about Saskia. I would have rather had the opportunity to experience an "ah ha" moment. Oh, yes, I bet that's who Saskia is. I felt cheated once that tidbit was laid to rest.

What also didn't work is that there wasn't too much tension in this novel. I never had the urge to scream Watch out! to any of the characters. For a book with a premise that sounds like it could be a thriller, it wasn't very thrilling. Whenever Ellen and Patrick had a disagreement, they made nice far too quickly. Maybe not in terms of the time it took, but Moriarity didn't show us enough discord. All the plot points were too neat and tidy. And unexciting.

I am usually disappointed with the way books end. The ending of the book was probably one of my favorite parts. The ending wasn't rushed as it so often is in chick lit novels. I thought the healing that went on for most of the characters seemed realistic and it worked.

This is the July book club selection for my community book club. I predict that our discussion will cover 2 points:

1. how the book was written (what worked, what didn't work)
2. the ease or (difficulty) that some people have getting over relationships.

I'll update you after our meeting.

Would I recommend this book? Yes, but half-heartedly. (This book would probably make a much better movie than a book.)

The book was better than the movie

Murder on the Orient Express ~ Which is better?
The book, the 2001 adaptation or the 1994 adaptation?

By far!

Had I realized that of the two adaptations of Murder on the Orient Express that I found on youtube were so different, I might have taken the time to watch them both. Or perhaps I would have picked the Masterpiece Theatre version that I'm guessing was closer to the story. The opening of the Masterpiece Theatre version, from 1974, was so noisy in the opening scenes, I thought it would be more "pleasant" to watch the newer version. I think I made a mistake. I might go back and watch that one next.

I also discovered that a new adaptation of the book is currently in the works. Perhaps I should wait for that one to come out?

Do you recall that I wondered how this story could possibly be set in more modern times? The version that I did watch was a TV version from 2001. And from the looks of it, it was set in 2001. Yes, in the book I had to suspend belief in accepting the way Poirot solved the mystery. In the 2001 version, I had to suspend belief over and over and over again.

Some of the differences?

• Instead of being stuck due to a snowstorm, there was a rock slide.
• Instead of a burnt note about Cassetti and the Armstrongs, Poirot finds a VHS tape that Ratchett had attempted to destroy.
• Instead of finding a pipe cleaner and a handkerchief in the compartment, they find a stylus for a "handheld computer" (something like a palm pilot?) and a handkerchief.
• Instead of using his wits, Poirot relies on what appears to be the Internet. I guess it was recent enough to be possible but... he connected the laptop computer he was using to the Internet... by what sounded like dial-up... yet it didn't seem to be connected to anything.
• There was no doctor to test his murder theories with.
• There was no red kimono.

And of course, so much of the interesting detail about the characters in the book were lost. Either because the characters were mostly Americanized or because they were adapted in a really big way. Interestingly enough, all the names of the characters remained the same.

In this case, the book was much better than the movie.

Orhan's Inheritance by Aline Ohanesian

I'm still not sure what I think about this debut novel by Aline Ohanesian. In fact, as soon as I finished reading the book this morning, I immediately went back to the start of the book to see if I could make some sense out of the parts that still confuse me.

In Orhan's Inheritance, the patriarch of what seems to be a successful family making Turkish rugs, dies in an unusual death. As his will is read, Orhan inheritis the business (completely bypassing his father) and the family home is left to a stranger living in the United States. What is this unknown women's connection to Orhan and his family?

Orhan travels to Los Angeles to meet Seda Melkonian, a 90-year old Armenian woman spending her remaining days at an Armenian nursing home. He's determined to uncover why she is inheriting the family home rather than Orhan, his father or his aunt.

Orhan is not the main character of the book. Kemal and Lucine are the main characters of the book. Kemal is a Turkish boy in the days leading up to WWI. The days that while watch the Ottoman Empire come crashing down. Lucine is an Armenian girl living nearby to Kemal. Their fathers work together (Kemal's father is the supplier, Lucine's father is the boss). The Armenians living in Turkey were generally well educated and wealthier than their Turkish neighbors. As young children Kemal and Lucine are friends. But as they get older, it is no longer appropriate for a Turkish boy and an Armenian girl to be friends. In addition to the class differences, the Turkish were Muslim and the Armenians were Christian. Age old story.

Then their worlds fall apart. Lucine's uncle is taken from her home, her father disappears and her family is to be transported to the Syrian deserts. Kemal is conscripted into the army. The novel was very graphic, including disturbing narratives about the horrific things that happened to the refugees and some equally horrible things that Kemal experiences in the army.

Back to Orhan. It's 1990 and he's in his late twenties. He's had his own difficulties in life, living as an outcast in Germany in his early twenties. He's been back in Turkey for years, living in Istanbul, running the family business. He's also unaware of the Turkish/Armenian conflict (to put it gently) that happened not quite a century earlier. Armenian genocide. Not something he seems remotely aware of. He continues to remain unaware as he arrives in Los Angeles, meeting Seda, her niece and the cast of characters at the Armenian nursing home, Ararat. While Seda has been keeping the past a secret all these years, her niece is determined that everyone should remember - all the time.

