shadowkat: (Default)
1. I saw the Shakespeare Meme going around, and...the only Shakespeare plays that I remember seeing are:
Read more... )

2. Depressed and tired. Procrastinating making dinner. Hunted through my "meetup groups" to find something socially to do. But alas, it's all dinners and drink socials. OR painting and drinks in a park on a sheet. Or drawing naked people. OR scavenger hunts with alcohol and 100s of people after work no less. Or all day hikes in New Jersey, which requires a car.

Eh. no.

I'll probably go to church on Sunday, or try to, and maybe catch a movie after. Been a really bad summer for me socially speaking. Last year was much better. This could be adding to my depression. Well that and the state of the world at the moment.

We had two more mass shootings. This time in Texas and Ohio. rant )

And people wonder why I'm watching Marvel movies.

3. Finished We Sold Our Souls by Grady Hendrix -- which won the Good Reads Award for Best Cult Horror Novel. (The taste of the folks on Good Reads continues to boggle my mind. It got a few other awards too. I do not know why. I think people liked the overall theme -- which is sort of screamed at you repeatedly throughout the book, then posted in big letters at the end, just in case you did not get it. Uplifting its not, inspiring maybe, if you are into heavy metal music, Dolly Parton, and steel string guitars and like Stephen King light.)

I skimmed most of the book. Read more... )
shadowkat: (work/reading)
Well, not going to make it to 60 books on the Good Reads challenge. Which is okay. Also, I've a lot of books in there that I didn't exactly read or finish, such as Truly Devious -- mainly because I couldn't figure out how to get them off my "currently reading list". Every time I sampled a book on my Kindle -- it automatically ended up on the currently reading list on Good Reads -- until I disabled it. Good Reads is ...well, I have issues with the platform. But then I have issues with most social media platforms. (shrugs).

1. Did finally finish Children of Blood and Bone by by Tomi Adeyemi. Like all YA dystopian fantasy novels -- it's the first in a series. I've yet to run across one that is stand-a-lone. And I think it suffers a bit from this -- in that the writer drags things out far more than she needs to. Also, there's way too much emphasis on romance in this book. It's a YA book -- why do we need to have two romances? Because they want to attract the 40 something female audience who reads romance novels and loves YA romances. The romances don't really go anywhere and take away from the story, one is rather cliche -- the son of the King who wants to kill all the maji and eradicate magic, falls for the daughter of the maji who wants to restore magic. (Star-Crossed Lovers). And no, it didn't work for me. I got bored during it and pretty much knew where the writer was going. Will state that she does subvert the trope a bit by..spoiler ) (Anyhow, I thought they drug a bit -- and I read romance novels.)

But other than that..if you have read any of these, you pretty much know the story. Follows all the pre-established YA tropes.

What is different or unique about it -- and why it's getting so much attention on places like Good Reads is: 1) the story features African characters, 2) Nigerian folklore, and 3)the writer is Nigerian-American.

The writer wrote it to get across the horrors of children dying during warfare and in police shootings. But, I didn't get that from the book. If I hadn't read the afterward, I wouldn't have picked up on it at all. While I did pick up on that in Collins' The Hunger Games. I think the problem is again too much emphasis on the romance. Collins' had a romance in it -- but it's sort of in the background and in some respects satirized and commented on -- as being part of a propaganda campaign to bring in viewers to watch the violence. I think part of the problem or what defuses it is the writer is trying to do too much, and the Nigerian folktales don't quite fit the message she wants to convey. Also she makes a huge point of it being about bringing back magic and how magic can hurt people. The King has lost his entire family to magic doers, and the magic doers have some seriously nasty skills -- such as inflicting disease and fire on everyone. Reminds me a little of the X-men and Black Panther series, which delves heavily into the same themes this writer does -- but far better. Mainly because it's had more time to. As a result, I kept forgetting the characters in Children of Blood and Bone were children. They didn't act like children. I think her themes got a bit lost in her attempt to weave the folktales and the plot.

At any rate, it was okay, but disappointing.

2. I liked Brian K. Vaughn's Saga much better -- it's a little more innovative and does a rather decent job of exploring the same themes in a less preachy and melodramatic fashion. Shame, I wanted to like Children of Blood and Bone more than Saga, because I'm not really a fan of Vaughn. But it is what it is.

Really loved Saga. The head of the Landfall group, the prince or Robot IV, has a television set or computer monitor for a head. I thought that was quite innovative. And our heroes are fleeing in a tree that doubles as a rocket ship. (I'm guessing Vaughn watched Farscape?)

It's also about two star-crossed lovers, but winks a lot at the trope. (Let's face it, it's a trope that deserves winking.) And furthers the plot with their relationship -- doesn't just do it for kicks. Also furthers the characters. The story is about a seemingly endless war between the inhabitants of a planet and it's orbiting moon. Except due to the level of casualities, the war is no longer fought on the moon or planet but on other planets and moons, by other's unjustly conscripted into the battle -- with loads of collateral damage.

The story is told in a rather snarky matter by the couple's daughter. If you don't like snark, you might want to pass. I love snark. (Puns no. Snark yes. My family is snarky, puns go over our heads.)


Of course it helps that I read SAGA on comixology for free (with membership, you can borrow books and buy them with 15% discount), while Children of Blood & Bone cost $9. (It wasn't worth $9. Wait until it is on sale.)
3. As an aside, still feel like crap. Read more... )
shadowkat: (Default)
1. The election results, such as they are, since not all the votes have been counted -- are a mixed bag. (Seriously not all the votes have been counted. What I saw yesterday at my polling station, scared me. Scared me enough to complain to Eric Adams, President of Brooklyn on FB, who is directly addressing the problem:

the ugly )
Now that the ugly is out of the way.

The good )

The bad? )

I don't know if this is good or bad news? Only time will tell... )

You know there's a problem when the news is scarier than the Haunting of Hill House.

2. What I'm reading?

I finished reading Artremis by Andy Weir and sorry to say, I agree with beergoodfoamy's take on it. ( The author makes the mistake of using Mark Watney's voice from the Martian for his female Saudia Arabian smuggler protagonist..and it just doesn't work. The character is supposed to be a tough-talking, street smart, smuggler, but she talks like a chatty 15 year old male science nerd. It's jarring.)

review )



Now, I'm reading a historical romance novel. Mainly because I find them comforting. And life has been mildly painful and frustrating. So I seek comfort where I can.

3. The Gifted S2 -- is better than S1. Better character development and much more interesting plot threads. The Inner Circle, aka the Hellfire Club as the main villains this season is far more interesting than the government was last season. Mainly because two of the team has "willingly" joined them, as opposed to being held prisoner by them. Changes the dynamic a bit. Instead of being chased by the government, getting caught, escaping, hiding, getting caught, mounting rescue attempts, escaping, getting caught -- rewind and repeat at will. We have -- fiendish plotting, hunting down team members who have joined the enemy, being beaten up by said enemy and team members, discovering hidden powers, making alliances with unknown entities in an attempt to route out enemy and reclaim former team members, trying to recruit and save new people...far more interesting.

Also, the characters are growing on me. The Starks have gotten less whiny and more interesting. As have Thunderbird, Blink, and the Fire Guy. We also have a few interesting new additions here and there.

So, sticking with it for the time being. (I know, I need to get rid of a few television shows. Considering kicking Poldark to the curb again. Along with the Rookie, Legacies and Charmed.)
shadowkat: (Default)
Finished the dark fantasy novel An Unkindness of Magicians by Kate Howard - review is below.
The novel takes place in NYC. I really wish people would stop writing books that take place in NYC and not bothering to provide any realistic details of the city. This book could have taken place anywhere.

Kate Howard's novel falls more within the subgenre of dark hyper-realistic contemporary fantasy, where there are no fantastical creatures and the characters are for the most part, despicable and if they died tomorrow? We'd be better off without them. This is the norm for dark fantasy, which isn't exactly known for its likable characters. In this novel, magic permits you to make it snow in summer, levitate objects, kill people in horrific ways with no retribution (apparently), increase your bank account holdings, heal your friends and yourself, and have an automated house -- in which you don't have to lift a finger. Also the magic people are using comes from somewhere else -- they aren't really using their own. Because using one's own magic is painful -- you get headaches, nose bleeds, naseau, dizzy spells, etc.

The emphasis is on the plot and thematic structure, and less on characters or world-building. Both are there, but not the main point - so the writer tends to only give us enough information to propell her plot forward. Bare outlines and sketch marks. So that's a weakness, at least it was for me, and kept me from loving this novel as much as I wanted to. To be fair, since it takes place in our world -- well for the most part anyhow, not that much world-building is required. The writer just needs to throw in the history of magical use, houses, etc without getting too exposition heavy -- which isn't easy to do. And to a degree Howard pulls it off - but I could have used a little more description. I live in New York City and it did not feel like New York City -- it could have pretty much been any major city. This is a style complaint, perhaps? I tend to prefer a more descriptive style in fantasy -- I like to fall inside the world. And this narrative was very bare bones in that respect. I had a sense of the world, but not enough of one to really visualize it. For example, each magical family has its own House, which reflects its magic or personality. But it's get that visual until about over half-way through. We're told one house is automated with technology, and another is formal with mirrors. When the mirror house gets new magic -- it changes to look like a forest with vines, rose quartz lamps, and green walls. Minimalist style. Which you may prefer, and I admit it is easier to read -- and a good percentage of readers scan or skip over description -- but it helps to visualize a world different from our own.

