Yeah, so the challenge didn’t work out…obviously. Is it even worth keeping a blog if I’m not going to update it, or make promises to myself that I can’t keep?

I don’t know. But I think I’m going to continue with this. After all, it’s not costing me anything, and it’ll help me be more disciplined (hahahahhaha…..). I need to get my act together and stop doing things I regret.

To that, I thumb my nose and say ha! This post doesn’t have any substance. Except to say that I’ve challenged myself to update this blog at least once per week for the month of October.

The most successful blogs in my experience–at least, the blogs I like to read the most–have two things in common. 1) They focus on a relatively narrow topic. 2) They get updated on a frequent and/or regular basis.

I don’t know if I have any one passion I’d blog about regularly. I suppose the point of this blog is about my life, but I tend to think my life unremarkable, which is probably one of the reasons why I don’t update very often. If I had a narrow topic to blog about I might actually be motivated to post more. For example, if this blog were all about reviewing books I’ve read, I’d probably read more, and as a result, post more. But that would require time and effort I don’t necessarily have at the moment. Some people are quite good at documenting things without a well-defined focus but I personally need a strong purpose in order to stay interested.

Perhaps I’m too lazy to think of a real purpose for this blog. But I can impose a goal for myself to post more frequently and so I have. Even if it’s just a quick post for the sake of posting, I will do it. Hopefully it well get me into the habit of actually posting on my blog, instead of just thinking about it.

I am often reluctant to talk about tough things, not because I don’t have opinions (although there are many times when I really don’t have an opinion, or feel that I don’t have enough information to make an informed decision one way or another) but because in real life I suck at thinking on my feet and defending myself, so I just end up looking like an idiot. It’s really hard for me to express myself in words, or ways people can understand. I think I secretly have the mindset of artist, but with no discernable talent for it, unfortunately, so I have no outlet for my creativity (ha!).

I also hate it when people get argumentative, defensive, aggressive, and hurtful. But then, I have really thin skin, so frequently overreact to what others feel to be normal. However, I do value meaningful discussions with people who are respectful, even if we disagree. Especially if we disagree. No one’s opinion is superior to another’s—everyone believes their opinion or viewpoint is the correct one, otherwise why would they hold it? Unfortunately, most people either tear through my thin skin together too easily (knowingly or not) or aren’t respectful at all to begin with, so having deep discussions stresses me out to no end. And I hate stress and being stressed. So I generally avoid it.

So why am I talking about it now? I don’t know the answer myself. The topic has been on my mind recently, for whatever reason. Hardly anyone reads this blog, so I feel pretty safe venting my thoughts there.

That rant aside, let’s talk about abortion.

The fundamental difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers, as I see it and from what I have observed, is how they view the world. Pro-lifers form their views based on a larger idea, sacrificing their individual comfort (and even the comfort of others) to support the goals of the greater design. This doesn’t necessarily have to be based on religion or spirituality or sense or morality, but most of the time it is. Doing the “right thing” is essential to preserving the greater design, and the rewards will come in the next life, etc. If this involves imposing my beliefs on people who don’t share them, too bad.

Pro-choicers, on the other hand, to clumsily oversimplify, focus on the present life. There is no greater design to appease (on the issue of abortion—pro-choicers may subscribe to “greater designs” in other areas such as government, etc.), so the greatest priority is individual comfort. After all, if there is no reason to sacrifice individual comfort, why be forced to do it? It would be an extraordinarily nice thing to do, to inconvenience oneself for the sake of another, but pro-choicers see this as something that should not be forced upon anyone. I like to think that most pro-choicers are in favor of reducing the number of abortions, but the option should be available anyway.

Where do I stand? (You can probably guess by the title of the post…) I am usually reluctant to identify with one side or another due to the (usually negative) stereotypes associated with each. Narrow-minded Bible-thumpers! Baby-killers! I suppose this is the point at which this post takes a somewhat religious tone. How can it not? I am a Christian (one of the few groups I unflinchingly identify with). In one of the more conservative denominations, no less. And I am pro-choice. How can this work? Aren’t all (conservative) Christians supposed to be pro-life? Do I have the mindset of pro-lifers that I outlined above? (Yes I do.) Am I advocating baby-killing?

