I am one of those people who has no problem putting down a book and not picking it back up if the book in question does not hold my interest. Life is too short and there are too many entertaining books out there to read something boring. I started taking this stance in high school when I was forced to read crap that I hated. I will give a book a good go, but if it sucks, I'm out. So, here is a list of 11 books that I have stopped reading (I have stopped way more books than that, but these are some of the more notable ones).
Category 1: Books I Am Never Going To Finish. Ever.
The Grapes of Wrath-Steinbeck--There is a whole chapter (chapter 5) about a turtle crossing a road. An entire chapter. About a turtle. It has nothing to do with the rest of the book. I gave up after that chapter. The best part is that I was reading it for a high school class and still got an A- on the test by only reading the cliff notes.
Gulliver's Travels-Swift--Again, had to read it in high school. I read the first section and then stopped. It was sooooo boring. I just couldn't read it any longer. It had no point. I'm pretty sure I was the only person in the class who hated it.
Faust-Goethe--I read this in college for a class and really, I gave it a solid go. I read the entire first part, but I just could not force myself to read the second part. Luckily the paper that we had to write on it got canceled. Which was a relief because I didn't have to fake my way through the entire second half, but was also a pain in the ass because it meant that I really hadn't needed to read the first half.
Madame Bovary-Flaubert--I had to read this for the same college class as Faust and I remember just not really about Madame Bovary. I don't even really remember reading it. I remember how much I hated Faust, but I just won't recall anything about Flaubert. It was worse than being bad, it was boring.
Confessions of a Shopaholic-Kinsella--I am a big fan of British chick lit and I love Kinsella's non-shopaholic books, but I really could not get into Confessions. Love the movie, love the writing style, hated the main chick. Just...couldn't understand where she was coming from or why she was so stupid. Most disappointing non-finish.
A Clockwork Orange-Burgess--I didn't make it all the way through the movie either, but that is because it is long and I fell asleep (I found that it got a bit dull after the reprogramming). I decided to try the book because I like weird shit. Honestly, I gave the book a solid try, but I could not figure out what the hell Burgess was saying at all. He made up a ton of words! I don't want to have to work that hard to read something for fun.
Category 2: Going to Finish It If It Kills Me
The Historian-Kostova--I've tried it twice now and I have trouble getting into the story. Or actually I have trouble finding the time to get into the story. I'm going to try again this summer because I like the plot, I like that it is about Dracula, and I like all the history nerd stuff. I will read it. I will!
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-Adams--I read the first three books in high school and then had to stop because I had no idea what was going on in the story. I tried again this past winter and couldn't get into it. I really want to read it. What I've read, I've liked. I feel like such a geek-poser for not having read it.
Circle Trilogy-Dekker--I love Ted Dekker's books. I read The Lost Books, which are a sci-fi(ish) teen(ish) series that shares characters with the Circle Trilogy. But I had issues getting interested in the first Circle book. I have them, so I need to just read them. I love his writing, so I will love it. This seems to just be an issue of laziness.
Category 3: Possibly Going To Read At Some Point (Maybe)
Lord of the Rings-Tolkien--I read The Hobbit and loved it. I read Fellowship of the Ring and liked it. I read part of The Two Towers and stopped. Battles, while exciting to watch in movie form, are dull to read. And the entire book is walking, battles, walking, battles. Maybe it was because I was in high school that I couldn't get through. Or maybe I'm just not programmed to read epics. Dunno, but I may try again at some point.
The Chronicles of Narnia-Lewis--Yeah, ok, confession. I've never read The Chronicles of Narnia. I remember starting The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe when I was little and just not being interested. I read the first three books right around when the movie came out. I just...couldn't stick with the story. And the characters change. And I just...meh! I may attempt again at some point, but currently I am ambivalent to Narnia.
So, there are the books that I have started reading and failed at finishing. What are your unfinished books? Did you always read everything for class? Or are you one of those people who have to finish a book once you start it?
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Book Review: "Under the Dome" by Stephen King
Oooh! Guess what, everyone? I actually finished a book!
It seems crazy for someone who blogs about books to not actually read very often, but between writing and working and watching waaaaaaay too much TV (damn you, BBC America! Stop playing "Top Gear" all the time! I can't resist!) ... it actually took me more than three months to read just over 800 pages of "Under the Dome" by Stephen King. And I am not a slow reader. In fact, I am a very fast reader.
Sad, right?
It's not like I didn't like the book. I kept wanting to read it, but I would run out of time for weeks on end. The only reason I finished it this weekend is because my husband was engrossed in building his new character for D&D on Saturday afternoon so I seized the opportunity to read like a crazy woman until it was time for dinner.
At any rate, I guess "Under the Dome" gets points for being a pretty easy book to set down and pick back up to read.
"Under the Dome," like so many other books by King, is about a small town in Maine. This small town, Chester's Mill, is suddenly cut off from the rest of the world by a clear but solid barrier. Inside the town - under the dome - King creates a huge cast of characters that are all trying to survive or even thrive in the dome. The main drama comes between Dale "Barbie" Barbara, a former Army lieutenant who has angered a number of young men in the town, and Big Jim Rennie, the town's corrupt, power-hungry second selectman. Rennie's son, Junior, just happens to be one of the young men who is at odds with Barbie. Barbie is tapped by the government to lead the town during the crisis, while Big Jim works hard behind the scenes to put himself in charge of the town and discredit Barbie. And, of course, there is the big question - why is the dome there, and how can they get rid of it?
There also are several other characters who play prominently - the local newspaper editor, a physician's assistant, a 13-year-old boy - and a whole host of minor characters who round out the town. As someone who is working on writing her own first novel, I am amazed that King could keep track of all of the characters and make all but a few into well-written, fleshed out characters. There's probably a reason King had to wait until now to write this book, after having started and stopped the project a couple of times.
