Paris

This book does a great job at letting you know where the Hotels with character are in Paris and hepls you uncovere some hidden gems. It's colorful map makes it very easy to shop around for hotels based on location. The index in the back also helps you find the best values for the dollar. Each hotel has a nice sized color picture and an up to date description of about 150 words. I found the descriptions to be a bit limited and somewhat repetitive. The writers seemed to be very focused on noise levels and do not offer much information on service and cleanliness. Overall a good book especially if you are going to use it in conjunction with another source.

This is the book where to find a hotel with a terrace to have breakfast. You can also find here some of the most beautiful palaces. The only thing this hotels have all in common is good taste, style, french touch. You will always feel happy, at home and, still, in the "most beautiful city in the world" when you choose any of the hotels listed here.

This book is now useless as it is totally out of date (published Jan. 2001) Do not waste your money on this book. I recommend Romantic Paris by Thirza Vallois instead.

Paris is a wonderful city, with an incredible variety of places to stay. Searching online makes a choice hard; most hotels either have only third-party pages, or a page that fails to give you a real sense of the ambiance.

This book helps. It gives a selection of one-page reviews, each with a photograph (and Web site, when available), that capture the feeling of the hotel. Cooke-Yarborough aims to find smaller, friendlier establishments, with an emphasis on charm and personal service (as well as a penchant for sizing up the breakfast room of each).

Many (if not most) of the hotels presented are of excellent value; it's easy to find a number of candidates that fall between 800 and 1000 FF / night, as well as more expensive and luxurious accommodations. They represent both on the left and right banks, with a number in the desirable St. Germain area. While all of the possibilities aren't captured, there is a good representation here, and it makes a fine starting point for finding that perfect place to stay in Paris.

One word of warning; because of the quality and value presented by Cooke-Yarbourough's selections, as well as Paris' nature, the more desireable hotels fill quickly; book well ahead.

Is Jordan's book a popular history or a scholarly work? Professor Jordan is in a better position to say than I, but I had difficulty seeing it as a scholarly work, despite its fifty pages of endnotes. Mostly this is because Jordan uses the terminology of class struggle. Surely even academia has reached the point of recognizing that this is all nonsense, and not even important nonsense, despite the millions of lives it has cost. Jordan must be aware that the very word "bourgeoisie," which he uses in the belittling way you'd expect, literally means "city-dwellers." But he never points out that, for all the difficulties of the workers' lives, they evidently found the city, and specifically Paris, preferable to the alternatives.

It's also a bit hard to take Jordan seriously when he, more than once, uses the word "hoard" to mean "horde." The mind, violently derailed, seeks a subtle bon mot, but in vain, for there is no humour in this book. This may well be Jordan's editor's failing, but Jordan bears the responsibility. The writer's language is a chauffeur, carrying us effectively but above all unobtrusively to our destination.

Worse even than the fallacies inherent in class-struggle terminology is the simple fact that it's deadly boring. And that was the problem I had when I viewed the book as a popular history. Compare Jordan with Robert Caro's Power Broker, the popular biography-history of Robert Moses and the remaking of New York, quite similar in many ways to the haussmannization of Paris. Caro fills his book with characters and anecdotes. In sad contrast, Jordan has but a few characters, Haussmann and Louis Napoleon chief among them. The other humanity affected by their activities is lumped together into anonymous classes: the bourgeoisie, the landlords, the workers, the national assembly. But where's the story? Stories are about individuals, and there just aren't any!

Jordan tells us repeatedly, and with evident contempt, that Haussmann was an archetypal bureaucrat, an authoritarian, an opportunist, an autobiographer blindly in love with himself. Well, yes, but we don't want to be told this; we want to be shown. Where are the examples? Where are the stories? We get only a few self-aggrandizing quotations from the autobiography.

So the book fails as popular biography. We see Haussmann in one dimension only, and by the end, we really don't care to learn more. But there must have been more! There was a wife, there were daughters, there were colourful mistresses, about whom the wife exercised restraint. But we learn little more than what I write here.

Or if the real Haussmann was in fact deadly dull, how about the thousands of people whose lives he affected? Surely, some of their stories must have survived, and some of the surviving stories must be worth the telling.

