KINDLE vs NOOK

For Christmas I got a Nook Simple Touch. Now that I've had both a Nook and a Kindle for a few months, I thought it would be useful to compare them. It's not quite like comparing apples to apples, as my Kindle is over a year old (yet weirdly seems like I've had it forever) and is not a touch screen like the Nook is.

Cover

It may seem shallow to start with a cover as a selling point, but for me the covers of eReaders really add or subtract to the experience of reading on them. They help me to feel as if I'm reading a paper book, and that's important.

The Kindle covers are awesome--sturdy, comfortable to hold, and very nice-looking. I've had the same Kindle cover for over a year and it looks as nice as the first day I bought it, and I definitely haven't been light-handed with it.

The Nook covers, on the other hand, SUCK. There are lots of choices, but the vast majority of those choices are either ugly or boring. I chose the "Charm" cover, above, because it was one of the few I thought was pretty. It cost $60, which is comparable to the Kindle cover I own; unlike the Kindle cover, however, this one is very cheaply made (the fabric started bubbling up a week after I bought it), flimsy, and not comfortable to hold. You fail me, Barnes & Noble.

Screen Quality

With eReaders there's a "flash," or what I like to call the Etch-a-sketch effect. It's a flash of black between turning pages or changing screens before all the words and images reform the way they're supposed to be. Sometimes there's also an afterimage of the previous page or screen saver that appears; this goes away after you change the screen (or should).

The Nook definitely has a shorter flash than the Kindle, and the images are much sharper, so that's a definite plus. Keep in mind I don't know if this would be the case with a new Kindle, and when I'm reading I don't don't notice the flash that much, anyway.

Touch Screen vs Buttons

The main reason I wanted a Nook in the first place was because it had a touch screen. "How convenient!" I thought to myself. I love making notes on Kindle, but the tiny little buttons drive me crazy, and it's a pain to add things like question marks and apostrophes (you all know I hate me some dropped apostrophes). I also thought a Nook would be preferable over a touch-screen Kindle because there are side buttons to turn the page, so I don't HAVE to touch the screen if I have jam on my fingers or something.

The reality is, touch screens are a pain in the ass (unless it's a good touch screen, and only iPad has that right now). The Nook screen is extremely sensitive, but not accurate; I have to fight with it every time I want to highlight anything, as it never seems to follow my fingers. As for the side buttons on the Nook that I wanted, it take a lot of effort to press them, and my thumbs quickly become fatigued. The side buttons on the Kindle are sooo much better.

Ease of Sideloading/Uploading

One of the things I love about Kindle is that I can buy books from my device, or from the webbernets, and immediately have them on my Kindle to read. I can also delete or archive books directly from my Kindle. It's so easy you never even have to think about it.

I wasn't expecting things to be any different with Nook, but they are. For one, it's a bitch trying to get it to connect to our wifi at home. Turns out since December 2011, Nook devices aren't compatible with wireless routers from certain companies. HOW. CONVENIENT. What, shall I traipse over to the nearest Barnes & Noble just to download my effing books? Come on! (My mom's reaction to this news: "I'm done with them." I have to echo that sentiment.)

Plus, I can e-mail myself files to read on Kindle. You can't do that with Nook. Since I download a lot of files from Project Gutenberg and other sites, it seems like I have to sideload onto my Nook a lot--much more than with Kindle. I also can't delete those files from the Nook once I'm done with them; I have to plug it in and delete them from my computer. Another inconvenience, if minor.

Formats

Of course, a plus point in Nook's favor is that it allows more formats than Kindle, including the beloved ePub. I was excited by that as well. But you know... with Calibre and de-DRM programs, it's pretty simple to reformat ePubs for my Kindle. Turning mobi files from Amazon into ePubs, on the other hand, is something I haven't puzzled out yet (if someone has any clue, please feel free to share--keep in mind I have a Mac). I've found myself thinking, "Good thing I have a Kindle," a lot lately. Number of times I've thought "Good thing I have a Nook" so far: zero.



Do I like my Nook? Yes, I like certain things about it. And I'm happy to have two eReaders so I have two options to read books on (as well as being grateful and aware that I'm very technology-spoiled). But if I could only have one, I'd chose the Kindle. The Nook gives me headaches that the Kindle has never ever given me; whether those headaches are due mostly to the touch screen, the cover, or the device, is up in the air at the moment. But I definitely feel a fondness for my Kindle that just isn't happening with the Nook.


