This is not really going to be a review of The Hunger Games Trilogy or any of the books. Or much of a review of any kind. I read The Hunger Games a couple months ago, then I read Catching Fire about a week ago and Mockingjay a few days ago. And I read Mockingjay in one day. Close to one sitting, though I went for a run in the middle. This was perhaps not the smartest choice as I got a bit too engrossed in the plot and high emotionally attached to the plot and the characters. That skewed my thoughts about the book for a bit, though upon rethinking about it and discussing it with a couple coworkers, I think I have a firmer grasp on what I liked and didn't like.
However, at the moment, I am not going to review or recap or anything for two reasons: 1) I can't think of a way to do it without spoilers and 2) I am going to be hanging out with my co-tart around Christmas and think a co-blog will be better. So, on to a few thoughts about the story/books as a whole.
Suzanne Collins did not underestimate her audience. They are YA books, on Amazon it looks like most reviews say grade 7 and up. I'm not sure all 7th graders would be able to handle The Hunger Games, but I definitely think that I would have been ok with them at that age. I'm the girl who read Stephen King at 13, so take that how you will. Regardless, Collins filled the book with darkness, pain, intense emotion, confusion, hope, death, violence, love, deceit, trust, etc. They are full of intense stuff...what you would find in any fiction book for adults. She doesn't back off on the unhappiness just because her audience is young. I respect the credit she gives to teens.
I had no idea what was going to happen. Like, at all. I can usually tell how a book is going to go. I can make educated guesses on what characters are going to die in books. I am rarely caught off guard in a story. I had zero idea where Collins was going with the whole story. I had no idea what the plot of the third book was going to be. I didn't call most of the big deaths and I could not have guessed at the end. Props to completely catching me offguard!
I had trouble saying I liked Mockingjay after I finished it. But I loved it. Yeah, makes no sense...stick with me. As a story, as a conclusion, it was amazing. It kept moving, there was lots of action, a lot happened, people made hard decisions...awesome! But dude, there was a lot of stuff that happened that I really didn't like. There was one thing that happened to a character I loved that I was just not ok with. The love triangle did not pan out how I thought it would, though I was ok with that part of it. It was just...ugh. I can see how lots of people didn't like Mockingjay. It was heavy, it was dark, things didn't really end with a happily ever after. Upon reflection, I really loved the entire series, including Mockingjay, though Catching Fire was my favorite.
I would recommend you read The Hunger Games if you haven't already. I do not guarantee a happy story with sunshine and rainbows, but I do guarantee a highly engaging story that you will take with you.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Nerd or Geek?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/12/02/nerd.or.geek/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Such a hard distinction to say. What makes someone a nerd vs. a geek? Can you be both? Are either an insult? I have some pretty personal knowledge of what I think a nerd is and what I think a geek is and I am going to share with you what I think. And then you should comment and let me know if you think I am right or wrong (if you are a geek or a nerd, you are probably used to commenting/arguing about topics so that shouldn't be a problem).
I would consider myself a nerd. I have a Bachelors of Science in Informatics with a minor in Cyber Security (and a minor in Art History) and I have a Masters in Library Science with a specialization in Library Technology Management and a focus in Digital Libraries. Just the fact that I have all of that and like to share it makes me a nerd. My hobbies include reading, doing puzzles, playing Scrabble, and playing puzzle/word games on the computer. However, I am not a traditional nerd. Along with all my nerdy academics, I am also a dancer, currently ballet, tap, and ballroom, and I used to do competitive ballroom in college. I am also a runner and a shoe-whore and a lover of sparkly things and have been known to sport a faux-hawk.
I would not consider myself a geek, though I have geeky tendencies. I always think of geeks as having a specific cause or focus. My sister would probably be considered a Star Wars geek. She can name (or used to be able to name) all of the creatures in Star Wars. When she was little, she was a dinosaur geek...as in she knew more about dinosaurs than probably anyone else in our hometown. What a geek! My geekiness tends to be about Harry Potter and Doctor Who/Torchwood. I can discuss, at length, certain things about the Harry Potter universe and have been to a Sci-Fi Con that was all about Harry Potter. And I may have won Harry Potter trivia. But I don't really analyze anything about it. And I have only read the stuff written by J.K. Rowling and none of the companion/encyclopedia stuff. And I really don't care that things in the movies are different from the books (bad geek!). I also geek out about Doctor Who and Torchwood, but I have only been watching them for about 9 months, so I don't think I've really put in the time to be a geek. I have looked up the Who-verse time line (geeky!) but I got confused and stopped trying to figure it out (bad geek!).
It is strange because the general assumption is that nerds are more socially awkward and geeks can blend into mainstream more, but I think that is kind of backwards in a way. A nerd may be more awkward, but a geek is more likely to speak up if you are wrong about something they love. And I am a nerd, but I am definitely mainstream. I mean, I am a librarian (nerdy!), but I have no problem with the human interaction part of the job and really enjoy being around and working with people. So, am I not really a nerd, even though I associate as such? Or is the distinction more basic than I am making it...a nerd is intelligent and a geek is an idiot-savant? Can you be a general geek or do you have to have a focus? And what about the D&D or comics crowd? They definitely have a focus and would call them geeks, but they would be more likely to be seem as nerds. I can't really speak to that as I don't do either thing (bad geek! bad nerd!), but I do enjoy playing Munchkin (nerdy! geeky!) and really liked reading/playing Order of the Stick (nerdy! geeky!). Though to be fair, I just like being Haley Starshine because she is a rogue and all about treasure and if you have played Munchkin with me, you know that I will do anything for treasure. And now I have out-nerded myself with that tangent. Or out-geeked myself? Or, am I a nerd because I enjoy it and not a geek because I am not obsessed?
So nerds and geeks alike, give me your opinions! Am I right in my analysis of the cultures? Would you consider me a nerd or a geek or both or neither? Or is part of being a nerd or a geek not caring wha the label is and just being secure in what you like?
Such a hard distinction to say. What makes someone a nerd vs. a geek? Can you be both? Are either an insult? I have some pretty personal knowledge of what I think a nerd is and what I think a geek is and I am going to share with you what I think. And then you should comment and let me know if you think I am right or wrong (if you are a geek or a nerd, you are probably used to commenting/arguing about topics so that shouldn't be a problem).
I would consider myself a nerd. I have a Bachelors of Science in Informatics with a minor in Cyber Security (and a minor in Art History) and I have a Masters in Library Science with a specialization in Library Technology Management and a focus in Digital Libraries. Just the fact that I have all of that and like to share it makes me a nerd. My hobbies include reading, doing puzzles, playing Scrabble, and playing puzzle/word games on the computer. However, I am not a traditional nerd. Along with all my nerdy academics, I am also a dancer, currently ballet, tap, and ballroom, and I used to do competitive ballroom in college. I am also a runner and a shoe-whore and a lover of sparkly things and have been known to sport a faux-hawk.
I would not consider myself a geek, though I have geeky tendencies. I always think of geeks as having a specific cause or focus. My sister would probably be considered a Star Wars geek. She can name (or used to be able to name) all of the creatures in Star Wars. When she was little, she was a dinosaur geek...as in she knew more about dinosaurs than probably anyone else in our hometown. What a geek! My geekiness tends to be about Harry Potter and Doctor Who/Torchwood. I can discuss, at length, certain things about the Harry Potter universe and have been to a Sci-Fi Con that was all about Harry Potter. And I may have won Harry Potter trivia. But I don't really analyze anything about it. And I have only read the stuff written by J.K. Rowling and none of the companion/encyclopedia stuff. And I really don't care that things in the movies are different from the books (bad geek!). I also geek out about Doctor Who and Torchwood, but I have only been watching them for about 9 months, so I don't think I've really put in the time to be a geek. I have looked up the Who-verse time line (geeky!) but I got confused and stopped trying to figure it out (bad geek!).
It is strange because the general assumption is that nerds are more socially awkward and geeks can blend into mainstream more, but I think that is kind of backwards in a way. A nerd may be more awkward, but a geek is more likely to speak up if you are wrong about something they love. And I am a nerd, but I am definitely mainstream. I mean, I am a librarian (nerdy!), but I have no problem with the human interaction part of the job and really enjoy being around and working with people. So, am I not really a nerd, even though I associate as such? Or is the distinction more basic than I am making it...a nerd is intelligent and a geek is an idiot-savant? Can you be a general geek or do you have to have a focus? And what about the D&D or comics crowd? They definitely have a focus and would call them geeks, but they would be more likely to be seem as nerds. I can't really speak to that as I don't do either thing (bad geek! bad nerd!), but I do enjoy playing Munchkin (nerdy! geeky!) and really liked reading/playing Order of the Stick (nerdy! geeky!). Though to be fair, I just like being Haley Starshine because she is a rogue and all about treasure and if you have played Munchkin with me, you know that I will do anything for treasure. And now I have out-nerded myself with that tangent. Or out-geeked myself? Or, am I a nerd because I enjoy it and not a geek because I am not obsessed?
So nerds and geeks alike, give me your opinions! Am I right in my analysis of the cultures? Would you consider me a nerd or a geek or both or neither? Or is part of being a nerd or a geek not caring wha the label is and just being secure in what you like?
Friday, December 3, 2010
Strong Female Protagonists
Lately I have been thinking about gender and reading. Recently I have read quite a few articles about how boys don't read and various other gender/reading divides. I have also read quite a bit about the stories written for girls and the stories written for boys. Today I read an article about stories (both book and movies) for girls...aka stories for preteen and teen girls to read and feel inspired by. It just so happens that I also read an article about how kick-ass Ginny Weasley is. So...needless to say that I felt inspired to add my thoughts about the divide.
First of all, without no regard to actual studies, I think it is fair to say that on average girls read more fiction than boys. I think it is also fair to say off the cuff that more stories are written with a male protagonist, especially books where the main character kicks ass. This may be more of a generalization of movies, but if you think about "the classics" or any sort of sci-fi/fantasy, it is a male character who is leading the fight. For example, pretty much anything by Mark Twain, Charles Dickins, Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, most comic books (again with the generalizing), Captain Underpants, Stephen King, Neil Gaiman...you get what I'm saying. A lot of popular books have a male lead. Now, there are a lot of kick-ass chicks in a lot of those books. Stardust and Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman both have pretty awesome females who are fairly center, but the main character is still a guy. Harry Potter has Hermione, Ginny, McGonagall, Umbridge, Luna, etc. but they are all second to Harry, Dumbledor, Snape, Voldemort.
My thought is that girls are plenty willing to read a book that features a guy--I would never turn down a book with a great plot just because the main character is a guy--but a boy may not want to read a book, regardless of the plot, if the main character is a girl. Which is kinda weird and unfortunate. I would hope that boys would read books with female protagonists, like Hunger Games. I am too lazy to really research that and I don't really feeling like blogging about that topic right now. Instead, this is now going to focus on stories that feature super bad-ass females front and center! Let's call it my top 10 (though I will probably miss some of my favorites)
1) Lyra Belacqua from His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman--Lyra rocks, like hardcore. And yes, in the second book she acquires Will who is kind of a main character too, but really secondary. Lyra does what she wants, ignores the rules given to her, fights for what she believes in, goes through Hell, figuratively and literally, and goes to great lengths to save someone she loves. Awesome.
2) Sally Lockhart from the Sally Lockhart Series by Philip Pullman--Again with the hardcore rocking! Sally is 16, self-sustaining, willing to fight, and willing to do what is necessary to survive. Very bad-ass.
3) Suze Simon from The Mediator Series by Meg Cabot--Suze kinda likes to fight. Not people, just ghosts. And she is willing to go to great lengths to save her ghost-in-distress. And she stands up for herself against the vaguely evil, definitely bad, super hot guy who is trying to seduce her. No one pushes Suze around. Also, she really doesn't like following rules, which is always fun in a bad-ass! Also, she hangs out with a hot ghost. What could be better?
4) Heather Wells from Size 12 is Not Fat, et. al. by Meg Cabot--Heather solves murders. In the dorm that she works in. Cha! What could be more bad-ass. And she used to be a teen pop star, but stood up for herself and now writes her own music that totally kicks all sorts of ass.
5) Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins--Katniss gets chosen as one of 24 teens who must fight to the death in a giant arena for the viewing pleasure of the government. Dystopian, much? But fight she does. And with so much ass kicking. Though with some reservations as killing your peers is never fun. But still, the girl is a survivor and a fighter and totally bad-ass.
6) Norah Silverberg from Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan--This one is sort of a cheat as Nick and Norah are both main characters, but it is exactly divided and Norah is pretty damn awesome. She kicks ass in that she kinda just does whatever the hell she feels like unless giving a very convincing reason to do otherwise. I like a main female character who refuses to be passive. Super bad-ass without actually kicking any ass.
7) Margaret Rose Kane from The Outcasts of 19 Schuyler Place by E.L. Konigsburg--Margaret is a bad-ass chick because she stands up for her self no matter what and she fights the system when she believes in something. Also, she knows when to ask for help, when to allow things to happen, and when to make things happen. Fabulous role model for girls (and boys) everywhere.
8) Sookie Stackhouse from The Southern Vampire Series by Charlaine Harris--Sookie, as with all of Charlaine Harris's female protagonists kicks ever so much ass. A lot of the time it is literal ass that is being kicked. Sookie is a bit of a romantic, what with dating a vampire and all, but also does not take crap from anyone. And is the only human who is willing to stand up to the vampires who could rip her face off with no problem. And wouldn't really hesitate to do so. Also, Sookie does not necessarily forgive a guy just because she is "in love". Once mad, she must be convinced otherwise. Also, did I mention that she can kill vampires! Bad. Ass.
9) Any female lead in any Karen Marie Moning book--You probably don't want to encourage young girls to read Moning as she writes romances and they aren't what I would call sweet and innocent. But for older teens/college kids/adults...absolutely. A lot of romance novels have the female be all love struck and weak and lame. But not Karen Marie Moning. Her females are fierce and feisty and kick-ass and always keep the boys in check. Speaking of which, Meg Cabot romance novels have the same sort of leads. Most romance novels that I enjoy have strong female leads.
10) Annie Walker from Covert Affairs--Yeah, there are other books that I could list, but really I think a big shout out needs to be given to Piper Perabo and her portrayal of CIA agent Annie Walker. Walker kicks so much ass it isn't even funny. And she kicks literal ass along with intellectual ass. She is versed in a ridiculous number of languages and is one of the top trainees the CIA has ever had. And she has the ability to be friends with the guys she works with without any of the usual romance that would normally be in a show like that.
Do you have any other books that feature kick-ass chicks? Let me know! I am always in the market for new books that feature strong female characters.
First of all, without no regard to actual studies, I think it is fair to say that on average girls read more fiction than boys. I think it is also fair to say off the cuff that more stories are written with a male protagonist, especially books where the main character kicks ass. This may be more of a generalization of movies, but if you think about "the classics" or any sort of sci-fi/fantasy, it is a male character who is leading the fight. For example, pretty much anything by Mark Twain, Charles Dickins, Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, most comic books (again with the generalizing), Captain Underpants, Stephen King, Neil Gaiman...you get what I'm saying. A lot of popular books have a male lead. Now, there are a lot of kick-ass chicks in a lot of those books. Stardust and Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman both have pretty awesome females who are fairly center, but the main character is still a guy. Harry Potter has Hermione, Ginny, McGonagall, Umbridge, Luna, etc. but they are all second to Harry, Dumbledor, Snape, Voldemort.
My thought is that girls are plenty willing to read a book that features a guy--I would never turn down a book with a great plot just because the main character is a guy--but a boy may not want to read a book, regardless of the plot, if the main character is a girl. Which is kinda weird and unfortunate. I would hope that boys would read books with female protagonists, like Hunger Games. I am too lazy to really research that and I don't really feeling like blogging about that topic right now. Instead, this is now going to focus on stories that feature super bad-ass females front and center! Let's call it my top 10 (though I will probably miss some of my favorites)
1) Lyra Belacqua from His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman--Lyra rocks, like hardcore. And yes, in the second book she acquires Will who is kind of a main character too, but really secondary. Lyra does what she wants, ignores the rules given to her, fights for what she believes in, goes through Hell, figuratively and literally, and goes to great lengths to save someone she loves. Awesome.
2) Sally Lockhart from the Sally Lockhart Series by Philip Pullman--Again with the hardcore rocking! Sally is 16, self-sustaining, willing to fight, and willing to do what is necessary to survive. Very bad-ass.
3) Suze Simon from The Mediator Series by Meg Cabot--Suze kinda likes to fight. Not people, just ghosts. And she is willing to go to great lengths to save her ghost-in-distress. And she stands up for herself against the vaguely evil, definitely bad, super hot guy who is trying to seduce her. No one pushes Suze around. Also, she really doesn't like following rules, which is always fun in a bad-ass! Also, she hangs out with a hot ghost. What could be better?
4) Heather Wells from Size 12 is Not Fat, et. al. by Meg Cabot--Heather solves murders. In the dorm that she works in. Cha! What could be more bad-ass. And she used to be a teen pop star, but stood up for herself and now writes her own music that totally kicks all sorts of ass.
5) Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins--Katniss gets chosen as one of 24 teens who must fight to the death in a giant arena for the viewing pleasure of the government. Dystopian, much? But fight she does. And with so much ass kicking. Though with some reservations as killing your peers is never fun. But still, the girl is a survivor and a fighter and totally bad-ass.
6) Norah Silverberg from Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan--This one is sort of a cheat as Nick and Norah are both main characters, but it is exactly divided and Norah is pretty damn awesome. She kicks ass in that she kinda just does whatever the hell she feels like unless giving a very convincing reason to do otherwise. I like a main female character who refuses to be passive. Super bad-ass without actually kicking any ass.
