Confessions of a Would-Be Writer

The Perfect Heroine

2011-10-18T09:21:00.001-05:00

If I could be any fictional character on a televisions series, it would be Amy Abbott (Emily VanCamp) from the canceled family drama, Everwood.

To anyone who has ever watched the show, pointing out that Amy has Ephram Brown's (Gregory Smith) undying love and devotion would probably be enough explanation of why I'd love to be her.

But Amy Abbott is a great character in her own right. She's extremely smart but does stupid things. She's pretty and popular but still insecure and grounded. She's from a privileged background (father is a doctor, mother is the town's mayor) but isn't a spoiled, entitled shop-a-holic. She loves her older brother, Bright (Chris Pratt) but fights with him like real siblings do. She's a great friend without being too saintly. The girl makes mistakes, but she can admit when she was wrong and apologize sincerely.

For the four seasons that Everwood ran, Amy endured a lot of pain and drama - her first boyfriend languished in a coma for months after a car crash left him with a severe brain injury, she suffered from a bout of depression, skirted on the edge of the drug scene while dating a bad-boy, discovered that the love of her life had fathered a child with another woman, watched her mother battle cancer - yet Amy never came off as pitiful or martyr-like. And when the show ended and Amy earned her (presumably) happy-ever-after, the satisfaction of a story well told was profound.

The writers of Everwood did a great job creating a well-rounded heroine in Amy Abbott. She's a great model for how to create a flawed character who is likable and realistic.

And I'd kill for her wardrobe.

A Song of Ice and Fire

2011-08-24T08:38:00.002-05:00

I didn't watch Game of Thrones when it aired on HBO. To be honest, I'd never heard of this book, nor of the uber-successful fantasy series by George R.R. Martin, A Song of Ice and Fire. On the whole, I'm not a huge fantasy reader. Other than the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I can't think of any other fantasy series I've ever read in its entirety. Well, except Harry Potter. Does that count as fantasy?

Anyway, it came to pass in mid July that my children were going to the movies, specifically to see a show that I had no desire whatsoever to watch, and I found myself needing to kill two hours before I had to pick them up at the theater at the mall. I took a tour of Target where I spontaneously picked up a copy of Game of Thrones. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I headed to Portillo's and treated myself to a chocolate cake shake (okay, it was my birthday, so I felt justified) and cracked open the giant brick of a book.

And now I'm totally hooked. What a fantastic story.

Mostly, I'm in awe of what an amazing writer George R.R. Martin is. His ability to pace such an astoundingly long and epic story with a cast of hundreds is an inspiration. Every single chapter - which is told from the point of view of a different, key character - moves the story forward by leaps but never feels rushed. Specifically, Martin has some preternatural gift of knowing which POV character to use to make the narrative edge-of-your-seat fascinating, and at the end of each chapter, I'm turning pages like crazy wanting to know what happens to that particular person next. But by then, he's already turned my attention to someone else and the process is repeated.

Oddly, as well paced as this series is and as much as I'm always wanting to read more, even into the wee hours, it is taking me FOREVER to get through these books. Seriously, it took me a full month to read Game of Thrones. And that was with reading at least some of the book every single day and buying a smaller, mass paperback copy to take with me on my beach vacation. I picked up the next title, Clash of Kings, immediately upon finishing GoT and have been working on it diligently, yet I'm only about half way through the book.

Part of this slow reading is because the books are long. I'm talking close to 1,000 pages each. And they are dense, with so much information you can't afford to skim. Too much happens in too short of a span of pages. Not that I'm even tempted to skim - the story is great and completely engrossing. Perhaps Martin's descriptions of castles and dark forests get a bit windy, but there aren't too many paragraphs I haven't read every word of.

I'm now wanting very much to see the HBO interpretation. We don't have HBO, and I have no desire to pay for HBO just so I can have access to 10 hours of its programming. It doesn't appear HBO has any intention of putting GoT on DVD any time soon, so I guess I'm out of luck. I'm just going to have to wait.

Then again, it's going to take me a year to read all the books, so it's not like I don't have a way to kill the time until then.

In The Dark

2011-06-23T21:15:00.001-05:00

We've just spent the past 48 hours without electricity after a powerful storm rolled through our area on Tuesday evening and knocked down trees, branches and power lines.

The first 24 hours in the dark are always kind of fun. We dig out our No Electricity Box that contains candles, flashlights, oil for our old oil lamp and a Coleman camping lantern. The kids light candles all over the house and my husband and I fret about someone starting a fire. It's like camping out, and we joke about how hard it would have been to live 150 years ago. We wonder how we would have spent the time and marvel that people functioned as well as they did. I always marvel at the fact that it's only around 150 years we've been living with better lighting in our homes.

The kids wonder what to do and think it's a great boon to dig out the board games for entertainment. They actually read real dead tree books and interact with each other face to face instead of via text. And when things get really boring, they - gasp! - head outside to take a walk or play a game of basketball. Both my husband and I think perhaps it would be a good thing for the electricity to go down a few times a month.

The second 24 hours aren't so much fun. The storm hit just as I was in the middle of cleaning up the kitchen after dinner, so I had a dishwasher full of dirty dishes. I also hadn't yet run the garbage disposal which meant one of my sinks wouldn't drain well and I worried about odor.

Also, after two days, the laundry had begun to pile up. My daughter and I headed to the laundro-mat this morning. I have to say, there is something nice about investing two solid hours to get ALL of the laundry clean, dried, folded and sorted rather than the days-long process of doing one load at a time. Maybe not as convenient, but now I don't have to worry if we'll run out of clean towels until at least the end of the weekend.

Then there is the problem with charging. Cell phones. iPods. iPads. We have charging units that work off a running car engine, but you can only drive around so much. For years now my husband has been saying we need to get rid of our land line phone since we all have cells. But it's times like this when I feel vindicated for pushing back - once all the cell phone batteries run out, we're completely incommunicado.

Not so cool was emptying out my fridge and freezer. I didn't bother trying to salvage any of it save some condiments, potatoes, onions and a bit of chicken that had remained frozen. I hauled six full garbage bags to the bin and felt tremendous levels of guilt for all of the bottles and plastics I failed to recycle. Without a working garbage disposal, there was no way to properly empty and rinse out the bottles to save them, so I threw things out whole. I hope future generations will forgive me.

As time consuming (and expensive!) as it was to purge the fridge, it's amazing how nice it is to start from scratch with an empty and clean unit. I've made my husband vow that we will not buy anything to put into it that we don't plan to use within a day or two because I'm not going to clutter it up again with half a dozen half-empty bottles of BBQ sauce or 13 varieties of salad dressing and ice cream sundae toppings. Gone, also, are those "experiments" we always manage to pick up at Trader Joe's or other high-end grocery stores, things that sound good on the label but either aren't a big hit or don't get used often enough such that three years later we still have a 3/4-full jar of roasted red pepper and artichoke tapinade buried in the darkest corners. Either we love it, we eat it all up or we hated it and out it goes immediately.

While I was the first one doing the happy dance when ComEd finally managed to give us back the power, I have to say that living in the dark has some real benefits. Last night, after eating dinner out (couldn't cook!), the entire family sat down and played a game together. We had a lot of fun, and my husband and I remembered how we'd always planned to have a family game night once or twice a month. Usually, we all go our own ways to plug ourselves into whatever electronic entertainment we've chosen for the evening, and no one wants to be bothered to spend time laughing and talking together.

Makes me wonder if the decline in western culture and the bonds of family might not be the fault of the light bulb. Way to go, Mr. Edison.

BTW, if you are looking for a fun, family game, I recommend Apples to Apples. While the Family Edition is great for older kids (and my kids do fall in the right age group), I actually thought the Junior Edition was more fun. But it's a great game that provokes lots of laughs.

Fledgling Writer

2011-05-13T13:49:00.002-05:00

My daughter likes to write. She's got a dozen or so notebooks with the beginnings and bits of stories. She reads like a fiend, and her work reflects her reading passions.

She's run into the same problems all writers do, that dreaded "what now?" wall. A general idea will come to her, she'll spend some time on character names and know the bare bones premise of what she wants to happen. But the details will elude her. She manages a scene or two and then finds herself at a complete standstill, story-wise. She's not at the no plot, no problem level, she's more at the no plot, no idea stage.

I've suggested some of my favorite strategies for getting un-stuck. Things like playing the what-if game, or pulling out a blank piece of paper and creating a brainstorming web. I explained to her the difference between pantsers and outliners and that while I have no doubt many amazing stories come out of the I don't know what happens until it happens approach, I personally need at least a rudimentary road map of where I want my story to go. She agreed and created note pages for "Beginning", "Middle" and "End". Problem is, she has no idea what to put on any of these pristine pages. She's stumped. Beyond knowing that she wants to introduce her characters and have them end up happily ever after in some fashion, there is a vast, empty void between those two points. Welcome to the wonderful world of writing.

I've also described to her my idea-generating process. How I usually start with a character that pops up uninvited into my head and maybe a vague idea for a story that would fit that particular person's state in life. Or how the germ of a story idea will come out of a news article I've recently read. Or how I'll hear a song on the radio and it will evoke some specific emotion that I feel compelled to try to capture in story-form. I never have problems with ideas. In fact, my problem lies in too many idea.

But I do get what it's like to struggle with plot. And unfortunately, I don't have any magic bullet solutions to give her. She's got to work her way through the process. Figure out what method does it for her. I told her to go back to some of her most favorite stories and study them, break them down and find the bone structure beneath the prose. What caused character A to do this or character B to do that? Who wants what and why can't he/she get it/have it? So what do they do about it? And what happens then? Plotting is both so very simple and incredibly difficult at the same time. Easy to recognize, hard to replicate.

At the very least, my daughter has a giant leg up on me writing-wise - she's only 13 and can spend the next few years burning away the schlock so that by the time she's ready to select a career and perhaps choose to follow writing, she'll be that much farther down the path. I didn't take this crazy hobby seriously until I was well past 30, and I still have plenty of schlock on the woodpile. I hope she sticks with it. I think she has talent.

And I can't wait to see what happens next.

Indulgent Mommy Moment

2011-04-14T14:39:00.000-05:00

Happy 11th Birthday, Jakey!

Heartbroken

2011-03-29T14:19:00.001-05:00

I never planned to use this place as a therapy session, but I'm hoping if I put my current frustrations down in print, some day I'll be at a place where I can look back and realize that things did get better. At the moment, I feel like I'm standing at the entrance of a very long, very dark tunnel with not even a pinpoint of light at the far end.

My daughter is experiencing a very painful "mean girls" time in her life. As much as you are apart from your child, it's amazing how much their pain becomes your own. My blood is boiling and I really do want to beat some particular people into a mushy pulp. Add in my adult perspective and I feel a level of impotence that is pretty hard to handle. I can't help her. I can't do anything to make things better. I can only offer her my support and the knowledge that she's a great kid who is the better person, and that this, too, shall pass. But it isn't enough. When your baby is hurting, you would move mountains to stop the pain. Except that I can't do that in this particular case. She just has to get through the hurt on her own.

What's doubly frustrating is that I understand the dynamics at work. I stand outside of the situation and see exactly what is going on. I see why she chooses to handle things the way she does, why she believes she has to put up with the crap she's being dealt even though what she should do is tell her supposed friends to go take a flying f@$!. I also know that telling her that things will get better doesn't help her deal with right.this.very.minute. Who cares what things will be like in a couple of years, or in a month or even next week? Right now sucks and that's all there is.

And as angry as I am right now, I can only imagine the bile I'm going to have to swallow when this episode is over and things go back to being the way they were and I have to interact with these girls without indicating in any way that I'd be quite fine if they all got eaten by alligators, slowly and painfully. My adult way of handling people who don't deserve respect or decent treatment doesn't work in this scenario, so I have to keep my mouth shut, smile and try not to scream while I haul their asses around in the minivan. Moms deserve combat pay.

No one tells you when you have kids that you will have to relive all of the crap you thought you put behind you once you grew up and left high school. They should write a book for that. "What to Expect When Your Kid's Life Sucks."

Not Quite On the Same Page

2011-03-25T10:14:00.001-05:00

I've discovered a new blog - The Book Lantern - that I love, however the post that appeared today is really causing me to scratch my head. I know how I feel about what this person is saying, but I'm struggling to put those thoughts to words.

What I get out of the post is that Ceilidh is frustrated with an industry - society in general, actually - which defaults to the proto-typical heterosexual white male/female as the standard character type with all variations of ethnicity and/or sexual orientation falling outside the spectrum of "normal". Additionally, when gay characters (or characters of ethnicity) are portrayed, they take the form of the most simplistic stereotypes (gay boys who giggle a lot), or the reader is constantly reminded that this person is capital-G Gay (or capital B-Black/capital A-Asian, etc.). Characters who fall outside of the narrow white-and-straight are under-represented, and stories that do feature someone who doesn't fit that description are classified as "issue" books rather than just stories.

While I agree with the overall sentiment - that society needs to move in the direction where every variation of human being is just as normal and accepted as another - I'm not sure if I can wrap my brain around Ceilidh's argument that the publishing industry, writers included, are perpetuating a form of reinforcement of bad attitudes in their assume standard=white-and-straight approach.

First, to state my fundamental opinion on homosexuality. I believe you love whom you love. Being a homosexual is not a choice or an alternative lifestyle or something that you can turn off or turn on or dabble in or, heaven help us, "fix". God makes no mistakes, and, to quote Lady GaGa (god!), everyone is born that way. And those who insist that homosexuals don't deserve the same respect and rights as heterosexuals are practicing a form of bigotry and racism that is intolerable and ignorant.

As for homosexuality portrayed in fiction, some of the most romantic couples I have ever encountered have been gay couples. I've stated before that the Brian and Justin love story depicted on the US Queer As Folk was one of the most beautiful and heart-wrenching of any ever. I wept over Brokeback Mountain and felt sorry for anyone who refused to experience such a heartbreaking story because of their homophobia. Gay FBI agent Jules Cassidy is one of my favorite characters in contemporary romance, and until his relationship with Robin devolved into something too cutesy for even my thirteen year old daughter, it was one of Suzanne Brockmann's best depicted in all of her Troubleshooters series.

If the romance is done well, I don't give two hoots if the couple is male/male, male/female, or female/female.

So here's my problem with Ceilidh's problem. If a character's sexual orientation doesn't matter to the story, why bring it up? Ever? Why tell the reader this person is gay? Ever?

If you insist on labeling a person as gay, you inherently imply that this aspect of their person is important to the story. That this person's sexual orientation makes a difference in some way. Because if being gay doesn't affect the story in any way, then why mention it at all?

Best analogy I can think of is hair color. Hair color is a trait that has little bearing on the bigger picture of a character's story. Unless a particular character is persecuted, lauded or otherwise treated differently because of his or her hair color, other than a mild curiosity on the part of the reader, specifying a character's hair color is unnecessary.

If, on the other hand, the author reminds the reader every chapter or so that the main character is blonde, hair color starts to mean something. By calling it out, the writer has given hair color importance. For some reason, the hair color of this particular person makes him/her different. Not better, not worse, not wrong, not anything. But being blonde affects how this person deals with the world or how the world deals with them.

Same thing with being gay. If a person's sexual orientation has no bearing on the story, then why bring it up? Why does a writer have to "state for the record" that any one character is gay or not gay?

Who cares if people assume that the character is straight if sexual orientation doesn't matter? Back to my hair analogy, it's like saying that there is something wrong with imagining a character to be blonde all through the book only to find out at the end that she was actually brunette. Why is it important for me to know all the way through that she was brunette if it doesn't make her any different?

Absolutely shining example is Headmaster Albus Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series. Never once in seven books and some 4,000 plus pages of the series is Albus Dumbledore's sexual orientation mentioned. Because it didn't matter to the story. After the fact, writer J.K. Rowling stated that Dumbledore was gay, that he'd always been gay, that this was how she had imagined him from the very beginning, and she offered zero apology for that because none was needed.

And now, readers have spent seven books and some 4,000 plus pages liking and empathizing with a character who, it turns out, is just like them even though he's gay. Well, most of us readers aren't magical wizards, but you get the point.

If being gay/ethnic/blonde changes the way the main character(s) deal with the world or how the world treats them, then you can't ignore it as a trait. And then I would argue that stories that deal with how a character is treated differently because of some specific trait are issue books.

Net, net, what I think I'm trying to say is that by insisting that gay people (or people of non-white races) have increased representation, you are saying that their gayness matters in some way. Otherwise, who cares if the main character is gay or not?

Really, in this case I feel words are failing me.

Okay, So They Were Right

2011-02-02T15:05:00.002-06:00

A good 24 inches with 4 foot drifts. Yep, it really was a blizzard.

School is closed. It took us 2 hours to dig out enough to get the car out of the garage to find that only the largest streets have been plowed. We're officially snowed in, and it's bliss.

Last night, however, had to be one of the scariest experiences in my life.

The husband, making a smart call, took the train into the city to avoid the rush hour home. He decided to wait, however, even though his office officially closed at 4:00, to take a later train home in order to avoid the mass exodus from the city. Thus, I get a call from him at 9:00 pm, during the worst part of the storm, informing me that his car is stuck outside the train station and he needs for me to pick him up.

?

!

So, the decision becomes, do I take the kids with me and risk us all getting stuck out in this mess? Or do I leave them at home and risk my husband and I getting stuck away from them. They didn't really give me any choice, insisting that they come along. I made them put on every piece of snow gear they owned, shoved a bag full of extra scarves, and had a smile when my son loaded up his pockets with granola bars, "just in case".

We barely made it out of the driveway. Then we barely made it off of our street. The wind was blowing so hard you couldn't see the next street light. Although I stuck to the most heavily traveled roads, I was terrified I'd get stuck in a snow drift. Our little downtown area is about a mile and half a way, but it seemed like 200.

My husband was glad to see us. And him being from Buffalo where this level of snow is just another Tuesday, he was like a kid in a candy store driving home, barely concerned at all that we'd get stuck out in the middle of a freakin' blizzard.

Like he said this morning when we were all nice and safe and warm, this experience was great one for the kids to remember. Remember how we had to pick Dad up in a blizzard! Woohoo. Great memories.

Battening Down the Hatches

2011-02-01T10:10:00.004-06:00

So, they are predicting a "storm for the records" complete with blizzard warning and predictions of anywhere from 12-24" of snow here in the Chicagoland area. While the heaviest snowfall isn't supposed to really get started until later this afternoon, people have already lost their collective minds. I stopped by the grocery store this morning just to get some milk (can't run out of that or we'd risk being latte-free, an unacceptable state of affairs in our house) and the shelves were nearly empty. I ran into a neighbor who told me that, apparently, yesterday was so bad that people couldn't park their cars to even go into the Dominick's.

Now, call me a cynic, but is this really necessary? I don't know about most people but I have a pantry stocked far too full to ever give any concern that my family might starve unless we're forced to remain completely housebound for at least, like, a solid month. Sure, we'd be eating the canned salmon and stale Ritz crackers, but we're not about to risk empty bellies for quite some time. Do people really live so close to the edge that being unable to get out of the house for two or three days means they'd start eying the family pets like a cartoon pork chop?

Too, this storm might put a full stop to things for a few days, but I'm guessing by Friday the roads will be passable enough to make a grocery store run if absolutely necessary. We're not talking about Castaway levels of isolation, here. I get that the inability of delivery trucks to transport the goods necessary to restock empty shelves is a real possibility, meaning no milk or bread for a bit longer. Again, however, I doubt the stores will run completely out of food such that you wouldn't be able to find something to get you by if necessary. Take a cruise down the ethnic aisles and give couscous a try - it's fantastic.

The one pre-emptive effort I did make was to fill up the gasoline container for the snowblower, thinking we'd need the extra gas and wouldn't want to/have the ability to get to the gas stations. Unfortunately, I didn't know that you have to mix oil with the gas before using and now my husband is in a snit because he doesn't know what ratio we now have gas to oil-wise. I have to fix that before the snow starts flying. No good deed goes unpunished.

My kids are already planning for their almost-guaranteed snow day tomorrow. Hubby has cleared his schedule so he can work at home. I'm planning on doing nothing constructive since snow days are like surprise holidays and therefore should be treated as precious.

It will be interesting to look at this from the other side. I can't count how many times the media gears us up for some monster storm only to have it fizzle out. They shake their heads and tell us we were very lucky that this storm "took a turn south/north and we just barely missed it." If we end up with only three inches on the ground, I have some kids who will be mightily disappointed.

(Photo credit: Chicago Tribune archive photo, 1967)

Happy New Year and I am Still Here

2011-01-05T10:59:00.000-06:00

Just a quick post to keep things active. The end of 2010 was unfortunately not so great, with my father and grandmother passing away within seven hours of each other. Thus my lack of posts.

But I'm back up and running. Happy New Year!

Beyond The Pale

2010-10-23T15:49:00.006-05:00

When does a fictional character cross the line so far that he or she becomes irredeemable, assuming that said person has up to that point been a hero in the most traditional sense? It's one thing to be an anti-hero or even a dark hero, where by the very nature of the definition the character's actions and methods are already morally ambiguous. But what actions push a reader or viewer so far that they are no longer capable of forgiving that character? In fact, the reader/viewer's fundamental view of that character is forever altered, perhaps even retroactively.

The most excellent (and biggest time suck on the planet, so beware) website TV Tropes lists something called the Moral Event Horizon, a line which when crossed represents a character's descent into true evil or from hero to villain. After crossing the Moral Event Horizon, a character is marked as generally irredeemable. While a Moral Event Horizon is always a subjective thing - what behaviours one person views as reprehensible and unforgivable another person might accept given certain circumstances - it seems writers of fiction approach such an act with great intention that it be recognized as a significant point of change. You always know an MEH when you see one.

Last night on one of my favorit-est TV shows ever, Supernatural, Sam Winchester came within micrometers of the Moral Event Horizon if not actually crossed over it.
I'm still trying to decide which side of that line he now lives on, but I'm very afraid it's the wrong side. Sam stood by and watched - lifted not so much as a pinky finger to help - while his brother Dean was turned into a vampire.

And while this alone is more than plenty for evoking the MEH, Sam actually expressed satisfaction in the situation by smirking. The moment was truly bloodchilling.

Now, I honestly have no idea how the writers and creators of Supernatural can ever bring Sam back. Personally, I can never trust him again. And no amount of apology or self-flagellation or sacrifice will ever be enough for Dean to forgive his brother.

What's sad is that I've always liked Sam. Even back in Season 4 when Sam became addicted to drinking demon's blood - an initial attempt, I believe, made by TPTB to push Sam over the MEH - I was never mad at the guy. He was still Sammy Winchester, demon hunter and all-around-great-guy.

Which goes to show you how one person's MEH is not someone else's. Drinking demon blood and even choosing to follow the Demon Ruby at the expense of abandoning Dean didn't come close to the MEH for me. Watching as his brother is attacked, nearly killed and ultimately changed into a beast is pretty darned close.

There are many acts that are no-brainers as far as MEHs. Pedophilia and abuse of children in any form is 100% unforgivable and anyone who perpetrates it is irredeemable to the nth degree. For me, abuse of animals is over the MEH. Genocide: crosses the MEH. As does rape. Taking advantage of people with limited abilities or resources skirts over the line. And I believe there is a special place in Hell for corrupt politicians, CEOs and others who bilk people who trust them out of millions or even billions.

Murder is a little bit ambiguous because there are circumstances when I can understand it. Torture follows down that path. I recall the episode during Lost's first season when Sayid tortured Sawyer in order to get him to reveal the location of some crucial medication. Not pleasant to watch or contemplate but at least marginally justifiable.

I suppose it comes down to circumstances and justification. The best person can be made to do some pretty reprehensible acts if given enough motivation. A lot of fiction deals with this scenario. Would you steal medicine if you had to in order to save someone's life? Would you kill someone in revenge if they killed or hurt someone you loved? Would you kill someone if you believed it served the greater good?

But regardless of how noble the intentions, if an evil act is carried out and brings any kind of joy or satisfaction to the person doing it, the MEH must be contemplated. Last night, later in the show, it was suggested that perhaps Sam had a good reason for letting Dean get turned. By becoming a vampire himself, Dean could gain access to the real vampires' hidden enclave and work from within to destroy them. While this is a somewhat questionable way to go about this, at least it's a plan with a good intent behind it.

However, Sam clearly gained some form of positive feeling about what happened. And that negates any justifiable reasons he might have had for not helping his brother. With that smirk, Sam crossed the Moral Event Horizon.

I have no idea how the Supernatural folks plan to un-do this. Short of revealing that the Sam we've been watching all season is actually an impostor and that the Real Sam is tied up somewhere completely oblivious, I don't know that they can ever take this character back.

Which goes to demonstrate that crossing the MEH must be done with great care and consideration. Even skirting that fine line is a risky thing to do. You have to be pretty certain of your grand plan and that sacrificing such a character is something you are prepared to do.

No, Thank You

2010-10-21T11:54:00.010-05:00

I consider myself a child of the new millennium (even though I was born waayyy before the year 2000). I've adopted pretty much all forms of modern technology. I firmly believe that the laptop computer, word processing software and e-mail are the best inventions since indoor plumbing and almost equally as vital. Heck, I'd much much rather type up something on the computer than hand-write it. I get a cramp when I have to write absent-from-school notes for my kids. And I'd a thousand times over rather send an e-mail then make a phone call. I'm all about convenience and using the tools at our disposal to make our lives easier.

But I draw the line at E-Thank You notes.

My son recently attended a birthday party - invite issued via E-Vite of course. I actually have no problems with E-Vite because it's a nice way to see who else was invited to the party, who's going and who's not, which comes in very handy when you are trying to arrange carpools or to instruct your kids on how it is not polite to discuss invitations in front of others who might not have received them. I embrace the E-Vite.

But just today I got a thank-you note for the gift we gave via an E-Thank You Card issued through American Greetings electronic cards website. WTF?

Sure, the thank you card had a cute little animated doggy who barked at me. And sure, it's greener to send e-things instead of flesh-and-blood paper products because no trees were sacrificed nor landfills filled in thanking me for my gift (don't talk about the gift-wrapping used to wrap said gift).

But how much more impersonal can you get? The same E-Thank You Card was sent en masse to all of the kids who went to this party. It is in no way customized. "You" were thanked for "your gift" and "your attendance" at the party. "You" could have been a hoard of soldier ants and "your gift" could have been a bag of fake doggie poo or a brand new car.

I get it that the art of letter writing has pretty much gone the way of the Dodo bird. I'm guilty of that myself. I'd rather e-mail when I need to actually communicate with other human beings, and if I can't get away with that - ex: Holiday Cards - I will type up a generic letter, mass produce it, and send it out with perhaps a single line of personalization.

But I draw the line at mass-produced thank you notes. What a smack in the face to someone who took the time to think up an appropriate gift, drive about locating said gift and then wrap it all in an effort to make some else's special event, well, special.

My kids are always required to hand-write thank you cards. I cheat and give them a template written out that they can copy over and over - Dear So-and-So, Thank you for the X. I'm so glad you came to my party/I plan to spend the money on/I can't wait to see you... Your Friend... But at least they are required to spend some of their time sitting at the table, carefully penning out the note, putting it in an envelope, addressing it, and mailing it. They are demonstrating that they appreciate the time and effort that whoever took to get them a gift by giving back some of their own time to offer thanks.

What's even more amazing is that E-Thank You Cards are actually a full step below what I had once thought of as the rock-bottom, can-you-give-any-less-effort method of offering a Thank You short of not sending a note at all (don't get me started on people who don't acknowledge a gift at all, especially one that has been shipped and thus could ostensibly never arrive without anyone ever being the wiser). At one point, I was scandalized by the photocopied, generic "Thank you for coming to my party and for my gift" cards that we would get in the mail. And these were a full step down from the preprinted thank you cards that had a blank line to be filled in after the "Dear" and the "Thank you for" so you could sort-of customize them without having to actually do any real work. The fill-in-the-blank cards I could even excuse because usually they came from very small children who could manage to maybe write their own names, so this was as much as they could do and I can't ask for more than that. And at least with those cards you had to stuff the envelopes, address them, hunt up stamps and find an ever-more-endangered mailbox.

With E-Thank You Cards you're talking the thirty seconds to type up one message to cover everyone and his/her gift and another thirty to specify e-mail addresses and poof! you're finished. I truly cannot think of less effort needed short of sending out a blanket e-mail without even the fancy card facade. I'm sure that's coming around the corner soon.

Sad.

While I embrace an age that allows me to watch 999,999 different movies and TV shows without ever having to get off of my couch (love my new Apple TV!!), there are definite drawbacks. I can accept a fat butt, but loss of the niceties of society should be one of them.

Something Frivolous

2010-10-10T21:41:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to have a post on the very special date of 10/10/10. It's kind of like wanting to see your odometer roll past the 99,999 miles mark.

The Complete Stranger In the Drawing Room with the Candlestick

2010-09-28T09:27:00.003-05:00

I just finished Cold Sight by Leslie Parrish. For the first time in memory, I actually enjoyed the mystery plot far more than the romantic plot - I actually skimmed much of the relationship stuff - up until the very end of the book. However, I'm very glad I read it because I learned something very important about the art of writing good, spine-tingling suspense.

The story is about reporter Lexie Nolan who is currently in the reporter dog house after an investigation she conducted of the disappearance of close to twenty teenage girls ended nowhere. Local law enforcement is not only unhelpful but downright hostile over Lexie's suggestions that their small town is anything but safe and that if the missing girls had been from the upper class side of town rather than from the Boro - on the wrong side of the tracks - perhaps they'd take her fears that a serial killer is at work seriously. Thankfully, Lexie has an extremely smart and understanding boss, and when he receives a tip about some human remains found just outside of town, he insists that Lexie get back on the case, especially since another girl, Vonnie, has just gone missing and there still might be time to help her.