I'm now thinking it's ironic that I read this around the time of Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day. How many times do we as Jews say Never Forget or Never Again? Is it possible to maintain a shoah, a holocaust, as a part of our history without having it be the way we define ourselves?

Ohanesian alternates the story between the early 1900s and 1990. In the 1900s, we have the conflicting stories of Kemal and Seda. They are eventually reunited after the war. That's where we learn the truth about the terms in Kemal's will.

I was well aware of the Armenian genocide prior to reading this book. I'd heard about it decades ago while working with an Armenian woman. I learned even more while working with the daughter of a survivor of the genocide. Ironically, I also learned quite a bit more in the late 90's when my Armenian nextdoor neighbor sold her house to a Turkish family. That was a very interesting turn of events.

The contrasting stories of a Turkish boy and an Armenian girl at the conclusion of the Ottoman Empire and the connection between the two made for interesting reading. However, at times I was confused as to the true relationships among the characters. The motives for some of their actions were confusing as well.

I remembered listening to another book about the Armenian genocide and eventually realized that I'd listened to The Sandcastle Girls by Chris Bohjalian. For some reason, I never entered The Sandcastle Girls on goodreads.com. While the history of that book was as godawful as Orhan's Inheritance, I found it easier to get through the earlier book I read. If you were going to read one of the two books, I think I'd recommend The Sandcastle Girls.

On goodreads, I gave Orhan's Inheritance 3 stars. I reserve the right to change my rating once my community book club discusses it next month!

Eight reasons why I loved Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie

I didn't expect to like Murder on the Orient Express. I expected to plod through it. Why? I'm not a fan of mysteries. And Agatha Christie (whom I'd never read before), well, she's just not for me. When it came time to select a mystery to read for Books and Beer Club's May meeting, I was okay with reading this one. I felt it was probably I book I should read at some point. Agatha Christie is classic. The book wasn't too long. And I've always loved the idea of luxury travel aboard a train such as the Orient Express. Maybe that's the number one reason why I loved reading this book.

1.     I love the idea of the Orient Express. I mean the train, not the novel. Travel was so classy and dignified back then. In my mind, I always liken the Orient Express to a cruise to no where. It wasn't all about the transportation. The journey was the important part. Granted, my impressions of the Orient Express were based on my experiences with the Venice-Simplon Orient Express, a tour company that ran restored carriages from the 1920s and 1930s between Venice and London during the time I was a FIT agent in the early 1980s. FIT stands for foreign independent travel. And in the 80s,  in the years before internet bookings, and probably in the years since, foreign independent travel was the epitome of luxury. We'd plan out every aspect of a client's trip. Itineraries were pages long and included phrases like "car and driver at your disposal" and "reservation at <insert Michelin-rated restaurant> for 2". I had the opportunity to book the Venice-Simplon Orient Express at least twice. It was sure a lot more luxurious than booking Amtrak.


2.     The passengers on this Orient Express lived up to my expectations. There was a Count and a Contessa. There was a princess. There was a wealthy American. People traveled with valets and lady's maids.

3.     The murder takes places early enough in the story so that basically the entirety of the book is based on the solving of the crime.

4.     The train is snowbound in the midst of Yugo-Slavia with no contact with the outside world. This means that our detective, Hercule Poirot had no way to verify the identities or the alibis of the passengers on the train. Can you imagine anything comparable today in this day and age? I suppose in a blizzard in the middle of nowhere it would be possible to be stuck in an information void. It seemed somehow romantic in the novel, but if something like that happened today, the rest of the world would know about it in short order and rescuers would be quickly sent in to get the train back on its tracks. (Just sharing my thinking right here. Even if HP did have a way to contact the outside world, how quickly would he have been able to get information about the passengers on the train? I guess the importance of being stuck in the snow was to prove the point that the murderer had to be one of the passengers on the train. I'm also amazed that HP was so quickly able to discern the real identity of the murdered passenger who was traveling under an alias.)

5.     Hercule Poirot is clever. (I'm not talking about the way he cleverly solves the mystery. He's clever in a totally different way.)  The interplay amongst HP, M. Bouc, the high up guy from Wagon Lits, the company that operates the train, and Constantine, the doctor who examines the dead body, is extremely clever. The writing is clever. We can forgive Ms. Christie for all the stereotypes used in the book because the writing is so clever.

6.     I love saying Wagon Lits. It's pronounced VAH-guhn-lee.

7.      I love the way the book was organized. The facts, the evidence and finally Hercule Poirot sits back and thinks. Everything is clearly laid out, including HP's completely far-fetched thinking. A map of the train carriage is included. And the motives and alibis of all the passengers is reiterated in summary format.
 
8.     It was okay that the story was totally unbelievable. Totally. And the solution that Hercule Poirot developed was nothing short of miraculous.

Will I read another of Agatha Christie's mysteries again? I might. Probably not anytime soon. Too many books, too little time and all that. But I certainly wouldn't be averse to selecting a title from the Miss Marple series if the need arises to read another mystery book! Everyone should read a little Agatha Christie.

Now I'm off to find a version of the movie to watch. Just because I can...