7) Margaret Rose Kane from The Outcasts of 19 Schuyler Place by E.L. Konigsburg--Margaret is a bad-ass chick because she stands up for her self no matter what and she fights the system when she believes in something. Also, she knows when to ask for help, when to allow things to happen, and when to make things happen. Fabulous role model for girls (and boys) everywhere.
8) Sookie Stackhouse from The Southern Vampire Series by Charlaine Harris--Sookie, as with all of Charlaine Harris's female protagonists kicks ever so much ass. A lot of the time it is literal ass that is being kicked. Sookie is a bit of a romantic, what with dating a vampire and all, but also does not take crap from anyone. And is the only human who is willing to stand up to the vampires who could rip her face off with no problem. And wouldn't really hesitate to do so. Also, Sookie does not necessarily forgive a guy just because she is "in love". Once mad, she must be convinced otherwise. Also, did I mention that she can kill vampires! Bad. Ass.
9) Any female lead in any Karen Marie Moning book--You probably don't want to encourage young girls to read Moning as she writes romances and they aren't what I would call sweet and innocent. But for older teens/college kids/adults...absolutely. A lot of romance novels have the female be all love struck and weak and lame. But not Karen Marie Moning. Her females are fierce and feisty and kick-ass and always keep the boys in check. Speaking of which, Meg Cabot romance novels have the same sort of leads. Most romance novels that I enjoy have strong female leads.
10) Annie Walker from Covert Affairs--Yeah, there are other books that I could list, but really I think a big shout out needs to be given to Piper Perabo and her portrayal of CIA agent Annie Walker. Walker kicks so much ass it isn't even funny. And she kicks literal ass along with intellectual ass. She is versed in a ridiculous number of languages and is one of the top trainees the CIA has ever had. And she has the ability to be friends with the guys she works with without any of the usual romance that would normally be in a show like that.
Do you have any other books that feature kick-ass chicks? Let me know! I am always in the market for new books that feature strong female characters.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
I occasionally follow internet memes (I just learned the correct pronunciation for this yesterday...not at all like I was saying in my head) and this one is a fit for the blog, so I will follow along with the trend!
Have you read more than 6 of these books? The BBC believes most people will have read only 6 of the 100 books listed here…
Bold those books you’ve read in their entirety. Italicize the ones you started but didn’t finish or read only an excerpt.
1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen
2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien (I read FotR and part of TT)
3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte (I actually want to read this, but haven't gotten around to it yet)
4 Harry Potter series (1-7) - JK Rowling
5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee
6 The Bible - God
7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell
9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman
10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
11 Little Women - Louisa Mae Alcott
12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy
13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
14 Complete Works of Shakespeare (I've read Romeo & Juliet and some of the sonnets)
15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier
16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien (I love the Hobbit!)
17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk
18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger
19 The Time Traveler’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
20 Middlemarch - George Eliot
21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell
22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald
23 Bleak House - Charles Dickens
24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams (I keep trying to read this and have never gotten all the way through...maybe this winter?)
26 Brideshead Revisited – Evelyn Waugh
27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck (I had to read it for a class. I read the cliffnotes!)
29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll (This is stupid because there are two books and neither is called "Alice in Wonderland". I've read Through the Looking Glass but not Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)
30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame
31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens
33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis (Yeah, I know. I've only read the first 3 or so. Sue me)
34 Emma -Jane Austen
35 Persuasion - Jane Austen
36 The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - CS Lewis (Isn't this part of the Chronicles of Narnia? Who made this meme? They did a crap job)
37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres
39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden
40 Winnie the Pooh - A.A. Milne
41 Animal Farm - George Orwell
42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving
45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins
46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery
47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy
48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood
49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding
50 Atonement - Ian McEwan
51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel
52 Dune - Frank Herbert
53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons
54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen
55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth
56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens
58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov
63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt
64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold
65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas
66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac
67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy
68 Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding
69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie
70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville
71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens (Finally a Dickens book that I have read!)
72 Dracula - Bram Stoker
73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett
74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson
75 Ulysses - James Joyce
76 The Inferno - Dante
77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome
78 Germinal - Emile Zola
79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray
80 Possession - AS Byatt
81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens
82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell
83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker
84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro
85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert (Again, I was supposed to read it for a class. I read part of it, but...yeah...kinda boring)
86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry
87 Charlotte’s Web - E.B. White
88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom
89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton
91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad
92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks
94 Watership Down - Richard Adams
95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole
96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute
97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas (I don't think I ever made it through, but I definitely read part)
98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare
99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl
100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo
I've read 20 of the books on the list and partially read 10 others. I feel like that is a suffient representation of my reading. I occasionally read good books, but mostly I read fun things. Just because a book is old doesn't make it a classic (according to Grandma Nancy!) and just because "every has read it" doesn't mean that I should read it or would enjoy it. I should make my own book quiz of 100 books that I think everyone should read and see how people do on that quiz! I think my mom would be the only one who would come close.
Have you read more than 6 of these books? The BBC believes most people will have read only 6 of the 100 books listed here…
Bold those books you’ve read in their entirety. Italicize the ones you started but didn’t finish or read only an excerpt.
1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen
2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien (I read FotR and part of TT)
3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte (I actually want to read this, but haven't gotten around to it yet)
4 Harry Potter series (1-7) - JK Rowling
5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee
6 The Bible - God
7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell
9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman
10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
11 Little Women - Louisa Mae Alcott
12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy
13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
14 Complete Works of Shakespeare (I've read Romeo & Juliet and some of the sonnets)
15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier
16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien (I love the Hobbit!)
17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk
18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger
19 The Time Traveler’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
20 Middlemarch - George Eliot
21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell
22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald
23 Bleak House - Charles Dickens
24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams (I keep trying to read this and have never gotten all the way through...maybe this winter?)
26 Brideshead Revisited – Evelyn Waugh
27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck (I had to read it for a class. I read the cliffnotes!)
29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll (This is stupid because there are two books and neither is called "Alice in Wonderland". I've read Through the Looking Glass but not Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)
30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame
31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens
33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis (Yeah, I know. I've only read the first 3 or so. Sue me)
34 Emma -Jane Austen
35 Persuasion - Jane Austen
36 The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - CS Lewis (Isn't this part of the Chronicles of Narnia? Who made this meme? They did a crap job)
37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres
39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden
40 Winnie the Pooh - A.A. Milne
41 Animal Farm - George Orwell
42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving
45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins
46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery
47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy
48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood
49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding
50 Atonement - Ian McEwan
51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel
52 Dune - Frank Herbert
53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons
54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen
55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth
56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens
58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov
63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt
64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold
65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas
66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac
67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy
68 Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding
69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie
70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville
71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens (Finally a Dickens book that I have read!)
72 Dracula - Bram Stoker
73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett
74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson
75 Ulysses - James Joyce
76 The Inferno - Dante
77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome
78 Germinal - Emile Zola
79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray
80 Possession - AS Byatt
81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens
82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell
83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker
84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro
85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert (Again, I was supposed to read it for a class. I read part of it, but...yeah...kinda boring)
86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry
87 Charlotte’s Web - E.B. White
88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom
89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton
91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad
92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks
94 Watership Down - Richard Adams
95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole
96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute
97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas (I don't think I ever made it through, but I definitely read part)
98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare
99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl
100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo
I've read 20 of the books on the list and partially read 10 others. I feel like that is a suffient representation of my reading. I occasionally read good books, but mostly I read fun things. Just because a book is old doesn't make it a classic (according to Grandma Nancy!) and just because "every has read it" doesn't mean that I should read it or would enjoy it. I should make my own book quiz of 100 books that I think everyone should read and see how people do on that quiz! I think my mom would be the only one who would come close.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Thanksgiving Reading Redux
My main Thanksgiving break task was reading. And I got quite a bit done, though not as much as I would have liked as I got sidetracked by watching many many episodes of Eureka. But I still finished one book I was in the middle of and read two other books and started a new book. So overall, pretty successful! So, what did I read...
The Spellmans Strike Again by Lisa Lutz
I don't think I'm talking much about the Spellman books, but this is the fourth (and last so far! Lisa Lutz needs to write more!) and it is just as excellent as the previous three books. The Spellmans are a family of PIs, including Olivia and Albert, the parents, Izzy, the 30 something (mostly) former delinquent and main character, Rae, the youngest and most devious, and David, the oldest child who used to be a lawyer. As you can imagine, growing up in a house where there is no privacy makes the whole family a little nutty. If you like mysteries and unconventionally written books, you will like the Spellman books. The stories are told by Izzy, who does not ever start a story at the beginning and are a combination of Izzy narrated plot and transcriptions of recorded conversations. My favorite thing about all the books as a whole is the way that Izzy evolves and interacts with side characters. It is fun to try to figure out what is going on, but I am never right! A mystery until the end.
The Outcasts of 19 Schuyler Place by E.L. Konigsburg
Technically E.L. Konigsburg is a children's author, but I find that distinction particularly unfortunate for any adult unwilling to read kid's books because her books are always amazing. I can't really describe the plot because it would take pretty much the same length as the book. But the main character is Margaret Kane Rose, 12 years old, and the story follows a particular summer. This book kind of follows a normal time line, but with a lot of flashbacks and side stories. I am just in love with the way E.L. Konigsburg writes and the story was very much a story than anyone can relate to. Also, it was a nice, easy book to read over the weekend.
The Undomestic Goddess by Sophie Kinsella
I love Sophie Kinsella! Ok, to be fair, I've only read two of her books. But I loved them both. The Undomestic Goddess follows Samantha, a lawyer, who makes one mistake (a 50 million pound [British book] mistake) which ruins her life. She accidentally becomes a housekeeper, which starts to change how she views herself and life. It sounds inspirational, but mostly it is just fun and funny and cute. And for Chick Lit, has very little to do with any of the chick lit standards...shoes, guys, shopping, makeup, clothes. It is mostly about a woman who is lost in life who finds her way through her job. Obviously there is a hunky guy, but he seems almost secondary to everything else going on. If you have read much chick lit or romance it is usually that the chick and the dude are attracted, but hate each other and end up together or they get together and something tears them apart and then they end up together at the end anything. But in this one, there is none of that. It is a healthy relationship for the most part and would probably have worked out even better if Sam were just a bit more open.Sophie Kinsella writes very real characters. And while they are definitely the light, fluffy chick lit I know and love, the characters seem very real and make mistakes just like any normal person would. None of her characters seem stupid or forced or act in a way contrary to what I think they should. I thing Kinsella, Jennifer Cruise, and Meg Cabot are all vying for the top spot in my chick lit queue.
Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins
I finally started reading the second in the Hunger Games Trilogy. It took far too long. When I finished The Hunger Games, I thought I would jump right into Catching Fire, but I had trouble getting started. I think part of it was that I was not ready to read another book where everybody dies and everything is unhappy. But also, I knew that the moment I started reading I would want to finish and I've had very little straight reading time. So I started it Sunday night, which sucks because I don't always have time to read during the week. But I wanted to get into it. My biggest problem right now is that I read The Hunger Games a while ago and I read it really fast so I have forgotten a few things and feel slightly lost. I am going to read up on the first book today so that I am refreshed, but that is hard to do without getting any spoilers for the next two books.
I am also still reading The Historian, but it takes me forever because it is too heavy to read before bed and I often don't make time to read in the afternoons. Maybe next weekend I can carve out some time for vampire book reading. Seems appropriate now that it is starting to turn into winter.
The Spellmans Strike Again by Lisa Lutz
I don't think I'm talking much about the Spellman books, but this is the fourth (and last so far! Lisa Lutz needs to write more!) and it is just as excellent as the previous three books. The Spellmans are a family of PIs, including Olivia and Albert, the parents, Izzy, the 30 something (mostly) former delinquent and main character, Rae, the youngest and most devious, and David, the oldest child who used to be a lawyer. As you can imagine, growing up in a house where there is no privacy makes the whole family a little nutty. If you like mysteries and unconventionally written books, you will like the Spellman books. The stories are told by Izzy, who does not ever start a story at the beginning and are a combination of Izzy narrated plot and transcriptions of recorded conversations. My favorite thing about all the books as a whole is the way that Izzy evolves and interacts with side characters. It is fun to try to figure out what is going on, but I am never right! A mystery until the end.
The Outcasts of 19 Schuyler Place by E.L. Konigsburg
Technically E.L. Konigsburg is a children's author, but I find that distinction particularly unfortunate for any adult unwilling to read kid's books because her books are always amazing. I can't really describe the plot because it would take pretty much the same length as the book. But the main character is Margaret Kane Rose, 12 years old, and the story follows a particular summer. This book kind of follows a normal time line, but with a lot of flashbacks and side stories. I am just in love with the way E.L. Konigsburg writes and the story was very much a story than anyone can relate to. Also, it was a nice, easy book to read over the weekend.
The Undomestic Goddess by Sophie Kinsella
I love Sophie Kinsella! Ok, to be fair, I've only read two of her books. But I loved them both. The Undomestic Goddess follows Samantha, a lawyer, who makes one mistake (a 50 million pound [British book] mistake) which ruins her life. She accidentally becomes a housekeeper, which starts to change how she views herself and life. It sounds inspirational, but mostly it is just fun and funny and cute. And for Chick Lit, has very little to do with any of the chick lit standards...shoes, guys, shopping, makeup, clothes. It is mostly about a woman who is lost in life who finds her way through her job. Obviously there is a hunky guy, but he seems almost secondary to everything else going on. If you have read much chick lit or romance it is usually that the chick and the dude are attracted, but hate each other and end up together or they get together and something tears them apart and then they end up together at the end anything. But in this one, there is none of that. It is a healthy relationship for the most part and would probably have worked out even better if Sam were just a bit more open.Sophie Kinsella writes very real characters. And while they are definitely the light, fluffy chick lit I know and love, the characters seem very real and make mistakes just like any normal person would. None of her characters seem stupid or forced or act in a way contrary to what I think they should. I thing Kinsella, Jennifer Cruise, and Meg Cabot are all vying for the top spot in my chick lit queue.
Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins
I finally started reading the second in the Hunger Games Trilogy. It took far too long. When I finished The Hunger Games, I thought I would jump right into Catching Fire, but I had trouble getting started. I think part of it was that I was not ready to read another book where everybody dies and everything is unhappy. But also, I knew that the moment I started reading I would want to finish and I've had very little straight reading time. So I started it Sunday night, which sucks because I don't always have time to read during the week. But I wanted to get into it. My biggest problem right now is that I read The Hunger Games a while ago and I read it really fast so I have forgotten a few things and feel slightly lost. I am going to read up on the first book today so that I am refreshed, but that is hard to do without getting any spoilers for the next two books.
I am also still reading The Historian, but it takes me forever because it is too heavy to read before bed and I often don't make time to read in the afternoons. Maybe next weekend I can carve out some time for vampire book reading. Seems appropriate now that it is starting to turn into winter.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
I Won NaNoWriMo!
So, I did it! I won National Novel Writing Month! It was a grueling 29 days (I finished a day early! Woot!) but I made it through, and I learned a lot about myself and really rediscovered the joy of writing.The most important thing I learned during NaNoWriMo was that I could actually do it - I could actually write a story that had a plot, characters, etc., and I could see it through to the end. My story is not terribly good - I am going to have to do a lot of editing to make it even semi readable, and I will have to do a shit ton of editing to the already edited story to have a prayer of getting it published. And even then it's pretty hit and miss. The truth is, this story may or may not ever see publication. But it was important to show myself that I really, honestly have the time and the drive to see writing a story through to the end - something I had never done before. I have started dozens of stories and come back to them occasionally, but I have never seen any through to the end. I love that NaNoWriMo showed me that I can actually do it, and hopefully gave me the confidence boost to write another story, and another story, and another story until I hit on something that I can publish and, hopefully, make a bazillion dollars on. (I aspire to be nothing less than the next J.K. Rowling, of course! *wink*)
The other thing that NaNoWriMo showed me was just how much I love to write and create stories. I used to write little stories in elementary school classes, and I come up with little scenarios and stories in my head all the time. I did really well on the writing portions of our state's standardized tests because I was, and am, a quick writer with a lot of stories rolling around in my head. My creative writing fell by the wayside in high school (because I poured my creativity into music and had a lot of activities), stayed by the wayside in college largely (too much homework) and stayed back in my first few years of my newspaper career (because I was writing all day for work and didn't want to write when I got home. Also, I started dating my now-husband and that took up some precious time!). But when I switched to being an editor earlier this year and stopped doing a lot of actual writing for the newspaper, it seemed like the perfect time to get back into creative writing. And it's largely been wonderful. I love the thrill of coming up with an inspired piece of dialogue or writing a great scene. I love it when the plot comes together, or when I start to really get a feel for a character.
It's not all fun and games, though. In my NaNoWriMo piece, my plot got off the rails several times. I doubted myself and my story a lot. I wasn't sure, and I'm still not sure, that I have something that anybody will ever enjoy reading. And it was tough to make myself write every day. Some days were easy, but a lot of days were really tough. I had to force myself to leave the comfort of my couch and the entertainment of my TV to go spend a couple of hours sitting in Starbucks, trying to figure out what was going to happen next in my book. But I also must say that after every single time I wrote another chunk of my book, I was excited to see how much more I had written. It was even better on the days that I actually liked what I wrote!