"Under The Dome" is not great literature - it's kind of pulpy - but it is a great read that I really enjoyed. At times I felt like the novel was a little bit long and could have used some editing, but I suppose that some of the reward for having published 49 novels is that you get to get a big long-winded at times. But, really, that was only a couple of places - most of the book flies along at a good clip. It was just what I expected from a Stephen King book, so if you like other King books, you'll enjoy "Under the Dome."
It seems crazy for someone who blogs about books to not actually read very often, but between writing and working and watching waaaaaaay too much TV (damn you, BBC America! Stop playing "Top Gear" all the time! I can't resist!) ... it actually took me more than three months to read just over 800 pages of "Under the Dome" by Stephen King. And I am not a slow reader. In fact, I am a very fast reader.
Sad, right?
It's not like I didn't like the book. I kept wanting to read it, but I would run out of time for weeks on end. The only reason I finished it this weekend is because my husband was engrossed in building his new character for D&D on Saturday afternoon so I seized the opportunity to read like a crazy woman until it was time for dinner.
At any rate, I guess "Under the Dome" gets points for being a pretty easy book to set down and pick back up to read.
"Under the Dome," like so many other books by King, is about a small town in Maine. This small town, Chester's Mill, is suddenly cut off from the rest of the world by a clear but solid barrier. Inside the town - under the dome - King creates a huge cast of characters that are all trying to survive or even thrive in the dome. The main drama comes between Dale "Barbie" Barbara, a former Army lieutenant who has angered a number of young men in the town, and Big Jim Rennie, the town's corrupt, power-hungry second selectman. Rennie's son, Junior, just happens to be one of the young men who is at odds with Barbie. Barbie is tapped by the government to lead the town during the crisis, while Big Jim works hard behind the scenes to put himself in charge of the town and discredit Barbie. And, of course, there is the big question - why is the dome there, and how can they get rid of it?
There also are several other characters who play prominently - the local newspaper editor, a physician's assistant, a 13-year-old boy - and a whole host of minor characters who round out the town. As someone who is working on writing her own first novel, I am amazed that King could keep track of all of the characters and make all but a few into well-written, fleshed out characters. There's probably a reason King had to wait until now to write this book, after having started and stopped the project a couple of times.
"Under The Dome" is not great literature - it's kind of pulpy - but it is a great read that I really enjoyed. At times I felt like the novel was a little bit long and could have used some editing, but I suppose that some of the reward for having published 49 novels is that you get to get a big long-winded at times. But, really, that was only a couple of places - most of the book flies along at a good clip. It was just what I expected from a Stephen King book, so if you like other King books, you'll enjoy "Under the Dome."
Monday, March 28, 2011
Books into Movies
Since my last list seemed to generate some interest, I thought I would do another. What follows is a Top Twelve List of books (or novellas) that have been turned into a movie (or tv show or mini-series). It isn't an all encompassing list, but rather the first 12 books that popped into my head of which I've seen the movie and read the book. I'm sure I am missing a ton. The order is random.
1) Stephen King's The Body, The Shining, IT, 1408, The Mist -> Stand by Me, The Shining (movie), The Shining (mini-series), IT (mini-series), 1408, The Mist--I find that Stephen King books are a bit hit or miss when it comes to making them into movies. Stand by Me is just as good as the novella, some say better. 1495 and The Mist are much much worse than the novellas. I also find it odd that I have read some of the source material prior to seeing the movies and some after. 1408 and The Shining (the movie) especially come to mind. I think that I would have liked both movies more if I hadn't read the books first. I am one of the few people who likes the mini-series version of the Shining more, mostly because it most closely follows the book. Also, it was filmed in the hotel that Stephen King wrote the book in. Fun!
2) Neil Gaiman's Stardust, Neverwhere -> Stardust, Neverwhere (mini-series)--I read Stardust after seeing the movie, but watched the Neverwhere mini-series after reading the book. I love the movie Stardust, though it is nothing like the book. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed the movie as much if I had been a fan of the book before. Neverwhere, though a made for tv with semi-shoddy special effects, really follows the story while adding in visuals that I felt really matched the book. Fun all around!
3) Meg Cabot's Princess Diaries, Avalon High--I love The Princess Diaries books and movies. I read the first couple books before the movie came out, and while they are vastly different, they are both still awesome. Same with Avalon High. Vastly different stories, but the same feel as the source material. I always think that more Meg Cabot books should be made into movies or tv shows (yes, I know that the 1-800-Where-R-You? series was turned into a tv show, but I haven't finished reading the series, so I haven't watched the show yet).
4) Dan Brown's Angels & Demons, Da Vinci Code--Mmmm popcorn books, popcorn movies. I know that many people hate the books, hate the movies, hate Dan Brown, blah blah blah. I love the books and I love the movies. They are interesting, entertaining, have lots of art and history, and have Tom Hanks. Also, Ewan McGregory is in one and Paul Bettany is in the other. How could that every be wrong?
5) Charlaine Harris's Southern Vampire Mysteries -> True Blood--My mom bought the first few Sookie Stackhouse books and gave them to me to read. While in the middle of reading the series, I started watching True Blood and wasn't a huge fan. However, once I finished the books and focused only on the show, I liked it way better. I find that I like both for the characters and plots and everything, but have to have them be separate entities. I cannot be reading and watching at the same time or I compare them and come out disappointed in the show.
6) Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club -> I saw the movie, loved it, read the book, loved it. I'm pretty easy to please. Movie with hot guys and lots of fighting, I'm in! The book is super fun, also. I'm not sure I would have gotten the twist in the book if I hadn't seen it in the movie first, but I found that knowing the twist didn't hamper my enjoyment of the book. Fight Club, in my opinion, is one of the best book to movie adaptions.
7) J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter Series--I'm not going to go into these too much because the last movie isn't out yet and the movies are so vastly different. But I will say that I have never been disappointed in one of the movies when it was released. I think that overall, the filmmakers have done a good job of capturing the stories and the atmosphere of the books.
