Throne of Fire by Rick Riordan, though I'm not sure why. I seem compelled to read these books--the Percy Jackson ones and now these Kane Chronicles--even though they all have the exact same formula. Admittedly, I still have The Lost Hero on my bookshelf. I nearly finished reading it. Nearly. And I'm struggling with Throne of Fire, too.
What I'd like right about now is a nice Jude Morgan book that I haven't already read. I don't guess there are many of them out there, though, from what I can see. The only one I haven't read yet is on my Amazon wish list because our library doesn't have it.
I also keep meaning to grab Andromeda Klein off the hubby's bookshelf and read it. I bought it for him for some holiday or birthday a year or so ago because he liked the other Frank Portman book so much, but he never finished that one. #wifefail
And I want to try Andrew Lane's Young Sherlock series, too, but (and this is me being picky) I don't like the artwork for the U.S. books, so . . . Maybe I'll have to order them? Haven't decided.
6.28.2011
6.22.2011
Book Review: Cleopatra: A Life
Stacy Schiff
Little Brown, 2010
384 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
Full disclosure up front. I like history. I minored in ancient and classical history as an undergrad. (Well, we didn't have "minors." We had "secondary concentrations," but it's the same idea.) So this book might not be everybody's cup of tea, but if you like history—or are at least curious about it—but find a lot of the texts dry and lacking in flavor, try this one. Assuming you're at all interested in Cleopatra, of course.
People have been fascinated with Cleopatra VII for centuries. Hell, they were fascinated with her when she was alive, much less afterward. And for all that—all that people think they know, all that people believe to be true about her—we actually know very little. The asp, for example? No one knows for sure, but it's highly unlikely Cleopatra died of a snakebite.
It was nice of Schiff to write this book. In my mind, it's kind of a service. To put in plainer English the truths, to parse out what has been said and the biases involved, the political spins, etc.—this book works as a nice summary for all that. Saves one the work of reading Dio and Plutarch and trying to cut through their agenda. Octavian (aka Augustus) won, after all, which means he and his had the final word. Those words weren't always flattering, nevermind true. Schiff does a nice job of picking them apart.
Still and all, much of Cleopatra's life, what she said or did and why, continues to be a mystery. Conjecture at best. Which is probably why people continue to be fascinated. Tragic love story? Political thriller? All these elements contribute to the lore of Cleopatra, a lore that has been fodder for innumerable books (fiction and non), movies and television mini-series. And will for a long time yet. Even now there is discussion of bringing Schiff's book to the big screen, rumors of having Angelina Jolie play the title role. What other larger-than-life character could any actress aspire to? Cleopatra might define the actress--look at the late Liz Taylor--but she herself refuses to be conscribed.
Though Schiff does a fine job of trying.
Little Brown, 2010
384 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
Full disclosure up front. I like history. I minored in ancient and classical history as an undergrad. (Well, we didn't have "minors." We had "secondary concentrations," but it's the same idea.) So this book might not be everybody's cup of tea, but if you like history—or are at least curious about it—but find a lot of the texts dry and lacking in flavor, try this one. Assuming you're at all interested in Cleopatra, of course.
People have been fascinated with Cleopatra VII for centuries. Hell, they were fascinated with her when she was alive, much less afterward. And for all that—all that people think they know, all that people believe to be true about her—we actually know very little. The asp, for example? No one knows for sure, but it's highly unlikely Cleopatra died of a snakebite.
It was nice of Schiff to write this book. In my mind, it's kind of a service. To put in plainer English the truths, to parse out what has been said and the biases involved, the political spins, etc.—this book works as a nice summary for all that. Saves one the work of reading Dio and Plutarch and trying to cut through their agenda. Octavian (aka Augustus) won, after all, which means he and his had the final word. Those words weren't always flattering, nevermind true. Schiff does a nice job of picking them apart.
Still and all, much of Cleopatra's life, what she said or did and why, continues to be a mystery. Conjecture at best. Which is probably why people continue to be fascinated. Tragic love story? Political thriller? All these elements contribute to the lore of Cleopatra, a lore that has been fodder for innumerable books (fiction and non), movies and television mini-series. And will for a long time yet. Even now there is discussion of bringing Schiff's book to the big screen, rumors of having Angelina Jolie play the title role. What other larger-than-life character could any actress aspire to? Cleopatra might define the actress--look at the late Liz Taylor--but she herself refuses to be conscribed.
Though Schiff does a fine job of trying.
Book Preview: Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me?
Mindy Kaling
Crown Archetype, 2011
224 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
To be clear, this book won't be out until November, and I've only read selected excerpts.
But I like what I've seen. It's difficult to tell from the selections how cohesive the book is likely to be as a whole; the flavor thus far is very sort of Dave Barry essay-esque. And so there's a lot of humor, which one would expect from one of the writers and actors for The Office, but also some sensitivity and sweetness.
Then again, maybe I only like it because I can totally relate to Kaling's high school experiences and the fact that she likes Sherlock Holmes.
In any case, IEHOWM? is on my Amazon.com wish list. You know, if anyone is looking to buy me something. In November.
Crown Archetype, 2011
224 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
To be clear, this book won't be out until November, and I've only read selected excerpts.
But I like what I've seen. It's difficult to tell from the selections how cohesive the book is likely to be as a whole; the flavor thus far is very sort of Dave Barry essay-esque. And so there's a lot of humor, which one would expect from one of the writers and actors for The Office, but also some sensitivity and sweetness.
Then again, maybe I only like it because I can totally relate to Kaling's high school experiences and the fact that she likes Sherlock Holmes.
In any case, IEHOWM? is on my Amazon.com wish list. You know, if anyone is looking to buy me something. In November.
3.30.2011
Why I'm Not Renewing My Subscription to Entertainment Weekly
I've been reading Entertainment Weekly since it first came to newsstands when I was a teenager. I didn't have a job, but I dedicated a significant amount of my allowance for a subscription. Because it was awesome. The photos, the articles—I ate it all up. I have many issues of the magazine stockpiled in my collection, and many more were sacrificed to be cut up for my scrapbooks. And while there have been lapses in my subscriptions (lack of funds, too many moves), I've more or less been a consistent subscriber. But we received our renewal notice in the mail yesterday, and I'm thinking I won't be renewing.
Why now? After I've stuck it out through many EW changes in format and tone? The bottom line is that I find less and less in each issue that I actually want to read. The stuff they cover just doesn't interest me. I flip past article after article and can finish the magazine in roughly an hour, whereas it used to be that I curled up with it every Friday evening to read it cover-to-cover and still sometimes fell asleep before I could finish.
This might say more about me than about EW. Maybe I'm just old and EW is looking for that hot, hip young audience. (Sorry to break it to you, Eebz, but those kids don't read magazines; they're all online.) Maybe I've outgrown it, or maybe I'm just too much in the minority when it comes to my entertainment tastes. (For example, I don't watch reality television and couldn't give a rat's ass about Twilight.) Or it's just as likely that I can glean the things I want to know from the Internet. I can follow my favorite shows and musicians that way . . . Though I do miss all the nice pictures.