Absolutely not! Abortion is a horrific experience for everyone involved—after all, you are essentially ending a defenseless life (if you believe life begins at conception, as I do). Ideally, unwanted pregnancies will be avoided whenever possible, and I am in full support of responsible use of birth control (gasp! Should my license to practice Christianity be revoked?).

But this is an imperfect world, and there are plenty of reasons for unwanted pregnancies (I don’t think I need to outline them here, you can probably think of enough yourself). An unwanted pregnancy, once discovered, cannot be undone, only dealt with accordingly. I am not in favor of judging a woman for reaching this point, only of providing her unconditional love and support as she makes some of the toughest decisions in her life. And then to not pass judgment on the decision she makes. If Christian, whatever she decides is between her and God (and the baby’s father, if applicable).

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Matthew 7:1-2.

Any woman put into the position of seriously considering abortion is not in an enviable position at all. Aborting has its consequences, as does carrying the baby to term and either giving it up for adoption or keeping it. At this point, it’s a lose-lose-lose situation.

As a Christian, don’t I believe that God commanded us not to murder? Since this is essentially what abortion is, murder? Yes, I do believe this is so. I believe that life is a precious gift from God, even if given under less-than-ideal circumstances. A gift for both the parents and the child(ren). So in rejecting God’s gift, you are also taking it away from the child who has no choice in the matter.

However, one of the most priceless and potent gifts God has given us is the power of choice. We can choose to accept His gift of salvation, or we can not. We can choose to obey and follow His commandments, or we can not. God provides the options and lays them out for us, never forcing us to choose one or the other. There are the options He’d like us to choose, certainly, but we are the ones to make the final decision, for better or for worse.

“But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve…as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15.

Our autonomy is the reason why our world fell into sin. Adam and Eve chose to eat that apple. It is also the method by which we will be saved (if we so choose!). It is the reason God will have to suffer the pain of not being able to save everyone. Without it, worshipping God would not be as meaningful, since we would not have chosen to do it. He would be a dictator worshipped, not because He is loved by His subjects, but because they have no choice.

So a woman should be allowed to have the option of aborting her baby. Whether this is the “right” decision is debatable and highly dependent on the situation, but the option should be available nevertheless. In some ways, it is and always has been available, whether legal or not, since as long as there have been unwanted pregnancies, there have always been ways to induce miscarriages or abort illicitly.

But these methods are dangerous, as anyone who’s seen Spring Awakening might know. Modern abortion is just about as safe, sophisticated, and humane as you can get. To make abortions illegal would be to explicitly forbid women from partaking in this option, and they would be forced to carry the baby to term against their will, or be forced to seek out illegal methods of abortion, which would be detrimental on all fronts.

Should the option of aborting the baby be discouraged? Personally, I think so, and I’d rather babies be carried to full term whenever possible, but I know that it’s not always the “best” option.

I am not advocating that women be allowed to abort babies left and right, willy-nilly, for the thinnest of excuses. This is a serious procedure, with serious consequences, and should be given serious thought. I abhor the idea of a woman aborting a pregnancy just because it will interfere with a scheduled vacation overseas, or some other loathsome reason. As we all (should) know, “best” does not necessarily equal “easiest” or “most convenient”.

“If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.” James 1:5.

As a Christian, I believe that following God’s way is the best way. I also acknowledge we live in an imperfect world, where ideals can exist but are rarely fulfilled. It’s not always the easiest thing, to go against our sinful natures and submit to God’s will.

Because of the world we live in, situations arise where we must make difficult decisions. Should I stay in an abusive marriage, or divorce my violent husband? Should I violate the Sabbath, or pass up on a wonderful opportunity to advance my career? Should I cheat on an exam, or risk failing a class? Should I lie to my boss, or risk alienating my coworkers? Sometimes the answers are easy; most of the time, they are not. Many times the “right” path is unclear, and we can only pray that God will reveal to us which path He wants us to take.

So many of the decisions we make fall short of God’s desires for our well-being. Many times we will make decisions that will hurt God. But the important thing is that we are allowed to make those decisions entirely on our own, with or without God’s help.

And that is why I am pro-choice.

Yuna Kim is set to win gold.