Stuck at a dead end and with no help at all from the police chief, Lexie decides to seek out the help of disgraced psychic Aidan McConnell, a man who hates reporters on principle and based on his own bad experiences. After a search for a missing boy ended tragically, Aidan has determined never again to use his gifts as a means to find anyone since he doesn't want to be responsible for anyone else's fate or pain. At first he flat out refuses to even speak to Lexie, but slowly he finds himself compelled to help find the missing girl.

As Lexie and Aidan begin to dig into the town's dark history, they learn that the disappearance of teenage girls is only the tip of the iceberg. Prominent and supposedly upstanding citizens of the community have been engaging in acts of unspeakable evil for decades, and it appears that those missing girls are, indeed, the victims of a serial killer left to attack again and again. Lexie and Aidan race against the clock to solve the mystery while Vonnie's future becomes more and more uncertain.

Okay, going forward there are very mild SPOILERS, but if, given that this is a romantic suspense book and thus, by nature, builds on suspense and reader ignorance, those who don't want any ideas of what happens should stop reading now.

Like I mentioned above, the romance that develops between Lexie and Aidan was the aspect of the book that least compelled me. Honestly, whenever the story deviated from the search for Vonnie and the serial killer, I skimmed. I liked Lexie well enough as a character even if I found Aidan somewhat generic, but I had absolutely no interest or investment in whether or not these two found an HEA together.

I did, however, find the race to find the serial killer much more intriguing. Vonnie is given several POV passages, and I admired her determination to triumph over the psychopath who had snatched her off the street. Too, when another somewhat secondary character is brutally murdered, I found myself actually brought to tears which rarely ever happens to me when reading these types of books. I cared about the direct victims of the serial killer.

I found the somewhat secondary mystery about the depraved members of The Club to be unnecessary. Seems that a small town with a serial killer in residence has plenty of evil to keep everyone busy, thus having a group of men who engage in despicable acts has almost a kitchen sink feel to it. Too, a premise that rich deserves an entire book all its own.

My biggest quibble with the book, however, was the final reveal of who the serial killer turned out to be. I don't want to give the plot away, but the serial killer turned out to be a character who I felt came out of nowhere. This meant that there was no moment of shock, no sense that I'd come to know this character the way the townfolk had and never in a million years would have suspected that person of such horror. Honestly, the impact on learning the identity of the serial killer was no worse for me than if the serial killer had been a drifter who'd roamed into town and taken victims randomly instead of with deliberate perverseness and evil. Best I can describe it is some form of deus ex machina.

All of this has made me realize what a fine hand it takes to write such books well. There has to be a population of characters large enough to hide the villain in plain sight naturally, yet not so many people that the number of red herrings becomes ridiculous or you need a white board to chart who is related to whom and how. The reader needs a chance to meet the villain as he or she lives among normal people, needs to see him or her as the protagonists do as well as the darker side that allows him or her to engage in acts of pure evil.

Because that is the true spine-chilling aspect of any kind of crime novel - the idea that danger lurks in the most innocuous of places. That people we put our trust in can become the monsters that we fear the most. We all have heard the stranger danger lectures and hopefully have enough common sense to avoid walking alone at night in strange places, to lock our doors and windows, and to be aware of what goes on around us. It's when we have our guard down, when we are most vulnerable, and bad things happen that we feel the deepest sense of terror.

While Cold Sight kept me turning pages at a furious pace, I admit that in the end, I felt let down. The build up fizzled like a balloon pricked by a pin, and I was left wondering if I'd skipped over some key part where the serial killer had made an important appearance to let me know that they even existed in the story world.

In reading this book, I did learn something about the craft of storytelling, which is why writers need to be readers first and foremost.

Okay, Thanks?

2010-09-28T08:16:00.001-05:00

My blog has been included on this list of "50 Best Blogs for Creative Writers" at bestcollegesonline.com. I don't know how I ranked inclusion, but given the company I keep is Paperback Writer and Pocket Full of Words, I certainly won't ask questions. I check both of those blogs on a daily basis and recommend them highly as places for great advice on the art of writing.

I'm more excited to check out the other links on list. I'm always happy to find resources for writing advice. Bits and pieces here and there really add up.

The Freaks Come Out Again

2010-09-20T10:01:00.002-05:00

First, read this.

*sigh*

One of my favorite movies is The American President, and one of my favorite scenes in the movie is when President Andrew Shepard (aka, Michael Douglas) gives a speech in front of the press in which he delivers a major smackdown to a Senator Bob Rumson (aka Richard Dreyfuss) who has been publicly maligning his character. In this speech is this bit that I love:

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil. Who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

So, while I fully understand on an intellectual level that Mr. Scroggins has a right to believe whatever he wants and to express that opinion in whatever way he wants, it sure is hard to remember what it means to be an American especially when the street is only running in one direction. If I have to respect his right to not read something that he finds offensive (?!?), then why doesn't he have to respect my right - and the right of every other American - to read whatever we choose?

The nice thing about that above little snippet: As Americans, we have to respect our fellow countrymen's rights. However...

...we don't have to respect them as people. Which is a good thing because my respect for Mr. Scroggins is in the negative numbers. Clearly he has never read Speak, the book he is trying to have banned, because he would know that it is about as far from pornography as it is possible to get. How dare he judge something he himself has never read and then attempt to enforce that judgment on others?

...we don't have to like people like Mr. Scroggins. Which is a good thing because it is fundamentally impossible for me to like anyone who presumes to tell me what to do, what I can or can't read, that I'm a bad person because I don't share the same beliefs. Or a man who insists that he knows better than I do what is right for my children and would deny them anything that is their right to have, including the right to read whatever they want. People have gone to war to protect the rights of their children.

...we are allowed to form opinions about people such as Mr. Scroggins and his beliefs and express them on blogs such as this and in letters to the editor and in any way that makes our voices louder than his. Yay free speech!

...we are allowed to employ our own religious beliefs and tenants to come to the conclusion that Mr. Scroggins does not represent the true spirit of Christianity, that he clearly has no clue What Jesus Would Do, and that what goes around comes around, Karma is a bitch, and St. Peter has made note of this and will most definitely have words with Mr. Scroggins when he goes knocking on those pearly gates.

...we are allowed to speculate what kind of psychological issues Mr. Scroggins must suffer given that he equates the brutal horror that is rape with the titillating nature of pornography. I'm sorry, Mr. Scroggins, for the traumas you must have suffered in your past that have given you such a twisted and unhealthy view of human sexuality. I also ask you to stay very far away from my family and friends.

...we are allowed to ask what kind of person could call himself moral when he advocates the blame-the-victim mentality that causes rape victims to remain quiet about a violent, cruel crime committed against them. We are allowed to worry about the women in Mr. Scroggins life knowing that he would show them the same lack of compassion and human empathy should they ever - God forbid - suffer such a horror.

...we are allowed to call Mr. Scroggins un-American and question his patriotism. Banning books is about as un-American as you can get. It goes against everything we stand for - freedom of people to determine what is best for themselves and their families as long as they do not hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. With his crusade to ban Speak and other books, he's stomping all over my rights.

...we are allowed, in fact, to imply that Mr. Scroggins' thinking is far more in-line with those of members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda given that he proposes nothing less than a government and legal system based on a slate of fundamental religious "laws". Gah! What's next, Mr. Scroggins? You planning to make your fortune selling burkas?

...we are allowed to read Speak and to encourage our teens to read Speak. I own a copy and when my daughter is a bit older and more mature, I will encourage her to read it.

And in that way, we will be victorious over petty tyrants such as Mr. Scroggins and his posse of fellow book banners.

God Bless America.

Write Like You're Dying

2010-09-07T10:32:00.003-05:00

I sometimes wonder what my family would do with all of my writing things if I suddenly died.

My husband is generally not the nostalgic type, and despite my certainty that he would be sad about my passing, I can't imagine him holding on to my writing stuff as some sort of shrine or tribute to my memory. He hates clutter and I would suspect he'd sweep the contents of my shelves into the garbage without a thought, although I'd at least hope he'd go for recycling all of the paper and giving the empty binders to Goodwill or something.

I wonder if anyone - my kids or my mother - might take the time to read my notes or the pages of various manuscripts that I've printed out. I have everything very nicely organized, with each story idea in its own binder or folder. I wonder if they'd be able to understand my plans or make enough sense out of my notes and scribbles that they'd be able to see what story I'd wanted to tell. Maybe they'd shake their heads sadly and determine that I'd been completely delusional about ever thinking I could be published. I like to think they'd shake their heads sadly and think what a waste it was that I never finished what I'd started or that I didn't have the chance to get all of those stories out of my brain and onto paper.

As morbid as this line of thinking is, I've been doing it more recently because the uncertainty of life has been smacking me in the face. My father is currently undergoing treatment for leukemia, a battle he's been fighting for almost a year now. Cancer is one illness that had never struck my family until now, so I'm getting my first taste of how this disease completely and totally takes over your life. Plans implode and intentions for projects disappear in a poof. Between the constant exhaustion and the side effects from the drugs and the trips to the doctor and the time spent in the hospital, there simply isn't time or energy to do much other than survive the day.

To punctuate this reality, the gals over at Smart Bitches posted a tear-jerking video made by an Australian man who has cancer as a birthday gift for his wife. I was so moved by the video that I found his website and am determined to follow him as he fights for his life. Hard to believe I could care so much about what happens to a complete stranger, but my heart goes out to him and his family, and I pray for his recovery.

Finally, Adele over at Persnickety Snark recently posted about her frustrations and despair over the status of her writing, and I find that her thoughts very closely echo my own. Between a lack of discipline and a crisis of confidence, I'm doubting my ability to ever become a successful writer. It's very embarrassing to have friends and family ask me about my writing and to have no good news or even a decent excuse as to why it's going so slowly other than that I'm a slacker.

So I think about all of those partials sitting in various stages on my shelves or residing in the folders on my laptop's hard drive and I think what a shame it would be if something happened that I couldn't finish all of the things I started. Or if all of those stories in my head never got told and died along with me. Surely I don't think that I would be changing the world by putting them on paper, but how sad if I didn't at least try to share them in some way, to leave behind that part of me as some sort of legacy for my kids.

Clearly the gods are conspiring to remind me that the time we have is limited, and waiting until tomorrow is a risky thing to do because you never know what's going to come at you. If for no other reason than to leave behind stuff that my husband might be reluctant to toss, I need to finish what I start.

I Stand Alone

2010-08-26T09:16:00.004-05:00

True confession time: I did not absolutely love The Hunger Games.

Not to say I didn't like it. But I didn't love it. I don't think it's the best Young Adult book ever written.

And...*taking a deep breath*...I might not read Mockingjay.

Perhaps the problem was that I read HG right after I read Graceling, which I absolutely adored. In comparison between the two, I prefer Graceling across the board. I like Katsa better than Katniss. I got tingles over the Katsa/Po romance whereas I honestly don't care who Katniss ends up with, Peeta or Gale (although I'm leaning towards Gale). I prefer the imaginary world of the Seven Kingdoms over the dystopia of Panem. The villain in Graceling was a thousand times scarier than the anonymous population of The Capitol.

And I found myself sitting on the edge of my seat during most of Graceling whereas I had a hard time accepting the premise as a whole of HG. Somehow the idea of an oppressive, cruel government that actually gets away with making its citizens sacrifice their children to death doesn't inspire enough suspension of disbelief for me. The entire time I was reading HG, I kept thinking of the short story by Shirley Jackson, The Lottery, which more effectively portrayed the concept of random selection of a human sacrifice, IMO.

Perhaps HG was doomed to fail for me because of all of the hype surrounding it. My daughter has read both HG and Catching Fire and loved both. Not to mention all of the internet chatter. My expectations were incredibly high and practically impossible to meet. Like I said, I did like HG. It's well written and compelling. It just didn't send me into a frenzy.

I'm about a third of the way through Catching Fire, and at this point, I just don't see myself finishing it. I'll pick up Mockingjay for my daughter, but I might not read it myself. I feel kind of guilty about this, as if by reading HG I committed to the series as a whole and if I don't see it all the way through, I'm some kind of quitter. Or perhaps I'm holding out hope that once I've finished the entire trilogy, the story as a whole will benefit from some amount of synergy.

On a different topic: I found something quite disturbing in my library the other day - this book: Twilight and History by Nancy Reagin.

Are you kidding me?

Okay, I get that the Twilight saga is a pop culture phenomenon. I get that many people love the books passionately, and I'll even admit to enjoying the first book. The movies are entertaining, and no one should feel guilt in admitting that she (or he) has gotten caught up in the Team Edward/Team Jacob debate. Whatever floats your boat.

But the idea that this series is being treated as some kind of literary classic worthy of serious research and discussion kind of turns my stomach.

A Bad Thing I Think

2010-08-20T20:13:00.001-05:00

My new obsession is the video for Eminem's song, "Love the Way You Lie." I'm not going to post it here directly for fear the video will be pulled, but you can find an article with the vid in it at EW.com.

I first heard this song in the car, and I was captured by Rihanna's haunting chorus. I figured out pretty easily that it was Eminem doing the rap because he always sounds so angry. But as I listened to the actual lyrics, I was horrified. The song is about domestic violence and is very intense.

Then I came across the EW article and actually watched the video. Oh my god. I'm am utterly transfixed by it. I can't tell you how many times I've watched it.

The question posed - does this video glorify domestic violence - is so very valid. Despite the horror of the situation being depicted in both the song itself and the video, the images of Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan are very compelling, very sexy and do in a way glorify DV by almost excusing it as a by-product of intense passion and all-consuming love. When I imagine the stereotype of a DV situation, it certainly doesn't feature a Hollywood-beautiful couple or the desperate love-making in between the bouts of beating the crap out of each other. Heck, my imaginings don't usually include any "each other" in it always seems to be the husband/boyfriend doing most of the beating. When I hear the words "domestic violence" in the news or other real-world situations, my first and only reactions are sadness, disgust and outrage. So why, then, doesn't this video evoke those same feelings?

Funny, though, how too often it's easy to excuse violence as a symptom of great passion. This video and song makes me think of another violence-turns-to-sex scene. In the sixth season episode "Smashed" of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Spike and Buffy are battling it out with no holds barred when things take a sudden turn. The subsequent heat between them is absolutely electric. I know it's very wrong to find anything about that scenario acceptable - and I certainly do not excuse, condone or accept DV in any real-world situation - but I can't help myself for liking that scene so very much.

I honestly don't understand why.

Because I Couldn't Care More

2010-08-16T17:35:00.002-05:00

This video warmed my heart immensely. The whole mis-saying of the phrase "she/he/you/I couldn't care less" drives me bonkers.

Holy Cow

2010-08-13T13:05:00.001-05:00

I just finished reading Kristin Cashore's Graceling. I'm kind of numb. This book was amazing. A can't-put-it-down, forget all things in real life so I can keep reading, want to pick it up and reread it immediately stunner. And the shame of it is, it's been sitting on my TBR shelves for over a year.

I won't even go into the details here since there are a gazillion reviews out there. Just to say, add me to the list of people who can't recommend this book highly enough. It's just hit my top 10 best books I've ever read list.

The Illusive Nature of Some Good UST

2010-08-11T20:20:00.004-05:00

I've discovered a new show this summer. It's a new show to everyone and so I've jumped on board at the beginning, but I hope a lot of people like it enough that it goes on for many many season. The show is Covert Affairs and it airs on Tuesday nights on the USA network. It's a lot like my other favorite USA show, Burn Notice, with great characters, a premise I like, and is overall, I find, very enjoyable.

The show follows new CIA operative Annie Walker. Played by the very pretty Piper Perabo, Annie has just graduated from CIA training on The Farm and is now working in the Domestic Protection Department, which I have to assume is a completely fictional division of the CIA. Ostensibly, the DPD handles cases in which people of CIA interest (read: bad guys, terrorists, arms dealers, spies from enemy countries, etc.) threaten the US directly. Whatever. I'm good with just keeping it at Annie is a new spy.

What keeps CA from being Alias 2.0 is Annie's rookie status. She's learning on the job, and it's fun to watch her fumble around a bit. Piper wears an almost perpetual look of amazement and questioning which gives Annie an additional air of confusion and niavete. But she's smart and quick and manages to get out of most jams by using her brains and her training.

Honestly, though, what keeps me waiting anxiously for Tuesday nights in Christopher Gorham's exquisite character, Auggie Anderson. I was not an Ugly Betty fan, nor did I watch Kyle 2.0, so Chris Gorham is a new find for me. He's beyond adorable, and he's my new TV crush.

Auggie is the coolest of the cool characters. First of all, he's blind. There's some debate on how this happened - whether Auggie was a Special Forces soldier or a CIA operative when he was injured on a mission in Iraq. Either way, he's been blinded and so is no longer able to be out in the field, a limitation that Auggie does not appreciate and is fighting against vehemently. Still, Auggie's blindness is only one tiny aspect of his personality. It does not define him any more than a person's brown hair or 5' 6" height defines them. He's a ladies man, very funny and insanely smart. Love him.

Auggie works in the tech support department of the DPD. He's the gadget guy, the computer whiz and the old pro who is helping Annie navigate her way through the office politics of the CIA as well as helping her keep her wits about her when she's out in the field. From day one, the two have been throwing off sparks like fireworks. The chemistry between Auggie and Annie (and actors Piper and Christopher) is smoking, and I've already started construction on the Good 'Ship A/A.

Except TPTB have given Annie some other romantic prospects. As part of her backstory, Annie had a three week affair with a mystery man named Ben Mercer whom she fell very much in love with before he just disappeared. In fact, it was this event that pushed her into joining the CIA. Mercer is still in the picture, we viewers just don't know exactly in what capacity yet. We do know that he showed up once in the nick of time to keep Annie from being shot in the head, but Annie didn't know it was Ben who saved her.

Too, TPTB have stocked the DPD with another potential Annie Love Interest in the form of Jai Wilcox (played by sexy Sendhil Ramamurthy). Jai has been instructed by Annie's bosses to get close to her, ostensibly because of Annie's history with Ben Mercer. In this week's episode, Jai and Annie began to flirt just the tiniest bit and look to become good friends at the very least.

Still, of the three men, Auggie, Ben and Jai, I argue that the most authentic attraction is between Annie and Auggie by far. I have absolutely no idea how this show will play out and who, if anyone, Annie will ultimate end up with. But anything short of Auggie and Annie will feel forced to me.

Which leads to my title, the presence of major UST - whether intentional on the part of the writers or not - is a pretty powerful thing. I don't know if it's the Piper/Christopher connection at work or if the actors are just very good, but I don't think you can fake that kind of thing. You've either got it or you don't. It either works or it doesn't.

A lot of other shows have tried to create the UST and have missed the mark. The Castle/Beckett pairing on Castle is a perfect example. I like both characters and enjoy the show. But I sense absolutely no chemistry, not a single iota of UST between Castle and Beckett (or, conversely, actors Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic). I know intellectually that we are supposed to want these two to get together, but honestly, I don't care. There's nothing there that I can see between them.

Same thing with Michael and Fiona on Burn Notice. I've always loved Michael and over the course of four seasons have even come to like Fiona. But there is simply no chemistry between them. Sure, they've had some sexy scenes together. And you can definitely tell they really care about each other. But something is missing, some inexplicable force that just means they simply must be together. Again, it could be a lack of chemistry between Jeffery Donovan and Gabrielle Anwar.

Ditto Dr. Hank Lawson and Jill Casey from Royal Pains. The two were supposed to be really hot for each other, but I got nothing from them. I think the show's writers noticed the lack of chemistry because this season they've introduced a new love interest for Dr. Hank in fellow doctor Emily Peck. Perhaps they are thinking some kind of love triangle might fill in whatever it is that's missing, but I would argue that actors Mark Feuerstein and Jill Flint just don't have the necessary chemistry. The couple that DOES have the chemistry is Evan Lawson (Paolo Costanzo) and Divya Katdare (Reshma Shetty). Their relationship has enough UST for the entire show.

Another fledgling show that I've been liking a lot also has a pairing that works. The growing heat between homicide detective Jim Longworth and medical student Callie Cargill on The Glades is full of all sorts of UST. It just works.

So, I'm going to keep tuning in to Covert Affairs and appreciate every step on the road to Annie and Auggie finally resolving some of that UST. Because truly, stuff like that is lightning in a bottle.

No Sequel Necessary

2010-08-08T21:24:00.002-05:00

Today on the trip to take my son to camp, we listened to the audio book, Hatchet by Gary Paulson. I very much enjoyed the story, so much so in fact that even after dropping my son off, I found I couldn't wait an entire week when I picked him up again to listen to the rest of the tale. I'd checked the audio book out of the library thinking he might like it (I'm forever trying to find books he will like) and that I would probably have to suffer through it, but it turns out this is a great read for all ages.

The story revolves around a 13 year old boy named Brian who finds himself stranded in the Canadian wilderness after the pilot who is flying Brian to visit his newly divorced father suffers a heart attack and dies. All alone, lost, badly battered from the plane crash and with nothing more than a small hatchet his mother had given him, Brian has to figure out how to survive. Somehow he has to manage to find water and food, build a shelter, and protect himself from wild animals ranging from what at first seems like a harmless skunk all the way up to a black bear and even a mean moose. Through the experience, Brian comes to learn that the only one he has to rely on is himself but perhaps that's enough.

The story is fabulously told, although Paulson tends to repeat words and phrases for effect which I think would be fine when reading (your eyes would just skip over those repetitions, I imagine) but that tend to become tiresome when read out loud. Too, a sort of mini sub-plot involving Brian's parents' recent divorce and the fact that Brian had witnessed his mother kissing another man and was keeping this horrible secret kind of led nowhere and felt wholly intrusive to the main story. Still, the fabulous actor Peter Coyote narrated, and his gravely voice really fit the rough story, and by the time it was over I found a running parallel between Brian's journey and the journey all mankind seems to have taken from the discovery of fire all the way through modern times.

The rest of this entry after the break contains discussion that would SPOIL the ending of Hatchet, so if you don't want to be SPOILED (and I recommend not being spoiled), then stop reading now. Stand warned - SPOILERS AHEAD!

When I got home, I got on line to learn more about this book, and I discovered that there are actually three "sequel" books that follow Brian after he is rescued. And to be honest, I was kind of disappointed about this.

Now, I do admit that I would love for Paulson to have written a bit more on the ending of Hatchet. I wanted to know how Brian handled returning to civilization, to get a description of his reunion with his parents and how it felt to eat real food again. As it was, the ending did contain an epilogue that gave a tiny glimpse into Brian's future, but it simply wasn't enough after the harrowing ordeal I'd gone through with this character.

Even so, I can't imagine that any sequels would be very good. The point of the first book was to see what would happen when a young boy is thrust into the wilderness, alone, unprepared and with no hope of rescue. That story was told and told well, and there really isn't any more story left. I can only imagine any sequels would put Brian back into similar situations, and that would stretch my disbelief too far. Could it happen to a kid once, that he got stranded in the wilderness? Sure. Twice? I don't think so.

These sequels might be amazing. They might be great books. But I don't want to read them. I'm afraid they'll do what the final two Twilight books did and ruin the first for me irrevocably. I'd rather just think of Hatchet as a fantastic stand alone book.

A New American Hero

2010-08-06T12:03:00.004-05:00

I've been reading many news articles about California's U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's recent overturning of Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriages. I'll state right now, up front, that I find Walker to be a true hero. His arguments are well thought out and articulated and nail the situation on the head. Good on him. Proposition 8 is not only mean-spirited and an unapologetic expression of homophobia which should cause all of those who voted in favor of it to hang their heads in shame for such malice toward their fellow human beings, it was truly pointless. As Judge Walker stated, this Proposition benefits no one in any proven way and serves only to validate the delusional superiority its proponents obviously feel.

Seriously, I would love to know exactly what Prop 8 folks think to gain by this law. Are they worried that if gay people can marry, somehow they will get less of the pie? Will their homes be taken from them? Will their children starve? Will they lose their jobs, will they begin to bald, will their pets run away and never come home? Will the love that they feel for their own spouse and vice versa disappear in a puff of smoke or become meaningless? Do they think that love and marriage are a limited commodity and if gay people are allowed to take their fair share, there will be less to go around for the rest of us? Like, if ten same-sex couples get married, that means that ten hetero couples can't? How very self-interested and egomaniacal of them.

I have yet to read a single pro-Prop 8 viewpoint that in any way explains why or how approval of same-sex marriage affects traditionally married people. Or why it's any of their business in the first place. Rather than putting so much money, energy, ire and hair-rending over whether two guys or two girls get married, an event that can surely have no direct affect on their lives in any way, why don't all of those Prop 8 cheerleaders shake their pom poms over the disgraceful state of America's educational system or solving the growing energy crisis. Why not do something that will actually result in positive change for everyone involved?

Too, I would say to those hetero-married couples who spew their propaganda about Prop 8 being the way to maintain the sacredness of marriage, once you all get it 100% perfect, then I'll listen to what you have to say. When all hetero marriages never end in divorce, when there is never any spousal or child abuse or neglect, when hetero-couple children all get perfect grades, never get into trouble, and go off to college to become perfect citizens of the world, when there is no alcohol or drug abuse, no cheating, no murder/suicides found within any hetero marriage, then I think it's fair that we let them determine what is necessary to make a perfect, socially desirable union between two consenting people. Until that time, stop throwing rocks around your glass houses.

What really strikes me in everything I read is pro-Prop 8 people who make the argument that this ban was "desired" by the majority as proven by its passing after a democratic vote, therefore no judge should have the power to overturn what the majority so obviously wanted. To which I say, wha - TF? I'm sorry, what country is this that we live in? United States of the Taliban where the morals of some can be inflicted on the whole by virtue of enough bullying?

First of all, people seem to be forgetting that America is not a true Democracy but rather a Republic (and thank god for that). In order to protect individuals and minority groups from the Tyranny of the Majority, the Founding Fathers put a lot of thought and planning into how to structure our government so that a large group of people could not inflict whatever they wanted on everybody else. You can find a very good (and highly detailed) description of the differences between Democracy and a Republic here, but I for one send up an endless litany of thank yous to those old fogeys of The First Big Thirteen for getting it right.

If the ~~whine~~ argument of "that's what the majority wanted" held any validity, then by extension the Southern Baptist Convention could demand that the entire state of Mississippi - where it is the majority religion - convert to their belief system and, if they rallied every one of their eligible voting members, could win a "popular" vote in order to get its way. Except, dang, there's that whole pesky right guaranteed in the Constitution for religious freedom. Heck, maybe all of the hardcore fundamentalist might actually be a majority in the entire country and could put to a vote the overturning of that whole Freedom of Religion thing and, by winning that majority vote, make sure that we all become god fearing Christians.

My point is that you cannot vote on fundamental rights. That's why America is such a great place to live, a model to many countries and a place where we all brag about our liberties and freedoms. Just because a whole bunch of people want to inflict their morals and beliefs on everyone doesn't mean it will be so.

Even if none of the above were true, that "majority" is not, in truth, really a majority with any true accuracy. According to this snapshot from the US Census Bureau, the number of over-18 Californians (in other words, potential voters) is over 27 million. Only a tiny bit over half (13,743,177) of those people even voted on this issue, with the "winning majority" being a grand total of 7,001,084 people who wanted Prop 8 to pass. As far as my math skills tell me, 7 million people is not even close to half +1 of the voting population of California which would be the true majority. In truth, we all have absolutely no idea of what the "majority" wants or not since half of the people didn't bother to vote at all. All we can say with true certainty is that about 25% of Californians over the age of 18 supported Prop 8 enough to vote in favor of it. And since close to 24% of the people felt exactly the opposite, I think it's fair to to question the majority's real wishes.

Sidebar to say: Scary idea that 7 million people get to decide what rules all 27 million people must live by. A fabulous example of why it is critical to vote. Those who show up make the laws.

It will be interesting to watch this drama unfold. I'm hoping that by the time my kids have kids, homosexual people and couples will be regarded just as people. Because that's all they are. No more. Certainly no less.

Seriously? No, really, Seriously?

2010-07-19T18:19:00.004-05:00

From ParentDish talking about baby naming trends of 2010:

The #1 fastest rising girl's name is Tenley, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Kinley, Tinsley and Kinsley also made the top 20. Together, they point to a signature sound for the year's baby girls. Also keep an eye out for Everly, which placed two different spellings in the top 20.

For boys, the country's love affair with "-n" names is set to continue. More than half of the hottest rising boy's names end in that super-popular letter. Look for a fresh crop of surname names, too, especially luxurious ones like Sterling, St. John and Bentley.

People are really and truly giving their babies names like St. John and Tinsley?

Honestly, though, those are actually not bad when you consider the entire boys and girls lists which read like a Best Of Romance Novel Hits from the Late Great Bodice Ripping Era:

FASTEST-RISING GIRL'S NAMES
1. Tenley
2. Harper
3. Everleigh
4. Martina
5. Sookie
6. Navi
7. Charlotte
8. Eloise
9. Lorelai
10. Ursula
11. Briella
12. Kinley
13. Tinsley
14. Mhairi
15. Leighton
16. Maelle
17. Ever
18. Kinsley
19. Lux
20. Everly

FASTEST-RISING BOY'S NAMES
1. Castiel
2. Bentley
3. Eoin
4. Easton
5. Lucian
6. Aarav
7. Zion
8. St. John
9. Kaiden
10. Sterling
11. Callan
12. Leland
13. Harper
14. Mikah
15. Dashiell
16. Eliah
17. Dawson
18. Kayden
19. Lennon
20. Dorian

To be fair, this list supposedly demonstrates the names that people are most frequently searching for on a baby naming website, not necessarily the actual names they are giving their new babies. Still, I call foul on names like Ever, Lux, Castiel (shout out! to Supernatural), Zion and Easton. Heck, I can't pronounce girl names #14 and 16 or boy names 3 and 6.