8) William Goldman's Princess Bride--I had seen the Princess Bride many many times before I ever read the book and I think I like the book better. Slightly controversial stance, I know. I think the movie is one of the best (and most rewatchable) movies around, but I think the book, written in such an unconventional style, adds more to the characters and the plot. I think Goldman is a genius and can not stress enough that everyone should read the book.
9) Steven Gould's Jumper--If you have seen the movie, you are probably saying "That was such crap, why would you read the book?" And the answer is...I have no idea why I read the book. It was probably partly because I sort of loved the movie for its supreme trashiness and partly because I saw the book in the library and thought what the hell. The book is amaze-balls! Like, whoa. And the thing is that the best parts of the movie, Samuel L. Jackson and Jamie Bell, are not in the book! Though Gould wrote the origin story of Bell & Jackson which is also excellent. Really though. I'm not a huge fan of reading sci-fi, but I love Jumper, Griffin's Story, and Reflex (the sequel). I highly recommend.
10) Phillip Pullman's Golden Compass--Such a fantastic book, such a terrible movie. Like, so bad they didn't make the sequels. It is just such a shame because the book is so great. It was like they decided that they didn't want to be controversial at all, so they took out all the best stuff from the novel (except the polar bear fighting). Bummer, dude!
11) Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn --> Tom & Huck, Huck Finn--I like Twain a lot. He wrote important stuff, but man do I love the camp that are the movies! Tom & Huck is one of the first movies I remember seeing in the theater. It came out when I was 8 and I distinctly remember seeing it with my cousins and my sister, sitting way too close to the screen. I also remember watching it approximately 17,000 times on vhs. I am also a big fan of the Elijah Wood movie of Huck Finn. I mean, come on. It is soooo cheesy and campy and has Elijah Wood yelling "Biiilllllllyyyyy". Awesomesauce.
12) J.R.R. Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring--It was the only of the Lord of the Ring books that I made it through and I read it after seeing the movie. I like it a lot (not as much as the Hobbit, but still...). I think having seen the movie helped me keep track of the characters and the major plot points, but also, the book just moves along at a good pace for the most part. Some good stuff was cut out of the book, but honestly, it had to be. The movie was already extremely long.
So...those are my top 12 (ish) books turned into movies. I'm sure I'm missing some obvious ones or some of your favorites, so what did I miss? What books should I read that have been made into movies? What movies should I read the books of?
1) Stephen King's The Body, The Shining, IT, 1408, The Mist -> Stand by Me, The Shining (movie), The Shining (mini-series), IT (mini-series), 1408, The Mist--I find that Stephen King books are a bit hit or miss when it comes to making them into movies. Stand by Me is just as good as the novella, some say better. 1495 and The Mist are much much worse than the novellas. I also find it odd that I have read some of the source material prior to seeing the movies and some after. 1408 and The Shining (the movie) especially come to mind. I think that I would have liked both movies more if I hadn't read the books first. I am one of the few people who likes the mini-series version of the Shining more, mostly because it most closely follows the book. Also, it was filmed in the hotel that Stephen King wrote the book in. Fun!
2) Neil Gaiman's Stardust, Neverwhere -> Stardust, Neverwhere (mini-series)--I read Stardust after seeing the movie, but watched the Neverwhere mini-series after reading the book. I love the movie Stardust, though it is nothing like the book. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed the movie as much if I had been a fan of the book before. Neverwhere, though a made for tv with semi-shoddy special effects, really follows the story while adding in visuals that I felt really matched the book. Fun all around!
3) Meg Cabot's Princess Diaries, Avalon High--I love The Princess Diaries books and movies. I read the first couple books before the movie came out, and while they are vastly different, they are both still awesome. Same with Avalon High. Vastly different stories, but the same feel as the source material. I always think that more Meg Cabot books should be made into movies or tv shows (yes, I know that the 1-800-Where-R-You? series was turned into a tv show, but I haven't finished reading the series, so I haven't watched the show yet).
4) Dan Brown's Angels & Demons, Da Vinci Code--Mmmm popcorn books, popcorn movies. I know that many people hate the books, hate the movies, hate Dan Brown, blah blah blah. I love the books and I love the movies. They are interesting, entertaining, have lots of art and history, and have Tom Hanks. Also, Ewan McGregory is in one and Paul Bettany is in the other. How could that every be wrong?
5) Charlaine Harris's Southern Vampire Mysteries -> True Blood--My mom bought the first few Sookie Stackhouse books and gave them to me to read. While in the middle of reading the series, I started watching True Blood and wasn't a huge fan. However, once I finished the books and focused only on the show, I liked it way better. I find that I like both for the characters and plots and everything, but have to have them be separate entities. I cannot be reading and watching at the same time or I compare them and come out disappointed in the show.
6) Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club -> I saw the movie, loved it, read the book, loved it. I'm pretty easy to please. Movie with hot guys and lots of fighting, I'm in! The book is super fun, also. I'm not sure I would have gotten the twist in the book if I hadn't seen it in the movie first, but I found that knowing the twist didn't hamper my enjoyment of the book. Fight Club, in my opinion, is one of the best book to movie adaptions.
7) J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter Series--I'm not going to go into these too much because the last movie isn't out yet and the movies are so vastly different. But I will say that I have never been disappointed in one of the movies when it was released. I think that overall, the filmmakers have done a good job of capturing the stories and the atmosphere of the books.
8) William Goldman's Princess Bride--I had seen the Princess Bride many many times before I ever read the book and I think I like the book better. Slightly controversial stance, I know. I think the movie is one of the best (and most rewatchable) movies around, but I think the book, written in such an unconventional style, adds more to the characters and the plot. I think Goldman is a genius and can not stress enough that everyone should read the book.
