Review: Treasures of the Snow (novel)

Hard to believe this is the last review of 2019 😮 As a child I loved this book. As an adult... not so much.

Treasures of the Snow is Patricia St. John's second novel, first published in 1950. It's been adapted into a film, an anime, a stage show, and at least one audiobook.

The story is set in Switzerland and revolves around three children: Annette Burnier, her brother Dani, and Lucien Morel. Dani breaks his leg in an accident Lucien caused, Annette tries to get revenge for it, and Lucien tries to make amends. By the end Lucien learns to be a better person and Annette learns to forgive.

Overall I like this novel. Its innocence and clear distinction between right and wrong are a breath of fresh air when almost every story nowadays is obsessed with being "realistic" and "morally grey" -- usually at the expense of having any characters for the reader to root for. The characters actually grow and change from beginning to end. Their actions have consequences, and they have to suffer those consequences just like in real life. And eventually there's a happy ending that makes perfect sense and doesn't feel contrived or implausible.

There's just one problem. It often descends into the trap of preaching at the reader. When I read a novel, I don't expect or want a sermon. (That's one of the reasons I avoid stories written solely to convey a moral.) There were several passages so unbearably preachy that I skim-read them until I reached the actually interesting parts of the story.

If you don't mind the preachiness and can focus on the rest of the story, you might like this book. It's aimed specifically at children, but don't let that fool you into thinking adults can't enjoy it too.

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: A Christmas Carol (novel)

🎵We wish you a merry Christmas, we wish you a merry Christmas, we wish you a merry Christmas, and a happy New Year.🎵 What better work to review today than this one?

A Christmas Carol is an 1843 novella by Charles Dickens. It's one of his best-known works and has been endlessly adapted into every sort of media imaginable.

Everyone knows the plot: cruel, miserly Ebeneezer Scrooge meets three ghosts at Christmastime and becomes a much better person. If you're like me you probably knew it long before you heard of Charles Dickens or even realised where the story came from. No matter where you look at Christmas you'll see yet another new version of it. And that's why it's my second-least-favourite Dickens work. (My least favourite is Oliver Twist, if you're wondering. But that's a review for another time.)

In many ways this novella is nothing like the rest of Dickens' work. It's so short that there are no subplots and surprisingly few characters. Instead of a main character who's honest and decent from the start, Scrooge starts out a complete jerk. And then there are the ghosts. For some reason Dickens' short stories often have ghosts, while his longer ones never do except in stories the characters tell.

But the main reason I dislike this story is its sheer ubiquity. Maybe "dislike" isn't the right word. I'm just tired of it. It's everywhere, even in places it has no business being and where you'd never expect to see it. (The Muppet Christmas Carol, anyone?) By the time I read the book I already knew the whole plot. Most disappointing of all, there were no really surprising twists in the book. The story everyone knows is more or less the book's story. I was left feeling like I'd wasted my time and hadn't read anything new for my trouble.

There's nothing wrong with this book. I would like it more if there was a break between adaptations and references to it. Please, filmmakers, seriesmakers, etc. Stop adapting the same story again and again. Something more original would be appreciated.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 4/10.

(Not Really a) Review: Films I Watch at Christmas

🎵It's the most wonderful time of the year...🎵 And I'm so busy with Christmas preparations that I haven't time to write a proper review. So instead I'm doing a short list: my five favourite films to watch at Christmas. (Note that I didn't say "Christmas films". They're so trite and repetitive nowadays that I hardly bother watching any films specifically called Christmas films.)

It's a Wonderful Life (1946) is at the top of almost everyone's list of favourite Christmas films. And with very good reason. Sure, it's unrealistic and often silly. But it's so cute and heartwarming that I love it anyway.

Mickey's Christmas Carol (1983) is a bit of an oddity. It's an adaptation of A Christmas Carol, obviously, with Uncle Scrooge as Ebeneezer Scrooge (what a surprise!) and other Disney characters as everyone else. By all logic I shouldn't like it at all. I've never been able to like A Christmas Carol. But it's entertaining, and surprisingly sad in parts. So I enjoy it much more than I'd expect.

Prancer (1989) is one of those films that I love mainly because I watched it as a child. Rewatching it as an adult I can see it's not nearly as perfect as I used to think it was. But nostalgia means I still watch it every Christmas.

No, this isn't even remotely a Christmas-y film. But Beauty and the Beast (1991) is my all-time favourite Disney film and one of the best fairy-tale adaptations ever made. That's a pretty good reason to watch it at any time of the year.

What do you mean, this isn't a Christmas film? It's right there in the title! The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) is a wonderfully creepy film that I love watching all through the year. At Christmas and Halloween I just watch it even more than usual 😄

And now, "Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night"!

Review: Rob Roy (novel)

Believe it or not, it's possible (but very rare) for a book's plot to be implausible, contrived and poorly-thought-out... and for the book to still be interesting and enjoyable. This is one of those books.

Rob Roy is an 1817 novel by Sir Walter Scott. It's part of his Waverley series (which isn't a series in the modern sense; the books have similar settings and themes, not the same characters or stories). Several films with the book's title have been made, but none of them are actual adaptations of it.

Despite being the title character, Rob Roy isn't the narrator or the main character. He doesn't even appear until a quarter of the way through. Instead the main character is Frank Osbaldistone. A disagreement with his father leads to Frank being sent to stay with his uncle, while his sinister cousin Rashleigh takes his place in his father's business. Unsurprisingly Rashleigh turns out to be a crook, and Frank ends up fleeing to Scotland in search of some way to undo the damage Rashleigh's done. Along the way he meets and is helped by Rob Roy, and falls in love with the mysterious Diana Vernon.

The plot, as already mentioned, is by far the weakest part of the story. The characters aren't much better. Rob Roy is the only one who truly leaves an impression. Frank was so dull that I couldn't even remember his name after I finished the book. Diana is an interesting character but an unconvincing love interest. And Rashleigh, the main villain, is offstage (off-page?) for most of the story.

Most irritating of all are the frequent -- and lengthy -- paragraphs written entirely in a nigh-incomprehensible Scottish accent. You'd need a translator to understand half of what Andrew Fairservice says.

Yet in spite of all these drawbacks, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this book. The story is so exciting that you hardly notice how contrived the events are. I knew at the start that it was going to end with Frank marrying Diana and Rashleigh getting his just desserts, but it was still entertaining to see how that happened.

If you don't mind wading through the elaborate prose (to say nothing of the Scottish accents) and just want to read a fun historical novel without too much plot, this is the book for you!

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Barchester Towers (novel)

At the start of 2019 I barely knew who Anthony Trollope was. Now he's one of my favourite authors. Shows how much can change in a year!

Barchester Towers is an 1857 novel by Anthony Trollope. It's the second in the Chronicles of Barsetshire series, but -- like The Eustace Diamonds -- I read it without realising it was part of a series. It was adapted in a miniseries, The Barsetshire Chronicles, in 1982.