How unfair to saddle a child with a name that will either 1) get him/her teased mercilessly by the other kids or 2) never be pronounced or spelled correctly, and 3) completely prohibits him/her from ever getting to buy a pre-printed pencil/bicycle license plate/keychain/other chotchke at the Cracker Barrel Country Store with his/her name on it.

One of my favorite naming books of all times is Linda Rosenkrantz and Pamela Redmond Satran's Beyond Ava & Aiden: The Enlightened Guide to Naming Your Baby (which, back in my day was called Beyond Jennifer and Jason: etc. which got modernized to Beyond Jennifer and Jason, Madison and Montana before arriving at Ava and Aiden some 15 years later). I love this book because beyond giving lists of names in alphabetical order or categorized by genre (flower names, saints' names, nationality-based names, etc.) and the meanings and/or history behind the names, this book analyzes what different types of names say about both the person who owns it and the parents who bestowed it upon their child. It also discusses naming trends and contains lists like "So Far In They're Out" where names that have gotten too popular reside, and "So Far Out They'll Never Be In" where names that fall into automatic geek-status land.

Rosenkrantz and Satran also put forth some really interesting theories, like the fact that trendy names are downwardly mobile and thus naming your child with a non-traditional but highly trendy name may one day mark him or her as having come from a lower socio-economic background. It seems that truly upper-class people (of the non-celebrity variety) actually tend to choose more traditional names for their kids.

They also talk about the problems with giving your child a more traditional name but trying to jazz it up by putting a unique twist on the spelling. All this does is doom your kid to a lifetime of having his/her name mispelled.

Now, I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to give their kid a special and unique name. But this list is really out there. It's kind of like teenagers getting tattoos. Sure, that full sleeve of ink or the giant serpent wrapped around some 18 year old's neck might seem cool today, and that pretty little butterfly on some 20 year old's firm left butt cheek is downright sexy. But when those kids grow up, that stuff is going to look pretty awful on a 50 year old dude or a saggy rear-end dimpled with cellulite. A little girl named Tenley might be oh-so-cute when she's heading off to kindergarten. But a sixty-five year old named Tenley showing up to renew her driver's license? Not so cute.

The other day I was in a Jimmy Johns waiting for our sandwiches to get made when I heard a young woman calling her toddler "Iowa". At least that little girl will have access to a butt load of stuff with her name printed on it.

Book Swapping

2010-07-16T17:05:00.002-05:00

About six months ago, I joined Paperback Swap. For those who've never heard about this program, it's a website devoted to helping people swap books - not only paperbacks - with other like-minded people. It's a great solution for what to do when you have a pile of books you know you will never read again yet cannot fathom throwing away.

I've tried taking unwanted books to the used book store, but the problem with this option is an overabundance of credit. My local UBS has a policy that all purchases can be made with no more than half credit. So if you have a purchase worth $20, the most credit you can use toward it is $10, the other $10 paid in cash, check or charge. Given the hit-or-miss nature of finding items I'm either looking for specifically or just find browsing, it takes me forever to use up my credit this way. I think between my daughter and myself, we have close to $100 of credit just lingering indefinitely.

I also took a stab at taking some books over to Half Price Books. They buy back used books, CDs, DVDs, etc. While it was nice to get cash for the items I'd brought in, I didn't really feel that I got their true value's worth - they paid me only a fraction of the cover price of each book using some formula they say is based on book popularity and current inventories. Whatever. I walked out of the store feeling slightly ripped off.

So I figured I'd give Paperback Swap a try. Basically, you post books you are willing to give away, a minimum of 16 titles to start off with, adding books as you have them. The books have to be in good condition, with no water damage or writing on pages or beat-up covers. You can post paperbacks, hardcovers, even audio books. Then you wait to see if anyone requests one of your titles. When that happens, you print out a pre-prepared "label" that includes the requestor's address and a suggested postage amount to send the book via media mail. In theory, the labels can be used to wrap up the book for mailing, but I find it a lot easier to use Tyvek envelopes which also add a level of waterproofing. You then trot yourself off to the post office and mail the book, paying the postage yourself.

Once the requestor has received the book, he or she alerts the PBS people that they are to give you a book credit, generally at the rate of one credit per book. Ostensibly, you will find books that you'd like to have and you use your credits to "purchase" them. The current owner pays the postage to ship it to you, theoretically creating a postage expenses wash all the way around.

The selection is a bit better, I would say, than what I find at my UBS. It's easy to browse since you can search via genre. The site's front page is a listing of newly posted titles, and I tend to find my selections there. One nice option is that if you want a particular title that no one is currently offering, you can put a wish call out for it with dibs on the first copy someone posts. Of course, some books have a waiting list.

To date, I've mailed out 13 books. One of these books got lost en route and never made it to the requestor, so I was out not only the book itself but the postage I'd paid to mail it and the book credit I didn't get since it never arrived. I've requested and received 9 books, most of them YA titles.

It's a good system, and my only real complaint is the hassles involved in both printing the labels and obtaining the postage for mailing out the books. For some reason we struggle to retain a working printer in this house, so I'm always having to hook up my laptop to a different machine to print out the labels. And it always seems that I print out any requests I have only to put away the printer just in time for another request to come through.

I've taken to prepurchasing media mail postage stickers in $2.50 amounts so that I don't have to go to the post office every time I need to mail another book. As long as your package weighs less than 13 oz. you can just drop it in any old mailbox. Otherwise it has to be mailed from the post office due to 9/11 security policies. Just this week I mailed five books to a person using a military address which required my filling out a customs form.

Another dumb problem I have is storing my PBS books before they are requested. I've pulled them off my bookshelves and have them neatly placed in a fancy basket, but the basket sits next to my desk in such a way as my husband is constantly asking when I'm going to put my junk away. I like to keep all of my shipping supplies together, and since I don't have my own office room, I haven't found the solution for storing this out of the way yet.

In the end, it's nice knowing my books are finding their way to a place where someone wants them. And I'm finding this is a great way to try out books by untested authors or that maybe I'm on the fence about yet can't find at my library. If you have a stack of unwanted books, I suggest you give it a try. It does require a small investment of time, but it's worth it.

Skip the Books, See the Movies

2010-07-07T17:56:00.002-05:00

Okay, I owed myself a follow-up post. I saw "Eclipse - the Movie" yesterday and at the risk of coming over all self-congratulatory, I have to say that I was 100% right. The movie version was a lot more palatable than the book. In fact, to anyone who has never read any of the books but wishes to know the story, I recommend you skip the reading and just go to the movies.

Without having to endure page after page of Bella's internal musings, she came across as a lot more conflicted about her choice between Jacob and Edward. Rather than a girl who is stringing two guys along, the movie and Kristin Stewart do a much better job showing how Bella does love both Jacob and Edward, although she admits that she loves Edward more. The book Bella is instead very whiny and wishy-washy about her feelings. Sometimes, as the case is here, a facial expression is worth many chapters of words and does a heck of a lot better making me not want to drop kick Bella Swan into the Pacific Ocean.

Another aspect I thought went over better in the movie was Bella's growing uncertainty about changing into a vampire. Time and again she's forced to face the aspects of her life that are going to change - no more seeing her mother in sunny Florida, saying good-bye to all of her friends, the worry that Charlie will go through when Bella "disappears", becoming a blood-thirsty newborn - and you can see that it causes her to begin to doubt her choice. Props again to Stewart for this fine bit of acting.

Both Jacob and Edward also improve in the movie over their literary counterparts. Jacob is a little bit less manipulative and borderline abusive although he still shows these tendencies. Edward is much less of a doormat and only a tad bit overbearing and oppressive. Funny how removing the filter of Bella's POV makes everything seem so much better.

A couple of things I didn't like in the movie: the introduction of Riley the Newborn Vampire Leader and Bree the Sequel Product Placement. Neither was necessary and since both die in the end - no Spoiler - you knew this would be the outcome - what was the point?

I also think Dakota Fanning deserves a Most Over-Hyped Guest Star Appearance statuette because I thought she was just awful. Her dialogue delivery was flat and wooden. I know some will argue that the character Jane is emotionless and wooden, but this just seemed like bad acting to me.

And the flashback scenes in which we learned both Rosalie and Jasper's backstories were only minimally interesting and ground the action to a screeching halt. Same thing with the whole Quileute Tribe History lesson wherein Bella is told to her face that the man she loves is an evil, soulless demon who deserves to die. Gee, thanks Jacob for inviting me to your big bonfire party.

Sidebar to say: who cast Nikki Reed as Rosalie? Rosalie is supposed to be the most beautiful creature Bella has ever seen, a beauty unlike any other woman, breathtaking and ethereal. Nikki is not ugly by any stretch, but she's just not drop-dead stunning like you'd expect from Rosalie. I think this was the only casting misstep in the movies so far, but it's pretty glaring.

Best part of the movie: By far Bella's father, Charlie, played by Billy Burke. He's got the best lines, all tossed out as throwaways but laugh out loud funny. I wished he could have been in every scene.

The tent scene was also highly entertaining but mostly because the hoyay was so thick, you wanted the director to find a way to just kill off Bella so that Jacob and Edward could be together. I also think Robert Pattinson did some of his best work of all three movies during this scene - he finally seemed to relax and enjoy himself.

One thing about that tent scene: In the book, I found the tent scene to be the most ridiculous one of maybe the entire series because Stephenie Meyer tried so hard to cheat her own POV rules. For almost three books we'd seen everything through Bella's first person point of view. Now Meyer needed Jake and Edward to have a conversation about Bella, so she has Bella be sort-of asleep, enough that she's not sure if she's dreaming but can still understand every word these guys say about her. That scene never should have been allowed in the book because it's ridiculous, forced and contrived. If she couldn't find a way to convey that same information via Bella's direct, first person POV fully-conscious experience, too bad for Meyer.

In the movie, the scene is kind of silly because these two guys are talking about this girl who's asleep between them. They gush on and on about how much they love her and how they are both willing to suffer great agonies and heartbreak if that's what it takes to make her happy. I threw up a little bit in my mouth because really, Bella is so not worth it. What in the world is it about this girl that has these two guys so jacked up?

In the end, "Twilight - the Movie" was as decent of an entry into the movie series as the other two films. If you're not a fan, you won't change your opinion. If you are a fan, you'll enjoy watching the scenes you know unfold visually.

ETA a teeny-tiny rant: I'd waited very patiently all weekend to see "Eclipse" because of how much I hate sitting in a movie theater with teenagers, especially teenage girls. I went to the earliest available showing on a Tuesday hoping to avoid chatty, giggling, texting girls. We got to the theater which was probably at least half full and found good seats second row from the very back, surrounded by empties. One minute before the show began a group of four teen girls and one boy came in and sat directly behind us. The girls kicked my seat and talked in full voice. The boy asked questions all through the movie. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being me ready to fetch the manager, they were only at about a 6. Still, I wanted to scream. I think I'm going to have to resign myself to DVDs.

Dear John Indeed

2010-07-05T12:43:00.004-05:00

Last night I watched the movie Dear John. I refused to see it in theatres on principle - I find Nicholas Sparks to be a douchebag based on interviews I've read, and since every single one of his books/movies ends in some tragic form or another, I already knew what would happen at the end of Dear John. I just wasn't up for that kind of downer.

But I do have enough of a thing for Channing Tatum to fork over $5 for a DVD rental. I did get my moneys worth out of torso shots and general Channing face time, so at least my time wasn't entirely wasted.

As for story, I wish I could say I was so blown away and moved that I've changed my mind about Sparks. Alas, this is not the case.

In a nutshell for anyone who has no idea (and yes, this does include SPOILERS):

Channing plays Green Beret soldier John Tyree, on leave at his home in Charleston in the spring of 2001 (date is important here!). While enjoying some surfing and the general beautifulness that is the beach, he comes to the aid of Savannah (played by Amanda Seyfried) when her purse falls into the ocean and John dives in to retrieve it. Savannah is a college student on a very long Spring Break. The two spend every minute together, and by the time Savannah must return to school, they are in love. John still has a year left on his current military tour, so they vow to write extensive letters back and forth and get together once he's back home for good, ostensibly to plan their happily ever after.

Things go according to plan until the 9/11 attacks. His sense of duty now ramped up, John decides to re-up with his unit, however not without a lot of internal conflict because it means another two years away from Savannah. Savannah is disappointed but understanding about his decision and the two continue their letter writing until all of the sudden, Savannah's letters stop coming. After over two months, John receives the literal "Dear John" letter in which Savannah tells him she's engaged to someone else. John is heartbroken.

Many years later, when John returns home to deal with his father's declining health and subsequent death, he learns that Savannah had married a long-time friend who'd been stricken with cancer. This man - Tim - has an autistic son, and apparently Savannah felt some sense of duty to marry this Tim and help him through his illness and to care for his kid. Savannah admits that she still loves John but she felt that this is just what she had to do. Meanwhile, she's struggling because Tim's cancer is getting worse but the insurance company won't pay for some experimental drug that might cure him/let him live longer.

As I understand it, in the book version, John sells his father's extensive coin collection and gives the money to Savannah, which allows her to pay for the drugs that end up curing Tim. John rides off into the sunset alone and heartbroken but at least feeling that he helped the woman he loved. The End.

In the movie, John sells his father's extensive coin collection and anonymously gives Savannah the money, which allows her to pay for the drugs that end up extending Tim's life long enough so that he can come home for a while to say his good-byes. Tim dies. The movie ends with John and Savannah meeting up - by accident or by design is left ambiguous - and the implication that now that both are free of obligations they can finally pursue that happily ever after. I think it's supposed to be a feel-good ending but somehow just left me feeling flat.

As a sidenote: the DVD does contain an alternative ending that follows the book's ending more closely, in which Tim lives, the end.

The problem with this whole premise - besides the predictable Sparks faux-tragic ending - is the weak motivation we're given for why Savannah married Tim. Now, I didn't read the book, and maybe it's better explained there. But in the movie version, we're never given any sense of why Savannah felt she just had to marry Tim to the detriment of her own happiness and the destruction of John's heart. Why she couldn't have just been a very good friend and taken care of Tim and his kid while she waited for John to get out of the military is never even explored.

And we are supposed to believe that these two have been pouring their hearts and souls out to each other in their letters. I would think that these letters would also include at least a bit of the mundane, the here's what's been going on in my life stuff that most people use to fill up sheet after sheet of writing paper. Are we supposed to buy the idea that never in any of her letters did Savannah mention what had been going on with Tim, how his situation was really causing her mental and emotional pain and turmoil? That she never cried on John's virtual shoulder on how she felt she just had to do something to help out this poor guy? As it was presented, Savannah's engagement came like a bolt of lightning from out of the blue.

The story is told from John's POV, so we don't see Savannah's side of things at all. I never for a second felt sorry for her or that she'd been put in a horribly unfair situation or that her sacrifice was actually a noble one. I was just pissed off that she left not only the guy who loved her but a soldier who risked his life every minute for his country and couldn't help that he wasn't around. Two years to wait for a love supposedly as wonderful as theirs didn't seem to be too much ask, IMO. More troubling to me for Savannah would be the pain of living in fear every day that John could be killed. Net net, the whole thing came off as looking like John loved Savannah way more than she ever loved him.

In fact, the more moving of the two relationships portrayed in the movie was the one between John and his father who appeared to have an obvious form of autism that was most likely never diagnosed given his age. The only tears I mustered during the whole movie was when John sat his father's side just before he died and the two finally, really connected.

I'm not a huge fan of movies/stories that depict great love with a tragic ending, but there are some that actually do work. I recall my sense of disbelief at the end of the movie Green Card when Gerard Depardieu's illegal alien character is deported back to France after his and Andie McDowell's marriage was found to be a green card sham despite the fact that the two had actually fallen in love. I hated the ending, but it made sense. It worked for that story. It didn't hurt that we viewers knew there was no reason she couldn't go to France to be with him.

Still, the tragic ending of Titanic also worked, and there was certainly no hope at all left that Rose and Jack would ever be together.

And to give props to Sparks even though it pains me, the ending of A Walk to Remember worked just fine. Granted, it was manipulative and unnecessary, but I cried anyway and didn't feel I'd been cheated.

I just didn't feel that Dear John's tragic ending had been earned. John's sacrifice of Savannah - a soldier giving up everything to fight for his country - was truly heroic. But Savannah's sacrifice of John to marry her friend Tim for no absolutely necessary reason just seemed cold and cruel on her part and made her a disloyal, unlikeable character.

I have no desire to read the book to determine if it was done better there. But my opinion of Sparks remains as it was before I watched the movie. Thank god for Channing Tatum's bare torso.

Better On Celluloid Than On Paper

2010-06-30T16:42:00.000-05:00

I haven't seen "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" movie yet - I'm holding out hope that I can figure out which of this weekend's showing times will contain the least number of chatty girls - so I'll have to come back and follow up to this post with an answer to what I'm about to propose.

But I'm proposing right now that, in the end, the Twilight series makes for better movies than books.

Now, hear me out. The first Twilight book is, IMO of course, a wonderful book. I enjoyed it thoroughly, unashamedly, and have no problems admitting I couldn't wait to read the next installment, New Moon. I think the book trumps the first Twilight movie although I also think the movie treated the book fairly as far as interpretations go (if you care, you can see what I thought here).

However, after New Moon the Book, I feel that the third and fourth books took serious nose dives in terms of, well, pretty much every aspect. The plots were forced, the characters unrecognizable, and, at least in Breaking Dawn, the whole premise gone to crap. Within the pages of Eclipse, Bella turned into a whiny, self-centered brat, Edward became not much more than a doormat and Jacob an outright bully, and the whole WTF? love triangle between the three main characters completely diluted the supposedly soul-mate pureness of the Edward/Bella pairing and almost nearly destroyed any ability for me to reread Twilight ever again. I won't even speak of my loathing for the whole Renesmee/imprinting garbage - I couldn't even finish Breaking Dawn.

However, I think that New Moon the Movie did a lot to make the Edward/Bella/Jacob love triangle believable. Maybe that's because we weren't subjected to all of the endless goings-on in Bella's mind that we got in Twilight/New Moon the Books about how Edward is/was/ever will be for all eternity the one and only true love of Bella's life. The movie did a better job defining the friendship between Bella and Jacob and creating a foundation on which we might believe that their feelings for each other go deeper. I can believe that Movie Bella is actually conflicted in her choice between Edward and Jacob. Book Bella just came off as looking ungrateful, disloyal, and a first class tease. (FYI, My review of New Moon the Movie is here.)

I'm going out on a limb to say that Eclipse the Movie will only strengthen this viewpoint. Unlike we did in the book, the movie won't require us to slog through page after page of Bella's thoughts about how much she loves Edward-and-only-Edward only to then completely negate all of that when, oops, all of the sudden she thinks maybe she could be in love with Jacob after all. Instead we'll see her interacting with Edward and interacting with Jacob and, wow, two hunky guys, what girl wouldn't be a bit confused?

Like I said, I owe myself a follow-up to this post. But I propose that when it's all said and done, the four Twilight films will at least present characters who remain consistent and a plot that flows somewhat believably. As it is now, I've decided to pretend that Eclipse and Breaking Dawn the books were never written. The fact that I couldn't even finish Breaking Dawn the Book yet I do look forward to the Breaking Dawn the Movies speaks volumes.

What, No Red-Blonde Actresses In All the Land?

2010-06-22T13:02:00.006-05:00

After finding an old-school cover edition of The Thorn Birds at Costco, I've been rereading this epic novel over the past few days. I absolutely love Colleen McCullough's voice and writing style: the story goes down like a smooth, creamy milkshake.

I remember watching the mini-series starring Rachel Ward and Richard Chamberlain. I don't recall if I first read the book, then watched the mini-series or vice versa back in the day. I do know that having watched the mini-series is seriously affecting my current re-reading of the book because I cannot get out of my head the images of the two actors playing Meggie and Fthr. Ralph. As pretty as Rachel is and as handsome as Richard was in his younger days, neither actor fits the description from the book, and it's very distracting for me.

Father Ralph de Bricassart is described as an incredibly beautiful man. This handsomeness is a great source of most of his misery since it incites in Mary Carson a lust so overwhelming that she becomes the world's most evil spurned-woman when he turns down her advances. No matter to her that he's a priest or that he's forty some odd years younger than she is. She wants the dude and his refusal to accept her invitation into her bed results in some major life-long suffering on his part.

[Sidebar to say that Mary Carson's lust for the much younger Fthr. Ralph is a serious Eeew! moment in the book, only slightly more creepy than the fact that Fthr. Ralph ultimately ends up falling in love with the girl he meets when she's only nine and he's in his late twenties. For crying out loud, the man explains menstruation to the girl and then ends up sleeping with her. Still, it's a great story!]

Now, Richard Chamberlain was definitely no slag in his youth. His head is a bit over-large, and his eyes are so widely spread I find it distracting, but he's a nice-enough looking guy. Even so, I simply can't make the connect between the actor playing Ralph and his description from the actual book:

In all her life [Mary Carson] could not remember seeing a better-looking man, nor one who used his beauty in quite the same way. He had to be aware of how he looked: the height and the perfect proportions of his body, the fine aristocratic features, the way every physical element had been put together with a degree of care about the appearance of the finished product God lavished on few of His creations. From the loose black curls of his head and the startling blue of his eyes to the small, slender hands and feet, he was perfect.

Where are the loose black curls? Rich's hair is most definitely brown with not so much as a wave much less a curl. Sure, the eyes are blue. But I don't see in this face the pure beauty that Fthr. Ralph is supposed to possess. Rich's handsomeness is more of the rugged, manly type rather than a slender, aristocratic beauty.

As for Meggie, Rachel Ward and Sydney Penny (who plays Meggie as a child) are certainly attractive in their own right. But they don't even come close to matching the description we get of Meggie from Fthr. Raph's POV:

The sweetest, the most-adorable little girl he had ever seen; hair of a color which defies description, not red and not gold, a perfect fusion of both. And looking up at him with silver-grey eyes of such a lambent purity, like melted jewels.

Rachel Ward's hair is at best auburn. Sydney's isn't even on the same planet as "red-gold". Both actresses have chocolate-brown eyes. I do give the casting directors credit for finding a child-actress that looks as if she might one day look like the grown-up actress, but that's all the points they get. I just find it hard to believe they couldn't find a single pair of strawberry-blonde, grey-eyed actresses in all of the land to play the child and adult Meggie, or at the very least, ones who had light eyes rather than dark brown.

Now, I'm not stupid. I know that ever since the first brilliant flash of inspiration that led whomever to realize books could be made into movies (or mini-series) that there have been actors and actresses who've deviated completely from their literary counterparts as far as appearances go. Heck, even romance novel book covers get it wrong a lot of the time when it comes to hair and/or eye color. But it's rare that something like this affects me when I read the story. Usually I tune out any external influences and let my imagination fill in the blanks using the written descriptions as a starting point.

For some reason, I simply cannot stop picturing Richard Chamberlain and Rachel Ward as I'm reading this book. This time, I guess the mini-series trumps the original.

What Austin Heroine Are You?

2010-05-21T13:37:00.001-05:00

Take the Quiz here!

Yay!! I like this quiz. Don't know how accurate it is, but for today, I'm very well pleased.

Beyond Riveting

2010-04-29T13:58:00.001-05:00

Due to a recommendation made by Janet Reid on her blog, I picked up Dave Cullen's newly-released-in-paperback Columbine. I have to say that I cannot remember the last time I was so affected by a book. Or a movie. Or anything really.

I remember the Columbine tragedy, of course. I remember the news coverage and the horrible realization that two teen boys could perpetrate such an unspeakable act. I vaguely remember the reports of a girl who was killed because, when asked by one of the killers if she believed in God, she said yes. I remember the theories that these two boys were victims of extreme bullying, that they'd been pushed around so much that they'd finally snapped. I can remember wondering at the time what kind of parents could raise such monsters.

Come to find out, many initially believed "facts" about Columbine were in actuality falsehoods that were picked up by the media during those first few chaotic days and then cemented in the public consciousness for a variety of reasons.

For me personally, I was physically far enough away from Columbine that after those first few days of 24/7 media saturation, the event slipped into a dark corner of my mind where I file those sorts of atrocities. I never thought to ask any questions about what I'd been told. And truthfully, finding out that the facts were different than what was initially reported wouldn't have made much of a difference to me. Beyond my compassion for the victims and their families, my interest in Columbine at the time was something between rubber-necking and sadness at yet another bit of proof that mankind can sink to some pretty horrible depths.

But stumbling upon this book recommendation, my curiosity was piqued. I toddled on over to Borders and picked up a copy. And then I didn't put it down for two straight days. It was that riveting.

First of all, author Dave Cullen has a wonderful writing style. The narrative moves quickly, and his decision to jump between time periods and central "characters" really draws you in in a way that I don't think a straightforward, linear approach would have. Far from confusing, this format reads more like fiction than a true crime nonfiction. I call the people in this book characters despite the fact that they are all (or were) real people because Cullen's writing style comes almost close to fiction in his ability to weave a story out of the myriad of facts involved. It's truly to his credit that this real life story reads better than any fiction I've ever picked up.

Primarily, Cullen tells the real story of Columbine. He clears up a lot of misconceptions and myths. He reveals problems within the local agencies that might have kept this from happening in the first place. And he looks far deeper into the lives and motives of the two killers than anything newspapers ever managed to convey.

In doing so, Cullen manages something that in a million years I never would have expected anyone to be able to pull off. Somehow, someway, he manages to show killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as human beings. These boys are not likable per se, and never once does Cullen let you forget that they turned into stone cold murderers. But for all that you despise these two boys for what they have done, for all you hope that they are now burning in the deepest levels of hell for the pain and anguish and ruined lives they left in their wake, Cullen manages to awaken a glimmer of something that at least lives in the neighborhood of compassion.

Or maybe it's learning the truth that moves Harris and Klebold a step closer to being understandable human beings.

Come to find out, Eric and Dylan were not the victims of merciless bullying, stuck in an oppressive school environment where they had to fear for their lives on daily basis. Nor were they goth stereotypes or Marilyn Manson acolytes or even zombified gamers who'd been so desensitized by video game violence that they went over the edge.

No, it turns out that Eric Harris was a psychopath. And while that sounds nice and dramatic and faintly Freddy Kruegerish, it's actually fairly straightforward. Psychopathy is a genuine mental illness with a list of criteria often used to diagnose it, a list from which Eric demonstrated far more traits than not. While Eric can never be excused for what he did, turns out it's not such a shock after all given the way psychopaths view the world.

Dylan Klebold is a bit hazier. Seems he was a very depressed young man with an obsession with suicide. He hated himself so much, it didn't take a lot to convince him to turn his anger outward. Unfortunately, circumstances put Dylan in the path of Eric Harris, and together the mixture turned as combustible as gasoline and a lighted match.

Cullen's book goes into much more depth about the possible whys of the situation, and it all works to paint these two villains as something far more complex and three-dimensional than one would ever expect.

I found it all absolutely fascinating. I also found my reaction to this book very disturbing. How in the world could I feel anything other than complete revulsion for these two boys? How could I ever see their suicides as tragic beyond the fact that they denied their victims any chance at real justice or closure?

It wasn't until I found this essay by Cullen himself that I was able to come to grips with my reaction to reading this book. I'm grateful that he both wrote about and shared his own ambivalence because it mirrors my own and makes me feel a little more comfortable with my own reaction. Seems I'm not a freak after all.

In the end, I can't recommend Columbine highly enough. As a person who would never willingly pick up a true crime story, I can honestly say this is now firmly near the top of my must-read list.

Nickelback Is Eeevil

2010-04-28T10:31:00.005-05:00

I don't get it. Why does everyone in the entire web-verse hate Nickelback and, by extension, any group that sounds similar to Nickelback? You simply cannot escape the vitriol that is aimed at this band, sometimes with such heated disdain that you feel the need to move a few feet back from your monitor.

And this sentiment isn't limited to individuals who are simply expressing their taste in music. I read it all the time on professional entertainment sites. The supposed-professionals of musical taste make no secret how they feel about Nickelback and its contemporaries.

It seems that the worst possible thing you can ever say about a group and/or singer is that they sound like Nickelback.

People who listen to Nickelback are unrefined, backwood rubes who wouldn't know good music if it magically grew beneath their noses like a handlebar mustache. Clearly these people are not only deaf and illiterate but stupid and ugly and prone to wear white after Labor Day.

Nickelback is single-handedly responsible for the sucky state of the economy, the Cubs having not won a World Series in over a hundred years, earthquakes in Haiti, and America's inexplicable continued fascination with John and Kate Gossling.

I simply don't get it.

I mean, I get not liking a particular group/singer because the sound they produce is nails-on-a-chalkboard in your opinion and you personally can't understand why they became such a big thing in the first place (Gnarls Barkley, Jason Mraz, Neil Young).

Or you find the lyrics of their songs to be only slightly less coy and ridiculous than those you might find in a 1st grade class's Book of Our Poems (Closing Time by Semisonic, anyone?)

Or they are so overplayed you'd rather listen to religious radio than turn on the local Top 40 station (Black Eyed Peas, Taylor Swift).

Or they annoy you by trying too hard to be A Unique Artist (Lady Gaga, Ke$ha).

Or that they actually scare you and cause nightmares (Marilyn Manson).

Or maybe it's just a style of music that you don't like (rap/hiphop, country, insert obscure musical genre here).

Or maybe you refuse to buy anything produced by a Disney animatron or YouTube superstar (Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, any cast member from High School Musical).

Or the artist has proven him/herself to be an incredible douche and you refuse to support him/her financially regardless if their music is otherwise decent (Kanye, John Mayer).

But in this case, it seems like the reason so many hate Nickelback is simply because, according to the web and Very Smart Industry Insiders, it's very uncool to like Nickelback.

Or Lifehouse. Or Hinder. Or Creed. Or Live.

Seems a lot more uncool to tell people what they should or shouldn't like.

Of course, I'm not a professional arbiter of what is musically good or bad, so what do I know?