The characters also fell a bit flat in places. Too one-dimensional. We have our villains, who are a bit obvious from the start, and do not appear to have much complexity, with the exception of the serial killer -- who has a little more than the others appear to. And the heroes, who aren't built a great deal either. There's a romance, but I was never invested in it, and didn't care that much if the two characters stayed together. I was invested in the characters and the plot, so that worked. And it is a quick read.

Also the idea behind the book, and the theme are compelling and pretty much the reason I bought it and could not put it down. It's rather innovative --Spoilers )

It's a compelling novel. So compelling that I was able to forgive some major typos -- which I think may have been due to the translation to Kindle format. (I read the Kindle version, so no clue if these typos are in the print version. Will state that I find this lazy on the publishers end and it's why I have more respect for independently published writers than traditional. Because independently published writers work hard to keep these errors to a minimum and at great expense to themselves, while the traditional writer relies on their publishing house to correct the problem and if there is one, we blame the publishing house not the writer. So when I saw the typos, I thought, well no wonder this book was on sale for a Kindle daily deal of $1.99. It's normal price is $7-8 , which is pretty high considering there is a garbled sentence in the book.)

But I can't say it's a novel that leaves you with a good impression of humanity or people in general.


Next up? Artremis by Andy Weir
shadowkat: (work/reading)
Finished Magic Triumphs by Illona Andrews -- this is the final installment in the Kate Daniels urban fantasy series. Which is still the best urban fantasy series that I've read to date. (I admittedly haven't read all of them, because that would be humanely impossible. I'd have to spend my time doing nothing but reading urban fantasy series, and frankly I've better things to do with my time and better series to read. Also, considering what I've read, it's probably not saying a whole lot. To date I've read or tried the following urban fantasy series (which I remember, if I didn't make it past the sample chapters, then I don't remember it):

1. Kate Daniels Magic Series by Illona Andrews (all of it, including most of the novellas. I think I may have jumped over the Jim/Dali one.)
2. Dresden Files by Jim Butcher (including a few of the short stories)
3. Rachel Morgan Bounty Hunter Series by Kim Harrison (pretty much all of it)
4. Mercy Briggs Coyote Shifter Series by (can't remember the author's name, and stopped about six books in.)
5. Tobey - Rosemary & Rue Series by Sceanan McGuire ( only made it through one book, got stuck on the second, can't stand the dialogue. I require good dialogue, more important to me than description.)

And...I don't remember the others that I tried.

Anywho, of those books, the Kate Daniels series was far and away the best. I also ranked them by preference. YMMV, of course. Writing style, character, etc is subjective, after all. Some people like stories about faeries (I really don't), so prefer vampires (not crazy about them myself), some prefer wizards (my preference), and others (shapeshifters - hit or miss).

The Kate Daniels Series is - I'll warn you, a tad into paramilitary. If that is something you can't deal with? Don't bother. It put me off the series to begin with, but the protagonist, Kate, managed to win me over -- because she was anti-military and anti-authority. So it worked. (But avoid at all costs the other series Illona Andrews writes -- such the Hidden Legacy Series and Iron & Magic, because those are pro-military. And lack the humor this one has.)

Enuf of that. If you haven't read the series? Stop now. This book isn't the one to start with -- also you would be horribly lost. And this review contains spoilers from this point forward.

The upshot? Magic Triumphs feels a bit rushed (which is odd since it took longer to write), and isn't as good as previous novels in the series. I think they'd have been better off stopping with the last book and just leaving things open-ended. But I'm guessing the publisher pushed them to put out a finale that wrapped up the lead character's storyline yet opened things up for future novels.
And Magic Triumphs certainly accomplishes that -- Kate's storyline is for the most part, neatly wrapped up. There's no reason to visit her again. Other's maybe, but not Kate or Curran specifically.

The books are told in first person pov, so this may have limited the scope of the narrative. There's a lot of characters over the course of the series, and when you write from first person -- you only cover whoever comes into contact with the narrator. The narrator isn't going to talk to everyone on the planet or interact with everyone. It's not possible. Also only those characters that push the protagonist/narrator's story forward really matter. If they don't? We won't see them or much of them.
It is what it is.
spoilers )
I think the writers have grown weary of this world and want to move on. Which I understand all too well. Their characters have begun to stop chatting. While new ones are. It happens.

Anyhow? Over all? Three stars. It was okay, somewhat better than books one and two, but not as good as books three through nine.
shadowkat: (Default)
1. Situation Comedies continue to be hit or miss affairs with me. Read more... )

2. The Gifted -- is moving into far more interesting territory this season. Read more... )

3. I'm more of an X-men fan than the standard super-hero trope fan. I like my heroes, reluctant, and a bit more gritty. Also I adore the emphasis on personal relationships, instituional and personal prejudices and discrimination, the outsider focus, etc. The Avengers are sort of the popular kids, the privileged, hero-worshipped group -- while the X-men and the Mutants are the outsiders, who never get any credit, and help -- but try not to be seen.
Read more... )
4. Knee is better. So is back. Apparently it wasn't money troubles or not volunteering to save the world...but weather, barometric pressure, and possibly cramping pinching a nerve. I don't know. It's still there, just not as bad.

5. Making headway in Kate Daniel's series finale, Magic Triumphs. I may finish it by the end of this week -- which is a record. Lately it either takes two-three months to make it through a book or I don't finish it at all. (Mainly because I only have time to read on my commute and before bed at night...and I will often use that time to write instead. Particularly if I'm bored with the book in question. A bored co-worker keeps updating me on his progress through the tome "Gotham: A History of New York City" which is over 1500 pages long. I have it too - courtesy of my brother, who is in the habit of giving me huge hard-back books from Christmas which can double as door stops.)

That said, Magic Triumphs has issues. Obviously the writers are more interested in talking about the woes of parenting a toddler than having other key character interactions. Also, there's too many characters for such a short book. They walk on stage, say a few words, then leave. Several of which...the writers aren't quite sure what to do with, so their stay is rather brief.
Read more... )

6. Too late to vote for Dancing with the Stars again. Also haven't seen all of it yet. Finally figured out who the Zombie Teen is, and why Camryn Manneheim from The Practice among other things was in the audience. Milo is Camryn's kid. And he's a professional dancer -- he danced his way through the Disney Zombie movie, and has been on Broadway at the ripe old age of 16 and 17. Also has connections due to Mom.

So we have at least four ringers on this show. Hardly fair. It's a show that is supposed to be about ballroom dancing, but since ballroom dancing is clearly too boring -- they've jazzed it up with people who can do backflips.

Will admit it was an entertaining routine. I'd have given it a 9 too. Haven't seen any of the others, except Retton's which bored me.
shadowkat: (work/reading)
[Before going into the review, for those following the trials and tribulations of my air conditioning. After two sleepless nights, no, make that three, Super Installed new A/C and removed existing, broken A/C, which barely kept the room at 78 degrees at night. (Granted it could have been worse.) It's been between 26-32 C or 80-90 F the last few days, with 70-80 at night. ]

Finally finished reading The Princess Diarist by Carrie Fisher. This was published in the Fall of 2016, shortly before her untimely death. It is the last thing she wrote, and an interesting bookend to her writing career, which was heavily colored by insane celebrity status she achieved when she starred in a low budget sci-fi 1970s film entitled "Star Wars".

The book unlike her previous works is essentially about how Star Wars affected her life and changed it. And how she dealt with it. It's also about an ill-timed affair with a married co-star that she'd been infatuated with at the time. And how that threw her for a loop, considering her father had left her mother, along with his two young children via an affair with Elizabeth Taylor.

On a much larger scale, it's also about how the toxicity of our celebrity obsessed culture. And how starring in a little low-budget sci-fi film at the age of 19 can turn one's life upside down for good or ill.

I'm not sure if you are under the age of say, 46 or 47, you can completely understand the cultural phenomenon "Star Wars" is and was? And while Fisher attempts to explain this in her book, I'm wondering if you kinda had to be there? Not necessarily in Fisher, Hamil, and Ford's shoes, but around at the time, and cognizant of what was happening around you. Knowing that movies well weren't like that and this was a game-changer, a watershed moment in human history. A demonstration of just how certain advances in technology can change cinema forever. And a preview of what was to come.

Before Star Wars, the only film that had people lining up for it was possibly Gone With the Wind. And it wasn't around blocks. Star Wars created the term - "blockbuster", which Fisher describes as meaning a line that is broken up by blocks. It busts the blocks. The lines for Star Wars from the time it opened until roughly six or seven months later were around blocks. I remember my father driving us to two hours away to see it. We'd never done that before. It was different than anything we'd seen -- nothing was quite like it. George Lucas redefined the cinema experience with Star Wars, he'd created surround sound, special effects that no one had seen before, and incorporated robots, puppetry, and creatures in his film that weren't obviously humans in cheap makeup. You had space-cruisers rocketing through space shooting each other. Lucas had combined the popular action/adventure cinema tropes of the 1940s and 50s into one movie - he'd combined the Western with the WWII drama with the Swashbuckler. Watching Star Wars was like seeing an Errol Flynn flick, a John Wayne flick and a WWII James Garner flick all at once. And it was fun. Not scary, like most sci-fi films and television series had been, but fun. And not campy either.

