(no subject)
Dec. 16th, 2017 05:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatIt occurs to me that I owe you a couple of reviews? Or maybe not? Maybe you don't care?
* What I just finished reading?
Finished Beatrice Small's novel Hellion, which as previously reported is an odd romance novel.
It sort of challenges the conventions of the romance novel and comments on them.
I can't decide if Small is a frustrated historian, possibly? Because the book at times reads like an amateur attempt at historical fiction. She dabbles at it. Not always well, but better than most romance novelists. The story takes place in the 1100s, during the reign of Henry I, the son of William the Congueror and grandfather of Henry the II (the King from Beckett and Lion in Winter). So pre-Tudor. These are the Anglo-Saxons and Normans.
Anyhow, the hero is the son of Merlin-son, who specialized in birds. Or training of birds. He's a Falconier, so his last name is Faucounier, or Sir Hugh Faucounier. He's commissioned by his King and best friend to retake his family's lands in Langston, and marry the woman who currently holds them. Her father left them to her upon his death. (Why the father didn't leave it to his sons, is never really explained.) Isabelle De Mannievelle aka Belle from Hell, is a bit of a handful. She rules the place, and takes on a male role. Knows the lands, the stock, the amounts, all in her head. But can't read or write.
He brings his best friend, Sir Rolf Briande, Father Bernard, and a couple of men to do his King's bidding. Within about 50 pages, he marries her, and about twenty more, his best friends woos and weds her mother, whose only 30. Isabelle is 16. They married young back then. Her mother married at 14.
He also spanks her -- when she disobeys, but not that hard or that often. It only happens once or twice that I know of. She's not so much a hellion as a bit of a bratty teen, which hello, sixteen, and never been away from home and had to run the place.
Things go well for a bit, until the King, as King's will do, sends for her husband to defend him in a conflict with the King's brother, the Duke of Normandy. During this time, her half-brother, Richard De Mannievell, attempts to reclaim her lands and marry her off to his henchman, Sir Luc De Sai. She runs him off the land and gets her mother married off to Hugh's best bud Rolf. Hugh returns, they have a kid, he teaches her how to train birds to hunt, and all is well.
Time passes, the King asks for Hugh to go to Normandy and deliver a bird to his brother, also hang out in court for a bit to report what's going on. Then, he disappears. And just doesn't come back.
Understandably worried, Isabelle journeys to the King to find out what happened. The King, who is rather oblivious, decides this is a great opportunity to seduce his friend's wife and bed her. She's a pretty thing, he's the King, why the heck not. Isabelle, however, is not interested, and finds various clever ways of fending him off. First she makes herself sick. Then she hides in the Queen's chambers. Finally, she finds the man the King sent off to check on her husband and gets just enough information to decide to go off and find Hugh on her own, accompanied by one of Hugh's Falconiers.
She dresses up as the boy's brother, crosses over to France, and hunts for her hubby at her half-brother's house, where she suspects he's been taken captive. But alas she's a bit late, he was taken captive -- but some time ago, the sorceress Vivienne de'Bretagne took custody of him. Vivi and her brother Guy, are apparently sorcerers and the children of Merlin and Vivienne. OR the last remaining kids of that line. But their socerery such as it is -- seems to be limited to sexual seduction, and herbs and potions.
Hugh has no memory (after being knocked upside the head twice), and is the willing love slave of Vivienne. Isabelle and her falconier infilterate Vivienne's castle and attempt to find a way to spring Hugh, instead Isabelle is well, seduced by Guy, who takes her as his lover once he discovers she's female. He basically baths her, threatens to spank her if she doesn't obey, and ties her up, and gives her multiple orgasms. It's rather raunchy after 300-400 pages of relatively no sex. The raunchy sex doesn't pop up until the 68% mark or thereabouts. And then, hello, BDSM, sex toys, and three-somes.
And -- it's an effective means of getting across a point -- which is "Sex", "Good sex", doesn't necessarily equal love. Well both Hugh and Belle enjoy the sex with Guy and Viv, neither love them, nor do they fell truly loved in return, more playthings. Although Guy does appear to care for Belle on some level, he doesn't care enough to let her free or have her own space. She's essentially there for his sexual pleasure. Both, Guy and Viv, are narcissists, and sex furthers their own pleasure.