Jordan tells us how the Louvre was extended, the Rue du Rivoli was punched through, the Opera was built, the Hotel de Ville and the Tour St Jacques were isolated from the city - these are but statements of brick and mortar. Even in brick-and-mortar terms, one suspects there is a story about, for example, the Sainte Chapelle, imprisoned by the court. The closest we get to the life of the city are remarks that the neighborhood of Les Halles was clogged with the daily traffic of the markets, that the boulevardiers adopted Haussmann's chestnut-lined avenues, and that the wide streets were barricaded by insurrectionists as effectively as the old passageways. Collective humanity, all of it, no stories, no interest. Even when Jordan cites Victor Hugo, he fails to capture our interest. Rather remarkable, that, when you think of it!

What was I expecting, what had I hoped for? Jordan himself (and thanks!) mentions Robert Moses, reminding me of Caro's book, which I hadn't read for some years. It's a good contrast. Caro doesn't explicitly discuss New York in the terms of Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities, but it's easy for the reader to supply the analysis himself, and if he knows New York, to observe the effects of Moses' actions in the quality of the city. Sadly, Jordan doesn't give us enough to do the same with Paris. The material surely exists: even today, hotels on the left bank - which was neglected by haussmannization - advertise themselves as being "in the safe part" of Paris. Someone as intimately familiar with the geography and history of Paris as Jordan could have given us that view.

The first thing I had hoped for was, then, the ability to go somewhere in Paris, or perhaps on a map or only in my memory, and say, "This is how it was, and these interesting events were part of its transformation into what we see today." I already play these little mind games with Hugo's Paris.

Though a Jane-Jacobs analysis might well disagree with the conclusion, both Jordan and Caro lead us to the view that, thirty, fifty, a hundred years later, when the ruined have died and the bonds have been paid off, the city is the better for having undergone her ordeal, that eventually, the end justifies the means. Even if we were to accept the conclusion as a matter of pragmatism, however, we cannot accept it morally or ethically. Surely there must be a way for men to build congenial and functional environments by mutual consent, without having to despoil one another. Can a city be renewed - probably a continuous process, not an overhaul - without the use of authoritarian force or major disaster? London had her fire, Germany had the war, Paris had Haussmann, New York had Moses. Hong Kong, maybe?

To the best of my knowledge, this question has never been addressed by any author. The writer who does this, with intellectual rigor, imagination, lots of examples, and a lively style, will make a real contribution. That's the book I'd really like to read.

Jordan has marshalled his impressive research and writing skills to tell the story of how such an arrogant, unsentimental, and philistine man created one of the most magnificent urban centers in the world. When Jordan discusses how certain roads and venues were decided upon, the laying of the sewers, the struggles that the Prefect of the Seine had with his political opponents and landlord antagonists, how he cooked the books to raise the necessary cash for the effort, and Haussmann's inglorious fall, the book is a first-rate monograph. The author's presentation makes us see how Paris became the prime example of "authoritarian urban planning" and yet also bravely suggests that such iron-fisted control was needed to defeat the coterie of landlords, politicans, and entrepreneurs whose personal interests lay in defeating Haussmann's schemes. Yet Jordan's prose is a bit too Haussmann-like itself. Jordan conceives of Haussmann as the prefect did of Paris -- in a singularly determined way -- and repeatedly insists that we share this view. He constantly hammers away at Haussmann's arrogance, contempt for democratic procedures, his political ruthlessness and his disdain for the poor. And while these details are not correct, they're repeated so constantly that they ultimately detract from Jordan's achievement -- it's as though the author came to resent spending all those years and efforts researching a man who ultimately repelled him. Jordan is so insistent that we see Haussmann on his terms that he doesn't let us enjoy for ourselves the paradoxes and foibles of his protagonist. When the baron writes some feeble pastoral poetry about his youth, Jordan doesn't trust us enough to relish the absurdity of this autocrat imagining himself as a romantic, he insists on telling us how absurd it is and why we should think so. We're also constantly and needlessly told each time he took credit for the work of someone else and how much his arrogance was flattered by the attentions of Napoleon III. Jorda! n grounds his protagonist's character so early on that these repeated instances of his appalling behavor seem petty. Inasmuch as he criticizes Haussmann for creating a Paris that orders around its citizens, Jordan himself overly-directs his readers. Moreover, the book spends less time than I would have liked discussing the myriad problems of transforming Paris -- there's less here about the expropriations, the architecture of the new Haussmann buildings (virtually non-existent in the book despite the early presence of the intriquing quote that "Haussmann's Paris represents a paradox in that he created an architectually fascinating city without creating any memorable buildings"), and the forced relocations of the poor into the banlieue than on Haussmann's bullying tactics in the Yonne and Bordeaux (fascinating as those episodes are Jordan overly relishes them as evidence of the Baron's ruthlessness). In other words, there are several instances where there's more build-up than pay-off. Why issue it a seven despite these critical flaws? For one thing, Jordan has turned an administrator's career into a compelling read -- no mean achievement -- and he successfully alters our traditional view of the Second Empire as a "carnival empire" to show how it had serious modernizing concerns. Aside from Jordan's personal interjections, all of the episodes in the book are fascinating and well-written if a little disproportionately represented and the author gives us the first clearly written book in English as to how Paris became the city it did. Mostly, like Haussmann's achievement, Jordan's book, despite being a bit overbearing and contemptuous, shows us how the most mundane details of bureaucratic life can produce a work of fascination and, yes, beauty.

