Wayside: The Movie – 2005

This post contains affiliate links.

I had no idea that there was a Wayside movie out there!  The kids and I watched it a few days ago to compare it to the books.  Though the kids enjoyed it very much, it’s a movie that I will never need to see again.

It’s like the books in that it’s completely nonsensical.  They got that part right.  To give this movie a little more plot than is contained in the books, they changed the story a bit.  Todd is new at Wayside School and is completely bewildered by all of its quirks.  He tries to fit in, but keeps making mistakes no matter how hard he tries.  Todd soon discovers that the classroom he is in, Mrs. Jewls’, was actually designed to be a trash compactor.  Every time the principal uses the p.a. system, the back wall starts to move toward the front of the room.  With the help of Louis and Miss Mush, Todd rescues his class right before they are squashed in their classroom!  The one character that I actually liked was Louis, the yard teacher.  He has a hippie persona in this adaptation.

The cartoon style of the movie is akin to Cartoon Network–with everything being fast-paced and frantic.  I don’t care for that style of cartoon, though I know it’s very popular with today’s kids.  For me, it’s sensory overload.

Possible Objections:

  • There is some gross humor involving boogers and vomit.
  • Mauricea keeps punching Todd as a way to show that she likes him.
  • There is a scene where a box full of toys goes through a wood chipper, which could be disturbing to some kids.
  • There is a dead rat in the kitchen–kind of gross.  It’s shown multiple times.

Rated: NR

Rating: 1 1/2 Stars

Until next time…

Lori

OTHER WAYSIDE SCHOOL POSTS:

Advertisements

The Color of Magic – TV Mini-Series 2008

This post contains affiliate links.

The hubby and I watched The Color of Magic last night.  Having recently read the book, I was better able to compare it to the movie.  The movie title is slightly misleading because it actually tells the story of both The Color of Magic and The Light Fantastic, though in abbreviated form.

The overall look of the movie is great–fantastic cinematography, great CGI, appropriate costuming, and spot-on settings.  You can tell that this is a very professional production.

It also has an all-star cast–Christopher Lee as the voice of Death, Sean Astin as Twoflower, Jeremy Irons as the Patrician, Tim Curry as Trymon, David Jason as Rincewind, and David Bradley (think Argus Filch) as Cohen the Barbarian.  I can’t rave enough about how well each part was played.  Death’s subtle sense of humor is to die for (pun intended).  Jeremy Irons’ role as the Patrician, though brief, is wonderful.  Tim Curry is just about the best ‘bad guy’ out there and he delivers yet again in this movie.

The original overall storyline is followed very closely, though a few parts are shortened or changed, and some lesser scenes are left out.  Since the plot is so complex, it would be nearly impossible to make any major changes to the story and still have it make sense.

If you love Terry Pratchett’s books, then I am quite certain you will appreciate this movie.  It is a well-executed treatment of the Discworld that really brings to life its unique places and enchanting characters.  It’s kind of like meeting old friends on the screen–heartwarming and endorphin-releasing.  If you haven’t read any Terry Pratchett, then this movie will seem completely fantastical to you, but that is exactly what it’s supposed to be.

Possible Objections:

  • The d-word is said several times.
  • One instance of “hell” as an epithet.
  • A whole lot of violence, some of it rather startling/up close.
  • A scantily clad dragon rider, and references to things of a sexual nature.
  • The part where Trymon is possessed could be rather frightening to some.

 

Rated: NR

Rating: 5 Stars

 

Until next time…

Lori

 

OTHER THE COLOR OF MAGIC POSTS:

Save

Northanger Abbey – Movie 1987

This post contains affiliate links.

I’m trying to catch up with these movies!  The pile of Jane Eyre adaptations really threw me for a loop!  Well, today we’re talking about Northanger Abbey.  This version stars Katharine Schlesinger as Catherine Morland, and Peter Firth as Henry Tilney.

