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.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Review of Avalon High: or Crap! Now I have to read a Graphic Novel
I just finished Avalon High by Meg Cabot. It is a teen book, that for some reason, I had never read. Weird, right? But now I have read it and I own it. And it was awesome! As I am not terribly good at writing succinct recaps, I am just going to quote what the back of the book says:
"Avalon High seems like a typical high school, attended by typical students: There’s Lance, the jock. Jennifer, the cheerleader. And Will, senior class president, quarterback, and all-around good guy.
But not everybody at Avalon High is who they appear to be…not even, as new student Ellie is about to discover, herself. What part does she play in the drama that is unfolding? What if the bizarre chain of events and coincidences she has pieced together means—as with the court of King Arthur—tragedy is fast approaching Avalon High?
Worst of all, what if there’s nothing she can do about it?"
It is kind of interesting that the back of the book teases about the whole King Arthur thing, but that doesn't even really come into play until toward the end. I feel like this book, much like Insatiable, was a really great first book of a series. There was a lot of build up, but the ultimate showdown ended quickly, which makes me think that the sequel will be well worth the read. Even though the sequel is a graphic novel, which I don't read. But now I have to because I need to find out what happens with all the characters.
Now for the reasons that I really really loved Avalon High:
1) It contained all the things a good book should: hot boys (and hot girls, if that is your preference), kissing, violence, mystery, and all sorts of drama!
2) I thought the modern day King Arthur thing really worked as a plot device. I'm not that well versed in Arthurian anything, except for Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the Sword in the Stone, so I really enjoyed how much they discussed the historical stuff.
3) The Lady of Shalott by Tennyson. I really enjoyed reading the poem (it was used during chapter breaks) and it led me to research a bit about the Lady of Shalott, the real person. I like learning!
4) Ellie, the main character, was pretty hilarious and totally badass. She was definitely a fighter, which I totally dig in a hero!
I'm trying to figure out where in ranks in my love of Meg Cabot books. It definitely wasn't my favorite, even of the teen books, but it was up there. I thought the plot moved along well, even when there wasn't a lot of super drama-y stuff until the end. I really liked Ellie a lot and super loved Will, the guy she liked, but I also thought the secondary characters were fun, even without getting much page time (I wanted more Lance...). I'm definitely going to have to find the sequel now and read it. Who knows, maybe this will be what gets me into graphic novels...
"Avalon High seems like a typical high school, attended by typical students: There’s Lance, the jock. Jennifer, the cheerleader. And Will, senior class president, quarterback, and all-around good guy.
But not everybody at Avalon High is who they appear to be…not even, as new student Ellie is about to discover, herself. What part does she play in the drama that is unfolding? What if the bizarre chain of events and coincidences she has pieced together means—as with the court of King Arthur—tragedy is fast approaching Avalon High?
Worst of all, what if there’s nothing she can do about it?"
It is kind of interesting that the back of the book teases about the whole King Arthur thing, but that doesn't even really come into play until toward the end. I feel like this book, much like Insatiable, was a really great first book of a series. There was a lot of build up, but the ultimate showdown ended quickly, which makes me think that the sequel will be well worth the read. Even though the sequel is a graphic novel, which I don't read. But now I have to because I need to find out what happens with all the characters.
Now for the reasons that I really really loved Avalon High:
1) It contained all the things a good book should: hot boys (and hot girls, if that is your preference), kissing, violence, mystery, and all sorts of drama!
2) I thought the modern day King Arthur thing really worked as a plot device. I'm not that well versed in Arthurian anything, except for Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the Sword in the Stone, so I really enjoyed how much they discussed the historical stuff.
3) The Lady of Shalott by Tennyson. I really enjoyed reading the poem (it was used during chapter breaks) and it led me to research a bit about the Lady of Shalott, the real person. I like learning!
4) Ellie, the main character, was pretty hilarious and totally badass. She was definitely a fighter, which I totally dig in a hero!
I'm trying to figure out where in ranks in my love of Meg Cabot books. It definitely wasn't my favorite, even of the teen books, but it was up there. I thought the plot moved along well, even when there wasn't a lot of super drama-y stuff until the end. I really liked Ellie a lot and super loved Will, the guy she liked, but I also thought the secondary characters were fun, even without getting much page time (I wanted more Lance...). I'm definitely going to have to find the sequel now and read it. Who knows, maybe this will be what gets me into graphic novels...
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
I Just Finished ... "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
I finally finished "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo." It took me a while to read - not because it was a hard slog or not good or I lost interest. No, it was actually a pretty easy read, with a great story and compelling characters. Unfortunately, life got in the way - I had work, and I'm working on writing a novel, and my husband does like to see me occasionally without a book in my hands. (Although, he is reading "Harry Potter" so he might have actually been OK with laying around reading all last weekend. But I digress ...)