Time for some brain fluff! I’d like to start off with a disclaimer that I haven’t had time to really follow figure skating recently. Once I realized the Olympics were so near, I began frantically watching YouTube clips to try to catch up, or at least be familiar with the skaters competing in the games. (In my downtime, of course. I would never sacrifice schoolwork for YouTube. Or would I?) So this is based mostly off the few routines I’ve watched, competition results, and my personal biases.

Pairs

Shen/Zhao, Kavaguti/Smirnov, Savchenko/Szolkowy

My favorite discipline! This may be the Olympics where the Russian domination ends. The Russians are good…but the Chinese are better (this time around). The Russians’ best hope is Kavaguti/Smirnov, who are currently World bronze medalists, but that was against a slightly weaker field. Shen/Zhao are back in action, and they are my personal favorites to win gold, although I can see any of the three very, very strong Chinese teams up there. I don’t think there will be a sweep, since the German team Savchenko/Szolkowy is the 2009 world champions and placed third in the 2009 Grand Prix finals. In my opinion there’s no clear favorite to win gold, but one thing that is certain is that, barring any extraordinary circumstances, the gold will not go to a Russian team. The US has always sucked at pairs, and it doesn’t seem like it’ll change anytime soon, so I’m not going to say anything about them.

Mens

Lysacek, Chan, Plushenko

I don’t really have much to say about the men, since I’m not drawn to the discipline the way I am with the others. Though they do have the best, most exciting jumps, so that may change. American favorite Evan Lysacek faces competition from fellow Americans Jeremy Abbot (who actually beat Lysacek at Nationals) and Johnny Weir. I don’t know much about their international competition, but I do know that Canadian Patrick Chan (current world silver medalist) will be on home turf, having the home crowd advantage. And 2006 Olympic gold medalist Evgeny Plushenko has clawed his way back out of retirement and is as strong as ever, which will make things even more exciting.

Ice Dancing

Belbin/Agosto, Virtue/Moir, Davis/White

Ice Dancing is very pretty to watch, but I have to admit I don’t know enough about the discipline to be able to make any judgments about the quality of skating. For the first Olympics in a long, long time the North Americans are a force to be reckoned with, wresting some power back from the Europeans. Canadians Virtue/Moir are in a very good position to win gold, and Americans Belbin/Agosto are also very strong. It’s also their last competitive season together, so for their sake I’d like to see them medal again. But they face stiff competition from teammates Davis/White, who have actually been doing better than them this season.

Ladies

Kim, Asada, Nagasu

This is Yuna Kim’s gold to lose. She’s won gold in every competition she’s entered in the past couple of years (except for last year’s Grand Prix Final where she placed second to Mao Asada). When Kim wins gold, she usually doesn’t just win, she leaves the competition in the dust. Asada is probably her only real competitor, if the extraordinarily risky triple axels in her arsenal pay off. The US is sending their weakest field of women in recently memory. Ever since Sasha Cohen left competitive skating, no one has really stepped up to fill the void. Cohen did try to make a comeback, but failed to make the cut at Nationals, which is too bad, since Cohen would have been the US’s best hope against the Asians. Artistically, Cohen is light-years ahead of the current crop of Olympic hopefuls, even Kim. Nagasu and Flatt, the ladies representing the US, are okay but are still pretty new to the international competition, and I very highly doubt they can be considered serious medal contenders.

Davis and White are the most adorable pair on ice, ever.

Eva Ibbotson is another author I’ve found that’s writes well, but tends to recycle things, to the point where I suspect that all of her characters are the same people, just in different disguises. That said, I really liked The Morning Gift, since it was one of the first of her (adult) novels that I’ve read. (Eva Ibbotson has written several very highly acclaimed pieces children’s fiction–sadly I haven’t had a chance to read any of them yet–but the general word on the street is that she’s slightly more successful with children’s fiction than she is with adult fiction.)

I found the character Ruth almost too saccharinely sweet–she can make everyone around her fall in love with her gentle nature, she’s bright, there’s absolutely nothing she can’t do. Even her “flaws” are written to that they are sugarcoated–I think they’re supposed to make her more endearing, not more “real.” The only people who don’t like her are the antagonists of the story anyway.