NaNoWriMo made me realize that writing fiction is something I really want to do. I know that it's that way for a lot of people - there are thousands of aspiring novelists out there - but after seeing how NaNoWriMo went, I have made getting a book published my goal.
For now, I'm planning on taking a little weeklong break to relax and recuperate from the craziness that was writing 50,000 words in one month. I actually started reading a book today - "The Hunger Games" (I'm already hooked). I hadn't read much of anything in a month, which is practically unprecedented for me! I'm also going to catch up on the online class I'm taking, maybe catch up on some long-neglected housework, decorate for Christmas. But then, starting next week, I'm going to be back in the grind. I plan to print out my novel and start reading through it with a red pen, aggressively editing. I also think I'm going to either pick up an old story I started or start working on a new one before I get back out of the habit of writing. The pace won't be as frantic, so I might actually even be able to update this blog once in a while!
Anyway ... in conclusion, if you think you might want to be a writer, I highly suggest NaNoWriMo as a way to get yourself into the writing habit. And if any published writer happens to stumble across this blog ... any tips on editing and getting published would be VERY appreciated!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Chick Lit!
I was going to write a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, but as I am not great about reviewing things, especially without spoilers, I won't. There are approximately 87 billion reviews out there, so read one (or 8) of those.
Instead, I am going to blog about Chick Lit! Yes, Jenny and I have blogged about it before, but I am going to discuss it again because I like to read Chick Lit and I am not ashamed to admit it. This week when I went to the library I checked out The Spellmans Strike Again by Lisa Lutz, Our Lady of Immaculate Deception by Nancy Martin, and Undomesticated Goddess by Sophie Kinsella. Now, the first two books fall firmly into the category of Mystery, but they are still Chick Lit-y. And Sophie Kinsella is textbook Chick Lit. I felt like such a girl for my book selections. Especially because I usually balance my Chick Lit with Fantasy, YA, and Thriller. But not this week. And not last week either. And not really for the past month or so. I've read some YA, but mostly chick lit and chick lit mysteries. Nancy Martin is specifically my favorite category of book right now. Definitely a murder mystery book where the heroine solves the case, but a lot of relationship/guy drama thrown in. I would still read about the characters even if there were no murder. Joanne Fluke is the same way, but she hasn't had a new book out in a while and I have read all of her stuff. Lisa Lutz is really not chick lit, but it kinda feels like a chick lit. That kind of fun, no thinking, crazy things happen to her type book, but with a main character who is like the anti-heroine of a chick lit book. It definitely has aspects of chick lit though with an unmarried 30 something woman whose mother keeps setting her up on blind dates. Fun times ensue!
But anyway, I have been all about girly novels lately. I try not to analyze my reading too much, but I find that I read in trends. I think the chick lit is backlash from a few months back when I was reading pretty much exclusively dystopic novels. I read Remember Me? by Sophie Kinsella a couple weeks ago (I meant to review it for this blog, but apparently didn't. Maybe after I read Undomesticated Goddess I'll review both) and really got hooked on the genre again. It is kinda funny (to me) that I read chick lit because if you know me in real life, I am practically the embodiment of anti-chick lit. I hate shopping, don't obsess over having/getting/keeping/wanting a boyfriend, don't wear makeup, rarely wear dresses, etc. Any stereotypical chick lit heroine character trait, I don't have (except for shoes...I love hot shoes). I suspect that is why I like chick lit...it is opposite of what I am. It is a get away. A chance to live in the world of shopping and guys and shoes and fabulousness without any of the work or the money or the time involved.
Also, chick lit seems ideal cold fall day reading. What could be better than to lay on my couch, wrap up in a blanket, drink some hot chocolate, and read a book that takes zero brain power? Nothing is the answer you were looking for. In the winter I get bleak and boring so I can tackle dystopias and long, complicated novels. But in the fall, just getting into the cold, it is best to just shut off the brain and relax with an entertaining book.
Just as a side note, if I actually decide to review things I read, I should have lots of posts next week as I am planning a solid two days of reading this weekend. I should be able to get through at least 3 or 4 books as what I have is all chick lit and YA. Yay for slacker reading!
Instead, I am going to blog about Chick Lit! Yes, Jenny and I have blogged about it before, but I am going to discuss it again because I like to read Chick Lit and I am not ashamed to admit it. This week when I went to the library I checked out The Spellmans Strike Again by Lisa Lutz, Our Lady of Immaculate Deception by Nancy Martin, and Undomesticated Goddess by Sophie Kinsella. Now, the first two books fall firmly into the category of Mystery, but they are still Chick Lit-y. And Sophie Kinsella is textbook Chick Lit. I felt like such a girl for my book selections. Especially because I usually balance my Chick Lit with Fantasy, YA, and Thriller. But not this week. And not last week either. And not really for the past month or so. I've read some YA, but mostly chick lit and chick lit mysteries. Nancy Martin is specifically my favorite category of book right now. Definitely a murder mystery book where the heroine solves the case, but a lot of relationship/guy drama thrown in. I would still read about the characters even if there were no murder. Joanne Fluke is the same way, but she hasn't had a new book out in a while and I have read all of her stuff. Lisa Lutz is really not chick lit, but it kinda feels like a chick lit. That kind of fun, no thinking, crazy things happen to her type book, but with a main character who is like the anti-heroine of a chick lit book. It definitely has aspects of chick lit though with an unmarried 30 something woman whose mother keeps setting her up on blind dates. Fun times ensue!
But anyway, I have been all about girly novels lately. I try not to analyze my reading too much, but I find that I read in trends. I think the chick lit is backlash from a few months back when I was reading pretty much exclusively dystopic novels. I read Remember Me? by Sophie Kinsella a couple weeks ago (I meant to review it for this blog, but apparently didn't. Maybe after I read Undomesticated Goddess I'll review both) and really got hooked on the genre again. It is kinda funny (to me) that I read chick lit because if you know me in real life, I am practically the embodiment of anti-chick lit. I hate shopping, don't obsess over having/getting/keeping/wanting a boyfriend, don't wear makeup, rarely wear dresses, etc. Any stereotypical chick lit heroine character trait, I don't have (except for shoes...I love hot shoes). I suspect that is why I like chick lit...it is opposite of what I am. It is a get away. A chance to live in the world of shopping and guys and shoes and fabulousness without any of the work or the money or the time involved.
Also, chick lit seems ideal cold fall day reading. What could be better than to lay on my couch, wrap up in a blanket, drink some hot chocolate, and read a book that takes zero brain power? Nothing is the answer you were looking for. In the winter I get bleak and boring so I can tackle dystopias and long, complicated novels. But in the fall, just getting into the cold, it is best to just shut off the brain and relax with an entertaining book.
Just as a side note, if I actually decide to review things I read, I should have lots of posts next week as I am planning a solid two days of reading this weekend. I should be able to get through at least 3 or 4 books as what I have is all chick lit and YA. Yay for slacker reading!
Friday, November 19, 2010
Ranking Harry Potter pt. 2 & 3: The Movies and the Characters
I'm going to try to rank the movies, though I don't have much of reasoning for any of the rankings. I am finding the movies harder to rank than the books for some reason. But alas, I shall press on:
1) Order of the Phoenix: I get so annoyed with Harry, but the battle at the ministry totally makes up for it. Also, Umbridge!
2) Half-Blood Prince: Lavendar and Ron! I mean, I laughed to tears with that. And the slug club stuff. Genius. And it was the first movie that had really good Quidditch. I also absolutely love love love Cormac McLaggen! And the friendship between Harry and Hermione. Crap, this one should be number 1, except there is something that I just adore about OotP.
3) Goblet of Fire: First movie that I thought Daniel Radcliffe did a really good job in. And again, Cedrid Diggory and Victor Krum! You can't go wrong. And the end is crazy awesome. And it has David Tennant! So great.
4) Prisoner of Azkaban: This is visually my favorite movie, but I really did not like the casting for Lupin. He was nothing like in my head. Wah wah!
5) Chamber of Secrets & Sorcerers Stone: So, I am cheating on this one because I literally cannot decide which is my least favorite. SS brought it all to life, but the first time I saw CoS was the most fun viewing due to going with a giant group of friends. They both have a special place in my heart, but both are not super fabulous movies.
And now onto ranking my favorite characters from the books. I'm not going to do all the characters because that would take for-freakin'-ever. But I will list out my favorites and my reasons why (if I do, in fact, have good reasons for liking them).
1) Fred Weasley: He is the loud twin, the one who is willing to run with any plan. George is the one who is the brains behind it all, but Fred is the one out there acting on it. I fell in love with him for how he asked Angelina to the Yule Ball.
2) Severus Snape: How can you not like a tortured baddie? I mean, sure, he is really really mean to Harry, Ron, and Hermione, but in the best possible way from a story point of view. He is probably the most complex character in the series.
3) Draco Malfoy: What can I say? I love me some evil! I like his journey through the series and where he ends up. He is mean and evil, but also scared. So much fun.
4) Hermione: I am Hermione. The end.
5) Dolores Umbridge: Dude, she is just so bad and crazy. It is an ideal combination for a story.
6) Ginny Weasley: I like that Ginny is a complete, 100% badass. She is an awesome fighter, sticks up for herself, doesn't take crap from anybody, and is a nice person. What isn't to like?
7) Luna Lovegood/Neville Longbottom: I really like the quirky underdog. They are both rather odd and outside the norm, but really come into their own in the last book.
8) Dean Thomas/Seamus Finnigan: I like the background characters. They are such an amusing pair. I get so annoyed with Seamus in OotP when he is a dick to Harry, but then he comes around. And Dean really gets a nice showcase in DH.
9) Reamus Lupin: He is the one kind of stable adult figure in Harry's life. Sure, he's a werewolf, but he is also an incredible teacher and gives Harry good advice. He also does a good job of defusing Sirius.
10) Cedric Diggory: Every time I read GoF, I fall in love. Every time I read GoF, my heart is broken when he dies. He is just a nice guy and tries to do the right thing.
Honorable Mentions: Molly & Arthur Weasley, The Dursleys, The Marauders when they were at Hogwarts, The Weasley Twins & Lee Jordan, Barty Crouch, Jr. & Mad-eye Moody (they are kinda the same person, but on either side of the evil/not-evil scale), Lavendar Brown, Ron Weasley (except in GoF and parts of DH), Argus Finch, Gilderoy Lockhart, Tom Riddle (in the diary), Dobby, Hagrid, Cormac McLaggen and Oliver Wood.
1) Order of the Phoenix: I get so annoyed with Harry, but the battle at the ministry totally makes up for it. Also, Umbridge!
2) Half-Blood Prince: Lavendar and Ron! I mean, I laughed to tears with that. And the slug club stuff. Genius. And it was the first movie that had really good Quidditch. I also absolutely love love love Cormac McLaggen! And the friendship between Harry and Hermione. Crap, this one should be number 1, except there is something that I just adore about OotP.
3) Goblet of Fire: First movie that I thought Daniel Radcliffe did a really good job in. And again, Cedrid Diggory and Victor Krum! You can't go wrong. And the end is crazy awesome. And it has David Tennant! So great.
4) Prisoner of Azkaban: This is visually my favorite movie, but I really did not like the casting for Lupin. He was nothing like in my head. Wah wah!
5) Chamber of Secrets & Sorcerers Stone: So, I am cheating on this one because I literally cannot decide which is my least favorite. SS brought it all to life, but the first time I saw CoS was the most fun viewing due to going with a giant group of friends. They both have a special place in my heart, but both are not super fabulous movies.
And now onto ranking my favorite characters from the books. I'm not going to do all the characters because that would take for-freakin'-ever. But I will list out my favorites and my reasons why (if I do, in fact, have good reasons for liking them).
1) Fred Weasley: He is the loud twin, the one who is willing to run with any plan. George is the one who is the brains behind it all, but Fred is the one out there acting on it. I fell in love with him for how he asked Angelina to the Yule Ball.
2) Severus Snape: How can you not like a tortured baddie? I mean, sure, he is really really mean to Harry, Ron, and Hermione, but in the best possible way from a story point of view. He is probably the most complex character in the series.
3) Draco Malfoy: What can I say? I love me some evil! I like his journey through the series and where he ends up. He is mean and evil, but also scared. So much fun.
4) Hermione: I am Hermione. The end.
5) Dolores Umbridge: Dude, she is just so bad and crazy. It is an ideal combination for a story.
6) Ginny Weasley: I like that Ginny is a complete, 100% badass. She is an awesome fighter, sticks up for herself, doesn't take crap from anybody, and is a nice person. What isn't to like?
7) Luna Lovegood/Neville Longbottom: I really like the quirky underdog. They are both rather odd and outside the norm, but really come into their own in the last book.
8) Dean Thomas/Seamus Finnigan: I like the background characters. They are such an amusing pair. I get so annoyed with Seamus in OotP when he is a dick to Harry, but then he comes around. And Dean really gets a nice showcase in DH.
9) Reamus Lupin: He is the one kind of stable adult figure in Harry's life. Sure, he's a werewolf, but he is also an incredible teacher and gives Harry good advice. He also does a good job of defusing Sirius.
10) Cedric Diggory: Every time I read GoF, I fall in love. Every time I read GoF, my heart is broken when he dies. He is just a nice guy and tries to do the right thing.
Honorable Mentions: Molly & Arthur Weasley, The Dursleys, The Marauders when they were at Hogwarts, The Weasley Twins & Lee Jordan, Barty Crouch, Jr. & Mad-eye Moody (they are kinda the same person, but on either side of the evil/not-evil scale), Lavendar Brown, Ron Weasley (except in GoF and parts of DH), Argus Finch, Gilderoy Lockhart, Tom Riddle (in the diary), Dobby, Hagrid, Cormac McLaggen and Oliver Wood.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Ranking Harry Potter: The Books
In honor of the first part of the last installment of the Harry Potter movies opening this week, I decided that I would write about Harry Potter, specifically ranking the books in order of my love for them.
It is interesting to try to rank the segments of a series as each book builds upon the ones that came before it and set up those that come after it. But I still find myself drawn to certain books more than others, though there are also sequences and storylines in certain books that I love, even if the book itself is not my favorite. Oh, and I'm going to rank from top to bottom, just because.
1) Prisoner of Azkaban: It is weird to me that my favorite book in the series is the one that has the least to do with Voldemort, the main bad guy. I really enjoy PoA for a couple main reasons. First, I really love Lupin. As a teacher, as an old friend of James, as a mentor to Harry. He just rocks. I also love Sirius a whole lot. He is such an interesting character with his tourtured past. PoA also has all the timeturner stuff and Buckbeak, not to mention the epicness of the Shrieking Shack scene. I feel like you just learn so much backstory that it becomes one of the most important novels without really having much to do with the overall Harry vs. voldemort story arch.
2) Order of the Phoenix: You get Luna, lots of Weasley twin action, giant battle at the Ministry, and Umbridge. I mean, Dolores Umbridge is one of the most amazing characters in a book ever. She isn't evil, but she is definitely not good. She is just...bad. Pure bad. I love how all the teachers revolt against her. And then you get the battle at the end, with Bellatrix and Lucius and Voldemort himself. It cements the friendships of Luna, Neville, and Ginny with the main three but also answers some of the big questions about why it is Harry that is chosen. And there is major drama when Sirius gets killed! Now, while I super love a bunch of the stuff in OotP, it also has one of my least favorite storylines ever: Hagrid's half brother. I just don't care. It doesn't add a lot to the story and I find the chapter about Hagrid's saga boring.
3) Goblet of Fire: As I write this I am tempted to switch my ordering to say that GoF is number 2 and OotP is number 3, but I think I will stick with my original thought. I love the Tri-Wizard Tournament. I think it is a really nice way to introduce the other schools into the story. And as a girl who relates closely to Hermione, it is nice for her to get a little action with Victor Krum! I also absolutely love GoF because I did not see the Mad-eye Moody/Barty Crouch, Jr. thing coming at all. At all! It is a rare book that can completely catch me off guard. Also, GoF was the first time you get to see Voldemort as Voldemort. So dramatic! Also, I love Cedric Diggory. Every time I reread GoF I fall in love with him and them am sad when he dies. Wah wah!
4) Sorcerers Stone: I gotta go with the original for my next favorite. It was a tight race between this one and Deathly Hallows. But I have a very special place in my heart for the first HP book I read. My sister and I got the first two books for Christmas one year and I remember sitting and reading the first book super fast and dying to read more. The world that JK Rowling created came alive from page 1.
5) Deathly Hallows: Again, I almost had this one position higher because I really love the end of the series. Deathly Hallows is so full of mystery and lore and danger and drama! The way that everything came together at the end was incredible. Pretty much every character you could possibly think of makes an appearance and they all battle like crazy. It is an emotional book and the only one that almost made me cry (which does not happen often). Also, the end battle with Harry sacrificing himself is powerful. I cannot wait to see this all on screen!
6) Half-Blood Prince: I love Half-Blood Prince, but I feel like it mainly works as the set up for Deathly Hallows. Also, I love Draco so I hate to see his downward spiral. What I love the most about HBP is all of the Horocrux lessons. But again, most of that just sets up DH. I do so love Ron dating Lavendar, though.
7) Chamber of Secrets: Poor Chamber of Secrets. It is always at the bottom of my list. Wah wah. That isn't to say that I don't like CoS; I just don't like it as much as I like all the other books in the series. See, that still sounds worse than it is. Because I love CoS. I think all of the Tom Riddle stuff is super interesting and has a nice payoff in the later books. And no one beats Gilderoy Lockhart! I mean, come on! But when it comes between the first book and my favorite book, CoS ends up being overlooked.
So, what are your ranks for the books? What is your favorite? What is your not-as-favorite? Any parts of the books you wish weren't in there?