I started the book expecting to be bored. It was at the top of every "Anthony Trollope novels you should read" list I saw, many other readers wrote positive reviews of it, but I honestly couldn't see how anyone could make a story about clerical disputes interesting. Oh boy, was I wrong.

The story revolves around a bishopric and a hospital wardenship (is that a word?). Archdeacon Grantly expects to become bishop, Bishop Proudie actually gets the bishopric, Mrs. Proudie is the one really in charge, Mr. Harding expects to become warden, and Mr. Slope interferes in everything. It's a lot more interesting than it sounds.

In some ways this book reminds me a lot of Cranford (novel. not series). It doesn't have much of a plot; it's mainly about the people who live in Barchester and their efforts at working with or against each other. It's a much funnier book than I expected, with some very memorable characters. Who could ever forget the loathsome Mr. Slope, or the very intimidating Mrs. Proudie? 😄

Most of the book can be understood without reading The Warden, the first book in the series. There are only a few references to earlier events that I didn't understand, but the story still makes sense without knowing about those events.

If you've never read an Anthony Trollope novel before, this would probably be a good one to start with!

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: Ashes of Love

Some Cdramas, for reasons known only to the translators, have multiple titles. This causes headaches for people trying to decide which title to use. So I'd better make it clear from the start: this is a review of the series that is called both Ashes of Love and Heavy Sweetness, Ash-Like Frost.

Ashes of Love, AKA Heavy Sweetness, Ash-Like Frost, AKA 香蜜沉沉烬如霜, AKA Xiāng Mì Chén Chén Jìn Rú Shuāng is a 2018 Chinese series. It's based on the novel of the same name (the Chinese name, that is) by Dian Xian.

I only recognised three actors:
Yun Xi Luo (Rong Qi in Princess Silver) as Run Yu
Yu Qi Chen (Tuoba Di in The Princess Wei Young) as Liu Ying
Yi Fei Wang (Xiao Qing in The Untamed: The Living Dead) as Sui He

The series starts off a comedy. It doesn't stay one for long. Jin Mi finds an injured bird and rescues it. The bird turns out to be Xu Feng, son of the Heavenly Emperor and Empress, who was attacked by a mysterious assassin. Jin Mi decides she really wants to see the Heaven Realm. So Xu Feng takes her back with him. While there she meets his half-brother, Run Yu, and the three of them get dragged into a love triangle. Meanwhile, the Heavenly Empress is determined to get rid of everyone she doesn't like... including Jin Mi and Run Yu.

Chinese dramas, especially fantasy and historical ones, are rather like Dickens novels. Attempting to explain their plots and subplots would take hours. So I'll move on to a different subject: the characters.

Jin Mi

Jin Mi is, to put it bluntly, an idiot. Her habit of jumping into things without knowing what she's doing causes endless trouble for herself and everyone else. But unlike some idiotic characters, at least she's an entertaining idiot. She provides a lot of the series' humour, even when it becomes less outright comedic.

Xu Feng

Xu Feng is one of those characters who never made much impression on me. I don't like him or dislike him. He's just... there.

Run Yu

And now, a character who definitely did make an impression on me! Run Yu became my favourite character almost as soon as he appeared. The flashbacks to his childhood are heartbreaking 😢 Honestly, I cheered him on when he finally had enough and lashed out against his father and stepmother. At the same time I really wanted to slap some sense into him, because why did he insist on marrying Jin Mi? When it was so obvious she wasn't happy?! 😒

This is one of the few series where I don't ship either part of the love triangle. (In fact, I've seen so many series with love triangles that I'm sick of them. Find more original love stories, series-makers! Enough angst and indecision about which love interest the main character will choose!) Jin Mi and Xu Feng are frankly dull. Jin Mi and Run Yu? No, no, no. They could never make each other happy. Not to mention Run Yu treating Jin Mi like a possession he can "reclaim" by fighting Xu Feng 😒 This series would honestly have been better without a romance subplot at all.

I liked some of the series. Other parts of it infuriated me. That mortal realm subplot bored me so much I skipped almost all of it. At least the scenery and the music are always beautiful. There were times when I completely forgot about what was happening in the story because the scenery was so pretty! 😄

Is it a bad series? No. But it's also not my favourite. I'd recommend it mainly for people who like fantasy and don't mind love triangles.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: And Then There Were None (2015)

I have a confession to make, one that will amaze anyone who knows me in real life: I've never read any of Agatha Christie's books. Someone is probably thinking, "How can you be a bookworm and not read her books?" Good question. I want to read some of her books, but I've never got around to it yet. So I was one of the few people to watch this series with only a vague idea of the plot.

And Then There Were None is a 2015 miniseries adapted from the book of the same name by Agatha Christie. It's the first miniseries adaptation, but there have been at least four different film versions. I wrote this review while watching the series, so it's basically a list of my thoughts as I watched it.

There are several recognisable actors.

Anna Maxwell Martin (Esther in Bleak House 2005) as Mrs. Rogers

Charles Dance (Mr. Tulkinghorn in Bleak House 2005) as Wargrave

Burn Gorman (Mr. Guppy in Bleak House 2005) as Blore

Douglas Booth (Pip in Great Expectations 2011) as Marston

Sam Neill (Dr. Grant in Jurassic Park) as MacArthur

Miranda Richardson (Lady Van Tassel in Sleepy Hollow 1999) as Miss Brent

Aidan Turner (Kíli in The Hobbit) as Lombard

The opening credits are, not to put too fine a point on it, ugly. I hardly noticed any of the names at first. I was too busy trying to figure out what on earth those hideous green things were supposed to be. The first scenes aren't an improvement. The constant cuts between apparently-unrelated events left me wondering what the heck I was watching.

The series finds a creative way to introduce all the characters. We start with a woman being offered a job she didn't apply for -- something that would have warned most people there was something suspicious going on. Then we abruptly jump to letters being sent to other people, interspersed with those people going about their days. Creative, but confusing.

I like the music; it's suitably ominous. So is the incredibly bleak island the characters go to. What sort of island has massive cliffs in the middle of it?!

Is this an island or the Loch Ness Monster?

Imagine trying to write a tourist brochure for this island! An idyllic destination for anyone who likes to spend their holidays terrified of falling. If you don't have a fear of heights already, this place will give you one.

Ugh, the hideous green things reappear. Now I'm fairly sure they're supposed to be statues. Statues that look like the first attempts of a clumsy amateur statue-maker who made them while blindfolded 😒

What are those servants up to? At first I thought they were Mr. and Mrs. Owen in disguise. I'm trying very hard not to look up the book's plot, but the series takes ages to explain anything. At this rate I'll have to consult Wikipedia just to understand what's happening.

None of the characters are admirable, but Lombard stands out as a disgusting creep 😠

Love the scene where darkness literally covers the island! It's incredibly eerie, and the symbolism is obvious without being obnoxious.