Today, years later, the first film seems rather quaint, I suspect, and the special effects mediocre.
People have been perplexed by what they saw as wooden acting. Or the cheesy hair styles. But this was 1977. Back then, we had cheesy hair styles, and bell bottom pants. And well, special effects...were not as good as Star Wars.

Before Star Wars, sci-fi didn't do well at the movies. Mostly B movies. Before Star Wars, there weren't any blockbusters or event films, outside of maybe Gone with the Wind. (Wizard of OZ flopped.)
For years, Star Wars was the highest grossing film. And people could not wait for the second one.
It had a fandom to rival any fandom out there...and it had done something Doctor Who and Star Trek had yet to accomplish, it took sci-fi mainstream.

Fisher's book can broken up into three segments.

The first -- explains how she ended up in Star Wars.
She briefly details her audition, which she has just a vague recollection of. Apparently Brian De Palma and Lucas were doubling up their auditions. De Palma was auditioning for Carrie and Lucas for Star Wars. Lucas was the least talkative of the two. Fisher notes how this was not her first role in a film. At the age of 16, she was in Shampoo, as Lee Grant's promisicous daughter, who sleeps with Grant's lover, Warren Beatty. And prior to that she did her mother's shows. A high school drop out, due to going on tour or doing Broadway with Mom, Carrie ended up going to the Center for Performing Arts in England. And from there, auditioned for the role of Princess Leia. She notes how she practiced for her second audition with her friend Miguel Ferrar, the cousin of George Clooney, and son of Rosemary Clooney, who'd tried out for the Han Solo role. Then, Fisher goes on to explain how she ended up infatuated with Harrison Ford, and how they fell into bed together...resulting in an awkward, secretive, three month affair -- that up until now, no one knew about but Fisher and Ford.

This is prelude to the actual diaries...which make up the center section of the book, and are a bittersweet May-December romance between two actors, far from home, and in their first leading roles in what they believed at the time to be cult low budget sci-fi film that few people would see. (Because that's what sci-fi films were like in the 1970s, they were cult efforts that few people saw. No one expected this film to do well. How could they have known? The cast, with the exception of Alec Guiness, was unknowns, and even Guiness was hardly star power. And it was science fiction. Not to mention low-budget. Fisher and the cast were paid to scale, $500 a week. Flown economy class. And told to take care of their own accomodations.) When Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford had their affair they honestly didn't think it was a big deal. Fisher was infatuated with Ford. She never expected him to be interested in her, let alone kiss her, so when they end up in bed together, she finds herself starring at him and wondering, WTF? How in the heck did this happen? And where do we go from here?
She describes it in the book and in interviews afterwards as a three-month one-night stand, and a product of a location shoot. And insists that as far as she knows, Harrison hadn't done that with anyone else before or since. He, also, most likely regretted it later. He'd thought her more experienced than she actually was.

The diaries are well written, and touching. At various points, nineteen year old Fisher wonders why she tries to connect with others, if it's even possible to do so? She's introspective, flailing, and not sure of her own feelings. Is this love? How can it be? She barely knows him. Does he feel the same way about her? She asks, and gets nowhere. The most she gets is the conversation the two have on-screen in Empire Strikes Back, where she says "I love you" and he states, "I know". After reading the diaries...which unlike the rest of the book, are poetic and hopeful, I understood some of the odd interactions I've seen between Fisher and Ford in interviews and tribute specials. At the AFI - Fisher tells Ford during her tribute speech, "Harrison gets nervous every time I open my mouth and talk. He should be made aware as should you all, that my memory is foggy and sucks." Then later, "Harrison hates doing love scenes, okay maybe he just doesn't like doing them with me." And Ford's expression is exasperation and grumbling. I find that odd, since to my knowledge they hadn't really done any...but turns out they had, just behind the scenes.

If you read the diaries without the prelude, not sure they would make sense. They are bittersweet mainly due to what comes after. And touching in that the woman writing them fails to see her own brilliance and beauty, not to mention her compassion and insight into the human condition. What it is like to fall in love with someone who doesn't love you back or not as much as you love them. What it is like to be infatuated ...and awkward with a guy, tongue-tied. You can see why so many people fell in love with her. Yet in the book, she seems to think it was with Leia not her. And is rather confused.

Up until the final section, I'd thought this book was just about Fisher's affair with Ford, but no, it's about much more than that. The final section discusses fame and being the source or object of adoration...what it was like to have people come up to you on the street or at a convention, regale you with personnel stories about how you or rather the role you played in a film some 40 years ago, changed their lives. At first, she ate it up, wow, she thought, I'm in a movie people are flocking to see and is the biggest thing ever! Then, it overwhelmed her. They had promote the film. They thought it was a low-budget sci-fi film. I remember their promotional campaign. Ford, Hamil, and Fisher wandering about the country and the globe, from talk show to interview, touting a film that as Fisher puts it didn't require touting. Ford at first did most of the talking. None of them had ever done it before. At first, they thought they had to answer all their fan mail personally -- because they'd never received any before. And they all did it. Then realized no, you don't have to, that's what managers and public relations people do. As the years passed, Fisher was continuously thrown by her fame as Leia. And had a love-hate relationship with it.

spoilers and rather long, meta on fandom, Star Wars and Fisher )
shadowkat: (work/reading)
1. Still reading The Witches of Karres by John Schmitz which is more of a sci-fantasy and sort of comical, although I've never laughed, just smiled. My sense of humor is very dry and more towards witty, puns and absurdist humor for absurdity sake (see Hitchhiker's Guide) doesn't really work for me. It's hit or miss. If I feel like the book is just one joke after another, I get rather bored. In regards to Terry Pratchett, I don't really know if I like Pratchett or not. I loved "The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents" which I fought was a rather clever take on the Pied Piper of Hamlin, except with a clever cat working with clever mice. But "Good Omens" written by Gaiman and Pratchett started to drag, it was funny to start, but the joke was drug out too long and began to wear thin (sort of similar to my issues with Hitchhiker and The Palace Job.) The other one I tried and could not get through was "Monstrous Regiment" - which I had to look up and bored me silly. It was a clearly a satire about war, but I don't do well with satire for satire's sake -- that's my problem with Jonathan Swift and 98% of American Satirical comedies ("The Good Place", "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt", "The Office", "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" and "The Simpsons"). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are poorly written or anything, just that I get impatient and bored during them, because the "satire" and "themes" are more important than the characters or the characters arcs. Yes, the characters are interesting and even complex, but..I feel distanced from them somehow, as if they are satirical tropes. And they are. Nothing wrong with that, but, I'm a "character" gal as an old college buddy likes to say. Character sort of comes above all else with me. Not everyone is like that. Most folks aren't. And that's okay, although I wish it was the opposite, but what can you do, and differences and diversity make life interesting.

Anyhow..as a result I don't know if I like Prachett. I've only tried three books that he wrote. One - I loved, and remember fairly well, one disappointed me, and one just could not finish (which was a shame because it was a gift from a dear friend at the time, who thought I'd love it. I had to side-step that with her.) Sort of like Opera, I don't know if I like Opera -- only really seen Carmen, listened to some on CD (high soprano, doesn't do a lot for me -- my parents love it and played it constantly when I visited for a while there), parts of a comic opera, and listened to Mozart (I love listening to Mozart, how can you not?). Should try the city Opera at some point, be warned not to try the Met, it's pricey and not comfortable.

I do however love Gilbret & Sullivan Operettas...I've seen every single one in the space of a month on VHS, plus two performed by a G&S troop. We did the Mikado in high school (I was on the makeup crew, which was fun. As a result, I saw the Mikado a million times and almost have it memorized. I adored it.) See, that's interesting -- because G&S is pure satire and parody, yet I find it hilarious and loved it. (Hmmm, haven't seen it in a while though...so it is possible my tastes changed).

I don't know if I like Roger Zelzany either, just that I could not finish "Lord of Light" but that means nothing. It's possible I'd like another one of his books?

Too many books, too little time. Which makes me wonder why I am writing three at the moment. Oh that's right, because no one else has written them and I want to read those stories.

2.) Romance Genre has a frigging lot of sub-genres, some favorable, some....that ahem give it a bad name and make me wonder about people. This is unfortunately about the latter...and yes, I've read a lot of it, so I feel qualified to rant about it for a bit. (I only feel qualified to rant and rip apart things that I've experienced and read. Not that that always stops me...unfortunately, and much to be my own chagrin, but still.)

Was wandering about on Amazon during work, and Amazon being Amazon decided to rec Paper Princess by someone named Erin Watt..who is an erotica writer, writing a YA romance novel or at least this is marketed as a YA. I think Amazon rec'd it because I'd read Royally Matched and Royally Screwed and this story appeared to be in the same vein? Who knows? Amazon can't figure me out any longer -- it's just throwing everything at me including the kitchen sink.