This book serves as a prequel and sequel to a film classic. Perhaps THE film classic of all time. Why would such a book be necessary?

****The answer relies on three things. First of all, "Casablanca" is a story that the audience fell into. A wealth of backstory exists that we only caught glimpses of. Second, the audience has an innate desire to know that Rick and Ilsa see each other again. Third, a film sequel is no longer possible with its original players (principally Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Rains). The book allows their irreplaceable images to remain intact while giving the characters new things to do.

****Walsh is mildly successful in not making a complete travesty of his assignment. He picks up on hints imbedded in "Casablanca." From Rick's comment to the Nazis that there are certain sections of New York they shouldn't try to invade, Walsh rumminates that Richard Blaine was originally Yitzhak Baline, a Jewish gangster and speakeasy manager in New York.

****Louis Renault's curiosity and remarks about Rick's past is also useful: "Did you abscond with the church funds? Did you run off with the Senator's wife? I like to think that you killed a man -- it's the romantic in me." In the film, Rick replies that it was a combination of all three reasons and Walsh draws on that idea as well.

****The down side to this novel involves the characters of Victor Lazlo and Ilsa. Victor carries on like a self-righteous man blinded by "the cause" and revenge. Walsh has Ilsa go undercover in an attempt to portray her as more active in the war intrigue and her destiny. However good the intent, the scenario plays out poorly.

****"As Time Goes By" does give food for the imagination -- if only how you would've written a better story. But you can easily live your life without ever reading Walsh's book. The best advice, really, is to see "Casablanca" again. The original never disappoints.

I think this book didi a good job of capturing the spirit of the movie, but fell a little short in the execution. I am glad I now know where Ilsa and Rick came from, but somehow the book just doesn't do the original story justice.

I was quite skeptical when I first saw As Time Goes By. Eventually I bought it. If you approach it with an open mind you will find it plausible and enjoyable. Contrary to other reviewers I found the dialogue and story line in keeping with that of 1940's Hollywood. I thought Walsh did an excellent job. After all the original script was not high literature. The brilliant actors are why we remember it so fondly. Overall the author's tale rings true, even Rick's past as a Jewish gangster. I could vividly imagine the original actors as I read. But surely everyone agrees that a film version would be true sacrilege. Bergman and Bogart are Ilsa and Rick and that is that. Ignore the nay sayers and enjoy the book for what it is.

It's been perhaps 25 years since I first read "Paris in the Terror". I found it gripping and revelatory: it certainly caused me to make a fresh assessment of the 'revolutionary' movements of the Sixties (of which I was a part), and I read it a number of times before it moved on. As a cautionary tale on the uncertain fruits of good intentions, it is priceless - and it's a ripping yarn, to boot. Is it 'reputable' history? How would I know?