No, I actually really liked "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo." The book follows two main characters: journalist Mikael Blomkvist and hacker Lisbeth Salander. At the start of the book, Mikael has just been convicted of libeling a big-time industrialist, and it appears his career is over. He resigns as publisher of "Millennium" magazine, despite objections of Erika Berger, the editor and Mikael's best friend/lover. Mikael then agrees (somewhat reluctantly) to investigate the disappearance of Harriet Vanger, the niece of retired industrialist Henrik Vanger, 40 years before.
Meanwhile, Lisbeth is a young researcher and computer hacker. She is antisocial, which makes people think she is stupid, but she's actually very intelligent. Eventually - about halfway through the book, really - the lives of Mikael and Lisbeth finally really intersect. They get wrapped up in Vanger family drama and some pretty exciting, dramatic things happen.
The book is a crime mystery, and the author, the late Stieg Larsson, does a pretty good job concealing what is actually going on until the proper time. However, after the mystery is solved, it still takes a long time to wrap everything up. That was probably my biggest complaint of the book overall. I thought it was done, but there were still quite a few chapters left. It was interesting stuff, though, and it was really necessary information to finish off the story, but I was already ready to read the second book, "The Girl Who Played With Fire!"
The characters are really interesting in this book - especially Lisbeth. Larsson gets into her head and shows us her motivations for the strange things she does. She is not a normal woman, not to mention a normal heroine, but she is smart, and she's a survivor. I really ended up loving her. She does a lot of the things that most of us only dream of doing in our deepest, darkest fantasies. I think she spoke to me, and will speak to a lot of people, because of that. She's fascinating.
Mikael is also an interesting character, although Larsson does go a little bit over-the-top with Mikael's apparent irresistibly to the opposite sex. Mikael sleeps with several women over the course of the book, and doesn't seem to have much trouble getting women to fall into his bed. It's a little silly and, at least some of the time, completely unnecessary. However, considering that Daniel Craig will be playing Mikael in the movie, it's perfectly OK with me.
I really enjoyed the book - it was a solid thriller with some really intense scenes and a solid plot. I think it will make a great movie, and I highly recommend the book (I'm sure it will be better than the movie!).
No, I actually really liked "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo." The book follows two main characters: journalist Mikael Blomkvist and hacker Lisbeth Salander. At the start of the book, Mikael has just been convicted of libeling a big-time industrialist, and it appears his career is over. He resigns as publisher of "Millennium" magazine, despite objections of Erika Berger, the editor and Mikael's best friend/lover. Mikael then agrees (somewhat reluctantly) to investigate the disappearance of Harriet Vanger, the niece of retired industrialist Henrik Vanger, 40 years before.
Meanwhile, Lisbeth is a young researcher and computer hacker. She is antisocial, which makes people think she is stupid, but she's actually very intelligent. Eventually - about halfway through the book, really - the lives of Mikael and Lisbeth finally really intersect. They get wrapped up in Vanger family drama and some pretty exciting, dramatic things happen.
The book is a crime mystery, and the author, the late Stieg Larsson, does a pretty good job concealing what is actually going on until the proper time. However, after the mystery is solved, it still takes a long time to wrap everything up. That was probably my biggest complaint of the book overall. I thought it was done, but there were still quite a few chapters left. It was interesting stuff, though, and it was really necessary information to finish off the story, but I was already ready to read the second book, "The Girl Who Played With Fire!"
The characters are really interesting in this book - especially Lisbeth. Larsson gets into her head and shows us her motivations for the strange things she does. She is not a normal woman, not to mention a normal heroine, but she is smart, and she's a survivor. I really ended up loving her. She does a lot of the things that most of us only dream of doing in our deepest, darkest fantasies. I think she spoke to me, and will speak to a lot of people, because of that. She's fascinating.
Mikael is also an interesting character, although Larsson does go a little bit over-the-top with Mikael's apparent irresistibly to the opposite sex. Mikael sleeps with several women over the course of the book, and doesn't seem to have much trouble getting women to fall into his bed. It's a little silly and, at least some of the time, completely unnecessary. However, considering that Daniel Craig will be playing Mikael in the movie, it's perfectly OK with me.
I really enjoyed the book - it was a solid thriller with some really intense scenes and a solid plot. I think it will make a great movie, and I highly recommend the book (I'm sure it will be better than the movie!).