Quin was another slightly unbelievable character–he’s a ladies man, all the women fawn over him, he’s a popular professor on campus, everyone fights to be in his classes and research projects. I’m not quite sure exactlywhat bothers me about him–he’s probably a lot more suave than I’m willing to swallow. But hey, just because I don’t like a character doesn’t mean others can’t, right? I don’t think he’s unattractive, it’s just that he doesn’t appeal to me personally. I usually like my romantic leads to be likeable, and in this was a slight disappointment.

The side characters were a little more successful, although they too seemed kind of like stock characters. I found Ruth’s “fiance” Heini absolutely hilarious when he wasn’t being infuriatingly irritating, and Quin’s would-be girlfriend Verena is absurdly proud and full of herself. I really wanted a scene where Verena is humiliated in the worst way possible, just to see what would happen, but alas.

All of this may sound like I don’t like the book, but don’t get me wrong, I do like it! In spite of all its flaws, the story is cute and has lots of music/scholarly/scientific references. I think I may be partially biased because of the academic setting and subject of study (although you could argue that paleontology is not a “real” science). I’m a huge sucker for romances, and this is what the story is, after all. Ibbotson did an excellent job of setting and plot, although I felt like the misunderstanding that led to the final conflict and climax felt too forced and made me want to beat Ruth over the head. Ruth, while academically brilliant, can be kind of naive and childlike about everything else.

The first time I read this book I really really like it–until I started reading more of Eva Ibbotson’s adult works. They all started seeming the same: girl is blessed with skills/beauty/talent/whatever, but due to reduced circumstances is forced into a situation where she interacts with the hero (who is in some way related to whatever she is blessed with.) The girl is sweet, gentle, perfect, while the hero is usually a good decade older, popular with ladies, wealthy, powerful, etc. They fall in love, but some sort of misunderstanding arises that separates them for a while before they ultimately wrap things up with a happy ending. Discovering this kind of cheapened The Morning Gift for me. Maybe if I wrote this review having read only that one book, I would be less bitter?

So I guess my final verdict is: Ibbotson’s books are great the first time around, and if you’re looking for a charming romance with excellent setting (Ibbotson can really draw you into the world–I really felt like I actually was wherever the story was set), it’s worth reading one of her books. I’d recommend sticking to only one or two so that they don’t start feeling old. Of the ones that I’ve read (A Countess Below Stairs, A Song for Summer, A Company of Swans, The Morning Gift) I liked The Morning Gift the best–probably because I wasn’t hit by bricks of deja vu like I was with the others.

Sophy’s father is going on a business trip to Brazil and dumps Sophy with his sister. Lady Ombersley expects a sweet niece to keep her children company, and perhaps to marry off, but Sophy is anything but conventional and arrives in a blaze of charisma, and animals. Sophy arrives to find the household in disorder: her cousin Charles is about to marry the stuffy Eugenia, Cecilia is mooning after a hapless poet, Hubert is harboring some dark secrets, and more. The story is predictable in that Sophy does manage to solve most of the problems (and encounters a few surprises of her own along the way), but how she does is brilliant and hilarious at the same time. I would recommend not reading this in public.

The Grand Sophy is truly a modern Regency. It smacks of Jane Austen’s influence, of course, but with modern day sensibilities. Georgette Heyer was famous for not only her writing, but her extensive research. Her books are, for the most part, very historically accurate, from world events to social attitudes to the fashions of the times. I’ve never really found the Regency a particularly interesting time period, but Georgette Heyer brings it alive. What I found quite enjoyable was that the time period was merely a backdrop; the characters and plot took center stage. Of course, the setting was important in that it shaped the attitudes prevalent at the time: some of the things Sophy did would not have been remarkable if it had taken place in a different society with different social norms and expectations of women. But I didn’t feel like I was having history shoved down my throat, as it feels like in some other books.

Georgette Heyer’s books are back in print (they were orginally written in the 50s or so) so they should be easy to find, and the local library would surely have her books. I really like the new covers and am curious if they are actual paintings or if they were created specifically for the reprintings. The Grand Sophy’s cover has a dog on it, clearly a reference to Sophy’s little dog Tina. All of the covers are absolutely gorgeous, making me kind of want to buy the entire set just so I can gaze upon their beauty whenever the mood strikes me.

I highly recommend this book as a thoroughly enjoyable light read, a great lark, a fabulous way to unwind after a long day.