Certainly, there seems to be some hostility toward Loomis' focus on the human element in creating & sustaining the Reign of Terror, though the reasons for this are obscure at best. It could be as simple as this: in focusing on the role of human nature in human events, Loomis fails to genuflect before the altar of pop-socialist "realismus", preferring to view history not as a Titanic clash of impersonal forces but as the interlocking sum of the individual passions, choices, and shortcomings of real people struggling with real dilemmas.

No-one should be surprised that this approach finds no favor with the professional academics of today, whose priority is the maintenance of their paychecks & their access to nubile females. Professional academic history basically occupies two camps: the "orthodox" view of the French Revolution holds substantially to the pop-socialist view of vast socio-economic forces sweeping away the oppressive debris of feudalism - and in the best Red-Guard tradition, views the excesses of the Terror as a regrettable side-effect of a healthy process of social evolution; the "revisionist" view (as seen by the "orthodox" camp) contends that - given the excesses of revolutionary zeal - the 'Ancien Regime' was the lesser evil.

Loomis, IMO, thinks for himself, and carves a middle way through the middens, and comes to the conclusion that good intentions are not sufficient to avoid the descent into hell. In the polarised post-9/11 atmosphere, this is a cautionary tale we sorely need. Consequently, real people could gain real profit from reading this book. And if the reader must read between the lines, well, that's the point of education, isn't it?

I don't pretend to be a "scholar", since I'm still breathing, and I certainly don't buy into the myth of objectivity; however, I am intelligent, well-read, widely experienced, and I have no partisan axe to grind. As I said above, my comments on "Paris in the Terror" are based on my recollection of multiple readings many years ago. I got here by way of wanting to find a copy so I can read it again. I think it's a shame this very thought-provoking book is out of print.

I am not sure why this book has generated the hostility and negative sandblasting of its content. It is a highly readable book and seems to me to get closer to the truth of what was actually going on than some over-anecdoted meander that has no point of view and presents nothing as cogent food for thought. Here's an idea for all would be critcs, read another book on the same subject and see if it even comes close to evoking the sounds of smells of revolutionary France as this one does. This work does an excellent job at describing the heated passions of the day and the altruistic hopes of the revolutionists. Yes, Loomis has prejudices, but they are enjoyable to read from an author who cares about his subject deeply. Much better than some dry, withered academic prose which comes nowhere near to having one truly experience the passions and grandeur of the event.

This is an excellent book. It deserves to be read if only to gain something from the author's outstanding prose. I note that its many critics here, all complaining that as history the book is a failure, fail to give examples. As to the author's obvious prejudices (he likes Danton, dislikes Robespierre, etc.), the reader is not overwhelmed by them, and they speak well to human nature.

As the years pass since the death of Robert Ludlum, it becomes less and less clear exactly how much Ludlum there actually is in the novels going out solely under his name. Tristan Betrayal clearly has the underpinnings of a Ludlum spy novel. At the same time, however, it does not contain the deep intricacies that were the hallmark of his earliest work. That said, this was still an enjoyable read. This book grabs the reader early as US Ambassador Stephen Metcalfe arrives in Moscow during the volatility of Russia in the early 1990s. The reader is then quickly taken back in time to occupied France in WWII. As the story unfolds, a young Metcalf is stationed in France as an intelligence agent. As the plot progresses, Metcalf must overcome physical and emotional challenges. Every so often the reader is transported back to the setting at the beginning of the book - Moscow in the early 1990s. While Ludlum aficionados may yearn for the old days, the Tristan Betrayal still is worth a quick read. It is solid, but not spectacular.

During his lifetime Robert Ludlum was constantly criticized for his style of writing, and that has not stopped after his death. I have always enjoyed his books, knowing full well their shortcomings, because I don't expect them to be great literature, just something to pass the time with and enjoy a good story with exotic or unusual locations. If you don't take your popular fiction seriously, you can do far worse than Ludlum. That being said, I must remark that this latest book appears to be better written than many of Ludlum's solo efforts while he was alive. It moved fairly quickly, with lots of plot twists and excitement. My one quibble was the "surprise" at the end, which was telegraphed so early in the book that it came as no shock at all! Otherwise, it was a good read, and these days what more can anyone ask?