I was not wowed by any of the characters in this movie.  They all seemed lacking in one way or another.  Catherine was young, naïve and happy.  At times her emotions were not nuanced enough and came across as shallow.  Henry Tilney didn’t get a lot of screen time, and when he did it was difficult to discern his feelings and motivations.  I think they wanted him to come across as somewhat of an enigma, and in that they thoroughly succeeded.  Isabella Thorpe was silly, simpering, flirtatious, shallow, and constantly seeking flattery.  Her method of speaking was inane.  John Thorpe was creepy and lecherous.

There were a couple of characters whom I liked.  Elinor Tilney’s acting was natural, which made it a wonderful relief.  General Tilney’s character was strange, but well-played.  I like how Robert Hardy gave him a very distinct manner of talking and behaving.  He was more eccentric than forbidding.

This adaptation added a character who was a bit strange–General Tilney’s friend from France and her young servant.  If you watch the movie, you’ll see exactly what I mean about her being like a neon light stuck in a film about table lamps.  You just want to say, ‘Huh?’

The look of the movie was alright, but there were a few things that were off.  Look closely at the ball scenes–there is a profusion of tall feathers.  I think it was a little overboard.  You can also see the 80’s style enter into some of the hairstyles and clothing.  And please don’t get me started on the cheesy 80’s music.  Oh Mylanta–saxophone music and mermaid singing!  Are you kidding me?

The beginning of the film is rather strange–starting with Catherine’s daydream of a Frankenstein-like villain preying on a young, helpless heroine.  Catherine’s dreams continue throughout the movie, changing as she meets new characters.  They are melodramatic and feed right into her overexcited imagination, which has been fueled by sensational gothic novels.  The end of the film is not quite to my liking.  I take issue with Henry and Catherine having a make out fest before he has even proposed to her.  Not realistic at all.

In closing, I don’t recommend this film to anyone.  View it at your own risk and be prepared to laugh heartily or groan as appropriate.

I’m curious now to get my hands on an authentic gothic novel to see if they are really that sensational.  Let me know if you have any recommendations!

Possible Objections:

  • The d-word is said several times.
  • Mrs. Allen is shown sewing through her fingers in one of Catherine’s dreams.

Rated: NR

Rating: 1 1/2 Stars

Until next time…

Lori

OTHER NORTHANGER ABBEY POSTS:

Emma – TV Mini-Series 1972

This post contains affiliate links.

It took me two nights to finish the last Emma movie in the stack.  It stars Doran Godwin as Emma, and John Carson as Mr. Knightley.  This one is not for the faint of heart–it’s over 4 hours long!

Godwin was technically a decent Emma.  She recited all of her lines well and had great enunciation.  She also had the air of a lady about her.  However, there was an aloofness to her character which I thought didn’t fit Emma well.  The numerous instances where she was downright rude to her father were so out of character.  It also seemed like Godwin was a bit old to play Emma.  Carson was a respectable Mr. Knightley.  His behavior, language and manner all fit.  I just wish his character had been a little more charming, or something that would make the viewer care about him.  He also seemed a little old to me.

I don’t know why this should bother me, but I thought Harriet was much prettier than Emma.  For some reason I think that Emma should be quite pretty.  Emma’s sister was downright annoying–there really is no nice way to put it.  Her voice was grating and I couldn’t take her character seriously.  In fact, there were several characters who just didn’t seem to fit their intended role, including Mrs. Weston and Frank Churchill.  Jane Fairfax was quite an enigma.  Most of the time she seemed to fit, but there were a few instances when she had major emotional outbursts that were mystifying and ridiculous.  Jane’s piano playing and singing were subpar, as well.  I suspect that some of these acting issues stemmed from the use of stage actors who were perhaps unused to acting for TV.

Mr. Woodhouse was an interesting character in this version.  He was quite active and sprightly, though worrying about everybody’s health all the while.  Something that I thought didn’t fit is that he was largely ignored by Emma and Mr. Knightley.  That simply isn’t true to the book at all.

The costumes were alright, though some looked chintzy.  There were a few frocks trimmed with white feather boas that caused me some consternation.