It's never about the other person's pleasure or comfort, but mainly their own. Sex also, for both Guy and Viv is an expression of power. Their power over others. And it's mixed up with violence. They can't quite separaate the two.
Small does a decent job of depicting this, along with how powerless women were back then. Viv who technically owns the castle and the line passes through her -- has no power. Her brother and then her husband rule over her. Hugh, her sex slave, actually has more power for just being male. Isabelle is equally powerless. Even if she were to leave without Hugh, she'd just be at the mercy of whichever male the King chose for her next.
At one point, Belle is forced to have sex with Hugh and Guy. Although forced isn't quite the same word, compelled might be a better one. She's not really given much choice in the matter. And while Hugh is in a similar boat, he seems to have more of one. It's a breeding ritual -- neither Guy nor Isabelle can bear children, so Hugh and Isabelle are mated to have kids for them. Rather repulsive actually, if you think about it, but ...realistic, after all it's what Arbraham and Sarah did with Hagar and it's what Atwood talks about in the Handmaid's Tale. Isabelle -- the writer shows has very little power here. If she'd refused, she'd have been beaten or killed. If she fought? Beaten.
It's during this sex scene that Hugh regains his memory and then he's upset with Isabelle for giving in to Guy and being his lover. As if she had a choice in the matter. He also has troubles forgiving her for enjoying it. When they confront each other, and she tells him that he was enjoying Viv and sleeping with Viv long before that and after he regained his memory, he shrugs it off as well, "I'm a man, it's okay for men to do these things. Women, good women are to remain chaste." Even apparently when the man in question has given them no choice? ie. either be raped or be a whore? Or be raped and become a whore? Women exist for male pleasure or are their property, and are the "weaker" sex, due to physical prowess.
When he suggests to name their second child after the King -- Isabelle refuses because, hello, the King tried to rape her or seduce her. Hugh shrugs it off -- as it being a King's right. And she was supposed to well comply.
Hugh was a man of his time. But Isabelle questions it. He sees her as property. He may love her.
But he's the big strong guy, and since he can overpower her, and has, she's his. What a horrible way of thinking. But men and women have been thinking this way for millions of years. That's the point, Beatrice Small makes. Her heroine is no shrinking violet, she fights, and is resourceful throughout, but she can't escape the prejudices and constraints of her own time.
Small, however, questions who is the stronger and more moral character here...or the most heroic. Isabelle or Hugh. Hugh is rather cruel in the book when he loses his memory. He is given power and abuses it. Isabelle for her part, merely enjoys the attentions of another lover, having relatively little options afforded to her. But she never acts in cruelty and never hurts anyone willingly. And when she obtains power, however briefly, works hard not to take advantage of it.
While the book ends happily for the most part, they are together, the bad guys are vanquished, and alls well that ends well -- Hugh never really changes his views, just his attitude. The conventional ending...is sort of circuited as a result. Leaving us with a sense of how horribly women were treated back then...as livestock or favored pets and how men, who had physical power, abused it to their own and other detriments, in order to further their own self-interest.
The romance genre doesn't necessarily smile on the male gender, which may be why it is rarely read by them? (shrugs) Among other reasons of course. ;-)
Many of the reviews I've read of this book complained of purple prose, but it's not more or less purple than Stephanie Meyer's Twilight Sage, Jojo Moyes, Liane Moriarity, or the latest Nora Roberts. The writing is rather boilerplate but so are the others. Precision of language isn't necessarily a popular writer's fort. Just saying. But even this is so much in the eye of the beholder. Making it rather difficult to know whether to recommend a novel or not, or even whether I will like one that has been reviewed. People say it's eloquently written or there's purple prose, then I read it, and wonder what they've been smoking.
What movie I saw most recently?
Lady Bird by Greta Gerwig -- which the film reviewers appear to like a whole lot more than I did. I can't help but wonder if this may be because I've only seen a handful of movies this year, and most of them on - "On Demand"? Outside of Lady Bird, I've seen Wonder Woman, Thor, and..La La Land in a movie theater. Needless to say, of the three, I found Lady Bird the least enjoyable of the three and the least memorable.