When Robert Ludlum died, he apparently left behind a number of partially finished manuscripts that are being completed, polished and published posthumously. Although The Tristan Betrayal has Mr. Ludlum credited as the author, I think that cautious readers should assume that this book is only partially his. I have chosen to evaluate the book as though a new, unknown author rather than Mr. Ludlum wrote it.

That said, I thought that The Tristan Betrayal is a cut above the average espionage thriller written today. There's an abundance of action and a balanced plot that will keep you curious enough to want to get to the end. It's not quite the page-turner that will keep you up until the wee hours in the morning to finish it, but I did keep going until 12:30 one night.

The book contains two intertwined story lines. The briefer one involves the coup against Gorbachev in the early 1990s just before the collapse of the old U.S.S.R. Former ambassador Stephen Metcalfe has been summoned by an old friend to help foil the coup. The key player is a mysterious Communist bureaucrat known as the Conductor. Can Metcalfe persuade the Conductor to withdraw his support from the coup? Or will nuclear holocaust and civil war follow?

The longer story line is a flashback into the early days of World War II just after Hitler and Stalin formed their nonaggression pact. In this story, Stephen Metcalfe is a young espionage agent working for a small group authorized by FDR himself. He's picking up intelligence in Paris when his organization is penetrated by the Gestapo. Metcalfe barely escapes the fate of his colleagues who are assassinated by a dangerous counterespionage agent for the Germans. Arriving in Switzerland, Metcalfe is given a new assignment in Moscow that is even more dangerous than the situation he left behind. Before the story ends, his actions rekindle an old love and set off a series of international actions that have major consequences for the war.

I cannot remember reading very many stories that involve overcoming both the Nazis and the Communists. Such opponents provide wonderful grist for all kinds of social commentary, and make it easy to root for the good guys and gals. Even rarer, the book has a pretty credible love story in it. That plot structure is held together with lots of action as Metcalfe dodges watchers and pursuers. Although the action and plot aren't as intricate as a Le Carre plot, I found the book to be more than entertaining.

Ultimately, this book is based on the idea that one person can make a difference. As I finished reading it, I began to wonder what one thing each of us could do to make a large difference to those we love and to the world. That final reflection was a worthy gift for having read a fine novel.

I bought this book expecting it to be as wonderful as French Chic by fashion writer Suzanne Somer (unfortunately out of print) or A Year of Style by Frederic Fekkai. Unfortunately, this book is filled with dated clothing and very little substance to explain the French fashion mystique. Save your money and buy the sumptious A Year of Style by Frederic Fekkai instead. Fekkai is a well known French stylist based in NYC. He enjoys evoking the French style of living in the simplest and most soul nourishing way. His gorgeous book is filled with mouth watering recipes, fashion and style tips for each month, and simple ways to unclutter your life. If you want to discover the true French style of living, leave this book on the shelf and buy Frederic Fekkai's A Year of Style.

This book offers a lovely look at the Parisian's way of dressing in style. The authors Virginie and Veronique Morana (mother and daughter) share their ideas on the essential wardrobe, accessories, and jewelry. They also include a chronology of French fashion, history of French perfume and shopping tips. Throughout the book Virginie and Veronique are pictured in different settings ie shopping, having tea etc wearing the types of clothes they recommend. The book is by no means an in depth guide to French style as is the out of print, comprehensive book "French Chic" by fashion reporter Susan Sommers, but is more of a simple, overview of the French style. The basics of French style are shared here from which you can build. I found the photographs of the mother/daughter team a refreshing change from models. Here we see how real women translate the French clothing to the street. And the fashions shown would work well in the US. Some of the garments are laid out on a chair making it hard to see details however. In addition, though the section on jewelry was extensive as the authors own a jewelry boutique, the section on makeup was sketchy limited to a paragraph. Overall I enjoyed the little book but view it more as a light overview not a deep picture of French fashions.

