book reviews

E. B. White, The Trumpet of the Swan. I find this one much less interesting than either Stuart Little or Charlotte's Web. It's a good book, but I find that many of the other characters in the book either don't understand Louis the swan, or they seem to be hovering on the edge of taking advantage of him. (I kept forgetting I was reading a children's book and expecting someone to steal all his money.)

J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone. I just finished reading this one to the boys. Greyson was way into it; Charles not so much. Every night, Greyson would beg me to read one more page, and Charles would beg me not to! I still haven't read any of the other books in the series. I just haven't felt any great desire to move on. It's an enjoyable book, but I don't know that I'll be reading the next one to the boys.

Hugh Pentecost, The Gilded Nightmare. Each book gets a little better. This one was a more interesting plot (if it hinged on a plot twist that was a bit unbelievable). It did, however, contain a fairly major error in decision-making: when your detective is named Chambrun, don't name your protagonist Charmian. Way confusing for the reader, especially when they're in the same conversation. Otherwise, we're definitely moving up in quality.

Stephen R. Taaffe, Commanding the Army of the Potomac. This one was really interesting. It was pretty much a standard Union-focused history of the Civil War, but focusing specifically on the leaders of the Army of the Potomac - not just on the general at the head, but all the commanders of the different corps and on the number of machinations and different factions working behind the scenes, and the way those affected the course of the war. Really interesting.