Award winning Audio Books

Recently, at the suggestion of a friend/librarian, I “read” or listened to an audio book when I had to drive a ways, albeit in a particularly straight line. She suggested to try out an audio book since I really didn’t have to do a great deal of thinking while driving around bends, turns and twists as I was headed straight up a straight, straight highway. Interesting. I have never tried this medium before, but have known many that have either while running, working ( a postie friend!), etc. I decided to give this a whirl.

My first audio book was Minette Walter’s The Ice House, and after adjusting to the ebb and flow of someone reading to me, (and adapting to the narrator’s slightly annoying attempts of creating gruff male voices) I found that I really, really did enjoy a book in this manner. I think it’s also all in whom the narrator is as well. I have now moved on to my 4th audio book (currently, it’s The Abstinence Teacher, read by Campbell Scott. I do have to say I’m not that fond of his reading style, but I’ll adapt) and today came across The 2011 Audies, awards created for the best audio books of the year. I scanned through the lists and saw that The Woman in White, by Wilkie Collins won in the Classics division. Our fellow Hoader, Jackie has listened to it and I will chime in that I think listening to a good old, classic mystery in this way is my favourite way to appreciate an audio book. Seeing as Woman in White is the award winner, I may just have to listen to it!

In the Literary Fiction category, amongst titles such as, “Freedom” and “The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet” is the Winner:

Snakewoman of Little Egypt

Hmmm…not sure if it would be something that I would pick up, but if it’s award winning? Maybe I’ll have to take a listen…..

By the way, The Audiobook of the Year went to Life, by Keith Richards – I am going to go out on a limb here and assume this is owing to the fact that Johnny Depp read it.  Johnny Depp reading the back of a cereal box would be award winning, so I think this had nothing on the content of Keith Richards’ life. 🙂 (in my opinion)

This is not the end of the book…

The National Post posted this on July 15 in their Open Book:

so….”Fear not, bookworms and library rats. Two fellow bibliophiles, novelist (The Name of the Rose) and critic Umberto Eco, and playwright and screenwriter Jean-Claude Carriere, have collaborated on a volume whose title says it all: This is Not the End of the Book: A Conversation Curated by Jean-Philippe de Tonnac.”

The End of Harry Potter

First thoughts of the last Harry Potter movie– The Deathly Hallows Part II? It could have been better!

I will start off by saying that i am always a cynic when it comes to books made into movies (and i try so hard not to be) but this time they really did miss 2 vital parts for me. I thought that Part I did a great job of setting things up– it was very dark, creepy and building, Part II was supposed to be for the explanation of Dumbledore and his family and the Battle of Hogwarts both of which, in my opinion, fell short.

Dumbledore leaving Harry the task of destroying Lord Voldemort’s horcruxes (bits of his soul hidden in inanimate objects) with little or no explanation made Harry question everything he ever knew about him. By the time they found the third horcrux he was PISSED at Dumbledore. How Harry got to the point of forgiving him was essential to why he chose to face death rather than run away. To get to that point the Dumbledore family tragedy needed to be explained. This was not done.

Also, at the end of the Battle of Hogwarts Voldemort just breaks apart– with no one to witness but Ron and Hermione whereas in the book all of the characters (that lived) were watching and would witness the Dark Lord’s fall (how dramatic!!)! Then back up to Dumbledore’s office for more explanations regarding the Hallows and what should be done with them. In the movie left it all up to Harry– it made him look like a super hero. The charm of Harry Potter is that he was not that at all– just a willful teenager with lots of good friends and a great sense of right and wrong. He needed everyone he had around him to help achieve what he did.

I must say that the film LOOKED great– the special effects were amazing and everything was exactly as i pictured in the book– but it could have been so much more! BUT– this is only first thoughts– i plan on seeing it again real soon and perhaps i’ll change my tune! What did you all think?

PS. My fellow Hoarders NEED to read the HP series!! Sooooooo good– you’ll never look at the movies the same!!

Here’s that book again!

So you may remember a few posts back when I took the Oprah quiz as to what  I should read next and this book appeared…

Well, here it is again!, appearing in NPR’s “You Must Read” listing…

When I first saw the description of the book after taking the quiz, I was scratching my head since this really didn’t seem to be something that would interest me in any way.  However, NPR has given this brief tidbit to mull over, “If you’re in search of a genre-bending, perspective-shattering read, look no farther than Victor LaValle’s crime thriller Big Machine. Author Dolen Perkins-Valdez says the kaleidoscopic novel deftly weaves crime with dynamics of race, class and religion in an explosion of utter originality.” Hmmmm….now reading further in to it’s fuller description from NPR (see link above) I actually DO see myself potentially reading this. A twisting collage of crime? Check. Race, class and religion? Check. Summoned to a library? Check. A quirky group named Unlikely Scholars? Well, hmmmm, sign me up!

I do have to say, however, that I’m growing a tad weary of this tag of “genre-bending” term though, but I won’t let it get in the way of a potentially good read.

So, it seems, that perhaps Oprah was right? Oh Oprah! ☺