Ellen Hopkins: Uninvited
Bookshelves of Doom has a nice recap of all things Ellen Hopkins/Humble, Texas.
http://bookshelvesofdoom.blogs.com/bookshelves_of_doom/2010/08/there-is-big-trouble-abrewing-in-humble-texas.html
The cliffnotes version of what happened: Ellen Hopkins was invited to speak at the Teen Lit Fest in Humble, Texas. One librarian and "a few" parents got upset because Hopkins apparently writes controversial things and they got the school superintendent to uninvite her. Four other authors pulled out in solidarity: Pete Hautman, Melissa de la Cruz, Tera Lynn Childs, and Matt de la Pena. Many people are pissed and are writing about it. The bookshelves of doom link links to all sorts of posts about it, many by the authors themselves.
Now, I will admit that I have never read Ellen Hopkins, nor any of the other authors that pulled out. Apparently Hopkins has a book about a teen addicted to crystal meth and another about sex. ZOMG! No! Protect the children! Not drugs and sex! Not everyone may want to read about a crystal meth addict. Personally, gritty reality books are not my cup of tea. I enjoy crap that is fun, fluffy, and couldn't happen. However, many people enjoy her books. Many teens relate to her books. Some people are offended by her books. That's fine too. You can think that her books suck, that she is a terrible author, that she is a destroying childrens' minds. But you can't keep other people from reading her books. And you can't tell teens they cannot listen to her speak. You can tell your kid not to go, but you can't tell someone else's kid not to go.
Scanning the comments of many of the blog posts about this mostly shows support for Hopkins and the other authors who pulled out. However, some people bring up the point that the authors are hurting the teens by not attending. You know what...the authors not attending is hurting the teens who might attend, but it isn't the fault of the authors; it is the fault of the superintendent, the librarian, and the parents who made a big deal out of it. They are the ones who are hurting the teens of Humble, Texas. If I were one of the authors scheduled to attend, I would pull out. Supporting the festival, which is not supporting free speech, is bad. If the festival decided not to invite Hopkins to speak in the first place, this wouldn't be a big deal. They can choose who they want at their festival. But inviting her and then uninviting her due to her "controversial" books...that just doesn't sit right.
It is an interesting parallel to what libraries face. If you don't buy a certain book, it is no big deal. A library can not own every single book, so if you decide not to buy a book for whatever reason, that is fine (unless there is a demand for the book and you are just not buying it because you disagree with it, but that is a whole other blog post). If you get the book, three people complain, and you pull the book, that is censorship. Same thing goes for the Teen Lit Fest. There are a ton of teen authors. If you decide not to invite Hopkins, no hard feelings. If you invite her, then three people complain, and you uninvite her, that is censorship.
I will be interested to see if there is fall out from this. There are already a ton of blogs being written about this and I assume there will be more to come, especially if the superintendent replies.
http://bookshelvesofdoom.blogs.com/bookshelves_of_doom/2010/08/there-is-big-trouble-abrewing-in-humble-texas.html
The cliffnotes version of what happened: Ellen Hopkins was invited to speak at the Teen Lit Fest in Humble, Texas. One librarian and "a few" parents got upset because Hopkins apparently writes controversial things and they got the school superintendent to uninvite her. Four other authors pulled out in solidarity: Pete Hautman, Melissa de la Cruz, Tera Lynn Childs, and Matt de la Pena. Many people are pissed and are writing about it. The bookshelves of doom link links to all sorts of posts about it, many by the authors themselves.
Now, I will admit that I have never read Ellen Hopkins, nor any of the other authors that pulled out. Apparently Hopkins has a book about a teen addicted to crystal meth and another about sex. ZOMG! No! Protect the children! Not drugs and sex! Not everyone may want to read about a crystal meth addict. Personally, gritty reality books are not my cup of tea. I enjoy crap that is fun, fluffy, and couldn't happen. However, many people enjoy her books. Many teens relate to her books. Some people are offended by her books. That's fine too. You can think that her books suck, that she is a terrible author, that she is a destroying childrens' minds. But you can't keep other people from reading her books. And you can't tell teens they cannot listen to her speak. You can tell your kid not to go, but you can't tell someone else's kid not to go.
Scanning the comments of many of the blog posts about this mostly shows support for Hopkins and the other authors who pulled out. However, some people bring up the point that the authors are hurting the teens by not attending. You know what...the authors not attending is hurting the teens who might attend, but it isn't the fault of the authors; it is the fault of the superintendent, the librarian, and the parents who made a big deal out of it. They are the ones who are hurting the teens of Humble, Texas. If I were one of the authors scheduled to attend, I would pull out. Supporting the festival, which is not supporting free speech, is bad. If the festival decided not to invite Hopkins to speak in the first place, this wouldn't be a big deal. They can choose who they want at their festival. But inviting her and then uninviting her due to her "controversial" books...that just doesn't sit right.