9) Steven Gould's Jumper--If you have seen the movie, you are probably saying "That was such crap, why would you read the book?" And the answer is...I have no idea why I read the book. It was probably partly because I sort of loved the movie for its supreme trashiness and partly because I saw the book in the library and thought what the hell. The book is amaze-balls! Like, whoa. And the thing is that the best parts of the movie, Samuel L. Jackson and Jamie Bell, are not in the book! Though Gould wrote the origin story of Bell & Jackson which is also excellent. Really though. I'm not a huge fan of reading sci-fi, but I love Jumper, Griffin's Story, and Reflex (the sequel). I highly recommend.
10) Phillip Pullman's Golden Compass--Such a fantastic book, such a terrible movie. Like, so bad they didn't make the sequels. It is just such a shame because the book is so great. It was like they decided that they didn't want to be controversial at all, so they took out all the best stuff from the novel (except the polar bear fighting). Bummer, dude!
11) Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn --> Tom & Huck, Huck Finn--I like Twain a lot. He wrote important stuff, but man do I love the camp that are the movies! Tom & Huck is one of the first movies I remember seeing in the theater. It came out when I was 8 and I distinctly remember seeing it with my cousins and my sister, sitting way too close to the screen. I also remember watching it approximately 17,000 times on vhs. I am also a big fan of the Elijah Wood movie of Huck Finn. I mean, come on. It is soooo cheesy and campy and has Elijah Wood yelling "Biiilllllllyyyyy". Awesomesauce.
12) J.R.R. Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring--It was the only of the Lord of the Ring books that I made it through and I read it after seeing the movie. I like it a lot (not as much as the Hobbit, but still...). I think having seen the movie helped me keep track of the characters and the major plot points, but also, the book just moves along at a good pace for the most part. Some good stuff was cut out of the book, but honestly, it had to be. The movie was already extremely long.
So...those are my top 12 (ish) books turned into movies. I'm sure I'm missing some obvious ones or some of your favorites, so what did I miss? What books should I read that have been made into movies? What movies should I read the books of?
Friday, March 25, 2011
OK, Maybe Katniss Won't Be So Bad ...
Well, what I was fearing has come to pass - Jennifer Lawrence has been cast as Katniss in "The Hunger Games."
But now I've read several articles about the casting, and I'm feeling a little bit better about it.
First of all, director Gary Ross feels like Lawrence will be a good Katniss. He told Entertainment Weekly, "...she came in and read for me and it just knocked me out. I don’t want to go into too many details, but we did a scene from the movie and it was so amazingly powerful that it was sort of stunning. You glimpsed every aspect of the role and the potential of the whole movie."
That sounds like a good sign, but movie directors always say things like that, even when the person they cast absolutely sucks.
But when I read that author Suzanne Collins approved of Katniss' casting, I was sold.
First of all, as a budding novelist, I can't imagine trying to find someone to embody a character that I created. I'm so glad that Collins was involved though - it lends a lot of credibility to the movie for me.
Of Lawrence, Collins wrote: In her remarkable audition piece, I watched Jennifer embody every essential quality necessary to play Katniss. I saw a girl who has the potential rage to send an arrow into the Gamemakers and the protectiveness to make Rue her ally. Who has conquered both Peeta and Gale’s hearts even though she’s done her best to wall herself off emotionally from anything that would lead to romance. Most of all, I believed that this was a girl who could hold out that handful of berries and incite the beaten down districts of Panem to rebel. I think that was the essential question for me. Could she believably inspire a rebellion? Did she project the strength, defiance and intellect you would need to follow her into certain war? For me, she did.
OK, fine. I'm sold on the Katniss casting. If the author approves, who am I to judge?
I am still not sold on the whole movie, though. It's going to be hard to make such a scary, violent story into a movie that will be rated PG-13, because I'm sure it will have to be PG-13 to get the kind of box office returns they want. How are they going to make this movie work? I'm not convinced.
But now I've read several articles about the casting, and I'm feeling a little bit better about it.
First of all, director Gary Ross feels like Lawrence will be a good Katniss. He told Entertainment Weekly, "...she came in and read for me and it just knocked me out. I don’t want to go into too many details, but we did a scene from the movie and it was so amazingly powerful that it was sort of stunning. You glimpsed every aspect of the role and the potential of the whole movie."
That sounds like a good sign, but movie directors always say things like that, even when the person they cast absolutely sucks.
But when I read that author Suzanne Collins approved of Katniss' casting, I was sold.
First of all, as a budding novelist, I can't imagine trying to find someone to embody a character that I created. I'm so glad that Collins was involved though - it lends a lot of credibility to the movie for me.
Of Lawrence, Collins wrote: In her remarkable audition piece, I watched Jennifer embody every essential quality necessary to play Katniss. I saw a girl who has the potential rage to send an arrow into the Gamemakers and the protectiveness to make Rue her ally. Who has conquered both Peeta and Gale’s hearts even though she’s done her best to wall herself off emotionally from anything that would lead to romance. Most of all, I believed that this was a girl who could hold out that handful of berries and incite the beaten down districts of Panem to rebel. I think that was the essential question for me. Could she believably inspire a rebellion? Did she project the strength, defiance and intellect you would need to follow her into certain war? For me, she did.
OK, fine. I'm sold on the Katniss casting. If the author approves, who am I to judge?
I am still not sold on the whole movie, though. It's going to be hard to make such a scary, violent story into a movie that will be rated PG-13, because I'm sure it will have to be PG-13 to get the kind of box office returns they want. How are they going to make this movie work? I'm not convinced.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Top Seven List
I am stealing an idea from a friend of mine's blog (http://readeroffictions.blogspot.com/ she does awesome book reviews, check her blog out!) of doing a top ten list of some topic. I am stealing it because I like lists and organization, but I am only doing seven because...why not? So...today's top seven list is going to be on books that everyone has read/says everyone should read that I have never read and don't plan on reading (at least not in the near future). Aka the "Kelly is obstinate" blog!