Do you have an eReader[s]? What are the features you like/dislike?

Read More

Kindle Mini-Reviews: CANDY HOUSES, HIGH SCHOOL REUNION, and NOCTURNAL WHISPERS

Candy Houses by Shiloh Walker

Greta is a Grimm, someone who fights demons. Pulled to Ann Arbor, Michigan, she encounters an old flame who is hunting one of their own.

I decided to read Candy Houses after Colette from A Buckeye Girl Reads told me she thought the new Grimm TV show might be based off this series (it's not). It's essentially an urban fantasy with the twist being the characters are from fairy tales. Greta is really Gretel from Hansel and Gretel, and her fellow Grimm is Rip (it took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out which fairy tale he was from). I usually love fairy tale twists, but here it felt like a gimmick because the characters really have nothing to do with their fairy tale counterparts and are actually angels fighting demons. Why not just write about angels then, one wonders? Plus, the "real" versions of these fairy tales, told from the perspective of the characters, are pretty lame. Especially in Rip's case--I would rather be left with the original fairy tale version.

That being said, I did love the romance between Greta and Rip. It was sweet and romantic, and really saved the entire novel.

If it wasn't for Rip, though, I would have been really bored. I skimmed through the unnecessarily long descriptions of demons and felt like the novel should have ended in the middle.



High School Reunion by Marlene Sexton

Jerry is dragged to his high school reunion by a friend, but finds himself in a pity spiral because, unlike many of his classmates, his life is a mess. He's divorced, living in a crappy apartment, and only gets to see his kid every other weekend. Then an attractive woman strikes up a conversation with him, and they wind up going back to her place. It's only then that Jerry finds out "Denise" is actually a Dennis.

I downloaded this erotica short story after KatieBab's review of it at Babbling About Books and More. How many books with transgender main characters does one come across, after all? Personally, I've never heard of single one, so I was intrigued to read something so unusual.

The writing style is 3rd-grade-ish, there are some serious LOLlines ("Jerry hadn't really considered that option... However, Denise could do it. She had a cock." ahahahaha), and Jerry seemed to take the fact that Denise had the body of a man a little too in stride, too quickly; but overall it was okay. The ending was lame and nonsensical, but it was free! (Please note that it's not free anymore, however.)




Nocturnal Whispers by Caridad Piñeiro

I bought this novella (50-ish pages) because it had a mummy's curse in it. I can't resist a mummy's curse! Lord Alec is 200-years-old, having been cursed by a mummy he took from Egypt to live forever and have sexy dreams of fellatio every night. Sounds onerous, eh? All he has to do to end the curse is reunite a child mummy with the mummy of its mummy. This has taken him OVER 100 YEARS even though he knows where both mummies are. Oh, and anyone who touches the baby mummy immediately turns into a nymphomaniac and starts humping people, preferably Lord Alec.

This book was bloody AWFUL. The writing was really terrible--one bad, cheesy sentence followed by another--and there was a lot of tell-not-show going on (actually no "show" at all). The "plot" reminded me of something from a porn movie, i.e. a totally ridiculous and lame excuse just to get people to have sex, into which the author put zero thought. Added to all this, the book was ALSO boring: it put me to sleep, twice, in the space of fifteen pages.

Maybe High School Reunion wasn't significantly better, writing- and plot-wise, but at least it didn't put me to sleep and was free. I'm kind of disgusted with myself for wasting time and money on Nocturnal Whipsers. I'd rather give those three dollars to a homeless person on the street.

Read More

Weekend Cooking: A Classic Cocktail

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that cocktails began with prohibition... well, I might have fifty cents. Still, that's a lot (of times, not money).

The myth is that cocktails were invented during prohibition to hide the taste of crappy bathtub gin. In fact, I think that may be a direct quote from The Supersizers Go, which I count on to be 100% historically accurate. Although cocktails (defined as any mixture of alcohol, bitters, sugar, and water) are indelibly associated now with the 1920s and prohibition, in fact they date back to the 18th century, and the first cocktail party took place in 1917 in St. Louis.

