"How the light gets in" by M.J. Hyland had all kinds of strikes against it.  I hate the word auspicious.  I know what it means, I’ve looked it up in the dictionary several times.  In my experience though, auspicious means that it is something new & different, but the reason it is new & different is because it is craptacular & everyone else had enough sense not to do it.  Plus, when I point out the craptacular-ness of it, people will think I’m a simpleton & will tell me that it is "auspicious".  So when the back cover of this book bragged "International praise for this auspicious debut", I had my doubts.  Then I noticed that there were not one, but two reviews printed right under the word auspicious likening the main character to Holden Caulfield. It’s the story of a 16 year old Australian who becomes a foreign exchange student to get away from her unhappy home life.  She is a lot like Holden Caulfield, but it’s up to you decide whether that is a good thing or not.

This is a proof of my Rory-ness, this happened after the bookshelf became so full I had to cover it with a blanket so now it merely looks like I’m moving instead of like hundreds of books may or may not fall on you.

This is a picture of my dresser after I took out the last drawer to make a bookshelf.

This is another drawer, I’m so Rory that I have a book drawer, & there’s even space for one or two more in there, I better go shopping.

This is under the bed, behind those books, are more stacks of books.

I forgot to get a picture of my copy of Swan’s Way by Proust, it is the exact same edition that Max lends to Lorelai, it’s very pretty, but I’ve never read it either. My books need their own house.

I find it impossible to give "Middlesex" by Jeffrey Eugenides a toaster pastry rating.  I wouldn’t want anyone to not read a Jeffrey Eugenides book because of me.  Even though I didn’t care for this book, I will definitely give him another chance. I can tell that he is a brilliant guy. However, I wouldn’t want anyone to read "Middlesex" because of me.

 Maybe it was the Holden Caulfield reference on the back cover. You know who else would’ve hated so many main characters being compared to Holden Caulfield?  Holden Caulfield!  This book is  why I didn’t read Pulitzer Prize winners for so long, I just knew I wouldn’t understand them, or like them. What’s worse is that I got the feeling that this book was written to be shocking, to win a Pulitzer, & to be the next Holden Caulfield, it wasn’t written to bring a sense of humanity to the misunderstood.  It’s the book that just tried too hard.  The more I learned about the main character, including 300+ pages of family history (I don’t even know my own family that well) the less sense she made to me, the less human she became. It didn’t help that I had very high expectations, several people told me it was the best book ever, in my opinion, it wasn’t. What did you think of this book?

If we’re ever in casual conversation & you  notice that I’m trying to steer the conversation towards robots, this is why.  I’ve always wanted to have this exact same conversation. This quote is from "Back in the Saddle Again" when Grandpa Gilmore helps with the group project.

Rory: Okay, that’s a good idea. But, if we went with that, we’d actually have to build a robot.

Madeline: Yeah?

Rory: And how do you suggest we do that?

Madeline: (points to Brad) Well, he looks like he’s built one!

Brad: I’ve never built a robot!

Louise: (leans over toward him) But you’ve tried haven’t you?

Brad: Yes I have.

I can usually work in something like, "He looks like a guy who has tried to build a robot", but it just isn’t as funny. Someday, Someday.