The flashbacks to the murders are chilling 😨 I was wrong when I said Lombard's a disgusting creep. He's a complete monster 😱 I know enough of the plot to know most of the people on the island die. But I didn't expect the first death would happen so suddenly 😨

Episode two begins with two dead guests and two missing statues. (Thank goodness there are two less of those eyesores!) Sometimes this series feels more like horror than mystery. The way the camera lingers on the axe is honestly terrifying.

Some parts of the plot remind me a lot of Murder on the Orient Express. Most notably when everyone realises the killer is one of the guests.

As if the whole thing isn't creepy enough, the series just has to go the "dark and stormy night" route. Complete with lights going out, windows blowing open, and the moon going behind a cloud. And another murder, of course. Possibly the goriest yet 😱

Hiding a key and a gun in a bearskin rug? What a weird place to hide anything. Though I guess it worked; no one found the key. Yet.

It took me until the opening credits of episode three to realise that title card isn't just a mass of cracked statues; it's in the shape of the island and the house. Now I feel stupid for not noticing it earlier.

Someone clearly thought there wasn't enough horror in the series, so they showed some of the guests imagining their victims are in their rooms. I'm not sure if those are supposed to be hallucinations or if we're meant to believe they're actual ghosts. Either way, they're terrifying. Especially the hand in the sink 😨

Oh, for goodness' sake. A horror/mystery series is much better off without a romance subplot, but they just had to shoehorn one in here anyway. Not only does it interrupt the suspense, it's utterly out of place. And between the most despicable guest and the closest the series has to a main character, too. I don't know if it was in the book. Even if so, it should have been left out of the series.

What on earth? The bearskin rug came to life?! That had better be another hallucination 😒

I suspect the director wanted Lombard's death to be sad. The "romance" earlier only makes sense if you think it's meant to turn later events into a tear jerker. Unfortunately, Lombard was such a vile character that I didn't feel sorry for him at all. And the way Vera shrieked and hopped around just looked silly.

THE JUDGE WASN'T DEAD?????? And he was behind the whole thing? ...I should probably have guessed. Any character played by Charles Dance is practically guaranteed to be a villain.

The final scene is possibly the most disturbing in the whole series. Even if anyone finds all the bodies, they'll have no idea what really happened or who the killer was. Creepy.

Overall I quite enjoyed this series. I don't know how faithful it is to the book, but as a story in its own right it's fairly good. My main problem with it is how utterly despicable all the characters are. I know that's the point of the series, but I prefer stories with at least one relatively decent character.

Is it available online?: I doubt it.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: Belgravia (novel)

Happy December! I hope my readers had a far less stressful November than I did 😄

Belgravia is a 2016 novel by Julian Fellowes, creator of Downton Abbey. (Which does not bode well for its quality or historical accuracy.) Next year it will be adapted into a miniseries.

The main plot takes place in 1840s London. But it's shaped by events that happened years earlier, in Belgium shortly before the Battle of Waterloo. The story revolves around a scandal involving two very different families, and the different ways they try to deal with it or cover it up.

I started this book not expecting much. Everyone knows how Downton Abbey turned into a train-wreck, and honestly that "From the author of Downton Abbey" logo on the cover made me reluctant to read it. When I finished the first chapter I thought, "Well, it's not too bad so far. Might as well continue." I continued to read. I finished the book. And when I finished it I was left with a new conviction: Julian Fellowes is unable to write anything consistently good.

Belgravia, much like Downton, starts out a fairly decent period drama. It's not the greatest, but it's not absolute trash. I enjoyed the first two or three chapters. Then, like Downton, the quality deteriorates. Rapidly. Before long the plot became a shambling mess, the characters lost any realism they had, and I only read on to see how it ended. I skipped whole scenes to get to the resolution.

Surprisingly the book manages an unforeseen and actually interesting twist near the end: the discovery that the scandal didn't actually exist. Not in the way everyone thought it did, anyway. That was the only thing I didn't see coming. Everything else was predictable. A predictable plot isn't always a bad thing, but it's certainly not going to keep a reader interested for long.

The resolution of the villains' subplots is the part I hated most. John tried to murder Charles, and he gets off scot-free. All right, so he's in financial difficulties, but that's hardly any retribution for all his vileness. Susan outright gets rewarded for her sins. Oliver is an absolute idiot who stirs up trouble out of petty jealousy... and he gets rewarded too. Argh!

I can safely say I will never reread this book. And it's extremely unlikely I'll bother to watch the miniseries. There are far better period drama to read and watch.

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know.

Rating: 2/10.

The Curious Case of the Disappearing Reviewer

...Or, why this blog has been so quiet lately.

Sorry for not posting any reviews for a few weeks! I was so busy trying to finish NaNoWriMo that I had no time for anything else. Now that NaNo's over for another year, I finally have time for the blog again! Reviews will restart as normal on Wednesday.

Review: The Eustace Diamonds

This is the second Anthony Trollope novel I've read. I was surprised to find I liked it much better than The Way We Live Now.

The Eustace Diamonds is an 1871 novel by Anthony Trollope. It's the third in the Palliser series, but can be read without knowledge of the previous books. (In fact I didn't realise at first that it was part of a series!) It was adapted into part of The Pallisers miniseries in 1974.

Our "heroine" (I use that term very loosely) is Lizzie Eustace, whose late husband owned the titular diamonds. The plot revolves around her theft of them, and her attempts to keep hold of them after she stole them. If you don't think that sounds like an interesting story, just read the book. You'll be surprised.

It must be said, some of the scenes in the novel didn't make a lot of sense when I first read it. I couldn't figure out why a minor character like Lady Glencora was given so much importance in the narrative. When I discovered this is a sequel to earlier books it made more sense. Knowledge of the previous books isn't required, but it might be a help.

Trollope has never been as popular as Dickens, and it must be said that in my humble opinion he isn't quite as good a writer as Dickens. Yet in this book at least he created characters who are more like real people than Dickens' larger-than-life eccentrics. Lizzie Eustace and Frank Greystock are loathsome in a more restrained, realistic way than the utter vileness of Fagin or Squeers. Lucy Morris, though weak-willed and far too forgiving, isn't as perfect as Kate Nickleby or Lucie Manette.

Speaking of Lucy, the resolution of her subplot utterly infuriated me. She knew Frank had betrayed her. He had done nothing to show he was sorry. He wasn't even sure he intended to marry her! Most women would never marry a man like that. But she married him, and this was portrayed as a happy ending for her?! 😒

Lizzie's final fate is likewise disappointing. It's darkly funny and serves her right, but after everything she did she gets off more or less scot-free. Being married to a snake like Mr. Emilius isn't exactly a happy ending, but she was never punished for her crime. I thought she would at least get some comeuppance.

Before this book I never realised Trollope could be funny. The Way We Live Now was rather lacking in humour, while The Eustace Diamonds certainly isn't. Several scenes made me laugh out loud.