Meanwhile, I don't visit EW.com much, either. In part because they don't cover much of what I like, and in part because I dislike the format of the site itself, which I find busy and somewhat irritating. They also seemed to have struggled in finding quality writing in recent years, which is kind of a shame since there was a time when I used to think being a writer for EW would be just about the Best. Thing. Ever. But with so many media outlets now—a sea of them as opposed to the pool there used to be—the cream that rises to the top also sort of floats away in various directions.
A few months ago, my parents shipped me one of many boxes of my old stuff they'd had in storage, and there were many old issues of EW included. My husband and I took the time to flip through a few, and he said to me: "Remember when EW was good?" Yeah, I do, even if the memory is faded. And that's why I won't be renewing my subscription now.
Why now? After I've stuck it out through many EW changes in format and tone? The bottom line is that I find less and less in each issue that I actually want to read. The stuff they cover just doesn't interest me. I flip past article after article and can finish the magazine in roughly an hour, whereas it used to be that I curled up with it every Friday evening to read it cover-to-cover and still sometimes fell asleep before I could finish.
This might say more about me than about EW. Maybe I'm just old and EW is looking for that hot, hip young audience. (Sorry to break it to you, Eebz, but those kids don't read magazines; they're all online.) Maybe I've outgrown it, or maybe I'm just too much in the minority when it comes to my entertainment tastes. (For example, I don't watch reality television and couldn't give a rat's ass about Twilight.) Or it's just as likely that I can glean the things I want to know from the Internet. I can follow my favorite shows and musicians that way . . . Though I do miss all the nice pictures.
Meanwhile, I don't visit EW.com much, either. In part because they don't cover much of what I like, and in part because I dislike the format of the site itself, which I find busy and somewhat irritating. They also seemed to have struggled in finding quality writing in recent years, which is kind of a shame since there was a time when I used to think being a writer for EW would be just about the Best. Thing. Ever. But with so many media outlets now—a sea of them as opposed to the pool there used to be—the cream that rises to the top also sort of floats away in various directions.
A few months ago, my parents shipped me one of many boxes of my old stuff they'd had in storage, and there were many old issues of EW included. My husband and I took the time to flip through a few, and he said to me: "Remember when EW was good?" Yeah, I do, even if the memory is faded. And that's why I won't be renewing my subscription now.
3.17.2011
BookSwim
Okay, so I decided to try a free trial of BookSwim. They bill themselves as a way to "rent" books the way you do movies from Netflix. One could easily ask, "Isn't that what a library is for?" And the answer would be: yes, yes it is. BUT . . . BookSwim delivers to your door. So no pesky driving or walking or taking the bus--whatever it is you, personally, do to get to your local library.
It's a good idea in theory, but I found the execution lacking. Maybe BookSwim is still getting its sea legs. For one thing, their inventory is not very broad. A lot of what I looked for they didn't have. And the one book at the top of my "pool" (as they call your queue) was never available. Even when I was supposed to be able to guarantee it. In an age when I can go online to my local library's site and request books and see where I place on the waiting list for books, BookSwim comes up a little short.
Maybe it works better for college kids wanting to "rent" textbooks instead of buying them. I wouldn't know, since I've been out of grad school for a decade now. But maybe BookSwim has some great storehouse of college textbooks somewhere; they just don't have much by way of "regular" titles. Yet. I would like to think it's coming, that they're building on what they have or something. But there are difficulties. Imagine trying to retain enough books for several thousand people to borrow--from anywhere in the U.S. and with no return due date. Tricky.
Also, the books I did receive were not in very good condition. Worse than what you'd expect from very old library books.
My free trial is coming to an end, and I'll be canceling my subscription. It's back to my public library for me.
It's a good idea in theory, but I found the execution lacking. Maybe BookSwim is still getting its sea legs. For one thing, their inventory is not very broad. A lot of what I looked for they didn't have. And the one book at the top of my "pool" (as they call your queue) was never available. Even when I was supposed to be able to guarantee it. In an age when I can go online to my local library's site and request books and see where I place on the waiting list for books, BookSwim comes up a little short.
Maybe it works better for college kids wanting to "rent" textbooks instead of buying them. I wouldn't know, since I've been out of grad school for a decade now. But maybe BookSwim has some great storehouse of college textbooks somewhere; they just don't have much by way of "regular" titles. Yet. I would like to think it's coming, that they're building on what they have or something. But there are difficulties. Imagine trying to retain enough books for several thousand people to borrow--from anywhere in the U.S. and with no return due date. Tricky.
Also, the books I did receive were not in very good condition. Worse than what you'd expect from very old library books.
My free trial is coming to an end, and I'll be canceling my subscription. It's back to my public library for me.
3.14.2011
Movie Review: The Ghost Writer
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Olivia Williams, Tom Wilkinson
Directed By: Roman Polanski
Written By: Robert Harris (novel, screenplay), Roman Polanski (screenplay)
R.P. Films, 2010
PG-13; 128 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I had been meaning to see this one for a while. The premise wasn't all that catchy: a ghost writer is hired to spruce of the memoirs of an ex-Prime Minister of Great Britain. But all the reviews I read were remarkably good, and I usually enjoy Ewan McGregor, so I thought I'd give it a whirl. And I'm glad I did. As my husband pointed out, they don't really make suspense movies like The Ghost Writer any more. There's something very old school about it; maybe it has to do with Polanski and Harris, who are themselves somewhat old guard. But the tone of the film, the lighting and such, is all very well done. Never mind that I had it more or less sorted out at the halfway mark; it was still enjoyable to watch play out.
The Ghost Writer isn't perfect. It has the distinct feeling of having been cut down from something fattier (the novel, one supposes). Sometimes that's good, but in this case one almost wants the added flavor of the fat, metaphorically speaking. I was left satisfied but still thinking a few deeper insights into the characters might have been nice. In the end it only serves to whet my appetite for the novel, which I hadn't ever considered reading, but now I might, if only to feel like I got a full meal.
Directed By: Roman Polanski
Written By: Robert Harris (novel, screenplay), Roman Polanski (screenplay)
R.P. Films, 2010
PG-13; 128 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I had been meaning to see this one for a while. The premise wasn't all that catchy: a ghost writer is hired to spruce of the memoirs of an ex-Prime Minister of Great Britain. But all the reviews I read were remarkably good, and I usually enjoy Ewan McGregor, so I thought I'd give it a whirl. And I'm glad I did. As my husband pointed out, they don't really make suspense movies like The Ghost Writer any more. There's something very old school about it; maybe it has to do with Polanski and Harris, who are themselves somewhat old guard. But the tone of the film, the lighting and such, is all very well done. Never mind that I had it more or less sorted out at the halfway mark; it was still enjoyable to watch play out.
The Ghost Writer isn't perfect. It has the distinct feeling of having been cut down from something fattier (the novel, one supposes). Sometimes that's good, but in this case one almost wants the added flavor of the fat, metaphorically speaking. I was left satisfied but still thinking a few deeper insights into the characters might have been nice. In the end it only serves to whet my appetite for the novel, which I hadn't ever considered reading, but now I might, if only to feel like I got a full meal.