1) Pride & Prejudice (or really anything by Jane Austen)--I know that lots of people love Jane Austen. And I've seen a couple different movie versions of P & P and there is really nothing much about the story that would make me say "wow...that sounds like the kind of book I would enjoy". Just not my thing.
2) Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (and sequels)--I don't like when people tell me that I have to read something. And after Dragon Tattoo came out everyone who read it told me that I had to read it OMG! So, I have zero interest in it. At all. I may come around eventually, but at the moment...meh!
3) Anna Karenina/War & Peace--I have no idea what either of these books are about, but they seem like the quintessential pretentious novel. I am not a pretentious person (except in my use of British slang because I am a nut) so I don't see the point in reading pretentious novels.
4) The Great Gatsby--Again, this seems like one of those novels that everyone has read or says you should read or says is one of the best novels ever. I just don't care. 20s society is not my scene. I read the Magnificent Ambersons in high school and that seemed like enough high society for me.
5) Wuthering Heights--All I really know about it is Heathcliff, who is a tortured hero, which I tend to hate. So, like with Pride & Prejudice, I'm not just interested.
6) Catch-22/Brave New World--These two really don't have anything to do with one another, but I always seem to group them. They are some of those books that it seems like everyone has read and says is so great, but really the only reason people read them was because they were required for a class.
7) Gone with the Wind--This one I would actually like to read. I've heard it is great and it sounds interesting. And I love the movie. I just haven't bothered to do it yet.
So...that is my list. Do you have any classics you refuse to read? Or do you think I am on crack for not having read one of these?
1) Pride & Prejudice (or really anything by Jane Austen)--I know that lots of people love Jane Austen. And I've seen a couple different movie versions of P & P and there is really nothing much about the story that would make me say "wow...that sounds like the kind of book I would enjoy". Just not my thing.
2) Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (and sequels)--I don't like when people tell me that I have to read something. And after Dragon Tattoo came out everyone who read it told me that I had to read it OMG! So, I have zero interest in it. At all. I may come around eventually, but at the moment...meh!
3) Anna Karenina/War & Peace--I have no idea what either of these books are about, but they seem like the quintessential pretentious novel. I am not a pretentious person (except in my use of British slang because I am a nut) so I don't see the point in reading pretentious novels.
4) The Great Gatsby--Again, this seems like one of those novels that everyone has read or says you should read or says is one of the best novels ever. I just don't care. 20s society is not my scene. I read the Magnificent Ambersons in high school and that seemed like enough high society for me.
5) Wuthering Heights--All I really know about it is Heathcliff, who is a tortured hero, which I tend to hate. So, like with Pride & Prejudice, I'm not just interested.
6) Catch-22/Brave New World--These two really don't have anything to do with one another, but I always seem to group them. They are some of those books that it seems like everyone has read and says is so great, but really the only reason people read them was because they were required for a class.
7) Gone with the Wind--This one I would actually like to read. I've heard it is great and it sounds interesting. And I love the movie. I just haven't bothered to do it yet.
So...that is my list. Do you have any classics you refuse to read? Or do you think I am on crack for not having read one of these?
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Fashion!
I just wrote an entire blog post and then deleted it because it was going nowhere. All ramble, no point. I'm going to attempt to write a blog with a point now. Though I'm not sure I every really do that. We'll see. Today's topic is fashion.
I have never been particularly girly. Growing up I had a few girly tendencies like doing ballet and having long hair. But I really could not have cared less about fashion, makeup, doing my hair nicely, watching chick flicks, wearing dresses, wearing heels, or acting at all girly. In a lot of ways, I haven't changed a lot; I am still not particularly girly. I still can't figure out why people would spend time putting on make up in the morning and I would much rather see a movie with blood, sex, and car chases than romance, but the one thing that has evolved is my fashion. I have slowly and sneakily become a bit of a fashion girl.
This isn't to say that I follow the trends and wear all the hottest clothes and all that junk. I have just learned how to create an outfit and have figured out my style. For example, the outfit I'm wearing today is the perfect example; I am essentially in a grownup version of jeans and a t-shirt. I have on jeans, a blouse, a jacket, boots, and a necklace. On the surface, nothing too out of the ordinary or too fancy. But let me explain outfit in some detail. The blouse is an abstract sort of flower pattern with black, hot pink, bright blue, and a bit of purple. The jacket is a velvet blazer; a bit of a masculine cut, but with only one button. The necklace is a ridiculously chunky chains and beads layered piece with a giant-ass flower. And the boots are grey four inch heeled ankle boots. I look fierce.
On the weekends, I am usually in just jeans or cargo pants, a t-shirt and a sweatshirt. My preferred footwear are tennis shoes or flip flops. I'm a casual sort of person. But at work, I like dressing up. I like wearing dresses and shirts, though mine are all above the knee and are either satin, camo ruffles, teal, or crazy hot pink patterned. I don't do normal, bland, basic at work. But I also don't do overtly feminine. Even in a skirt, I like having the structure of a masculine look. I prefer a blazer jacket to a cardigan (I don't really do sweaters ever at all). I have my hair short now and tend to spike it or make it into a faux hawk. I wear boots or gladiator sandals and never pumps. I would describe my style as fierce and strong. Feminine with masculine touches or masculine with feminine touches, depending on the day. And you know what, I like doing it. I like figuring out my outfit. I like wearing that extra piece of crazy jewelry. I like making people take an extra second to take in my outfit. The best comment I've heard about an outfit was when I was in my camo ruffled dress, a khaki jacket, and a pair of brown motorcycle/cowboy boots. I was told that I looked like I was going to a Cyndi Lauper concert. It was meant as a compliment and I took it as such.
That is what my style is. It is different from everyone else and it took a while to perfect it. I now can go to the store and pick out the jacket and shoes and necklace that will work for me. It is fun to have style and be different. And really, nothing beats strutting around in a pair of four inch heels. I suggest everyone give it a try!