Valancy lives a dismal existence under the thumb of her relatives, never being able to carve out her own identity, never been loved, never had a chance to marry. At 29, she is on the fast track to spinsterhood The first few chapters are depressing and was a struggle for me to get through, but boy was it worth it! One day, a doctor diagnoses a heart condition she has, and tells her she only has a year to live. Now, this might sound depressing, but it is from this point that the book got really good, since Valancy, not having much to lose anymore, rebels against everything she ever wanted to, and finally transforms into a strong character, experiencing happiness that had previously been absent from her flat previous life. Joy and passion fill the days that had been formerly filled with dull relatives. I actually laughed aloud when Valancy finally gave her relatives what they had coming. Who knew L.M. Montgomery was capable of so much snark?

Of course, her sly sense of humor is also present in the Anne series if you look carefully, but Anne was written for a totally different audience. The Blue Castle is not a particularly demanding read, and a younger reader can certainly enjoy the story for face value, but there are definitely a lot of things in there that would be better appreciated by an older audience. I think the only disappointing aspect of the book was its cover–a cheese-tastic deal with people dressed in horrible ’80s clothes (the story takes place in the ’20s or so).

I don’t want to give too much away, because it’s such a good book and you should read it, but it does have a well-written surprise ending and a sweet romance that warmed my heart.

Monday, April 13 I exercised my privilege as a 21-year-old for the first time to enter a drinking establishment to watch Vienna Teng perform at the Club Cafe in the South Side. She’s an amazing singer/performer and was worth standing up for hours for. My calves were on fire by the end, but it was only a foretaste of what was to come later that week. I generally like girl-on-a-piano type music; I suppose I’d like guy-on-a-piano too, except I haven’t listened to much of that yet (I don’t listen to much music in general, but that is a whole ‘nother story). Vienna told interesting stories and anecdotes about the songs she played for us, and even had the audience clapping along to the music to replace their lost hexagonal shaker. I had trouble following the clapping since she had us clapping on the down beat (is that what it’s called? The last I’ve had of music theory was high school orchestra…) but overall quite enjoyed myself. My only regret was that when I finally had a chance to speak with Vienna Teng, all I could come up was, very creatively, “I think your music is amazing!”

Tuesday, April 14 I continued to be cultured by going to see Rent. This particular tour featured Anthony Rapp and Adam Pascal, two of the original Broadway show stars. I was actually torn about going, since I had a major exam the next day and I had already gone to see Vienna Teng the day before, but my housemate generously offered her ticket to me (she’s already seen the show twice–or was it 3 times?), and you know, how many chances will I have to see Anthony Rapp and Adam Pascal perform live? I don’t regret going. I liked it, though I don’t think I would have had a clue as to what was going on if I hadn’t known the story/seen the movie beforehand.

The weekend was filled with Carnival. Every moment that I was awake or not keeping Sabbath, I spent on my feet, working at the Concessions stand. A lot of the time was with Hobart, the industrial stand mixer used to make funnel cake batter. Not really a hard job, but did involve some physical effort on my part since funnel cake batter is not light, especially after adding water. I am also weak. By Sunday morning, I woke up with my feet and calves hurting, and a crick in my wrist due to holding heavy pitchers of funnel cake batter over the fryers while making funnel cake. Teardown ended around 10:30pm, a lot later than the previous two years, where I remember being finished in time to have dinner at a somewhat reasonable hour. By the time Teardown finally ended, I was so tired and wiped out that my muscles were no longer screaming in agony–similarly to how you might stop feeling hungry after starving for a while, or stop feeling sleepy after not sleeping for a long stretch. I wish I were stronger, or more physically fit, so I could have contributed more.

In spite of it all, the general mood at Teardown was not as ugly as I was expecting, which was nice. We who stuck it out till the end did some quality bonding, and it was satisfying to finally finish everything.

Sometimes, I feel like Carnival is like childbirth. Painful and hard work, but ultimately satisfying and joyful at the end, if all goes well.

Then I read Memories of Anne Frank: Reflections of a Childhood Friend, the story of Hannah Goslar, one of Anne’s friends. Hannah’s story in and of itself is quite compelling, but her reflections of her friendship with Anne brought a new perspective to the story. It was only after I read Hannah’s story that I became more intrigued with Anne Frank, and perhaps about the Holocaust in general, due to Hannah’s vivid accounts of her own experiences.

So when I saw this book while I was working at the library, I knew I had to read it. This memoir is by Jacqueline van Maarsen, another friend of Anne’s. In spite of the title and the cover, this is more of Jacqueline’s (Jackie’s) story than it is about Anne. Anne herself only makes a very small short appearance, almost like a cameo, so people expecting to see a lot more about Anne might be disappointed. However, it is important to note that the little we see of Anne tells us a lot about her we probably cannot deduce by her diary alone.

With Anne being portrayed as a hero, statues, namesakes, schools, movies, and all sorts of other memorials to her, it is easy to forget that she was a human being. Jackie describes Anne’s forceful personality, which contrasted to her own reserved self, and which sometimes strained their relationship. But in the relatively brief time they were together, they were best friends.

Jackie’s story has an interesting twist, because she experienced being both Jewish and non-Jewish in Amsterdam during the war. Technically speaking, she was not Jewish, because her mother was French (even though she converted to marry Jackie’s father), but her father worked hard to get his family officially accepted as Jewish by the Jewish community, for his faith was important to him. So after the war began, Jackie did have to wear the yellow star and go to the Jewish lyceum, which was how she met Anne, actually. Jackie’s mother undoes the conversion of her family, to protect them from the persecution.

So while Jackie watched her friends disappear, she herself was never sent to a concentration camp. She could remove the yellow star, return to regular school, and generally live normally again. Though the residents of Amsterdam suffered during the war, it was nothing compared to those who were sent to the concentration camps.

The aftermath of the war is just as interesting. Jackie’s immediate family was spared, but most of her paternal relatives perished, as they found out after the war ended and the survivors began drifting back. Among the survivors of the war was Otto Frank, and he shares Anne’s diary with her. Their discussions are touching and Otto Frank’s reaction to his loss is heartbreaking.

It was obvious that it made him feel better to be able to talk about Anne with me. I think that it gave him the feeling that his connection with his daughter was not yet totally gone, because she lived on in my memory … being confronted with Otto Frank’s grief directly contravened my own post-war determination not to think of the dark times that lay behind me, or dwell on the loss of my relatives and friends. The fact that my happy, ebullient friend, with all her plans and ideals, has had to suffer the atrocities of the camps and was now dead, was to be an unimaginable thought. But I avoided talking about that with him. He himself kept returning to the subject of Anne the way she used to be, and he wanted me to tell him all about our friendship.

All in all, I really liked the book, and think it offers a unique perspective to the story of Anne Frank, and life in Amsterdam during the war.

I have to admit, I started reading this book with a bit of trepidation. I’ve read many, many stories of girls being fed up with the historical social restrictions placed on women, running around in breeches, and generally espousing rather modern views. I don’t need every single little detail to be perfectly historically accurate, but glaring anachronisms have a tendency to irritate me.

So I was pleasantly surprised at how the story turned out. Patricia starts off naive and idealistic, but over the course of the novel, as she encounters various trying situations, she is forced to adopt the identity of a male as a means of survival rather than as a lark. Patricia Kelley is many things, but a Mary Sue she is not; she certainly had the potential to be one at the beginning of the story, but as it progresses it is clear that the author is firmly pointing us in a different direction.

The author’s knowledge of seafaring is impressive, as is her medical knowledge. She also does not shy away from the grim realities of the time, which I really appreciated: lack of fresh water, relatively unsophisticated medical practice, and everybody and their mother coming down with yellow fever. Some of the descriptions of yellow fever and other medical conditions were a bit…graphic, but if I, an emetophobe, could stomach them, there’s a good chance you can too.

WARNING: In spite of the tomboyish girl, adventures in the Caribbean, and seafaring stuff, there are no pirates! They’re mentioned, of course, but don’t factor into the story at all. The ending left some room for a sequel, so who knows, maybe they will appear later.

Instead of pirates, we get more political antagonists (the French and the Spanish) and there’s even a cameo by a famous American (see if you can spot him…I didn’t catch it until it was pointed out to me, but it’s not really meant to be obvious unless you’re a dedicated history buff).

Why did I read this book if I wasn’t expecting it to be very good? In short, the cover was very attractive. While I generally don’t judge books by their covers, an appealing cover is more likely to capture my attention. I also found out (after I finished reading the book, mind you) that the author lives in Hawaii.   =D