It is an interesting parallel to what libraries face. If you don't buy a certain book, it is no big deal. A library can not own every single book, so if you decide not to buy a book for whatever reason, that is fine (unless there is a demand for the book and you are just not buying it because you disagree with it, but that is a whole other blog post). If you get the book, three people complain, and you pull the book, that is censorship. Same thing goes for the Teen Lit Fest. There are a ton of teen authors. If you decide not to invite Hopkins, no hard feelings. If you invite her, then three people complain, and you uninvite her, that is censorship.
I will be interested to see if there is fall out from this. There are already a ton of blogs being written about this and I assume there will be more to come, especially if the superintendent replies.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Feeling Tarty!
First of all, we were going to do another Friday Book Chat. We even started chatting on Friday about books. And it just...didn't work. The conversation was going nowhere and it really was pretty boring. So, we are going to try again next weekend I think, probably on Saturday or Sunday afternoon, when Jenny is not thinking about having to go to work that night. We are still getting used to the whole "chat for people to read" thing, so stick with us.
In other news, it seems to have been the week of ChickLit on our blog. We both posted about it, and now I am going to again! Though this is actually a book review (kinda).
I have been on a mystery kick lately and a tv kick. I am trying to figure out a way to write about all my favorite tv shows in a book blog. It hasn't happened yet, so my posting has been rather sparse. But anyway, mysteries and tv, even though I was writing about and thinking about chick lit. So then today, it was gorgeous outside! 80 and sunny! Perfect weather for laying outside reading. But that weather just didn't seem conducive to solving a murder. Last time I was at the library, I grabbed a Jennifer Crusie book, Bet Me. At some point a few years ago, someone told me I should read Jennifer Crusie. As I rarely follow what anyone tells me, I did not do so. But when I saw her books at the library, I decided on a whim to grab one. Today when I was deciding what to read outside, chick lit seemed necessary, so Jennifer Crusie it was.
And oh my gosh! I loved loved loved it. Bet on me is about Min, short for Minvera, who is a thirty something fat woman who dresses very conservatively and very frumpy and is getting dumped by her boyfriend because she won't have sex with him. Cal, short for Calvin, is a thirthy something tall, dark, and handsome man who broke up with his girlfriend a few months earlier because she wanted to get married and he didn't. Min's ex-boyfriend bets Cal ten thousand dollars that he can't get Min to sleep with him (Cal) within a month. Cal does not take the bet, even though he does love bets and always wins, but instead takes a ten dollar bet that he can get Min to go to dinner with him that night. Min, under the encouragement of her friends, has gone over to talk to Cal, overhears the ten thousand dollar bet part and decides to play along in order to 1) mess with both guys and 2) have a date to her sister's wedding. Already, you can tell that hijinks will ensue.
I'm not going to go into the whole plot here because you should just read it yourself, but I do want to talk about Min and her appearance. Min is fat. And not Hollywood size 8 fat, but really just fat. I see her as about my size, as she is never given any real dimensions, just that she will never fit a size 8. And she dresses like she hates her body. Her confidence issues probably stem from her mother's constant badgering to not eat carbs, sugar, butter, etc...aka anything that tastes awesome. She is also supposed to be dieting down to be slimmer for her sister's wedding. Min's ex-boyfriend made a comment to a waiter on a date that they wouldn't be having dessert because they were on a diet. Hence why Min won't sleep with him. On Min and Cal's first date, he takes her to an Italian restaurant, where she won't eat the bread or pasta because of her diet. Cal points out that one piece of bread won't hurt and makes her eat the bread. It becomes a bit of a crusade for him to get her to eat flour, sugar, butter, etc. He is particularly fond of Krispy Kreme donuts, which, uh yeah. Yum!
Anyway, so Cal thinks Min's dieting is stupid...he really likes her the way she is and thinks that she should eat what she likes. He point blank tells her that she shouldn't diet. She then directly asks him what he thinks of her weight and he says: "You're going going to be thin. You're a round woman. You have wide hips and a round stomach and full breasts. You're..." This is where I fell in love with Cal. As Min interrupts to describe herself as "healthy" (in a bitter voice) and generous and other annoying euphemisms, Cal uses Lush and Opulent and "soft and round and hot". He doesn't want her to diet and try to lose weight. He likes everything about her, including the fact that she is fat. Um, yes, hello. Can I order one of those? KThanksBye! I mean, dude...lush! That is a totally hot way of putting it.
