Well, there's been not much time to read around here (see entry below for the whine). Mrs. Mike, Bill Bryson and Julia Child all still sit on my nightstand. (They are jostling for position.) I think I'll knock off Bill first--he's such a bully and he really belongs to someone else.
I did finish a little Heyer novel--Regency Buck--which is, I think, the worst of the ones I have read. Oh, don't get me wrong, it's still on the "to keep" shelves. But it wasn't the same quality. The hero was just a blank. Not enough character development.
I did also start a new Peter Kreeft book, Because God is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer. I love the way Kreeft writes. The book is written in question and answer format, and you've got to love one that starts like this:
When you speak of questions and answers, do you mean to assume that there's objective truth out there, the same for everybody, and that if you disagree with that truth, your opinion is not just different but wrong? do you mean to say that religion is like science that way? That what's true for you also must be true for me, because religion is about what is simply and absolutely true, whether we like it or not? Are you saying that God is just as objectively real as a rock, even though you can't see Him and even though you can't prove Him by the scientific method?
You have to assume objective truth even to deny objective truth. Is it objectively true that there's no objective truth? Is it only "true for you" that there is only "truth-for-you"?
Anyway, aside from that, I have read mostly magazines.....
How 'bout you?