It's a coming of age story about a Catholic High School girl in Sacramento, California. She's on financial aid at the school. Lives literally on the wrong side of the tracks. With a mom, who is a nurse in a hospital and the sole care provider. Her father lost his job. And her brother and his girlfriend are living with them. Christine "Lady Bird" McPherson dreams of going to NYU or one of the schools on the east coast, where people do really cool things and there's a lot of culture. She meanders through school, making obnoxious comments, rebelling whenever possible, and skirting the extra-curricular activities she's not good in. After annoying the head nun and her guidance counselor, the nun suggests she try theater club. Which she does for a bit -- when she gets a crush on the lead in the play, Danny. She visits with his extended family for Thanksgiving, and finds them living in her dream house, Regan photos on the walls. But alas, he's gay -- which she discovers when she accidentally sees him making out with a boy in the boy's restroom during a concert. So she shifts tacts and falls for a singer. Dumps her best friend, befriends the singers best friend, and has sex with the singer -- only to discover he's a bit of douche. Meanwhile, she's filing for financial aid and applying to school's against her Mom's wishes.
When she gets into one of the schools and her finanical application is accepted, her mother discovers it and things blow up. Mom and daughter stop talking. Lady Bird flies off to NY to the new school.
Eventually she realizes her Mom was right, and leaves a lengthy and rambling message for her mom. And well that's the end of the film.
That's the end of the film. Well shot. Some interesting visual and camera tricks in there. and well acted. But other than that...not all that memorable. Also, I feel like I've seen it before. Reminds of Juno and countless others.
Seriously I think Pretty in Pink, which also dealt with some of the same themes was better done.
Certainly was less painful.
This does have some rather funny bits in it -- and I did cry during it. Also stayed awake. But I'm not sure it's deserving of all the hype. I'd have put Logan or Wonder Woman on the best films of the year, over this one. But that's just me.
* What I just finished reading?
Finished Beatrice Small's novel Hellion, which as previously reported is an odd romance novel.
It sort of challenges the conventions of the romance novel and comments on them.
I can't decide if Small is a frustrated historian, possibly? Because the book at times reads like an amateur attempt at historical fiction. She dabbles at it. Not always well, but better than most romance novelists. The story takes place in the 1100s, during the reign of Henry I, the son of William the Congueror and grandfather of Henry the II (the King from Beckett and Lion in Winter). So pre-Tudor. These are the Anglo-Saxons and Normans.
Anyhow, the hero is the son of Merlin-son, who specialized in birds. Or training of birds. He's a Falconier, so his last name is Faucounier, or Sir Hugh Faucounier. He's commissioned by his King and best friend to retake his family's lands in Langston, and marry the woman who currently holds them. Her father left them to her upon his death. (Why the father didn't leave it to his sons, is never really explained.) Isabelle De Mannievelle aka Belle from Hell, is a bit of a handful. She rules the place, and takes on a male role. Knows the lands, the stock, the amounts, all in her head. But can't read or write.
He brings his best friend, Sir Rolf Briande, Father Bernard, and a couple of men to do his King's bidding. Within about 50 pages, he marries her, and about twenty more, his best friends woos and weds her mother, whose only 30. Isabelle is 16. They married young back then. Her mother married at 14.
He also spanks her -- when she disobeys, but not that hard or that often. It only happens once or twice that I know of. She's not so much a hellion as a bit of a bratty teen, which hello, sixteen, and never been away from home and had to run the place.
Things go well for a bit, until the King, as King's will do, sends for her husband to defend him in a conflict with the King's brother, the Duke of Normandy. During this time, her half-brother, Richard De Mannievell, attempts to reclaim her lands and marry her off to his henchman, Sir Luc De Sai. She runs him off the land and gets her mother married off to Hugh's best bud Rolf. Hugh returns, they have a kid, he teaches her how to train birds to hunt, and all is well.
Time passes, the King asks for Hugh to go to Normandy and deliver a bird to his brother, also hang out in court for a bit to report what's going on. Then, he disappears. And just doesn't come back.