Anyhow the title perked my interest. So I checked it out. And...I think YA may be the wrong subgenre for it? The marketing blurb is rather amusing.


QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BOOK

Q: Is this really a YA?

We recommend this for young adult readers, age 17 and up. We think it’s a book that will appeal to older teens and those adults who are in touch with their inner teen, like us.


Uhm, hate to break this to you, but that isn't "Young Adult", young adult is teens, between 14-18 usually. (ie. Twilight, The Hunger Games, Maze). 17 and up is New Adult - basically college kids. Post-high school age readers. (ie. 50 Shades of Grey, CrossFire, Colleen Hoover's books, Beautiful Disaster, etc.)

New Adult often syncs into the Billionaire Boys Club romances -- which is basically 50 Shades of Grey erotica Cinderella fantasies. Think Cinderella, except her Prince is into BDSM or rough sex. But not always does it sync into this ...sometimes it's more along the lines of Colleen Hoover and Jamie McGuire novels which is melodramatic teen sex romances. They are either in college, high school, or somewhere in between...having lots of forbidden elicit sex. The reason the writer goes younger -- is the want the virgin and the badboy trope or in some scenarios the naughty girl/bad boy trope. But unless the girl is 17-22, you can't really make it a big deal that she's having sex in contemporary romance novels.

rant about our societal insecurities and crazy ass assumptions regarding sex and other's sexual lives which I've lost all tolerance for )

Enuf of the rant.



Q: Is there a cliffhanger? I’ve heard there’s an awful cliffhanger! Why’d you write a cliffhanger?

We promise that we didn’t set out to write a cliffhanger, but Paper Princess does end in one. The good news is that the next book is up for pre-sale and it will be released July 25, 2016.


Sigh. According to the reviews there is an awful cliffhanger, which appears to be the routine in New Adult romance novels. You only get the crazy cliffhangers in the New Adult and sometimes the Young Adult contemporary. You don't get them in the historical romances, the adult contemporary romances, just the frigging YA and New Adult for some reason. And they don't help the story. If anything they stretch it too thin.

So, yes, you silly marketing people, you did intend to write an awful cliffhanger. Who do you think you are fooling? You did it so you could sell two books not just one, possibly even a series of books -- because hello, we have six boys, which lends itself to a series...it just writes itself.

I despise the New Adult genre.

why I despise it and brief description of Paper Princess )
shadowkat: (Default)
When I get frustrated and depressed, I go on book buying binges, and read a lot of romance novels. Was asked recently what it was about romance novels that made me feel better? In a way, it's a bit like eating a chocolate mousse or a puff pastry, or maybe a really good piece of candy. My mother calls them sugar for the mind. I think it has to do with "hope" or two wounded people that are lonely and don't appear to be able to find love, finding it, and healing each other.

I'm not really sure what it is that attracts me or anyone else to a particular narrative. At times, or rather lately, I've felt guided as if by a higher power, which is crazy, but there it is. And there are things embedded in the narratives that I find helpful. The last one I read, A Lady's Code of Misconduct was about not shutting oneself off, not giving in to anger, bitterness, or despair. To trust and to forgive. The current one that I'm reading, which isn't nearly as good, entitled Royally Screwed is about allowing duty and pride to trap you. Or obligations. And not letting yourself well be yourself. How the world can, if you let it, trap you within polite and expected conventions and duties...or traditional views, this is the way it's always been done. And the tugs the world and family and image place on us, sometimes at the cost of love and kindness.
How do you find a balance?

Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar played with my head over the weekend, along with the dueling stories of Good Friday/Easter and Passover/Ten Commandments. I had a bit of an epithany (would help if I could spell it, there's some words I just can't spell for some reason). Read more... )

Anywho...enuf on that. I'm not really sure what I think of the above. Writing it out helps somehow. And sending it out there like a message in a bottle.

1. What I just finished reading ?

A Lady's Code of Misconduct -- which I already reviewed in depth over HERE.

2. What I am reading now?

Haven't made it to the Witches of Karres yet, mainly because I've fallen into a bit of a depression and whenever I do, I only want to read romance novels. My mind is foggy. I want to escape into something light and fluffy.

Royally Screwed by Emma Chase may be a bit too light and fluffy for my taste. It's reminding me of why I'm not a fan of the "contemporary" romance genre. I think she may have independently published it. Because I got it for .99 cents, and the sequel is $4.99, and independent writers tend to be a bit cheaper in regards to Kindle. We can control the pricing, while traditionally published ones don't and their publishers charge weirdly high amounts for Kindle. (I think anything above $9.99 for a Kindle is outrageously high.)

Smart Bitches -- a website that reviews and recommends romance novels, and knitting patterns for some reason. I don't know why they are into knitting. The other thing they seem to post on is cocktails or various types of drinks. But mainly their focus is romance novels. The main contributors seem to prefer contemporary and urban fantasy paranormal/supernatural romances (specifically in the vampire/shape-shifter vein). While I'll read both, I'm not a huge fan. The writing...lacks the depth of character and plot that I require, and spends far too much time on explicit sex. (ie. it can feel at times like porn with a bit of plot, and a heavy emphasis on well-established tropes, no variance from those well-established and to an extent over-done beloved tropes. As opposed to plot with a little sex.) I prefer the historicals, which oddly have more to say and seem to veer away from well-established and beloved tropes.

This wasn't always the case. Judith Krantz, and various others wrote contemporary romance novels in the 70s and 80s that had a lot of depth. And felt like family epics. I miss those books. "A Woman of Substance", "The Money Changers", "Scruples", "I'll Take Manhattan", my favorite trashy novel was about identical twin sisters who didn't know each other existed. They meet and decide to change places. Except one of them gets murdered, leaving the other stuck in well the other one's life. I loved that one. It has multiple characters, suspense, a mystery, and depth. They did a mini-series.
Sydney Sheldon, Judith Krantz, Harold Robbins, Erica John, Rosemary Rodgers, Jackie Collins, and to a lesser degree Nora Roberts wrote those books. Roberts was sort of tame, and Danielle Steel never took any risks or developed her characters that much. I'd read Danielle Steele, and feel the same way you do after eating a whipped cream filled puff pastry...that's it? Or cotton candy.

Anywho..Royally Screwed is a weak version of a Danielle Steele. It has the stuffing knocked out of it. Considering Danielle Steel's books don't have a lot of stuffing, that's saying something. Read more... )

Yet, I'm still reading it and I've purchased the sequel for 4.99...because of reviews on Good Reads, a few errant quotes, and hopes it will be an improvement. I'm actually reading this one as set up for the sequel.

3. What I'm reading next?

Well, most likely the sequel, unless something shinier distracts me. I bought the first volume of the Warren Ellis award winning comic series Saga on Kindle for $3.99. You can also read it on comicmixology -- which allows you to read comics and graphic novels for $5.99 a month. I wish this was around two years ago, when I went on an insane X-men reading binge and spent an insane amount of money on the electronic comics. (NEVER AGAIN!) If I get hooked on Saga, I'll go through comicmixology.

I should not be allowed near Amazon when I'm in this frame of mind. Or chocolate for that matter.
shadowkat: (Default)
While reading this novel, I read a few reviews on Amazon. I've been avoiding reading reviews lately, because they don't tend to tell me one way or another whether "I" will "personally" like or love or hate a book. They do a splendid job, however, of telling me what some stranger that I've never met and possibly wouldn't like all that much if I did, and may even have a world view that is the polar opposite of mine, thought of it. Hardly helpful. But highly entertaining, at times.

You ever feel like we live a world that is overly concerned with flinging its opinion at you, regardless of whether you want it? And insisting, like a blind Lemming, you follow along? Maybe its just me.

Review of a Lady's Code of Misconduct )
shadowkat: (warrior emma)
EuphoriaEuphoria by Lily King


Difficult to rate this one, it is admittedly better than your average bear, whoops I mean book. So, 3.5 stars?

First a caveat, I'm a frustrated cultural anthropology major, who actually studied Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson and Reo Fortune once upon a time, way back in the 1980s. And aspired to be Mead, until I realized that I had no facility for languages, sort of required, and felt that there was something slightly skeevy about studying someone else's culture like a scientist would a form of bacteria, beneath a microscope. I remember when this dawned on me - it was a discussion with a woman in Wales. I was traveling around Wales, studying the culture, folk traditions, and mythology on a college grant. And one woman that I met asked ' wouldn't my time be better spent solving the problems in my own backyard than being nosey in hers'. I thought she had a point, and off I went to law school, my burgeoing cultural anthropology career left in the dust.

So, I related to the subject matter and found the bits about the anthropological process rather fascinating. It was, from my perspective, the road not taken. Also, King does an excellent job of validating my reasons for not journeying down that road. Although, I think Maria Doria Russell in her science fiction novel The Sparrow, did a slightly better job of it. As too, did Sherri Tepper in Grass, in which both showed the dangers of not respecting a culture foreign to your own, and the assumptions we often make in our clumsy and somewhat presumptive attempts to study it. King's writing in of itself is good, but alas, it is also quite passive. And I felt as if most of the action happened off the page, whereupon the narrators took turns telling us about it like someone might in a journal or blog entry or around a campfire long after the fact. Not that there is anything wrong with that -- but it does leave a few gaps here and there, and sense of dissatisfaction in the reader. Most readers want to feel immersed in the action, not removed from it, and the danger, I think, in telling what happened after the fact as opposed to showing it while it occurs...is that you remove your reader from it. Also, there's the unreliable narrator, do we believe what we are being told? Hard to say.