3.13.2011
Movie Review: Atonement
Starring: James McAvoy, Keira Knightly, Saorsie Ronan
Directed By: Joe Wright
Written By: Ian McEwan (novel), Christopher Hampton (screenplay)
Universal, 2007 (limited release)
R; 123 minutes
2 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I realize I'm really late on this one. I recall trying to read an Ian McEwan novel--can't remember which--some years ago and being bored to tears within a handful of pages. So I didn't finish it and I never tried another. This one fact should have tipped me off about this movie, but it was so widely well received, I felt it deserved a chance. So one night when my husband was traveling, I watched Atonement via Vudu.
It was a waste of time, for me at least. The characters I might have liked or at least found interesting didn't get enough screen time or development. And the chief characters were difficult to like or care about. At the end of it all, I felt like I'd just watched a two-hour movie about a bunch of British people falling into various bodies of water. And I understand that water is recognized by literati as the token symbol of baptism and being washed clean, etc., but honest to God, talk about overkill. If it had been a pie-in-the-face comedy routine, there would have been a dozen pies and the audience would have stopped laughing long before it was finished. As it was, the movie is a drama/tragedy sort of thing, so it's both a downer and--with all that water--a drowner.
The catalytic moment in the story relies heavily on both coincidence and poor decision making. Several people must make a series of bad choices to get to the point where the main character finds she must atone(!) for what she's done and what has befallen the other characters. It's something of a stretch, and not even that compelling. By the time I got to what's supposed to be the Big Twist, I really didn't care any more.
Anyway, I can't look at James McAvoy and not think, Mr. Tumnus! I think I could have liked him in the film if I could've brought myself to care. Maybe something vital was left on the cutting room floor. Maybe the book really is better. Not that it would take much.
Directed By: Joe Wright
Written By: Ian McEwan (novel), Christopher Hampton (screenplay)
Universal, 2007 (limited release)
R; 123 minutes
2 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I realize I'm really late on this one. I recall trying to read an Ian McEwan novel--can't remember which--some years ago and being bored to tears within a handful of pages. So I didn't finish it and I never tried another. This one fact should have tipped me off about this movie, but it was so widely well received, I felt it deserved a chance. So one night when my husband was traveling, I watched Atonement via Vudu.
It was a waste of time, for me at least. The characters I might have liked or at least found interesting didn't get enough screen time or development. And the chief characters were difficult to like or care about. At the end of it all, I felt like I'd just watched a two-hour movie about a bunch of British people falling into various bodies of water. And I understand that water is recognized by literati as the token symbol of baptism and being washed clean, etc., but honest to God, talk about overkill. If it had been a pie-in-the-face comedy routine, there would have been a dozen pies and the audience would have stopped laughing long before it was finished. As it was, the movie is a drama/tragedy sort of thing, so it's both a downer and--with all that water--a drowner.
The catalytic moment in the story relies heavily on both coincidence and poor decision making. Several people must make a series of bad choices to get to the point where the main character finds she must atone(!) for what she's done and what has befallen the other characters. It's something of a stretch, and not even that compelling. By the time I got to what's supposed to be the Big Twist, I really didn't care any more.
Anyway, I can't look at James McAvoy and not think, Mr. Tumnus! I think I could have liked him in the film if I could've brought myself to care. Maybe something vital was left on the cutting room floor. Maybe the book really is better. Not that it would take much.
2.28.2011
Book Review: Disaster Preparedness
Heather Havrilesky
Riverhead Books, 2010
240 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
I picked this one up from the library because one of the myriad of magazines I receive each month did a blurb recommending it. And it was a cute, sweet read, a quick read, something I could take in bite-sized chunks between the kids' naps and such. Nothing I couldn't put down, which sometimes is better because otherwise you let the television babysit a bit too much.
Havrilesky does a nice job of capturing a particular time, growing up in the 70s and 80s, though by my estimation she has about five years on me. Still, my experiences were similar, even though my parents aren't divorced and I don't have siblings--which is a credit to the writer, that I could still relate to what she had to say despite differing circumstances. Maybe it's something about the parents of our generation, or maybe it's that we grew up during the tail end of the Cold War and had to live through the drills of hunkering under our desks as if that would ever do anything to save us if the bombs fell. Maybe it's because I, too, had a day when it was made clear to me that my clothes did not come from a "good" store (weren't clothes just clothes?) and learned then to begin longing for and aspiring to something better. Like her, I had a moment of wondering whether the people at church were all wrong. And like Haverilesky, I can look back and simultaneously mourn my lost innocence and kick a little dirt at it. We all use our histories to our own ends, after all, and sometimes we can extend them for others' use, which is more or less what Havrilesky does. Whether the reader can find anything to use will probably be a more personal issue; the book wouldn't work for a different generation, perhaps, or maybe it breaks along gender lines. I don't know.
What it comes down to is that I can recommend it in general, but at the same time I understand that this book won't be for everybody. Chalk it up to "worth a shot."
Riverhead Books, 2010
240 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
I picked this one up from the library because one of the myriad of magazines I receive each month did a blurb recommending it. And it was a cute, sweet read, a quick read, something I could take in bite-sized chunks between the kids' naps and such. Nothing I couldn't put down, which sometimes is better because otherwise you let the television babysit a bit too much.
Havrilesky does a nice job of capturing a particular time, growing up in the 70s and 80s, though by my estimation she has about five years on me. Still, my experiences were similar, even though my parents aren't divorced and I don't have siblings--which is a credit to the writer, that I could still relate to what she had to say despite differing circumstances. Maybe it's something about the parents of our generation, or maybe it's that we grew up during the tail end of the Cold War and had to live through the drills of hunkering under our desks as if that would ever do anything to save us if the bombs fell. Maybe it's because I, too, had a day when it was made clear to me that my clothes did not come from a "good" store (weren't clothes just clothes?) and learned then to begin longing for and aspiring to something better. Like her, I had a moment of wondering whether the people at church were all wrong. And like Haverilesky, I can look back and simultaneously mourn my lost innocence and kick a little dirt at it. We all use our histories to our own ends, after all, and sometimes we can extend them for others' use, which is more or less what Havrilesky does. Whether the reader can find anything to use will probably be a more personal issue; the book wouldn't work for a different generation, perhaps, or maybe it breaks along gender lines. I don't know.
What it comes down to is that I can recommend it in general, but at the same time I understand that this book won't be for everybody. Chalk it up to "worth a shot."
6.29.2010
Book Review: Haunt Me Still by Jennifer Lee Carrell
6.27.2010
Movie Review: Toy Story 3
Featuring the Voice Talents of: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty, Michael Keaton, Timothy Dalton
Directed By: Lee Unkrich
Written By: Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich
Pixar Animation, 2010
G; 103 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
No one does nostalgia quite like Pixar. The team there--writers, animators, directors, producers--all seem to understand the process of looking over one's shoulder at the past and the warm feelings that can engender. Perhaps it's part of being in the animation business, which itself has a long history and by nature builds on what came before. Pixar has looked back at "Main Street U.S.A." in Cars and it's done revisited childhood repeatedly in the first two Toy Story movies as well as Monsters, Inc. And in Toy Story 3 they do it again.
For all that, it never gets old.