It's an elegant, high-class look that they describe. They do a really good job of explaining it, with repetition and examples. I got such a clear picture of what was wanted that with quite a lot of clothes in my closet, plus the coincidence of a department store in town having a closing out sale, I was able to get basically equipped in one hectic day.

Poorly written, not funny, arrogant! Not worth the money I paid for it.

Rochefort's follow-up to "French Toast" focuses on the culinary differences between America and France, which have lead to huge differences in culture, lifestyle, and waistlines. With a breezy style and self-deprecating wit, she demystifies what the French cook, how they cook it, how they eat it, and how it enhances the pleasures of life. Surely one of the pleasures in life is relaxing with this book and a nice glass of red wine.

It's been an interesting experience to read this book (a celebration of good food, good wine, and a high quality of life) alongside Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" (a wonderfully written and thoroughly depressing exploration of the rise of fast food in the U.S. during the latter half of the 20th century and its impact on our culture). Rochefort, too, warns of the encroachment of McDonalds and other American fast-food enterprises on the French culinary landscape; she notes that she hopes her observations of French cuisine will not serve as a memorial of such an inherent part of French culture. Reading these two books side-by-side guarantees that you will never eat fast food again. And to make certain of that, Rochefort includes several tried-and-true French recipes. The ones I've tried have been simple and delicious!

I loved this book! It is a sincerely written account of Ms. Rochefort's adaptation to her life in France and of her efforts to find the essence of French cuisine. She examines her midwestern roots and American habits as she learns, step by step, what French food really is. And that is not so much fancy dishes and rich sauces as it is an attitude - a reverence of food, from its preparation to its place on the table. Since so much time is taken up where food is involved it takes on a much more significant role in French family & social life, French culture in general, than it does in the US.

Ms. Rochefort's lighthearted and amusing touch is certainly deceiving. Her account of this discovery seems to be written from the heart as she describes her first years in France, then motherhood, and her attempts to find her place with her French in-laws, and finally interviews with the paragons of French gastronomy. By the end of the book it is interesting to see what significance these culinary capers have for her and how much she cares about French food. And how much we can learn by reading the book!

If you are a young teenage girl, or a Cosmo magazine devotee you may find this work to have literary merit. However, if you have ever read any books seriously, or have ever been to France or even if you just believe that life and people are actually complicated and interesting and deserve more than tired cliche characterizations than you will agree that this one bites le gran chien!

It's always difficult for me to enjoy a book if I get the feeling that I wouldn't like the main characters if I knew them in real life, and that's exactly how I felt about "Le Divorce..." I bought it last year but could never read more than a few pages at a time, but then with the movie coming out, I figured I should try again. The descriptions of Paris and the changing of the seasons were wonderfully done, but the characters left me completely cold. The two sisters never took any steps on their own behalf-- they let situations control them in the most irritating fashion without ever becoming proactive. I'm curious to see if the movie rounds out the characters of the two women, or leaves them as flat and featureless as Diane Johnson did. With any luck, it will be one of those few times a movie was better than the book on which it was based.

Or you just might miss something. Since I live abroad I thought this would be a fun book...and it was up to a point. First off Ms. Johnson knows her French no doubt about it...I on the other hand am not completely fluent so I had to pull out my trusty French phrase dictionary! This was needed since there were so many French words, phrases, and complete paraghraphs in French that were not translated I thought I would miss something and the author does not do this for you. This did not impress me in the least. If anything it annoyed me.

The characters were...unique but in my opinion unlikeable and at times literally stupid! Young girl has raving affair with a man old enough to be her granfather, she refuses to even try to pick up the language in her new home country, lots of references to Bosnia and other war type conflicts used I think just to help move the book from point A to point B. Otherwise these historic events were not necessary except to get across certain character's political statements. Again very annoying. And then the constant comparison of how Ameican's are totally clueless! And then lets not forget the young American married to young Frenchman, have one child together, pregnant with another, and said Frenchman having an affaire. Oh ya did someone say soap opera?

What I did enjoy was the descriptive writing as far as describing a meal or a point of interest such as landmarks, and Paris in general. I have been to this European city on many occassions and I find it interesting to see how other author's see this city. Reading about cultural differences was also entertaining since I have run into some of the situation at times while living overseas. Otherwise unless you are looking to bone up on your conversational French or are really entertained by 'Dynasty' type books then this is for you! Otherwise borrow it from the library.