As a result of Cal loving her, even when she is frumpy, she starts to feel better about her body. She eats what she wants, tells her mother to back off and buys clothes that actually fit her. Now, I am not a big fan of girls who only feel good about themselves because I guy thinks they are hot, but Min starts to think of herself as hot even when Cal isn't around to tell her she is. Sexy is in your head. I really appreciate the change in Min and dig that she really does start embracing her figure and flaunts it and starts to learn to accept that she is fat and hot.
There were a ton of things I liked about Bet Me besides just the fact that the main character is fat and by the end, unapologetically fat. First, the use of donuts by Jennifer Crusie...who knew that donuts could be a super hot and sexy food. I sure didn't. I'll never think of chocolate frosted Krispy Kremes the same again. Another thing I loved...the shoes! I want Min's shoe collection. That is one of the first things that Cal notices and starts to really dig about Min. Even in her frumpy outfits, her shoes are totally awesome! He even buys her high-heeled peak toes bunny slippers. I want! I also really loved both groups of friends. The secondary characters were super entertaining and I would love to hang out with them all.
So, I really dug this book. I read it all in one sitting. Well, I took a half hour break to cook dinner because I got hungry and they kept describing awesome food. I would highly suggest you read Bet Me. I plan on finding more Jennifer Crusie books to read. Hopefully all are equally as fun and hot. As a quick warning for the more delicate of sorts, it is a chick lit book and is pretty tame throughout, until the end. There is a really hot sex scene that is vaguely kinky. If you are offended by romance novel like descriptions, you may want to skip over that chapter. Just fyi.
In other news, it seems to have been the week of ChickLit on our blog. We both posted about it, and now I am going to again! Though this is actually a book review (kinda).
I have been on a mystery kick lately and a tv kick. I am trying to figure out a way to write about all my favorite tv shows in a book blog. It hasn't happened yet, so my posting has been rather sparse. But anyway, mysteries and tv, even though I was writing about and thinking about chick lit. So then today, it was gorgeous outside! 80 and sunny! Perfect weather for laying outside reading. But that weather just didn't seem conducive to solving a murder. Last time I was at the library, I grabbed a Jennifer Crusie book, Bet Me. At some point a few years ago, someone told me I should read Jennifer Crusie. As I rarely follow what anyone tells me, I did not do so. But when I saw her books at the library, I decided on a whim to grab one. Today when I was deciding what to read outside, chick lit seemed necessary, so Jennifer Crusie it was.
And oh my gosh! I loved loved loved it. Bet on me is about Min, short for Minvera, who is a thirty something fat woman who dresses very conservatively and very frumpy and is getting dumped by her boyfriend because she won't have sex with him. Cal, short for Calvin, is a thirthy something tall, dark, and handsome man who broke up with his girlfriend a few months earlier because she wanted to get married and he didn't. Min's ex-boyfriend bets Cal ten thousand dollars that he can't get Min to sleep with him (Cal) within a month. Cal does not take the bet, even though he does love bets and always wins, but instead takes a ten dollar bet that he can get Min to go to dinner with him that night. Min, under the encouragement of her friends, has gone over to talk to Cal, overhears the ten thousand dollar bet part and decides to play along in order to 1) mess with both guys and 2) have a date to her sister's wedding. Already, you can tell that hijinks will ensue.
I'm not going to go into the whole plot here because you should just read it yourself, but I do want to talk about Min and her appearance. Min is fat. And not Hollywood size 8 fat, but really just fat. I see her as about my size, as she is never given any real dimensions, just that she will never fit a size 8. And she dresses like she hates her body. Her confidence issues probably stem from her mother's constant badgering to not eat carbs, sugar, butter, etc...aka anything that tastes awesome. She is also supposed to be dieting down to be slimmer for her sister's wedding. Min's ex-boyfriend made a comment to a waiter on a date that they wouldn't be having dessert because they were on a diet. Hence why Min won't sleep with him. On Min and Cal's first date, he takes her to an Italian restaurant, where she won't eat the bread or pasta because of her diet. Cal points out that one piece of bread won't hurt and makes her eat the bread. It becomes a bit of a crusade for him to get her to eat flour, sugar, butter, etc. He is particularly fond of Krispy Kreme donuts, which, uh yeah. Yum!
Anyway, so Cal thinks Min's dieting is stupid...he really likes her the way she is and thinks that she should eat what she likes. He point blank tells her that she shouldn't diet. She then directly asks him what he thinks of her weight and he says: "You're going going to be thin. You're a round woman. You have wide hips and a round stomach and full breasts. You're..." This is where I fell in love with Cal. As Min interrupts to describe herself as "healthy" (in a bitter voice) and generous and other annoying euphemisms, Cal uses Lush and Opulent and "soft and round and hot". He doesn't want her to diet and try to lose weight. He likes everything about her, including the fact that she is fat. Um, yes, hello. Can I order one of those? KThanksBye! I mean, dude...lush! That is a totally hot way of putting it.