Being that I have a 5-year-old son, a 2-year-old daughter, and a 10-month-old baby boy, I am perhaps primed for the emotional overdrive that Pixar serves up in the third Toy Story installment. The opening moments feature a young Andy and his little sister Molly playing with their beloved toys in home video footage. This hits so close to home in my current experiences that I could not help but tear up a bit. And then it is revealed that Andy is now 17 and going away to college. Those beloved toys--the ones we the audience have become so fond of over previous films--have been whittled down to a core few that haven't been played with in years. They sit unused in a toy chest in Andy's room, plotting ways to get Andy's attention in the hopes of being played with again, or maybe just held for a few moments.
As Andy readies himself for college, he begins to empty out his room, and the toy story really begins. Will they be consigned to the attic or (*gulp*) the trash bin? Mishaps occur and the toys end up donated to a day care center, thus setting off on new adventures.
I won't give anything else away, but while I didn't 100% understand the day care center toys' motivations for doing some of what they do in the film, I did 100% enjoy the movie. And I did cry some more at the end.
As for my 5-year-old (who saw the movie with my husband and I), he says he liked it, but he "likes the other numbers better" (meaning the first two films). This may only be because of the 3D element involved in this one, though, since my son says he didn't like things "going in his eyes." I could have done without the 3D myself, as I didn't find it necessary to the story or even particularly amazing in design. Mostly it gave me a headache.
But the movie itself was touching and fun, which is what I've come to expect from Pixar. Like Peter Pan in Never Never Land, the animation studio roots itself in a refusal to grow up (in heart, though its technique only gets better with time), and in turn the audience keeps coming back if only to feel young again themselves.
Directed By: Lee Unkrich
Written By: Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich
Pixar Animation, 2010
G; 103 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
No one does nostalgia quite like Pixar. The team there--writers, animators, directors, producers--all seem to understand the process of looking over one's shoulder at the past and the warm feelings that can engender. Perhaps it's part of being in the animation business, which itself has a long history and by nature builds on what came before. Pixar has looked back at "Main Street U.S.A." in Cars and it's done revisited childhood repeatedly in the first two Toy Story movies as well as Monsters, Inc. And in Toy Story 3 they do it again.
For all that, it never gets old.
Being that I have a 5-year-old son, a 2-year-old daughter, and a 10-month-old baby boy, I am perhaps primed for the emotional overdrive that Pixar serves up in the third Toy Story installment. The opening moments feature a young Andy and his little sister Molly playing with their beloved toys in home video footage. This hits so close to home in my current experiences that I could not help but tear up a bit. And then it is revealed that Andy is now 17 and going away to college. Those beloved toys--the ones we the audience have become so fond of over previous films--have been whittled down to a core few that haven't been played with in years. They sit unused in a toy chest in Andy's room, plotting ways to get Andy's attention in the hopes of being played with again, or maybe just held for a few moments.
As Andy readies himself for college, he begins to empty out his room, and the toy story really begins. Will they be consigned to the attic or (*gulp*) the trash bin? Mishaps occur and the toys end up donated to a day care center, thus setting off on new adventures.
I won't give anything else away, but while I didn't 100% understand the day care center toys' motivations for doing some of what they do in the film, I did 100% enjoy the movie. And I did cry some more at the end.
As for my 5-year-old (who saw the movie with my husband and I), he says he liked it, but he "likes the other numbers better" (meaning the first two films). This may only be because of the 3D element involved in this one, though, since my son says he didn't like things "going in his eyes." I could have done without the 3D myself, as I didn't find it necessary to the story or even particularly amazing in design. Mostly it gave me a headache.
But the movie itself was touching and fun, which is what I've come to expect from Pixar. Like Peter Pan in Never Never Land, the animation studio roots itself in a refusal to grow up (in heart, though its technique only gets better with time), and in turn the audience keeps coming back if only to feel young again themselves.
6.23.2010
Blogcritics Book Review: The Lady in the Tower
I used to write for the Blogcritics.org site, and I've decided to take it up once again. So here is a link to my most recent article, a review of The Lady in the Tower by Alison Weir.
6.22.2010
Peanuts on Planes
Admittedly, this is not a media review, but whatever. I just need to comment on this movement to have peanuts banned from airline flights. Apparently there are a number of people who don't fly because they or their children have acute peanut/tree nut allergies? And they're terrified that being on a plane with people eating peanuts will cause a major health crisis or emergency?
A few things come to mind here, so let's just lay them out:
Now let me be clear. I don't even like nuts much, and I wouldn't be sorry to have them replaced with pretzels or something. But I find this pushiness and overwrought concern annoying, and it makes me disinclined to want to accommodate these people. Show me a list of people who have suffered and/or died from being on an airline flight in which peanuts were present. Because I'm pretty sure there have been people with allergies on those flights. You're not special because you have an allergy. Don't try to give me the one-up line of, "But I'm SO MUCH MORE ALLERGIC than anyone in the history of the world!" Because that's how you sound when you whine about it. And nobody cares but you.
It's the burden of people with allergies like these to take care of themselves. To read labels and avoid nuts. The extent to which you opt to avoid them--including the decision not to fly for fear of peanut dust--is your concern. Not the government's and not population at large's.
A few things come to mind here, so let's just lay them out:
- (A) If you have a severe allergy, don't you have something (an EpiPen or some such) in case something does set you off?
- (B) If you have this allergy, do you avoid any and all places there might be nuts? The grocery store, all restaurants, etc.?
- (C) Only about 1% of the population has this allergy, yet they are collectively asking for preferred treatment--because they classify it as a "disability" and therefore serving nuts in their vicinity counts as some kind of "discrimination." This seems high-handed and rings false, since they surely frequent any number of places where nuts may be or may have been present.
- (D) Even if they succeeded in having nuts banned from planes, how would they keep passengers from carrying on their own trail mix snacks and such?
Now let me be clear. I don't even like nuts much, and I wouldn't be sorry to have them replaced with pretzels or something. But I find this pushiness and overwrought concern annoying, and it makes me disinclined to want to accommodate these people. Show me a list of people who have suffered and/or died from being on an airline flight in which peanuts were present. Because I'm pretty sure there have been people with allergies on those flights. You're not special because you have an allergy. Don't try to give me the one-up line of, "But I'm SO MUCH MORE ALLERGIC than anyone in the history of the world!" Because that's how you sound when you whine about it. And nobody cares but you.
It's the burden of people with allergies like these to take care of themselves. To read labels and avoid nuts. The extent to which you opt to avoid them--including the decision not to fly for fear of peanut dust--is your concern. Not the government's and not population at large's.
6.06.2010
Book Review: The Girl Who Chased the Moon
Sarah Addison Allen
Bantam, 2010
276 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
I read Allen's Garden Spells some time back and really liked it. So then I tried her second novel The Sugar Queen and couldn't get into it at all. Never finished it. With such a 50-50 history, I wasn't sure what I'd think of The Girl Who Chased the Moon, but decided to give it a shot.
In a nutshell, the story is two-fold. The A plot line is about Emily, a teenager who comes to Mullaby, North Carolina, to live with the grandfather she's never met. Emily will learn about her deceased mother's childhood and will discover "strange and wondrous things." The B plot line is about Julia, who had been a contemporary of Emily's mother, and who had left Mullaby but was dragged back by her own father's passing. Julia has a two-year plan to take care of her father's restaurant until she can sell it for a small profit and leave town. But she starts to find herself ensnared by the past.
A quick read, and a good one. Allen is now at 66% in my book.