I have never been particularly girly. Growing up I had a few girly tendencies like doing ballet and having long hair. But I really could not have cared less about fashion, makeup, doing my hair nicely, watching chick flicks, wearing dresses, wearing heels, or acting at all girly. In a lot of ways, I haven't changed a lot; I am still not particularly girly. I still can't figure out why people would spend time putting on make up in the morning and I would much rather see a movie with blood, sex, and car chases than romance, but the one thing that has evolved is my fashion. I have slowly and sneakily become a bit of a fashion girl.
This isn't to say that I follow the trends and wear all the hottest clothes and all that junk. I have just learned how to create an outfit and have figured out my style. For example, the outfit I'm wearing today is the perfect example; I am essentially in a grownup version of jeans and a t-shirt. I have on jeans, a blouse, a jacket, boots, and a necklace. On the surface, nothing too out of the ordinary or too fancy. But let me explain outfit in some detail. The blouse is an abstract sort of flower pattern with black, hot pink, bright blue, and a bit of purple. The jacket is a velvet blazer; a bit of a masculine cut, but with only one button. The necklace is a ridiculously chunky chains and beads layered piece with a giant-ass flower. And the boots are grey four inch heeled ankle boots. I look fierce.
On the weekends, I am usually in just jeans or cargo pants, a t-shirt and a sweatshirt. My preferred footwear are tennis shoes or flip flops. I'm a casual sort of person. But at work, I like dressing up. I like wearing dresses and shirts, though mine are all above the knee and are either satin, camo ruffles, teal, or crazy hot pink patterned. I don't do normal, bland, basic at work. But I also don't do overtly feminine. Even in a skirt, I like having the structure of a masculine look. I prefer a blazer jacket to a cardigan (I don't really do sweaters ever at all). I have my hair short now and tend to spike it or make it into a faux hawk. I wear boots or gladiator sandals and never pumps. I would describe my style as fierce and strong. Feminine with masculine touches or masculine with feminine touches, depending on the day. And you know what, I like doing it. I like figuring out my outfit. I like wearing that extra piece of crazy jewelry. I like making people take an extra second to take in my outfit. The best comment I've heard about an outfit was when I was in my camo ruffled dress, a khaki jacket, and a pair of brown motorcycle/cowboy boots. I was told that I looked like I was going to a Cyndi Lauper concert. It was meant as a compliment and I took it as such.
That is what my style is. It is different from everyone else and it took a while to perfect it. I now can go to the store and pick out the jacket and shoes and necklace that will work for me. It is fun to have style and be different. And really, nothing beats strutting around in a pair of four inch heels. I suggest everyone give it a try!
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Worried about casting Katniss? Me too!
I am excited - though pretty nervous, too - about the prospect of "The Hunger Games" as a movie.
I've been burned by filmmakers before when they completely screw up books I love. But "The Hunger Games" seems like it is just made for the big screen treatment! There is so much action and excitement, and I love the idea of seeing Katniss' gritty home in District 12 and the insanity of the Capitol and the excitement of the Games.
That being said, I am really pretty unhappy with the talk of Katniss' casting - specifically, the scuttlebutt that blond-haired, blue-eyed Jennifer Lawrence might play her.
(Cue the Luke Skywalker yell after he finds out that Darth Vader is his father - angry face and all): NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
It's not that I don't like Jennifer Lawrence. She's obviously a good actress and she was very good in "Winter's Bone." However, SHE IS NOT KATNISS. SHE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE KATNISS. Katniss is not a blond haired, blue eyed beauty. Katniss is darker, with olive skin, gray eyes and dark hair. This is a key part of her character, because she looks like all the other workers in District 12. I realize that the Katniss on the big screen will not look like the Katniss in my head, just like always, but she needs to at least resemble the character described, just like Ron Weasley needed to have red hair. It's part of who they are.
The other issue I have with that is the whitewashing they are, therefore, doing to the character by having Katniss played by a very white actress. Hollywood has a terrible track record with whitewashing (Exhibit A: "The Last Airbender." *shudder*). Performers of other races - it seems, especially actresses - are ignored in favor of the pretty Caucasian girl. That seems like what they're doing again. Why not find some great actress who isn't a whitey-white-white girl with blond hair? They ARE out there! Hell, if they want an Oscar-nominated actress, why not at least go with Hailee Steinfeld from "True Grit?" At least she looks more like Katniss than Jennifer Lawrence. It's absolutely deplorable that Lawrence's name would even be bandied about for the role when she so obviously doesn't even resemble the character. This is such a great opportunity for people - especially impressionable teens and preteens - to see real racial diversity in a movie.
I mean, besides, the whole idea of making Katniss light-skinned and blond would screw up the deliberate racial undertones in the novel, since the lower class of workers in District 12 is olive-skinned and the merchant class is pale and blond. HELLO? I'm pretty sure Suzanne Collins didn't just put that detail in for shits and giggles, especially considering that the novel has some very real commentary on class and race in it.
I hope I'm wrong and that the producers hear the outcry and make sure that they cast Katniss correctly ... but I don't hold out a ton of hope. Hollywood has let me down many times before, and I'm really afraid it will again. It's too bad, because "The Hunger Games" has such potential, both to be a great movie and to offer up some real diversity and real opportunities for a diverse group of young actors.
I've been burned by filmmakers before when they completely screw up books I love. But "The Hunger Games" seems like it is just made for the big screen treatment! There is so much action and excitement, and I love the idea of seeing Katniss' gritty home in District 12 and the insanity of the Capitol and the excitement of the Games.
That being said, I am really pretty unhappy with the talk of Katniss' casting - specifically, the scuttlebutt that blond-haired, blue-eyed Jennifer Lawrence might play her.