Understandably worried, Isabelle journeys to the King to find out what happened. The King, who is rather oblivious, decides this is a great opportunity to seduce his friend's wife and bed her. She's a pretty thing, he's the King, why the heck not. Isabelle, however, is not interested, and finds various clever ways of fending him off. First she makes herself sick. Then she hides in the Queen's chambers. Finally, she finds the man the King sent off to check on her husband and gets just enough information to decide to go off and find Hugh on her own, accompanied by one of Hugh's Falconiers.
She dresses up as the boy's brother, crosses over to France, and hunts for her hubby at her half-brother's house, where she suspects he's been taken captive. But alas she's a bit late, he was taken captive -- but some time ago, the sorceress Vivienne de'Bretagne took custody of him. Vivi and her brother Guy, are apparently sorcerers and the children of Merlin and Vivienne. OR the last remaining kids of that line. But their socerery such as it is -- seems to be limited to sexual seduction, and herbs and potions.
Hugh has no memory (after being knocked upside the head twice), and is the willing love slave of Vivienne. Isabelle and her falconier infilterate Vivienne's castle and attempt to find a way to spring Hugh, instead Isabelle is well, seduced by Guy, who takes her as his lover once he discovers she's female. He basically baths her, threatens to spank her if she doesn't obey, and ties her up, and gives her multiple orgasms. It's rather raunchy after 300-400 pages of relatively no sex. The raunchy sex doesn't pop up until the 68% mark or thereabouts. And then, hello, BDSM, sex toys, and three-somes.
And -- it's an effective means of getting across a point -- which is "Sex", "Good sex", doesn't necessarily equal love. Well both Hugh and Belle enjoy the sex with Guy and Viv, neither love them, nor do they fell truly loved in return, more playthings. Although Guy does appear to care for Belle on some level, he doesn't care enough to let her free or have her own space. She's essentially there for his sexual pleasure. Both, Guy and Viv, are narcissists, and sex furthers their own pleasure.
It's never about the other person's pleasure or comfort, but mainly their own. Sex also, for both Guy and Viv is an expression of power. Their power over others. And it's mixed up with violence. They can't quite separaate the two.
Small does a decent job of depicting this, along with how powerless women were back then. Viv who technically owns the castle and the line passes through her -- has no power. Her brother and then her husband rule over her. Hugh, her sex slave, actually has more power for just being male. Isabelle is equally powerless. Even if she were to leave without Hugh, she'd just be at the mercy of whichever male the King chose for her next.
At one point, Belle is forced to have sex with Hugh and Guy. Although forced isn't quite the same word, compelled might be a better one. She's not really given much choice in the matter. And while Hugh is in a similar boat, he seems to have more of one. It's a breeding ritual -- neither Guy nor Isabelle can bear children, so Hugh and Isabelle are mated to have kids for them. Rather repulsive actually, if you think about it, but ...realistic, after all it's what Arbraham and Sarah did with Hagar and it's what Atwood talks about in the Handmaid's Tale. Isabelle -- the writer shows has very little power here. If she'd refused, she'd have been beaten or killed. If she fought? Beaten.
It's during this sex scene that Hugh regains his memory and then he's upset with Isabelle for giving in to Guy and being his lover. As if she had a choice in the matter. He also has troubles forgiving her for enjoying it. When they confront each other, and she tells him that he was enjoying Viv and sleeping with Viv long before that and after he regained his memory, he shrugs it off as well, "I'm a man, it's okay for men to do these things. Women, good women are to remain chaste." Even apparently when the man in question has given them no choice? ie. either be raped or be a whore? Or be raped and become a whore? Women exist for male pleasure or are their property, and are the "weaker" sex, due to physical prowess.
When he suggests to name their second child after the King -- Isabelle refuses because, hello, the King tried to rape her or seduce her. Hugh shrugs it off -- as it being a King's right. And she was supposed to well comply.
Hugh was a man of his time. But Isabelle questions it. He sees her as property. He may love her.
But he's the big strong guy, and since he can overpower her, and has, she's his. What a horrible way of thinking. But men and women have been thinking this way for millions of years. That's the point, Beatrice Small makes. Her heroine is no shrinking violet, she fights, and is resourceful throughout, but she can't escape the prejudices and constraints of her own time.