Prohibition did have a strong effect on cocktails, but mostly in the type of alcohol used to produce them. Instead of whiskey, the preferred spirit became gin, which didn't require aging. There was a lot of bad alcohol floating around, but of course the quality of alcohol you got depended on who you knew and how much money you had.

I was reminded of all this the other day when I ran across a mention of cocktails in Mary Roberts Rinehart's The Man in Lower Ten, first published in 1906. One of the characters has invented his own cocktail, which he calls a Bernard Shaw: "a foundation of brandy and soda, with a little of everything else in sight to give it a snap." Other cocktails that date back to the 19th century are Old Fashioneds (bitters muddled with sugar, alcohol added with a citrus twist), Punches, Sours (e.g., sidecar, margarita), Slings, Cobblers (wine, sugar, and fruit), Shrubs (vinegar-based cocktails), Toddies, and Flips (using raw eggs).

In the spirit of experimentation, I decided to make my own Bernard Shaw. I'm not sure what "everything else" in the recipe refers to, but I'm going to guess it's ALL OTHER ALCOHOL. This could be bad.


A mix of brandy, club soda, vermouth, whiskey, and white wine

Ooof. This drink was a little hard to take, I'm not going to lie. Not only did it taste really foul, but the alcohol content was cray cray and it started giving me a headache after the first sip. Remind me not to mix drinks I find in novels from now on, okay?

Weekend Cooking is open to anyone who has any kind of food-related post to share: Book (novel, nonfiction) reviews, cookbook reviews, movie reviews, recipes, random thoughts, gadgets, fabulous quotations, photographs. If your post is even vaguely foodie, feel free to grab the button and link up over the weekend.

Read More

On the TV: HIDDEN CITY

Hidden City tries to uncover the essential character of a city by looking at its criminal history. If it sounds kind of like City Confidential--the true crime show that used to air on A&E back in the day--that's because it is, in theory. But whereas City Confidential took an in-depth look at one crime per episode, Hidden City usually covers three or four in the space of an hour.



The real strength of the show is the host, crime novelist Marcus Sakey. He gets some great one-liners in ("I'm not a criminal... I'm a novelist." HELLS YEAH! I started watching the show just because of that line), and he looks like a detective out of a 1970s movie. I love him! The best moments of the show are where Sakey tries to "get into" the criminals' heads by doing things like being pepper sprayed, panning for gold, and tailing a spy. In the second episode, Sakey was criminally profiled and the psychiatrist was like, "Yeah, you're a borderline sociopath." That was weirdly fun.

Those moments are great because they're relatively original. The problem is, those original moments are few and far between. The crimes and events are, ones that are generally familiar to the general public. Take the premier Chicago episode, for example, which covered HH Holmes (subject of Devil in the White City by Erik Larson), the Democratic National Convention riots in 1968, and John Dillinger. All of these subjects are interesting, but they've been dealt with before, better and more in-depth. The strength of City Confidential was that, one, the stories were thoroughly plumbed; and two, they were about crimes that might be notorious within the city, but were relatively obscure to outsiders. Hidden City has neither of these things going for it.

I will, however, say that the last few episodes have been really good, probably because they went to less-covered locations: Seattle and Anchorage. So while this isn't the greatest true crime series ever, it's definitely improving, and I'd be interested in seeing what they do with a second season. Sakey does have a way with words. (And yes, I know the season's over. As usual I have incredible timing.)

Read More

Review: THE GHOST AND THE GOTH by Stacey Kade

Alona Dare is the most popular girl at school, until she's hit by a bus one morning ditching first period. That's when her afterlife begins, and the only person who can see her is Will Killian, a loner freak she would not normally be caught dead talking to (pun!). But desperate times and all that...

I'm so glad my library had this novel because I ADORED it! I first saw The Ghost and the Goth on Forever Young Adult, where Jenny loved it but called it out for the cheesy title. The cover is also burn-worthy. BUT. You know that maxim that you should never judge a book by it's cover? It's totally true in this case. I cannot resist ghost stories, especially cute ghost stories with romance, and The Ghost and the Goth is an ideal example of that.

First of all, I LOVED the characters. I'm in complete book lust with Will, who is stoic and too smart for his own good. Being able to talk to the dead can make your life pretty miserable, so he tries his best to fade into the background in the hopes that the ghosts at school won't notice him. It's also pretty difficult to appear normal when it looks like you're talking to yourself a lot.