Clash of the Motivations

2010-04-05T10:00:00.026-05:00

Since I was so stoked that they'd decided to remake the 1981 B-movie classic, Clash of the Titans, of course I had to go see the final result on opening weekend. I'd really expected to like the new version better. Heck, the improvement in special effects alone should have been enough to send Titans '10 up the movie quality ladder by magnitudes over Titans '81. Not to mention better acting, better sets and costumes, a higher budget overall. The upgrade had tools at its disposal the makers of the original probably couldn't have dreamed of, and for that I'd figured Titans '10 would smear Titans '81 to dust.

Weirdly, turns out Titans '81 is actually the better movie. And it's all because of motivation. Who would have thunk that story could end up being way more important than flashy CGI, better acting, cooler sets and costumes and a much higher budget?

Below are major SPOILERS, so stand warned if you haven't seen either version and wish to do so spoiler-free.

For those Titan newbies, the story of both movies is loosely based on the Greek myth of Perseus, demi-god son of Zeus, and his adventures in monster slaying.

In Titans '81, pretty-boy Harry Hamlin's Perseus finds himself plunked down by the gods in the cursed town of Joppa, where he ~~stalks~~ spots the beautiful princess Andromeda while she's sleeping and falls hopelessly, desperately in love.

(Sidebar: you have to completely accept the massive luck Perseus has when Andromeda doesn't wake up to reveal she's actually a brainless Jersey Shore reject with an accent and voice like Fran Drescher's, otherwise it all falls apart right there.)

Perseus learns that Andromeda has been cursed by the angry goddess, Thetis, whose feelings were hurt when Andromeda refused to marry Thetis's son Calibos after Zeus turned Calibos into a disfigured goat-monster as punishment for killing Zeus's herd of flying horses. Thetis's vengeful dictate now means that any man who wants to marry Andromeda must correctly answer a crazy-hard riddle, but if he fails - which they all do - he is burned at the stake.

Perseus, driven by his passionate feelings for Andromeda, fights Calibos and finally breaks the curse by answering Andromeda's riddle, earning her hand in marriage. However, all is not puppy dogs and rainbow happy endings for this cute couple. When Andromeda's vain mother, the Queen Cassiopeia, brags that Andromeda is more beautiful than even Thetis (hadn't that whole curse debacle taught her anything about pissing off a bitter goddess?), Thetis demands that Andromeda be sacrificed to a sea monster, the dreaded Krakan. Not only does Andromeda have to die in such an undignified manner, she has to remain a virgin, so she and poor Perseus don't even have the option of engaging in a month of full-time nookie until the fateful day arrives.

Which, now that I think on it, maybe means that Perseus wasn't driven so much by love as by insane sexual frustration to embark on his quest to kill the Krakan and save Andromeda. I mean, this guy goes above and beyond just in order to get some. He outsmarts the Stygian witches, fights the three-headed Hydra, and takes on Medusa before finally rescuing his lady love, so he must have been in need of some serious touch.

Still, the idea that a guy would go literally to the Underworld and back in order to save the heroine is tremendously compelling and makes for some awesome myth. Those ancient Greeks knew their shit.

Things aren't quite so simple in Titans '10. Perseus is still there, now in the form of swarthy Sam Worthington, and he's still the demi-god son of Zeus. But his motivation for all of the destruction and mayhem he endures isn't quite so noble as wuv, tru wuv.

Perseus's adopted father, mother and sister are casualties of a war started by humans against the gods of Olympus, whom the humans have started to resent for not taking better care of them. Fueled by grief and rage, Perseus declares his own war against Zeus and Co., with Hades serving as the specific target of his revenge since Hades was on the scene when Perseus's family bit the dust. Perseus has no idea he's Zeus's son, and when he learns this little bit of personal genealogy, he's none too happy about it. In fact, through pretty much all of the movie he rejects any divine intervention on his behalf and refuses to play his half-god card, determined to "win this as just a man" even if that means "win this as just a man who's now dead".

Andromeda shows up as well, but Perseus couldn't really give two hoots about her. When Cassiopeia brags on Andromeda's beauty being more awe-inspiring than any god, it's Hades and not Thetis who condemns the city to destruction at the hands of the Krakan. He gives the folks of Argos (another change from Titans '81 where it was Joppa, not Argos, in jeopardy) an out if they are willing to give up Andromeda to the Krakan. They have a full 10 days to decide between sacrificing a single virgin versus facing the complete destruction of their city and the death of every single citizen, but Perseus doesn't stick around to debate which ~~totally obvious and reasonable~~ Sophie's Choice-like option the townies should take. He's on a personal mission to destroy Hades and if he manages to save a princess or a city or two in the process, well, cool. Bonus.

The balance of Titans '10 pretty much follows Titans '81 with the same parade of monsters to be defeated and a few insignificant if not minor story changes. For example, Perseus's fellow demi-god rival, Calibos, is no longer Andromeda's spurned fiancé but rather the very human king that Zeus cuckolded to produce Perseus. Titans '10 Perseus and his crew receive some big time deus ex machina assistance from a band of djinn, creatures that had nothing whatsoever to do with Greek mythology if my facts are straight. Oh, and Titans '10 threw in a crazy religious zealot to supposedly rack up the tension regarding Andromeda's being sacrificed or not. At least, that's the only reason I could see that he was there.

Not so insignificant is Perseus's complete and total lack of romance with Andromeda. Instead, Titans '10 Perseus develops a serious jones for Io, an ageless demi-goddess who's been ~~saddled with~~ assigned the job of watching over Perseus for his entire life. Io serves as exposition faery, wise mentor, and hot semi-badass babe to throw some UST on top of Perseus's pile of troubles. Not that this romance ever develops the steam to be compelling in that OMG-that-was-so-hot! way or has anything whatsoever to do with the story itself. Just a little something to keep the womens happy, I guess.

My question, though, is why this change in female focus? Why not just keep as Perseus's motivation for all he does his great, epic love for Andromeda and the need to save her from being eaten? It worked for the ancient Greeks, right? And they built some pretty kick-ass monuments that are still around.

Sure, maybe today's audience wouldn't buy the original's far-fetched premise that Perseus would risk life and limb for a woman he fell in love with before she even spoke a single word to him. Heck, before she even opened her eyes and acknowledged his existence. And I imagine audiences of today wouldn't like so much that Perseus and Andromeda are separated for most of the story while he's off slaying monsters and she's busy contemplating her upcoming gruesome death between the jaws of a terrifying Titan. And it's true that us post-Buffy, tech-savvy gals aren't as down with the level of damsel the original Andromeda displayed with all of her being chained to the rock and writhing helplessly, waiting for the saving to start. Heck, these days we ladies even kill our own spiders. Really.

But any screenwriter worth his/her salt could have solved these problems easily. The new and improved Andromeda v. 2.0 could have been one bad-ass princess determined to take up a sword and save her own damn city and her own damn life her own damn self. Road trip with Perseus wherein many wacky hijinks and a butt-load of monster-ass-whupping ensue. Throw in some sizzling near-kisses, glimpses of creamy bare skin and rippling six-pack abs, and a few longing eye-locks, we could buy that these two crazy kids might just have something for each other after all.

At the very least, the Titan '10 braintrust could have ignored the implausibility of the Perseus/Andromeda Insta-Love-Of-All-Eternity (tm) and just hoped that we audience members would be willing to suspend our disbelief another tiny fraction to go with it, not such an out-there request given that we're already expected to buy a story that involves immortal gods, giant scorpions, and a woman who has snakes for hair. Sometimes we will amaze you with our ability for accepting the ridiculous.

So, net net, Titans '81 Perseus is driven by ~~lust~~ love for Andromeda to all of his daring do. Titans '10 Perseus is driven by revenge and some god-sized Daddy issues. I'll give you two guesses which motivation provides for a much more interesting story.

Titans '10 Perseus came over as a tad bit whiny and a whole lot bitter, and to be really honest, other than the total destruction of Argos and the death of all of its ~~cute pets and little kids~~ inhabitants, I really didn't care much if Perseus succeeded in defeating the Krakan or saving Andromeda. He didn't really have a personal stake in the matter, after all. Somehow risking life and limb in order to exact revenge doesn't seem very heroic or noble to me. It seems a bit stupid. Better had the writers of Titans '10 made their Perseus seem at least a little bit concerned about the people of Argos and thus the hint of purpose to his quest being to save their lives. Heck, they could have at least thrown in a helpless brother or sister living in Argos that Perseus felt compelled to save.

Titans '81 Perseus had a major stake in defeating the Krakan since the sea-beastie was about to consume Perseus's soul-mate. During the entirety of his quest, we wanted him to succeed. We felt his pain and stress and the overwhelming pressure he was under...Despite the cheese, you just had to keep watching to see how it all worked out. I cared about Perseus's success. I wanted him to save Andromeda. Oh, yeah, and the city of Joppa. Of course. Right.

I will say that the one thing Titans '10 did much better than Titans '81 was to give Perseus's soldier posse some names and backstories. In Titans '81, the garrison that accompanied Perseus on his ~~suicide mission~~ adventures were red shirts, only one of the whole group given a name and a handful of dialogue. In Titans '10, all of the soldiers had names and personalities, and they even provided some comic relief. Thus, when they were all picked off one by one, you felt the sting for real. I especially appreciated Draco played by the absolutely delicious Mads Mikkelson (pic to the left) whom I hope to see in more movies very soon (he played Tristram in King Arthur - so very nice - and the villain Le Chiffre in Casino Royale). Plus, the costumers gave the soldiers of Argos an awesome hairstyle that they also used in Troy, which surely has to be more historically accurate than the shag worn by Harry Hamlin.

I honestly don't know if you go to Titans '10 without having previously watched Titans '81 how you will feel about the movie. I do know that my reaction is not a result of nostalgia. In anticipation of going to see both Titans '10 and Percy Jackson and the Lightening Thief (also loosely based on Perseus: The Greek Original) I purchased the 1981 Clash on DVD and ~~forced~~ invited my 9 year old son to watch it with me, warning him in advance that the special effects were beyond cheezy. (Sidebar: really fun to watch an "old" movie with "antique" special effects with a kid who was born after Titanic, Toy Story, and The Matrix and thinks Gollum lives in a sprawling mansion in Bel-Air.) As we left the theater last night, I asked him which version he liked better.

"The first one," said my son.
"Why?" I asked.
"The story was a lot better."

That's my wise boy.

An Open Letter to Ellen Degeneres

2010-02-25T19:08:00.005-06:00

Dear Ellen,

First of all, I want to say that I just adore you! I think you are maybe one of the top five funniest people on this planet. Whenever I catch your talk show, I grin through the entire program. You have such a quirky sense of humor but you never make fun of people - you are always laughing right along with them as well as at yourself. Plus, you have quite possibly the prettiest blue eyes I have ever seen, and I love your haircut. I wouldn't call my feelings for you a girl-crush, but you are tops in my book.

To that end, I was so glad when you replaced Paula Abdul as a judge on American Idol. Sure, there is the fact that you don't have a music background. Know what? Neither do I. But that doesn't preclude me from knowing what I think sounds good and what sounds bad, and who comes across as likable versus a complete ego maniacal diva. Besides, Paula never offered any feedback that lead me to believe that her musical background gave her an edge up in any way. Heck, she was having a good day if she could keep all of the contestants straight and know who had sung how many songs already. I had no fears that you would make a great judge.

During Hollywood week, it was clear that you were taking this gig very seriously. You paid attention, you took notes, you offered honest opinions even if they were negative. And you kept the funny to a minimum. Granted, I'm sure the editing staff had something to do with your original impression on Idol, but they could only show us footage of the reality, so I'm sure you were portrayed accurately.

Now that we've moved into the live portion of the American Idol Season 9 journey, I'm becoming a bit worried about you. Because I can tell that you are nervous. I can tell that you are worried about not being taken seriously as a judge. I can tell that you do harbor some (possibly deeply buried) insecurities about not having a musical background and thus not being qualified for this job.

So I'd like to offer you the following friendly advice. As you and the other judges always tell the contestants, BE YOURSELF!!

Don't try to be somebody you aren't. Relax. You deserve to be in that seat just as much as any other celebrity worth spending upwards of 5 hours a week with via TV. Heck, if there's any truth to the Howard Stern/Perez Hilton rumors, you are actually overqualified if that's the type of person they are seriously considering to fill Simon's vacant seat next season.

You bring something really special and unique to the table, but in the course of trying to prove your worthiness and that you take this whole endeavor as Very Serious Business Indeed, you've lost the very essence of Ellen-ness that I love so much. I'm sad because I was really looking forward to it as part of the circus that is American Idol. That show sure as heck could use a little bit of lightening up.

I know you have it in you. On last night's episode (Top 24 Crapfest Part II: The Guys), I saw a tiny spark of the real Ellen shine through. When you went into your banana analogy while critiquing the performance of Alex Lambert (basically, he's a green banana who'll be really yummy after he's had some time to ripen, but he's just not ready to eat quite yet), the relaxed, goofy Ellen that I love came bursting through. For the first time, you seemed genuinely relaxed and confident in what you were saying. And I want to reassure you that it wasn't too funny - you didn't come off as if you were trying to steal the spotlight or make it all about you at the expense of a good critique. It was relevant to the situation, it wasn't mean, and it was comedic without being over the top. Perfect!

That's the stuff I've been waiting for!!

My second piece of advice is to maybe not worry so much about not hurting the contestants' feelings. I do appreciate your determination to be honest without being cruel, a lá Simon Cowell. It's downright Christian of you to offer at least one positive aspect of each performance to soften the reality of real suckage. Nobody deserves to be humiliated publicly, no matter that they actually signed up for this shit and shouldn't be surprised by it nor that they'd better learn to have a thick skin if they want a career in the entertainment industry.

However, I don't think you have to lie and say that you're "a fan" to every single person whose performance was sub-par. This isn't the Miss/Mr. America Pageant - we aren't judging personality. For the sake of expediency, we'll assume that everyone chosen to go on the show has a wonderful personality, is likable and sweet, and that he or she is kind to dogs, rescues kittens from trees and helps little old ladies cross the street. Good for them. When they come on the show, none of that matters because either they sound good or they don't. And to be honest, if they act like a douche on the show, your saying that you're a fan doesn't do much to change our opinions of the guy/girl. We either liked their performance or not, we either like them as a possible celebrity or not. What we want to hear from you was if you liked their performance or not, and why or why not. We'll just assume that you still like them as a person. Of course you do.

I do think there are ways to be honest about an epic fail without being mean. Something along the lines of "I didn't like that very much. I thought the song wasn't the right choice for you because your falsetto isn't strong enough for all of those falsetto parts/It sounded to me as if you went out of tune because I stopped recognizing the melody/You need to work on your stage presence because you seem uncomfortable on stage...I hope you do better next week." etc. If you are just honest without being snarky (again, see: Cowell, Simon), you will show the contestants plenty of respect while maintaining your credibility. There's nice and then there's patronizing.

Besides, Paula took the role of "the nice one" and look where that got her? Her opinions were never respected, and to be honest, they sounded insincere. I don't want you to start sounding insincere, and I'm afraid you're headed down that road.

I'm chalking up these little road bumps to nerves and the need for time to find your groove. I have no doubt that by the time we finish up these semi-final rounds and dive into the Top 12, you'll be relaxed and comfortable, funny when appropriate, respectful without pandering, a real asset to the judging panel.

Meanwhile, I'm still tuning in. To be honest, with the poor level of talent we've seen so far, I'm starting to think maybe five minutes of pre-show standup from you might be needed to keep me watching!

Sincerely,
A Big Fan

To Read List

2010-01-22T20:36:00.002-06:00

So, thanks to all of the links over at Kelly's master list on YAnnabe, I've compiled a huge list of YA books I plan to read. Specifically, I'm looking forward to:

I Want to Go Home! By Gordon Korman - gave it the 50 page test. Cute but not for me.
I Am the Wallpaper by Mark Peter Hughes
Shabanu: Daughter of the Wind by Suzanne Fisher Staples
The Garden by Elsie V. Aidinoff
Born Confused by Tanuja Desai Hidier
Broken Soup by Jenny Valentine
The Latent Powers of Dylan Fontaine by April Lurie
The Forest of Hands and Teeth by Carrie Ryan
Deadline by Chris Crutcher
The Maze Runner by James Dashner
Enthusiasm by Polly Shulman
If I Grow Up by Todd Strasser
Thaw by Monica Roe
Jessica’s Guide to Dating on the Dark Side by Beth Fantaskey
Ash by Malinda Lo
I Know It’s Over by C.K. Kelly Martin
Take Me There by Susane Colasanti
Perfect Chemistry by Simone Elkeles - READ IT (4 stars out of 5)
Naomi and Ely’s No Kiss List by Rachel Cohn
The Lit Report by Sarah N. Harvey
My Heartbreak by Garrett Freymann-Weyr
How I Live Now by Meg Rosoff
Cracked Up To Be by Courtney Summers
Saving Francesca by Melina Marchetta
Story of a Girl by Sara Zarr
Sweethearts by Sara Zarr

Best part about this list is that all but five titles are available at my library. I've already made one visit!

Great idea. Thanks, Kelly!

The Best YA Books You Haven't Read

2010-01-21T08:00:00.008-06:00

As a person who stopped being a young adult nearly 25 years ago but who never outgrew a love for YA stories, I was thrilled to be asked to participate in YAnnabe’s “The Best YA Books You Haven’t Read” Day. I’m always game for a chance to talk about my favorite YA titles.

But Kelly over at YAnnabe made things a little more challenging. Rather than have us wax rhapsodic about the books everyone already knows are fantastic reads, she asked those of us willing to scan our YA libraries for titles that we loved that maybe have continued to fly under the radar when it comes to mainstream love.

To gauge popularity, we used LibraryThing’s membership as a representative sampling of the larger public. The more members who listed a particular title in their library, the more popular the book. To give you an idea of popular versus not popular from the 120 books in my YA library: Twilight reigns with 26,128 members, Sing the least with only 9 members. We tried to stick with titles owned by less than 500 members.

I’m indulging my inner thirteen year old with four titles I read and loved as an actual Young Adult. They were the first books to earn spots on my keeper shelves, and they are well-worn at the corners and yellowed with age. Three of the four are out of print but well worth the work tracking down copies via used books outlets or the library. Two have been made into movies that perhaps haven’t aged so well but afford a great chance to wallow in nostalgia.

To prove I’m still hip and down with the current teen trends (!) I’ve also chosen four titles that have been released in the last few years. What really struck me as I went through this process is that even though things are a lot different today than they were when I was a kid, books written for and about Young Adults haven’t changed fundamentally in the issues they tackle. Popularity, fitting in, first love, first sex, broken homes, drug and alcohol abuse, psycho parents, best friends and worst enemies, growing up and figuring things out. None of that has changed a bit.

So, here are 8 YA books you probably haven’t read but should.

My First Love and Other Disasters

by Francine Pascal

First published: 1979

Victoria will do anything – ANYTHING – to get the attention of uber-popular guy Jimmy. She even manages to finagle an au-pair gig on Fire Island where she knows Jim will be spending the summer. And to her amazement, her plan actually seems to be working. Jim notices her. He even seems to like her! Things should be absolutely perfect. But this other guy Barry keeps popping up at the worst possible times. The family she’s working for is dysfunctional with a capital D. And she’s starting to think that maybe Jimmy isn’t such a hot catch after all. Victoria starts to question just how much she’s willing to do to get the guy of her dreams who just might not be so dreamy.

Light and frothy, this book still conveys a great message – that sometimes what’s on the surface isn’t necessarily what counts. Since it's out of print, this book may be hard to find. But it’s worth it.

I Was a 98-Pound Duckling

by Jean Van Leeuwen

First published: 1972

Kathy is thirteen and despairs that she’ll never outgrow her horrible awkward stage. At a whopping 98 pounds and taller than every guy she knows except her father, she sees herself as one giant beauty flaw in need of some serious fixing. Her curvaceous best friend Beth and already-attracting-boys little sister Lisa only seem to highlight Kathy’s deficiencies, and she’s sure she’ll never get a date.

When she meets cute guy Keith while on vacation at her family’s lake cabin, Kathy’s stunned when he seems genuinely interested in her. She struggles to do all the things girls are supposed to do to get guys to like them, but it’s only when she manages to relax and be herself that Kathy begins to see that maybe being 98-pound duckling isn’t so bad after all.

Kathy is a great heroine. Despite her lack of self-esteem, she’s far from whiny or self-pitying, and her observations about herself and those around her are often very amusing. While the story is far too short to delve deeply into any of the characters, Van Leeuwen does a great job in expressing that universal adolescent delusion that if only your outsides were perfect your life would be magical as well, and that once you manage to get a date, all of your problems will be solved.

This book is what I call a small story. The entire book covers a span of time no longer than 24 hours. Funny, however, that I never realized that until rereading it for this review – in my teenage memory it seemed to cover a whole summer. Surprisingly it doesn’t read as dated despite being almost 40 years old.

Sooner Or Later

by Bruce and Carole Hart

First published: 1978

Jessie is in love. Michael is seventeen and a musician and pretty much perfect in every way. Jessie’s thrilled because Michael really seems to like her. Of course, he doesn’t know that Jessie is only thirteen. He thinks she’s sixteen because that’s how old she told him she was when they first met. But it’s okay. She’s positive she can handle dating an older guy. Maybe. Things are about to get very complicated.

Sooner or Later jumps head first into the drama of what happens when teens think they’re ready for things they really aren’t ready for, and what kind of trouble a simple lie can get you into. Plus the heartbreak of loving someone you probably shouldn’t and wanting something you aren’t ready to have yet and the confusion of knowing what’s right versus doing what’s right and chocolate cake and the magic of makeup and guitar players and how unbelievably hard it is to be thirteen and in love for the first time.

This book was actually a movie first. Some of you might remember it – Rex Smith played the part of Michael and had this groovy long hair and was soooo cute. You can still get the DVD. (Go on, check it out. I know you want to.) Because of this film-to-book conversion, the narrative itself gives the sensation of written sound bytes. The pacing is quick, and even Jessie’s internal musings are somewhat choppy. I didn’t mind this because the story itself is so good.

Tex

by S.E. Hinton

First published: 1979

Tex and his brother, Mace, live parent-free on a tiny farm in Oklahoma. Most kids would think that having no parents around to give you headaches would be great. And Tex does enjoy getting into a fair amount of trouble, both on his own and with his best friend, Johnny Collins. But his brother Mace is itching to go off to college and the money situation has gotten dire. When Mace is forced to sell their horses – including Tex’s beloved Negrito – to pay the bills, the brothers come to blows. Even Tex’s new feelings for Jamie Collins are causing him all sorts of confusion. When Pop returns to town, Tex figures things are finally going to get better. But he learns something about himself that changes everything, and he realizes that there’s no going back.

I’ve stated before that S.E. Hinton’s The Outsiders is probably my favorite book of all time. I’m talking favorite book ever, not just YA. Tex runs not far behind. As a character, Tex melted my heart. (For fans of Friday Night Lights, think the original Tim Riggins.) He’s like a loveable puppy who only wants to play and can’t understand why he keeps getting kicked by those he loves.

Tex is a true classic. Published in 1979, it has never been out of print. It was made into a movie starring Matt Dillon, but the book is far superior.

Shug

by Jenny Han

First published: 2007

Annemarie “Shug” Wilcox has a lot on her mind. She’s about to start junior high. Her best friend is a boy named Mark, and she’s starting to have feelings that are more-than-friendly about him. One of her teacher’s hates her. Her father stays away on business trips for longer and longer. Her mother spends much of her time drinking or drunk. And when her parents are together, they fight. Even her perfect older sister is starting to break. Plus, she’s been assigned to help her worst enemy, troublemaker Jack Connelly, with his homework. The only good thing about life is her best friend, Elaine. Facing junior high is hard. Facing the fact that nothing and nobody is what you thought they were is impossible.

I read this book with my daughter as part of a project for her class. The heroine, Shug, is so cute as she suffers through that awkward phase when boys stop being friends and start being something else. And when it becomes clear that Mark doesn't necessarily share Shug's changing feelings, my heart broke for the girl. Thankfully, salvation comes from another source. This is a great book for younger YA readers.

Hail Caesar

by Thu-Huong Ha

First published: 2007

John “Caesar” Miller is golden. The star of his high school basketball team and most popular guy cruising the halls, life is one giant party. Girls are objects to be scored, friends nothing more than people to tell him how great he is. Best of all, Caesar lives in a perpetual state of not caring about the feelings of anyone other than himself. When new girl Eva proves immune to Caesar’s good looks and surface charm, he’s at first angry and frustrated, then intrigued, and finally obsessed with capturing her attention. But the harder he tries to win her over, the more he comes to see himself through Eva’s eyes, forced to acknowledge how empty and shallow his life is. As his carefully constructed walls of indifference begin to tumble, Caesar’s world is rocked to its core.

First and foremost, what sets this book apart from so many other YA titles is that the hero, Caesar, is really a rather unlikable person. He’s a user who makes no apologies for the crappy way he treats people. He sees himself as entitled, and it’s true to real life that he is not wholly redeemed by the end of the story. People as loathsome as Caesar seldom experience 180 degree character shifts.

That said, Caesar is likeable, and the story is very readable. Author Ha does tend to slide into the poetic, and at times the narrative is told through Caesar’s eyes in a way I doubt any high school boy would ever express, removing the story away from a truly authentic male teen voice. My biggest beef, however, and the one flaw that almost gives me pause in recommending it to others, is Ha’s affectation of removing nearly all tags from lengthy stretches of dialogue. Many times I found myself baffled as to who was saying what, even at one point becoming so frustrated that I almost set the book down for good.

My extended review can be found here, but I’d give this book a solid 4 out of 5 stars.

Schooled

by Gordon Korman

First published: 2008

Capricorn “Cap” Anderson was raised on a deserted commune by his ex-hippie grandmother. He’s never seen a TV. He’s never eaten food that didn’t come from his own garden. He’s never worn shoes other than sandals. So when he’s forced to attend the local public middle school after his grandmother is injured and unable to care for him, culture shock takes on a whole new meaning.

Because he is so very innocent and unaware of the cruelties kids perpetrate against each other, Cap serves as the perfect victim for his fellow students tricks. But what his tormentors never expect is Cap’s failure to be humiliated or change his positive outlook. As the bullies become more determined to bring him down, Cap earns more and more followers.

The appeal of Schooled – and the reason I picked it up in the first place – was the opportunity to read about someone who fell so far out of the mainstream and how that person would fair when forced to join “normal” society. I did find it hard to read on as kids picked on Cap, but because of Cap’s complete lack of awareness in the evil intent of the bullies’ actions, I never felt sorry for him. He didn’t feel sorry for himself at all. In every situation, his failure to see all but good helped him win the day.

If this book has one drawback it’s that Cap as a character is somewhat hard to believe. He’s almost too good. And it’s hard to imagine a person so insulated from the larger world that he has no concept of money or other rudiments of society. Still, Schooled is a fun read, and Cap is a hero you can root for.

Jellicoe Road

by Malina Marchetta

First published: 2008

Taylor Markham was abandoned by her mother when she was 11, pseudo-adopted by Hannah, and has been appointed the reluctant leader of the Jellicoe boarding school students in an annual, clandestine war against the Townies and the Cadets. Hannah disappears mysteriously just as the war is about to begin. Taylor learns that the leader of the Cadets is Jonah Griggs, a boy from her past. And for some reason the scary Brigadier seems to be stalking her. All of these bits and pieces are connected, and Taylor comes to see that if she wants to understand who she really is and where she came from, she needs to unravel the mysteries of the past and face those ghosts that lurk there.

Jellicoe Road is a challenging book. It requires the reader to stay the course in order to make sense of the knotted ball of thread that is the first few chapters. However, the effort is well worth it. As Taylor begins to put together pieces of the puzzle that is her history, she finds all the answers she’s always been looking for. The romance that develops between Taylor and Jonah is very well drawn and poignant. And the end evokes real tears. I can’t recommend this book enough.

A Tale of Two Kitties

2010-01-07T14:27:00.006-06:00

Instead of using this blog as a progress tracker, I've created a special place where I'll ~~confess my failure~~ update my efforts to whittle down my TBR pile. I invite anyone who might want to tackle the same job - to plow through an embarrassingly high number of books to be read - to post their progress in the comments section over yonder.

So, for Christmas we got our kids two kittens. And what a story...

For those who hate cats or who couldn't care in the least, I'll just break here so you can leave quietly to go pet the dog.

I had a plan. Christmas morning, I'd sit the kids down on the sofa and place in each of their laps a festive box. They'd simultaneously open the lids to find adorable balls of fluff. The kids would be surprised and thrilled and we'd videotape the whole things for posterity and so we could smile when we remembered the Christmas We Got the Kittens. Could it get any cuter than that?

The reality. Sadly, the inhumaneness of humans towards animals these days means that giving kids a pet as a surprise gift is next to impossible unless you purchase a puppy/kitten mill-generated animal from a ~~scumsucking, greedy, cruel-to-animals-and-there's-a-special-place-in-Hell-waiting~~ pet shop. I wanted kittens from a rescue group or humane shelter, to save some tiny lives and give them a loving home. But any reputable rescue/humane organization requires you to fill out seventeen forms in triplicate, wants to perform an in-home visit, and insists on meeting every family member including the robo hamster that never comes out from his plastic hamster dome except to eat. That means surprising the kids would be next to impossible since they'd have a bit of a clue during the whole three week process involved in adopting the kittens.

However, luck was on my side. I found via petfinders.com a local woman who did cat and kitten rescue. I spoke with her on the phone three weeks before Christmas, happy to learn that a) she didn't need to meet the entire family - me and/or my husband would be sufficient and b) she was heading down state to pick up 5 kittens that very next day. We made an appointment to meet the following Monday so I could check out the kittens and she could check out me.