King loosely based her story on a rather intriguing romantic interlude in anthropological lore - the physical meetup of renowned anthropologists Margaret Mead, Reo Fortune and Gregory Bateson in Papua, New Guinea in the early 1930s, at the beginning of their careers. Mead had just recently married her second husband, Reo Fortune, a swarthy New Zealand anthropologist. Reo was not quite as successful as Mead, but a brilliant linguist. He also was prone to violent rages and beat her on occasion. Bateson, a tall English anthropologist, who hailed from a family of scientists, was the exact opposite of Reo.
Bateson and Mead apparently fell in love. Mead much later separated from Fortune and eventually married the love of her life, Bateson, who later divorced her and remarried. They had a daughter, who also became an anthropologist. Euphoria is loosely based on this meeting, which is referred to in Mead's writings and others. But it is by no means their story, if anything, it veers wildly from it, and Nell Stone, Fen, and Bankson are not the real life counterparts. If only they had been, for as often is the case with historical fiction based on actual people (or what I like to call real person fanfic), the truth is often far more interesting and complex than our fictional representation of it.

While I enjoyed the novel a great deal, and found it to be compelling, I felt that the writer never quite delivered what she promised, and when it was delivered...it fell flat. The ending did not work for me. In some respects, I found the real ending - what really happened more interesting, albeit less dramatic. King went for the melodrama, and the tragedy, which I felt was self-indulgent and the wrong choice. It just felt wrong. And that she was hammering home a point that she'd made several times previously. In short overkill, leaving a bitter aftertaste and souring me on the novel.

It's odd, I read this book after reading quite a few romance novels, and it in some respects falls into the same niggling formulaic traps that romance novels do. The focus is on the love triangle, but nothing really happens there until you're almost done with the book.
They skirt around it. So the climatic point is almost at the very end leaving little time for resolution. Also, as previously noted, there's this sense that everything interesting is happening off the page. Except of course for the romance. Even the sex happens off the page.
In addition, there is a great deal of navel-gazing in this novel and by a character that I have difficulty seeing doing that much navel gazing - Bankson, who is based on Gregory Bateson. Bateson doesn't strike me as the sort who would analyze his feelings about things to the degree Bankson does. Although I admittedly enjoyed it, I'm not sure it worked. Neither Mead nor Bateson strike me as the navel-gazing sort. But King is allowed to take liberties since these characters, Nell and Bankson, are loosely based on their real-life counterparts.

What I liked about the novel was the questioning of the anthropological process. In particular the question of whether we can ever truly understand another culture or another person for that matter. And how much of ourselves do we bring to the table and to what degree does that color our results or our perception? Same thing can be said of reading and reviewing books. If something in a book has turned us off or on...for whatever reason, that will color our perception of it. Would I have liked this book less if I wasn't interested in anthropology? I don't know.

I mean all you have to do is read the reviews...some people gave this book five stars, rating it amongst the best books they read this year, while others hated it. I'm curious as to why...what would make one person love a book and another hate the book, almost as if they read two different books? In Euphoria, Bankson, Stone, and Reo all react to the native culture they are studying differently.
Stone sees a caring, loving, and gender bending community in the Tam, while Reo sees your typical gender roles, nothing unusual, and thinks she's reaching, and Bankson...something in between. Each character's interpretation tells the reader more about the characters than the Tam. Actually you leave the book knowing very little about the native communities...they seem to exist to shed light on our three leads. This is a heavy theme in the book. Along with the rather ambiguous morality of invading another culture and studying it as if it is primitive to your own. Although, it's clear that's not how Bankson and Stone nor their real life counterparts viewed it.
King also weighs in on how women were treated in the field and seen in society. And made the interesting choice of telling the story through Bankson's pov and letting his voice carry the narrative, with Stone's journals coming in sporadically.

Overall, a worthy read, if at times, a frustrating one. And, I do wish she'd ended it differently. I liked what actually happened far better.








shadowkat: (reading)
Eh...I finally finshed Uprooted by Naomi Novick - which is a risky book to review here, due to the fact that it came highly recommended by various people on my flist. I had mixed feelings about it.
Found it to be a very frustrating read, for reasons best described below.

UprootedUprooted by Naomi Novik

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


Have you ever started reading a book that you were really enjoying and thought was going one way, when all of a sudden it takes a turn by way of Alberque, and is not what you wanted or were hoping for at all? Then, in the last fifty or so pages, becomes sort of what you wanted all over again? But here's the thing, you still feel shafted. Betrayed. Too little too late, dang it. I'm still not sure if the author is to blame for misleading me, or I'm to blame for wanting something different? Perhaps neither, or both?

This, alas, is the problem with coming to a story with high expectations. Note to self - don't read the reviews first, or read only the negative reviews. ;-)



Before going much further, into spoilers and such: it's a fairy tale - and the writer adopts the voice and technique of the fairy tale.
(Whether this is a good thing or not depends on how much you like reading the old fashioned Brother's Grimm fairy tales. The clean crisp, rambling, at times plotty style of fairy tales. With scant character development, the emphasis on the moral or theme or conflict at the center. In fairy tales, the antagonist or thing that is cursed or must be resolved is the most developed character in it. Unless of course it's Hans Christian Andersons' stories, which tend to have a bit more character development.) At any rate, I applaud the writer for attempting to write in the manner of a fairy tale, even if I don't particularly like that style of writing.


vague spoilers )
shadowkat: (reading)
Life After LifeLife After Life by Kate Atkinson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Difficult to rate this one - somewhere between 3 and 4 stars.

I now know why so many people love this book. It's a puzzle book, with a wrap-around plot structure. The focus is not on character, but on theme or a philosophical point of view demonstrated through a specific narrative structure and writing style. My difficulty with the book is I felt too much of the action happened off the page or was summarized. And characters were often underdeveloped or developed in such a way that it was difficult for me to care about them or emotionally relate to them in any way. In short, I did not care if they lived or died. And part of the reason for that was the narrative structure - in which you knew they couldn't really die.

Also, the narrative plays with your head a bit, or it played with mine. It all hinges on Ursula, the protagonist. When she dies, the narrative reboots. And it begins and ends with Ursula's birth - which is basically the snake eating its own tail, or the idea that everything circles in on itself indefinitely.
Actually that's not completely true. It begins and ends with three events. Snow. Ursula trying to kill Hitler and her birth, or rather the circumstances around it. On the day she's born - the midwife is held up at an inn during a snow storm and can't get there in time to deliver the child. Her father is busy bringing his sister back from France. And her mother Sylvie is alone in the house with her maid.

The first go around, Ursula dies, chocked to death on the umbilical cord. It reboots. Sylvie pulls out her sewing scissors and cuts the chord. Ursula lives. Well until she drowns. It reboots. And so on and so forth. Ursula dies in various ways. In her youth, by drowning, influenza or The Spainish Flu, which also kills her brother, the maid, and her sister. That is until she figures out a way to keep the maid from going to London, where the maid contracted it. In her adulthood, she is beaten to death once, and dies in a bombing three times. (She also died of the flu three times). There's a definitive pattern to the narrative - and to how Urusla dies and why.

Ursula herself is not that interesting. A sort of bland everywoman. In the first iteration, she is rather passive or reactive in her responses, the next go-around more aggressive, the next a bit more laid back. The characters around Ursula barely register. It's not really until the last 50 some pages that we get much of Teddy, Hugh, Bridget or Sylvie's points of view. Up until then we're basically stuck with Ursula, who is rather self-absorbed and doesn't appear to care all that much about things. Oh, she loves her brother, and to a degree her father and sister Pamela. But it feels remote somehow.

Romances happen off the page. Love happens off the page. While we get pages and pages of in depth description on the Bombings, the chatty dinner conversations, and the meaning of life and death. At times, the book feels like a philosophical discourse reminding me a bit of Sophie's World. It is not a book that is overly concerned with character.

The style is a sort of unemotional stream of consciousness via a third person close perspective. We do jump into other points of view, but not until the end. Which may or may not be jarring for the less savvy reader. Well that and the narrative structure - which I'm guessing can throw quite a few people off. The book is often told out of sequence, the narrative jumps around in time, often within the same paragraph, and it deliberately repeats itself in places. I didn't find it requiring all that much attention or concentration, outside of being certain to pick up the narrative clues as to when we were in time and when it rebooted and why.