As a result of Cal loving her, even when she is frumpy, she starts to feel better about her body. She eats what she wants, tells her mother to back off and buys clothes that actually fit her. Now, I am not a big fan of girls who only feel good about themselves because I guy thinks they are hot, but Min starts to think of herself as hot even when Cal isn't around to tell her she is. Sexy is in your head. I really appreciate the change in Min and dig that she really does start embracing her figure and flaunts it and starts to learn to accept that she is fat and hot.
There were a ton of things I liked about Bet Me besides just the fact that the main character is fat and by the end, unapologetically fat. First, the use of donuts by Jennifer Crusie...who knew that donuts could be a super hot and sexy food. I sure didn't. I'll never think of chocolate frosted Krispy Kremes the same again. Another thing I loved...the shoes! I want Min's shoe collection. That is one of the first things that Cal notices and starts to really dig about Min. Even in her frumpy outfits, her shoes are totally awesome! He even buys her high-heeled peak toes bunny slippers. I want! I also really loved both groups of friends. The secondary characters were super entertaining and I would love to hang out with them all.
So, I really dug this book. I read it all in one sitting. Well, I took a half hour break to cook dinner because I got hungry and they kept describing awesome food. I would highly suggest you read Bet Me. I plan on finding more Jennifer Crusie books to read. Hopefully all are equally as fun and hot. As a quick warning for the more delicate of sorts, it is a chick lit book and is pretty tame throughout, until the end. There is a really hot sex scene that is vaguely kinky. If you are offended by romance novel like descriptions, you may want to skip over that chapter. Just fyi.
Friday, August 13, 2010
There's Nothing Wrong With ChickLit ... or, Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
This whole kerfluffle over ChickLit this week has been completely and utterly ridiculous.
To recap ... writer DJ Connell wrote an article expressing her displeasure at the whole ChickLit label and saying that it does no favors for female humor writers. Also, she doesn't like the word "chick" and says that it diminishes women. Also, that ChickLit is light and unimportant, and therefore should not have the word "lit" attached to it.
Then, ChickLit writer Michele Gorman fired back, saying that she disagrees with "the implication that romantic comedy must be poorly written, that the chick-lit label should be cringeworthy and that, as 'light and unimportant' books, the genre isn't worthy of reading." She also brings up, and debunks, the criticism that the books don't deal with issues real women face. (As she cleverly points out, neither do a lot of other genres, including sci-fi, crime and mystery.)
To me, the whole thing is ridiculous. Everybody has genres they like and genres they dislike. I like fantasy, some sci-fi (mostly a more fantasy sci-fi and less of the hard science fiction), horror, some mystery and, yes, chick lit. There are other genres, such as westerns and Christian fiction that I haven't really touched. And I don't like every book in the genre either. Some are poorly written, and some just aren't my cup of tea. If you don't like ChickLit, that's fine - don't read ChickLit. But don't try to tell people that they shouldn't read ChickLit because it's light and breezy.
With my high pressure job and sometimes high pressure life, sometimes I want something that I can read that doesn't require me to do a lot of thinking. I read a variety of books, of course, but sometimes I want a fun little book like "Little Lady Agency" by Hester Browne or "Queen of Babble" by Meg Cabot rather than slogging through something more difficult, such as "Lord of the Rings" or something by Charles Dickens. It was hard for me at first, because reading something breezy seemed like a guilty pleasure. I was always so proud of being someone who read difficult books, and to read these books seemed like a step down. But what I quickly realized is that, a lot of the time, reading is about fun. Yes, you can read to try to better understand your world or learn new things, but sometimes reading is just purely about pleasure, and it's a good thing to read books that make you happy.
In other words, don't be a snob!
I do agree that there really needs to be a change in thinking and that women should not be relegated to purely writing chick lit. I don't think they entirely are, but as a reader and an aspiring writer, I don't want to be pigeonholed. I understand the temptation to use a pseudonym or some gender-ambiguous form of your name as a female author writing non-ChickLit, and I don't begrudge anyone who does. If it helps someone like J.K. Rowling get her stories out there, I'm all for it, because a world without Rowling's work is a dimmer world. But I also hope for a world where people would not be afraid to pick up a book by someone named Jo Rowling and read it without being scared away by the fact that the author is a female. And I hope that Rowling, and more women like her, are able to write great stories and get them published to help get people away from the idea that women can only write for women.