Small, however, questions who is the stronger and more moral character here...or the most heroic. Isabelle or Hugh. Hugh is rather cruel in the book when he loses his memory. He is given power and abuses it. Isabelle for her part, merely enjoys the attentions of another lover, having relatively little options afforded to her. But she never acts in cruelty and never hurts anyone willingly. And when she obtains power, however briefly, works hard not to take advantage of it.
While the book ends happily for the most part, they are together, the bad guys are vanquished, and alls well that ends well -- Hugh never really changes his views, just his attitude. The conventional ending...is sort of circuited as a result. Leaving us with a sense of how horribly women were treated back then...as livestock or favored pets and how men, who had physical power, abused it to their own and other detriments, in order to further their own self-interest.
The romance genre doesn't necessarily smile on the male gender, which may be why it is rarely read by them? (shrugs) Among other reasons of course. ;-)
Many of the reviews I've read of this book complained of purple prose, but it's not more or less purple than Stephanie Meyer's Twilight Sage, Jojo Moyes, Liane Moriarity, or the latest Nora Roberts. The writing is rather boilerplate but so are the others. Precision of language isn't necessarily a popular writer's fort. Just saying. But even this is so much in the eye of the beholder. Making it rather difficult to know whether to recommend a novel or not, or even whether I will like one that has been reviewed. People say it's eloquently written or there's purple prose, then I read it, and wonder what they've been smoking.
What movie I saw most recently?
Lady Bird by Greta Gerwig -- which the film reviewers appear to like a whole lot more than I did. I can't help but wonder if this may be because I've only seen a handful of movies this year, and most of them on - "On Demand"? Outside of Lady Bird, I've seen Wonder Woman, Thor, and..La La Land in a movie theater. Needless to say, of the three, I found Lady Bird the least enjoyable of the three and the least memorable.
It's a coming of age story about a Catholic High School girl in Sacramento, California. She's on financial aid at the school. Lives literally on the wrong side of the tracks. With a mom, who is a nurse in a hospital and the sole care provider. Her father lost his job. And her brother and his girlfriend are living with them. Christine "Lady Bird" McPherson dreams of going to NYU or one of the schools on the east coast, where people do really cool things and there's a lot of culture. She meanders through school, making obnoxious comments, rebelling whenever possible, and skirting the extra-curricular activities she's not good in. After annoying the head nun and her guidance counselor, the nun suggests she try theater club. Which she does for a bit -- when she gets a crush on the lead in the play, Danny. She visits with his extended family for Thanksgiving, and finds them living in her dream house, Regan photos on the walls. But alas, he's gay -- which she discovers when she accidentally sees him making out with a boy in the boy's restroom during a concert. So she shifts tacts and falls for a singer. Dumps her best friend, befriends the singers best friend, and has sex with the singer -- only to discover he's a bit of douche. Meanwhile, she's filing for financial aid and applying to school's against her Mom's wishes.
When she gets into one of the schools and her finanical application is accepted, her mother discovers it and things blow up. Mom and daughter stop talking. Lady Bird flies off to NY to the new school.
Eventually she realizes her Mom was right, and leaves a lengthy and rambling message for her mom. And well that's the end of the film.
That's the end of the film. Well shot. Some interesting visual and camera tricks in there. and well acted. But other than that...not all that memorable. Also, I feel like I've seen it before. Reminds of Juno and countless others.
Seriously I think Pretty in Pink, which also dealt with some of the same themes was better done.
Certainly was less painful.
This does have some rather funny bits in it -- and I did cry during it. Also stayed awake. But I'm not sure it's deserving of all the hype. I'd have put Logan or Wonder Woman on the best films of the year, over this one. But that's just me.
no subject
Date: 2017-12-17 02:21 pm (UTC)I saw Pretty in Pink my Freshman Year in College, I'd just turned 18. So was the target audience. That one I remember -- girl from wrong side of the tracks, becomes enamored of rich boy, whose friend played by James Spader is an ass. Meanwhile her best friend has the hots for her. Annie Potts plays her mentor/substitute Mom. And Harry Dean Stanton her single dad. She sews all her own clothes and works with Annie Potts in her shop. Had a great soundtrack. It played with some heavily established tropes and mocked them. John Hughes liked to mock a lot of established tropes and teen cliches in his films. Partly by playing with casting choices. Ringwald's character sort of saves herself and she never reinvents herself for the guy, she makes him compromise.