The overall plot of the story was fairly faithful to the book, with only a few scenes left out or changed.  The dialogue was also very similar to the book, though I did notice some additions.

Probably the biggest letdown was the scene in which Mr. Knightley declares his love to Emma.  It was so devoid of real emotion that he could have been talking about what he had eaten for dinner that day.

So, I would not recommend this version unless you are one of the most stalwart Jane Austen fans on the planet.  You’ll be bored.  😦

Rated: NR

Rating: 1 Star

 

Until next time…

Lori

 

OTHER EMMA POSTS:

Save

Jane Eyre – Movie 1973

This post contains affiliate links.

I never thought I’d be so glad to be done watching Jane Eyre (though I discovered that there is still one version I haven’t seen yet). Last night I finished the version that stars Sorcha Cusack as Jane, and Michael Jayston as Mr. Rochester.

The film quality is very good, especially when you consider how old it is.  There was something amiss in the look of the movie, however.  The 70’s intruded in clothing and hairstyles, and even some props.  In one of the scenes at Lowood, all of the girls are distinctly seen wearing dresses with long zippers down the back.  In the pajama scene when Rochester’s guests assemble in the hall because of the nighttime scream, the 1970’s take over.  The women’s robes are all shiny fabric and gauzy necklines.

The dialogue is mostly true to the book, however, there were a few parts that were added or changed.  If you’re looking for an adaptation that is most like the book, this would be the movie for you.  It is very long and hits on all the major points of the book, sticking quite faithfully to the original plot.

The characters were mostly well done.  Adele was charming and likable, and her accent was believable.  Rochester was surly, impatient, and commanding.  Jayston did a great job in his role as Rochester, and it was easy to see his interest in Jane throughout.  Cusack was a fairly good Jane, but I felt there was something lacking in her performance.  Maybe it was a flatness in expressing emotion at times.  For some reason, I was particularly gratified by the kitchen scene between Jane and St. John’s servant, Hannah.

There were only a couple of things that really bugged me about this movie.  The first would be Jane’s somewhat shallow evidence of her attachment to Mr. Rochester.  Nothing in her performance really made me believe that she felt strongly about him.  The second thing is very trivial.  For some reason I couldn’t take my eyes off of Sorcha’s eyebrows.  You’ll know what I’m talking about if you watch the movie.  It was a distraction to me.

Rated: NR

Rating: 3 Stars

 

Until next time…

Lori

 

OTHER JANE EYRE POSTS:

 

 

Northanger Abbey – Movie 2007

This post contains affiliate links.

Last night I got to watch my first adaptation of Northanger Abbey.  Felicity Jones stars as Catherine Morland, and JJ Feild as Henry Tilney.

I really enjoyed Jones as Catherine.  She did an admirable job of exhibiting the qualities that make Catherine Morland–young, naïve, romantic, overactive imagination, awestruck.  Feild was a wonderful Tilney.  He was likeable, playful, honorable, and looking for a young and unspoiled woman to love.

Northanger Abbey is a gentle parody of the genre of gothic novel.  In the movie we get to see Catherine’s gothic daydreams–full of highwaymen, cruel villains, helpless women, and mysterious old castles.  Her fevered imagination starts to have an effect on how she interprets real-life events, much to her own mortification when she suspects somebody of murder (but that comes later in the story).

In her everyday life, Catherine begins to get a taste of city life when she is asked to accompany her kindly neighbors to Bath.  There she meets Henry Tilney, whom she begins to like.  She also makes friends with Isabella Thorpe who is set on marrying Catherine’s brother (though only for his supposed money).  When Isabella’s brother believes that Catherine will also inherit a good deal of money, he tries to snatch her away from Mr. Tilney’s company and influence.  The final part of the movie has a quick ending and things end up well for both Henry and Catherine, as well as Henry’s sister Eleanor.  Although it was anticlimactic, it was satisfying nonetheless.