Unfortunately the book has some moments when the Victorian era's Antisemitism shows all too plainly. I cringed every time "Jew" was used to describe some villainous characters 😣

If you can ignore those parts and focus on the main story, this is a very interesting book. Apart from anything else, it's a fascinating character study of a pathological liar.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 8/10.

(Not Really a) Review: First Impressions of The Untamed: The Living Dead

Remember when I said I'd post this review before Sunday? Yeah, obviously that didn't happen.

The Living Dead is a sequel/spin-off of The Untamed. It was released last Thursday. Some kind soul uploaded it on YouTube with English subtitles, allowing me to watch (and understand) it without the bother of downloading it.

Apparently the film takes place several years after the series ended. The only characters from the series are Wen Ning and Lan Sizhui; all the others are new ones. (Unless you count a certain very short cameo.) This review is a list of things I thought while watching it.

WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!

• I'm not impressed with the opening scene. What on earth is wrong with that man? Who goes out late at night when they know there are ghosts around?

• Can't say I like the credits. Where's the Untamed theme music? Honestly, I'd settle for any theme music. That wailing-child thing is more grating than scary. At least the animated parts look cool.

• I like the call-back to The Untamed's first scenes, with the empty street, leaves blowing around, and people chanting about spirits.

• Why is Wen Ning in chains again?

• Yet again people are running away from Wen Ning in terror :(

• Now Wen Ning can use his chains as weapons. And they apparently have a mind of their own, and are red-hot. (The moving around part could be telekinesis, but the heat? I spent several minutes trying to figure out how they could look like they've just been put in a fire when it's late at night and there's no fire nearby.) Sure would have been useful if he had that power in the main series. Jin Guangshan wouldn't have known what hit him.

• Lan Sizhui is as adorable as ever! I love his first conversation with Wen Ning :D (Though they're a lot more distant towards each other than I expected. What happened to their closeness at the end of the series?) Yay, a Wei Wuxian reference!

• Inquiry sounds different :( I prefer the series' rendition. Sizhui teleporting(?) into a corpse's mind is a cool idea, but it never happened in the series.

• The mysterious death of the Xiao family sounds awfully like the massacre of the Chang clan. Xue Yang? Is that you?

• Xiao Qing deserved so much better :'( (Every time she's called "A-Qing" I think of the other A-Qing. Further emphasizes the similarities between this film and Xue Yang's story.)

• Again all the trouble is caused by the Yin Iron! On the one hand I like the call-back to the series, but on the other... that thing's caused so much chaos already. Couldn't they have found a more original idea?

• Wasn't Zhou Zi Shu already undead? How the dickens did cutting his throat kill him? And yet again we have a villain trying to resurrect a loved one they killed. Zhou Zi Shu might as well be called Xue Yang 2.0. Except I like Xue Yang more. He was utterly insane, but at least his craziness wasn't a repeat of an earlier plot.

• ...I take back almost everything in that last paragraph. Just reached the plot twist, and I have one thing to say. WHAT THE HELL?????!!!!! 😮

• The music is much too modern. Electric guitars in a fantasy film? Where's the beautiful (and actually fitting for the genre) music from the series?

• WHERE IS LAN WANGJI????? I think he was only mentioned once in the entire film. We got a Wei Wuxian cameo but not a Lan Wangji one?

• The final scene has some of the least convincing CGI I've ever seen 😒

I like this film, but it's not quite what I expected. The main problem is how short it is, and how rushed the plot is as a result. When I rewatch it I might write a longer review.

A Slight Change of Plans

Just a quick update to let my readers know there won't be a review today. The biggest culprit is NaNoWriMo. Most of my days lately are absorbed with panicking about word counts and what should happen next 😑

There may or may not be a review tomorrow or the day after. The Untamed's spin-off film will be released some time tomorrow, and if it's humanly possible for me to find it and watch it online I'll do so and write my thoughts about it. (Fair warning: Those thoughts will probably be incoherent screaming.) Failing that, I've a few book reviews to write. So there will probably be another post before Sunday 😃

Review: Charlotte's Web (novel)

For a while I wasn't sure if I'd be able to post this review today. Luckily I managed it! This was the first book that ever made me cry. So what better book to review during NaNoWriMo, when I definitely feel like crying?

Charlotte's Web is a 1952 children's novel by E. B. White. It's his best-known, most popular novel, and it's been adapted into two films and a stage musical. (Goodness knows how anyone adapted a book about talking animals onto a stage!)

Almost everyone knows the plot even if they haven't read the book. A pig named Wilbur befriends a spider named Charlotte, who writes words in her web to save his life. (Can you tell how much fun I have thinking up the shortest plot summaries imaginable? 😄) If you haven't read it the plot frankly sounds silly and childish. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every time I read it I find something new to laugh at or cry over. Every. Single. Time. Wilbur's attempt at talking logic with a sheep, the morbidly amusing scene when he discovers Charlotte's diet, and the family's struggles to get him into the crate always make me grin. And then there are the sad parts. A certain incident is the worst one, but the bittersweet final scene and Fern losing interest in visiting Wilbur also make me tear up 😢

Speaking of that scene... Whyyyyyyyyyyyy? 😭😭 As a small child I sobbed for hours after Charlotte died. It still makes me cry like a baby, though not for quite as long 😭

Charlotte's Web is one of the rare children's books that can be enjoyed by adults as much as by children. And reading it as an adult doesn't make it any less heart-breaking 😢

Is it available online?: No, not as far as I know.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: The Signal-Man

Happy Halloween in advance! Today I'll review one of Charles Dickens' lesser-known short stories, which is very suitable for this time of year.

The Signal-Man is a short story by Charles Dickens, first published in 1866. It's been adapted into at least one film and several radio dramas. Andrew Lloyd Webber made two attempts to make it into a musical/opera. Neither was successful (possibly a good thing).

The story's about a signal-man who sees a ghostly figure before disasters on the railway. He tells the narrator about the times he sees it, and the tragedies that followed. It's a lot more frightening than that description makes it sound. The end is especially chilling 😨

Dickens is so well-known for his loooong novels that it's hard to believe he wrote short stories. Not only that, but a story with only one plot, no subplots, and amazingly few characters. This story is so unlike his usual works that it hardly seems like Dickens at all. Yet considering its genre, the shortness and lack of subplots work in its favour. From start to finish it's incredibly eerie. The ending is easy to see coming, but no less terrifying because of it.

If you want a ghost story to read on Halloween, try this one! It might not be one of Dickens' more famous stories, but it's certainly one of his eeriest.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg in a collection of other Dickens ghost stories.

Rating: 9/10.

Review: The King's Speech (2010)

Everything I heard about this film made me expect it would be outstanding. Now I've watched it, and it's left me disappointed.

That's one of the worst title-cards I've ever seen. The writing is so tiny you practically need a magnifying glass to see it!

The King's Speech is a 2010 film based on real events. It depicts the future King George VI's struggles with a speech impediment, and his attempts to overcome it.