It's sort of a Cinderella Fantasy, but not quite.
Lady Bird is more realistic -- but it felt a lot like Girls, The Squid and the Whale, and various television series and Lifetime movies, My So-Called Life to Freaks and Geeks of that line.
The poor lead always wants to go to prom with some asshole rich guy, always has sex in the film, always has problems with her Mom, while her Dad is her hero, and always dumps her best bud for the popular girl only to go back to her best bud towards the end of the film after she dumps her boyfriend after she realizes he didn't love her and is a douche. For once, just once, I'd like to see a story about the best bud who isn't dating anyone, just focusing on getting good grades, and has been dumped by her friend for some guy. The film didn't really subvert or challenge any established tropes or break any new ground. I don't know why the critics think it's a best film of the year.
It was enjoyable for what it was, but hardly memorable and not worth a spot on anyone's awards list or best list. I think the critics are reaching here.
no subject
Date: 2017-12-17 04:34 pm (UTC)In Lady Bird what I liked best was the portrayal of the family, especially the resentment between the siblings and the grudging support, too. Ladybird snapping at her brother and his girlfriend that "they'll never get jobs with all that junk in their faces" was perfect and hilarious--and true. The ending where she talked about what it was like to drive around her neighborhood for the first time, seeing it through new eyes, paralleling that with her mother driving the same streets was perfect. I liked the scene where she pulls out her mother's unfinished letters and reads through them. The film didn't make her mother into a monster, which I appreciate as I'm a mother myself--she was a real person, with a complicated backstory and problems of her own, strengths and weaknesses. The father nailed it when he explained that they were both strong personalities.
It didn't make the nuns and priests into caricatures either. All of the teachers seemed real. Even the coach turned drama teacher was a believable bit though the handling was a bit slapstick.
The other thing that I thought the movie got right was how hard it is when you believe you aren't good enough and that you have to hide who you really are. That was an issue for Lady Bird, her mother, her boyfriend, even the priest/drama teacher who ended up being hospitalized for depression.
I'm okay with movies that don't subvert tropes or break new ground, but even not having seen every film released this year, I doubt I would nominate Lady Bird for anything. Given how jaded movie critics are, I'm surprised it's so popular with that crowd.
I'll have to get Pretty in Pink from the library. Molly Ringwald doesn't end up with James Spader, right? He's the villain. Man, I'd totally forgotten he was in that, and I love James Spader.
no subject
Date: 2017-12-17 11:39 pm (UTC)Agree with what you said about Lady Bird -- what worked for me was the family stuff. I actually loved Laurie Metcalf's character, the Mom. And thought the interactions with her family worked. And the scene where she tells her brother and his girlfriend that they'll never get real jobs with all that gunk in their faces was hilarious. The family stuff worked. But why all the hype? It was a nice little movie -- a good movie, but a small one. And it certainly isn't worth all the hype. (Little Miss Sunshine and Captain Fantastic, I liked better actually.)
But the NY Times, Time and EW critics have it ranked as the second best movie of the year. (Seriously? I thought Wonder Woman was actually more interesting or Logan, and I wouldn't have ranked them or put them up. )
Molly Ringwald doesn't end up with James Spader, right? He's the villain. Man, I'd totally forgotten he was in that, and I love James Spader.
No. Andrew McCarthy (who didn't have much of a career after the 1980s unfortunately). John Cryer (of Two and a Half Men fame) played her best friend, Ducky, and James Spader played McCarthy best friend, a tortured rich kid -- he almost steals the movie from McCarthy. (I loved Spader - saw a lot of his films, my favorite is Sex Lies and Videotape).
It's a weird film, because Ringwald is rather sardonic throughout. And the soundtrack - Psychedelic Furs, Suzanne Vega, etc.
Honestly no one managed to do teen movies as well as John Hughes did.
no subject
Date: 2017-12-18 12:02 am (UTC)Spader was great in Sex Lies and Videotape.