The meeting went great. The kittens were adorable. I mean, I wanted all five. I settled on two - a black and white tuxedo boy and a tortoise shell girl. We agree I should wait until that Saturday night to pick them up so that she could take them in for a vet check and keep an eye on them for a few days to make sure they were doing all right.

I wasn't going to get to surprise the kids on Christmas morning. But I was going to get to surprise the kids two weeks before Christmas. Good enough. I was thrilled. All week I walked on a cloud of anticipation, that high you have when you can't wait to see the look on a person's face when you know they will just love the gift you've gotten them. Truly, I was in the purest state of giving is much better than receiving.

Saturday I picked up the kittens. The kids waited at home, clueless. I put the kittens in the large Christmas boxes I'd purchased and padded just for the occasion. I headed into the living room. The kittens were meowing. Loudly. Really loudly. So loudly the kids knew immediately that something living was in the boxes. So much for the "open the box to find a bundle of fur" illusion. The husband got the "record" and "stop" lights mixed up on the digital camcorder and recorded the floor both before and after the Big Moment but not a single second of the actual Big Moment. In short, the whole scenario didn't quite live up to the one I'd staged in my imagination.

But the kids were thrilled. Astounded. Totally surprised. My son kept saying "I'm dreaming!" It was all so good.

They named the boy Ringo (my son is going through a massive Beatles phase) and the girl Mocha (she's brown and black, chocolate and coffee mixed together). The dog adjusted. Sort of. For a week, we adapted to having these silly balls of fur underfoot and to feeding routines and emptying litter boxes in a timely matter. It was all so good.

Then Mocha got sick. The Monday before Christmas, she wouldn't eat. The Tuesday before Christmas, she wouldn't eat and she wouldn't play. I took her to the vet where they suspected she had Feline Panleukopenia. This virus is about 95% fatal in kittens her age and is very contagious (thus meaning that it was probably only a matter of time before Ringo came down with it). I called the woman whom I'd gotten the kittens from to learn that two of the other kittens in the original litter of 5 had died over the past two days. Things did not look good.

We were devastated. What started off as the Christmas We Got the Kittens was turning into the Christmas We Got the Kittens That Died. I wanted to cry.

We put Mocha in the animal hospital where they would give her antibiotics to fight off infections, keep her hydrated and try to feed her. Then we would just have to wait and see if she could get over this on her own. I headed home to treat Ringo for the fleas we discovered he had via the fact that Mocha had fleas. I also scrubbed down every surface with bleach cleaner to hopefully kill the virus that causes Panleukopenia in the hopes Ringo would be spared. And I watched him like a hawk for symptoms while the third cat succumbed to sickness - out of 5 kittens, only Ringo and Mocha were still alive.

But the Christmas Miracle Fairy stepped up to the plate and delivered us a most wonderful gift. The Wednesday before Christmas the vet called. Mocha was doing well. She was eating. And she was feisty. They wanted to keep her one more night just to be sure, and we'd have to quarantine her for a few days, but I could pick her up on Christmas Eve.

Today I took both Ringo and Mocha to the vet for their first round of vaccinations. Ironically, feline panleukopenia can be avoided by getting a vaccine against it, but both kittens had been way too young for their shots when Mocha first got sick. In fact, what we believed were 8 week old kittens turned out to be only about 5 weeks old. Clearly the owner of the barn cat who'd given birth to the litter had been mistaken about when these kitties had been born.

Mocha's not so happy about her shots. She's meowing a lot, and I suspect she's very sore since she doesn't seem to want to cuddle which is not like her. This is not an unusual reaction to getting vaccines, but I'm still prone to worry about her. She's used up one of her nine lives already and she's not even two months old!

My poor husband is still trying to come to terms with the expense this adventure has already cost us. Turns out animal hospitals and antibiotics and medical tests are only slightly less expensive than human ones. I keep reminding him that these little critters will give us years of love and enrich our lives in a way that is priceless. He's not quite convinced yet.

So, that's my kitten story. It has a happy ending so far, and it proves that Christmas Miracles do happen.

Report Card 1

2010-01-04T13:42:00.001-06:00

Book: Jellicoe Road by Melina Marchetta
Date Finished: Jan. 3, 2010
Rating: 4.5 stars (out of 5) - Great read but requires dedication to get through the confusing first third of the book.
Updated Number of Books TBR: 294

Next Book: A Certain Slant of Light by Laura Whitcomb

Summary: Helen died 130 years ago as a young woman. Unable to enter heaven because of a sense of guilt she carried at death, she has been silent and invisible but conscious and sociable across the generations. Her spirit has been sustained by its attachment to one living human host after another, including a poet and, most recently, a high-school English teacher. While she sits through his class one day, she becomes aware of James and he–unlike the mortals all around them–is aware of her as well. James, who also died years earlier, inhabits the body of a contemporary teen, Billy. James and Helen fall in love, he shows her how to inhabit the body of a person whose spirit has died but who still lives and breathes, and the two begin to unfold the mysteries of their own pasts and those of their adolescent hosts. Jenny, whose body Helen now uses, is the only child of strict religious parents who controlled her beyond what her spirit could endure. Billy's spirit left his body after a string of tragedies resulting from drug abuse and domestic violence. James and Helen court in both modern and old-fashioned ways; here is a novel in which explicit sex is far from gratuitous or formulaic. Whitcomb writes with a grace that befits Helen's more modulated world while depicting contemporary society with sharp insight.

Happy New Decade

2010-01-01T23:09:00.002-06:00

I think I'm just under the wire for posting on the first day of the new year. I'm not sure if I'm correct in saying we're in a new decade given all the confusion on whether or not 2000 was the last year of the 1990s decade or the first year of the 2000s decade. I'm going with 2000 as Year 1 and 2009 as year 10, thus making 2010 part of a new decade.

Regardless, as part of my plan to read through as much of my TBR pile as possible in 2010, I'm going to try posting my progress here. If I have a sense of accountability, even if it is only virtual and basically only to myself, maybe I'll stick with the plan. Kind of like weighing in at Weight Watchers every week.

Number of books on TBR pile: 295 (this number may change once I go through the list and whittle it down to a true reflection of what I actually will read vs. what I will never read)

Book chosen: Jellicoe Road by Melina Marchetta

Summary: For years, three factions—Townies, Cadets (city kids doing a six-week outdoor education program), and Jellicoe School students—have engaged in teen war games in the Australian countryside, defending territorial borders, negotiating for assets, and even taking hostages. Taylor Markham, a 17-year-old who was abandoned years ago by her mother, takes on leadership of the boarding school's six Houses. Plagued with doubts about being boss, she's not sure she can handle her Cadet counterpart, Jonah Griggs, whom she met several years before while running away to find her mother. When Hannah, a sort of house mother who has taken Taylor under her wing, disappears, Taylor puzzles over the book manuscript the woman left behind. Hannah's tale involves a tragic car accident on the Jellicoe Road more than 20 years earlier. Only three children survived, and Taylor discovers that this trio, plus a Cadet and a Townie, developed an epic friendship that was the foundation of the many mysteries in her life and identity, as well as of the war games.

Status: Page 45 (out of 419)

Now this is the kind of New Year's resolution I can live with.

A Qualified Wow

2009-12-21T16:21:00.018-06:00

So I saw Avatar on Saturday night. With all of the hype, I confess I was expecting some major Wow.

I did get some major Wow. But it wasn't that pure, undiluted, leave-the-theater-head-spinning Wow that makes a movie a transcendent experience for me. At most, it gave some pretty terrific qualified Wow.

Warning: SPOILERS after the break.

For those who might be living under rocks and thus don't know the story, the hero of Avatar is a paralyzed ex-Marine named Jake Sully. When Jake's twin brother is killed during a mugging, Jake is recruited to fill the guy's spot in the Avatar Program taking place on the distant planet of Pandora, a job Jake is qualified to do pretty much only by virtue of sharing the exact same DNA as his twin.

The Avatar Program consists of a Matrix-like mind-meld of a human "driver" with a test-tube grown human/alien hybrid body. See, the planet of Pandora is populated by the Na'vi, blue-skinned humanoid creatures who stand at 12 foot easy and possess both amazing physical gracefulness and daring as well as four-fingered hands, the ability to mentally link themselves with animals and plantlife, and tails. By infusing Na'vi shell body Avatars with human thoughts - and presumably, human loyalties, priorities and greed - the Powers That Be on Pandora are hoping to somehow convince the native population that it makes perfect sense to allow the Sky People to rape and destroy their planet for its valuable natural resources the same way they did back on Earth. How, exactly, Jake-as-Avatar is supposed to accomplish this hard-sell is never quite made clear.

As would be expected, Jake takes to being an Avatar like a fish to water. In his new body, he can walk and run and live the way he once could before he became paralyzed. Through a series of unfortunate events, including being chased by a dino-like creature who wants to eat him and a mystical sign that just barely stops a Na'vi warrior from shooting him with a poisonous arrow, Jake lands in the heart of the Na'vi's home village. The chief's daughter, Neytiri, is given the unhappy job of teaching Jake the ways of the Na'vi. In short order, Jake is on his way to becoming an official member of the tribe.

When the Bully In Charge of Security Col. Quaritch tasks Jake with using his new in to suss out any Na'vi weaknesses, Jake doesn't give the prospect a second thought. He uses his human hours to download the intel he collects on the Na'vi and their environment, including Home Tree, a massive tree that houses the entire tribe as well as contains great spiritual and cultural significance to the natives. While he has no desire to see the Na'vi hurt in any way, he doesn't necessarily feel bad about any efforts to evict them from their own world if that's what it takes to get to the valuable goods located there.

But as Jake begins to know these creatures and understand how connected they are to their planet, he begins to change loyalties. Respect and love develops between Jake and Neytiri, and it isn't long before Jake's human existence becomes the dream-world and his Na'vi form the one that holds his true soul. So when his adoptive people are directly threatened by a corporate stooge's single-minded agenda and his blood-thirsty pit-bull of an enforcer, Col. Quaritch, Jake doesn't think twice about turning his weapons on his own kind.

Battles ensue. Characters die. An ending that leaves open the possibility of sequels ties the whole story up in a neat bow.

The Wow part of the movie is a no-brainer. Untold millions of dollars have been put into creating a visual experience unlike any other. It's shown in 3-D, but not the 3-D that sends sharks swimming off the screen to chomp at you or objects floating over an audience giggling as they reach out and grab at the empty air. The 3-D aspect simply adds amazing amounts of depth to the movie, giving you a very real sense of being on-the-ground with the characters. One of my favorite uses of 3-D in Avatar is to lift subtitles off the screen so that they're sort of suspended in air. It's very cool.

Too, Pandora as a planet is colored with a palette of pure phosphorescence. Everything glows, even the footsteps left behind as Jake and his Na'vi companion Neytiri walk through the jungle at night. Mountains float, trees grow larger than skyscrapers, and the animals look as if they only made it a few hundred millennia past the dinosaur phase on the evolutionary timeline.

Mostly, however, the depiction of the Na'vi simply takes your breath away. Foreign enough in their feline-like faces and blue-skinned bodies to be clearly alien, they retain enough human-ness to be relatable. When Neytiri feels anger or love or disgust, you know what she's feeling. Na'vi are far taller and far thinner than humans, and there are the yellow eyes, long ears and those awesome tails. But beneath the trappings of alieness, the Na'vi are an attractive life form. Jake is a good looking Na'vi warrior. Neytiri is a sexy, gorgeous female. It is very easy to forget that they are not human. This is both good and bad, which I will get to in a moment.

In creating Pandora, James Cameron certainly has taken a giant leap forward in movie making. He's pushed the CGI technology as far as he could to fantastic effect. There is a whole lot of Wow on Pandora.

Oddly, though, my thoughts leaving the theater weren't about the CGI. It was about the lack of Wow when it came to story.

Basically, if you've ever seen Dances with Wolves or The Last Samurai or any other Going Native movie, you know the story in Avatar. There are simply no deviations from the traditional arc inherent in such tales - hero finds himself in a foreign world/culture, comes to respect said culture and eventually identifies himself as a member of this new culture even to the point of fighting his old culture in defense of the new - in Avatar. I could have written down the entire Avatar plot on a piece of paper, folded it up and sealed it in an envelope before entering the theater, and nearly three hours later opened the envelope to see that everything I'd predicted had come to pass.

I actually don't have much of a problem with the fact that Avatar relied so heavily on so many tropes it's almost embarrassing. Most of modern storytelling has become a matter of creative retelling. There are no new stories, only old stories repackaged. And I'm always a sucker for an underdog story. I wanted to root for Jake and the Na'vi to whoop some invading forces' ass, and when Jake and Neytiri fell in love, I was a big mushy pile of goo. I'm all for the if it ain't broke, don't fix it philosophy of movie making if what you start with works well.

My problem is that Cameron took so many pains to create this amazing new world only to use it to tell a story that has already been told here on Earth. Nothing about the story in Avatar required that it be set on the distant planet of Pandora.

Even the aliens were stock characters lifted from Earth. The Na'vi couldn't be more like Native Americans if they lived in longhouses or teepees and wore buffalo robes. They use bows and arrows as their primary weapon. They ride six-legged horse-like creatures. They wear their long, dark hair in braids and shave it into mohawks. They paint their bodies in times of war and adorn themselves in jewelry created from animal bones and teeth and bits of plants. They live in complete harmony with the land, respecting the animals they have to kill to survive by offering prayers of thanksgiving to the souls they've taken. They worship a mother goddess with a basis in nature, and mastery of wild beasts affords great respect for the one who can accomplish it. Even their language sounds as if it were based on a Native American language.

Jake had absolutely no problem assimilating with this culture because he probably passed 4th grade history. In fact, all anyone had to do to understand the Na'vi was head to the local library and do some extensive research on native cultures of any land.

In short, the aliens of Pandora simply weren't alien enough. They didn't look human, but they sure did act human. They mated for life. They lived in tribes. Heck, they even kissed.

(Side bar: Come on. We are supposed to believe that if alien life exists on other planets, not only will they look basically humanoid, have opposable thumbs and the ability to learn and speak English, but they will also commonly show affection and passion by pressing their mouths together?)

So the human-ness of the Na'vi was both good and bad. Good in that us real humans could relate to aliens from another planet. Bad because why bother relating to aliens from another planet if it's just like relating to fellow humans? Been there. Done that.

Too, the conflict inherent in the story - corporate greed and a war-mongering thug threatening the peaceful natives - was simply too...well, simple. The main antagonist never had a reason for his determination to carry out genocide other than that he was just a bad guy. Diplomacy was for sissies and the only way to achieve any goal was to blow the everliving shit out of anything or anybody that stood in his way, even if it meant destroying marvels that were literally beyond earthly. Such unadulterated megalomania is usually saved for mustache-twirling cartoon mad scientists bent on ruling the universe.

As a hero, Jake was very serviceable as a proxy for the audience to experience Pandora and the Na'vi. He did suffer a bit from Mighty Whitey syndrome once he got over the awkwardness of driving a 12 foot alien body. In taking on the Pandora topography, Jake was absolutely fearless, again having little trouble adapting to what is supposed to be a completely alien experience. As a character, I found him far more appealing as the Na'vi warrior than the human ex-Marine trying to cope with his disability.

In the end, the characters were likable but hardly unique, and we never truly got to know them short of the stereotypical roles they were designed to fill. The story was entertaining but hardly worthy of the amount of attention and detail that went into creating the world it was set in. And the Wow factor was limited to the dazzle and sparkle of the cool stuff they can do with computers these days. It felt much like Cameron had designed the world's most beautiful dress, the likes of which has never before been seen, and then stuck it on an inflatable doll.

I suppose I could let this go. I could be wowed by the beauty of the film and the world of Pandora. I could relax in the predictability of a traditional story arc and sigh over the pretty pretty aliens falling in love. There is plenty about Avatar to like to be sure.

But I wanted to be blown away. Completely, and by every aspect of the movie, not just the CGI. I'm in the same camp as Owen Gleiberman in that eye candy cannot be considered a substitute for a full meal. For a truly fulfilling movie experience, I need both, the dazzle and the heart-touching story.

Starting the New Decade Out Clean

2009-12-04T17:55:00.001-06:00

According to the count on my LibraryThing.com inventory, I have 320 books on my TBR shelf.

I'd have to read one book every 1.14 days to get through my pile by the end of 2010.

I'd have to read one book every week to get through them all by the end of 2015.

And this is assuming that I don't buy a single other book to add to the pile. Plus, it doesn't count the dozen or so books on my daughter's TBR shelf that I never entered into my LibraryThing inventory but would really like to read. Nor does it include the four-page Wishlist I keep adding to on Amazon. Or the upcoming releases that I'm anxiously awaiting in the next few month. I swear, it never ends.

I'm going to commit now to the following New Year's Resolutions for 2010.

1) I will not buy any new books without having either read one from my TBR pile or having determined that I will never read a certain title from my TBR pile and remove that book from the premises, either as a UBS submission or library donation. Strictly a tit-for-tat deal only, goal to maintain the status quo at the very minimum.

2) I will read at least one book a week from my TBR pile. I qualify this by allowing that I might also simultaneously read a favorite or a new book, but I'll have a TBR in progress at all times.

3) I give myself permission to Give Up. If I get a third of the way through a book and it hasn't really captured me, I will stop reading and call it a day. I simply don't have the time for guilt reading. I think it's fair to say I've given a book the old college try if I make if a third through.

4) Some of the books I have flagged as TBR are actually reference materials I've picked up thinking they may come in handy some day or that apply to some project or other that I've been working on. I think a thorough skim-through will be enough to qualify it for removal from the TBR list, keeping in mind that reference books are to be referred to more so than read through.

Oddly, I make this promise just as I've determined to branch out into genres that I've never experienced before. Specifically, today at Borders I picked up The Color of Magic, book 1 in Terry Pratchett's hugely popular Discworld fantasy series, and Storm Front by Jim Butcher, which looks to be a cross between mystery and paranormal.

New Moon: A Review

2009-11-23T21:17:00.002-06:00

Okay, I figure instead of whining about how badly others have handled the reviews of New Moon, I should offer up my own opinion on the movie.

I waited until a Monday, at 3:30 to see the show so that I wouldn't have to endure a theater full of squeeing fans. This proved to be a good plan as the theater was perhaps no more than an eighth full and I heard not a single squee the entire duration of the film.

My overall impression of New Moon: I found New Moon the movie to be an improvement on New Moon the book. I genuinely liked the movie. After the cut are my specifics.

Here are the things I feared about the movie based on the many reviews I've read but ended up pleasantly surprised:

1. Kristen Stewart's off-putting personality would make her performance as Bella unbearable. Actually, I thought Kristen Stewart was much better in this film than in Twilight. She still has a tendency to rely on two facial expressions - serious and more serious. But overall I thought she did a great job conveying the depth of Bella's depression. Her chemistry with Taylor Lautner worked well, and I felt a connection between them that conveyed Bella's distress over events at the end of the story much better than I felt the book did.

2. Taylor Lautner's performance would be all about the body and nothing about his ability to act. Again, I have to give props to Taylor. He did a great job as Jacob. Yes, his body is quite the sight to behold. In fact, it almost looked fake it was so perfect. But I thought he did a great job giving his character the right amount of change from the happy-go-lucky puppy in love at the beginning of the story to the world-weary Jacob of the end of the film.

3. The movie would drag given it's based on a book that is virtually 400 plus pages of Bella moping. I thought the pacing was fine. The story moved forward at a steady pace, and I didn't feel that Chris Weitz lingered over long on Bella's months of near-catatonic depression. He captured the gist of the situation and then moved the story forward. Granted, the movie didn't whiz by such that the 130 minutes seemed like a mere half hour - I felt every minute of the story. But I was never bored or looking at my watch wishing we could get on with it.

4. Bad dialogue. Actually, I thought the actors all did an excellent job delivering lines that could come off as incredibly cheezy. Specifically, Kristen Stewart managed to deliver several lines naturally that have been quoted as incredibly bad. I didn't have any problems with the dialogue at all.

Here are things I agree with from the many reviews I've read:

1. The introduction of new characters and a focus on some old ones was a good thing. Bella's human friend Jessica was indeed a scream, and I enjoyed the extra attention on the members of Jacob's werewolf pack brothers. For the little amount of screen time they were given, they did show personality. Too, the Volturi vampires were well drawn, at least as far as Aro and Jane. They very much matched up with my imaginings from the book. Bella's father Charlie stole the scenes he was in and came across as a much more involved father than he ever did in the books.

2. Poor special effects. I didn't have a problem with the vampire sparkle - much, much better than the first film. While the wolves worked well when shown in full-body and as a pack, I thought the close ups of their mouths - snapping and snarling and showing loads of teeth - did look fairly odd. It seemed as if the mouths were out of proportion to the size of the wolves' bodies or something. I thought they did a great job with the "furploding" of the wolves when they changed from human into wolf form.

3. The film was a bit dark. I'm not talking about the tone of the film. I'm talking about a handful of scenes that were so dimly lit I kept wanting to hit the "adjust brightness" button to lighten up the characters so that I could see them.

4. Excellent performance by Michael Sheen as Aro. Not quite sure why Dakota Fanning got such high billing since she had only a handful of lines as Jane, but she did fine by them.

Reasons why I actually liked the movie better than the book:

1. Due to the nature of cinema over literature, we didn't have to endure page after page of Bella's internal depression and self-esteem issues. We were shown in fairly brief scenes that Bella was depressed that Edward left, that she was conflicted over her feelings about Jake, and that she didn't believe she was good enough for Edward and that was the reason he had left her. In the book, we had to hear Bella's feelings about these issues over and over and over again, ad nauseum.

2. The Bella of the movie was a bit more sympathetic than the book Bella as far as her treatment of Jacob. In the book, I became very frustrated that Bella lead Jake on as far as her feelings for him without getting a good sense that she felt really bad about it. Kristen Stewart managed to convey Bella's ambivalence towards her feelings for Jake - that she needed his friendship so badly she wasn't strong enough to walk away even as she knew his romantic feelings for her were one-sided and growing stronger.

3. Overall, I like Movie Bella better than Book Bella.

In the end, I still believe that unless you are a fan of the books you will not enjoy the movies simply because the story is the story regardless of the medium, and either you like that type of story or you don't. Many people don't.

But I have to say that I think the film adaptation remained faithful enough to the book to be very satisfying as well as actually improving on things in general. I'm not sure if the whole franchise is worth half the hype it has received, but after seeing the movie for myself, I do think that much of the negativity aimed at the film could be backlash as well as jaded opinions of critics who fall far outside the target demographic.

What Is the Point of Reviewing New Moon?

2009-11-20T10:11:00.017-06:00

I've spent a lot of time reading reviews of The Twilight Saga: New Moon.* For the most part, they all contain the same opinions of the movie, and I'm not remotely surprised by any of the reviews. In fact, I could have predicted the exact response of the critics, who for the vast majority fall far outside the fan demographic by nature of their sex and/or age. I will claim that without having seen so much more than the handful of trailers and clips circulating the interwebs, I could at this very second write a review of this movie that would probably sound a lot like those of the professionals out there, and not just because I've been reading the reviews ad nauseum.

I could have written these reviews six months ago.

The reason I could have written these reviews without even seeing the movie? I've read the book.

I go into this post admitting that a) I've read all of the Twilight books except Breaking Dawn (couldn't manage to finish it), the first two installments more than once, and b) I saw the Twilight movie in the theater and on DVD. I consider myself a realistic fan. I understand the appeal of the books and movies, but I fully acknowledge their flaws. I didn't drink the Koolaide and do not excuse the problems of the movies simply because RPatz is soooo hotttt or the issues of the books because the first one was good and therefore I must blindly accept the three that follow without expectations. But I do admit they have an appeal not unlike J.R. Ward's Black Dagger Brotherhood crack. (That's another post - why girls and woman have responded so positively to the Twilight series.)

From the very second that Summit Entertainment determined to make buckets of cash off the best-selling books, anyone with a brain could have told them what kind of reviews the movies would receive. And nothing - NOTHING - they might try to avert critic-dispensed disaster would have solved the problem. They could have hired Steven Spielberg to direct. They could have thrown Lord of the Rings Trilogy-level CGI budgets at it. They could have cast Meryl Streep, Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt as the leads. Wouldn't have made a bit of difference

Because the movie is based on a book series that doesn't necessarily lend itself to visual interpretation without significant changes to the plot and the characters.

Anyone - even fans - who expected anything more than what the movie very-competently offers up is freakin' crazy. The book New Moon was about the severe depression that Bella enters after Edward leaves her. That's it. 400-plus pages of Bella in a self-pitying funk. The best aspect of the book was Stephenie Meyer's ability to capture and show Bella's nearly-incapacitating despair and sorrow over losing Edward. But how do you translate that to film without it being immensely boring? And who wants to watch two solid hours of someone sitting around moping for months on end?

Well, okay, millions of fans of the book do as evidenced by the insane box office take of Twilight and the sold-out shows of New Moon. And that's all very cool. The fans get to have more of what they love and the movie creators make oodles of money, so it ends up being a win-win as far as I can tell. And I'm sure the powers at Summit aren't crying buckets over the dismal reviews because they're too busy reading the black ink on their profit statements. Nor are the fans contemplating cliff diving because New Moon won't be sweeping the Oscars next winter. They're too busy waiting in line to buy tickets for their second and third viewing and setting up Eclipse count down widgets on their webpages.

But I have to ask - why bother reviewing this movie? Why bother publishing a critical evaluation when it's a given that anyone who is not a fan of the books will NOT LIKE THIS MOVIE? For me, the exercise of non-fans reviewing New Moon is about the same as having an English-speaking person watch a movie in Swahili (with no subtitles) and then offering a review to English speaking people wherein they criticize the movie because they couldn't understand a single word spoken. Duh.

Granted, with all of the hype the movie has gotten there is no way on Earth that critics would admit that they have no hope of liking the movie and that they already know their opinion will have little affect on box office thus they're just going to give it a pass and leave it for the fans to enjoy. I give credit to the handful of reviewers who have admitted up front that this movie is critic-proof so what they say is virtually pointless. With the media domination New Moon has received, critics who don't review the movie are missing the chance to offer their two cents about the Party of the Century.

Doesn't matter to them that it's a sleep over pajama party where M&Ms, popcorn and Red Bull are the main course dishes and the entertainment consists of flipping through the latest issues of CosmoGirl and Teen Vogue, giving each other elaborate mani/pedis, comparing cell phone texting features, and a Channing Tatum movie marathon. The average movie critic has absolutely no hope of enjoying him(!)self but he can't pass up an opportunity to slam those who might.

I do have to give credit to some astute reviewers who are owning up to the situation honestly. Specifically, I give props to reviews like this one by Clay Cane, who admits flat out that the movie works for fans - which is a very specific subset of humans - but otherwise fails. And he does so without insulting the target audience, which I vastly appreciate. Because my real issue is not that critics are slamming New Moon. See above: I admit I can't imagine it making a very good movie based on the source material.

I take issue with the critics and commentators on pop culture who are using New Moon as a stick with which to beat up on both teenagers and women. The fact that the movie has been universally described as "bad" yet still will make so much coin seems to validate the assertion that young women (and their mothers) have no sense of taste, are fairly simple-minded and easily pleased, and wouldn't know quality if it put its shirt back on and smacked them across the face. For liking New Moon - and showing up in droves for the movie - all women and girls are dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, the equivalent of those guys who buy a brand of beer simply because a hot babe in a bikini told them to via a football game half-time commercial. Doesn't matter if the story itself is two hours of watching paint dry, the female fans will be dazzled by sparkly things and the site of a perfectly formed male torso.

As I recall, the second Transformer movie was not well-received by the critics, yet it managed to pull in a respectable box office haul. I'm not about to reread all of those reviews, but I can't remember critics using this poor quality/huge commercial success paradox to beat up on all of the fanboys who must have shown up in droves to see the movie. The intelligence of viewers wasn't called into question, nor was it universally implied that people who went to see this movie only did so because Megan Fox's wardrobe budget was significantly reduced. Well, okay, the guy from the Vancouver Voice called it like he saw it.

My point is that critics - and the media - seem to feel no compunction about slamming teen girls (and their mothers) for liking something they've deemed cultural trash. Where do they get off with such hypocrisy?

Because the fanbase of this series is both young and female, critics arrived at the theaters with a chip the size of Pike's Peak on their shoulders. Of course the movie would be bad. Of course the plot would be silly and the characters stupid. I mean, just look at what kinds of people liked the book? What can you expect from something aimed at them?

New Moon was doomed because expectations were so low based on the demographics of fans, and the law of self-fulfilling prophecy was at full throttle. Imagine if all critics who sat down to review the Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Harry Potter movies did so with lowered expectations simply because the original fans of the books were geeks and fringe elements or kids? Best they would have managed was a "what a pleasant surprise - I expected crap since culturally superior people like me don't read stuff like that."

No, the Twilight series - books and movies - will not stand the test of time to become the classics read in the English literature classes or studied in the film appreciation courses of the twenty-second century. But right now they satisfy a need of a certain demographic the same way movies have always fulfilled the needs the men-who-are-still-little-boys have for car chases that could never happen in real life and watching things get blowed up. Since its inception, Hollywood has been filling the fantasy needs of men without those needs ever being questioned no matter how shallow or ridiculous. Why can't teenage girls' needs be afforded the same respect as critics give those who simply cannot get enough of torture-porn or superhero reboots? If the movie is bad, fine. But at least pretend to have an open mind.

I will predict this right here and right now, then come back to check to see how spot on I was after the Eclipse movie is released next summer. Assuming that the movie makers have remained as faithful to the book Eclipse as they have with the New Moon adaptation, critics WILL NOT like the movie at all. They will find the plot random and convoluted. They will find the character of Bella dull and self-absorbed, Edward to have become a whimpy doormat and Jacob a bullying jerk, the love triangle between the three forced and silly. The acting will not have gotten any better, the special effects will be called sub-par, and even if it clocks in at a tight 90 minutes including pre-film trailers, the pacing will be questioned and the whole thing called overlong. I've read the book, remember.