If you like the Southern hospitality genre (think: Miss Julia books by Ann B. Ross) or the semi-magical sorts of things Alice Hoffman is known to tackle, you'll probably like Allen's work. At least some of it.
Bantam, 2010
276 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
I read Allen's Garden Spells some time back and really liked it. So then I tried her second novel The Sugar Queen and couldn't get into it at all. Never finished it. With such a 50-50 history, I wasn't sure what I'd think of The Girl Who Chased the Moon, but decided to give it a shot.
In a nutshell, the story is two-fold. The A plot line is about Emily, a teenager who comes to Mullaby, North Carolina, to live with the grandfather she's never met. Emily will learn about her deceased mother's childhood and will discover "strange and wondrous things." The B plot line is about Julia, who had been a contemporary of Emily's mother, and who had left Mullaby but was dragged back by her own father's passing. Julia has a two-year plan to take care of her father's restaurant until she can sell it for a small profit and leave town. But she starts to find herself ensnared by the past.
A quick read, and a good one. Allen is now at 66% in my book.
If you like the Southern hospitality genre (think: Miss Julia books by Ann B. Ross) or the semi-magical sorts of things Alice Hoffman is known to tackle, you'll probably like Allen's work. At least some of it.
5.24.2010
Television: Lost finale
So last night the television series Lost came to a much heralded conclusion. Don't read any more than this if you haven't watched it yet and don't want it ruined for you.
Locke and Ben find Desmond—who was rescued from the well by Bernard and Rose, who have kept Vincent as a pet, just in case you wondered what happened to all of them—and are taking him to the center of the island (where the light is) to destroy it. Desmond is, as Jack would later put it, a kind of weapon. Apparently his natural resistance to electromagnetism has something to do with it, but whatever. (I can't help but wonder what Widmore planned to do with Desmond?)
Jack, Hurley, Kate and Sawyer also catch up with Locke, Ben and Desmond and it ends up coming down to Jack and Locke and Desmond going to the light and sending Desmond down to—as best I can figure—pull a giant drain plug. Which causes the island to begin falling apart, but slowly enough that Jack and Locke have time to fight it out on the cliffs overlooking the sea. Jack wins that one, and he sends Kate and Sawyer off on Locke's (which was Desmond's) boat to the other island so they can catch the plane with Miles, Richard, and Lapidus—and have just enough time to convince Claire to come along too.
Since the island, meanwhile, is still disintegrating, Jack leads Hurley (who refused to leave) and Ben back to the place where the light had been. Jack intends to go down and fix things; basically, he's going to go put the plug back in the Drain of Doom. Hurley is left to become the next new Jacob, with Ben as his sidekick. While Jack is at it, he ties the wounded but not dead Desmond to the rope so Hurley and Ben can lift him to safety and (hopefully) get him home.
As an aside, I just want to say, I thought the light/drain mythology bit was dumb. I like fantasy and Indiana Jones as much as anyone, but that was . . . I don't even have the words. Navel of the World tourist postcards forthcoming, I suppose?
Back in the sideways world, Desmond is working double time to pull everyone together so that they can trigger their island memories of one another. I won't get into all the ways it happens, but I will say Claire's and Charlie's moment made me tear up. Jack is the one left out of all this, or maybe he's just the most resistant to it. A moment with Locke after having done spinal surgery, another with Kate when he arrives too late for the concert . . . She then leads him to the church where his father's body has been sent after Oceanic's temporary misplacement of it. But Jack will discover that the coffin is empty. He'll see his father again and realize he himself is dead. And he's come to the place where he's being reunited with his loved ones. Which isn't to say they're all dead (yet, in "our" time, if there is such a thing in the show). But apparently the lovely thing about this "Heaven" is that they're there regardless, just as you best remember them. Because love is eternal and knows no time.
For the most part, I liked the ending. I found it hopeful and uplifting. Warm, really. I enjoyed some of the imagery, like opening the show with the progress of Christian Shepherd's coffin: a symbol for laying the show itself to rest. And I totally called it that the final image would be Jack's eye closing. The writers of the show certainly show a liking for symmetry.
As for the island side of things, I can only say I hope that (a) Bernard, Rose and Vincent suffered no ill effects from the earthquakes as the island was breaking apart, and (b) Desmond was able to get home to Penny and Charlie. I was really glad that Claire and Kate both were able to go back to Aaron; a nice balance against the fact that Sun and Jin did not get to go home to their daughter.
I originally wanted to believe that the sideways timeline was an alternative option for those who didn't get happy endings on the island. I haven't quite decided if it was or wasn't. Whether it was Jack writing all of that in his head or something bigger. One theory suggests that the moment of Jack's death occurs during the flight, at the point where Rose tells him it's okay to let go after the turbulence. But that might also just coincide with the moment Jack gets back to the island via Ajira and does let go, as in ceasing to attempt to control things or be the leader. My media studies degree notwithstanding, I'd have to go and watch a lot of stuff over again before coming up with a solid answer for myself.
But like Jack, I don't necessarily feel the need to do that. I've let go of Lost, and am happy to just let the experience of it wash over me . . . Like a bright, warm light.
Locke and Ben find Desmond—who was rescued from the well by Bernard and Rose, who have kept Vincent as a pet, just in case you wondered what happened to all of them—and are taking him to the center of the island (where the light is) to destroy it. Desmond is, as Jack would later put it, a kind of weapon. Apparently his natural resistance to electromagnetism has something to do with it, but whatever. (I can't help but wonder what Widmore planned to do with Desmond?)
Jack, Hurley, Kate and Sawyer also catch up with Locke, Ben and Desmond and it ends up coming down to Jack and Locke and Desmond going to the light and sending Desmond down to—as best I can figure—pull a giant drain plug. Which causes the island to begin falling apart, but slowly enough that Jack and Locke have time to fight it out on the cliffs overlooking the sea. Jack wins that one, and he sends Kate and Sawyer off on Locke's (which was Desmond's) boat to the other island so they can catch the plane with Miles, Richard, and Lapidus—and have just enough time to convince Claire to come along too.
Since the island, meanwhile, is still disintegrating, Jack leads Hurley (who refused to leave) and Ben back to the place where the light had been. Jack intends to go down and fix things; basically, he's going to go put the plug back in the Drain of Doom. Hurley is left to become the next new Jacob, with Ben as his sidekick. While Jack is at it, he ties the wounded but not dead Desmond to the rope so Hurley and Ben can lift him to safety and (hopefully) get him home.
As an aside, I just want to say, I thought the light/drain mythology bit was dumb. I like fantasy and Indiana Jones as much as anyone, but that was . . . I don't even have the words. Navel of the World tourist postcards forthcoming, I suppose?
Back in the sideways world, Desmond is working double time to pull everyone together so that they can trigger their island memories of one another. I won't get into all the ways it happens, but I will say Claire's and Charlie's moment made me tear up. Jack is the one left out of all this, or maybe he's just the most resistant to it. A moment with Locke after having done spinal surgery, another with Kate when he arrives too late for the concert . . . She then leads him to the church where his father's body has been sent after Oceanic's temporary misplacement of it. But Jack will discover that the coffin is empty. He'll see his father again and realize he himself is dead. And he's come to the place where he's being reunited with his loved ones. Which isn't to say they're all dead (yet, in "our" time, if there is such a thing in the show). But apparently the lovely thing about this "Heaven" is that they're there regardless, just as you best remember them. Because love is eternal and knows no time.