Alona, on the other hand, isn't exactly likable; but she is hilarious. Her attempts at giving people compliments were painfully funny, and the fact that she does help out Will and can get things done made me warm up to her. Plus I'm a sucker for opposites-attract romances, and the development of Alona and Will's relationship is so sweet and swoon-worthy.

Added to that, this story is told really well. Stacey Kade does a great of capturing your attention right at the beginning, then revealing layers and secrets to the characters and story at the perfect pace. She also has the atmosphere of a high school nailed down pretty well--in fact, I wonder a little if we didn't go to the same high school, because I recognized a few of these characters. The only part of the book where the tone was slightly off was the climax, but I'm willing to overlook that even though it was kind of cheesy.

The ending also bothered me, as Kade had several opportunities to wrap-up the story, either tragically or comically, and bypassed all of them. That's right, welcome to the time-and-money-suck vortex of unnecessary YA series. The Ghost and the Goth could (and should) have been a standalone novel, but instead it's now a trilogy. I mean, a part of me is happy, because I do love Alona and Will, but there's a bigger part of me that wants to do this:



Why does every single book need to be part of a series? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

Aside from that, though, this book is pretty brilliant. Great characters, romance, fab storytelling--I actually bought a copy, that's how much I enjoyed it. I really think you ought to read it.



Musical notes: Really the entire Taylor Swift catalog, but let's go with "Haunted"

Read More

Downton Dudes

Image by Hey Downton Lady

I read an article recently titled, "Why Men Like Downton Abbey." While the main purpose of the article was to make fun of the idea that men can't enjoy historical drama (and I agree that's pretty stupid), I think the question of masculinity plays a big role in the series, and that's part of its attraction. As one respondent to the informal poll replied,

There's a Clint Eastwood epic flowing through the show in that everyone has deeply repressed emotions and is big on obligations to duty. I don't think you see that in American shows so much, especially with reality TV. Everyone is putting their thoughts out there and emotions are heightened. [In 'Downton'] people are swallowing their deeply held feelings and doing their duty anyway. I wish I had the ability of Mr. Bates to stuff everything down into a dark hole, but instead I'm Twittering.

You're right, guy who confuses Twitter (noun) with tweeting (verb)--even if Downton Abbey had wifi, Bates would be too busy being awesome to use it. I'm pretty sure the whole reason WWI started was because he was no longer in the government's service and thus unable to prevent it. Also: Clint Eastwood.

To my dad's generation, Eastwood is what John Wayne was to my grandfather's generation: the embodiment of what a man should be. And it's no coincidence that both actors made their name in westerns, a genre that's all about coming-of-age and masculinity. So I think when Twittering Guy compares Downton to "a Clint Eastwood epic," he's actually identifying the themes of manliness running through the show.

Unfortunately, none of the men on Downton are doing a very good job of maintaining their masculinity. As I mentioned on my recap of the Series 2 finale at Edwardian Promenade, practically every man on this show, with the possible exception of Carson, is emasculated by the end of the season. Let's take a quick run-down, shall we?

• Lord Grantham--He's the boss of the place, but after the army turns Downton into a hospital, no one listens to what he says anymore. Plus, we wants to go into the army to fight the war, but he can't because he's OLD. So instead he just spends the entire season in his out-dated uniform, which is pathetic. When the war is finally over, he wears these new-fangled tuxedos, as if he's a young man on the cutting edge of fashion (not even), and starts an affair with a house maid. But he can't even manage to do that right--instead, he's cock blocked by Bates. COITUS INTERRUPTUS, as they say.
  
• Matthew--Of all the men on the show, Matthew really gets it the worse. He is LITERALLY impotent for half the season. They bring it up so much that his nickname might as well be Castrated Crawley. "I'm going to see Mr. Crawley--you know, the one who's basically a eunuch." "Oh, yes, that one." Even when he does regain the use of his limbs--all three of them--he still behaves like he's powerless. Instead of telling Mary he loves her and he's going to do something about it, he apologizes. Instead of taking responsibility for his own decisions, he blames everything on fate. Instead of having a dick, his is one.
  