It is interesting to try to rank the segments of a series as each book builds upon the ones that came before it and set up those that come after it. But I still find myself drawn to certain books more than others, though there are also sequences and storylines in certain books that I love, even if the book itself is not my favorite. Oh, and I'm going to rank from top to bottom, just because.
1) Prisoner of Azkaban: It is weird to me that my favorite book in the series is the one that has the least to do with Voldemort, the main bad guy. I really enjoy PoA for a couple main reasons. First, I really love Lupin. As a teacher, as an old friend of James, as a mentor to Harry. He just rocks. I also love Sirius a whole lot. He is such an interesting character with his tourtured past. PoA also has all the timeturner stuff and Buckbeak, not to mention the epicness of the Shrieking Shack scene. I feel like you just learn so much backstory that it becomes one of the most important novels without really having much to do with the overall Harry vs. voldemort story arch.
2) Order of the Phoenix: You get Luna, lots of Weasley twin action, giant battle at the Ministry, and Umbridge. I mean, Dolores Umbridge is one of the most amazing characters in a book ever. She isn't evil, but she is definitely not good. She is just...bad. Pure bad. I love how all the teachers revolt against her. And then you get the battle at the end, with Bellatrix and Lucius and Voldemort himself. It cements the friendships of Luna, Neville, and Ginny with the main three but also answers some of the big questions about why it is Harry that is chosen. And there is major drama when Sirius gets killed! Now, while I super love a bunch of the stuff in OotP, it also has one of my least favorite storylines ever: Hagrid's half brother. I just don't care. It doesn't add a lot to the story and I find the chapter about Hagrid's saga boring.
3) Goblet of Fire: As I write this I am tempted to switch my ordering to say that GoF is number 2 and OotP is number 3, but I think I will stick with my original thought. I love the Tri-Wizard Tournament. I think it is a really nice way to introduce the other schools into the story. And as a girl who relates closely to Hermione, it is nice for her to get a little action with Victor Krum! I also absolutely love GoF because I did not see the Mad-eye Moody/Barty Crouch, Jr. thing coming at all. At all! It is a rare book that can completely catch me off guard. Also, GoF was the first time you get to see Voldemort as Voldemort. So dramatic! Also, I love Cedric Diggory. Every time I reread GoF I fall in love with him and them am sad when he dies. Wah wah!
4) Sorcerers Stone: I gotta go with the original for my next favorite. It was a tight race between this one and Deathly Hallows. But I have a very special place in my heart for the first HP book I read. My sister and I got the first two books for Christmas one year and I remember sitting and reading the first book super fast and dying to read more. The world that JK Rowling created came alive from page 1.
5) Deathly Hallows: Again, I almost had this one position higher because I really love the end of the series. Deathly Hallows is so full of mystery and lore and danger and drama! The way that everything came together at the end was incredible. Pretty much every character you could possibly think of makes an appearance and they all battle like crazy. It is an emotional book and the only one that almost made me cry (which does not happen often). Also, the end battle with Harry sacrificing himself is powerful. I cannot wait to see this all on screen!
6) Half-Blood Prince: I love Half-Blood Prince, but I feel like it mainly works as the set up for Deathly Hallows. Also, I love Draco so I hate to see his downward spiral. What I love the most about HBP is all of the Horocrux lessons. But again, most of that just sets up DH. I do so love Ron dating Lavendar, though.
7) Chamber of Secrets: Poor Chamber of Secrets. It is always at the bottom of my list. Wah wah. That isn't to say that I don't like CoS; I just don't like it as much as I like all the other books in the series. See, that still sounds worse than it is. Because I love CoS. I think all of the Tom Riddle stuff is super interesting and has a nice payoff in the later books. And no one beats Gilderoy Lockhart! I mean, come on! But when it comes between the first book and my favorite book, CoS ends up being overlooked.
So, what are your ranks for the books? What is your favorite? What is your not-as-favorite? Any parts of the books you wish weren't in there?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Plot Holes!
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/11/top-10-movie-plot-holes-you-probably-never-noticed-before/
I love movie plot holes. And book plot holes. Because 1) they are usually not plot holes so much as literary devices to make the story interesting and 2) they are fun to debate with friends. There are three wired.com articles about plot holes, or unanswered questions as they sometimes call them, Some of which I can debate for days and some of which I've never seen the movie for and don't care. Since this is a book blog and not a nerdy Star Wars blog, I will not debate the Star Wars plot holes, not that I could as I do not have the extensive knowledge of some other people I am related to *cough*Jenny*cough*. I want to discuss the Harry Potter plot hole that they mention. This seems rather timely as the new movie comes out this weekend!
The plot hole (in a nutshell): Why did Voldemort/Barty Crouch, Jr. wait until there was a crowd of people to take Harry to the graveyard? Why not do it one of the many times that Harry was alone with "Mad-Eye" Moody, aka Barty Crouch, Jr.? Also, why is it a two-way portkey when all the other uses of portkeys are only one way? Now, for my responses to the plot hole(s)...
Why didn't Barty Crouch, Jr. take care of Harry at some point during the school year? 1) Voldermort was still getting things around for the caldron bath thing. 2) Since it was a magical ritual, it had to be performed on a specific day/time of year/time of month. 3) Voldemort has a flair for the dramatics and really wanted people to know he was back. What is the fun of being a super villian if you don't get to fight with anyone?
Why is it a two-way portkey? 1) Voldemort was planning on using it to come back to Hogwarts...what better way to get on the grounds than with an already established portkey. I mean, we are assuming that Voldemort did not want people to know he was back. Maybe he made up that excuse when Harry escaped. 2) It was part of the plan to let Harry go back. Again, a villian is not a villian without a good guy to fight. 3) Voldemort was planning on sending Harry back dead. Wouldn't that be a statement! 4) Harry, by way of accident, reversed the portkey...remember, magic always popped up for Harry when he needed it most. 5) Barty Crouch, Jr. made it a two way just in case Harry lived so that he could find out what happened.
All of this is to say that sometimes plot holes are just kind of fun! It allows the reader to think harder about the story and be more creative. But also, it allows the story to happen. Most epic fiction could not happen in real life. If the portkey was only one way, Harry would have died. No more books! Sometimes a plot hole is a plot hole. Sometimes they can be explained away and sometimes you have to just ignore them for the sake of the story.
Do you have any favorite plot holes?
I love movie plot holes. And book plot holes. Because 1) they are usually not plot holes so much as literary devices to make the story interesting and 2) they are fun to debate with friends. There are three wired.com articles about plot holes, or unanswered questions as they sometimes call them, Some of which I can debate for days and some of which I've never seen the movie for and don't care. Since this is a book blog and not a nerdy Star Wars blog, I will not debate the Star Wars plot holes, not that I could as I do not have the extensive knowledge of some other people I am related to *cough*Jenny*cough*. I want to discuss the Harry Potter plot hole that they mention. This seems rather timely as the new movie comes out this weekend!
The plot hole (in a nutshell): Why did Voldemort/Barty Crouch, Jr. wait until there was a crowd of people to take Harry to the graveyard? Why not do it one of the many times that Harry was alone with "Mad-Eye" Moody, aka Barty Crouch, Jr.? Also, why is it a two-way portkey when all the other uses of portkeys are only one way? Now, for my responses to the plot hole(s)...
Why didn't Barty Crouch, Jr. take care of Harry at some point during the school year? 1) Voldermort was still getting things around for the caldron bath thing. 2) Since it was a magical ritual, it had to be performed on a specific day/time of year/time of month. 3) Voldemort has a flair for the dramatics and really wanted people to know he was back. What is the fun of being a super villian if you don't get to fight with anyone?
Why is it a two-way portkey? 1) Voldemort was planning on using it to come back to Hogwarts...what better way to get on the grounds than with an already established portkey. I mean, we are assuming that Voldemort did not want people to know he was back. Maybe he made up that excuse when Harry escaped. 2) It was part of the plan to let Harry go back. Again, a villian is not a villian without a good guy to fight. 3) Voldemort was planning on sending Harry back dead. Wouldn't that be a statement! 4) Harry, by way of accident, reversed the portkey...remember, magic always popped up for Harry when he needed it most. 5) Barty Crouch, Jr. made it a two way just in case Harry lived so that he could find out what happened.
All of this is to say that sometimes plot holes are just kind of fun! It allows the reader to think harder about the story and be more creative. But also, it allows the story to happen. Most epic fiction could not happen in real life. If the portkey was only one way, Harry would have died. No more books! Sometimes a plot hole is a plot hole. Sometimes they can be explained away and sometimes you have to just ignore them for the sake of the story.
Do you have any favorite plot holes?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
What Irony Means:
http://www.hometownglenburnie.com/news/Top_Stories/2010/11/03-34/North+County+High+parents+seek+to+ban+%26%2339%3BBrave+New+World%26%2339%3B%0A.html
Parents trying to ban Brave New World. I've never read Brave New World as I have a slight aversion to "classics" and "must reads" and "omg! everyone NEEDS to read this book!". But doesn't it deal with censorship somewhat. Like, controlling behavior by controlling consumption (if I'm wrong, let me know!). Besides the irony, I have to say, Really? There are still people trying to ban books? Really?
I know I've written about censorship/banning/etc. before, but I'm going to reiterate. The students who are being required to read Brave New World at North County High School are 10th graders in a Science Technology Engineering and Math program. I have no idea what that all means, but I'm guessing it is for advanced kids. Brave New World is also part of the AP English class curriculum. Ok, just to pause for a moments, but the kids who are being exposed to this are at youngest 15. They have their learners permits and have probably seen their fair share of R rated movies. They are at most 3 years from going to college. This is not a question of is a book appropriate for a 12 year old. The average age of the reader is going to be 16 or 17. Anyway, moving on. The parents are concerned with the "explicit sexual content". And apparently the already in place opt-out ability is not enough. That's right, a parent can already keep their sweet little youngster from reading the book. They just can't keep anyone else's hellion from reading it.
Now, I understand parents being active in their kids' lives. I actually consider it a good thing. A great thing, even. But it seems to me that the 250 parents who signed the petition to remove Brave New World from the school are not being active so much as severely overprotecting everyone's kids. Let's break it down with a completely made up example. Mrs. Jones is truly offended that her little Johnny is going to be exposed to Brave New World. She opts him out of reading it. Mrs. Smith thinks that her darling Sarah can read it. Mrs. Jones is so offended by the notion of Sarah reading Brave New World that she starts a petition to remove that book completely from the school, keeping Sarah, who already has permission from her mother to read it, from reading it. Do you see the problem there?
I think the main problem here is not the attempted controlling of other peoples kids. It is the underestimation of high schoolers. For reference, here are some books that I read in high school for a class (the ones I remember):
Freshman Year: The Magnificent Ambersons, Cold Sassy Tree, Romeo & Juliet, Treasure Island, The Odyssey
Sophomore: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Yellow Room, Great Expectations, Candide by Voltaire
Junior: The Sound and the Fury, Catcher in the Rye, Gullivers Travels, Invisible Man
Senior: Lord of the Flies, Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, A Street Car Named Desire, The Grapes of Wrath
I'm sure I read other stuff for class, too (and I definitely read a lot of stuff outside of class), but you get the point. I read some pretty hefty stuff when I was in high school. And only the junior year stuff was for an AP class. I feel like a lot of parents, specifically any parents who try to get books banned, just don't have enough faith in their kids. And sure, there might be someone who isn't prepared to read Brave New World as a Sophomore, but they can opt-out and all the other kids can continue on. Or, here's a radical thought, let Brave New World mature your kid a bit. Sometimes it takes something disturbing in a book to help shape your view of the world. Why is it a bad thing to make teens think or scare them or make them uncomfortable? I scared myself silly with Stephen King books when I started reading them. I was also disturbed by some things in Cold Sassy Tree when I read it as a 14 year old. But it also opened up my mind to a wider world. Sure, Adventures of Huck Finn might make you really squirm with the use of the N word, but it is there for a purpose. It helps you learn and grow.
So, in conclusion...1) parents need to worry about only their kid and leave every other kid alone and 2) parents need to have some more faith in their teenagers' ability to handle a controversial book.
(And no, I'm probably still not going to read Brave New World. Why? Because I just don't care.)
Parents trying to ban Brave New World. I've never read Brave New World as I have a slight aversion to "classics" and "must reads" and "omg! everyone NEEDS to read this book!". But doesn't it deal with censorship somewhat. Like, controlling behavior by controlling consumption (if I'm wrong, let me know!). Besides the irony, I have to say, Really? There are still people trying to ban books? Really?
I know I've written about censorship/banning/etc. before, but I'm going to reiterate. The students who are being required to read Brave New World at North County High School are 10th graders in a Science Technology Engineering and Math program. I have no idea what that all means, but I'm guessing it is for advanced kids. Brave New World is also part of the AP English class curriculum. Ok, just to pause for a moments, but the kids who are being exposed to this are at youngest 15. They have their learners permits and have probably seen their fair share of R rated movies. They are at most 3 years from going to college. This is not a question of is a book appropriate for a 12 year old. The average age of the reader is going to be 16 or 17. Anyway, moving on. The parents are concerned with the "explicit sexual content". And apparently the already in place opt-out ability is not enough. That's right, a parent can already keep their sweet little youngster from reading the book. They just can't keep anyone else's hellion from reading it.
Now, I understand parents being active in their kids' lives. I actually consider it a good thing. A great thing, even. But it seems to me that the 250 parents who signed the petition to remove Brave New World from the school are not being active so much as severely overprotecting everyone's kids. Let's break it down with a completely made up example. Mrs. Jones is truly offended that her little Johnny is going to be exposed to Brave New World. She opts him out of reading it. Mrs. Smith thinks that her darling Sarah can read it. Mrs. Jones is so offended by the notion of Sarah reading Brave New World that she starts a petition to remove that book completely from the school, keeping Sarah, who already has permission from her mother to read it, from reading it. Do you see the problem there?
I think the main problem here is not the attempted controlling of other peoples kids. It is the underestimation of high schoolers. For reference, here are some books that I read in high school for a class (the ones I remember):
Freshman Year: The Magnificent Ambersons, Cold Sassy Tree, Romeo & Juliet, Treasure Island, The Odyssey
Sophomore: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Yellow Room, Great Expectations, Candide by Voltaire
Junior: The Sound and the Fury, Catcher in the Rye, Gullivers Travels, Invisible Man
Senior: Lord of the Flies, Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, A Street Car Named Desire, The Grapes of Wrath
I'm sure I read other stuff for class, too (and I definitely read a lot of stuff outside of class), but you get the point. I read some pretty hefty stuff when I was in high school. And only the junior year stuff was for an AP class. I feel like a lot of parents, specifically any parents who try to get books banned, just don't have enough faith in their kids. And sure, there might be someone who isn't prepared to read Brave New World as a Sophomore, but they can opt-out and all the other kids can continue on. Or, here's a radical thought, let Brave New World mature your kid a bit. Sometimes it takes something disturbing in a book to help shape your view of the world. Why is it a bad thing to make teens think or scare them or make them uncomfortable? I scared myself silly with Stephen King books when I started reading them. I was also disturbed by some things in Cold Sassy Tree when I read it as a 14 year old. But it also opened up my mind to a wider world. Sure, Adventures of Huck Finn might make you really squirm with the use of the N word, but it is there for a purpose. It helps you learn and grow.
So, in conclusion...1) parents need to worry about only their kid and leave every other kid alone and 2) parents need to have some more faith in their teenagers' ability to handle a controversial book.
(And no, I'm probably still not going to read Brave New World. Why? Because I just don't care.)
Saturday, October 30, 2010
My Triumphant Return ... Just in Time for NaNoWriMo
So, if you haven't noticed, I haven't blogged in a while.
Umm ... sorry. It's not that our loyal readers aren't important (Hi mom!), but I have been busy. First, I went on vacation. Then I came home and I've been taking an online class and my husband and I want to eat food every day and, dontcha know, the house doesn't clean itself. And then all the fall TV shows came back into my life and I was distracted by the pretty glowing box with the moving pictures ... and it didn't help that my mean ol' sister got me into four, count 'em, four new TV shows ("Chopped," "Top Chef: Just Desserts," "The Big Bang Theory" and "How I Met Your Mother"). THANKS A LOT, KELLY!
So, now I am finally started to feel like I might be able to carve out a few minutes for blogging (thanks to the fact that "Project Runway" is over, mainly - Mondo was robbed, by the way!) ... but Monday starts National Novel Writing Month. Which means, almost all of my writing skillz will go toward trying to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I have tried this feat and failed several times, but not this year. Oh no. This year I am in a good position. I don't write much for my job anymore, so I will not have writing burn-out. I work an opposite shift from my husband so I won't feel like I'm neglecting him by writing a novel instead of snuggling on the couch with him, playing Halo and Left 4 Dead. And I already told my husband that he has to do all the housework, cooking and grocery shopping during the month of November, since if I finish my totally rockin' novel and sell it and become a millionaire novelist like J.K. Rowling, he will reap the benefits too.
So ... how to keep my Book Tarts blogging up to a level that Kelly won't kick my ass when she comes back for Christmas? Why ... I'll blog about my NaNoWriMo experience! Plus, all of my adoring fans (Hi Mom! Hi Facebook friends who scan my blog entries out of pity!) can keep me on the right path, offering encouragement and threatening to make fun of me mercilessly if I fail. Because, if nothing else, I know Kelly will make fun of me, because that's what sisters do. Mercilessly taunt each other. YAY SISTERLY LOVE!
So, that's what you can expect from me for the next month, because I'm guessing I'm not going to get much reading done.
NaNoWriMo ... here I come!