For the most part, I liked the ending. I found it hopeful and uplifting. Warm, really. I enjoyed some of the imagery, like opening the show with the progress of Christian Shepherd's coffin: a symbol for laying the show itself to rest. And I totally called it that the final image would be Jack's eye closing. The writers of the show certainly show a liking for symmetry.
As for the island side of things, I can only say I hope that (a) Bernard, Rose and Vincent suffered no ill effects from the earthquakes as the island was breaking apart, and (b) Desmond was able to get home to Penny and Charlie. I was really glad that Claire and Kate both were able to go back to Aaron; a nice balance against the fact that Sun and Jin did not get to go home to their daughter.
I originally wanted to believe that the sideways timeline was an alternative option for those who didn't get happy endings on the island. I haven't quite decided if it was or wasn't. Whether it was Jack writing all of that in his head or something bigger. One theory suggests that the moment of Jack's death occurs during the flight, at the point where Rose tells him it's okay to let go after the turbulence. But that might also just coincide with the moment Jack gets back to the island via Ajira and does let go, as in ceasing to attempt to control things or be the leader. My media studies degree notwithstanding, I'd have to go and watch a lot of stuff over again before coming up with a solid answer for myself.
But like Jack, I don't necessarily feel the need to do that. I've let go of Lost, and am happy to just let the experience of it wash over me . . . Like a bright, warm light.
5.21.2010
Television: Bones
My favorite television show had its season finale last night, so it's time to take stock yet again.
Basically the episode set up the coming season as a time jump of one year. This is because [almost] everyone found something else to do for a year--like summer vacation only extended. Brennan agreed to head an anthropological site on the island of Maluku, and Daisy was going with her, leaving Sweets behind. (He had the option to go with her and decided against it--also deciding against "waiting" for her, so it'll be interesting to see what happens there). Booth agreed to go back into the Army for a year to teach the troops some sniper and tracking skills. Jack and Angela decided not to hang around and wait for all their friends, so they were skipping town to spend a year in Paris. Cam and Caroline were evidently left to hold down the fort.
At the end of the episode, as Brennan and Daisy said their good-byes to everyone at the airport before flying off for Maluku, Booth turned up in uniform and made a pact with Brennan to meet at the Reflecting Pool near the coffee cart in one year. This makes the opening for next season painfully predictable in that a year will have passed and Brennan and Booth will be awkward with one another, having changed and yet not changed . . . Like seeing an old college buddy or something. OR, alternatively, one of them won't show. At that will set off some other thing, what-have-you. I'm hoping the writers will surprise me and that neither of these things will actually happen. Though I'm not sure what else could happen.
Meanwhile, I still have questions about the beginning of this season and Booth's brain and such. Apparently all of that was dropped without notice at some point. I mean, if Booth had been having trouble remembering how to handle simple plumbing jobs, can he remember how to shoot and track well enough to teach Army recruits? As for being in love with Brennan, well, they dealt with that in the 100th episode, though the idea of it being a false feeling generated by his brain was never followed up on, either. This is me throwing my hands up and saying, "Are we just pretending none of that happened?" That's fine by me if we are, since I thought all that was a bit hokey anyway, but I'd like to know for sure one way or the other.
Certainly, I think the idea of a year away is a good one. A lot of shows are doing that kind of thing lately, so it may seem that Bones is jumping on a bandwagon here, but they needed to do something to keep things fresh. Or rather, to refresh things. So here's hoping for interesting developments in absentia. See you in the fall.
Basically the episode set up the coming season as a time jump of one year. This is because [almost] everyone found something else to do for a year--like summer vacation only extended. Brennan agreed to head an anthropological site on the island of Maluku, and Daisy was going with her, leaving Sweets behind. (He had the option to go with her and decided against it--also deciding against "waiting" for her, so it'll be interesting to see what happens there). Booth agreed to go back into the Army for a year to teach the troops some sniper and tracking skills. Jack and Angela decided not to hang around and wait for all their friends, so they were skipping town to spend a year in Paris. Cam and Caroline were evidently left to hold down the fort.
At the end of the episode, as Brennan and Daisy said their good-byes to everyone at the airport before flying off for Maluku, Booth turned up in uniform and made a pact with Brennan to meet at the Reflecting Pool near the coffee cart in one year. This makes the opening for next season painfully predictable in that a year will have passed and Brennan and Booth will be awkward with one another, having changed and yet not changed . . . Like seeing an old college buddy or something. OR, alternatively, one of them won't show. At that will set off some other thing, what-have-you. I'm hoping the writers will surprise me and that neither of these things will actually happen. Though I'm not sure what else could happen.
Meanwhile, I still have questions about the beginning of this season and Booth's brain and such. Apparently all of that was dropped without notice at some point. I mean, if Booth had been having trouble remembering how to handle simple plumbing jobs, can he remember how to shoot and track well enough to teach Army recruits? As for being in love with Brennan, well, they dealt with that in the 100th episode, though the idea of it being a false feeling generated by his brain was never followed up on, either. This is me throwing my hands up and saying, "Are we just pretending none of that happened?" That's fine by me if we are, since I thought all that was a bit hokey anyway, but I'd like to know for sure one way or the other.
Certainly, I think the idea of a year away is a good one. A lot of shows are doing that kind of thing lately, so it may seem that Bones is jumping on a bandwagon here, but they needed to do something to keep things fresh. Or rather, to refresh things. So here's hoping for interesting developments in absentia. See you in the fall.
Book Review: The Red Pyramid
Rick Riordan
Hyperion, 2010
528 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
So if you've read Riordan's Percy Jackson books about how Percy is really the son of Poseidon, making him a half-god with cool powers, then you can substitute a brother-sister team for Percy and Egyptian gods for the Greek ones, and you've pretty much got The Red Pyramid summed up.
Carter Kane is 14 and travels the world with his Egyptologist father. His sister Sadie is 12 and lives in London with their maternal grandparents. Carter and Sadie only see each other twice a year, so they aren't particularly close. Until . . .
Riordan's books are formulaic, but that's not to say they aren't good. Though geared towards ages, oh, let's say 9 to 12, adults can find them entertaining as well. They aren't nearly as deep and involving as the Harry Potter books, but they hold their own.
The Red Pyramid is the first in Riordan's new series The Kane Chronicles. As the portal, so to speak, it does a fine job of setting up the rules and introducing the major players. Having Carter and Sadie alternate as narrators is a nice way to fill in perspective, though the gimmick of the author's opening and closing notes about having "found a recording that he's transcribed" falls a bit flat.
If you (or your kids, students, what-have-you) liked the Percy Jackson books, you'll probably like this too. Though you run the risk of getting bored with or tired of it, since it is so very similar. But Riordan has had a winning formula in the past, and has clearly decided not to tamper with what works.
Hyperion, 2010
528 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
So if you've read Riordan's Percy Jackson books about how Percy is really the son of Poseidon, making him a half-god with cool powers, then you can substitute a brother-sister team for Percy and Egyptian gods for the Greek ones, and you've pretty much got The Red Pyramid summed up.
