candy: eye versus brain

the cover of zadie smith's new book makes me crave chocolate. it has a paisley pattern in two shades of brown (dark and milk, i like to think of them as), and hot pink and pastel bits all over it. it's quite a cover. maybe one day i'll have a gorgeous, chocolatey-covered novel out there... anyway. point is, i love the cover and i'm about halfway through the book and i'm liking that too. what pisses me off is that just as i had started reading it, i read a review in the age or the smh which gave away a major plot twist. why do they do this? can't reviewers hint instead of state? hmmm. maybe i shouldn't have read the review at all. now i find my opinions of the characters coloured by what the reviewer said. anyway, i'll soldier on and see what i think when i've finished.

to balance out the heaviness of our zadie, i have borrowed a book from the library that will deliver the candy-rush from within its pages as opposed to it's cover. it's called 'adored' and it's by tilly bagshawe. if anyone reading this is also a bit of a chick-lit fan, you might recognise the surname - yes, she is louise bagshawe's sister. now, far be it for me to make any sort of deal about the fact that these writers are siblings - i think that rocks, quite frankly. i mean, how cool is that? if she gets along with her sister the way i get along with my brothers, i'm sure they are a great source of encouragement to each other, and are inspired by each other's work. but what if that's not the case? hmmm. i wonder which one of them will be the first to write a 'fictional account' of two gorgeous, talented sisters who also happen to be bestselling writers... only time will tell.