Umm ... sorry. It's not that our loyal readers aren't important (Hi mom!), but I have been busy. First, I went on vacation. Then I came home and I've been taking an online class and my husband and I want to eat food every day and, dontcha know, the house doesn't clean itself. And then all the fall TV shows came back into my life and I was distracted by the pretty glowing box with the moving pictures ... and it didn't help that my mean ol' sister got me into four, count 'em, four new TV shows ("Chopped," "Top Chef: Just Desserts," "The Big Bang Theory" and "How I Met Your Mother"). THANKS A LOT, KELLY!
So, now I am finally started to feel like I might be able to carve out a few minutes for blogging (thanks to the fact that "Project Runway" is over, mainly - Mondo was robbed, by the way!) ... but Monday starts National Novel Writing Month. Which means, almost all of my writing skillz will go toward trying to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I have tried this feat and failed several times, but not this year. Oh no. This year I am in a good position. I don't write much for my job anymore, so I will not have writing burn-out. I work an opposite shift from my husband so I won't feel like I'm neglecting him by writing a novel instead of snuggling on the couch with him, playing Halo and Left 4 Dead. And I already told my husband that he has to do all the housework, cooking and grocery shopping during the month of November, since if I finish my totally rockin' novel and sell it and become a millionaire novelist like J.K. Rowling, he will reap the benefits too.
So ... how to keep my Book Tarts blogging up to a level that Kelly won't kick my ass when she comes back for Christmas? Why ... I'll blog about my NaNoWriMo experience! Plus, all of my adoring fans (Hi Mom! Hi Facebook friends who scan my blog entries out of pity!) can keep me on the right path, offering encouragement and threatening to make fun of me mercilessly if I fail. Because, if nothing else, I know Kelly will make fun of me, because that's what sisters do. Mercilessly taunt each other. YAY SISTERLY LOVE!
So, that's what you can expect from me for the next month, because I'm guessing I'm not going to get much reading done.
NaNoWriMo ... here I come!
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Buying Books
*I had a brilliantly awesome idea for a blog yesterday...and then I forgot it. So I am posting something I wrote awhile ago*
I'm a librarian. I also enjoy being a library patron. I love to just browse around a library and see what they have, see what strikes me. I enjoy checking out books that I've never heard of, books I've read before, books people have recommended to me, books by authors that I already love. However, I also have a terrible addiction...buying books.
This addiction, it is something that I can't stop. I love book sales, used book stores, regular book stores...anywhere I can buy books. I have certain authors that I will buy any of their books I can find. I have a ton of Stephen King books that I've purchased at book sales and used book stores that I've never read. I have every Meg Cabot book I can find. I own quite a few Michael Crichton books, even though I've only ever read one of his books. I have bought books that I read and enjoyed and then have never reread the books. I just really like owning books.
Now, I don't go all out all the time. If I can get the book at a used book store or a book sale, I do that. I love searching through and finding a book for $.50 that I know I will eventually feel like reading. However, if I really want a book and can't find it for cheap, I'll just go buy it new. I try to get cheaper books. If I can get the book for $8 instead of $13, I will be happy. I went to Borders last night and bought four new books. Two I have read before and two I haven't read. I found five more books that I wanted to buy, but decided not to spend the extra $60 to get them...I do have some self-control.
I am not that crazed about buying tv shows or movies. I mean, sure, I have a ton of dvds. But they were all purchased after some thought (or because they were like $5 and therefore worth an impulse purchase). I don't randomly go to the store to just browse through the dvds and see what strikes me, but I will go to a bookstore and browse just to see what I may want to grab.
Addiction. But I feel like it is a good addiction. It is an intellectual addiction. It is an addiction that can benefit other people, as I enjoy letting people borrow my books. My sister, mom, and I are always sending books back and forth to each other...I currently have some of the Sookie Stackhouse books from my mom, not to mention a ton of Cat Who books and the Nancy Martin books. My sister has my copy of Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman right now.
I think part of my addiction comes from liking to have a complete series of books. It is driving me crazy right now that I don't have all of the Louise Rennison books. Of the series of ten books, I have numbers 1-4, 7, 8, & 10. Gah! Also, my mom sent me the first two Nancy Martin books, which I read and loved. She also then gave me numbers 6 & 7. I had to go out and buy the missing books so that we would have a full collection.
As far of addictions go, I'd say that a book buying addiction is pretty fabulous. And it doesn't really get in the way of checking things out from the library, as I still do that a bunch. And there are books that I want to read, but have no desire to own. Selective addiction, I have.
I'm a librarian. I also enjoy being a library patron. I love to just browse around a library and see what they have, see what strikes me. I enjoy checking out books that I've never heard of, books I've read before, books people have recommended to me, books by authors that I already love. However, I also have a terrible addiction...buying books.
This addiction, it is something that I can't stop. I love book sales, used book stores, regular book stores...anywhere I can buy books. I have certain authors that I will buy any of their books I can find. I have a ton of Stephen King books that I've purchased at book sales and used book stores that I've never read. I have every Meg Cabot book I can find. I own quite a few Michael Crichton books, even though I've only ever read one of his books. I have bought books that I read and enjoyed and then have never reread the books. I just really like owning books.
Now, I don't go all out all the time. If I can get the book at a used book store or a book sale, I do that. I love searching through and finding a book for $.50 that I know I will eventually feel like reading. However, if I really want a book and can't find it for cheap, I'll just go buy it new. I try to get cheaper books. If I can get the book for $8 instead of $13, I will be happy. I went to Borders last night and bought four new books. Two I have read before and two I haven't read. I found five more books that I wanted to buy, but decided not to spend the extra $60 to get them...I do have some self-control.
I am not that crazed about buying tv shows or movies. I mean, sure, I have a ton of dvds. But they were all purchased after some thought (or because they were like $5 and therefore worth an impulse purchase). I don't randomly go to the store to just browse through the dvds and see what strikes me, but I will go to a bookstore and browse just to see what I may want to grab.
Addiction. But I feel like it is a good addiction. It is an intellectual addiction. It is an addiction that can benefit other people, as I enjoy letting people borrow my books. My sister, mom, and I are always sending books back and forth to each other...I currently have some of the Sookie Stackhouse books from my mom, not to mention a ton of Cat Who books and the Nancy Martin books. My sister has my copy of Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman right now.
I think part of my addiction comes from liking to have a complete series of books. It is driving me crazy right now that I don't have all of the Louise Rennison books. Of the series of ten books, I have numbers 1-4, 7, 8, & 10. Gah! Also, my mom sent me the first two Nancy Martin books, which I read and loved. She also then gave me numbers 6 & 7. I had to go out and buy the missing books so that we would have a full collection.
As far of addictions go, I'd say that a book buying addiction is pretty fabulous. And it doesn't really get in the way of checking things out from the library, as I still do that a bunch. And there are books that I want to read, but have no desire to own. Selective addiction, I have.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
My Literary Week in Review
I have been reading more as of late, and reading things that have happy endings instead of the dystopic depressing stuff I had been choosing recently. It is always nice to offset thought-inducing dystopic views with a murder mystery and a romance novel. And that is exactly what I have done as of late. Which brings me to...
If you like romance novels or time travely fantasy and are not opposed to sex scenes, I highly recommend Karen Marie Moning's Highlander series. A while back I read Kiss of the Highlander, the fourth book in the series. It worked very well as a stand alone, as do most of the early books in the series. But now I am reading the Highlander books from the beginning. I just finished Beyond the Highland Mist. It was quite good, though I found myself frustrated with the characters because they were both too stubborn to discuss their real feelings. Gah! But then again, that is part of what made the book super steamy. As the reader, you know what they are both feeling, but they don't know what each other is feeling. Frustrating...but fun! I loved, Adrienne, the heroine of the story. Even though I wanted her to admit her feelings, I kinda dug how much she stuck to her guns and refused to be seduced. I like strong, sassy female characters in romance novels. I found the main man, Hawk, likable, if not exactly someone I would find myself going for were I the heroine. I just really enjoy Moning's writing style, fantasy elements, and humor mixed with the dramatic.
I also read another Blackbird Sister Mystery. I always really enjoy Nancy Martin's books, though I felt slightly not invested in this one, Have Your Cake and Kill Him Too. I love all three Blackbird sisters, despite, or perhaps because of, their unique brand of crazy. I just felt like the book didn't really amp up until toward the end, which once I got within a few chapters from the end I had to finish it despite it being midnight when I had to get up at 6am. Also, there was not a very satisfying relationship aspect to this one. And parts of it felt a bit forced. And my favorite character wasn't in it at all! I still enjoyed it and will read the next one, which will hopefully be back on track.
Another read from this week was Two Blonds, a Sookie Stackhouse short story by Charlaine Harris. I read it all in one sitting, which isn't that impressive since it was a short story. But still. It was super cute. It was nice to have a little bite (haha! clever pun) of the Sookie-verse while waiting for the next book to come out, which is apparently going to be a Sookie Stackhouse companion with a short story, but not a novel! Gah! Need new book! Must find out what happens next! Anyway...Two Blonds was really cute. It was just Sookie and Pam, which is always fun. I love Pam and am glad anytime she and Sookie are together because they are really funny. It was also nice to get back into the book universe as I have just finished watching season three of True Blood. I like both universes, but am terribly partial to the books.
Now, the big question is...what to read next? I am going on vacation starting tomorrow afternoon and need a book for the plane and in the afternoons I will spend sitting by the pool in the hot Florida sun. I had kinda been planning on reading The Historian, but feel like that isn't really a vacation book. I might read the next Blackbird Sister book, but what if I find that I am not crazy about it while on vacation. I need something guaranteed to be good. I recently got a couple Jennifer Crusie books and a book by Sophie Kinsella, so I can always read chick lit. That seems vacationy, right? The Cat Who... books are always good for vacation, but I would have to take quite a few since the read really fast. Oh, the decisions I need to make before tonight. The one nice thing is that I am vacationing with my parents, so I can always trade books with my mom if I finish mine.
If you like romance novels or time travely fantasy and are not opposed to sex scenes, I highly recommend Karen Marie Moning's Highlander series. A while back I read Kiss of the Highlander, the fourth book in the series. It worked very well as a stand alone, as do most of the early books in the series. But now I am reading the Highlander books from the beginning. I just finished Beyond the Highland Mist. It was quite good, though I found myself frustrated with the characters because they were both too stubborn to discuss their real feelings. Gah! But then again, that is part of what made the book super steamy. As the reader, you know what they are both feeling, but they don't know what each other is feeling. Frustrating...but fun! I loved, Adrienne, the heroine of the story. Even though I wanted her to admit her feelings, I kinda dug how much she stuck to her guns and refused to be seduced. I like strong, sassy female characters in romance novels. I found the main man, Hawk, likable, if not exactly someone I would find myself going for were I the heroine. I just really enjoy Moning's writing style, fantasy elements, and humor mixed with the dramatic.
I also read another Blackbird Sister Mystery. I always really enjoy Nancy Martin's books, though I felt slightly not invested in this one, Have Your Cake and Kill Him Too. I love all three Blackbird sisters, despite, or perhaps because of, their unique brand of crazy. I just felt like the book didn't really amp up until toward the end, which once I got within a few chapters from the end I had to finish it despite it being midnight when I had to get up at 6am. Also, there was not a very satisfying relationship aspect to this one. And parts of it felt a bit forced. And my favorite character wasn't in it at all! I still enjoyed it and will read the next one, which will hopefully be back on track.
Another read from this week was Two Blonds, a Sookie Stackhouse short story by Charlaine Harris. I read it all in one sitting, which isn't that impressive since it was a short story. But still. It was super cute. It was nice to have a little bite (haha! clever pun) of the Sookie-verse while waiting for the next book to come out, which is apparently going to be a Sookie Stackhouse companion with a short story, but not a novel! Gah! Need new book! Must find out what happens next! Anyway...Two Blonds was really cute. It was just Sookie and Pam, which is always fun. I love Pam and am glad anytime she and Sookie are together because they are really funny. It was also nice to get back into the book universe as I have just finished watching season three of True Blood. I like both universes, but am terribly partial to the books.
Now, the big question is...what to read next? I am going on vacation starting tomorrow afternoon and need a book for the plane and in the afternoons I will spend sitting by the pool in the hot Florida sun. I had kinda been planning on reading The Historian, but feel like that isn't really a vacation book. I might read the next Blackbird Sister book, but what if I find that I am not crazy about it while on vacation. I need something guaranteed to be good. I recently got a couple Jennifer Crusie books and a book by Sophie Kinsella, so I can always read chick lit. That seems vacationy, right? The Cat Who... books are always good for vacation, but I would have to take quite a few since the read really fast. Oh, the decisions I need to make before tonight. The one nice thing is that I am vacationing with my parents, so I can always trade books with my mom if I finish mine.
ZOMG! Must Read Book of the Century!
Jessa Crispin, the founder of bookslut.com, wrote an article a while back that I found myself in full agreement with. http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article09221001.aspx. If you don't feel like reading the whole article, it is about not reading Freedom by Jonathan Franzen. I have heard a ton about Franzen's latest book. Tons. Way more than I cared to hear. It sparked a debate about Chick Lit. About female writers in general. About book critics. About if a book written in 2010 can be considered "the book of the century". Drama drama drama. I was never planning on reading Freedom. Now that it is in Oprah's book club, I am definitely not reading it. It is nice that I am not the only person who was, is, and shall continue to be ignoring it.
However, this post is not about reading or not reading Franzen. It is about the second part of Crispin's article, the part about must read books. You always hear that there are certain books everyone should read. You have to read Tolkien, Harry Potter, Jane Austen, Tolstoy, Franzen, Twilight, Hunger Games, Hemingway, Mark Twain, etc., etc., etc. I am in agreement with Crispin that there is no such thing as a must read. Why must I read Jane Austen? Who is to say that I will enjoy Pride and Prejudice? Or that I will relate to it at all? Or that I even care? Do I really need to read Hemingway? Really? Who says?
Who decides what books are must reads? I think what you should read depends on what you enjoy. If you are a fan of horror/thriller/mysteries you should probably read Stephen King. But then again, maybe you don't want to and you would rather read Dean Koontz. For me, Stephen King is a must read, but that just means that I must read him, not that you must read him. People are constantly telling others what they should read. It is the whole point of Oprah's Book Club. Here are the books you should read. I've read two books off of the entire list since the book club started and they were both for classes. I don't like reading a book just because it is popular or lots of people read it. You know why? Because I am not lots of people. I have certain tastes that do not necessarily coincide with other peoples' tastes. I enjoy fantasy, romance, mystery, and action. I especially like when they are combined. I love chick lit that has some fantasy and mystery in it, but still has a fight scene. I have a friend who loves fantasy and romance, but doesn't like the action stuff as much, so we have different must read books.
One other reason that I dislike any sort of "must read" "book of the century" "book club" book is that I really don't like people telling me what to do. If you suggest that I may enjoy a book because you know me and know what I like to read, I will probably take your suggestion. If you arbitrarily mandate that everyone must read this book, I will totally avoid that book, even if I may have been planning on reading it anyway. As my sister says, I am contrary.
Next time someone tells you about that Must Read book, go ahead and read it if it sounds like it is something you would enjoy, but don't read it just because someone said to. If you read it due to duty instead of enjoyment you will end up hating it. Just ask any student ever. The majority of books that students are forced to read, they hate. Read things you enjoy and everything else can be read by some other people.
However, this post is not about reading or not reading Franzen. It is about the second part of Crispin's article, the part about must read books. You always hear that there are certain books everyone should read. You have to read Tolkien, Harry Potter, Jane Austen, Tolstoy, Franzen, Twilight, Hunger Games, Hemingway, Mark Twain, etc., etc., etc. I am in agreement with Crispin that there is no such thing as a must read. Why must I read Jane Austen? Who is to say that I will enjoy Pride and Prejudice? Or that I will relate to it at all? Or that I even care? Do I really need to read Hemingway? Really? Who says?
Who decides what books are must reads? I think what you should read depends on what you enjoy. If you are a fan of horror/thriller/mysteries you should probably read Stephen King. But then again, maybe you don't want to and you would rather read Dean Koontz. For me, Stephen King is a must read, but that just means that I must read him, not that you must read him. People are constantly telling others what they should read. It is the whole point of Oprah's Book Club. Here are the books you should read. I've read two books off of the entire list since the book club started and they were both for classes. I don't like reading a book just because it is popular or lots of people read it. You know why? Because I am not lots of people. I have certain tastes that do not necessarily coincide with other peoples' tastes. I enjoy fantasy, romance, mystery, and action. I especially like when they are combined. I love chick lit that has some fantasy and mystery in it, but still has a fight scene. I have a friend who loves fantasy and romance, but doesn't like the action stuff as much, so we have different must read books.
One other reason that I dislike any sort of "must read" "book of the century" "book club" book is that I really don't like people telling me what to do. If you suggest that I may enjoy a book because you know me and know what I like to read, I will probably take your suggestion. If you arbitrarily mandate that everyone must read this book, I will totally avoid that book, even if I may have been planning on reading it anyway. As my sister says, I am contrary.
Next time someone tells you about that Must Read book, go ahead and read it if it sounds like it is something you would enjoy, but don't read it just because someone said to. If you read it due to duty instead of enjoyment you will end up hating it. Just ask any student ever. The majority of books that students are forced to read, they hate. Read things you enjoy and everything else can be read by some other people.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Life and Times of a Kinda, Sorta, Almost Geek
I am a geek and a nerd. If we are good friends, this is not news. If we are just acquaintances/coworkers/friends from a very specific setting you may not know this. Because I am not one to freakishly obsess about one franchise or collect anything or play role playing games or play video games. Pretty much any of the traditional (I was going to say normal, but that didn't really seem to fit with the geek/nerd theme) nerdy things associated with geeks. And yet I am most definitely a geek.