Carter Kane is 14 and travels the world with his Egyptologist father. His sister Sadie is 12 and lives in London with their maternal grandparents. Carter and Sadie only see each other twice a year, so they aren't particularly close. Until . . .
Riordan's books are formulaic, but that's not to say they aren't good. Though geared towards ages, oh, let's say 9 to 12, adults can find them entertaining as well. They aren't nearly as deep and involving as the Harry Potter books, but they hold their own.
The Red Pyramid is the first in Riordan's new series The Kane Chronicles. As the portal, so to speak, it does a fine job of setting up the rules and introducing the major players. Having Carter and Sadie alternate as narrators is a nice way to fill in perspective, though the gimmick of the author's opening and closing notes about having "found a recording that he's transcribed" falls a bit flat.
If you (or your kids, students, what-have-you) liked the Percy Jackson books, you'll probably like this too. Though you run the risk of getting bored with or tired of it, since it is so very similar. But Riordan has had a winning formula in the past, and has clearly decided not to tamper with what works.
5.11.2010
Television: Happy Town
Why aren't you people watching this show? If you liked Twin Peaks, or The X-Files, or American Gothic, you should be watching Happy Town.
While Lost and FlashForward are good, they tend to be intense. Happy Town has all the dark drama but tempers it with quirk.
If you've missed out on the first couple episodes, they're available online. But to summarize: small town haunted by the disappearances of several residents. The locals refer to the perpetrator as "The Magic Man." A murder--of someone many suspected to be The Magic Man--turns the town on its head, even as the arrival of a strange new resident coincides with a delirious turn by the town's sheriff.
Now the sheriff's son turned acting sheriff is trying to solve the murder (well, he did that in Episode 2, but--) even as other strange things begin to happen . . .
Happy Town is definitely taking a few pages from the Twin Peaks play book, and Sam Neill is especially fun as a cinephile with something to hide.
The show, meanwhile, is in imminent danger of cancellation, though ideally ABC will let it play out over the summer at the very least. A boost in viewers would be helpful!
While Lost and FlashForward are good, they tend to be intense. Happy Town has all the dark drama but tempers it with quirk.
If you've missed out on the first couple episodes, they're available online. But to summarize: small town haunted by the disappearances of several residents. The locals refer to the perpetrator as "The Magic Man." A murder--of someone many suspected to be The Magic Man--turns the town on its head, even as the arrival of a strange new resident coincides with a delirious turn by the town's sheriff.
Now the sheriff's son turned acting sheriff is trying to solve the murder (well, he did that in Episode 2, but--) even as other strange things begin to happen . . .
Happy Town is definitely taking a few pages from the Twin Peaks play book, and Sam Neill is especially fun as a cinephile with something to hide.
The show, meanwhile, is in imminent danger of cancellation, though ideally ABC will let it play out over the summer at the very least. A boost in viewers would be helpful!
Book Review: Shades of Grey
Jasper Fforde
Viking, 2009
400 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
I love this book.
Like all Jasper Fforde's novels, it takes some toe-dipping to get into, but Fforde has earned the patience of his readers. His standard MO is to write completely unintelligible things for the first couple chapters until the reader starts to understand it and it begins to make some kind of strange sense. Think of it as cultural immersion, the same way a person might learn a new language by being surrounded by it. It always works out in the end, so long as you have the gumption to stick with it.
Fforde's track record with the Thursday Next series, and the Nursery Crime books, opens the door for him to write this completely unanchored novel, itself the first of a trilogy. Without giving too much away, I'll simply note that it takes place in a future where everything's gone a bit retrograde and status is determined by color—not of one's skin, but what color (and how much of it) one is able to see. Society labors under strict and strange rules handed down by a man named Munsell, and poor Eddie Russett strives to be good in a world populated by people who are bent on being bad.
The question becomes: is circumventing an oppressive government—breaking the rules—a bad thing? It depends on one's motives . . .
Fforde is as clever as ever here (though I have a couple questions for him, which I've posted on his Web site's forum—if you please, Mr. Fforde). He's created a world any parageographer could be proud of, and his characters are thorough, even if most seem beyond redemption. The reader feels Eddie's frustration, and in many cases finds him- or herself frustrated with Eddie in particular. But the main character's cluelessness is the perfect mode of travel for the reader, who is new to all that Eddie takes for granted and joins him on his learning curve.
Call it a tale of opening one's eyes after suffering blind faith in the system. A tale for the ages, and the kind of thing they'll be teaching in high school along side 1984 in another decade or so. Well worth a read, and certainly more satisfying if you can get a book club to take it on and discuss it afterward.
Viking, 2009
400 pages
hard cover
_____________________________________________________
I love this book.
Like all Jasper Fforde's novels, it takes some toe-dipping to get into, but Fforde has earned the patience of his readers. His standard MO is to write completely unintelligible things for the first couple chapters until the reader starts to understand it and it begins to make some kind of strange sense. Think of it as cultural immersion, the same way a person might learn a new language by being surrounded by it. It always works out in the end, so long as you have the gumption to stick with it.
Fforde's track record with the Thursday Next series, and the Nursery Crime books, opens the door for him to write this completely unanchored novel, itself the first of a trilogy. Without giving too much away, I'll simply note that it takes place in a future where everything's gone a bit retrograde and status is determined by color—not of one's skin, but what color (and how much of it) one is able to see. Society labors under strict and strange rules handed down by a man named Munsell, and poor Eddie Russett strives to be good in a world populated by people who are bent on being bad.
The question becomes: is circumventing an oppressive government—breaking the rules—a bad thing? It depends on one's motives . . .
Fforde is as clever as ever here (though I have a couple questions for him, which I've posted on his Web site's forum—if you please, Mr. Fforde). He's created a world any parageographer could be proud of, and his characters are thorough, even if most seem beyond redemption. The reader feels Eddie's frustration, and in many cases finds him- or herself frustrated with Eddie in particular. But the main character's cluelessness is the perfect mode of travel for the reader, who is new to all that Eddie takes for granted and joins him on his learning curve.
Call it a tale of opening one's eyes after suffering blind faith in the system. A tale for the ages, and the kind of thing they'll be teaching in high school along side 1984 in another decade or so. Well worth a read, and certainly more satisfying if you can get a book club to take it on and discuss it afterward.
4.21.2010
Book Review: Under the Cajun Moon
Mindy Starns Clark
Harvest House, 2009
332 pages
trade paperback
_____________________________________________________
I'm not Cajun. Not technically, anyway, because my family didn't come through Nova Scotia. Instead, in the mid-1700's our ancestors sailed directly from France. Which makes us French Creole, although nowadays people usually think more "mixed blood" when they hear "Creole." We're probably that, too, by now.
At any rate, I know from South Louisiana because I come from that particular pot of genetic gumbo. Which ingredient my family is or was doesn't much matter now, since it's the flavor that counts.
Clark's Under the Cajun Moon tries very hard--almost too hard--to give readers a taste of South Louisiana. It's liberally sprinkled with Cajun French (stuff I recognized from my own childhood) and vivid descriptions of the bayous and of New Orleans. In fact, the title and cover art are the reasons I picked this one from the library shelf, even without reading the description.