To recap ... writer DJ Connell wrote an article expressing her displeasure at the whole ChickLit label and saying that it does no favors for female humor writers. Also, she doesn't like the word "chick" and says that it diminishes women. Also, that ChickLit is light and unimportant, and therefore should not have the word "lit" attached to it.
Then, ChickLit writer Michele Gorman fired back, saying that she disagrees with "the implication that romantic comedy must be poorly written, that the chick-lit label should be cringeworthy and that, as 'light and unimportant' books, the genre isn't worthy of reading." She also brings up, and debunks, the criticism that the books don't deal with issues real women face. (As she cleverly points out, neither do a lot of other genres, including sci-fi, crime and mystery.)
To me, the whole thing is ridiculous. Everybody has genres they like and genres they dislike. I like fantasy, some sci-fi (mostly a more fantasy sci-fi and less of the hard science fiction), horror, some mystery and, yes, chick lit. There are other genres, such as westerns and Christian fiction that I haven't really touched. And I don't like every book in the genre either. Some are poorly written, and some just aren't my cup of tea. If you don't like ChickLit, that's fine - don't read ChickLit. But don't try to tell people that they shouldn't read ChickLit because it's light and breezy.
With my high pressure job and sometimes high pressure life, sometimes I want something that I can read that doesn't require me to do a lot of thinking. I read a variety of books, of course, but sometimes I want a fun little book like "Little Lady Agency" by Hester Browne or "Queen of Babble" by Meg Cabot rather than slogging through something more difficult, such as "Lord of the Rings" or something by Charles Dickens. It was hard for me at first, because reading something breezy seemed like a guilty pleasure. I was always so proud of being someone who read difficult books, and to read these books seemed like a step down. But what I quickly realized is that, a lot of the time, reading is about fun. Yes, you can read to try to better understand your world or learn new things, but sometimes reading is just purely about pleasure, and it's a good thing to read books that make you happy.
In other words, don't be a snob!
I do agree that there really needs to be a change in thinking and that women should not be relegated to purely writing chick lit. I don't think they entirely are, but as a reader and an aspiring writer, I don't want to be pigeonholed. I understand the temptation to use a pseudonym or some gender-ambiguous form of your name as a female author writing non-ChickLit, and I don't begrudge anyone who does. If it helps someone like J.K. Rowling get her stories out there, I'm all for it, because a world without Rowling's work is a dimmer world. But I also hope for a world where people would not be afraid to pick up a book by someone named Jo Rowling and read it without being scared away by the fact that the author is a female. And I hope that Rowling, and more women like her, are able to write great stories and get them published to help get people away from the idea that women can only write for women.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
ChickLit...Light, Fun, Frilly...aka the Devil!
I read an article yesterday about ChickLit, specifically the label of "ChickLit". The article is from Jezebel and is based on an article from The Guardian. I read the both and skimmed the comments. There seem to be two main reasons that people (mostly women) don't like ChickLit: the notion of frivolous reading (whether preceived or actual frivolosity) and the term "ChickLit". I'm going to address the second part first.
ChickLit, the term. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term. I think it is a fun word to say, shorter than "Light trashy fun book" and has a nice ring to it. Many women have an issue with the word "chick" as it supposedly implies a flighty, stupid woman? Maybe? I'm really not sure. I'm young enough that chick always sounded fun and 70s to me. I refer to myself as a chick sometimes...specifically an awesome, badass chick. I'm not sure what else you would call a genre of books geared more toward women...FemLit, WomanLit, BitchLit...which incidently, I kinda love. I shall start a new trend of books called BitchLit. It will be for awesomely powerful and cool bitches like myself. Anyway...I also read something about how "Lit" is a deragatory term of sorts because the books aren't good enough to be "literature" so instead they are "lit". However, I think that is a rather weak argument, as lit is just an abbreviation for literature. If you go to Borders, you find Meg Cabot, Hester Browne, and Helen Felding in the "Literature" section, so whatever.
The other issue people seem to have with ChickLit is the "light", "frivolous", "frothy", "fun" nature/perception of it. I know when I see words like "light" and "fun" I ofter associate them with crap! Oh wait...no. I associate them with things that are light and fun. As most of my reading is. I mean, "frothy"! That makes me think of a delicious hot chocolate in the middle of winter, which is about the best thing ever. Why wouldn't I want to read a book just like that. Mmmmm...frothy book! So tasty. So light. So fun. Why do all books have to be serious or thought provoking. What is wrong with something that is entertaining, has a happy ending, has some silly things that happen? Let's take Hester Browne's Little Lady Agency books. The main character, Melissa, runs an agency that provides dates, party planning, girlfriend breakups, presents for mothers...anything the socially inept guy in England might want. Sure, it is silly and Melissa is girly and likes to shop, etc. And...I like to shop sometimes and I enjoy silly things. I guess I just don't see what is so wrong with a genre of books that caters to that.