(Cue the Luke Skywalker yell after he finds out that Darth Vader is his father - angry face and all): NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
It's not that I don't like Jennifer Lawrence. She's obviously a good actress and she was very good in "Winter's Bone." However, SHE IS NOT KATNISS. SHE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE KATNISS. Katniss is not a blond haired, blue eyed beauty. Katniss is darker, with olive skin, gray eyes and dark hair. This is a key part of her character, because she looks like all the other workers in District 12. I realize that the Katniss on the big screen will not look like the Katniss in my head, just like always, but she needs to at least resemble the character described, just like Ron Weasley needed to have red hair. It's part of who they are.
The other issue I have with that is the whitewashing they are, therefore, doing to the character by having Katniss played by a very white actress. Hollywood has a terrible track record with whitewashing (Exhibit A: "The Last Airbender." *shudder*). Performers of other races - it seems, especially actresses - are ignored in favor of the pretty Caucasian girl. That seems like what they're doing again. Why not find some great actress who isn't a whitey-white-white girl with blond hair? They ARE out there! Hell, if they want an Oscar-nominated actress, why not at least go with Hailee Steinfeld from "True Grit?" At least she looks more like Katniss than Jennifer Lawrence. It's absolutely deplorable that Lawrence's name would even be bandied about for the role when she so obviously doesn't even resemble the character. This is such a great opportunity for people - especially impressionable teens and preteens - to see real racial diversity in a movie.
I mean, besides, the whole idea of making Katniss light-skinned and blond would screw up the deliberate racial undertones in the novel, since the lower class of workers in District 12 is olive-skinned and the merchant class is pale and blond. HELLO? I'm pretty sure Suzanne Collins didn't just put that detail in for shits and giggles, especially considering that the novel has some very real commentary on class and race in it.
I hope I'm wrong and that the producers hear the outcry and make sure that they cast Katniss correctly ... but I don't hold out a ton of hope. Hollywood has let me down many times before, and I'm really afraid it will again. It's too bad, because "The Hunger Games" has such potential, both to be a great movie and to offer up some real diversity and real opportunities for a diverse group of young actors.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Book Review: Florida Roadkill by Tim Dorsey
I read a book that was neither chick lit nor mystery. Cha! I know. Write it on the calender! Though to be honest, the whole chick lit/mystery exclusivity is really recent and I do enjoy other genres of books. Florida Roadkill by Tim Dorsey is a crime novel, or a crime caper. Or a highly violent, yet light and funny novel that takes place in Florida. Seriously, that seems to be a genre onto itself. Violent Florida crime caper comedy. It is an entertaining genre for sure. Onto the review.
The main character is Serge Storm, a highly unstable, manic, obsessive, violent, personable guy who is prescribed many medicines that he doesn't take and enjoys being a rather spazztic tour guide to whoever he happens to be traveling with. Honestly, he is the kind of guy that you really don't want to like, but in the story you can't help but enjoy having him there. And outside of the psychological problems, he is really knowledgeable about the culture and history of Florida.
There are a ton of other characters in Florida Roadkill. So many that I had trouble remembering who everyone was and had to keep going back to check on when I met the people before. But all the characters were needed because the plot was wicked complicated. Basically, Serge ends up getting a very douchey dentist a 5 million dollar insurance settlement, which the dentist puts into a briefcase before running in an attempt to get away from Serge. The main secondary characters are a pair of buddies who kind of know the dentist and end up with the briefcase, unbeknown to them. The whole book, in flashbacks, out of sequence plot lines, and constant character focus changes, tells the story of Serge trying to get the money.
Though I kept getting confused by the characters and the plots, I would still recommend Florida Roadkill, especially if you have read Big Trouble or Tricky Business by Dave Barry. Also, apparently if you like Carl Hiaasen, you will enjoy Tim Dorsey (I haven't read Hiaasen yet, so I don't know, but I know that Dave Barry is the same genre and I loved both).
I am now currently reading The Chocolate Chip Cookie Murder by Joanne Fluke. I've read it before (and the whole series), but I wanted something light to read. And I have discovered that I don't remember who the killer is at all! My next book to read is Abandon by Meg Cabot. I am currently in possession of an Advanced Reader Copy. So excited!
The main character is Serge Storm, a highly unstable, manic, obsessive, violent, personable guy who is prescribed many medicines that he doesn't take and enjoys being a rather spazztic tour guide to whoever he happens to be traveling with. Honestly, he is the kind of guy that you really don't want to like, but in the story you can't help but enjoy having him there. And outside of the psychological problems, he is really knowledgeable about the culture and history of Florida.
There are a ton of other characters in Florida Roadkill. So many that I had trouble remembering who everyone was and had to keep going back to check on when I met the people before. But all the characters were needed because the plot was wicked complicated. Basically, Serge ends up getting a very douchey dentist a 5 million dollar insurance settlement, which the dentist puts into a briefcase before running in an attempt to get away from Serge. The main secondary characters are a pair of buddies who kind of know the dentist and end up with the briefcase, unbeknown to them. The whole book, in flashbacks, out of sequence plot lines, and constant character focus changes, tells the story of Serge trying to get the money.
Though I kept getting confused by the characters and the plots, I would still recommend Florida Roadkill, especially if you have read Big Trouble or Tricky Business by Dave Barry. Also, apparently if you like Carl Hiaasen, you will enjoy Tim Dorsey (I haven't read Hiaasen yet, so I don't know, but I know that Dave Barry is the same genre and I loved both).
I am now currently reading The Chocolate Chip Cookie Murder by Joanne Fluke. I've read it before (and the whole series), but I wanted something light to read. And I have discovered that I don't remember who the killer is at all! My next book to read is Abandon by Meg Cabot. I am currently in possession of an Advanced Reader Copy. So excited!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Happy Birthday Won-Won!
I didn't know it until the day, since it's apparently not a national holiday, but Tuesday, March 1, was Ron Weasley's birthday.
I'm actually sort of disappointed I didn't make a cake or something.
I know that Ron is a fictional character, but I like the idea of celebrating a fictional character's birthday. I'm not sure if it's because I really like Ron, or because I have no life. Maybe both. I know I'd rather celebrate Ron's birthday than Justin Bieber's!