Let me explain. My sister plays D&D, likes video games, can tell you more than you need to know about Star Wars, will argue for hours on why Original Series Star Trek is far superior to any other Star Trek, and has been to multiple sci-fi cons. She is what would be considered a geek. She has a few general nerdy things and a couple things that she completely nerds out with. I don't do any of the really nerdy things and I don't have anything that I completely nerd out with. I am a nerd without a cause. I am too normal to have a geek group, but too geek to really be mainstream. Such a sad, lonely, nerd life I live. Except, not really!
So, without further ado...why I am a geek (and a nerd)
I know more about Star Wars than most normal people. That's right. I can quote the original trilogy, know what planets they go to, all the main creatures' names, and much more. I don't know as much as Jenny, but I know plenty. I've also seen quite a bit of original Star Trek and argued for why the new Star Trek movie does, in fact, work with canon. I have been currently geeking out on Doctor Who/Torchwood. If I were to have a geek focus, that would be it. I looked up the Doctor Who time line and tried to figure out how Captain Jack Harkness fits into everything and got confused (see...geeky enough to look it up, not geeky enough to get it).
My biggest nerd thing is that I do puzzles, which really doesn't fall anywhere on the geek scope. Most people think it is kinda neat, in a nerdy sort of way. I read Stephen King and Ted Dekker books, but I also read romance novels. Pretty much the only thing I can discuss at length with any sort of geek cred is Harry Potter, which is really not that nerdy. Though I supposed winning a HP trivia game at a sci-fi con probably counts as fairly nerdy.
I like technology a lot and have my undergrad degree in Security Informatics. I can write SQL, HTML, XML, MODS, Dublin Core, MARC. I can look through pages of script and find that one little piece of code that tells me what I want to know. I can work in command line and have set up a Linux system, complete with workable e-mail. I have also released and played with viruses and hacks (in a controlled environment). However, I really don't care to have the newest technology. I have no desire to have an iPod ever and am thoroughly against anything Apple. And really, that doesn't tend to go over well in the geek world.
I had a coworker not too long ago make a comment that she had no idea that I was a nerd and would never have guessed that. I kinda get that a lot. I consider myself a nerd and a geek, but am kind of ok with people not knowing that I'm a geek. I am like a ninja geek! A Ninja Nerd! I silently infiltrate normal society and then strike with an impressive fact about Star Wars! I think the part of geekdom that I fit into the most is the attitude of just owning what I like. Sure, it might not be as geeky as other people. But it is my geekiness and I like it!
Let me explain. My sister plays D&D, likes video games, can tell you more than you need to know about Star Wars, will argue for hours on why Original Series Star Trek is far superior to any other Star Trek, and has been to multiple sci-fi cons. She is what would be considered a geek. She has a few general nerdy things and a couple things that she completely nerds out with. I don't do any of the really nerdy things and I don't have anything that I completely nerd out with. I am a nerd without a cause. I am too normal to have a geek group, but too geek to really be mainstream. Such a sad, lonely, nerd life I live. Except, not really!
So, without further ado...why I am a geek (and a nerd)
I know more about Star Wars than most normal people. That's right. I can quote the original trilogy, know what planets they go to, all the main creatures' names, and much more. I don't know as much as Jenny, but I know plenty. I've also seen quite a bit of original Star Trek and argued for why the new Star Trek movie does, in fact, work with canon. I have been currently geeking out on Doctor Who/Torchwood. If I were to have a geek focus, that would be it. I looked up the Doctor Who time line and tried to figure out how Captain Jack Harkness fits into everything and got confused (see...geeky enough to look it up, not geeky enough to get it).
My biggest nerd thing is that I do puzzles, which really doesn't fall anywhere on the geek scope. Most people think it is kinda neat, in a nerdy sort of way. I read Stephen King and Ted Dekker books, but I also read romance novels. Pretty much the only thing I can discuss at length with any sort of geek cred is Harry Potter, which is really not that nerdy. Though I supposed winning a HP trivia game at a sci-fi con probably counts as fairly nerdy.
I like technology a lot and have my undergrad degree in Security Informatics. I can write SQL, HTML, XML, MODS, Dublin Core, MARC. I can look through pages of script and find that one little piece of code that tells me what I want to know. I can work in command line and have set up a Linux system, complete with workable e-mail. I have also released and played with viruses and hacks (in a controlled environment). However, I really don't care to have the newest technology. I have no desire to have an iPod ever and am thoroughly against anything Apple. And really, that doesn't tend to go over well in the geek world.
I had a coworker not too long ago make a comment that she had no idea that I was a nerd and would never have guessed that. I kinda get that a lot. I consider myself a nerd and a geek, but am kind of ok with people not knowing that I'm a geek. I am like a ninja geek! A Ninja Nerd! I silently infiltrate normal society and then strike with an impressive fact about Star Wars! I think the part of geekdom that I fit into the most is the attitude of just owning what I like. Sure, it might not be as geeky as other people. But it is my geekiness and I like it!
Friday, October 8, 2010
The Horrific Notion of Boys Reading Captain Underpants Instead of Treasure Island
As I librarian, I follow many library and book centered blogs. One had a link to this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405511702112290.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter
I am an academic librarian so I rarely if ever see kids so I really don't have a lot of experience with what kids, specifically boys, read. Or why they read or why they don't read. I only know what articles tell me. And yes, I have heard about the "meet them where they are" philosophy of getting kids to read. However, unlike the pretentious Thomas Spence, I find not a lot wrong with this approach.
Apparently elementary and middle school boys don't read enough. Many teachers, librarians, authors, publishers, etc. decided that to get boys to read more they would have books about what boys want to read about. That is apparently a terrible approach. Why should a boy read "The Day My Butt Went Psycho" when they could be reading "Treasure Island". I mean, the horror of boys reading popular fiction about things they enjoy when they could be reading boring classics. I know that personally I hate pulp books that are on a topic I find enjoyable; I would much rather read a boring book that someone at some point decided was a classic.
Spence also claims that having video games makes boys not read. If a boy has a choice between reading or playing video games, he will choose the video games. If a boy has no video games, he will be willing to read Jane Austen. I am a 23 year old female and I won't read Jane Austen. Do you really know any middle school boys who would read it? Probably not many. I am not going to go into why or why not video games are evil and detrimental to reading...perhaps Jenny will write about that since she plays video games.
What I really want to discuss is writing gross out books for boys. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. When I was in elementary school, I read Encyclopedia Brown and Hank the Cowdog; in middle school I had to read star books aka books that someone somewhere decided were good books to read, which then you could take a test on to prove you read and get...something? I know some classes gave extra credit for how many you read. I dunno. But you had to read star books. I hated that! You know why? Because none of the books I wanted to read were star books. We had entire library, but you could only read two shelves of them if you wanted to get points. I feel like that is what Spence is advocating. Instead of letting boys read what strikes their fancy, he wants them to read "good" books.
I hate "good" books for the most part. I like reading stuff written for me. It is like Chick Lit. Is it "good"? No. Will it win any literary awards? Probably not. Is it enjoyable? Most definitely. Does it get people to read? Yes! It is the same thing with Captain Underpants and Sweet Farts (which just fyi is an awesome name that makes me, a 23 year old female librarian, want to read it). Is it "good"? No. Will it spark interest in 12 year old boys? Yes. Will it get them to read? Most definitely. So, how is that wrong?
There is one quote I would like to analyze: "Most importantly, a boy raised on great literature is more likely to grow up to think, to speak, and to write like a civilized man. Whom would you prefer to have shaped the boyhood imagination of your daughter's husband—Raymond Bean or Robert Louis Stevenson?"
1) What is great literature? I mean, Stevenson wrote about pirates and a doctor with a split personality. That seems to be exactly what boys today would want to read, but would be considered crap.
2) Where is there evidence to say that boys who read "great literature" grow up to be civilized? I mean, really. That is just stupid and had no evidence whatsoever.
3) I take issue with the whole "daughter's husband" preference based on a book. It really isn't anyone's business except your daughters.
4) I'm pretty sure I would get along a lot better with a guy who read "Zombie Butts from Uranus" than I would with the guy who read "Pride and Prejudice" as a 6th grader.
5) Why does there have to be a choice between the two the authors. Who is to say that the boy who reads Sweet Farts doesn't go on to be the boy who reads Treasure Island. Once you start enjoying reading you are going to find things more books that you enjoy. Let boys read what they want and then after they read through all the Goosebump books, suggest Mark Twain.
**Right after I finished writing this, I found http://tametheweb.com/2010/09/24/how-to-raise-boys-who-read-hint-not-with-gross-out-books-and-video-game-bribes/ . Video games = reading of some sort.**
I am an academic librarian so I rarely if ever see kids so I really don't have a lot of experience with what kids, specifically boys, read. Or why they read or why they don't read. I only know what articles tell me. And yes, I have heard about the "meet them where they are" philosophy of getting kids to read. However, unlike the pretentious Thomas Spence, I find not a lot wrong with this approach.
Apparently elementary and middle school boys don't read enough. Many teachers, librarians, authors, publishers, etc. decided that to get boys to read more they would have books about what boys want to read about. That is apparently a terrible approach. Why should a boy read "The Day My Butt Went Psycho" when they could be reading "Treasure Island". I mean, the horror of boys reading popular fiction about things they enjoy when they could be reading boring classics. I know that personally I hate pulp books that are on a topic I find enjoyable; I would much rather read a boring book that someone at some point decided was a classic.
Spence also claims that having video games makes boys not read. If a boy has a choice between reading or playing video games, he will choose the video games. If a boy has no video games, he will be willing to read Jane Austen. I am a 23 year old female and I won't read Jane Austen. Do you really know any middle school boys who would read it? Probably not many. I am not going to go into why or why not video games are evil and detrimental to reading...perhaps Jenny will write about that since she plays video games.
What I really want to discuss is writing gross out books for boys. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. When I was in elementary school, I read Encyclopedia Brown and Hank the Cowdog; in middle school I had to read star books aka books that someone somewhere decided were good books to read, which then you could take a test on to prove you read and get...something? I know some classes gave extra credit for how many you read. I dunno. But you had to read star books. I hated that! You know why? Because none of the books I wanted to read were star books. We had entire library, but you could only read two shelves of them if you wanted to get points. I feel like that is what Spence is advocating. Instead of letting boys read what strikes their fancy, he wants them to read "good" books.
I hate "good" books for the most part. I like reading stuff written for me. It is like Chick Lit. Is it "good"? No. Will it win any literary awards? Probably not. Is it enjoyable? Most definitely. Does it get people to read? Yes! It is the same thing with Captain Underpants and Sweet Farts (which just fyi is an awesome name that makes me, a 23 year old female librarian, want to read it). Is it "good"? No. Will it spark interest in 12 year old boys? Yes. Will it get them to read? Most definitely. So, how is that wrong?
There is one quote I would like to analyze: "Most importantly, a boy raised on great literature is more likely to grow up to think, to speak, and to write like a civilized man. Whom would you prefer to have shaped the boyhood imagination of your daughter's husband—Raymond Bean or Robert Louis Stevenson?"
1) What is great literature? I mean, Stevenson wrote about pirates and a doctor with a split personality. That seems to be exactly what boys today would want to read, but would be considered crap.
2) Where is there evidence to say that boys who read "great literature" grow up to be civilized? I mean, really. That is just stupid and had no evidence whatsoever.
3) I take issue with the whole "daughter's husband" preference based on a book. It really isn't anyone's business except your daughters.
4) I'm pretty sure I would get along a lot better with a guy who read "Zombie Butts from Uranus" than I would with the guy who read "Pride and Prejudice" as a 6th grader.
5) Why does there have to be a choice between the two the authors. Who is to say that the boy who reads Sweet Farts doesn't go on to be the boy who reads Treasure Island. Once you start enjoying reading you are going to find things more books that you enjoy. Let boys read what they want and then after they read through all the Goosebump books, suggest Mark Twain.
**Right after I finished writing this, I found http://tametheweb.com/2010/09/24/how-to-raise-boys-who-read-hint-not-with-gross-out-books-and-video-game-bribes/ . Video games = reading of some sort.**
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Review: Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
a.k.a Kelly Actually Read a Real Book
When I told Jenny that I was reading Never Let Me Go she was surprised and exclaimed (over gmail) "You're actually reading a real book! It has won awards and stuff". And really, that isn't fair. I read real books all the time, I just rarely read "good" books. But I did! It is interesting because I don't often read straight fiction books that are very character driven, but when I do, I always enjoy them. Also, this isn't going to be a normal book review because I kind of suck at summing up books, so I'm just going to kind of discuss it.
I decided to read Never Let Me Go because I saw a trailer for the movie and thought it looked good. In fact, it looked good enough that I wanted to read the book before the movie could ruin the plot for me (something I wish I had done for Fight Club). Sadly, the movie is a UK movie and doesn't have a wide release in the US. If I felt like driving 1 1/2 hours to Boston, I could see it, but that seems like way too much work to see a movie. I'll just wait until it gets released on DVD and get it on Netflix. But that is neither here nor there. Anyway, I saw the trailer, looked up the book, saw that the library I work at had it, checked it out. The only thing I knew about it was what I had seen in the trailer, which wasn't much. I sometimes like reading a book that I have no idea what it is about. Sometimes the name/cover/author/recommendation from a friend is enough for me to just jump in without reading the back of the book. I did that with Never Let Me Go. And really, I feel like the trailer and the book cover don't really represent the story well.
What I really liked about Ishiguro's book was the way it was written. It is written in first person, which I happen to always really enjoy, and is mostly a reflection on the past. The timeline of the story is not exactly linear. It is somewhat linear as far as certain eras of the narrator's life, but within the eras the stories are all intertwined. It really is written much like one would reflect on memories...one recollection sparks another that happened prior, which in turn sparks something that happened later. I just didn't worry about the actual timeline too much and was fine.
What I liked most about the book was that fact that I really had no idea what it was building to. There was definitely a question of "why?" hanging over the entire book. Why are the characters at Hailsham? Why hasn't she seen her friends in so long? Why are they giving donations? And I found that I really had no idea what the book was going to ultimately end up being until the end. That doesn't usually happen with me. Usually I can kind of figure out what a twist might be or where the author is taking the character or what the mystery is, but I was kind of lost the whole time. I do have to say, when I got the end of the book, my response was kind of "Huh...well, that was good and interesting...but...well...hmmmm". Which makes it seem like I didn't enjoy the book, which is not true. I really enjoyed reading the book, but the end was just different from what I had been expecting.
One thing I really enjoyed about Never Let Me Go was that it was very different from everything I have been reading lately. It was a nice change to read a character driven plot that wasn't fantasy or a mystery or a teen book. Just a solid adult fiction book. Variety is good and I'm really glad I randomly picked Never Let Me Go up.
**Added later--I just rewatched the trailer and it really kind of shows a lot of the book, though there are definitely some differences. Apparently after I watched the trailer and decided to read the book I forgot everything about the trailer**
When I told Jenny that I was reading Never Let Me Go she was surprised and exclaimed (over gmail) "You're actually reading a real book! It has won awards and stuff". And really, that isn't fair. I read real books all the time, I just rarely read "good" books. But I did! It is interesting because I don't often read straight fiction books that are very character driven, but when I do, I always enjoy them. Also, this isn't going to be a normal book review because I kind of suck at summing up books, so I'm just going to kind of discuss it.
I decided to read Never Let Me Go because I saw a trailer for the movie and thought it looked good. In fact, it looked good enough that I wanted to read the book before the movie could ruin the plot for me (something I wish I had done for Fight Club). Sadly, the movie is a UK movie and doesn't have a wide release in the US. If I felt like driving 1 1/2 hours to Boston, I could see it, but that seems like way too much work to see a movie. I'll just wait until it gets released on DVD and get it on Netflix. But that is neither here nor there. Anyway, I saw the trailer, looked up the book, saw that the library I work at had it, checked it out. The only thing I knew about it was what I had seen in the trailer, which wasn't much. I sometimes like reading a book that I have no idea what it is about. Sometimes the name/cover/author/recommendation from a friend is enough for me to just jump in without reading the back of the book. I did that with Never Let Me Go. And really, I feel like the trailer and the book cover don't really represent the story well.
What I really liked about Ishiguro's book was the way it was written. It is written in first person, which I happen to always really enjoy, and is mostly a reflection on the past. The timeline of the story is not exactly linear. It is somewhat linear as far as certain eras of the narrator's life, but within the eras the stories are all intertwined. It really is written much like one would reflect on memories...one recollection sparks another that happened prior, which in turn sparks something that happened later. I just didn't worry about the actual timeline too much and was fine.
What I liked most about the book was that fact that I really had no idea what it was building to. There was definitely a question of "why?" hanging over the entire book. Why are the characters at Hailsham? Why hasn't she seen her friends in so long? Why are they giving donations? And I found that I really had no idea what the book was going to ultimately end up being until the end. That doesn't usually happen with me. Usually I can kind of figure out what a twist might be or where the author is taking the character or what the mystery is, but I was kind of lost the whole time. I do have to say, when I got the end of the book, my response was kind of "Huh...well, that was good and interesting...but...well...hmmmm". Which makes it seem like I didn't enjoy the book, which is not true. I really enjoyed reading the book, but the end was just different from what I had been expecting.
One thing I really enjoyed about Never Let Me Go was that it was very different from everything I have been reading lately. It was a nice change to read a character driven plot that wasn't fantasy or a mystery or a teen book. Just a solid adult fiction book. Variety is good and I'm really glad I randomly picked Never Let Me Go up.