As a writer, I found the concept of rebooting the story every time the writer wrote themselves into a hole, intriguing. The concept of trying various story threads. Which most writers, I think, or at least I do, in my head. I play out various scenarios. Okay, that scenario didn't work, let's try this. It's why novels are often tighter and better written than say a television show or a comic serial, because the novel has been revised multiple times - it's not the first draft. You can revisit it again and again until you get it right. While say a tv show - you have about two-three hours to get that first draft out, it is rewritten, then filmed, edited, and it's fast, and that's the first chapter, and you really don't know what chapter 2-18 is going to be. In a novel, you know and can go back and fix chapters 2-20 to make sure they fit chapter 1. Life After Life in a way reminded me of that feeling of telling a story, and thinking, wait, this doesn't work...I'll scrap that idea and go with this. Which if you think about it is a metaphor for life, wouldn't it be nice to think -- whoa that didn't work. I'm going to die and relive the whole thing until I get it right.

Only one problem with that, Ursula isn't the only person affecting events. This story is told in her pov, so we only read what she knows. And all people have tendency to think they are the leads in their own drama, when in reality everyone is merely supporting players in the drama at large and there aren't any leads. But in a story, we often see it as just that person's narrative - with all the characters supporting it and affected, their own ideas, etc, meaning little outside of that person's narrative. Ursula dies, everyone repeats. Ursula doesn't go home a certain way -- her friend dies.

That's the conceit up until the last 50 pages, when suddenly we are in Hugh's point of view. The father.
And Hugh shows us what was going on with Izzy, his sister, and what really happened to Izzy's child, something Ursula has forgotten. We also go inside Teddy's point of view, and in this iteration, Teddy doesn't die, and Ursula had little to do with it.

Her actions and attitude towards her life does have major consequences on it and on those around her, but it is not the sole variable or constant.

The reason I struggled with the book - was I didn't like Ursula, okay like is the wrong word. I didn't find her compelling. Nor her family. Or relateable. Which is an entirely subjective take. For me, Ursula's story was rather dull. And I found myself more interested in the characters surrounding her, which were barely developed. The writing style was also, at least to me, repetitive. I skimmed whole sections, bored out of my mind. Lots and lots of meaningless small talk, chatter, and filler. I wanted to cut about 200 pages of it.

The sections on the bombings - were quite well done, and rarely done in fiction. But the writer went on to long and didn't trust her reader. She felt the need to hammer points home. This is offset slightly by some rather brilliant passages on death, dying, and the futility of War. But I think the writer needed a better editor. (But then don't we all?)

Overall, an interesting read, and an interesting book. Reading it reminded me why book clubs can be quite useful. They can force you to give a book a chance that you might not have on your own. If I'd been left to my devices, I'd have given up on this novel halfway through (it kept putting me to sleep on the train), but I'm glad that I read it. Because it had some fascinating ideas and an interesting narrative structure. A perfect book to discuss in a book club or with anyone for that matter.




shadowkat: (reading)
[I'm behind on my television shows again - have 34 hours saved on the DVR. I need a streaming device like I need a hole in the head.]

1. What I just finished reading?

The Most Dangerous Book: the Battle Over James Joyce's Ulysses by Kevin Birmingham

This is an interesting book - it appears to be as much a biography of James Joyce, as it is of his work - and the battles over it. A must read if you are a fan or scholar of Joyce and his work. And a recommended one for anyone remotely interested in the history of obscenity laws, censorship, and the feminist movement in the UK and the US.

I learned quite a few things that I didn't know before:

*. Joyce went blind because of syphillis, and had over 13 eye operations to prevent the blindness. He was in tremendous pain most of his life because of the ailment.

*. Ulysses to this day is amongst the top three best-selling classical novels. It sells over 100,000 books worldwide. The work influenced everyone from Virgina Woolfe to Vladmir Nabokov. And it was the first time anyone had attempted a work of pure stream of consciousness.

*. In most cases, censorship and obscenity laws were in place to suppress women's rights and women's sexuality. In many of the court opinions - the rule of law or test was whether the work would corrupt an innocent woman. And it was up to men to protect her from being corrupted by it. In short, these laws were sexist. Which may explain why Joyce's most devout fans tended to be women, and his most ardent supporters were women.

*. The censorship cases turned on the final chapter, Penelope, which is basically Molly Bloom's thoughts while sitting on her chamber pot during her period. (This, I found interesting - since my undergraduate thesis was on this chapter. And I'd in effect written not one but two college papers on it.) The government used the chapter to prove that the work was "obscene", while the Judges ultimately ruled that while it may be erotic, it was also art particularly when taken into context with the whole.

The book is well written and a bit of a page turner, a rarity for non-fiction. And well researched. Birmingham unlike other non-fiction writers - is thorough, he does not appear to take a personal or emotional stance, and seems to show various points of view - merely interpreting the pattern presented from the documents he's reviewed in substantial depth. The book comes with various photos of Joyce, including one of him sitting in the park in 1922, in pain, with an eye patch, Nora, Hemingway, Ezra Pound, the founder of Random House, founder of ACLU, and various others involved including the ex-pat American who started the world famous Shakespeare & Company in Paris.

2. What you are reading now?

Vagina: A New Biography by Naomi Wolf.

This is a rather controversial non-fiction book on Good Reads. Some people really hate it, while others love it to pieces. But then Naomi Wolf, the author of The Beauty Myth, is a bit controversial herself. I saw her speak a few years back at the Brooklyn Book Fair - when the Vagina: a New Biography was first published.

As to what the book is about? It's about how society, medical science, and women, generally speaking, have viewed and currently view the vagina and sexual pleasure via the vagina.

Also, it should be noted that the book concentrates on heterosexual women and heterosexual sex since Ms. Wolf is heterosexual and doesn't know much about lesbian or bisexual or trans. She's up front about this - stating that homosexual or lesbian or bisexual sex deserves a book of its own. And men - aren't really examined that much. The book is not man-hating. Wolf loves men and doesn't have any issues with them.

Wolf is thorough, but rather myopic in her research. By that, I mean, she has a tendency to only use or concentrate on the medical, scientific and scholarly research that supports and validates her own point of view, disregarding the rest. Which makes her a bit unreliable, even if she has valid points. She also has a tendency to generalize - which, I think weakens her novel. She'd have been better off if she pulled back a few steps from the work, at times the work comes across as a tad too personal or autobiographical.

(Sorry, Naomi, but not all women need an orgasm or cocaine to reach a creative high or to be highly creative. Shocking, I know, but there it is. There are actually quite a few highly creative virgins or women who have not experienced insane orgasms out there. Also we do not get depressed just because we haven't had them. You can be in a great creative mood without an orgasm. Seriously.)

That said, there were a few things she's pointed out that I thought were worth sharing and have been validated by medical doctors.

* Women's vaginas are wired differently. Every women experiences sex differently. It's an individual experience.


"For some women, a lot of neural pathways originate in the clitoris, and these women's vaginas will be less "innervated" - less dense with nerves. A woman in this group may like clitoral stimulation a lot, and not get as much from penetration. Some women have lots of innervation in their vaginas, and climax easily from penetration alone. Another woman may have a lot of neural pathway terminations in the perineal or anal area; she may like anal sex and even be able to have an orgasm from it, while it may leave a differently wired woman completely cold, or even in pain. Some women's pelvic neural wiring will be closer to the surface, making it easier for them to reach orgasm; other women's neural wiring may be more submerged in their bodies, driving them and their partners to need to be more patient and inventive, as they must seek a more elusive climax.


Read more... )

I don't know if this permissible content for all readers or not. So I'll let you figure it out.

3. What I'm reading next?

No clue. Let you know when I figure it out.
shadowkat: (reading)
The Ocean at the End of the Lane plays with my head a bit; it is like all of Gaiman's novels steeped in mythology and written a bit like a whimsical prose poem. Or at least an attempt at one. There is a hint of satire at play here, reminding me a tad of Ronald Dahl's stories, except it lacks the cruelty of Dahl, and is far more whimsical like Terry Prachett (without the annoying puns) or JK Rowling (without the politics).

The story on its face is rather simple. A man returns to his childhood home to reminisce about his childhood after providing the eulogy at a funeral. He sits in front of a duck pond, and slowly remembers a magical and nightmarish period of time when he was seven years of age and the pond was an ocean. According to the Acknowledgement section at the end, Gaiman pulls from various myth and legend tropes, along with various places and memories from his own childhood to paint this small tapestry of a story. For The Ocean at the End of the Lane is in some respects just that, a tapestry interwoven with words instead of thread by a master of the craft. The words have a sound and texture all their own...and the book requires a bit of focus, but also a bit of letting it go.

Much like Gaiman's other tales, the protagonist is almost a non-entity, barely there...and here unlike those novels, we never even learn his name. He feels at times like a stand-in for the author or for us. We never see what he looks like. And he tells us, at one point, that how others view him is something he can never quite know, and when he looks at himself or tries to see himself through others - all he sees is a variety of mirrors always looking inward. The non-identity of the narrator serves this tale better than Gaiman's other efforts - in that it lends itself to the thematic arc and mystery. We aren't quite sure of our narrator's memories. As another character tells him towards the end of the novel, that everyone remembers things differently – no two people remember things the same.