"Smell" started off fabulously but it tapered off towards the middle and the conclusion was inexplicable in its blandness. I rather enjoyed reading Leela's story in the beginning but as time went on, it got a little bizarre and less interesting. There were a few issues left unexplained at the end, and I found that bothersome. That said, Jha's insight into a foreigner finding her way in Paris is startlingly clear. I enjoyed reading of Leela's exploits, and her uncanny sense of smell.

What impressed me most was the author's ability to build rich images with few words. Given that this is a first-novel, the brevity is commendable. And personally found the smell approach to be a very imaginative perspective twist, guess I'm a fairly smell observant person myself so enjoyed the word imagery.

And its not only about smells, the author has slipped in fairly strong points of view - about growing up, about racism, about commercialism and in some ways about being a woman in a man's world. There's a subtle yet definite sense of a personality evolving, though not in the conventional 'western' sense of purpose making everything possible. Its been my view that such things happen only in John Wayne movies! Here the character seems to grow in a more organic way - one where destiny and choice seem to blend and weave till its difficult to tell one apart from the other.

Isn't that what life's about? :o)

However, I do agree with another reviewer that the characters could have been filled out a little more. Having said that, my personal take was that this just threw the spotlight full on proper on the main character. Which is what the author intended I guess.

Was a delightful read.

I can visualize her lively brown eyes, as she surveys the people and places around her. Unfortunately, she has as many, if not more hang-ups and strangeness to her than Amelie did in the French movie. I think that this book reminds me of "Eating Chinese Food Naked", a novel by Mei Ng with the outright sensuality and coming of age character. I also would compare it to "Chocolat" a better novel than the movie that was made from it. The main character in this novel evolves a great deal and is 19 to her twenties when many of her experiences take off. There are many, many, many chapters in this book that are so worthy of your reading, even if you are a male. This is not to be brushed off as chick lit. This is a very powerful novel that delves into our most primal of senses and our reactions to commercialism, to not fitting in, to having cultural clashes. I apologize for the run on sentences. I am definitely in love with this book for it's honest ugliness or ability to be open about the dark sides of human nature that we all have. Even if the rascist comments shocked some, it was quite powerful to think of it in terms of the same type of rascist reactions that some people had against Middle Easterners after September 11th. The brutal reactions of society against those of us who break the "norms" and don't fit in were so enlightening in this book. If you ever felt like an outsider/foreigner who is straddling so many different cultures, as in the "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" sense, this book will certainly reasonate with you. This is incredibly relevant to the present times in our society, even if she was talking about the Nairobi conflicts. I think this novel has also made me fall in love with the natural beauty of Africa. I could smell and almost feel the descriptions of Africa. The French phrases thrown in were also wonderful, especially since I am studying the language. Even if she described situations in English, you could really catch onto the fact that she was beginning to feel and think in French. There are many other characters in the novel and the most common theme was to see how she would hand over her power to them, or wait to be rescued by these people. There was a stray-wild-animal type of feeling to some of the situations. The main character is very complex in her vulnerabilities, and yet, at the same time, very much in-your-face about her confused passions. This is a great story. The writer has absolute no fear or inhibitions when it comes to the sense of smell. I tend to enjoy Jhumpa Lahiri's short stories, Isabelle Allende, Amy Tan, and unusual nonfiction books about culture, politics and art. For those of you who also like those, this one is definitely going to appeal you. For the men, this is a book that you want your ex-girlfriends, lovers and secret admirers to send to you;) Trust me, it is a very physical, erotically charged, & an intelligently written novel. You might gasp in outrage or shock at some parts but it's well worth the read if you can get over your emotional reactions and look at it in a more analytical sense. I also HIGHLY recommend, in the nonfiction arena, "A Natural History of the Senses" by Diane Ackerman and Desmond Morris' books about human interactions, starting with "The Naked Ape" if you are truly intrigued with the sense of smell, touch and evolution of our instinctual, primal natures.