I think that this adaptation is a very fair rendition of the novel.  Since the book is relatively short and the plot fairly straightforward, it makes translating it to film a little easier.  Some of the dialogue was changed, but I don’t think it detracted from the story at all.  I would recommend this movie for teens and up because of some suggestive content.

 

Possible Objections:

  • Mr. Thorpe says the d-word several times.
  • Isabella is shown in bed, implying her having had relations with Captain Tilney.

 

Rated: NR

Rating: 4 1/2 Stars

 

Until next time…

Lori

 

OTHER NORTHANGER ABBEY POSTS:

Save

Emma – TV Mini-Series 2009

This post contains affiliate links.

Wouldn’t you know it, I watched another version of Emma?  This one stars Romola Garai as Emma, and Jonny Lee Miller as Mr. Knightley.

Garai was a superb Emma!  She was self-assured, lively, full of wit, charming, and knew how to get her way, as only Emma could.  Miller was a very good Knightley.  He was mature, thoughtful, warm, and genuinely concerned for the welfare of Emma and her father.  In relation to Emma, Miller acts like a concerned older brother for much of the movie.

This movie had some very strong supporting characters.  Mr. Woodhouse’s character was developed more than even the book does.  We are shown the reason for his overwhelming concerns for the health of his family and friends.  I also like how they added depth to Miss Bates’ character.  Though she prattles, she is delicate and thoughtful.  The suffering of both herself and her mother are shown, though subtly.  Jane Fairfax is very likable in this adaptation, in my opinion.  She is more warm and open, and enjoys a healthier relationship with Emma than in other versions (though opposed to the book itself).  Mr. Elton is humorous in his affected gallantry.  Miss Taylor/Mrs. Weston is wonderful in her ease and familiarity.  Okay, I’ll stop now.  I don’t really need to comment on every character, do I?

The overall look of the movie was fantastic–really nice scenery, furnishings, and costuming!  There were some dialogue changes, but I think they were meant to update the story a bit for modern audiences.  I noticed that in this version there is much more interaction between Emma and Mr. Knightley than in other versions.  I’m sure this is made easier because of the extended length of it.  The dance scene was nice and lively–much more spirited than generally seen in movies depicting this time period. The final thing I’d like to comment on is the believability of the relationships between the different characters.  It is easy to imagine their relationships and attachments to be real.  I love that in a good movie!

In case you couldn’t tell, this is my favorite version of Emma.  I would suggest it to all Jane Austen fans and those who enjoy a good romantic story.  Happy viewing!

Rated: NR

Rating: 5 Stars

 

Until next time…

Lori

 

OTHER EMMA POSTS:

Jane Eyre – Movie 1970

This post contains affiliate links.

I watched yet another adaptation of Jane Eyre last night.  I promise I’m getting close to the end of them!  This one stars Susannah York as Jane, and George C. Scott as Mr. Rochester.

Strangely, I thought that both York and Scott were a smidgen too old to be cast as Jane and Rochester.  She looks like she might be in her late 20’s or early 30’s.  He looks like he’s approaching his senior years.  At least it wasn’t a nineteen-year-old cast with a senior citizen.  That would have been even more unbelievable.  York was an okay Jane.  She was definitely reserved and seemed to operate on a different plane from other people.  There wasn’t much warmth or attachment that came through in her performance, though.  Scott was very abrupt and at times startling as Rochester (i.e. when he sends the glass flying off the table).  I appreciate his alternative take on Rochester’s character, even if it’s not how I would prefer it be played.  Overall, I didn’t emotionally connect much with Jane and Rochester.

Mrs. Fairfax was quite friendly and cheerful.  Adele wasn’t very remarkable.  Blanche was also too old and was not pretty (as is specifically stated in the book).  One pleasant surprise was that Ian Bannen played St. John Rivers (Waking Ned Devine).

Thornfield was old-fashioned, but not period.  The same can be said for the costuming.

There were dialogue changes, but I’m really getting used to that by now.  Also, the copy that I watched was missing clips of film in certain places.  I’m not sure what the deal was there, but it was too bad.