• Bates--Despite his gimpy leg, Bates used to be the most badass guy on this show (which should tell you something right there). Oh, he wouldn't punch you in the face, but you knew that he could if he wanted to. Plus, he staked a claim on what he wanted, like in the final scene of Season 1 where he told Moseley to back off Anna. But then, before Season 2 had barely said good morning, his ex-wife, Vampy Vera, showed up, and it became abundantly clear she'd ripped off his balls and been kicking them down the street for years. You could practically see him shriveling before her very eyes. He then spends the rest of the season slinking around, hiding, and basically letting Vera command him to her bidding. Anna has to order him to marry her (naturally he acquiesces); and don't even get me started on the Bates Motel he keeps talking about. Oh, the Freudian symbolism! I think we all know he didn't kill Vera, but don't you kind of wish he did?
  
• Branson--Branson doesn't fair as badly as some of the other men in this program--after all, he does profess his love to Lady Sybil and drive a car. But then came the part where he was rejected by the military for "medical reasons." Now, I don't know if this is just an American thing, but in US movies whenever a man is rejected from the military for medical reasons, it winds up being code for This Character Is Gay. Seriously, every single time. Of course Branson isn't gay, but if his petulant behavior for the rest of that episode is anything to go by, being rejected by the military is still an insult to his masculinity. As for Sybil, he may have to fight for her, but it's not as if he has to fight for her against another man of her own class, is it? He's the only young man meat in town. She's in total control of their relationship, when he sees her, where, and what will happen when he does. And he ends up accepting Lord Grantham's money. Nuff said.
  
• Thomas--Thomas is another character that used to be pretty boss, but he's been acting strange all season. First he fell in love with a blind guy who committed suicide, then he let the doctor/military guy boss him around. And he actually showed concern for people a few times. But by far his lowest point came at the end of the season, when he found out the cache of black market goods he'd spent all his money on were fake. Then he seemed pretty pathetic. By the end, Thomas is once again a footman, which I think we can all agree is a bit of a demotion.
  
• Sir Richard--Sir Richard, Lady Mary's slimy fiance, is the only guy in this season who gets anything done. You want Vera taken care of? BOOM. Get out of my office, bitch. You want Matthew distracted from Mary? DONE. He could do that in his sleep. You want to weasel out of an agreement you made with him? Too bad--now get against the wall and pucker up, slut. Is it any wonder he's the one about to marry the Ice Princess? Both Lord Grantham and Matthew know this guy is bad news, but are too intimidated to say a single word against him. He owns their asses.

Clint Eastwood and Lady Violet have a similar opinion of you.

If there's any character that embodies Clint Eastwood's masculinity in Downton Abbey, it's Lady Violet. Who's the only person with a clue as to what's going on around the Abbey? Who's the person that successfully outmaneuvers the military and the church to get William to Downton Hospital and married to Daisy? Who's the only one with the cojones to tell Matthew that Mary is still in love with him and he needs to man up? Who sweeps in to save the day whenever one of the sisters needs help? LADY VIOLET, that's who. Then she rides off into the sunset in her fancy equipage and feathered hat.

I suppose it's no surprise in a show about a house that the male characters aren't quite as masculine as Clint Eastwood, but it would be nice if they asserted themselves more in Season 3. For example, when refused a place in the military, Lord Grantham could say, "You may stop me from serving as an officer, but can you stop me from sailing my yacht full of explosives into the German fleet?" instead of, "What's the meaning of this? *bluster bluster bluster*" And instead of telling Mary "I'm so so sorry," Matthew could say, "Get on that table so we can add a rhythm section to this gramophone record." Then they'd be giving Lady Violet a run for her money.

Read More

New Project and Review

Hello, my lovelies! I wanted to give you all a heads up that I have a new project in works, a group blog dedicated to books in the public domain. It's called The Project Gutenberg Project, and my first review--of Princess Maritza by Percy James Brebner--just posted. I'm very excited about this new project and working with all the great bloggers who signed up (Aarti from BookLust, Alexandra from The Sleepless Reader, Chris from Book-a-Rama, Iris from Iris On Books, Lu from Regular Rumination, Meghan from Medieval Bookworm, and Nymeth from Things Mean a Lot), and I would love if you joined us as a reader, contributor, or commenter!

And, by the way, if you want to make your own Bayeux Tapestry-inspired image, like the one above, check out Bildwirkerey von Bayeux. Highly recommended for history geeks of all stripes.

Read More