And the critics will continue to marvel that such tripe (their words) could appeal to anyone and despair that this is what teen girls find quality entertainment. They will warn everyone that if you're a fan of the books you will like the movie and if you aren't a fan, you won't.

Duh.

* The reason I've read so many reviews? I'm still looking for one that at least seems unbiased - something written by a person familiar with the source material, not pre-disposed to hating it on principle, yet who will honestly shine a light on the good and the bad. I have a feeling I'm the only person on the planet who'll be able to meet my specific needs.

Actresses Behaving Badly

2009-11-18T18:51:00.017-06:00

I'm sorry. I admit that I don't know her personally at all. And I also don't have any idea what it must be like to have the public laser-focused on pretty much every single move that I make. Nor can I imagine how hard it might be not to be able to run to the grocery store or sit in a restaurant or see a movie without people approaching me and bothering me all the time. I'm sure being famous has many drawbacks.

But I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Kristen Stewart needs a serious attitude adjustment.

Warning: what follows after the cut is a rant, so if you are a serious fan, you may want to back away slowly.

I've always thought of KStew as a bit off. Last year when the Twilight movie rocketed onto the world stage, she seemed clearly pained to find herself in the middle of a media firestorm, the sudden focus of every female in the world aged 11 through 60 plus all of those people who have ever met or had anything to do with a female aged 11 through 60. She winced and stuttered her way through media appearances and played the part of Shy Artiste to Oscar-caliber levels. Text book deer in the headlights reaction.

And I gave her a pass. Poor girl had no concept of what sudden fame might be like. She's only a kid after all, and maybe she needed some time to get used to being a Movie Star. I get that. No problem. Even though she'd chosen to be an actor, a profession that could conceivably lead to fame thus setting up at least a certain level of expectation when one shows up to star in a movie based on a hugely popular book series, we'll chalk this one up to "Wow, who knew?"

But this time around? Sorry, but she's worn out the magnetic strip on that particular card from swiping it too many times. Anyone out there who is honestly shocked by the amount of attention New Moon is getting must seriously live in a place that doesn't have wide spread electricity. KStew has had a full year to prepare for the media gauntlet she knew she would be facing come this fall. And she's had ample time to get her mad interviewing skilz up to snuff. She's not a rookie any more, and just like all pros, she should have been working out in the off season in prep for the Big Games.

However, from what I've seen so far (and I've seen a lot, believe me), Kristen Stewart has not grown one inch as a professional Movie Star since the last time she dominated every media outlet known to mankind. She's as awkward and uncomfortable and inarticulate in interviews today as she was a year ago, as if being put in front of a camera is causing her physical pain. But because she's no longer a fresh face coming off a runaway surprise hit, this time around she appears arrogant and rude and ungrateful rather than shy and awkward and charmingly befuddled.

And it's not just on camera that the girl leaves a bad impression. I just read EW's cover story on the Twilight Trio (Robert Pattinson, Stewart, and Taylor Lautner), and by the end of the interview I was scowling in disgust. She's a Mean Girl! From the article:

EW: You guys [Pattinson, Stewart and Lautner] are lucky. You clearly all dig each other.

[Taylor] Lautner: The amount of time we have to spend with each other-if I didn't like these two, it would be exhausting.

Stewart: And there's all these people that we as a group don't like. So if we didn't like each other to...

[Robert] Pattinson: What are you talking about?

Stewart: This group (pointing at their trio) doesn't like certain individuals outside of it. That gets so wearing on a movie if you don't have...You need to have people who get it, and that are in your position.

Now, I'm not saying that just because she's famous that Stewart has to like everybody. It just seems fairly obvious that admitting in an article published in a very ubiquitous entertainment magazine that there are people outside her little clique that she doesn't like is pretty impolitic. Actually, admitting to anybody that you consider yourself part of a special clique that excludes virtually everyone else in the universe is pretty stupid even if you aren't famous. It's a lesson hard learned by second graders on playgrounds everywhere, but nobody likes popular people who actually buy into their own popularity even if we can't deny that they are popular.

Too, you would think that someone on Stewart's publicity team - her agent, publicist, the movie studio wranglers, the janitor who sweeps the set - might point out that, given that the largest-by-far portion of her fanbase is made of teenage and preteen girls, the following is not something you want to see printed in a magazine no matter how true it might be (again, from the EW article):

EW: How are you all coping with living in a fishbowl? (snip)

Stewart: I don't mind working every day. It's just, suddenly I have this other role. And that's really disappointing. All I'd like to do is go outside with a book and figure out what to do with the day. And if I can't do that, then I'm just going to sit in my hotel room on my balcony and chain smoke. (Pauses) I'm going to stop smoking. I'm not such a good smoker, anyway. It's not in my bones. I'm gonna drop it.

Sorry but the backpedal is just a smidge too little too late. Way to be a role model, Kristen.

I think what gets me the most, however, is the first half of that remark wherein she expressed disappointment in having to be a movie star. Clearly, Kristen hates - HATES - that being famous means that she has given up her privacy. I'm sure many if not most actors feel the same as she does, frustrated and angry that along with the money and fame comes a sense that the public falsely believes that it now owns every aspect of that person's life. Yeah, that does gotta suck. But the difference between KStew and all of those other actors is that she lets the public know how much she resents us for her current situation. She's actually pissed off about it - publicly. Like she just found out that she's responsible for cleaning all of the pit toilets after the Woodstock 2010 reunion and was never told this was part of the gig.

And this is where any sympathy for her dries up like a leaf off the tree. Kristen Stewart made a conscious choice to become an actor. She chose as her profession a job that puts her in the center of the public spotlight, success in said profession being defined as achieving fame to the degree of appearing in movies that people actually want to see. To now turn around and whine that it really sucks to have to put up with people looking at her and asking her questions and wanting to know all about her life is a lot like an obstetrician complaining because he has to get out of bed in the middle of the night to deliver a baby.

If dealing with the media as part of the publicity for her films is too hard for the girl, she needs to find another form of acting. If she's all about the art without any of the annoying fame stuff, there are other ways to express her creativity. She should try Broadway as I don't believe the folks in Cats ever had to endure media junkets. Or perhaps the local community theater? Puppet shows at my public library have been known to bring in crowds of up to twenty, but I swear I've never seen a single photographer or reporter from EW there.

If it's the fame and the fans and the constant attention that chaps her ass, then she needs to think about working behind the camera or walking away from movies altogether. At the very least, she should stick with those obscure indie flicks that aren't based on internationally best selling novels since those pesky Harry Potter books have virtually ruined the industry for all literary adaptations as far as remaining anonymous after starring in them.

In short, get over it or get out of the business.

Because in the end, nothing irritates me more than a whinging Movie Star. Poor me. I've got a career that thousands of young women would give their eye teeth and more to have. At only nineteen years old I've made more money than most people will make in their entire lifetime of work, and that during a crippling economic environment in which people are losing jobs and homes like empty gum wrappers. I'm starring in an insanely successful movie franchise with two of the hottest young actors on the planet (even though my acting skills are still questionable at this point (see: hospital scene of Twilight)). I'm empirically beautiful with a long career ahead of me, my face on virtually every magazine cover on the newstands, and reporters clawing at the chance to interview me.

And nobody forced me to do any of this - I chose to be an actor all by myself and managed to get very, very lucky in an industry where only the tiniest fraction of people ever manage to make a living much less achieve pop star icon status.

Yeah, boo-flipping-hoo. She has to do interviews and deal with over-interested fans? Cry me a river.

I'm not the only one who finds KStew off-putting. CNN has even noticed.

My advice to Kristen, who will never read this in a million years? Hire yourself a personality coach who will teach you how to fake it. Someone who can show you how to act gracious and formulate coherent answers to fairly straightforward questions that get asked so often you should know the lines by heart by now. Someone who will help you master basic body language cues like smiling and not hugging yourself and rocking back and forth in an attempt to self-comfort through your obvious distaste so that you don't appear like a snobbish Hollywood starlet who is clearly above the pedestrian trash who buys tickets to your movies. These are certainly achievable goals as evidence by the dozens of young stars who manage to come across as genuinely nice people.

Or, since you are an actor by trade, just throw yourself into the role of a young movie star who really loves her job and appreciates the fans and is so very grateful for such an amazing opportunity. Go crazy method and pretend to enjoy every minute of this thrill ride instead of constantly looking as if you were about to undergo a root canal. Pretend this character has the wisdom to know that today's superstar is tomorrow's has-been and thus takes nothing for granted.

Then get in front of those cameras and act your little heart out. Us fans are quite fine if you save your true personality for those people that you do like.

I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Heart of Gold Notwithstanding

2009-11-17T11:10:00.010-06:00

I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon's Firefly series, although I didn't discover it until after it had been taken off the air, so I'm forever sorry I wasn't part of the effort to save it. Nathan Fillion's Capt. Malcolm Reynolds falls solidly on my Favorite Top 10 Heroes Ever list. And the particular phrasing and word patterns Whedon used for all of the show's dialogue is nothing short of genius. If you've never watched the show, I highly recommend picking up the DVDs at your earliest convenience.

There is one aspect of the show that, despite many viewings now, never quite worked for me. This is the character of Inara Serra, played by the breathtakingly lovely Morena Baccarin.

Inara is portrayed as the potential love interest of Capt. Mal, and if the show had been allowed to continue on its natural progression, I have no doubt the two would have eventually come to admit their attraction to each other. Fillion and Baccarin had great chemistry, and I was perfectly cool with these two as a couple. In fact, a tragedy of the series' cancellation is no small amount of Unresolved Sexual Frustration between the two. Even the movie, Serenity (also highly recommended), didn't quite satisfy my need to see Mal and Inara in a relationship, so unless I'm willing to turn to fanfic, I guess I'm out of luck.

No, my problem with Inara is her profession. See, Inara is a hooker. Or, in the parlance of the Firefly universe, she's a companion. A woman who is paid to have sexual relations with other people. And not just men. You got the coin, she's got the goods.

And it's not the hooker aspect I even have a problem with. Heck, I rooted for Julie Roberts' hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold just as hard as the next gal. As part of the story, I can fully accept that some women turn to/choose this line of work for a myriad of good and not-so-good reasons.

My issue is that in the Firefly universe, being a companion is considered a very desirable, respectable, indeed - even prestigious, line of work. Inara's presence on Mal's ship gives him and his crew "respectability" they wouldn't otherwise have being that they are, in effect, space pirates. Inara is revered whenever she enters a room, her services highly desired and only given to those of the highest societal standing. She's Classy and Exotic and Respected because of her profession. Little girls in the Firefly verse actually do dream of being companions when they grow up.

Granted, the companions of the Firefly verse are nothing like the stereotype most of us conjure when we think of prostitutes. Companions are very well educated. They are clean and healthy and never saddled with crippling drug addictions. They choose their clients very carefully and have the power to punish anyone whom they feel has treated them in any way badly. They are autonomous in their business dealings (not a pimp in the verse) and they make a lot of money for the services they provide in lush, comfortable love chambers where they set the pace and define the parameters of their encounters. Truth be told, the way it's presented in the Firefly verse, being a companion is a noble career ambition, to be sure.

Thing is, I simply cannot get around my cultural bias against prostitution nor the reality of the real-world, well, reality of being a prostitute, to accept this premise. No matter how many beautiful gowns Inara wears or how classy she behaves or how respectfully other characters treat her, I can't ignore the fact that she's a prostitute. And in my world, prostitution is not a respectable profession. It's not glamorous and it's not something anyone would ever want for someone they loved. It's just not.

I understand intellectually what Whedon was trying to accomplish. Whedon loves a powerful woman, and while our society has done a lot to remove the barriers that have always served to keep females marginalized, prostitution is still the lowest common denominator. No one sees a woman who has been forced into a life of prostitution - even if self-selected and for ostensibly positive reasons - as a person who's realized her inherent power. If at some future point in time, prostitution can be made as something not only acceptable but actually respectable, women will have at long last gained full power over that last, final frontier - their own bodies.

Perhaps some day in the distant future, companions will exist in exactly the way Whedon envisioned them on Firefly. But if reality were to follow the fictional course imagined in the show, society would have had several decades/centuries to accept an evolution of prostitution that moved women from "hookers" to "companions". Unfortunately, the duration of a shortened 14-episode television season is not long enough for me to make that gigantic mental leap.

Inara is beautiful and a good person and I do want her to find happiness, preferably with Capt. Mal. I have nothing against the character personally and don't even mind her being a companion. But I just cannot manage to buy into the premise of prostitution ever being not just okay but an honorable profession.

Space pirates? No problem. Hookers as pillars of the community? Not buying it.

You Have Something On Your Face

2009-10-30T09:31:00.007-05:00

I'm reading J.R. Ward's newest book, Covet. Despite all of my issues with the Black Dagger Brotherhood series, I find Ward endlessly readable. Affected dialogue patterns and her habit of turning nouns into verbs aside, her characters really appeal to my love of uber-protective alpha heroes.

I am having one tiny issue, however. One of the secondary characters (who, I suspect, is in line to become a primary character in a future book) has been described as having several face piercings. I'm only about eight chapters in, but I already know he has a ring in his lip. And it's been made clear this isn't the only place on his face that he's poked holes into.

I personally find face piercing a disgusting from of self-mutilation. I've been desensitized to it enough that I can handle a teeny chip of jewel pierced discretely through the corner of a nose, (although for the life of me I cannot figure out how you get the backing onto the end of the post via a nostril, and the unsanitary-ness of such a thing when mixed with a cold squicks me out). But any other form of metal-through-face makes my skin crawl. Eyebrows, cheekbones, lips, the space half-way between chin and mouth? Eewww times a million.

(Sidebar: I do see the hypocrisy in my feelings since I'm perfectly fine with pierced ears. I don't have a good answer for it, so I'll ignore it for now.)

Anyway, this character Adrian has multiple face piercings and so he's immediately marked as unattractive in my head. I don't care if he looks like the magical love child of Brad Pitt, Taylor Kitsch and Jensen Ackles. Stick metal through his face - more than once - and I can't see anything else but that. Best case is that I can try to pretend I never read this fact about the character and live in denial that kissing him would be most uncomfortable with that cold, gold hoop getting in the way. Or thinking about the noticeable holes that would be left behind if he ever decided to give up the face jewelry. Or how much it must have hurt to get it done in the first place.

Which leads me to wonder if it is ever wise to describe a character as having some aspect that a decent sized group of people might find unattractive. I'm not talking about a hero who's going bald or maybe isn't sporting perfect six-pack abs. But things such as full-coverage tattoos or non-traditional hair cuts (mohawks?) or body piercings are extremely...extreme. Those features appeal to some, but I'd wager those "some" folks make up the tiniest sliver of the pie chart.

So why would a writer risk turning off a good hunk of her readership?

I suppose it's a matter of what she hopes to accomplish. If the goal is to convey some specific character trait, then maybe specificity about some fringe form of self-expression is in order even if it alienates readers. If it's important that Joe Hero got that sleeve tattoo to honor his father who was killed in the War, maybe that trumps the prospect of what that artwork will look like on an 80 year old man with wrinkled arm skin and less-toned biceps.

Too, it says something profound about a hero that he would go for any form of extreme look. A guy who has a pierced eyebrow as a form of self-expression is a different guy than the one who works out constantly to maintain a buff body or one who finds wearing anything other than faded jeans and a white tee shirt to be too restrictive.

But if she's writing a hero who she wants everyone to think of as extremely attractive, she's probably better off leaving the descriptives very vague. If you go into too much detail about a hero's exact specs, you will only appeal to a certain percentage of readers, while if you keep it a bit vague, they can fill in the blanks to meet their own specific criteria of what floats their personal boat. By my three examples of male perfection listed above, you can tell what kind of guy I find attractive. But for every one of my sighs over Jensen Ackles, someone else can match me swoon for swoon over Zachary Quinto whom I don't find attractive in the least.

Worst possible reason is the writer short cut. The word-equivalent of movie characters who smoke in these days of Smoking = un-PC, giving a character an envelope-pushing physical style as a way to convey "bad boy" or "dangerous" or "possibly evil" is a real cop-out. It's as lazy as giving a heroine red hair so readers will automatically think she's a spitfire or making the villain a pedophile to make sure people agree he's truly eeevil.

Plus, it doesn't work. I don't see a guy with a bar through his cheek and think to myself, wow, that's a guy who walks on the edge and who just needs the love of the right woman to tame him. I see a guy with a bar through his cheek and think, wow, some day he's going to grow up and realize he looks really stupid but now he's stuck with a permanent scar to remind him of this unfortunate attempt to be a rebel.

I have no idea why Ward has chosen to give Adrian facial piercings. Maybe it's character-driven. Maybe the fact that Adrian feels he needs to suffer pain as some form of self-punishment which has led him to stick large needles into his face is really, really crucial to his particular story. So important that it doesn't matter if readers (read: me) will never understand how any woman would ever find him attractive enough to stop staring at the metal hoops and bars protruding out of his face.

Maybe it's just that Ward herself has a thing for guys with facial piercings. Maybe she creates heroes that float her own personal boat, regardless of how those guys will play in the larger world. I suppose when you reach her level of success, you can afford to indulge in your own fantasies of what constitutes perfection.

In the end, I need an extreme aspect of a character's appearance to be there for a reason, otherwise I'll never get past it. If Adrian just thinks he looks hot with bars in his face, then he's not the guy for me, and I'll never be able to fall in love with him the way I need to as a reader in order to enjoy his story.

TSTL: Not Just for Heroines

2009-10-15T07:28:00.011-05:00

I've been watching this season's TV darling, Glee. It's cute. The music is really fun (although I have yet to feel the urge to download any of the performances off iTunes so that phenomenon escapes me), and the characters are interesting. The show clearly sees itself as camp because most of the characters are so over-the-top cartoonish no one could be expected to take them seriously. Between the cheerleaders who ALWAYS wear their cheerleading uniforms to the bombastic bully of a cheer coach, Sue, and the germaphobe guidance counselor Emma, nuance is a concept that is ignored completely.

But I do have one fundamental problem with the show that is getting to the point where I'm thinking of bailing.

Warning: this post includes SPOILERS for Glee. Don't read after the cut if you don't want to read SPOILERS.

First, a little background for anyone who doesn't know. Glee's central character is Spanish teacher Will Schuester who recalls his days in the McKinley High School glee club with such fondness that he determines to return the current glee club to its former glory. Over the course of the season, he's managed to recruit both enthusiastic and reluctant singers to flesh out the chorus, all the while fighting the not-remotely-subtle efforts of cheer coach Sue Sylvester to thwart him so that any extra curricular funds go to her champion-level cheer squad.

Will is married to Terri, but he has an obvious attraction to guidance counselor Emma Pillsbury. Football star Finn is dating cheerleader Quinn but has an obvious attraction to glee club star Rachel. And in order to add conflict and tension to these two love triangles, the writers at Glee have stepped out of camp by using a serious storyline that veers so much into soap-opera that I'm about to give up on the show.

See, Terri (Will's wife) is the most annoying sort of characters. She's a prima donna former cheerleader who feels entitled beyond the ability to believe. She treats Will not so much as her life partner but as the person responsible for giving her everything she wants and more, regardless of what he might have to sacrifice. When Will finally showed enough frustration that Terry believed he might actually kick her to the curb where she belongs, she told Will that she was pregnant. He was thrilled and, as would be expected, committed to staying with Terri and being a family. Problem is, Terri is not pregnant.

Cheerleader Quinn's situation is equally self-serving but almost more evil. As president of the McKinley High chastity club (do those really exist?), she's refused boyfriend Finn's attempts to take their relationship physical, a situation he accepts reluctantly. However, after a few wine coolers too many, Quinn gives her virginity to Finn's best friend, Puck, and winds up pregnant. Instead of telling Finn the truth, she convinces Finn that he's the father despite the fact that the two have never had sex. He actually believes the urban myth that a hot tub can serve as the perfect incubator that allows conception sans penetration. He turns his back on his growing feelings for Rachel, freaks as he sees his future going up in smoke, and worries how he'll explain what he's done to his single-mom mom. Not to mention the looming nightmare of being a teen father.

And herein lies my issue with the show. At first it was that I so completely and totally despised the characters of Terri and Quinn I couldn't stand to watch them on the screen. How two women could lie so openly to men they are supposed to love is beyond me. I won't even go into the Grand Canyon-sized plot holes a faked pregnancy presents because I can't get past the concept of faking a pregnancy in the first place. Does Will NEVER see his wife naked? And how will she "fake" labor and delivery?

But as time has gone on, I've come to see that my problem is not so much with Terri and Quinn, it's what these two characters force Will and Finn to become. I like Will. I like Finn. But my respect for these guys is quickly approaching the negative double digits.

I mean, come on, Finn! How could you actually believe that you are the father of Quinn's baby when you've never had sex with her? Maybe we're supposed to like Finn all the more because he's so trusting and devoted to his girlfriend that he believes her without question. But really, when faced with such a life-shattering situation, I'd encourage even my own son to ask the tough questions.

I sure hope Finn's ignorance is not a commentary on the poor state of the American public school system's sex education program. Because if that's the reason we're supposed to accept Finn's buying Quinn's immaculate conception BS, the writers need to work a lot harder.

And while Will is admirable for staying with the shrill, shrewish Terri because she's supposedly having his baby, all I keep asking myself is how he ended up with such a woman in the first place. She's unbearable. Honestly, I don't see one redeeming quality in the character. So what could have possibly inspired Will to marry her?

So my problem is not so much that Finn and Will are being lied to. It's that they are so easily duped. There's naive and there's trusting and there's loyal. But this goes beyond any of that into Too Stupid To Live territory. I can't feel bad for Finn or Will because the solutions to their problems are so obvious. (Has Will NEVER seen his wife naked?)

And even if these two good men are subconsciously ignoring the obvious, neither the Terri nor the Quinn character has been portrayed as a woman worth such self mental-subterfuge. If Terri and/or Quinn had shown at least one redeeming quality that made me see why Will and Finn love them so deeply as to allow themselves to be lied to so poorly, I could suspend my disbelief in their belief in the lies.

If the show follows the premise it's establishing - that Terri plans to claim that Quinn's baby is hers and Will's - and Will and Finn buy into it, I will stop watching. If I wanted to watch a soap opera, I'd tune into Days of Our Lives.

You've Got to Want It

2009-10-08T12:47:00.010-05:00

I headed to Barnes & Noble today to pick up two new releases I've been waiting for, Meljean Brook's Demon Forged and Lynn Viehl's Shadowlight. I've ranted before about my feelings on B&N of late, but I have a membership that gives me 10% off all purchases. That pays for my tax plus a little bit more, so I'm financially motivated to deal with my issues.

Anyway, I headed to B&N thinking that it now being Thursday, for absolute sure the employees would have unpacked the Tuesday releases boxes, so the books should be on the shelves.
I park with little angst (oh, happy day) and head toward the up escalator since Fiction is housed on the second level. I pass by a two-sided display kiosk with new mass market paperback releases and spot J.R. Ward's new Covet. I'm a bit ambivalent about this book. I find Ward highly addictive, but she also frustrates the heck out of me. And this review over at Dear Author puts me directly on the middle of the fence. But since I'm going to be getting the other two books, I grab Covet thinking, what the heck. Just in case, I check the kiosk for Demon Forged and/or Shadowlight but didn't find either one.

Once upstairs I hit the Romance aisle, start at the As and stop when I hit "Brockmann". Okay, Meljean's books should be coming up pretty soon. But then I'm at "Brooks" and I know I haven't skipped it, so I begin to scratch my head. Maybe Meljean's series is shelved in Fantasy instead of Romance although I clearly recall finding the other titles in Romance. I mosey on down to the end of the Romance aisle looking for the Vs. Sure enough, there are Lynn Viehl's Darkyn books, but no Shadowlight. Again, I'm thinking I'm just in the wrong section according to the B&N shelving gurus.

As much as I don't like the new B&N's parking setup, they do offer handy self-help computers for people like me who want to find things on their own, without the help of a store employee. I click my way to both books, find that both books are in-stock, and that both books are, supposedly, shelved in Romance not Fantasy. Hmmmm.

I go back to the Romance aisle. I look again in the Bs. I check the Vs carefully. I check the "New Romance Releases" wall. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

I start to get annoyed. I'm ready to put back my copy of Covet and head over to Borders. Once back on the main floor, I spot a number of New Release displays scattered about. One by one, I inspect each and every slot. Lo and behold, there I found Demon Forged. Now I'm in a quandry. Do I settle for 2/3? Do I put two back, head to Borders and gamble on finding all 3? Do I bang my head against the wall and cry?

Wouldn't you know, a few displays later I bumped into Shadowlight.

So, I had to work for these books. And while leaving the store, I pondered what I would want if I were an author with a new release. Sure, I'd love - LOVE - to have my books displayed on a special stand that calls attention to them, hopefully catching one or two casual browsers who might otherwise walk right on by. But how frustrating for others who come looking for the book specifically to not find it where they expected it to be. Or where even the store's computer believes it to be.

I know from my days working at a B&N that displays are constantly changing, books are always on the move, and it's near impossible to keep up with the exact location of a title at any given moment. I learned never to promise a customer we had a specific book until I held it in my hands because even though the computer might say we had it on the shelf didn't mean I'd actually be able to locate it.

Ideally, bookstores would put a couple copies on the "correct" shelf and have plenty more to create a display or fill a kiosk slot. But even if they attempt this good faith exercise to satisfy looky-loos and specific shoppers, within hours their efforts may be undone by the sale of just one or two copies. Too, I get the impression that unless you're Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer or J.K. Rowling, chances are stores don't get shipped box upon box of your titles to create magnificent, showy displays. If they get a dozen copies, good luck keeping track of them.

Anyway, I've got my books. All's right in the world. I still hate B&N's new location, though.

The Dying Art

2009-10-06T10:15:00.016-05:00

Just discovered this article about the dying art of cursive writing. It's very apropos to the homework situation at my house because cursive writing is required for all of my son's work this year, short of math of course.

As I did back in my day, my kids were both taught cursive in 3rd grade. Our school requires that all non-number related work in 4th grade must be done in cursive. I think this is great since it forces the kids to practice and apply the cursive skills they learned the year before. It does cause some angst at our house because my son writes very carefully and very s-l-o-w-l-y when using cursive, so homework takes three times longer. I think it's also caused him extra stress at school when he's given an assignment and only a certain amount of to time work because he fears he won't be able to complete it. I keep telling him that a) with practice, the cursive writing will come faster and b) maybe he doesn't need to be so very careful after all.

Thing is, after 4th grade, cursive becomes optional.
My daughter never uses cursive. Granted, she's at that age when everything she does, including her writing, is very affected. No i is dotted or exclamation point accentuated without a little circle. Drives me crazy, but I'm pretty sure she'll grow out if it the way she grew out of wanting to be a Disney princess. Still, she either prints her assignments or types them up on the computer. If the school is only going to enforce one year of cursive practice, no way can it be expected to stick permanently. And if it's not going to stick, why bother?

While I hate the idea of cursive writing going the way of calligraphy, I'm not sure it's such a tragedy if it becomes somewhat diminished in importance as far as things to focus on at school. I myself use the computer so much that the act of handwriting even an excuse note to send to school wears me out, and my print/cursive hybrid writing is nothing to brag on. I think most adults develop some kind of combo style they use when they are reduced to actually putting pen or pencil to paper. So all that time I spent on learning cursive back in grade school seems pointless now.

I'd much prefer the school make kids print very neatly than worry about cursive, especially if they are going to forget all about it after the 4th grade. It's a fact of the world in this century that a huge majority of the writing our kids will do will be via a keyboard, either computer, text, or touch screen. Having beautiful penmanship will put them in high demand when it comes time for their friends to address wedding invitations or land them that gig painting Renn Faire signage, but it's not going to get them into that prestigious Ivy League school or help them move up the work ladder any more quickly. In fact, it makes more sense to me that the time spent teaching cursive would be better used teaching proper keyboarding technique instead so we don't end up with an entire generation of point-and-poke single finger typers.

It's a matter of focusing on the skills necessary to operate in today's world. How many people today know how to use a slide rule? Once upon a time, well formed cursive served a purpose. What purpose does it serve today that isn't being met by another tool? If cursive was originally used to speed up writing - more words on the page in less time - I would argue that typing on a keyboard is way faster than that.

My issue is that both of my kids have atrocious handwriting, in my opinion. My son's cursive is very well formed, but when he prints, I have a hard time reading his writing. And while I can read my daughter's papers, she seems completely oblivious to the poorly erased mistakes that interfere with a neat, pride-filled presentation. I often worry that they will be marked down for illegible writing, but so far the teachers are proving to have better deciphering skills than I do. Maybe it's that I'm overestimating the skill level I expect at their respective ages, but I just think my writing at that point in my life was much better. I feel I'm constantly nagging for them to write neater, go slower, erase better and "take some pride in your work!"

Perhaps cursive writing is something that should be delegated to an elective in high school the way other art forms are. I would be much happier to have my kids work on printing well than knowing how to write in cursive, never using that skill, and have sloppy handwriting in any form.

And just because a person doesn't know how to write in cursive doesn't mean he or she doesn't know how to write at all. My dad made me learn to drive a car with manual transmission before I could get my driver's license. I haven't driven a stick shift car in ten years. Sure, I know I can if I need to, and that's reassuring whenever I have to rent a moving truck. But if I'd never learned to do it in the first place, I'd still be able to get myself where I needed to go.

Clash Of the Titans Redux

2009-10-02T09:22:00.008-05:00

When I heard that they were remaking the 1981 movie Clash of the Titans, I was tickled pink. CotT '81 is maybe my favorite B movie of all time. Not only was it the first movie I can remember seeing sans parents (they let me and my brother go to the theater all by ourselves!), it was such an unapologetically corny, over the top love story. You just gotta love a classic Greek myth with all of its monsters and gods and damsels in distress. For crying out loud, Andromeda was actually chained to the rocks to be sacrificed to the Krakan! You can't satisfy my rescue-scenario fetish any better than that.