Anyway, what's the best way to celebrate Ron's birthday? Lord Voldemort decided to remind Ron of birthday's past with his tweet: #HappyBirthdayRon. Remember when you turned 17, drank love potion & then almost died? Good times.
Ha! That Voldey. Always good for a laugh.
I saw "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I" again last week for my friend Sean's birthday, and got to thinking about how Ron is portrayed in the movies vs. how he's portrayed in the books. First of all, they do the best in "Deathly Hallows" of making him not a complete idiot like they do in the rest of the movies. But, really, going off the movie portrayals, Ron is a glutton, a moron and a wuss. That is not the Ron I know from the books. They use him for comic relief occasionally and he does stupid things sometimes, but it's not like Harry and Hermione are rocket scientists all the time. They all have their idiot moments. I mean, he kicks a lot of butt at Wizard's Chess! I can't play chess, so color me impressed. And I wouldn't call any of the trio wussy, except in affairs of the heart, but who wasn't a complete dweeb when they were 16 and in love? About the only times I really legitimately get angry with Ron (why, yes, I do get too into books sometimes, why do you ask?) is when he refuses to talk to Harry after Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire, when he goes out with Lavender Brown and hurts Hermione's feelings and when he leaves Harry and Hermione in the woods in "Deathly Hallows." Other than that, Ron makes a lot of sense, and in fact I prefer him to Harry during much of Harry's bitchy phase during "Order of the Phoenix" and "Half-Blood Prince."
I know that it's already the day after Ron's birthday, but I think tomorrow I'll read a couple of my favorite Ron passages - his bravery in battling the Death Eaters at the Ministry of Magic, the hilarity of his relationship with Lavender, killing the horcrux in the locket. Heck, if I weren't so dang busy I'd just re-read all the books right now.
In conclusion: Happy birthday Ron! You rock!
How did you celebrate Ron's birthday? Or, if you didn't, how will you celebrate next year?
I'm actually sort of disappointed I didn't make a cake or something.
I know that Ron is a fictional character, but I like the idea of celebrating a fictional character's birthday. I'm not sure if it's because I really like Ron, or because I have no life. Maybe both. I know I'd rather celebrate Ron's birthday than Justin Bieber's!
Anyway, what's the best way to celebrate Ron's birthday? Lord Voldemort decided to remind Ron of birthday's past with his tweet: #HappyBirthdayRon. Remember when you turned 17, drank love potion & then almost died? Good times.
Ha! That Voldey. Always good for a laugh.
I saw "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I" again last week for my friend Sean's birthday, and got to thinking about how Ron is portrayed in the movies vs. how he's portrayed in the books. First of all, they do the best in "Deathly Hallows" of making him not a complete idiot like they do in the rest of the movies. But, really, going off the movie portrayals, Ron is a glutton, a moron and a wuss. That is not the Ron I know from the books. They use him for comic relief occasionally and he does stupid things sometimes, but it's not like Harry and Hermione are rocket scientists all the time. They all have their idiot moments. I mean, he kicks a lot of butt at Wizard's Chess! I can't play chess, so color me impressed. And I wouldn't call any of the trio wussy, except in affairs of the heart, but who wasn't a complete dweeb when they were 16 and in love? About the only times I really legitimately get angry with Ron (why, yes, I do get too into books sometimes, why do you ask?) is when he refuses to talk to Harry after Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire, when he goes out with Lavender Brown and hurts Hermione's feelings and when he leaves Harry and Hermione in the woods in "Deathly Hallows." Other than that, Ron makes a lot of sense, and in fact I prefer him to Harry during much of Harry's bitchy phase during "Order of the Phoenix" and "Half-Blood Prince."
I know that it's already the day after Ron's birthday, but I think tomorrow I'll read a couple of my favorite Ron passages - his bravery in battling the Death Eaters at the Ministry of Magic, the hilarity of his relationship with Lavender, killing the horcrux in the locket. Heck, if I weren't so dang busy I'd just re-read all the books right now.
In conclusion: Happy birthday Ron! You rock!
How did you celebrate Ron's birthday? Or, if you didn't, how will you celebrate next year?
March Resolution: To Blog and Stuff
I realize I haven't posted in, like, forever. I also haven't read in, like, a week. I'm blaming it all on winter. I can't really get myself to do much of anything during the winter except lay on the couch and watch TV. That's why, really, the concept of New Years Resolutions are so flawed. Who is going to start doing ANYTHING in January? Unless I resolve to watch more TV, it's not happening.
However, today is March 1, which means it's spring! At least, in my eyes it is. And, so, I am going to resolve to read and blog more. My blog entries will probably be slightly different though. Rather than always having a huge entry about some big thing, I am going to try to do more bite-size entries about book news of the day. It seems to me that it will be a much more manageable way to blog with my busy lifestyle. There will still be bigger entries and reviews, but it won't be every day.
To amuse you until I blog again, check out this list of classic steamy novels from Entertainment Weekly. I haven't read any of them except "The Other Side of Midnight" by Sidney Sheldon and a few selected passages from "Clan of the Cave Bear" (I remember passing a bookmarked copy around Chemistry class in high school) ...
... but you'd better believe I have a few more books on my reading list now!
However, today is March 1, which means it's spring! At least, in my eyes it is. And, so, I am going to resolve to read and blog more. My blog entries will probably be slightly different though. Rather than always having a huge entry about some big thing, I am going to try to do more bite-size entries about book news of the day. It seems to me that it will be a much more manageable way to blog with my busy lifestyle. There will still be bigger entries and reviews, but it won't be every day.
To amuse you until I blog again, check out this list of classic steamy novels from Entertainment Weekly. I haven't read any of them except "The Other Side of Midnight" by Sidney Sheldon and a few selected passages from "Clan of the Cave Bear" (I remember passing a bookmarked copy around Chemistry class in high school) ...
... but you'd better believe I have a few more books on my reading list now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)