I recognised several actors:

Colin Firth (Darcy in Pride and Prejudice 1995) as Prince Albert/King George VI

Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter) as Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother)

Geoffrey Rush (Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean) as Lionel Logue

Jennifer Ehle (Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice 1995) as Myrtle Logue

Timothy Spall (Mr. Venus in Our Mutual Friend 1998) as Winston Churchill

Derek Jacobi (the King in Cinderella 2015) as the Archbishop

Michael Gambon (Squire Hamley in Wives and Daughters) as King George V

The opening scene left me scratching my head. As if the underwhelming title-card wasn't enough, there's some weirdo gargling onscreen. Before I could figure out what was happening the film had already moved on to Bertie's attempt at giving a speech. Poor guy 😢 Speaking in public is one of my worst nightmares, and I don't even have a speech impediment. I can only imagine how horrifying it is to someone with one.

Elizabeth (who I always think of as the Queen Mother even though she isn't in the film) goes to Lionel Logue, a speech therapist who might be able to help Bertie. My favourite parts of the film were the Logues' reactions to realising who Lionel's patient is. Especially the scene where Mrs. Logue walks in and sees the queen in her house 😆

Like The Crown, which could almost be seen as a follow-on to this film, the main problem is the characters. There are exactly four truly likable characters: Bertie, Elizabeth, and their daughters. (Even then I have reservations about liking Margaret. She's tolerable only because she's a child and not the selfish brat she became.) Logue means well, but his methods are frankly bizarre. Edward and Wallis are so revolting that I felt like yelling at the screen every time they appeared 😠 And everyone else is either a jerk or just there in the background.

On the subject of Logue's bizarre methods, the constant swearing is extremely off-putting 😒 When I watch a film I like to actually watch it. Not skip every few minutes.

This film is best described as "average but not great". I liked some parts of it and hated others. But I'm not in a hurry to watch it again.

Is it available online?: I don't think so.

Rating: 5/10.

Review: Black Beauty (novel)

Some people have the idea that books about talking animals are solely for children. Those people have clearly never read this book.

Black Beauty is Anna Sewell's only novel, published in 1877 shortly before her death. It's been adapted into at least five films, two miniseries, and several cartoons. She wrote it specifically to make people treat their horses better. (This was the Victorian era after all, when almost everyone owned or hired a horse at some point in their lives, and when standards of how to treat animals were much lower.) Unlike many books written with a specific purpose, Black Beauty actually did improve how horses were treated.

Almost everyone knows what the book is about. It revolves around the title character as he's sold from owner to owner, some of them good and others very bad. Unlike the later "pony novels" that it partially inspired, the story is often bleak and depressing.

What I can't understand is how anyone would think it's a children's novel. Anna Sewell makes no attempt to gloss over how cruelly horses were treated. She wrote to horrify people into improving those conditions, after all, so the suffering caused by brutality (or ignorance, in the case of Joe making Beauty sick) is shown clearly. Nowadays, with laws against animal cruelty, it's hard to believe horses could ever be so badly treated; this book shows a particularly ugly side of history that's often forgotten or overlooked. Yes, children can read it, and should be encouraged to read it, but it's not aimed exclusively at them.

A lot of this book is utterly heart-breaking. Especially the way Beauty and his friends are treated by some of their owners 😭 Even the happy ending makes me tear up!

People who dismiss it as "just another children's book about horses" are missing out on an excellent novel. If you've never read it before, you absolutely should.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: Corpse Bride (2005)

Halloween is just around the corner! If you're anything like me, that means you're rewatching your favourite spooky films. This is one of mine.

Corpse Bride is a 2005 stop-motion animated film, based on a Russian folktale. It's very similar in appearance and atmosphere to The Nightmare Before Christmas. But it isn't a sequel or spin-off of Nightmare. I made that mistake when I first watched it and spent much of the film wondering why no one mentioned Halloween Town. (In my defence, I was eleven.)

Like a lot of my reviews, this is basically a rambling list of things I liked or disliked about the film. Right up at the top of the "things I liked" list: the theme music. It's so beautifully eerie! I'm not so enthusiastic about some of the songs, but more about that later.

The plot revolves around Victor, who's engaged to marry Victoria, but who accidentally ends up married to Emily instead. Problem is, Emily's dead. And she drags Victor down to the land of the dead after their "marriage". Meanwhile, Victoria's loathsome parents try to marry her off to the repulsive Lord Barkis. It all works out in the end... sort of.

Emily and Victor

The characters are extremely stylised to the point of being caricatures. It fits such a spooky film, but some people might find it off-putting. Victor, Emily and Victoria aren't too bad, but the less said about the utterly hideous background characters, the better. This film manages to make you wish most of the characters were skeletons just so they'd look normal. Case in point: Victoria's parents.

...I'll let this picture speak for itself.

Can't say I like all the songs. Some are memorable, while others dive into speak-singing. As for some of the singers... how should I put this? Let's just say, singing is not their greatest talent.

Even though Emily's not trying to hurt Victor, her first appearance is pretty darn creepy 😨 Especially when he turns around and she's right there! But once you get used to the creepiness of the corpses, they're actually more likable than most of the living characters. They're certainly funnier, in a very dark sort of way. And the scene where they return to the land of the living is priceless 😆

This is pretty dark for a family film, and that's reflected in its humour. Almost all the funny moments are black comedy of some sort. (The only real exception is that town crier who's determined to humiliate Victor.) Who'd have thought a maggot living in a corpse's head would be so hilarious? On a much more serious note, who'd have thought that a film aimed at children would include a character who murdered his bride-to-be? 😱

I don't like this film quite as much as The Nightmare Before Christmas, but it's still a good film, and perfect for watching in October.

Is it available online?: No, I don't think so.

Rating: 7/10.

(Not Really a) Review: Which Pride and Prejudice Adaptation is the Best?

I'm trying something completely new today. Instead of reviewing just one work, I'll compare the different versions of Pride and Prejudice that I've seen. Which one is best? (You probably already know the answer.) Which one is worst? (Again, you probably know. What you might not know is that it has competition.)

First and more importantly: the novel itself. Without this book, none of the other versions would exist. It's the historical romance novel in many people's minds. Most of the thousands of Regency novels written since owe something to it. Mention Jane Austen and this is the book everyone will think of. In short, it's practically perfect in every way 😍

Verdict: The absolute best.

Next up: the 1940 film. Starring actors who don't suit their characters at all, wearing costumes from the wrong era and country. Features a Lady Catherine who's amusing in all the wrong ways, and a Lizzie and Darcy who are utterly unconvincing.

Verdict: I used to think this was the worst Pride and Prejudice adaptation. It's since moved up the list to second-worst.

Third time's the charm? Nope. The best I can say for the 1980 miniseries is that it's not as bad as some versions. Frankly, it's dull. I struggled to stay awake through it. Where are the memorable characters and witty dialogue of the novel?