So they are remaking CotT, with Sam Worthington in the role of the dashing Perseus. I do like Worthington - my favorite part of Terminator Salvation, actually - but I have some reservations about him in this role. From the stills on IMDB, he's clearly a much swarthier, aggressive Perseus. A hardened warrior who looks used to battle. I do love me some warriors, especially in short skirts (see: Pitt, Brad, Troy and Butler, Gerard, 300). But it's definitely a departure from the original.

Harry Hamlin's Perseus, on the other hand, was not only a lot prettier than Worthington (that hair!), he played Perseus as kind of a reluctant hero. He grows up on an idyllic island and seems content to hang on Seriphos forever, combing the beach for new shells for his fledgling puca necklace business. It's only when the jealous Thetis plucks Perseus off the island and drops him in the middle of the festering drama unfolding in Joppa that Perseus picks up his sword (a magic sword!). And it's only love that is strong enough to motivate Perseus to seek out the Stygian Witches, capture the elusive Pegasus, fight the hideous Medusa, and...well, you've got to see the movie.

Still, even with this change to a more proactive hero, I'm giddy for March 26th to roll around. CotT '10 will, at the very least, provide a massive CGI upgrade from the cheesy claymation special effects of CotT '81. And we get Liam Neeson as Zeus. I know I probably won't have to wait in line opening night, but I'll be there.

Wonder if my brother might be available to go with me. For old times' sake.

Got To Love a Good Kids' Series

2009-09-04T09:21:00.012-05:00

I happily had an excuse to go book shopping yesterday. Not that I need a genuine excuse to go book shopping, but it's really nice to pull books off the shelves, decide to purchase them and justify it as Necessary.

I'm trying very hard to turn my fourth grade son into a Reader (yes, with the capital R). Unlike his older sister, who consumes books the way I did when I was her age, he simply doesn't find the pleasure in curling up on the couch with a great book. I keep thinking maybe this is because he just hasn't found the right One yet.

Not that I haven't tried hard to bring home the right morsel to tempt him. Whenever he expresses any interest in a type of book or a specific series, I rush out and snatch up as much of it as I can. As a result, we have the full Captain Underpants collection (through 2007, anyway) and countless episodes from the My Weird School epoch. I had words with the sales staff at both my local Borders and Barnes & Noble when neither store stocked even a single Jake Maddox title. And I've been to the bookstore twice to return duplicate purchases of the Bones books because I can't remember which ones my son has and which he wants.

Unfortunately, however, my son seems to outgrow his interest in a particular series as quickly as he grows out of last year's jeans. Just when I think he may be hooked good and proper, he's got his nose stuck in a computer video game, dust a quarter inch thick on his pile of books.

As of this summer, two series have kept me from despairing that my son will never read anything more complex than poorly drawn superheroes with underwear for a uniform. Yesterday he sent me out with instructions to locate two Weenies titles he needs to complete his collection. He's also informed me that he expects me to take him to the bookstore the second the doors open on October 12 so that he can snatch up the next installment of the Diary of a Wimpy Kid saga. It's the first time ever he's actually been aware of an upcoming release date of a book - something even I had no concept of when I was his age. I'm so very proud.

While I was indulging his love of talking Weenies, I also picked up some books with a bit more heft. In our Illinois school system, a big deal is made every year of the books nominated for a Rebecca Caudill award. It's practically a right of passage when students hit the fourth grade and can begin voting for their favorites off the list of nominees. After completing a Caudill book, students can have their picture taken as they hold up the book, and the school librarian hangs the snapshots all over the library. There's some honor in having your face plastered on the walls as many times as possible. I think my daughter might hold some kind of record.

So in order to encourage my son to read books that have a better chance in opening his worldview, I scoured the list of nominees for 2010 to see which titles might appeal to him. His teacher had informed us she'd be reading three of the books aloud to the class although she didn't specify which ones, so there was a certain amount of gambling I needed to do. I crossed off the ones with girl protagonists. As much as I HATE promoting the concept that boys don't read books about girls, I need to do whatever I can to tempt my son. I begrudgingly admit I have a better chance force feeding him boy stories.

I discovered, happily, that the book I thought most likely to appeal to him - Jeremy Fink and the Meaning of Life by Wendy Mass - was the very book he'd selected himself for in-class quiet reading time, although he was convinced the title was actually "Keys" because of the picture of keys on the front cover. It wasn't until I pulled the book off the shelf at the store that I confirmed they were one in the same.

I ended up with The Wednesday Wars by Gary D. Schmidt and All the Lovely Bad Ones by Mary Downing Hahn. The second book came with the bonus of knowing my daughter had read and absolutely loved one of Hahn's other titles - The Old Willis House - so if my son took a pass, she'd probably want to read it. I should have guessed she's already read it (she has), and my son informed me that AtLBO is one of the three titles his teacher is reading out loud. I don't know if returning the book is worth it or if I could donate it to the school library.

I also picked up something I thought might tempt him because it's simply so off-the-wall. The Name of This Book Is a Secret caught my eye because I recognized the name of the author, Pseudonymous Bosch, from something I've read recently about character names. When I perused the book, it looked like a lot of fun. Plus, it's the first in a series, and I'm all for more of anything that works.

It's funny how I look at books for my kids these days with an eye on whether or not they are part of a series. My daughter is a book series addict. She's been through them all, starting back with Junie B. Jones, working her way through American Girl, Judy Moody, the Clique, and countless others. With the Hunter series, she made the leap over to fantasy, after which she discovered Twilight and it was all over. Because of her still-youngish age, I insist on previewing the teen vampire books she devours like candy, but for the most part, she's becoming a vampire expert. We now run into the problem of her wanting to run right out and get the next title in a series the second after she's read "the end" in the last one. She needs a job to feed her reading habit. I tried to talk her into writing her own kid's point of view book review blog as a way to share her thoughts, but so far, no sale.

In fact, I use her as my own personal book review service. For months, the Mortal Instruments book displays have caught my attention whenever I've wandered into the book store. Yesterday I picked up the first title thinking my daughter would like it. If she does, I'll read them myself. Twenty-four hours after bringing City of Bones into the house, she's a third of the way through it and walks around the house with the thing stuck in front of her face.

I do puzzle over why my daughter - and eldest child - is an avid reader while my son - and youngest - is not. They've both been exposed to my love of reading. We have so many books around our house there isn't a single room save the bathrooms that don't have shelves for books. I read out loud to both of them when they were babies, took them both to Toddler Time at the library, equally said no to both to buying candy and toys at the store but would always give in to a paperback story. They both contain half of my reading genes. But for some reason, only my daughter is like me.

My husband is not a book reader. He reads a great deal every day in the form of newspapers and trade magazines, both on line and hard copy, and he has a thing for biographies of sports figures and successful businessmen. But if he reads two fiction books a year, it's an accomplishment. He chalks this up to his short attention span. Rarely can a book hold his interest for more than a half an hour, so it takes him a very long time to finish one. Since the man can't sit still for more than fifteen minutes in a stretch, I have to agree with his assessment.

Maybe my son is just like my husband. His disinterest in reading gobs of fiction doesn't mean he won't read something or that he's a poor reader, just that he can't maintain interest for that long. Too, there are so many other forms of entertainment out there that offer a lot more bells and whistles. To my son, reading often seems like an inferior alternative, even if I know the truth. Add to it the chore of reading for school and he wants to spend his free time doing anything but reading for pleasure.

Still, I won't give up. I think a love of reading is a wonderful gift. And I truly believe success in school relies a lot on good reading habits which you simply cannot develop unless you read consistently.

Besides, I don't mind those trips to the book store in search of the perfect title that will turn that reading bug lightbulb on over his head.

Forks Exposed

2009-09-03T09:07:00.011-05:00

This caught my attention this morning. Apparently, Forks, Washington, has earned itself a direct-to-DVD documentary for the extraordinary achievement of being the place where Stephenie Meyer set the Twilight series.

As I remarked in the EW comments section, I find this unbelievably ridiculous for many reasons.

First, it is such a blatant effort to make even more money off the Twilight phenomenon that the distributors would be less obvious if they walked up and down the aisles of movie theaters during showings of Twilight and New Moon and hawked crap like giant foam fangs, sparkly glitter vampire body paint and Edward Cullen wigs. Have they no shame? Nevermind, I already know the answer to that.

The other reason I find this so silly is that Forks offered absolutely nothing more than being located in the rainiest region of the U.S. on record to qualify it for the Twilight epicenter. Stephenie Meyer has admitted she did some kind of Google search for "rainy places" and Bam! Forks is the new Mecca for vampire groupies. She didn't manage to actually visit Forks until after she'd finished the first book and it was off being published. Things could have turned out to be a disaster.

What if Forks had been like one of the gazillion Midwestern towns dotting the state backroads, nothing more than a speed limit reduction sign and a closed-on-Sunday gas station indicating there is even a town there? Or Forks could have consisted of a one-block downtown with a hole-in-the-wall bar, an ancient appliance/furniture store and a tiny florist shop and craft emporium combo run by a lady named Mabel, the main bulk of the area actually a row of strip malls and big box retailers lining Highway 101. Realistic but not exactly picturesque. Somehow reading about how Edward and Bella headed to TGI Friday's after a quick stop at Best Buy to check out their subwoofers for Edward's Audi just doesn't create the feeling of a soul-mate love of all time in the making.

I'll give Meyer the credit of some research to make sure Forks did have a large enough population (3,275 in 2008) to have a high school or a hospital or even warrant a McDonald's. Additionally, she studied pictures of the area and was satisfied that the deep green forests surrounding Forks would meet her brooding vampire's needs.

Still, being dark and gloomy isn't usually enough to earn a real-life town a starring role in what has become arguably one of the most successful YA series ever much less a DVD of its very own.

Maybe I'm just feeling bitter because, as exemplifies Meyer's entire writing career, once again she lucked out in a major way. She has a dream, writes it down, it becomes a international best seller and a blockbuster movie franchise. She describes a handsome vampire and launches the career of the next teen heartthrob. She throws a dart at a map of the Olympic Peninsula and a random town becomes the hottest place to spend your summer vacation. With all due respect to Meyer's talent, I want to know where she stashes the bottle with the genie in it.

Oddly, my last vacation was spent in pursuit of confirming a setting for one of my own projects. With the particular premise of my story, I was limited to a very specific region of the country, yet I wanted my world to be contained in a particular type of town. I did loads of research, spent hours staring at Google Earth images, and hunted down ancient town records that could confirm that the history I needed to build upon was strong enough to support my entire premise before I chose a couple of towns I thought would work. I had every intention of using fictional names, but still I'm the type of writer who needs a real-world example to crib from.

So I packed up the hubby and we took a trip to this particular area. I bought the most detailed map I could find, we rented a car and headed into the countryside. Thankfully my better half loves nothing more than to explore, to drive aimlessly with absolutely no destination in mind, so he had no problem with our lack of vacation structure. He generously offered to drive so I could gawk at the countryside while I led him through all of my possible towns, trying to match my imaginings and story needs to the reality of what we found.

Some places were far too large and developed. Since I don't want my characters eating at Ruby Tuesdays or shopping at Aero Postale unless they hop on the highway for a ways, I crossed those towns off the list.

Other places weren't more than a single stop light that left me wondering how long the kids had to sit on the bus in the morning to get to the nearest high school. I want small and intimate, but remote and a pain-in-the-ass to run to the store for a gallon of milk is just a little too underdeveloped.

Some places didn't have the geographic features I needed - some woods with a winding road or two cutting between the trees, a middle-class neighborhood, a proximity to the ocean that allowed my characters to use it frequently. Nothing pulls me out of a story quicker than when a writer unfamiliar with a real-world location has his/her character perform some action that is logistically impossible given the region. Example: Bueller, Ferris, driving to the far northern suburbs from downtown Chicago in less than an hour during rush hour traffic. But I digress.

One town came fairly close to meeting most of my setting requirements, and it might have to do for my stand in. But I've come to see that I need to let go of reality completely. My story town might just have to be entirely fictional. Unlike Meyer, I didn't luck out and find my Forks.

Granted, I've never been to Forks. It may be the case that only tiny portions of it fit Meyer's needs and she simply ignored any parts of it that messed up her story. Too, while Forks created a very specific atmosphere in the Twilight series, it was never described in detail. Readers must fill in a lot of blanks with their own guesswork, and a visit to the real town might create a huge disconnect.

Perhaps this whole DVD thing isn't such a great idea after all. Kind of like pulling the curtain away from the man behind Oz. Better Forks remain that perfect rainy place where Edward and Bella frolic in the woods than face the fact that some businesses there use those tacky portable change-a-letter signs on a regular basis. Talk about killing the mystique.

Thank You, Mr. Hughes, For Narrating My Teenager Hood

2009-08-19T12:35:00.005-05:00

So, I'm late as usual, but John Hughes died two weeks ago.

Part of me was shocked because he was only 59 years old, and I'm always shocked when someone I view as "not old" dies of something like a heart attack. If that person who's only that many years older than I am can die like that, then so could I. Scary in a wake up and get yourself on a treadmill kind of way. Not to mention the human sadness that someone who shouldn't have left us yet is gone too soon.

Another part of me was shocked because entertainers of "my generation" are starting to pass to the other side, and I'm not ready for that yet. It used to be the actors and famous folks of my parents' generation that were the ones showing up on the front page obituaries. The Paul Newmans and the Walter Cronkites, and even the Farah Fawcetts to a degree, are not of my time. As sad as it was to lose these great people, I didn't feel that sense of connection, the sense that someone I, in an extremely indirect way, knew personally was now gone. These aren't "my" people.

But John Hughes, like Michael Jackson, came of celebrity age when I came of age. Both of these men had a huge influence on my teen years. Does it date me to confess that more guys in my high school wore red leather jackets with silver accenting and multiple zippers or that we had a Thriller theme day at school? How about the fact that I saw every John Hughes film in an actual movie theater within days and/or weeks of first release? The timing of Hughes' most well-known movies corresponds with my junior year in high school (Sixteen Candles) through my junior year in college (She's Having a Baby).

Many have written/remarked/eulogized about how well John Hughes captured the world view held almost exclusively by teenagers. I won't say that I agree or disagree with this - actually, I was never able to identify with any one specific Hughes character because they were all very unlike me or even anyone I actually knew. But they were universal, well-presented representations of stereotypes that did exist in high schools everywhere. And I never left the theater after seeing a Hughes film that I didn't feel slightly stunned in amazement. He got it right on multiple levels, that's for sure.

Some of his plots left me with questions I still need answered today. For example:

- Why did Andie choose Blaine over Duckie at the end of Pretty In Pink? Blaine was an asshole.

- How in the world did Ferris, Cameron and Sloane (Ferris Bueller's Day Off) manage to drive from their north shore suburbs into the heart of Chicago, catch a Cubs baseball game (which never begin before 1:00 p.m.), have lunch, visit the Art Institute, the Sears Tower and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, attend a parade, return to the burbs, take a swim in somebody's pool, AND manage to do it all in what I calculate to be at most nine or ten hours? The commute into and out of the city alone would take close to three hours given the rush hour traffic.

- Exactly how much did it cost for Keith to buy those diamond earrings, buy a new suit, and take Amanda Jones out to dinner in Some Kind of Wonderful? He blew his entire college savings, which according to his father had grown big enough to pay for his first year of school. That had to be a fairly serious wad of cash he dropped on that one date.

- Why didn't vice principal Dick Vernon hear the music blasting from the library when The Breakfast Club kids broke out into spontaneous dancing?

But in the end, these puzzlers are irrelevant because everything else about these movies is so close to perfection. As my tribute to John Hughes, here is my ranking of his films in order from my personal favorite to my least favorite. I'm leaving out his films featuring fully formed adults (Planes, Trains and Automobiles - a classic!) and little kids (Home Alone) to focus on those that dealt with teenagers or young adults.

1) Some Kind of Wonderful. It's been explained that Hughes was not happy with the ending of Pretty In Pink - originally, Andie was to end up with best friend Duckie and not popular rich-boy Blaine - so he wrote SKoW in order to get it right. He did get it right. The kiss between Keith and Watts is my favorite movie kiss of all time, and the sparks that flow between them in that one scene showed more chemistry between these two characters than all of the Keith/Amanda scenes put together. Eric Stoltz as Keith was casting perfection, as was Mary Stuart Masterson as Watts. While I'm still not sure what was so special about Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson did great in the role) that would drive Keith to his obsession, the ending when he came to realize where his heart truly belonged made the journey worth it.

2) She's Having a Baby. Of all of Hughes' films, I think this one is the most underrated. Starring Kevin Bacon and Elizabeth McGovern as a newlywed couple trying to negotiate the trials of becoming responsible adults, this movie was both hysterical and heartbreaking. I can't count how many times I've seen this film.

3) The Breakfast Club. I'll never forget the exact weekend I saw this movie. I was visiting relatives, and my brother, two male cousins and I decided to go to the movies. The boys wanted to see Beverly Hills Cop. I wanted to see The Breakfast Club. Thankfully they were both playing at the same multiplex within a few minutes of each other. We went into our separate theaters, and when I emerged two hours later, I could barely speak. This movie simply knocked me over, and I was so disappointed that my brother and cousins had missed it.

To this day, however, I have a big beef with the TV stations who air this movie with various "adjustments" to make it TV audience appropriate. And I feel sad for the kids out there who experience the TV version first. I always hope they are inspired to get a hold of the DVD and see it as it was meant to be - full of bad words and all.

4) Ferris Beuller's Day Off. I wish we'd had a guy like Ferris at my high school. Sure, we had popular kids. But none of them were that charismatic. Even more, I can remember wanting more than anything to be Sloane. To be that pretty and have Ferris as a boyfriend? Only in a movie.

5) Pretty In Pink. When I said above that I never quite identified with any Hughes character, PIP spells out why. While Andie was cool in her own, offbeat way, I never knew anyone in my school who dressed so funky, on purpose or not. Nor was there a Duckie. And while we had our share of "rich" kids at my high school, not a one was as jaded or sophisticated as Steff or his girlfriend, Bennie. Kids I knew just weren't that extreme. None of us attended underground music clubs that featured alternative indie bands. I chalk the portrayal of the PIP teens to the fact that it was never specified that PIP took place in a Chicago-area school. Maybe PIP - and SKoW, for that matter - happened in California where kids were way more cool than us midwestern teens. The story was sound, but I still think Andie made a bad choice in leaving the prom with Blaine.

6) Sixteen Candles. A teen classic. I like it mostly for the laughs than for any message or insight into the teen mind it might have tried to convey. In fact, I still find it hard to believe hottie Jake falls for Samantha, a girl he's never even spoken to, simply because he reads a note in which she says she likes him. Too, his supposedly perfect girlfriend was downright ugly, IMO, not to mention a complete bitch. Still, this movie above all the other Hughes' films offers up the most perfect fairy tale. What girl didn't dream that a popular boy like Jake would notice her and fall madly in love?

7) Weird Science. I can honestly say that of all of Hughes' movies, this is the one that I didn't love. I've only seen it once or twice. Maybe it's because I'm not a guy and never got the appeal of creating the perfect woman who will do whatever she's told. Maybe it's because the two real girls that Wyatt and Gary wanted to date were such dippy flakes. This one didn't move me.

So, good-bye Mr. Hughes. Thank you for sharing your amazing talent with us. Many of us adults are the better for having experienced your movies. You left the world a better place, which is all anyone can ever hope to accomplish.

Harry Potter 6: A Movie Review

2009-07-16T11:04:00.005-05:00

Being the impatient hedonist that I am, I simply couldn't wait to see Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. My son agreed to brave the hoards and the lines with me, and we caught a 9:30 showing last night in a packed movie theatre.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. But the experience left me with this nagging sensation that something about it didn't work for me. After sleeping on it, I think I've figured it out.

To avoid spoiling, my review is after the jump. And there will be SPOILERS, so stand warned!

First, the very good about the movie: Rupert Grint, Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe. These three actors could not have been more perfectly cast than if J.K. Rowling had been staring at them the entire time she wrote the books. They've all grown so much, both physically and talent-wise. I honestly can't imagine these movies with anyone else playing Ron, Hermione and Harry.

Rupert Grint, especially, stole the show. He provided most of the belly laughs from everyone in the entire theatre. In fact, the best thing about the entire movie was the genuinely amusing moments it contained. By far this is the funniest Harry Potter movie.

Jim Broadbent did an excellent job as Professor Horace Slughorn. He played the part a bit more addled than my interpretation of the character from the book, but it worked all the same.

I have to give major props to Tom Felton. His Draco Malfoy was perhaps the most nuanced and tormented character in the movie. In fact, I'd wager it is fair to say that you almost felt more sympathy for Draco than you did for Harry. His was a boy who was tormented, who had been given a task he neither wanted to do nor felt capable of doing yet understood that not doing meant certain death for both himself and his parents. On a completely superficial level, the wardrobe they gave Draco was fantastic. He looked amazing, even in all of his white-blond evilness.

And once again, Alan Rickman proves why he is one of my favorite actors of all time. Thus far, he's played Snape mostly for laughs. This time, however, he gives the character the perfect amount of ambiguousness. Those in the know - the ones who've read the last book - will see Rickman's portrayal for what it is, the ambivalent feelings warring inside a man who has not quite been able to embrace the dark side completely due to reasons known only to himself and Dumbledore. Those who have no idea Snape's true motives will probably see him as a Bad Guy who pulled one over on Dumbledore, just as Rowling intended for him to appear at this point in the story.

Now, for my particular issue, the thing that is keeping me from raving about this movie as I thought I would.

As you would expect, the movie version of HP 6 is not a 100% faithful recreation of the book it is based on. Just as the previous five movies have diverged from their respective books, some (HP 1 and 2) less so than others (HP 4 and 5). It only makes sense that audiences will never consent to movies that last for 12 hours and thus something has to go, especially any something that might be extraneous to the main plot and/or slow the action down to a crawl or result in long blocks of exposition. This is just the way it is with book-to-movie conversions.

And thus far, I haven't been much bothered by the lost-in-translation aspect of the HP movies. I've been able to enjoy them very much as their own entities. The books are the books. The movies are the movies. They can't and don't substitute one for the other.

Sure, I've questioned how future plot points would be resolved when key elements are cut out in earlier films. For example, I'm baffled how cutting out house elves Kreecher and Dobbie won't come back to haunt screenwriter Steve Kloves come some crucial moments in HP 7. But I have faith that they'll figure out a way to make things work out in the end. And for the most part, I've understood why they've cut the things that they've chosen to cut. I never thought the whole S.P.E.W. storyline was very interesting and surely didn't miss it in the movies.

But for the first time, I felt the cuts and changes TPTB took with the movie version of HP6. And it wasn't even so much what was left out, it was how they handled what was left in.

And here comes the spoilers...

Some of my very favorite scenes in all of the HP series happened in Book 6. Specifically, Harry's relationship with Ginny - I loved the moment when Ron and Harry come across Ginny and Dean making out in a hallway, and Harry finally realizes that he has other-than-brotherly feelings for her. These feelings sneak up on him unawares, but at that moment, they erupt as a fully formed jealousy monster that pretty much smacks him right between the eyes. As a follow up, my other favorite scene is when Harry forgets all about what Ron might think about Harry hooking up with Ginny and kisses her in front of the entire Gryffindor House. It's one of those passionate moments that makes me smile every single time I read it.

So I was really looking forward to these particular scenes in the movie. Except, guess what? Neither scene made it. In fact, Harry's entire "relationship" with Ginny progressed in a completely different way throughout the movie. The Big Passionate Moment fizzled out as a teeny tiny afterthought of a sweet kiss. Harry's kiss with Cho Chang lasted longer and had more build up. I couldn't be more disappointed.

It could be a lack of chemistry between Daniel Radcliffe and Bonnie Wright, as I read in one on-line review. There just aren't any sparks between these two actors, nothing that makes you long for them to be together. And the Harry/Ginny relationship build-up is presented so subtly, the matter isn't helped along at all. Because of lack of screen time in previous movies, Ginny is somewhat of a blank character, coming at you from out of the blue. At least in Book 6 you get an idea of why Harry might all of the sudden be seeing Ginny in a new light.

The other big change in the movie involved the finale. In the book, Harry and Dumbledore return to Hogwarts to find that Death Eaters have made their way onto the grounds and a fierce battle is raging between them and the few remaining members of Dumbledore's Army. Order of the Pheonix fighters arrive and help with the battle. The action is intense, the casualties painful, and the whole thing ends in a big bang with a confrontation between Harry and Snape.

The movie, however, removes the battle entirely. A tiny handful of Death Eaters meets no resistance inside the castle, and even Harry's confrontation with Snape is rather small given what it is that Harry believes Snape has just done - killed his beloved mentor in cold blood.

I'm not sure I understand the reasons for the removal of this final mini-battle. Perhaps it's because some key characters have never been introduce. Specifically, we have yet to meet Bill Weasley, who gets attacked by Fenrir Greyback in the book. (And I still haven't figured out what they will replace Bill and Fleur's wedding with in the HP 7 movies because none of it was a part of HP 6.) Maybe it was a matter of budget, although I hardly believe this.

Maybe it was a fear that a big battle might detract from the impact of Dumbledore's death.

In the end, I walked out of the movie feeling somewhat empty. I enjoyed it, but I was left wanting more. Part of the problem is that I had, literally, just finished listening to HP 6 on audio book after a long car trip, so the details of the book were fresh in my mind and therefore more glaring when they went missing in the movie. Perhaps the key is to maintain a gap between reading the books and watching the films. For HP 7, I'll declare a 6 month moratorium on the books so as to go in without any lingering expectations.

Reading through all of the "professional" reviews, I've found one or two that sum up my overall feelings about the movie. This one is especially spot-on for me. As is this one.

I'd thought to see the movie again, this time with my daughter. I'd figured that I'd love the movie so much I'd be glad for the chance to watch it a second time. Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe seeing it again, knowing that it is not going to be the book put on film, will allow me to enjoy it for what it is, they way that I've always enjoyed the other movies.

What I do know is that I already can't wait until November, 2010, for the first installment of HP 7. Even disappointed, these movies - this story - is still one of the best things around. I'll miss it when it's all over.

Maybe Just a Little Bit More

2009-07-04T10:07:00.017-05:00

I check the Entertainment Weekly online site pretty much daily because I'm trashy like that (but I don't read tabloids or People, honest). And this article caught my attention because...okay, because I'm kind of guilty for thinking it.

I admit to wishing that the Harry Potter series - Books 5-7 only - were just a tad bit more sexy.

I'm not talking about graphic, lurid details. Heck, I don't really like erotica all that much and I tend to skim long sex scenes in other romance novels because they can get kind of boring.

But I'm talking about more...romance? More focus on that buzz you get when you fall in love and discover the feelings are returned and things move forward into that very first kiss and it becomes not enough so things start to progress even farther...That feeling, so unique and perfect and elusive, is the one I'm always searching for when I read romance novels, or any book for that matter. It's my particular brand of crack, and I'm hooked on it completely. I'm always hunting a fix. Even in innocent fantasy books aimed at kids.

(Spoiler warning - spoilers after the jump)

One of my favorite scenes in the entire 7 book series is the one in which Harry, without stopping to think, marches up to Ginny Weasley and just smacks one on her. In fact, HP and The Half Blood Prince might be my favorite title in the series because I love the romance aspect of the book. Harry's awakening knowledge that he has other-than-brotherly feelings for Ginny, presented as a monster that lives inside his chest and alternates between growling with jealously over Dean and Ginny's relationship and purring when thinking about a Ginny/Harry pairing.

And while I fully appreciate that J.K. Rowling wrote the HP series for children to read, and that the focus is good versus evil and growing from child to adult, and romance between the characters resides not just in the back seat but in the back of the bus, I have to admit to wishing that this weren't so. I know that these books simply couldn't be written any other way and still appeal to younger kids the way they do (or be considered appropriate for them by their parents). But the grown up in me wishes they were a tad bit more sexy.

That Harry's feelings for Ginny were demonstrated to be more than just a burning desire to hold her hand or a warm cozy feeling when he smells her flowery scent. I'm willing to bet that 99.99999% of all heterosexual teenage boys are burning to do a whole lot more than hold hands and that their noses aren't the only body part that is strongly affected when they catch a whiff of their crush's perfume or shampoo. That monster in Harry's chest? In reality might be more accurately placed a few states southward in his pants region.

J.K. does give a tiny hint of a stab at showing us that Harry might be having some impure thoughts about Ginny.

"There isn't anyone I want to invite," mumbled Harry, who was still trying not to think about Ginny any more than he could help, despite the fact that she kept cropping up in his dreams in ways that made him devoutly thankful that Ron could not perform Legilimency.

But the closest we ever get to a suggestion that Harry and Ginny might have any sort of physical relationship is in a single sentence, is very vague, and could, in fact, be talking about them pouring over the latest issue of Mad Magazine for all the descriptive it contains:

On one such evening, when Ginny had retired to the library, and Harry was sitting beside the window in the common room, supposedly finishing his Herbology homework but in reality reliving a particularly happy hour he had spent down by the lake with Ginny at lunchtime...

For the adult me, this is the romance novel equivalent to shutting the bedroom door. I've invested time and emotion into these characters, and I've thrilled along side of them as they've found love with each other. But now I've been cut off, disallowed from seeing them in love. So not fair.

Oddly enough, this same lack of detail in Ron and Hermione's relationship doesn't bother me. Like Harry and Ginny, we get not much more than a single, spontaneous kiss between Ron and Hermione and a suggestion that maybe they'd been holding hands while sleeping side by side (in separate sleeping bags, of course). You would think given the full 7-book lead up to this particular relationship, the feelings of being cheated by any lack of expressed affection between them would be a huge let down. But it's not. Not in the least.