Can someone explain to me what is bad about a genre of books that is written primarily by women geared primarily toward women? Yeah, mostly the books involve some sort of "get a man" plot line and shopping and shoes and fun clothes. That is not necessarily my goal in life, but neither is solving murder mysteries, yet no one complains about mysteries being stupid (or maybe they do and I conveniently ignore it). So ChickLit is mostly for women; there are lots of authors that write geared more toward guys. I shall borrow a term I've heard somewhere and call it DudeLit. Things that are actiony, thrillers, and have violence. More geared toward men. Mostly written from a male perspective with a male main character. I like DudeLit too. I have lots of Stephen King, Robert Ludlum, and Michael Crichton on my bookshelves...right next to Meg Cabot, Hester Browne, and Helen Felding...right next to Lillian Jackson Browne, Joanne Fluke, Louise Rennison, Phillip Pullman, Douglas Adams, and Nancy Martin. They are in many different genres and I like them all for various reasons. None of them are better than others, no matter what genre they are in: ChickLit, DudeLit, Mysteries, Teen, etc.
Anyway, now I have to go finish my Cat Who book I'm reading so I can start reading a Blackbird Sister book, which incidentially I would classify as ChickLitMystery...Mmmmm...murder mystery combined with sweet clothes and hot guys.
ChickLit, the term. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term. I think it is a fun word to say, shorter than "Light trashy fun book" and has a nice ring to it. Many women have an issue with the word "chick" as it supposedly implies a flighty, stupid woman? Maybe? I'm really not sure. I'm young enough that chick always sounded fun and 70s to me. I refer to myself as a chick sometimes...specifically an awesome, badass chick. I'm not sure what else you would call a genre of books geared more toward women...FemLit, WomanLit, BitchLit...which incidently, I kinda love. I shall start a new trend of books called BitchLit. It will be for awesomely powerful and cool bitches like myself. Anyway...I also read something about how "Lit" is a deragatory term of sorts because the books aren't good enough to be "literature" so instead they are "lit". However, I think that is a rather weak argument, as lit is just an abbreviation for literature. If you go to Borders, you find Meg Cabot, Hester Browne, and Helen Felding in the "Literature" section, so whatever.
The other issue people seem to have with ChickLit is the "light", "frivolous", "frothy", "fun" nature/perception of it. I know when I see words like "light" and "fun" I ofter associate them with crap! Oh wait...no. I associate them with things that are light and fun. As most of my reading is. I mean, "frothy"! That makes me think of a delicious hot chocolate in the middle of winter, which is about the best thing ever. Why wouldn't I want to read a book just like that. Mmmmm...frothy book! So tasty. So light. So fun. Why do all books have to be serious or thought provoking. What is wrong with something that is entertaining, has a happy ending, has some silly things that happen? Let's take Hester Browne's Little Lady Agency books. The main character, Melissa, runs an agency that provides dates, party planning, girlfriend breakups, presents for mothers...anything the socially inept guy in England might want. Sure, it is silly and Melissa is girly and likes to shop, etc. And...I like to shop sometimes and I enjoy silly things. I guess I just don't see what is so wrong with a genre of books that caters to that.
Can someone explain to me what is bad about a genre of books that is written primarily by women geared primarily toward women? Yeah, mostly the books involve some sort of "get a man" plot line and shopping and shoes and fun clothes. That is not necessarily my goal in life, but neither is solving murder mysteries, yet no one complains about mysteries being stupid (or maybe they do and I conveniently ignore it). So ChickLit is mostly for women; there are lots of authors that write geared more toward guys. I shall borrow a term I've heard somewhere and call it DudeLit. Things that are actiony, thrillers, and have violence. More geared toward men. Mostly written from a male perspective with a male main character. I like DudeLit too. I have lots of Stephen King, Robert Ludlum, and Michael Crichton on my bookshelves...right next to Meg Cabot, Hester Browne, and Helen Felding...right next to Lillian Jackson Browne, Joanne Fluke, Louise Rennison, Phillip Pullman, Douglas Adams, and Nancy Martin. They are in many different genres and I like them all for various reasons. None of them are better than others, no matter what genre they are in: ChickLit, DudeLit, Mysteries, Teen, etc.
Anyway, now I have to go finish my Cat Who book I'm reading so I can start reading a Blackbird Sister book, which incidentially I would classify as ChickLitMystery...Mmmmm...murder mystery combined with sweet clothes and hot guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)