Verdict: Not good. Not terrible. Just average and disappointing.

Finally! The 1995 miniseries is very nearly as good as the novel. I love every minute of it. I have whole episodes memorised. This series is the perfect example not only of how to properly adapt Pride and Prejudice, but of how to properly adapt any novel.

Verdict: Best. Version. Ever.

And last of all here's the worst. I've already said everything that can be said about the 2005 film. So let me summarise: KILL IT. KILL IT WITH FIRE.

Verdict: Utter abomination.

I hope you enjoyed this series of mini-reviews! (Or should that be miniseries of reviews?) Note that this only includes P&P adaptations I've seen. There are plenty of others I haven't seen. But I think it's safe to say none of those others will ever be better than the 1995 series 😄

Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (novel)

Like The Horse and His Boy, this book doesn't follow the usual plot of a Narnia book. In fact, it doesn't really have a plot at all.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is the third-published book in the Chronicles of Narnia, but chronologically it's the fifth. It was published in 1952. It's been adapted into a miniseries, a film, at least two musicals, and several audiobooks.

It takes place shortly after Prince Caspian. Unusually, not much time has passed for either the Pevensies or the Narnians. Caspian is still king and has set out on a voyage in the Dawn Treader to find seven missing lords. Edmund and Lucy -- and their odious cousin Eustace Clarence Scrubb, who almost deserves his name -- fall into Narnia through a painting. They have a series of adventures with Caspian as the Dawn Treader travels to different islands. Along the way Eustace makes a nuisance of himself, until an encounter with treasure leaves him completely changed -- in more ways than one.

This book is virtually nothing like the rest of the series. There's no villain to defeat. Unless you count the pirates, the sea serpent, the island of dreams, and so on, but those are more obstacles than real villains. Aslan barely appears in the story. Peter and Susan are nowhere to be seen. None of the story takes place in Narnia itself. And it doesn't have a plot as such. It just describes the different islands the Dawn Treader visits and the adventures its crew have there. Some of those adventures are light-hearted, like the meeting with the Dufflepuds. Others are more serious, like Dragon Island and Deathwater Island.

A book without a plot all-too-easily becomes a meandering mess. Luckily this book avoids that trap. It may not be just as exciting as The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but it's enjoyable to read and gives the reader a glimpse into just how vast the world of Narnia is. I was amused to discover that Narnia is literally a flat world, and you can actually sail to the end of it. The idea that Narnian stars are people is a fascinating one, and I wish C. S. Lewis had written more about them. But my favourite part of the book is Eustace's redemption.

He starts out almost as bad as Edmund in LWW. If there's something to be grumbled about, you can be sure Eustace will do enough grumbling for the entire crew. He spends half the book as a selfish, utterly self-absorbed little pest who makes you long to box his ears. But then, like Edmund, his actions cause him much misery and the experience leaves him a much better person.

The book's ending is one of the most depressing in the series, when Edmund and Lucy are told they can't return to Narnia. I was not happy with this when I first read it. "Seriously? First Peter and Susan, now Edmund and Lucy?!" I understand why Lewis chose to end it like this, but it's still sad 😢

This is probably the lightest book in the series, and it doesn't require much knowledge of the previous novels. Is it the best Narnia book? No. But it's certainly not the worst.

Is it available online?: I doubt it.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Howl's Moving Castle (2004)

Finally, after several years of thinking "I should watch this" and promptly forgetting to, I sat down and watched this film. It isn't what I expected.

Howl's Moving Castle is a 2004 animated film by Studio Ghibli, based on Diana Wynne Jones' novel of the same name. There's both a Japanese version and a version dubbed into English. I watched the Japanese version with English subtitles.

I wrote this review while watching the film, so it's basically a list of things I thought as I watched it. Probably not a coherent list, but anyway.

The moving castle is the very first thing we see in the film. It looks a lot more monstrous and dilapidated than I pictured it in the book. (Admittedly, I haven't read the book since I reviewed it a while ago. I'm sure I've forgotten a few things.)

...Why are there planes flying around? I definitely don't remember them in the book 😒 To say nothing of all the trains, cars and steam-powered buses. And the soldiers everywhere. Clearly the film has changed quite a lot.

They kept Sophie and Howl's first meeting! But changed the circumstances. I'm torn between cheering at Howl protecting Sophie, and grumbling at the difference from the book. At least the flying scene is cool. That's one change I actually don't mind.

After Sophie leaves Lettie we get a weird scene of two masked puppets(?) carrying a sedan chair. Then someone in the chair gathers black sludge(??) wearing hats(???) into a jug(????). What in the world is happening? I assume this is the Witch of the Waste's first appearance, but it left me scratching my head.

I love the animation! There are a few scenes where I completely forgot about what was happening and focused on how incredibly beautiful the animation is 😍 Makes it all the more jarring when the Witch of the Waste appears. She's utterly revolting, even more than I imagined in the book!

Like in the book, the Witch of the Waste curses Sophie and turns her into an old woman. Like in the book, this leads to her staying with Howl. And like in the book, she meets the scarecrow along the way. I was expecting the scarecrow to look at least mildly frightening. Instead he's actually almost cute. The constant grin is rather off-putting, though.

Calcifer is also a lot cuter than I expected. But he's just as funny as his book counterpart 😄 For some reason Michael is a small child instead of a teenager. This is another change I definitely don't approve of. Why did they make such an unnecessary change, anyway? And what's all this about a war?

Howl's reaction to Sophie inviting herself into the castle is much calmer than I expected. They aren't nearly as sarcastic to each other here as in the book. Very disappointing 😞

What on earth is that scene where Howl-as-a-bird is chased by bats wearing hats? Clearly the film treats the book's plot as a guideline that it isn't essential to follow. It's never a good sign when an adaptation has that attitude.

The film hasn't explained yet that Sophie is a witch too, so the scene where she's returned to her real appearance makes no sense 😒 Especially when seconds later she's an old woman again. The film also doesn't explain what's going on with this war they've added to the plot. The book managed just fine without airships dropping bombs and flyers; why did the film decide it needed them?

Howl is as dramatic as his book counterpart, even though he's not as sarcastic. I roared with laughter when he throws a fit after dying his hair 😆 And I liked his post-tantrum conversation with Sophie. Especially when he comes up with the "pretend you're my mother" scheme.

I don't remember any Madame Suliman in the book. What happened to Mrs. Penstemmon? And why is there yet another villain when we already have the Witch of the Waste and Miss Angorian (who apparently isn't in the film)? As for that weird fireworks display and Howl turning into a bird... the mind boggles. This was the moment when I stopped expecting the film to be anything like the book.

For some reason the Witch of the Waste loses her memory and ends up in Howl's castle. Goodness knows why. And Sophie switches back to her young self apparently without noticing it, for reasons that aren't explained. Or is that a dream sequence? I've given up trying to understand this film.