**Added later--I just rewatched the trailer and it really kind of shows a lot of the book, though there are definitely some differences. Apparently after I watched the trailer and decided to read the book I forgot everything about the trailer**
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Challenges, Bans, Censorship, Oh My!
It is banned book week, which means that everyone is talking about banned books, which means that I am going to blog about banned books. Mainly, when people talk about wanted to ban books, it is that they don't want kids to read certain books. Lots of challenges happen in middle and high school libraries and in teen sections of public libraries. I have been having an issues with writing intelligently about age appropriateness of books because I am having a hard time remembering what I read in middle school and high school. It sounds weird, but I can't remember how old I was when I read Angus, Thongs, and Full Frontal Snogging. I think high school. I have no idea when I started reading The Cat Who Books (not that they have anything objectionable in them). So, I am going to do my best to remember what I read and then just go with what I think I would be comfortable reading now if I were in middle school/high school.
I had a tendency to read challenged books without even realizing that they were challenged. I read a whole ton of Caroline B. Cooney books, which got challenged a lot in the late 90s/early 2000s; I read Philip Pullman before there was any controversy about them; I read Angus, Thongs, and Full Frontal Snogging books before most people had even heard of them; two of my favorite books as a kid were The Giver and Bridge to Terabithia. Apparently I turned out ok, even after reading such controversial books. As I got older, I continued reading "inappropriate" books, like Stephen King (what 13 year old doesn't want to read about a kid whose father goes crazy and tries to kill him with a roquet mallet?), Harry Potter, and many others throughout the years. I like controversy!
Books can be challenged for many reasons: bad language, violence, sex, anything gay, religion, magic stuff, politics, or the ever popular inappropriate to age group. The books that tend to make the least sense to ban are the religion/magic ones. Like Harry Potter. It gets challenged because it has witchcraft in it. But it is a fantasy book. And they are wizards casting spells; they aren't out sacrificing virgins and drinking chicken blood. I mean, really. Kids books have all sorts of fantasy things, like boys who can fly, fairies, magical pots of spaghetti, dragons, unicorns, etc. Fantasy is outside of our normal world, so our normal politics and religion don't really have any baring on the goings on. Bad Language or profanity gets used as a challenge a lot. A lot. And in books for middle school and high school kids. I can understand not wanting to have books with lots of swear words in it in an elementary school library. But by middle school? Have people met middle schoolers? We swore in middle school. Most people not a whole lot, but we knew the words and we would say them when adults weren't around. In high school...people swore a lot. It is just what you do at that age. Reading a book with a "naughty word" in it isn't going to scar kids. It is kind of the same argument for sex. By middle school, you know about sex. And yeah, at that stage, most kids are still at the "giggle awkwardly at the thought of it" stage, but it isn't like reading a book that discussing sex is going to be something new. And having "homosexuality" as a challenge. That is just stupid. Books challenged or banned because a character is gay. Really? Do we live in the 50s? So stupid.
People get so concerned about "protecting the children" that they want to keep kids from reading really good books. Or from reading really stupid books. Or from reading fun books. There are books now that are big time challenged that I have never read: Real Story of a Part-Time Indian, Speak, Crank. If I were a middle school kid right now I probably would't read them. The material just doesn't interest me. However, I would not have been offended if I had read them at that age. I was always so bored with the crap they made us read in middle school, I actually may have read them just for something exciting. High school was a little bit better in that we got to read some fun challenged books like Huck Finn, Invisible Man, Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, and the Sound and the Fury. I liked those books a lot more than most anything they had in the school library. There is nothing wrong with exposing high school students to things that are uncomfortable. Was I comfortable when we read sections of Huck Finn outloud? No. There are certain words used that are not in my vocabulary ever, but there was a point to it. We discussed why it was used in the book, why it wasn't used now, how we felt with the words said outloud. It was a learning opportunity. I think that is what people who ban books miss, that opporunity to teach their kids something.
A book that has a lot of swearing, talk with your kid about why it isn't ok for them to swear like that. A book with sex in it, talk to your kid about why you don't think sex at that age is appropriate. A book that has a different religious or political view, talk to your kid about what you believe, what they believe, and any questions that arise from a different opinion.
My parents let my sister and I read whatever we wanted. I read The Shining by Stephen King when I was 13. My sister read Gone with the Wind when she was pretty young (no idea exactly when). My parents knew what we read, encouraged us to talk to them if we had questions, but then pretty much just trusted us to know what was appropriate. Two final stories, when I was 16 or 17 I went on a church mission trip. The book I happened to be reading at the time was Carrie by Stephen King and I brought it along on the trip. I thought nothing of it. One of the adults on the trip with us talked to my mom after the trip to ask her if she was aware that I was reading a Stephen King book. I was old enough to drive and could get into R rated movies, but someone else's parent didn't know if it was ok for me to read Stephen King. And lastly, when I was a freshman in high school I had to read a book off of a recommended reading list. I chose Cold Sassy Tree (no idea why). When I went to check it out from the public library, with my mom standing right there, the librarian asked me if I knew that it was a rather mature book and asked my mom if it was alright for me to be reading that. That is where censorship comes from. A concern that something might be offensive. But it wasn't anyone's problem except for mine. No one else should be able to tell someone what they can or can't read. Everyone has a different read level, tolerance of offensive material, and perspective. We all just need to leave everyone else alone and just read what we want to.
Most banned book week posts encourage you to read a challenged book. I am not going to. I encourage you to read whatever the hell you feel like reading. If that is a banned book, great. If that is a completely non-offensive story, great. Just read what you want and tell everyone else to screw off.
I had a tendency to read challenged books without even realizing that they were challenged. I read a whole ton of Caroline B. Cooney books, which got challenged a lot in the late 90s/early 2000s; I read Philip Pullman before there was any controversy about them; I read Angus, Thongs, and Full Frontal Snogging books before most people had even heard of them; two of my favorite books as a kid were The Giver and Bridge to Terabithia. Apparently I turned out ok, even after reading such controversial books. As I got older, I continued reading "inappropriate" books, like Stephen King (what 13 year old doesn't want to read about a kid whose father goes crazy and tries to kill him with a roquet mallet?), Harry Potter, and many others throughout the years. I like controversy!
Books can be challenged for many reasons: bad language, violence, sex, anything gay, religion, magic stuff, politics, or the ever popular inappropriate to age group. The books that tend to make the least sense to ban are the religion/magic ones. Like Harry Potter. It gets challenged because it has witchcraft in it. But it is a fantasy book. And they are wizards casting spells; they aren't out sacrificing virgins and drinking chicken blood. I mean, really. Kids books have all sorts of fantasy things, like boys who can fly, fairies, magical pots of spaghetti, dragons, unicorns, etc. Fantasy is outside of our normal world, so our normal politics and religion don't really have any baring on the goings on. Bad Language or profanity gets used as a challenge a lot. A lot. And in books for middle school and high school kids. I can understand not wanting to have books with lots of swear words in it in an elementary school library. But by middle school? Have people met middle schoolers? We swore in middle school. Most people not a whole lot, but we knew the words and we would say them when adults weren't around. In high school...people swore a lot. It is just what you do at that age. Reading a book with a "naughty word" in it isn't going to scar kids. It is kind of the same argument for sex. By middle school, you know about sex. And yeah, at that stage, most kids are still at the "giggle awkwardly at the thought of it" stage, but it isn't like reading a book that discussing sex is going to be something new. And having "homosexuality" as a challenge. That is just stupid. Books challenged or banned because a character is gay. Really? Do we live in the 50s? So stupid.
People get so concerned about "protecting the children" that they want to keep kids from reading really good books. Or from reading really stupid books. Or from reading fun books. There are books now that are big time challenged that I have never read: Real Story of a Part-Time Indian, Speak, Crank. If I were a middle school kid right now I probably would't read them. The material just doesn't interest me. However, I would not have been offended if I had read them at that age. I was always so bored with the crap they made us read in middle school, I actually may have read them just for something exciting. High school was a little bit better in that we got to read some fun challenged books like Huck Finn, Invisible Man, Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, and the Sound and the Fury. I liked those books a lot more than most anything they had in the school library. There is nothing wrong with exposing high school students to things that are uncomfortable. Was I comfortable when we read sections of Huck Finn outloud? No. There are certain words used that are not in my vocabulary ever, but there was a point to it. We discussed why it was used in the book, why it wasn't used now, how we felt with the words said outloud. It was a learning opportunity. I think that is what people who ban books miss, that opporunity to teach their kids something.
A book that has a lot of swearing, talk with your kid about why it isn't ok for them to swear like that. A book with sex in it, talk to your kid about why you don't think sex at that age is appropriate. A book that has a different religious or political view, talk to your kid about what you believe, what they believe, and any questions that arise from a different opinion.
My parents let my sister and I read whatever we wanted. I read The Shining by Stephen King when I was 13. My sister read Gone with the Wind when she was pretty young (no idea exactly when). My parents knew what we read, encouraged us to talk to them if we had questions, but then pretty much just trusted us to know what was appropriate. Two final stories, when I was 16 or 17 I went on a church mission trip. The book I happened to be reading at the time was Carrie by Stephen King and I brought it along on the trip. I thought nothing of it. One of the adults on the trip with us talked to my mom after the trip to ask her if she was aware that I was reading a Stephen King book. I was old enough to drive and could get into R rated movies, but someone else's parent didn't know if it was ok for me to read Stephen King. And lastly, when I was a freshman in high school I had to read a book off of a recommended reading list. I chose Cold Sassy Tree (no idea why). When I went to check it out from the public library, with my mom standing right there, the librarian asked me if I knew that it was a rather mature book and asked my mom if it was alright for me to be reading that. That is where censorship comes from. A concern that something might be offensive. But it wasn't anyone's problem except for mine. No one else should be able to tell someone what they can or can't read. Everyone has a different read level, tolerance of offensive material, and perspective. We all just need to leave everyone else alone and just read what we want to.
Most banned book week posts encourage you to read a challenged book. I am not going to. I encourage you to read whatever the hell you feel like reading. If that is a banned book, great. If that is a completely non-offensive story, great. Just read what you want and tell everyone else to screw off.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Banned Book Week!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts3726
The absolute problem with book banning in general. The book in question is rated as 4th to 7th grade. The author has an issue with her fourth grader to read it. So she thinks that it should be banned from the school library. Yeah, see, that is the problem. She doesn't think her kid should read it, so she has decided that no 4th grader should read it. When I was in 4th grade I would have been plenty mature enough to read it. Many 4th graders can probably deal with a fleeting mention of strippers. If you don't want your kid to read it, that is fine. It is your choice. However, you don't get to tell every other kid that they can't read it either. Hence why book banning is bad.
**not the most impressive of writing, but it is timely since it is banned book week.**
The absolute problem with book banning in general. The book in question is rated as 4th to 7th grade. The author has an issue with her fourth grader to read it. So she thinks that it should be banned from the school library. Yeah, see, that is the problem. She doesn't think her kid should read it, so she has decided that no 4th grader should read it. When I was in 4th grade I would have been plenty mature enough to read it. Many 4th graders can probably deal with a fleeting mention of strippers. If you don't want your kid to read it, that is fine. It is your choice. However, you don't get to tell every other kid that they can't read it either. Hence why book banning is bad.
**not the most impressive of writing, but it is timely since it is banned book week.**
Monday, September 27, 2010
Book Review: Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
I finally read Hunger Games. I feel like I am one of the last people to jump on the bandwagon, at least around where I live. And I gotta say...what a fabulous bandwagon to get on. The short of the story: Katniss Everdeen lives in a dystopic future where 24 teens are chosen to participate in a fight to the death for food for their District. Katniss, from the poorest district, volunteers to take the place of her sister who was chosen. The other person chosen from her District is Peeta, the baker's son, who is the same age as Katniss.
There is a lot to the story, but I don't want to really get into too much of the plot because I found it pleasant to go into the books with no idea what was going to happen. However, I do have some thoughts on the book.
First of all, it reminded me a whole lot of The Running Man and The Long Walk, both by Stephen King. Reality tv type show, only one winner, forcing people to kill each other...pleasant things! For the most part, Hunger Games is fairly tame. It isn't really about the killings or the games so much as the story of a 16 year old girl.
Secondly, Katniss totally rocks. Like, hardcore. She is very kickass. She is a very strong female, capable of defending herself and others, though not ruthless in her game play. She cares deeply for her sister and does everything she can (whether illegally hunting or taking her place in the games) to protect her sister. Katniss has a drive to survive which cannot be beaten.
Next, I've read some comparisons between Hunger Games and Twilight, to which I call bullshit. Yes, Katniss has a few times where she has to be saved by a guy, but mostly, she protects others and is very proactive in her life. Katniss does not go along with anyone's plans without knowing the reason why and is willing to do what she has to for survive.
Last, there is a bit of a love story involved in the plot, but I think that the way Collins writes it, it feels natural, not forced, and driven by the plot instead of driving the plot. It is also manipulated by Katniss. Again, anything to survive.
Overall, I was very impressed with Hunger Games and am getting ready to start reading Catching Fire. Pretty much the only thing I didn't like was the ending of Hunger Games because it was a bit of a cliffhanger and I wanted more story (hence the necessity to read the sequal asap). I would highly suggest every read it, especially if you like actiony books that are an easy read, but still make you feel something. Also, I would recommend this to all teens, both male and female. It is first person by Katniss, but is still something I think teen boys would be able to enjoy (I may be wrong as I am not, nor was ever, a teen boy).
Also, if you want another opinion (with a bit more about the plot), read Stephen King's review on EW http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20223443,00.html. He sums everything up nicely. I think I liked it a bit more than him due to being closer to the teen girl demographic and not reading enough "literature" to be able to tell if a writing style is lazy.
There is a lot to the story, but I don't want to really get into too much of the plot because I found it pleasant to go into the books with no idea what was going to happen. However, I do have some thoughts on the book.
First of all, it reminded me a whole lot of The Running Man and The Long Walk, both by Stephen King. Reality tv type show, only one winner, forcing people to kill each other...pleasant things! For the most part, Hunger Games is fairly tame. It isn't really about the killings or the games so much as the story of a 16 year old girl.
Secondly, Katniss totally rocks. Like, hardcore. She is very kickass. She is a very strong female, capable of defending herself and others, though not ruthless in her game play. She cares deeply for her sister and does everything she can (whether illegally hunting or taking her place in the games) to protect her sister. Katniss has a drive to survive which cannot be beaten.
Next, I've read some comparisons between Hunger Games and Twilight, to which I call bullshit. Yes, Katniss has a few times where she has to be saved by a guy, but mostly, she protects others and is very proactive in her life. Katniss does not go along with anyone's plans without knowing the reason why and is willing to do what she has to for survive.
Last, there is a bit of a love story involved in the plot, but I think that the way Collins writes it, it feels natural, not forced, and driven by the plot instead of driving the plot. It is also manipulated by Katniss. Again, anything to survive.
Overall, I was very impressed with Hunger Games and am getting ready to start reading Catching Fire. Pretty much the only thing I didn't like was the ending of Hunger Games because it was a bit of a cliffhanger and I wanted more story (hence the necessity to read the sequal asap). I would highly suggest every read it, especially if you like actiony books that are an easy read, but still make you feel something. Also, I would recommend this to all teens, both male and female. It is first person by Katniss, but is still something I think teen boys would be able to enjoy (I may be wrong as I am not, nor was ever, a teen boy).
Also, if you want another opinion (with a bit more about the plot), read Stephen King's review on EW http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20223443,00.html. He sums everything up nicely. I think I liked it a bit more than him due to being closer to the teen girl demographic and not reading enough "literature" to be able to tell if a writing style is lazy.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Book Review: Aunt Dimity's Death by Nancy Atherton
I read the first few Aunt Dimity books when I was in high school and I remember really liking them, but then I never read more than about the first 4. So when I saw the first Aunt Dimity book at the library, I decided to reread it. And I really enjoyed it again. I remembered pretty much nothing about Aunt Dimity's Death from my first reading, so I was very into the book the whole time. Aunt Dimity's Death is a mystery book, though not a murder mystery. I usually don't care too much about mysteries that have no murder in them, but it really works for this book.
Now for plot synopsis...Lori, our main character, heard bedtime stories about Aunt Dimity from her mom, but never knew Aunt Dimity was a real person until she received a letter that Dimity Westwood had died. Lori is at a particularly low point in her life, which in some ways makes her very willing to follow out the crazy conditions of Dimity's will, which include moving to a cottage in the middle of nowhere England. Lori is accompanied by the son of the lawyer who is handling the estate. The son, Bill, is approximately Lori's age, but is much more cheerful than Lori and tries his best to fight through Lori's bad mood. For about the first half of the book, it is a pretty standard mystery, with lots of entertainment for the reader. About half way through the book, the ghost of Dimity makes an appearance. Cha! All of the sudden, the mystery book turns into a mystery paranormal! But in a way that really doesn't have you questioning that a ghost is a character in the story. It works and doesn't make the book seem any less real than before.
I really enjoyed the story and found myself really caring about the characters. While reading, I was trying to remember why I stopped reading the Aunt Dimity series and at the moment, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure my mom owns the whole series, so they must be consistently good. I think I'll chaulk it up to being in high school and therefore incredibly busy. I am really looking forward to reading the next book in the series, after reading Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman that I started a couple weeks ago, but got distracted from by Aunt Dimity. Maybe her ghost encouraged me to read her book again?
