The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo

I can only say that I really did not mind this book. I think it was very entertaining some parts the beginning was very slow moving and the characters at sometimes were very annoying. I guess you can say was a bit disappointed because the book had gotten so much praise from critics and from my friends. I have a theory that the beginning was slow because I was not very into the main character, Mikael Blomkvist's, very long in depth description of the finances of a certain company. Thankfully, once the main mystery was introduced the story improved. But the logic of the situation confuses me, why would a reporter be hired a mystery instead of a detective? Unlike some mysteries which give the facts and the solution right after in the last few pages without once letting on what the dectective suspects, this mystery book has Blomkvist voice his opinions and solutions which influences or steers the reader to the wrong answer. The other main character, Lisbeth Salander, annoyed me because she held people to a different standard. Though I agree her on one argument. She tells Blomkvist that killers should not use the excuse of upbringing to protect them. Although it does have a role, the person should realize that it is morally wrong.

Murder on the Orient Express

This book although crafted like many of Agatha Christie's previous novels, this ending completely different. Instead of one or two culprits--there was a train full of them. It was also of the few mystery that the murderers act was justified. I found very interesting was the addition of two, their purpose to help Hercule Poirot to solve the case. Of course, as is suspected they do not contribute much except the few outlandishly wrong suggestions. Hercule's helpers, Dr. Constantine and M. Bouc, I thought were important because even though they were useless, they represented the ordinary, person. I can guess this is true because several times I bet they voiced some of the solutions readers imagined. One of the more amusing parts of the book was the many stereotypes about nationalities that were thrown about and sometimes were the obstacles blocking the truth. Another reason why I found it so amusing was because most of the time the stereotypes to led to such irrational thoughts. Every time I read a Hercule Poirot, I gawk at how much information is given away through emotions, because Poirot many he analyzes the emotions of the murderer. But as I could not help wondering,would happen if Poirot meets killer who does not act on emotion or doesn't follow normal thinking? It would difficult to solve his usual methods. Hopefully Agatha Christie has already thought of this.

Jane Eyre

I can understand why Jane Eyre became a classic so easily, because this book is enetertaining and has a very unique idea for the zeitgist. One of the points in the book which I disliked a lot was when Jane decides to leave Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Even though I realize it was necesary to the whole theme of the book, I thought it was quite slow moving at that point. As I said before, the ideas in the book surprised me because I know many ideas like this did not come until later in history. For example, Jane Eyre, a woman, had the ability and the independence to be able to choose between Mr. Rochester and St. John. Also, Jane chose the unstable, passionate Mr. Rochester over the stable, cold, religious St. John. Thhis was an unusual decision for the time and in some cases even today. Another intresting fact is that Mr. Rochester preferred Jane's intelligence to the accompolished Miss. Ingram, who by society is the more attractive option. At the end, Jane's extreme independence and great ledearship was needed by a blinded, vulnerable Mr. Rochester. The fact that the wife was leading the husband is also a very unique idea that is revolutionary. The book was ensaring and I enjoyed reading about how she grew to be a happy woman despite all the suffering she had endured.