Well! That's the other thing. If I'd looked at the publisher, I'd have known, but this is one of those Christian books disguised as a mystery. Somehow I've yet to read one that, no matter how hard the author tries, doesn't make the reader feel like he or she is being beaten over the head with a sermon. (And if Christians are reading these things, aren't the authors and publishers just preaching to the choir?)
The publisher was, in fact, a big factor in my problems with this book, though not because of the religious angle. That doesn't actually bother me, except when the storytelling grinds to a halt so someone can whip out a Bible and pray. The book was simply badly edited and contained many typos. Also, the use of "Prytaria" instead of "Prytania"? Seriously? Someone couldn't look that up and make sure it was correct?
As for the story itself, for a mystery it wasn't much of one. Clark telegraphs her punches, and I--as an avid mystery reader--had the bad guy fingered almost as soon as he appeared on the scene.
I'm underwhelmed as a whole, but here's the thing: I wouldn't say no to trying one of Clark's other books.
And I'm wondering if I insert some sermonizing into one of my manuscripts, will Harvest House publish it?
Harvest House, 2009
332 pages
trade paperback
_____________________________________________________
I'm not Cajun. Not technically, anyway, because my family didn't come through Nova Scotia. Instead, in the mid-1700's our ancestors sailed directly from France. Which makes us French Creole, although nowadays people usually think more "mixed blood" when they hear "Creole." We're probably that, too, by now.
At any rate, I know from South Louisiana because I come from that particular pot of genetic gumbo. Which ingredient my family is or was doesn't much matter now, since it's the flavor that counts.
Clark's Under the Cajun Moon tries very hard--almost too hard--to give readers a taste of South Louisiana. It's liberally sprinkled with Cajun French (stuff I recognized from my own childhood) and vivid descriptions of the bayous and of New Orleans. In fact, the title and cover art are the reasons I picked this one from the library shelf, even without reading the description.
Well! That's the other thing. If I'd looked at the publisher, I'd have known, but this is one of those Christian books disguised as a mystery. Somehow I've yet to read one that, no matter how hard the author tries, doesn't make the reader feel like he or she is being beaten over the head with a sermon. (And if Christians are reading these things, aren't the authors and publishers just preaching to the choir?)
The publisher was, in fact, a big factor in my problems with this book, though not because of the religious angle. That doesn't actually bother me, except when the storytelling grinds to a halt so someone can whip out a Bible and pray. The book was simply badly edited and contained many typos. Also, the use of "Prytaria" instead of "Prytania"? Seriously? Someone couldn't look that up and make sure it was correct?
As for the story itself, for a mystery it wasn't much of one. Clark telegraphs her punches, and I--as an avid mystery reader--had the bad guy fingered almost as soon as he appeared on the scene.
I'm underwhelmed as a whole, but here's the thing: I wouldn't say no to trying one of Clark's other books.
And I'm wondering if I insert some sermonizing into one of my manuscripts, will Harvest House publish it?
4.01.2010
"That's My Program"
The title of this post is taken from one of the lines from last night's episode of Modern Family, which is one of the two sitcoms I watch. I wanted to give a sort of encapsulation of my current television preferences, if only to situate readers in a way that allows them to relate to me and the kind of person I am.
Here is my current television schedule:
MONDAY
House (FOX)
TUESDAY
Lost (ABC)
V (ABC)
WEDNESDAY
Modern Family (ABC)
THURSDAY
Bones (FOX)
Flash Forward(ABC)
30 Rock (NBC)
I don't watch anything on Friday, Saturday or Sunday.
On Mondays, we used to watch 24 but gave up early this season when we realized we just didn't care any more.
I only just started with V at the behest of my husband. He likes it a lot more than I do, I think. I don't mind it, but I find myself playing Bookworm on my iPhone while it's on. A show that doesn't require my full attention is only a time-kill in my way of thinking. That's how it started with 24, too--I ended up messing around on my laptop while it was on and then started wondering why I was even bothering. While my husband's devotion to V may hold, mine doesn't seem likely to.
Thursday is, as you can see, the "big TV day." We'll usually save either Bones or Flash Forward on the DVR for a Friday night viewing. We're too old and have too many children to stay up that late otherwise.
You'll notice a lack of reality television on my list. Once upon a time, we did watch Survivor and American Idol. But they got old fast. I just don't care to give those fame-seeking pissants [reality show contestants] the satisfaction of my time. I'd rather have professionals [script writers] do the job. If I want to watch an idiot attempt to do things he or she clearly has no idea how to do, I'll go stand on the street corner and watch the local drivers. (Especially the ones in Dodge Caravans and Grand Caravans. WTF is wrong with those people?)
I may also be biased in that I have a screenwriting degree and always wanted to be a television writer. Just throwing that out there.
People have said we should look into Justified. It seems promising, but then so did Burn Notice, which we liked but not enough to make it part of our "appointment programming"--and we found we didn't have the time to catch up later, either; it was filling the DVR. We also gave up on The Tudors at some point. We do still pick up Entourage and Mad Men when they come back every summer.
That's the sum of it. We don't watch nearly as much television as we used to, and that's probably a good thing. After all, how much Blind Date or Bridezillas can anyone really ingest? I'm certainly not sorry to have cut the fat from my TV dinners!
Here is my current television schedule:
MONDAY
House (FOX)
TUESDAY
Lost (ABC)
V (ABC)
WEDNESDAY
Modern Family (ABC)
THURSDAY
Bones (FOX)
Flash Forward(ABC)
30 Rock (NBC)
I don't watch anything on Friday, Saturday or Sunday.
On Mondays, we used to watch 24 but gave up early this season when we realized we just didn't care any more.
I only just started with V at the behest of my husband. He likes it a lot more than I do, I think. I don't mind it, but I find myself playing Bookworm on my iPhone while it's on. A show that doesn't require my full attention is only a time-kill in my way of thinking. That's how it started with 24, too--I ended up messing around on my laptop while it was on and then started wondering why I was even bothering. While my husband's devotion to V may hold, mine doesn't seem likely to.
Thursday is, as you can see, the "big TV day." We'll usually save either Bones or Flash Forward on the DVR for a Friday night viewing. We're too old and have too many children to stay up that late otherwise.
You'll notice a lack of reality television on my list. Once upon a time, we did watch Survivor and American Idol. But they got old fast. I just don't care to give those fame-seeking pissants [reality show contestants] the satisfaction of my time. I'd rather have professionals [script writers] do the job. If I want to watch an idiot attempt to do things he or she clearly has no idea how to do, I'll go stand on the street corner and watch the local drivers. (Especially the ones in Dodge Caravans and Grand Caravans. WTF is wrong with those people?)
I may also be biased in that I have a screenwriting degree and always wanted to be a television writer. Just throwing that out there.
People have said we should look into Justified. It seems promising, but then so did Burn Notice, which we liked but not enough to make it part of our "appointment programming"--and we found we didn't have the time to catch up later, either; it was filling the DVR. We also gave up on The Tudors at some point. We do still pick up Entourage and Mad Men when they come back every summer.
That's the sum of it. We don't watch nearly as much television as we used to, and that's probably a good thing. After all, how much Blind Date or Bridezillas can anyone really ingest? I'm certainly not sorry to have cut the fat from my TV dinners!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)