Various female characters appear throughout, and in this novel the women have power, while the men seem to have none. Gaiman appears to be more found of writing female characters than male characters – his female characters are more complex and more powerful, while his male characters can often feel card-board thin. At any rate the men in this novel seem to be at the women’s mercy. Ineffectual. Dependent. As is the narrator. There are four main female characters and they appear to be pulled from myth, the Hempstock women, grandmother, mother, and daughter or crone, mother, and maid – who is eleven to the narrator’s seven. She is missing at the beginning of the novel, off in Australia, and missing in the end. And there is Ursula Moonstruck, the babysitter and roomer, and something else altogether. For a villain, she’s more than meets the eye. She gives people what they want – it’s all that she wished to do, and the boy, our narrator is her way into our world and her way home again.

The story has a surrealistic feel and plays with the mind long after you leave it, much as it plays with the narrator, whose memories of the tale he tells seem to diminish once he leaves the Hempstock estate and the Ocean at the End of the lane, where his child home stood, once upon a time.
shadowkat: (warrior emma)
Recently finished reading the non-fiction novel Playbuilding as Qualitative Analysis, which I borrowed from the woman that I'm currently co-writing a play with for an informal theater project organized through First UU of Brooklyn.

The book surprised me, on the surface it's mainly an academic analysis and history of a Canadian Educational Theater experiment entitled "Mirror Theater", where social issues are examined via improvisational, and planned performances, some filmed, some theaterical. But in reality, it explores things such as bullying, miscommunication, bigotry, gender politics, play-building and play-writing, collaborative research, and interpersonal relationships. If you are a play write, an actor, a sociology major, or a teacher - I highly recommend reading this book. Although it doesn't really matter, since I'm certainly none of those things, yet it taught me a great deal.

Amongst the interesting tid-bits:

1. The term "slapstick comedy" derived from using "slap-sticks" to hit each other on stage in a comedic style of combat.
origin of slapstick )
2. Communication Responsibility - how a simple word such as "NO" can mean various things depending on body language and tone of voice. This passage was eye-opening and managed to articulate something that I've been struggling to say in various online debates regarding "consent" since 2002.


In workshop discussions with the audience, issues of communication responsibility were raised. "What message do you want to send?" was an emerging question, as was "Are you interpreting the message appropriately?" [Too often, I see people being blasted for not writing something well but rarely do I see responsibility for how we listen or interpret what we see or hear. And that, is just as important.] ....in a scene that was originally named "Tickle" ....a male is playing a video game and his girlfriend enters. He laughs and says "No." He's really into the game, but she persists. Again he firmly says "No." The third time he says "No," he is referring to his loss of the game. They then playfully begin to tickle each other, and each advance is countered by a "No," albeit with a different inflection. Eventually, the scene escalates, with her on the floor, him on top and she screaming "NO!" It is a powerful scene and plays metaphorically. It can be, but need not be, about sexual or physical abuse.

In workshopping this.....the issue of the responsibility of the receiver was highlighted. In "Tickle", the audience was asked why she didn't stop after the first tickle. The common response was "HE laughed when he said it [No]." This led us quickly into how words are more ambiguous than they seem, that much of a word's meaning is in its oral expression. During a tour in a rural community where we were informed by the community's social workers of a possible date rape, "Tickle" became the focus of the high school students. As the discussion progressed, it was evident that it had an impact on the male audience members. The issue that emerged was "You need to listen carefully to all the signals being sent, and that isn't easy."


3. This quote about the purpose of theater and to a broader degree all art, be it a painting, a book, a film or a television series:
Theater acts like a mirror )
4. Friends/Communities/Cliques/Gangs - I've often thought that no matter where I go or what group of people I interact with - I can't escape the clique or the feeling of exclusion, whether it is me or someone else.
Read more... )
Education and therapy through theater and art - seems to be useful, it's a safer means of doing it - providing a mirror, that allows adjustment without unnecessary conflict or confrontation. Sometimes I think art works as a sort of peaceful diplomat or ambassador.

Great book, will haunt me for a time. And very useful.
shadowkat: (reading)
filed taxes )

Also finished Wicked Intentions by Elizabeth Hoyt which pretty much reads like a first novel. In this case a first novel that was reworked from, ahem, a Spuffy fanfic.

[A brief caveat - Nothing against fan fiction or fan fic. I happen to appreciate fan fiction. Some of the fan fiction that I've read and reviewed in this journal in much the same way that I've reviewed novels, is as good if not better than many of the published novels that I've read - for one very good reason, a metaphor blind publisher hasn't been able to get their dirty/grimy hands on it. Okay, maybe not so brief caveat...was watching the JD Salinger Documentary while doing my taxes this morning, and found it interesting how Salinger hated to get his work published. Read more... )

Anyhow - I've gotten away from my review and that was not a brief caveat. More a lengthy rant. Wicked Intentions is a romance set in the Regency period, at least I think it's the Regency period. Early 1700s? Which period is that? I guess I could Google it. No, not the Regency, King George I - is that the Georgian period? There appears to be a lot of King George's...so hard to tell. Maybe that's why it was called the Georgian Period - short-hand to handle all those King George's? [As an aside, I have not quite forgiven the US educational system for not focusing more on World History. I did get snatches of it - in Honors World Geography (which I adored) and in 5th and 6th grade social studies. Oh well, I could always study it now, I suppose.] And is it just me or were the British aristocracy not all that creative when it came to naming their offspring?

The thing about historical romance novels is the historical period tends to be less than accurate. If you are looking for an accurate accounting of history in a romance novel - you are most likely going to be disappointed. I tend to hand-wave it. Historical novels - I expect it, because hello, it's a historical novel...what's the point otherwise? Sure you can embellish here and there, but some historical accuracy is appreciated. In a historical romance, the romance is the point, the history is just there to make it possible or give it flavor.

So, the fact I could not tell which period this book was set in did not bug me all that much. I knew it was in England, somewhere in the distant past, when the aristocracy ruled everything, and wealthy men wore silly powdered wigs everywhere as some sort of deluded fashion statement. I think it was only Europeans who did this. [ETA: And Europeans who immigrated to the Americas and brought the silly idea with them, even if it was vastly impractical in the new world.]Possibly due to the fact that they seldom bathed and their normal hair was greasy? I have no idea why this was considered fashionable. (History experts? Or rather any historical fashion experts out there?)

The plot wanders a bit, because the writer is setting up her world and setting up multiple threads along with the central romance. So we have four subplots in addition to the central story. The central plot focuses on Lord Caire, aka Lazarus Huntington, a noble, no clue what his ranking is - we're not told. He's just a Lord. He's described as having sapphire eyes (it's a romance novel thing - people always have eyes that resemble jewels in romance novels), sliver hair (although we're told his eyebrows, chest, and pubic hair are black or dark brown...so either he bleaches it like Spike did, or it's just a genetic fluke - we're told a genetic fluke since his mother also has silver hair), and wears a long black coat or cape, and carries a stick that he fights with. Lord Caire believes he can't feel empathy or love. That he is incapable of it. And can't stand human touch - or can't feel it without pain. Except from the heroine. As a result of this difficulty he hires prostitutes to have sex with. He ties them up, puts a blind-fold on them, and has his way. His most recent mistress was murdered a few months back - found gutted in the rooms that he'd set her up in. So he's prowling the streets of St. Giles, a particularly nasty ghetto of London, hunting the murderer. It's on these streets that our less than noble, Lord Cair, stumbles upon Temperance Dews, a widow. Temperance runs a foundling home with her brother Winter Makepeace, who may or may not be the mysterious Ghost of St. Giles that haunts the streets at night saving the helpless. Winter is a variable saint, but a likable one, kudos to the writer for that - that is hard to pull off. Temperance is a bit of a martyr, or at least that's what Caire calls her.

Temperance stumbles upon Caire taking a baby home, a baby she's rescued or rather bought from the dastardly Mother Heart's Ease. Caire follows her home and requests that she aid him in his inquiries. Stating that she knows the area better than he does and the people better. But in actuality, it's just an excuse to get closer to her. Which he manages to do...with relative ease, since Temperance is a lusty widow, harboring a guilty secret. She agrees to help him in order to get aid for her foundling home, which is in desperate straits.
major plot spoilers )

I'd say the book is helpful in how it sets things up. But unless you have unresolved issues regarding the whole Spike/Buffy - you are using me for just sex bit/god you are a soulless monster...the main romance might not work for you. Also, I hate to say this - but this trope doesn't quite work here - like it did in Buffy or various fanfiction that I've read, mainly because Lazarus doesn't come across as evil or soulless, and Temperance doesn't quite come off as a martyr or holier than thou. Nor does she appear all that ashamed of Lazarus, who is above her in the class heirarchy anyhow and male in the 1700s, so has all the power here.

So, not sure I'd recommend or if so, with the above mentioned caveats.
shadowkat: (warrior emma)
1. What I just finished reading?

Finished The Proposition by Judith Ivory, which is a romantic/gender flip on Pygmalion. The writer cheekily references Pygmalion twice, the Greek myth and the Shaw play. It's okay. The ending sort of plops in out of the blue - and it's ridiculously ex-deus-machina, but I knew that going in. It would have been better if the writer had built up to the ending or teased the reader with it earlier...instead it feels as if she came up with it at the last minute and just tagged it on. Also, it's a wee bit cliche. I'd have preferred another route, the more bittersweet, less fairy-tale route. But that's just me.