I love the scene where Howl and Calcifer change the castle's interior! And Howl showing Sophie the field of flowers is so cute 😍

Those blob-shadow things are disgusting to look at, and their attack on the castle is pretty horrifying 😨 Exactly nothing in the film's climax is in the book; not the bombs, not Howl as some sort of bird monster, not the blob men, not the Witch of the Waste lounging around in Howl's castle. I try to remind myself the film isn't a faithful adaptation, but this still grates on me.

At least the end is sort of like the book's. The scarecrow's curse is broken, the Witch of the Waste won't cause any more trouble, and Howl and Sophie will live happily ever after.

I didn't enjoy this film nearly as much as I expected to. I thought it would be close to the book, but instead it has the same characters and a different plot. Maybe if I hadn't read the book I'd enjoy it more. As it is, though, I kept getting annoyed by all the differences.

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: The Way We Live Now (novel)

When I watch a film or series I generally try to read the book it was based on. I started this book shortly after finishing the miniseries. I've only just finished it.

The Way We Live Now is the longest of Anthony Trollope's many novels, first published in 1875. It's been adapted into two miniseries and a radio drama.

The novel's main plot is about the conman Augustus Melmotte, who arrives in London and immediately starts swindling people. Its many subplots revolve around the loathsome Sir Felix Carbury; his less despicable but quite boring sister Hetta; Paul, the man Hetta wants to marry; Mrs. Hurtle, the woman who wants Paul to marry her; and Ruby, an idiot in love with Felix.

It makes no pretensions of being anything but a satirical novel, and in the process it falls into the same trap as Dickens' Our Mutual Friend: whole subplots exist solely for the sake of satire. Probably they were compelling reading for Trollope's contemporaries. Unfortunately, I found them downright dull. The entire "Hetta thinks Paul is betraying her" subplot drags on and on and on until I gave up reading and skipped ahead. Same goes for the Felix/Ruby/John love triangle.

The truly interesting part of the novel is about Melmotte, his family, and his eventual downfall. About half-way through I started skimming over the rest of the story to focus on the parts about them. Marie, Melmotte's daughter, is one of the few sympathetic characters in the whole thing. I'm glad she got some sort of happy ending, and a chance to get away from the mess her father made.

Maybe it's because it took me ages to finish this novel, with long gaps in-between each chapter. Or maybe my opinion of it was coloured by the underwhelming 2001 series. Whatever the reason, I didn't enjoy this book as much as I expected to. Perhaps some time in the future I'll try rereading it and see if my opinion changes. For now, though, it's not one of my favourite books.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 5/10.

Review: Chronicles of Avonlea (novel)

Anne of Green Gables is well-known. Its sequels are more obscure. And most obscure of all are the short story collections L. M. Montgomery wrote about the village of Avonlea.

Chronicles of Avonlea is a book of twelve short stories set in and around Avonlea. It was first published in 1912, although some of the stories were written before L. M. Montgomery started Anne of Green Gables. She simply changed a few details to make these stories fit in. Some of the stories are adapted in the series Road to Avonlea, and a few events are referred to in other Anne books.

The plots range from an elderly woman who longs to hear an old friend sing, to an uncomfortable walk home leading to a quarrel finally ending. Romance plays a part in most of the stories. But not the sort of romance you might expect; instead of being about young people falling in love, they're about grown-up and middle-aged people getting married after overcoming obstacles like pride, disagreements, and a controlling older sister.

I have to admit, when I saw the title Chronicles of Avonlea I thought it would be about Anne, Marilla, Rachel Lynde, and other characters who appear in the Anne books. Instead it's about characters who are rarely or never mentioned in the main books. Anne herself hardly appears at all, but she helps bring about the marriage of one couple and attends the (highly unusual) wedding of another. I can't decide if I like the glimpse into new people's lives or if I'd like to see more of the characters I already know.

One of the stories comes perilously close to the sort of mawkish sentimentality common in Victorian and Edwardian literature. Strange, because L. M. Montgomery generally avoids falling into that trap. The rest are full of her brilliant descriptions, ability to let you know a character within minutes of their first appearance ("If they merely announce that they are going to peel the potatoes for dinner their hearers realize that there is no possible escape for the potatoes."), and humourous lines. (Mr. Leonard's "I'm very sorry for the Baptists" comment is my favourite 😆) Two stories in particular stuck in my mind long after I finished the book -- "Each in His Own Tongue" and "The Quarantine at Alexander Abraham's" -- for very different reasons!

This book isn't quite as good as any of the Anne books. But it's heartwarming and entertaining, and I enjoyed it from beginning to end.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 8/10.

Review: David Copperfield (novel)

Finally I finished this novel, so obviously it's time to review it 😄

While looking for a photo to put here I discovered possibly the most disturbing piece of cover art ever put on a classic novel: this. Apparently someone thought this is a horror novel about a headless ghost. If I wake up screaming tonight, I'll know what to blame.

David Copperfield is Charles Dickens' eighth novel, first published in 1850. It's the most autobiographical of his novels. Even while it was still being serialised it was adapted into several stage plays. Since then it's inspired at least four miniseries, two cartoons, seven films, and a number of audiobooks or radio dramas.

The already-reviewed 1999 miniseries sticks fairly close to the book, with only a few exceptions. (And a lot removed. Can't adapt the entire thing into only two episodes, after all!) This lead to the curious situation of comparing the book to the adaptation instead of the other way round 😄 

The main character, obviously, is David Copperfield. (It's very easy to forget that at times.) It doesn't have an immediately-identifiable plot; instead it's the story of David's life, starting with his birth and ending with him as a successful author. Along the way he meets many characters who are frankly more interesting than him, from his, ahem, eccentric Aunt Betsey Trotwood to the loathsome Uriah Heep.

For approximately the first half of the book David is definitely the main character; the story revolves around his evil stepfather, his awful school, and the turn for the better his life takes when he goes to his aunt for help. But then he becomes little more than a bystander as dozens of other characters take over the story. There were times when I thought the second half of the book should be renamed "The Micawbers, the Peggottys, and the Downfall of Uriah Heep, narrated by David Copperfield". Since this is a Dickens novel, all these other characters are so entertaining and distinctive that I don't mind them taking over the story. (Frankly they're much more interesting than David is!)

The main thing I disliked about the book is how utterly unmemorable David is. Everyone else has at least one instantly identifiable trait: Aunt Betsey hates donkeys, Mr. Micawber is obsessed with writing letters, Mrs. Gummidge is almost constantly complaining... Even Dora, imbecile though she is, has a distinct character. When I try to think about David, all that comes to mind is his terrible judge of character (as shown when he befriends Steerforth and marries Dora). David might as well be a plot device for all the impact he has on some subplots. When he proposes to Agnes I'm left wondering how such a sensible woman could ever like him enough to marry him.