As far as the story itself goes, Lowood got a fairly long treatment.  It was a sinister place and really made you feel sorry for the girls there.  They did make up the part about Burns standing outside in the rain as punishment.  I noticed that there were several plot changes and things that were completely left out this adaptation.  Considering the length of the movie, however, I think they did an admirable job of telling a complicated story in a shortened timeframe, while staying true to the spirit of the book.  The ending was very sweet, though a little lacking in authentic emotion.

This was another version of Jane Eyre that I’m glad I watched once, but will not need to revisit again.  Check it out if you’re an Eyre aficionado!

Rated: NR

Rating: 3 Stars

Until next time…

Lori

OTHER JANE EYRE POSTS:

Save

Emma – Movie 1996

This post contains affiliate links.

I watched another adaptation of Emma last night.  This one stars Kate Beckinsale as Emma, and Mark Strong as Mr. Knightley.

Emma comes across as conniving and underhand in her dealings with others.  She’s also thoughtless and unfeeling in how she treats Harriet.  Mr. Knightley is a correct gentleman, but a little lacking in friendliness and warmth.  He seems to be more of a taciturn and stormy character.  I’m not crazy about how these two characters were portrayed in this movie, but this may have been the director’s vision for them.

Frank Churchill does an excellent job of coming across as a playboy–charming and completely insincere.  I really like how John Knightley was portrayed in this film.  His dry wit and sarcasm come through loud and clear in the few scenes in which he takes part.  Mr. Woodhouse was also played excellently.

There were a couple of unique things in this version that I appreciated.  The beginning and ending of the movie are tied together by the machinations of poultry thieves!  It was also kind of fun to see a series of Emma’s daydreams about various people marrying, with the characters frequently changing.

The one thing that weirded me out was when Mr. Knightley was talking about holding Emma as a baby.  That’s just creepy when you think about it.

I enjoyed this movie, but it’s not my favorite adaptation of Emma.  I had a hard time connecting with Emma, which makes it hard to really enter into the story.  For me personally, her character wasn’t likable enough.  Because she has some major character flaws, there has to be something redeeming in her character to make me care about her.  That’s where I think the movie fell short.

Check it out if you are a Jane Austen fan or like a good romantic movie.  It’s probably a one-time view for me.

Rated: NR

Rating: 3 1/2 Stars

 

Until next time…

Lori

 

OTHER EMMA POSTS:

Emma – Movie 1996

This post contains affiliate links.

Taking a break from Jane Eyre last night, I watched Emma.  This version stars Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma, and Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley.

I think Paltrow did a great job as Emma.  She was sufficiently self-assured, snobby, impetuous, and conniving.  At times her emotions seemed a little shallow, but it wasn’t awful.  Although Northam wasn’t present as much as I would have liked to have seen him, he was an excellent Mr. Knightley.  He is handsome, thoughtful and shows affection and concern for others.  Basically, he’s a guy that any woman would want as her own.  😉

The supporting characters were also great, adding a richness to the story.  Miss Bates, Harriet, Mrs. Weston, and Mr. and Mrs. Elton were all wonderful.

The movie follows the general storyline of the book, keeping all of the major events the same.  I’d say it’s a very good representation of the book.  They did, however, change a good bit of dialogue, making it seem more updated.  For me personally, it wasn’t a big issue.

This adaptation has a very professional overall look.  I’m not surprised by that, but after seeing some movies recently that looked less than professional, I appreciated the polish on this one.  Another thing that I liked was that many of the shots were set up in unique ways, some adding humor to the situation, such as when Mr. Elton sits between Emma and Mr. Knightley to talk about Harriet’s sore throat.

The proposal scene between Emma and Mr. Knightley was very good.  It started out awkward, then moved into an interview that was driven by care and friendship.  I think that’s what is so satisfying about the relationship between Knightley and Emma–it is based on mutual affection and friendship which has spanned years.  It’s lasting and based on a thorough knowledge of the other person.

