CHARGE (What is the author trying to say?): To show the effects of the Duke of Windsor’s rule of the Bahamas during World War II.

FACTS: After his abdication Edward, the Duke of Windsor, married Wallis Simpson and he was made governor of the Bahamas. This book follows two story lines – Elfride, who chronicles life during WWI and Benedict who tells of life during WWII. At first I found it difficult to switch back and forth between the two stories and keep the stories straight. The author wraps the story up very neatly in the end. I read this as I was cruising the Bahamas, and found nothing left of the Bahamas the Windsors knew. It was an interesting way to learn the history of the islands.

VERDICT (Was the author successful?): Guilty, as charged. A very interesting read.

CHARGE (What was the author trying to say?): To show the interrelation between physical and psychological shelter.

FACTS: “Unsheltered, I live in daylight. And like the wandering bird I rest in thee.” Kingsolver sets the life of a modern woman against that of the 19th century biologist, Mary Treat. Switching between centuries, Kingsolver interjects too much of her political and social ideology into a story that moves at a ponderous pace. The notions of “shelter” had a different connotation in each of the story lines and they never really jelled. There was not much about any of the characters that was endearing or made you can much about their fate.

VERDICT (Was the author successful?): Not guilty. Very disappointing.

CHARGE (What is the author trying to say?): To discover how a single mother handles an empty nest.

FACTS: After her children leave home, single mother Jeanna Boltz is faced with the rest of her life. Will she travel? Is she willing to love again? What role will her children play in her new life? This book was a little too predictable and formulaic. It would be an easy beach read.

VERDICT (Was the author successful?): Guilty, as charged – but unexceptional.

CHARGE (What was the author trying to say?): To explore whether broken relationships can be restored.

FACTS: This book is written from the viewpoint of several different characters. That seems popular right now, but I find it annoying. Choices have long-reaching consequences. Sometimes those choices splinter relationships. What are we willing to risk for our children – or in what ways are we willing to expose our children to risk? “Ah the tales within a family that are never told.” Do we really even want to hear them? What secrets lurk in a family? What really makes a family? This is an interesting look and loss and reunion, though it was a little too predictable.

VERDICT (Was the author successful?): Guilty, as charged.

CHARGE (What is the author trying to say?): To explore whether secrets are better left alone or exposed.

FACTS: A brother disappears from his sister’s life. She assumes he is dead but is that so? How does a family adapt to their new reality? Ripples of this disappearance flow outward into all aspects of the family’s life. Can revelation of secrets bring healing, or should some things be left unknown? Family dynamics, abuse, and mental health all play a part in this rather improbable story.

VERDICT (Was the author successful?): Guilty, as charged.

CHARGE (What was the author trying to say?): to explore the absence of a mother from a child’s life.

FACTS: Rachel, Viv, and Lorena are separated from their children for different reasons. They are drawn together by being absent parents. Through their experiences they work to resolve their separations and in doing so, learn about themselves and each other. The author, in describing the book, says: “Loss is as universal as love, the flipside of the coin, and it has its moments of both darkness and illumination – the light is always love, the only way to get through the dark bits.” In each case, the mother separated themselves from the child because they thought it was in the child’s best interest. But was it?

VERDICT (Was the author successful?): Guilty, as charged. The shifting chronology made it difficult to follow at times.

#NetGalley #LostDaugther

CHARGE (What was the author trying to say?): To explore friendship between very dissimilar people.

FACTS: If you enjoyed “A Man Called Ove” you will feel a strange sense of deja vu when you read this book. A grieving widower makes unexpected connection that lead to unexpected relationships. A connection with the dead, bullying, and baking all come together to bring new life in the middle of despair. It’s a very easy read. It doesn’t require your complete attention. A feel-good beach read.

VERDICT (Was the author successful?): Guilty, as charged but rather contrived.

CHARGE (What is the author trying to say?): To explore the Islamic worldview of honor and shame and their vital functions in our perceptions of Muslim women.

FACTS: Muslims live in a shame/honor culture. It is necessary to understand this culture in order to talk to Muslims about Christianity. Through brief glimpses into the lives of Muslim women, the author shows the influence they feel from their culture. The author also includes much of her personal memoir as well as Bible teachings. All of the information is good, but the presentation appears haphazard and disjointed. It was very difficult to follow the author’s train of thought. A different organizational theme would have been helpful. There is also probably enough information here for separate volumes, as it was hard to follow in this format.

VERDICT (Was the author successful?): Hung jury. The information was good but the format needs to be revamped.

#NetGalley #CoveredGlory

CHARGE What was the author trying to say?) : “to explore questions of who we are, what we cherish, and how we see those who are different from ourselves.”

FACTS: Wealthy women don’t want to bother with the inconvenience of bearing their own children. A baby farm of Host mothers is created for the task. Preying on immigrant and lower-class women, Golden Oaks provides the perfect incubator for perfect babies. This book had so much potential but fell short of my expectations. Mired in identity politics, the plot line dragged on. The author made a point, but not much else. I had eagerly anticipated reading this book. I wish the author had explored more closely the motivations of all the parties involved. There was so much that went unexplored – leaving the surface barely scratched. The issue of surrogacy is very timely. So much could have been explored but the final product was very pedestrian.

VERDICT (Was the author successful?): Not guilty. Very disappointing.

CHARGE (What was the author trying to say?): To explore how depression and mental illness even affect the right and famous as shown in the life of Isabella Blow.

FACTS: This is the story of Isabella Blow, an English fashionista, as told by her husband. Though not a designer herself, Blow is credited with discovering many who went on to be great designers. From her aristocratic lineage she inherited a hunger for power, money, and status that would never be satisfied in her lifetime. She always battled a fear that she would be left homeless. Her career began as Anna Wintour’s assistant and moved through stints as a fashion editor and fashion director. Her story is marred by depression. The book contains behind-the-scenes fashion gossip, tempered by pain, confusion, and excess. Her husband as narrator, often comes across as an uninteresting bystander rather than a loving spouse. Isabella was a fashion icon, after icons had gone out of style. She was a tortured genius.

VERDICT (Was the author successful?): Guilty, as charged, but at times disturbing.