**Yeah...I really have been planning on blogging more, but what with Doctor Who (and now Torchwood), lovely weather, and Jenny coming to visit me, I haven't been. I will blog more soon. I promise!**
Now for plot synopsis...Lori, our main character, heard bedtime stories about Aunt Dimity from her mom, but never knew Aunt Dimity was a real person until she received a letter that Dimity Westwood had died. Lori is at a particularly low point in her life, which in some ways makes her very willing to follow out the crazy conditions of Dimity's will, which include moving to a cottage in the middle of nowhere England. Lori is accompanied by the son of the lawyer who is handling the estate. The son, Bill, is approximately Lori's age, but is much more cheerful than Lori and tries his best to fight through Lori's bad mood. For about the first half of the book, it is a pretty standard mystery, with lots of entertainment for the reader. About half way through the book, the ghost of Dimity makes an appearance. Cha! All of the sudden, the mystery book turns into a mystery paranormal! But in a way that really doesn't have you questioning that a ghost is a character in the story. It works and doesn't make the book seem any less real than before.
I really enjoyed the story and found myself really caring about the characters. While reading, I was trying to remember why I stopped reading the Aunt Dimity series and at the moment, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure my mom owns the whole series, so they must be consistently good. I think I'll chaulk it up to being in high school and therefore incredibly busy. I am really looking forward to reading the next book in the series, after reading Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman that I started a couple weeks ago, but got distracted from by Aunt Dimity. Maybe her ghost encouraged me to read her book again?
**Yeah...I really have been planning on blogging more, but what with Doctor Who (and now Torchwood), lovely weather, and Jenny coming to visit me, I haven't been. I will blog more soon. I promise!**
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
My Excuse for Low Numbers of Blogs...
I have an excuse for not blogging much recently. And it is a great reason. Really! I've been watching Doctor Who! I have watched an episode of Doctor Who here or there because Jenny loves it, but I had never really watched it and was kind of meh on the whole thing. A couple weeks ago, I saw that Torchwood was on Netflix and I really want to watch Torchwood. But you can't watch Torchwood without watching Doctor Who. And as I had borrowed Seasons 1-4 of Doctor Who from Jenny way back in April, I decided to start watching. And Holy Crap! Doctor Who is awesome! How have I not been watching this show for the past 5 years? Seriously!
Anyway, as a result of watching many episodes of Doctor Who and many Doctor Who episodes with commentary and special features about Doctor Who, I haven't been reading much and I haven't been blogging much. It is a decent excuse, right? If you watch Doctor Who, I'm sure you understand. And a benefit came out of watching it...I thought of a great blog topic!
TV/Movie Genres vs. Book Genres
I love watching Sci-Fi Movies and Tv shows. Doctor Who, Total Recall, Star Wars, Star Trek, Eureka, Eraser, Killer Clowns from Outerspace...if it has aliens/weird technology, I probably love it. But I don't read Sci-Fi. Or at least not much. I've read "We can remember it for you wholesale" by Philip K. Dick because I wanted to read the story Total Recall was based on. And I've read the Jumper series by Stephen Gould. And I have Douglas Adams. But besides that, I really don't read Sci-Fi ever. Now, I like fantasy books just fine. Dragons, alternate universes, time travel that falls more into fantasy than sci-fi...love it! Spaceships...no!
Now, on the opposite spectrum, I love anything mystery, whether book, tv, or movie. I started reading mysteries when I was in first or second grade. And I started watching Diagnosis Murder around that time too. And Dragnet. My current favorite shows are Bones, White Collar, Lie to Me, Eureka, Doctor Who, Covert Affairs. I like shows that are a mystery a week. I also enjoy medical dramas like House and Royal Pains where it is a mystery as to what the ailment is. And I love crazy movies that are essentially a murder mystery on screen. Mysteries...any format I love; Sci-fi...not so much.
Anyway, as a result of watching many episodes of Doctor Who and many Doctor Who episodes with commentary and special features about Doctor Who, I haven't been reading much and I haven't been blogging much. It is a decent excuse, right? If you watch Doctor Who, I'm sure you understand. And a benefit came out of watching it...I thought of a great blog topic!
TV/Movie Genres vs. Book Genres
I love watching Sci-Fi Movies and Tv shows. Doctor Who, Total Recall, Star Wars, Star Trek, Eureka, Eraser, Killer Clowns from Outerspace...if it has aliens/weird technology, I probably love it. But I don't read Sci-Fi. Or at least not much. I've read "We can remember it for you wholesale" by Philip K. Dick because I wanted to read the story Total Recall was based on. And I've read the Jumper series by Stephen Gould. And I have Douglas Adams. But besides that, I really don't read Sci-Fi ever. Now, I like fantasy books just fine. Dragons, alternate universes, time travel that falls more into fantasy than sci-fi...love it! Spaceships...no!
Now, on the opposite spectrum, I love anything mystery, whether book, tv, or movie. I started reading mysteries when I was in first or second grade. And I started watching Diagnosis Murder around that time too. And Dragnet. My current favorite shows are Bones, White Collar, Lie to Me, Eureka, Doctor Who, Covert Affairs. I like shows that are a mystery a week. I also enjoy medical dramas like House and Royal Pains where it is a mystery as to what the ailment is. And I love crazy movies that are essentially a murder mystery on screen. Mysteries...any format I love; Sci-fi...not so much.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Would you judge your date by his book's cover?
Apparently, a bookstore in Brooklyn has a new dating service - matchmaking based on your book preferences.
Apparently, Word Bookstore has a corkboard where people can post their favorite books and contact information in an attempt to find a hot date.
Cute, right? I would have been all over that when I was a swingin' single nerd lookin' for love. Sometimes, finding out peoples' favorite books can tell you a lot about them.
But I can also see this being an invitation to total douchebaggery. Some people will judge you on the books you love, and if there's even one "wrong" book or writer on your list, they will reject you, and that's just lame. It's the same as rejecting somebody immediately because they like to listen to ABBA or watch "Survivor."
If my husband and I judged each other on our book tastes exclusively, we probably wouldn't have ended up together. Although we have encouraged each other to read some of our favorites (I read a "Star Wars" novel; he FINALLY read "Harry Potter"), our tastes in books really don't overlap that much ... and that's OK. A relationship would get boring if you and your significant other liked all the same things.
Spending time with somebody with different tastes than you (in anything, not just books) also expands your horizons. There are things I never would have experienced and ideas I never would have considered if I would have married a clone of myself, with all the same tastes.
I'm not saying that a book isn't a great way to start a conversation that could lead to friendship or a romantic relationship, and I love that people are using books to find other people. But if you do, don't let differences of taste on something like books come between you and an interesting person. The truth is, the books can be a great conversation starter, and a great thing to talk about over dinner or on a long car ride for years to come.
What do you think? Do you judge a person by the book he or she is reading? Is this a good way to pick up a date?
Apparently, Word Bookstore has a corkboard where people can post their favorite books and contact information in an attempt to find a hot date.
Cute, right? I would have been all over that when I was a swingin' single nerd lookin' for love. Sometimes, finding out peoples' favorite books can tell you a lot about them.
But I can also see this being an invitation to total douchebaggery. Some people will judge you on the books you love, and if there's even one "wrong" book or writer on your list, they will reject you, and that's just lame. It's the same as rejecting somebody immediately because they like to listen to ABBA or watch "Survivor."
If my husband and I judged each other on our book tastes exclusively, we probably wouldn't have ended up together. Although we have encouraged each other to read some of our favorites (I read a "Star Wars" novel; he FINALLY read "Harry Potter"), our tastes in books really don't overlap that much ... and that's OK. A relationship would get boring if you and your significant other liked all the same things.
Spending time with somebody with different tastes than you (in anything, not just books) also expands your horizons. There are things I never would have experienced and ideas I never would have considered if I would have married a clone of myself, with all the same tastes.
I'm not saying that a book isn't a great way to start a conversation that could lead to friendship or a romantic relationship, and I love that people are using books to find other people. But if you do, don't let differences of taste on something like books come between you and an interesting person. The truth is, the books can be a great conversation starter, and a great thing to talk about over dinner or on a long car ride for years to come.
What do you think? Do you judge a person by the book he or she is reading? Is this a good way to pick up a date?
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Today's book chat: Bookstore vs. Library
Welcome to another book chat! This time about Bookstores vs. Libraries. And Organization. Sorry for any editing problems...I was watching Dr. Who while editing.
Jenny: I like both.
Kelly: Me too!
Jenny: Bookstore vs. Library ... fight!
Kelly: Well, I am a fan of libraries because I work in one, and have worked in many. But I also own many books
Jenny: Actually, this is an appropriate topic, because I went to a bookstore this week and didn't buy two books because I looked them up and saw that we had them in the local library.
Kelly: I definitely buy more books out here in New Hampshire since the libraries are smaller and don't have as much of what I like to read
Jenny: I like to buy books because a lot of time I don't have time to read them in two, or even four, weeks, so I have to renew and re-check them out, and it's annoying!
Kelly: yeah
Jenny: But, it's nice because there is only a tiny bookstore in town so when I neeeeeeeeeed a book RIGHT NOW I can go to the library a few blocks away and check one out. Also? Free!
Kelly: Yes! Free is awesome. There are some books though that I definitely want to buy. Like Sookie Stackhouse, Meg Cabot, and some mystery series. And Stephen King. When I want to read something right away
Jenny: I have several series I like to own, but I generally share them with lots of people.
Kelly: or I know I'll want to reread it
Jenny: Yep. I bought "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" because it had several holds before it.
Kelly: Yeah. I have done that too. Also, I have a tendency to read a book from the library, love it, and then go buy it
Jenny: I do that occasionally too. If I'm taking something on vacation, I also tend to buy the books. I hate taking library books on vacation.
Kelly: Mom does that too
Jenny: I'm afraid to ruin a library book!
Kelly: Yeah. I've taken library books on vacation before, but not often
Jenny: Does that worry librarians? People taking books? on vacation?
Kelly: Nope! As long as the book comes back in decent condition, we care not
Jenny: There's no fine print on library cards? "Do not take this book out of the county!"
Kelly: Strangely enough, librarians tend to like people to read regardless of where they might be
Jenny: WEIRD!
Kelly: Cha! So, lacking a transition, I'll just change course...
Jenny: OK!
Kelly: New or used book store?
Jenny: I tend to do new books.
Kelly: See, if possible, I do used. Either book store or book sale
Jenny: I don't know, sometimes used books just feel ... weird.
Kelly: But...cheap!
Jenny: Yes, I do love cheap. I don't know, sometimes I just love it when the books are MINE MINE ALL MINE!
Kelly: Hmmm...how very strange. Depending on the book, it is sometimes easier to find in a used book store
Jenny: I like that you can get out of print books.
Kelly: Yep. Stephen King is easier to find if you are looking for older stuff
Jenny: Or outdated Dungeons & Dragons books, in the system we use.
Kelly: Hehe. Also, there is something fun about searching shelves to try to find exactly what you are looking for Or going in with no idea what you are looking for
Jenny: Yeah, you can get some really quirky stuff, it's not just the mass market stuff you get at a big store.
Kelly: Yep! Wait, so you don't like getting used books, but you are ok with books that many people have read from a library?
Jenny: Ummm ... yes? You know, that is weird.
Kelly: Haha
Jenny: My world is crumbling around me.
Kelly: Sorry to point out your craziness!
Jenny: Sadness. There's something fun about having a new book when I own it, rather than a used book when I own it. But if it's not mine, whatever.
Kelly: I mean, I kind of understand. But it is still weird
Jenny: I suppose it is. Do you have any weird things about books like that?
Kelly: Ummmm.....no? Not that I can think of
Jenny: I know you like to organize all your books?
Kelly: That is the librarian thing....But yeah, I do like to organize my books. Right now they are in subject order
Jenny: Mine are scattered all over the house. At least I think all of my Harry Potter books are on one bookshelf.
Kelly: My Meg Cabot books are all together, Stephen King is all together, Romance is all together. Mysteries are all together. I'm a nerd
Jenny: All the hubby's Star Wars books are together, so that's something!
Kelly: Hehe. I just realized that all my puzzles are organized also
Jenny: Hubby says we're going to organize the books, but I doubt it. Yes, but you are an uber-nerd.
Kelly: To be fair, my dvds aren't really in any specific order
Jenny: Anymore.
Kelly: They used to be alphabetical...
Jenny: I remember.
Kelly: Now they are in a cabinet and in the order of "my favorites in front"
Jenny: well, that's a good way to organize. Wow, our book chat has devolved into a discussion of organization. LAME-O.
Kelly: Hehe. I like organization. I'm a librarian!
Jenny: I am organized at work, kinda. I don't normally put a story in the newspaper more than once.
Kelly: Hahahaha. My books aren't really that organized right now because I really don't have enough shelf space for them all
Jenny: Yeah, I had to buy a new shelf for upstairs. It really helped things a lot! YAY! OK, I think we're running out of stuff to talk about. Wah-wah.
Kelly: hahaha. Ok....we can end. And....bookchat done!
Jenny: And ... fin.
Jenny: I like both.
Kelly: Me too!
Jenny: Bookstore vs. Library ... fight!
Kelly: Well, I am a fan of libraries because I work in one, and have worked in many. But I also own many books
Jenny: Actually, this is an appropriate topic, because I went to a bookstore this week and didn't buy two books because I looked them up and saw that we had them in the local library.
Kelly: I definitely buy more books out here in New Hampshire since the libraries are smaller and don't have as much of what I like to read
Jenny: I like to buy books because a lot of time I don't have time to read them in two, or even four, weeks, so I have to renew and re-check them out, and it's annoying!
Kelly: yeah
Jenny: But, it's nice because there is only a tiny bookstore in town so when I neeeeeeeeeed a book RIGHT NOW I can go to the library a few blocks away and check one out. Also? Free!
Kelly: Yes! Free is awesome. There are some books though that I definitely want to buy. Like Sookie Stackhouse, Meg Cabot, and some mystery series. And Stephen King. When I want to read something right away
Jenny: I have several series I like to own, but I generally share them with lots of people.
Kelly: or I know I'll want to reread it
Jenny: Yep. I bought "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" because it had several holds before it.
Kelly: Yeah. I have done that too. Also, I have a tendency to read a book from the library, love it, and then go buy it
Jenny: I do that occasionally too. If I'm taking something on vacation, I also tend to buy the books. I hate taking library books on vacation.
Kelly: Mom does that too
Jenny: I'm afraid to ruin a library book!
Kelly: Yeah. I've taken library books on vacation before, but not often
Jenny: Does that worry librarians? People taking books? on vacation?
Kelly: Nope! As long as the book comes back in decent condition, we care not
Jenny: There's no fine print on library cards? "Do not take this book out of the county!"
Kelly: Strangely enough, librarians tend to like people to read regardless of where they might be
Jenny: WEIRD!
Kelly: Cha! So, lacking a transition, I'll just change course...
Jenny: OK!
Kelly: New or used book store?
Jenny: I tend to do new books.
Kelly: See, if possible, I do used. Either book store or book sale
Jenny: I don't know, sometimes used books just feel ... weird.
Kelly: But...cheap!
Jenny: Yes, I do love cheap. I don't know, sometimes I just love it when the books are MINE MINE ALL MINE!
Kelly: Hmmm...how very strange. Depending on the book, it is sometimes easier to find in a used book store
Jenny: I like that you can get out of print books.
Kelly: Yep. Stephen King is easier to find if you are looking for older stuff
Jenny: Or outdated Dungeons & Dragons books, in the system we use.
Kelly: Hehe. Also, there is something fun about searching shelves to try to find exactly what you are looking for Or going in with no idea what you are looking for
Jenny: Yeah, you can get some really quirky stuff, it's not just the mass market stuff you get at a big store.
Kelly: Yep! Wait, so you don't like getting used books, but you are ok with books that many people have read from a library?
Jenny: Ummm ... yes? You know, that is weird.
Kelly: Haha
Jenny: My world is crumbling around me.
Kelly: Sorry to point out your craziness!
Jenny: Sadness. There's something fun about having a new book when I own it, rather than a used book when I own it. But if it's not mine, whatever.
Kelly: I mean, I kind of understand. But it is still weird
Jenny: I suppose it is. Do you have any weird things about books like that?
Kelly: Ummmm.....no? Not that I can think of
Jenny: I know you like to organize all your books?
Kelly: That is the librarian thing....But yeah, I do like to organize my books. Right now they are in subject order
Jenny: Mine are scattered all over the house. At least I think all of my Harry Potter books are on one bookshelf.
Kelly: My Meg Cabot books are all together, Stephen King is all together, Romance is all together. Mysteries are all together. I'm a nerd
Jenny: All the hubby's Star Wars books are together, so that's something!
Kelly: Hehe. I just realized that all my puzzles are organized also
Jenny: Hubby says we're going to organize the books, but I doubt it. Yes, but you are an uber-nerd.
Kelly: To be fair, my dvds aren't really in any specific order
Jenny: Anymore.
Kelly: They used to be alphabetical...
Jenny: I remember.
Kelly: Now they are in a cabinet and in the order of "my favorites in front"
Jenny: well, that's a good way to organize. Wow, our book chat has devolved into a discussion of organization. LAME-O.
Kelly: Hehe. I like organization. I'm a librarian!
Jenny: I am organized at work, kinda. I don't normally put a story in the newspaper more than once.
Kelly: Hahahaha. My books aren't really that organized right now because I really don't have enough shelf space for them all
Jenny: Yeah, I had to buy a new shelf for upstairs. It really helped things a lot! YAY! OK, I think we're running out of stuff to talk about. Wah-wah.
Kelly: hahaha. Ok....we can end. And....bookchat done!
Jenny: And ... fin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)