I would highly suggest this movie to all the ladies out there!

Possible Objections:

  1. In the gypsy scene the d-word is used a couple of times.

Rated: PG

Rating: 4 1/2 Stars

Until next time…

Lori

OTHER EMMA POSTS:

Jane Eyre – Movie 1943

This post contains affiliate links.

This next film adaptation of Jane Eyre is from 1944.  The movie is in black and white which gives it a sort of somber feel.  Jane is played by Joan Fontaine, and Mr. Rochester by Orson Welles.

I would classify the overall look of the film as more old-fashioned than period.  Jane’s hairstyle is unique and definitely reflects the time period when it was filmed.  She is very demure and lacks the well-disguised vivacity that Jane possesses in the book.  Mr. Rochester is big and burly.  He is very stormy, almost too stormy.

This film portrays Jane’s childhood differently from other movies, with some portions of it being completely fabricated.  I’m not sure why this was done, except maybe to establish more sympathy for Jane.

While the actors recited their lines well, they seemed to be lacking emotion or sounded fake.  I also didn’t sense a great deal of chemistry between Jane and Rochester.

My other criticisms:

Miss Temple and Mrs. Reed’s daughters are completely missing.  Adele’s French accent is awful.  The excerpts read from the book are made up.  There are plot devices that have been made up, such as Jane going to investigate the tower herself, and Rochester and Blanche talking about money.  The garden scene between Jane and Rochester was disappointing.  Instead of Jane ending up with St. John Rivers when she wanders off, she goes to Bessie.  I don’t know why that was changed.  Finally, Jane and Rochester’s kiss was almost frightening.

I didn’t care much for this adaptation and won’t ever need to see it again.  Watch it if you’re a Jane Eyre fan, otherwise I’d say skip it.

Rated: NR

Rating: 1 1/2 Stars

Until next time…

Lori

OTHER JANE EYRE POSTS:

Jane Eyre – Movie 1997

This post contains affiliate links.

Here’s yet another Jane Eyre movie that I watched.  Can you believe it?  When I started this, I had no idea there were so many Jane Eyre movie adaptations.

In this version Jane is played by Samantha Morton, and Mr. Rochester by Ciaran Hinds.  Morton does look quite plain in the movie, but I think she’s almost a little too pretty to play Jane.  Hinds has a physique and appearance that could easily be Rochester’s.

Something unique about this adaptation is how they portray Rochester’s relationship with Adele.  In this one he is affectionate towards her instead of being surly and gruff.  I also like how Rochester has a wry sense of humor.  It adds an interesting facet to his personality.

I noticed that Jane is much more besot with Mr. Rochester than in other versions.  This doesn’t seem to be quite true to the book, in which Rochester is the one who is initially love struck and pining for Jane.

There were only a few things that I didn’t care for in this adaptation.  The dialogue was changed quite a bit.  To me, that’s a no-no.  I see no reason to change the conversation between Rochester and Jane because that is what adds sparkle to the classic story.  Also, some plot elements of the story were changed a bit.  Rochester’s rant when Jane decides to leave is a little over the top.  I also thought the part with St. John Rivers was rather weak.

So…while this isn’t the worst adaptation I’ve seen, it isn’t the best either.  It’s just sort of meh.  If you’re a Jane Eyre fan watch it once, but that will probably be enough.

Rated: NR

Rating: 3 Stars

Until next time…

Lori

OTHER JANE EYRE POSTS:

The Glass Virgin – Movie 1995

This post contains affiliate links.

Our local library had a copy of  The Glass Virgin on DVD which I watched recently.  I wanted to compare it to the book while it was still fresh in my mind.  I enjoyed the movie quite a lot.  As with the novel, I would recommend it for adults because of the suggestive themes throughout.