The story focuses on a phonetics/elocution and etiquette expert, who specializes in vocal patterns, that is employed to teach a Cockney rat-catcher how to be a Gentleman. Two dandies, who later turn out to be con-men, request her aid for a bet. One bets the other that she can't pass Mick, the ratcatcher, off as a Gentlemen of means at her cousin's annual ball. Most of the book focuses on the elocution lessons, and Mick and Edwina (the elocution expert) romance. There's also a lot of boring sex scenes. Ivory isn't very good at sex scenes..they sort of just sit there. Sex scenes are admittedly hard to write. And I've become admittedly rather picky...comes from reading one too many erotica novels.

I rather liked the hero, who was a nice change of pace from...well the domineering alpha males that tend to populate these novels. This guy was laid back and sort of happy-go-lucky.
He was a rake, but not in the traditional sense...more charming than roguish. And he loved women...not a mean bone in his body. And sections of it did make me smile...such as the one where he's chasing his ferret through the Duke's ball.

The heroine got on my nerves...she was constantly worrying over things and way too obsessed with her looks and his looks and well the look of everything. I wanted to smack her. That said, nice change of pace, having a tall heroine, with a big nose. Not to mention a heroine who is turning 30. One does get tired of the 17 going 18 year-olds. Plus the hero and heroine are about the same age - another nifty change of pace. And equals in power. Actually, she has more power than he does through most of the book - which was sort of nice.
It's often the opposite.

Overall, not a bad read. I'd recommend it.

2. What I'm reading now?

Eh...still reading The Blind Assassin - although making headway. I'm halfway through.
The narrative structure is fascinating. To my knowledge no one else has tried this or pulled it off. Which is a novel within a novel. Half the book is memoir - the recollections of Iris, an old woman, looking back on her life...the other half is the erotic novel that Iris' sister, Laura, wrote and was published posthumously. Interspersed between are impersonal news clippings about their lives, including obituaries. These portions are sort of mixed with each other. We have about six chapters on Iris, six on the Laura's novel The Blind Assassin, then six more on Iris, then six on the novel, so on and so forth..while in between the news-clippings. I rather like Laura's novel which is also a story within a story. It's about a man and a woman who meet in secret in various hotel rooms around town, and in between bouts of lovemaking, the man, who is a pulp science fiction writer, tells the woman a science fiction story about a blind assassin who falls in love with the virginal sacrifice he'd intended to kill.

Definitely preachy in places...but the narrative structure makes up for it, as does the writing. Plus you can read it in snatches.

3. What I'm reading next?

It's currently a three-way tie between Courtney Milan's Unveiled, Elizabeth Hoyt's first of the Maiden Lane series - "Wicked Intentions" (damn these titles, who comes up with these? Can you imagine someone sitting around coming up with sultry names for romance novels? I know, lets call this one Hearts Exploding, bet no one has come up with that yet. And to my knowledge they haven't), and Kim Harrison's latest Rachel Morgan, "The Undead Pool", which I have mixed feelings about. The writing is sliding down hill. It's the exact opposite of Jim Butcher, whose writing was sort of getting better. While Harrison's world-building is getting increasingly more interesting, her writing technique is getting worse. Each novel has more typos and errors than the last. And the dialogue is stilted in places. She's also doing what a lot of the female serial urban fantasy writers do - which is cater far to much to the romance.
shadowkat: (warrior emma)
Me Before YouMe Before You by Jojo Moyes


I admittedly gave up on this book at the half-way point. Since I was reading this for pleasure, there is really no reason to continue, is there? Because that would be work - and I already read enough things for work that aren't pleasurable.

Am somewhat bewildered by the raving reviews. Did we get the same book? Is there another version? I read the Kindle version...can't imagine it being that different?

The reviewers state that it is beautifully written and eloquent. Which is puzzling. The writing style is basic English, rarely uses difficult words, and simplistic in style. I'd describe it as conversational. Poetic? Eloquent? It's not. Serviceable? Adequate? Pretty much. Nor is it precise. Rambles a bit. And there's a lot of repetition. You can skim whole pages and not miss a thing.

I'm also not certain that the chick-lit genre can handle the complexity of euthanasia. Or for that matter, being paralyzed. And this is definitely chick-lit. It's written in the same breezy conversational style as Sophie Kinselle's novels and Helen Fielding, although Helen Fielding is the better writer. It neither has the wit nor subtly of Fielding. Liane Moriarty, the writer of The Husband's Secret and What Alice Forgot - is a chick-lit writer who has somewhat successfully broken out into the contemporary women's literary genre. And her style fits this subject matter far more adeptly than Ms. Moyes. I can't help but wonder how she would have handled it? Far more eloquently, I'd imagine. So too, would John Green, the author of The Fault in Our Stars, who also handled a difficult topic but with compassion and poetry. All of which are lacking here.

The story? A wealthy 32 year old man, as the result of a motorcycle accident, is confined to a wheelchair. He was run over by a motorcycle while hailing a cab to work. Now, he is paralyzed from the waist down, with little to no movement in his arms. His parents have hired a full-time night-time nurse, named Nathan, who has the days off, except for lunch, and takes one or two nights off a week.
During the day - they've hired various care-givers who have not worked out. At one of these points, Will attempted to commit suicide. At wits end, his wealthy upper-class parents have agreed to let him do it after six months. He must give them six months to convince him to live. In order to accomplish this herculean task they hire Lou, an uneducated, immature, ditzy, unreliable, inexperienced and wet-behind-the-ears 26 year old, who acts as if she were 16. They do so, because, all evidence to the contrary, that Lou is a bright and cheery person. Granted they have no way of knowing that Lou can't even be bothered to help her mother care for her Granddad. Lou is only there because her job counselor told her it was either this job or pole dancing. (Which was mildly amusing. Because, seriously, pole dancing?)

spoilers )
shadowkat: (warrior emma)
1. Finished The Husband's Secret by Liane Moriarty yesterday. Liane Moriarty has become a best-selling novelist in the UK and is slowly grabbing an American audience. I would not say she's a great novelist, in various respects her writing style reminds me of most of the other writers that grace the best-seller lists. Like many contemporary writers, Moriarty feels the need to tell the reader everything about her characters or tell the plot, as opposed to trusting the reader to well, figure things out on their own. She's not a subtle writer and doesn't quite have a flair with language that some of the more literary and accomplished novelists do, but she is a step above Jennifer Cruisie, Jane Green, Helen Fielding, and a few other female contemporary writers who unfortunately are associated with annoying chick-lit category of fiction.

The story is about how the little decisions people make affect others in ways that they can't possibly begin to imagine. To ensure the reader gets that - there's an epilogue spelling out how if the characters in the novel made different decisions...their lives and the lives of everyone they knew would turn out differently. Also, we can't blame ourselves for everything - since our decisions and choices aren't isolated but rather they are compounded by the decisions and choices of everyone else. In this respect, The Husband's Secret reminded me a great deal of the film The Cloud Atlas. Also like that film, I felt at times that the writer needed to trust her readers more - although, after reading reviews of the novel on Good Reads and Amazon - a lot of readers appear to be a wee bit dense. And apparently require explanations.

Other than that - it was an entertaining and thoughtful novel, with the writer taking the time to delve into the messy emotions. Told in a stream of consciousness style, and in the limited points of view of three suburban Australian wives and mothers. Did at times feel like a throw-back tale to the 1970s and 80s, even though it took place in more modern times.
(Ghod it makes me feel old saying that.)

I do recommend it, but with the caveat that the writer does explain more than she should, and it is told in stream-of-consciousness, which is not everyone's cup of tea. Also it's female centric, the men are important, but we are never in their point of view.

2. Helix - is the new Syfy channel horror series that is getting touted by various critics. Personally, I don't get the appeal. They've compared it to Fringe, which I suppose makes sense since both are about illegal medical experimentation conducted by crazy governments and corporations with wildly disasterous results- but that's where the comparison ends. Fringe was much better written. And had more compelling characters. This one, not so much. Fringe also had a sense of humor, which most likely came with better writers. Sure it too had its cliche moments and plot contrivances, but none quite as predictable or silly as Helix.

Granted, I'm not a true horror fan. For one thing? I scare easily. Even Helix could scare me. It really doesn't take much. And well, I don't like gore. So that's two strikes against the show before it even began. But the critics made me curious, so I tried it.

Fast-forwarded through the gory, scary bits, and realized okay, not only can I predict what will happen next, but I also can figure out the entire story - without having to rewatch anything I fast-forwarded over. You know something is off - if you can fast-forward and realize you didn't really miss anything important. It was two hours. And it could be in told in 30 minutes. Tight this story isn't. And that's sort of mandatory for horror films. Pacing in a horror series or thriller is 90% of it.

plot synopsis below, includes major plot spoilers of course )

Keep in mind, I was able to write that review - when I basically fast-forwarded through most of the episode and only watched snippets.

The series reminds me a lot of the Ridely Scott film Prometheus, but not in a good way. It has the same dumb dialogue, poor plotting and focuses far too much on special effects and shock value.

Overall rating? D (Really not worth your time.)
Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 10:54 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios