odds and ends

I think my plan was to write about the Hunger Games trilogy all at once, which I think I finished post-Cleopatra, and then I read The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution (Richard Dawkins's latest...or near-latest?), and I think there was something else...but now all the books have gone back to the library, and I don't remember.
I'll work on it, but not now. Generally - positive with minor/medium quibbles in both cases.

Oh, right...

And I forgot, I read the second book in the Hunger Games series, whatever it's called. That was...a week ago? After Roger Williams and before Cleopatra. The latter of whom would have kicked A*S in the Hunger Games. Just saying. She was a wily b*tch.

Another quick update!

Blogging is getting really boring...

In any case, I finished Cleopatra: A Life, by Stacy Schiff, last night. Basically, it was fun. I don't think I learned anything, but it was a quick, easy, and amusing read. Schiff's tone was very Cosmopolitan-esque (not shocking - I think that, shortly after the book came out, Cosmo did a mini "feature" on Cleopatra, as an original Cosmo girl, and her approaches to life, love, and power...an accessories, too, no doubt). The contemporary feminist take on Cleopatra worked, though; I imagine it would be hard, however, to not be able to make a compelling case for C. getting a totally unfair reputation at the hands of the Romans.

This would be a good "history for non-history major" books, although there could be an issue with Schiff's casual references to the ancient historians / sources. *I* get why Josephus was such a d*ck about Cleopatra, but there are probably lots of people who don't know who he even is - ditto for Dio, Lucan, etc. I would also be wary of recommending it as "history" the more I think about it. It's not that I think her facts are wrong - although they could be, my Ptolemaic history is sketchy at best - but she just makes stuff up: what characters were thinking/feeling, how a particular scene looked, sounded or smelled...but those details do work to draw the reader along, so who knows.

One thing that confused/bothered me: as I read, there were little footnotes, marked with asterisks, throughout the text, but no footnotes. And, I will admit, I took the book less seriously, I suspect, than I would have otherwise, if there had been numbered footnotes or end notes...except that there were? After the close of the book, there are end notes for each chapter, nice and scholarly, listing the sources, with commentary. But then I went back into the text itself, and didn't see any numbered notes...so, what? The publisher left the notes, but took out the little superscript numbers, because they cluttered up the page? How on earth does that make sense? And how on earth am I supposed to track down Schiff's references if I need more information? NOT lovin' on Little, Brown, & Co. for this one, if that is what happened. I don't see what else it could be, unless Widener somehow got a bad copy (and considering I had to wait in line for months to get it, that's too bad).