The story follows the book very well, only making some minor changes.  The initial scene with Annabella’s father and the other woman doesn’t go as far as in the book, which I think was done in good taste.  I also had a little bit of an issue with who they cast as Manuel, though I think Brendan Coyle did an excellent job.  Manuel is supposed to be tall, dark and lean.  Coyle doesn’t fit that picture very well.

The one thing that I think they shouldn’t have changed is when Annabella’s bum was pinched and she sent the platter of potatoes flying in the air.  That was rather a humorous part of the book, but the movie doesn’t do it justice.  The movie also changed the way that Annabella tried to take her own life.  I don’t think it materially detracted from the story.  Overall I’d say that the movie adaptation was very well done.

Possible Objections:

  1. Annabella’s father punches a female servant in the stomach.  He is also shown carousing with other women, though nothing explicit is shown.
  2. Some mild epithets and offensive language.
  3. A bloody boxing match in which the fighters look pretty beat up.
  4. A couple of times, a man tries to take advantage of Annabella.

Rated: NR

Rating: 3 1/2 Stars

Until next time…

Lori

OTHER GLASS VIRGIN POSTS:

The Glass Virgin by Catherine Cookson

Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen

Northanger Abbey

This post contains an affiliate link.

Northanger Abbey is a relatively short and unique book by Jane Austen.  Though it’s not my favorite work of hers, I appreciate the wit and social commentary that went into it.  There are themes that are still applicable today.  In this story, Catherine Morland is a young lady who has no very special traits that would distinguish her from any other girl.  She likes to be outdoors; she dislikes serious reading and adores gothic novels; she is utterly naïve.

When Catherine’s close neighbors go to Bath, she is invited to accompany them.  She enjoys her introduction into city life, and meets a man whom she comes to admire.  His name is Henry Tilney and he has a sister, Eleanor, who befriends Catherine.  Catherine is invited to stay with Eleanor for a visit at the family’s home–Northanger Abbey.  The visit is encouraged by Henry and Eleanor’s father, General Tilney, because he believes Catherine to be a good match for his son.  When he finds out that Catherine is in fact not rich, he kicks her out of the house to make her own way home.

Woven throughout this narrative, there is almost continual irony used to criticize social norms.  We also see Catherine coming of age as she falls in love with Henry.  Finally, Austen comments on the silliness of being obsessed with gothic novels and all of the flights of fancy that ensue.

If you’re looking for an easier way to ease into reading Jane Austen, this would be the book to start with.  I highly recommend this book as a fun, quick read in the classical literature genre.

Rating: 4 1/2 Stars

Until next time…

Lori

OTHER NORTHANGER ABBEY POSTS:

Save

The Glass Virgin by Catherine Cookson

Glass Virgin

This post contains an affiliate link.

The Glass Virgin is a story about a young lady named Annabella who was raised to be a lady, but finds out that her parents are not who she thinks they are.  Believing herself to be unwanted by her adoptive parents, she flees and ends up on the road with her family’s groom.  He has been her faithful companion and friend since she was ten years old, so he looks out for her when she is alone.  Annabella must adapt to life as a common worker and toughen up so that she can survive in her new role.  As Manuel, the groom, and Annabella find themselves in various places, their unusual relationship causes some problems.  There are also some issues with other people that cause them to seek new employment.  Though Manuel has loved Annabella all along, her romantic attachment to him develops gradually.  There are many twists to the story that I haven’t told you about, because I don’t want to give it all away.

This was a very interesting read.  It kept me hooked and I finished it fairly quickly.  The characters were interesting, the writing good, the plot complex, and the author’s understanding of human nature masterful.  Because of the sexual themes in this book, though by no means explicit or distasteful, I’d say this book is for adults.  I would also say that it would appeal more to the ladies.

Possible Objections:

  • There is some bad language–not a ton, but enough.
  • There is mention of some anatomy, but only a handful of times.
  • Though there are no explicit sex scenes, it is inferred in a few places.
  • Several times prostitution is talked about.

Rating: 4 Stars

 

Until next time…

Lori

 

OTHER GLASS VIRGIN POSTS:

The Glass Virgin – Movie 1995