Another thing I disliked was how the Murdstones get no comeuppance. They drive David's mother to her death, then Mr. Murdstone marries another woman and they start it all over again. When they're last mentioned, he's married yet another woman and is doing the exact same thing 😨 Steerforth dies, Uriah Heep goes to prison, but two of the vilest characters in the book are still at large and ruining lives. Why didn't Dickens kill them off?!

On the bright side, I love the rest of the characters (Aunt Betsey, Peggotty and Miss Mowcher especially) so much that I can overlook how dull David is 😄 This isn't my favourite Dickens book, but it's in the top five.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 7/10.

(Not Really a) Review: First Impressions of Sanditon (2019)

Jane Austen adaptations are a very mixed bag. On the one hand you get classics like the 1995 versions of Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice. On the other you get abominations like Pride and Prejudice (2005). Take a wild guess which category this one falls into.

"Jane Austen's"? Really? "Brought to life"? Really?

Sanditon is a miniseries named after an unfinished Jane Austen novel. I've never read the published version of the novel, or any of the attempts other authors have made to complete it. To be honest I haven't watched the series yet either. (I'm not a fan of watching things while they're still airing.) But it's clear from simply reading about this series and looking at GIFs and stills from it that it isn't a Jane Austen adaptation.

I didn't even know it was being made until I read a newspaper boasting about how (paraphrased) "this Austen adaptation replaces dull conversations with nudity". I did a double take. Surely I'd misread that. Unfortunately I hadn't. So I googled the series, hoping the article was lying to attract viewers. It wasn't.

There are so many things wrong with this series that I don't know where to begin. Might as well start with the nudity. WHAT IN GOD'S NAME WERE THEY THINKING? This shows exactly what's wrong with the film- and series-making industry nowadays. They think no one will want to watch their shows unless they shoehorn nakedness in somewhere. Actually, nothing is more likely to make me avoid a film or series like the plague.

Next up is Charlotte's hairstyles. Take a look at that eyesore of a DVD cover. Charlotte's hair is loose and hanging down her back. Wrong. Think of P&P. How many times did Jane or Elizabeth wear their hair loose in public? That's right: never. How many times does Charlotte wear her hair like that? Goodness knows. But it happens far too often.

Apparently there are a pair of sinister siblings living in a gloomy house. Yet more proof that this isn't a Jane Austen adaptation. Even in Northanger Abbey, her parody of Gothic novels, she never seriously used Gothic themes and characters. This subplot would make sense in a Brontë adaptation. But in Jane Austen?! 😒

Why did the series-makers say this is based on an Austen novel? By all means, make a series riddled with historical inaccuracies and naked men. Throw an entire city of sinister people and gloomy houses if you feel like it. But don't call it Sanditon. Don't associate with Jane Austen. Present it as an original story that isn't meant to be accurate. Then maybe its flaws would be forgiveable.

I can say with certainty that this isn't a series I'm eager to watch. The only reason I'll ever suffer through it is if I want something to laugh at.

Rating: 1/10.

Review: Noble Blood (podcast)

Lore is the only podcast I listen to frequently (or at all, really). The only reason I started this one is because it's a sort of spin-off of Lore.

Noble Blood is the latest of several podcasts associated with Lore. It started earlier this year, and currently has six episodes. I've only listened to the first two.

Like Lore, this podcast deals with historical events. Unlike Lore, none of the events covered are ghost stories. Instead they're about royalty or nobility. That doesn't mean they're not as chilling and grim as the folklore and whispers of supernatural activity, though. The first episode is about Marie Antoinette. Specifically, about her imprisonment and murder. It's exactly as horrifying as you'd expect.

I must say I'm not overly fond of the music or the narrator's way of speaking. The music doesn't always fit the events being discussed, and the narrator's way of running sentences together makes it hard to tell when she's stopped one sentence and started another. I find it very distracting when I try to decipher a long, rambling phrase only to realise it's two different sentences.

Though when I can ignore that, the podcast is interesting and educational. I never knew much about Marie Antoinette or Charles II before, and the same goes for the people mentioned in the other episodes. Of course, this also means that I don't know how historically accurate the podcast is. I'm going to assume it's reasonably accurate. If anyone knows differently, feel free to correct me.

If you want to listen to a historical podcast, you might enjoy this one. Warning: it's not quite as disturbing as Lore, but it has its gruesome moments.

Is it available online?: Yes, here.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: The Untamed

A month ago there were only two series I would rate 10/10: Cranford and Bleak House. This series has just joined them.

The Untamed (陈情令/Chén Qíng Lìng) is a 2019 Chinese series, loosely based on the novel Mo Dao Zu Shi by Mo Xiang Tong Xiu. The most glaringly obvious difference is that the series doesn't adapt the romance between the two main characters. I've never read the novel or seen its other adaptations, so I don't know what other differences there are. (Plenty, according to other people's comments.)

I didn't recognise any of the actors, so on to the plot.

Unfortunately the first episode is terribly confusing. I couldn't understand anything that was happening. My thoughts were mostly variations of "Who is this?" or "What are they doing?". All I knew for certain was that a monster was terrorising a family, a group of cultivators (a word I didn't understand then) were trying to get rid of it, and someone had died and come back to life. I almost gave up on the series before it had properly started.

The second episode is just as confusing, I'm sorry to say. But in its final minutes we go back in time to what happened before the series starts. It's one of the longest flashbacks ever; it lasts until episode thirty-three. Luckily it's when the story both starts making sense and becomes interesting. (Why, why did they not start with the sixteen-years-ago storyline, and then jump forward to where the first episode began?) Come to think of it, you could probably start watching the series with episode three then go back and watch the first two after episode thirty-three.

Anyway, on to the plot. Wei Wuxian arrives in Cloud Recesses, where he meets Lan Wangji. Their relationship gets off to a bad start of the "fighting on the rooftop because Wei Wuxian broke the rules" kind. But before long they're very close friends. The series might not have been able to adapt their romance, but it has plenty of subtext.

Wei Wuxian

Lan Wangji

Naturally things go horribly wrong. First a war breaks out, then Wei Wuxian tries to protect innocent civilians and gets vilified for it, then he commits suicide after his friends and his sister are killed. Sixteen years later he's brought back from the dead and meets Lan Wangji again. Much trouble, adorableness, scheming, and implausible fight scenes ensue. And of course there's plenty of heartbreak.

This is one of those shows that's an emotional rollercoaster. It's even worse than Cranford because it includes horror and violence as well as tragedy. When you watch an episode you never know what the next scene will be. Comical? Tragic? Nightmarish? Tragic and nightmarish? Episode thirty-three in particular is hard to watch 😭 Wei Wuxian's descent into despair gives me chills. Especially the way he swings between laughing and crying as he watches the carnage the Yin Tiger Amulet caused.

If you can get through the bewildering first episodes, and don't mind frequent violence, gore, and unconvincing special effects, you'll probably enjoy this series. I certainly did 😄

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles. Pretty bad subtitles, but it'll give you the general idea.

Rating: 10/10.