I chalk up my not caring so much about Ron and Hermione to the fact that my identification as a reader belongs with Harry as the third-person point of view focus of the story. Through all of these books, I've felt Harry's emotions, I've heard Harry's thoughts and watched the world move through Harry's eyes. It's his relationships that I'm most heavily invested in - I'm most disappointed to all of the sudden be cut off from living vicariously through him. Indeed, I've viewed Ron and Hermione's relationship through Harry, and as Harry, I wouldn't really want to watch my two best friends in a heavy makeout session. I'm just pleased to know that they finally realized that they are meant for each other and will now be happily together. No PDAs necessary, thank you very much.

Too, I think the Ron/Hermione pairing was, although a long time coming, inevitable. I was never a Harry/Hermione ~~delusionist~~ shipper. From Book 3, I've always known that Ron and Hermione had feelings for each other even though they both fought valiantly against them. The entire series was a giant display of UST, a slow dance between these two that moved forward so glacially that anything more than a kiss at the end would have thrown the pace out of whack. Their relationship had the feeling of an old time movie when, to quote the magnificent Joss Whedon's lyrics from Buffy's perfect episode "Once More With Feeling", "The curtains close on a kiss, God knows, we can tell the end is near". The main characters flirt and fight their way through two hours of screen time to finally end with a passionate kiss right before the end credits roll. That works for Ron and Hermione. Their happily ever after starts with that kiss, and there's no more story left.

Not so with Harry. Maybe because when he finally acts on his feelings for Ginny, we know there is still an entire book to go. If their kiss doesn't signal the beginning of their HEA, then we need either one of two things to happen - a) more interaction between them to demonstrate the struggles and conflict in their relationship until they reach their HEA or b) them to move on and away from each other, their relationship obviously not the Real Thing.

J.K. made option B work perfectly with Harry and Cho Chang. Harry thought he loved Cho. They experienced some angst getting together. Finally, they kissed. Beginning of their HEA? No. Because Cho wasn't Harry's One True Love. They broke up, Cho receded to the background, and Harry realized that his feelings for her had disappeared. That relationship wasn't the Real Thing. Any disappointment that Harry and Cho only shared one kiss? Not one single drop.

Option A isn't actually an option. Because of what Harry's story is - a story about his triumph over evil and his successful transition into adulthood - the conflicts don't come anywhere close to living in his relationship with Ginny. Other than his fear that his feelings for Ginny could lead to Voldemort using her as bait and thus his breaking up with her to keep her safe(r) - an action that Ginny accepts if not willingly at least only slightly begrudgingly - Harry and Ginny have no conflicts. Voldemort wanting to kill Harry notwithstanding, there is no reason Harry and Ginny can't be together. An entire book of manufactured conflict between Ginny and Harry is beyond stupid. It's a different story completely.

It is true. Harry's story is not a romance, and therefore any focus on his relationship with Ginny is not necessary. It's the dollop of whipped cream on top of the icing on top of the cake. As a series aimed at children, this is only right. Problem comes from the fact that non-children have embraced the series so completely. We got teased, and now we're suffering a slight case of blue balls. Because some of us adults prefer not a dollop of whipped cream with our cake and icing, but a glass of really good wine. Something with a bit of kick in it.

I'm very excited to see the movie and how director David Yates handles the Harry/Ginny romance. I've heard the movie "sexes it up" a bit, but I take this with a giant pile of salt and don't expect much. If they deviate too far from the book, they will be accused of exploiting the material and risk losing hardcore fans. Too, I think the HP movie makers actually care about quality, and they aren't going to risk the integrity of their franchise just to beef up the teen girls demographic. I'm guessing they're hoping that Dan Radcliffe and Rupert Grint provide enough eye candy for that particular crowd, clothing removal not necessary.

Even so, I can see how and why this sexing-up could happen. After the staggering success of Twilight, both books and movie, TPTB in Entertainment Land are finally getting a clue that teen girls (and their moms) are a huge, money-wielding market. And teen girls (and their moms) like to swoon now and then. You want to bring them back again and again? Provide some swoon-worthy moments, à la Robert Pattinson/Kristen Stewart. If that means letting Harry and Ginny get a little action above and beyond what happens in the book, who's to complain?

Where Did I Put That Thing?!

2009-06-18T10:46:00.005-05:00

For Christmas, I got as a lovely gift, a Sony PRS-505 E-Reader. It's red and slim and very, very cool. I did have to hunt down an affordable recharging adapter because it only comes with the chord to attach it to the USB port on my computer, which is not adequate for recharging efficiently. But all in all, I'm very pleased with it.

I love that I can carry around many books for my reading pleasure all in an item small enough to slip into my purse. I love the instant gratification of being able to get new releases pretty much the second they come out via the Sony e-store. Too, you can generally get a hardcover release for at least 30% off the cover price and usually more. It's a great way to try out new writers because there are often deals to be found, and I just discovered that buying "bundles" can be a very economical way to pick up several titles in a series for much cheaper than buying the individual books would ever be. That is, assuming you could even find them given that they are older.

I admit I've had some trouble getting used to thinking about my e-reader when it comes to reaching for something to read. I'm surrounded by books, and the smooth, burgundy cover of the reader is not very flashy. It's hard to remember that inside that little metal bit of machinery are all the same words that appear on the hundreds of paper pages of the hundreds of books lining my shelves. You have to adjust to a new mind set when becoming an e-reader person - bigger and heftier doesn't mean better.

In fact, my husband, who gave me the gift, often accuses me of ignoring it. "Do you ever use that thing?" he's asked on more than one occasion. And while I have read three full titles on it, it is true that I still do the bulk of my reading the old fashioned way. Still, it's nice to have the option, and over the course of time, I do think the reader will become indispensable. In fact, I am positive that this will be the case.

Know I how I know this? Because I can't find the damn thing!

I'm actually afraid it's been stolen, although I don't know how this could have happened. I remember charging it and slipping into my purse because I was going someplace and knew I might need something to read. However, I don't remember ever taking it out of my purse - to read or to put someplace else. And now I cannot find it any where. Not in my purse. Not on any shelf or table or normal spot we tuck random items floating about the house. It's just flat out missing.

Except, I can't imagine how and/or why somebody would risk dipping their hands into my purse to snatch my e-reader without taking my wallet or the small leather pouch where I stash all of my cash. It makes no sense that the e-reader would have been taken but nothing else.

So I keep thinking it simply has to be somewhere. I've offered the kids $5 to whomever finds it, but so far I've had no takers. And I'm starting to get sick about this. The thing cost $350! That's a lot of money to just "lose". I can't imagine shelling out the same amount to replace it, but I now have a whole bunch of e-books that can't be read without the e-reader. Yes - I could use my laptop, but I've never read books on it. Talk about the epitome of inconvenient. Actually, I'd have to use my daughter's PC to read e-books because I have a MacBook and the Sony store library software is not Mac compatible yet. Oddly, this whole situation came about after I gleefully purchased a Linda Howard bundle and went hunting for the reader to dump all of my new titles onto. Couldn't find it. So now I can't read any of those cool books that prompted this whole problem.

Anyway, this is a huge frustration and goes to prove that you never miss something so much as when it's gone.

Odd Bits

2009-06-12T12:54:00.004-05:00

So, I made this promise to myself that I would finish one of my works in progress by my birthday, which is next month. I made this promise back in February during a particularly feverish bout of writing, when the stuff was just coming out in gobs. It seemed a very doable goal.

And it is still possible. If I don't focus on anything else for the next month, I could do it. I don't have any trips planned. School is out next week, so although the kids will be underfoot, I won't have any volunteer commitments. Other than the occasional baseball game and carpooling gig, my calendar is wide open. I could get up in the morning, handle a few chores and then park my butt in the chair until bedtime, with only a break or two to cook meals.

In other words, no excuses.

**

One of my characters grew up in Manchester, England. I've been struggling to get his voice just right - enough use of slang and difference in speech patterns to capture his accent without going overboard. To this end, I've been listening to daily broadcasts of a local Manchester news channel. Funny how I now have a good handle on the goings-on in that area. It's become kind of like the town next door. I don't know how much it's helped my efforts to make his speech realistic, though.

What I wish is that I could get live streams of radio broadcasts from the UK. Now that they have laws against streaming broadcasts outside of a particular country, you can't tap into local radio stations the way you used to be able to do.

**

One goal I do have for the summer is to make a serious dent in my TBR pile, which has grown embarrassing. I could conceivable spend the entire summer sitting on my deck with a book in my hand. And personally, this is my idea of a perfect summer vacation.

**

I'm starting to get really excited about the upcoming release of Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince on July 15th. This summer, we've gotten into the habit of waiting until the Sunday after a Thursday/Friday release day to go see the big blockbusters. By Sunday evening, the must-see-it-now crowds have gotten their fix, teens don't tend to go to the movies on Sunday evenings, and we don't have to stand in lines or struggle to find seats. But I don't know if I can wait the four extra days to see HPatHBP.

I checked the audio book out of the library for a recent car trip I took with my daughter. She hasn't read the book yet, so I figured this was the way to get her to experience the literary version before the movie version. Unfortunately, the unabridged audio book is 17 CDs long (that's 18 hours). Our car trip was all of 4 hours, round trip. We have another trip coming up that's longer, so maybe I can just renew the audio book an extra few weeks. Meanwhile, I'm listening to it in 5 and 10 minute chunks as I tool around town. At this rate, we'll be done by September.

You Don't Mess With the Romance Posse

2009-06-01T15:21:00.018-05:00

This morning, I was sitting at my kitchen table, enjoying my McCafé beverage as I trolled through my internet stops, listening to the local morning show that I've been tuning into for pretty much forever, when the DJs said something that caught my attention full stop.

It seems that Eric and Kathy (of WTMX out of Chicago) have determined it would be a fun lark to have their morning show producer, Swany, read a romance novel and report back his findings. Apparently this bit resulted from a prior discussion on how the romance genre business has been booming of late - sales up some 7%, which is nothing to sneeze at given the current economic crisis.

I didn't catch, exactly, how they went about choosing which book Swany was to read - I sort of got the impression they solicited suggestions from listeners - but Swany is all set to dive into that well-known, highly regarded icon of romantic fiction, "Palaces of Desire." Eric was enthusiastic over the prospect that the cover might feature a little Fabio action. Naturally. What's a trashy novel without a little Fabio man-titty?

What's that you say? You've never heard of this particular book? Well, let me enlighten you. It was written by Karen Alexander and released in January of 1978 by Ballentine Books. And after a good half-hour of Googling, I can assure you that you will find absolutely no more information than I've just shared other than where you might find a used copy at a bargain price.

But, really, what more do you need to know? Even if "Palaces of Desire" is a work of literary wonder on par with Jane Austin's backlist (which I have my doubts given the zero buzz about PoD, anywhere, bespeaking of its longevity as far as quality), the title alone does all but take out a full-page ad in the Chicago Tribune as far as touting romance novels as not much more than Porn for Women. Too, given the publication date of pre-1980, we're probably looking at at least a certain level of bodice ripping and alpha-maleness, not a little bit of purple prose, and maybe a virginal widow if we're oh-so-lucky. Pure Old Skool Romance at its hideous best. Definitely not of the epoch that we romance readers are most proud.

As any self-respecting romance novel reader and pseudo-writer would have done, I allowed my panties to get in a respectable twist. Because without directly stating it, by choosing a book with the title "Palaces of Desire", Eric and Kathy were making fun of romance novels. And it goes to follow that they are indirectly mocking those who read and love romance novels. In promoting this viewpoint on their radio show, they were also affirming to the masses that it is not only understandable to mock the romance genre, it is perfectly acceptable to do so. Without apology, even.

And thinking I should walk the talk, I fired off an e-mail to DJs Eric and Kathy to express how I felt about this. I tried my best to be firm yet intelligent, saddened yet eloquent, discouraged yet hopeful they might be able to see the error of their ways. I suggested that the rest of the morning team read books in other genres, so that the ridicule and mockery might be spread rather than heaped on romance's already sagging shoulders. Too, I offered up the lovely Beyond Heaving Bosoms: A Smart Bitches Guide to Romance Novels as an antidote to their delusions about romance being not much better than poorly written smut read by ignorant fools who just don't know any better. And, finally, I suggested that if they were going to go through with this farce, a least choose a well-written romance novel that has a chance of standing up proud and tall to represent the genre properly.

I guess my e-mail wasn't as diplomatic as I'd hoped. Eric's e-mail response was incredulous. As in:

"You have GOT to be kidding me!"

He went on to say that this idea is all in fun, all in response to the booming sales of romance novels, yada yada yada. Net net, no mocking was being done, you fishwife freak.

At first I felt embarrassed for having come across as a shrew, probably causing Eric to picture me as a frumpy, middle-aged housewife with my cats slinking around my slippered feet as I padded around in my mumu, wondering if the mailman might like to come in for a cuppa and maybe a little something-something. Being once Catholic and always a woman, I instinctively replied to Eric in apology form. Sorry for coming across as harsh and seeming to not get that this was all in fun. No intention to offend, of course.

But I did follow that expression of shame with a request that if they are going to do this, take it seriously. Have Swany read a good romance novel. Have him give his honest opinion, without the filter of snark and ridicule. A reminder that many people listen to this Chicago-based radio show, and that Eric and Kathy could do a service to romance readers by helping us gain respect rather than perpetuate the genre as a joke. In short, use their power for good, not evil.

Know what I did next? I went and tattle-taled. I invoked the Power of the Bitches. My little blog gets very tiny traffic, but the Bitches? They are fierce. I asked them to post a little bit about my experience because I wanted to know if I had done the right thing by taking the Mix to task for this "just for fun" radio bit. Had I maybe overreacted? I hoped that a blog post at Smart Bitches might generate some outraged responses that I could use as balm to my wounded romance-lovin' sensibilities.

And what book should producer Swany be reading? What book represents the very best of the genre, a book that would wipe the smirks off their faces and have them begging for more right after they issued public, on-air apologies to everyone who'd ever been laughed at for reading a romance?

That Queen of All Bitches, Sarah, replied to my cry for support with her own salvo - an e-mail full o' whoop ass sent to Eric himself. I know not what she wrote, nor do I have the effects as of yet. I'm hoping she'll keep me posted.

It's not that I don't want Swany to read a romance. In truth, it would be kind of cool if he took this very seriously and read a well-selected title genuinely chosen because of its quality and not its ability to illicit giggles out of 13 year old boys. I'd love to get his insight. I'd love to have him admit that there's more to a romance novel than man titty and Fabio hair. And I'd love for Eric and Kathy to treat this book with the same respect they'd give to something they'd choose to read for themselves.

I can ignore slights on the genre for the most part. But this time, for some reason, I just couldn't let it go. Maybe it's the prospect of tuning in to the local country station all summer so I can avoid hearing any mention of Swany's progress that pisses me off so much. Or maybe it's imagining all of the commuters sitting in bumper to bumper traffic, smirking self-importantly with each mention of "Palaces of Desire", knowing that they'd never stoop to reading such crap.

Maybe I should check out "Palaces of Desire" from the library and read it myself. Maybe this book is kick-ass. Maybe it'll do the genre proud and Eric will end up with egg on his face when Swany raves about it. I can only hope.

The Demon Prince Vs. Prince Charming

2009-05-15T19:35:00.014-05:00

Back in March, I posted an entry about American Idol contestant Adam Lambert. My opinion has not changed. He's still sex on a stick.

The guy I didn't talk about in March was Kris Allen. Not that I hadn't notice him back then. I had. Specifically, I first noticed Kris on Wednesday, February 18th, when he appeared in a dance montage that introduce Group 2 of the AI semi-finals rounds. My thoughts at the time were "Who's that cute guy with the dark hair and brown eyes? I don't recall ever seeing him before." after which time I headed to the AI website to find out more about him. After which time I recall hoping that I liked the way he sang because...well, he was cute.

Not the way Adam is the hot, sexy, Baby's done a bad, bad thing, god-if-only-he-weren't-gay kind of cute. Kris is the guy next door, high school dream boat, meet my parents, god-if-only-he-weren't-married kind of cute. (Okay, he's pretty sexy, too.)

Kris makes you think of playing a round of putt putt, sharing a malted at the soda shop, and then taking a drive to the local Look Out Point for a sweet make-out session in the front seat of his dad's Volvo before your 11:00 curfew.

Adam makes you think of skipping the malted and heading straight into the backseat of his vintage Chevy Impala before even leaving the parking lot of the mini golf place and who the hell cares what time it is.

Kris gets you a corsage and takes you to the prom.

Adam gets you a hotel room after the prom.

Adam is a Demon Prince. Kris is Prince Charming.

Anyway, the reason I didn't talk about Kris back in the day was because he was flying quiet on my radar. I watched for him that second round of semi-finals, and he proved to be a great singer. I had no problems throwing him my handful of votes and was pleasantly surprised that he made it into the Top 13 of this year's American Idol contest. When next I saw him, the season now narrowed to the real contenders, my like of Kris was validated, and so it increased over lo these many weeks with great performance after great performance. And now I'm very proud to know that I've supported this guy all the way to the finish line. No band wagoner, I.

But my point here isn't to toot my own horn or to claim that I saw that diamond in the rough a long time before Simon Cowell pulled out his usual hypocrisy in time to make himself look less like the tool he actually is. Instead, I'm finding the media's reaction to the upcoming Adam/Kris finale next week to be quite an interesting - and somewhat alarming - social commentary.

Today, I found this bit from the Baltimore Sun on-line, and it troubles me. Because in this article is the implicating that the winner of AI this year is going to define America's preference between two social extremes. It's not just Adam versus Kris. It's Acceptance versus Rejection.

If Adam pulls off the win - a great possibility given his consistent string of excellent performances, his unparalleled vocal talent, and the media hype and clear frontrunner status he's held since pretty much Week 2 of the contest - it means that America has apparently embraced what many have decided that Adam personifies: acceptance of non-traditional sexual identities, celebration of those outside the mainstream, and unabashed enjoyment of our own freakish differences, as dark as those may run.

But if Kris wins - also a distinct possibility because America loves nothing so much as an underdog - it somehow means that not only is society NOT ready to accept those same constructs, but in fact longs to return to some idyllic farce of the 1950s when teens danced with a respectable ruler's-width of space between their bodies and gay people stayed in the closets where they belonged.

The issues I have with the Sun's slant are plentiful.

The most glaring problem with this article's assertion is that it places a lot of weight and significance on a fairly superficial decision. People tend to like a musical performer mostly because of the way that person performs music. If the contestant sings in a style they like, and if they can imagine buying a CD full of his music, they might pick up the phone and throw a few votes in that guy's kitty. They aren't really worried so much about committing America to one form of group-think or another if they pick up the phone and vote for one contestant over the other. I hardly think that some 30 million plus AI viewers are commenting on the path they want American culture to follow. They just know that Kris plays the guitar, which is always cool, but Adam sounds just like Robert Plant and Stairway to Heaven is their all time favorite song ever.

Too, I'm sure if anyone asked either Kris or Adam, neither guy would be happy to learn that he'd become the Poster Boy for one particular worldview, a worldview with fairly narrow parameters at that. The two men are very good friends, accepting of each other and the various facets of life they both represents. They don't seem to feel any level of Me versus Him, and I'm certain they wouldn't want the world to use them as banner carriers for the Liberals vs. Conservatives, the Blue States vs. Red States, or even the Stadium Rockers vs. Singer-Songwriters.

Additionally, the Sun's article fails to take into fact that a good number of AI watchers are what you'd call Kradam fans. (Note: I use this term in the "likes both Adam and Kris as singers" context, not the Adam-slash-Kris context that some are wont to do). We like both Adam and Kris. We don't want to choose between them. We accept them both.

Just as Guns & Roses exists on my iPod right after the Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons, I embrace the rights of all consenting adults to love whomever they feel compelled to love even as I also believe that kids should be encouraged to wait as long as possible to become sexually active. I'm super cool with men who wear guyliner (especially if it makes them look like this), but I cringe when confronted with facial piercings. I think people who aren't in the military and drive Hummers should be forced to pay a 200% gas guzzler tax but I think kids should be able to form voluntary prayer groups in public schools as long as they meet outside of school hours and all religions are allowed equal opportunity. I'm a virtual bag o' contrasts.

And next week, I probably won't vote for either Adam or Kris because I like them both so darned much, I can't bear to choose. I appreciate Adam's unbelievable talent, but I sometimes wince when he sings especially screechy scream-rock songs. Kris's ability to arrange songs I didn't think I liked in ways that make me spend money because it's now must-have music ("Heartless" anyone?) is mind-blowing to my musically challenged brain, yet John Mayer types are a dime a dozen on radio stations these days. Both have things I love and things I don't love so much. And in the end, I want both my Demon Prince and my Prince Charming.

My point being, crowning Adam over Kris does not mean that we've advanced as a civilization such that prejudice and oppression are no longer problems we need to address. Nor does a Kris over Adam victory set us back decades as far as acceptance of non-normative life styles.

Voting for one of these guys just means that either Adam or Kris gave some kick-ass performances and that a majority of AI viewers like one style of music a little bit more than another.

I'm just happy I get to watch these guys for another week.

Affected

2009-05-03T12:44:00.006-05:00

So, my daughter has this thing where she dots her i's with little open circles that look like the ones in the Disney logo. She also makes the dots at the bottom of her exclamation points the same way. She thinks it's cool to do this because she's of that age when it is cool to others of her age to do such things.

I told her dotting her i's with circles is affected. She asked me what affected means. I explained.

Dictionary.com lists the following entry for affected:
-adjective: assumed artificially; unnatural; feigned

Oxford American Dictionary offers up the following definition for affected: -adjective: pretentious, or designed to impress

Last night, I finished reading the latest installment of J.R. Ward's Black Dagger Brotherhood series, Lover Avenged. And the one word that ran through my mind the entire time I was reading was, you guessed it, affected.

Because as vivid and complex of a world that Ward has created, as compelling as her alpha heroes may be, as intricate of plots she manages to weave, Ward's style of writing is so unbelievably affected that it yanks me out of the story time and time again. It's all that comes to mind when I think of her books. I no longer can lose myself into the story because I've reached the point where I'm actively looking for examples, and I squeal in glee when they pop up every few paragraphs. It's almost a game to me.

For those not in the know, Ward's heroes are these massive, preternaturally strong, virile, uber-male vampire warriors. Macho he-men killers who don't know the meaning of the term refractory period. They bond with their heroines so completely they even carve the gal's name across their back to create permanent scars, proving their devotion and complete loyalty. They can kill you with a mere look, don't so much as wince when they are dealt near-mortal wounds, and wear leather the way most of us wear cotton.

These heroes also say and/or think things like:

"You just say the word, 'kay?"

When the waitress brought freshies, John glanced over at the redhead...

"I'm outtie then."

He made her shift her weight onto one foot so he could pop off her stillie and shuck her Sevens free...

Okay. I'm sorry, but what heterosexual male not involved in the fashion industry in some aspect or another would ever - EVER - use the word stillie? Heck, how many men even know what that word is slang for? Ask any random man to name the correct term for a stilleto and 99 times out of a 100 the answer would probably be "those spikey heel shoes".

And what person over the age of 13, of either sex, would seriously say "I'm outtie?"

The reason I find Ward affected is because she seems to think that shortening words and adding "ie" to the ends of them (freshies? outie? stillie? and there are so many, many more examples I'm too lazy to go back and find) as part of her characters' verbal and mental vocabulary gives them dimension. By using this form of tween slang, they aren't cardboard cutout alpha males but well-rounded, sensitive sorts who are in touch with their inner kid.

It's the writer equivalent of dotting her i's with open little circles in order to make her characters unique and deep.

Really, though, it creates a complete mental dissonance when reading the story that causes me to come full stop in the middle of sentence. I'm supposed to believe these guys are stone cold killers who inspire fear in everyone they encounter when they're telling each other to just chill, 'kay?

It doesn't make these guys metrosexual chic. It doesn't make them in touch with their feminine, sensitive sides. It doesn't even make them guys with a surprising knowledge of women's fashion and incredible good taste. It makes them little girls. And little girls aren't really that scary.

Writing natural-sounding dialogue is very hard. And slang is a most useful tool in accomplishing this elusive goal. But come on. Stillie? Really?

I admit that Ward's books are like crack as far as addictiveness goes, so for that I give her mad props (something her guys would say). As much as I want to walk away, somehow I just can't. And this is shameful given how many other issues I have with her writing style (don't get me started on the label-dropping). But it's this authorial tic that is like to drive me away completely.

I mean it. If she keeps doing it, I am so outtie.

There's a Reason It's Hard to Change Your Name

2009-04-20T11:43:00.005-05:00

For me, naming characters is a big deal. Maybe not as big of a deal as naming my kids, but it really can help or hinder my writing process. The perfect name is key for me to capture the true essence of a character. And I just know - KNOW - when I haven't quite gotten it right. It's a nag in the back of my brain that just won't be quiet no matter how hard I try to ignore it.

But there is nothing worse than going forward and doing a lot of work (as in, a ton!) and then realizing that you got the name of a key character wrong. You thought you'd finally settled on something. It worked okay. Didn't love it, but you could live with it.

And then you hear the right name. The One. The name that has just that certain je ne sais quoi that screams "This is who he is!" It's perfect. So perfect that now the old name will. not. work. At all. It sucks. Why did you ever think it was acceptable?

Which, for me, is tragic. Because now I have to go back through every piece of work I've done and change the name. Sure, I could do the old Find/Replace dance. But I'm the type of writer who does all kinds of planning in Word documents and on spreadsheets and an entire Curio project board. I'm talking some hard core hunting in not only story text but in all of the backup documentation I rely on to keep me sane.

God help me if the new name renders another character's name problematic. Which...gads, I think I'm facing. I have a headache.

The Too Good To Be True Bad Boy

2009-04-17T09:45:00.006-05:00

It's a good bit of writer's advice to give your heroes and heroines flaws. They can't be too perfect or everyone will hate them, and for good reason. I've read many-a-story wherein the heroine is too good to be true. And these are books I never reread.

Giving a hero flaws is one thing. But what do you do when you need to create an anti-hero? A person who is, on first meeting, someone you really don't like all that much? Someone who's behaviour you find offensive or wrong or annoying, but through the course of the story, you realize is actually a pretty cool person who deserves the hero designation?

What kind of flaws can you give this person that are enough to evoke that initial negative response but that aren't so bad that he or she is irredeemable?

This is where I'm at right now.

I have a hero who is not necessarily a good guy upon initial meeting. He's uncommunicative and hardened and a petty criminal. He puts people off, both intentionally and without trying. He's a jerk to the heroine and to those who would try to befriend him. Basically, he's a Bad Boy with an attitude.

But as the story progresses, you learn that he's actually quite noble. When the chips are down, he's there even though he's vowed all along that he wouldn't be there. And the heroine inspires in him a love that he never knew he was capable of feeling. He's a true hero with a heart of gold, albeit one with a very rusty exterior.

Except, I have no idea how to portray the bad boy side of him because whenever I think of an action I find anti-heroic, I can't bear to have him perform it. When I think of things that make someone not a hero, I think of liars and cheaters and people only out for themselves. I think of kicking puppies and sleazy pick up lines, and anyone who drinks and drives. I think of people who throw their cigarette butts out the car window, line jumpers, and scam artists who would take advantage of those who can't defend themselves. I think of bullies and mean girls and corrupt politicians. Stuff that makes me disgusted, stuff that if I learned a real person did, would probably put me off him or her forever despite any positive qualities he/she might have.

I don't want my guy to do any of these things. I honestly don't even know that he would. Every single time I come up with an un-heroic act, I immediately shake my head and think "he would never do that!" My guy is refusing to be bad. He's refusing to act the way he needs to act to be the character he is.

This is all so weird because I know this guy. I know that he's hard and uncommunicative and stand-offish. He hates whiners and has a mean, quick temper. He doesn't take lip and he resists authority on principle. He chases girls strictly for the pleasure he can get, doesn't think that unconditional love exists, and has no interest in helping someone just because he can.

And I have no idea how to show any of this. I'm at a complete loss.

He does smoke. And he would toss his cigarette butt out the window without thinking twice.

Oooo. He's eeevil!

Stage Director In a Previous Life

2009-04-01T21:44:00.002-05:00

I must have been a stage director in a previous life.

My characters spend more time turning around, going to or from one spot to the next, and just generally moving through the scene. And I'm not talking cool action moving. I'm talking ho hum, who cares moving.

She went to the sink and started washing dishes.

He turned around and picked up the socket wrench.

They came in from the living room and sat down for dinner.

Clearly, I need to work on setting. That's the only thing I can think of that explains why I seem to have a constant need to position my characters in a scene like they're poseable action figures.

I'll catch it all in the revise. Because I never seem to notice it so much as when I'm rereading.

Argh!

Accidental Copy Catting

2009-03-27T11:04:00.006-05:00

I possess the trait I think many writers out there have wherein the ideas that inspire me enough to actually sit down and put something on paper come from the ether. Maybe a scenario or experience will spark an idea - the other day I saw two surveyors measuring and marking the street for some thing or another and thought that this might be an interesting profession to explore for a female in a male-dominated industry - and things blossom off of that original seed.

But for the most part, I get an idea from either a particular character that comes to mind fully-formed, or because there is some emotion or relationship or scenario that I want to explore. Sometimes it's a plot - what would happen if this happened or that - that inspires me. But usually my inspiration is character driven.

Rarely, I'll read a story and like the general premise but think I would have done it differently. When this kind of story inspiration strikes, I tend to ignore it other than running a few scenes through my head when I'm sitting in traffic. I worry too much about copying someone else to ever go down that road.

Which is why I'm kind of freaked right now. I've been working for quite a while on a particular story, and I'm fully in love with the characters. I've plotted things out, written many many words, and it's been the one idea that I've consistently turned to when other ideas claw their way upward vying for attention. I'm determined to finish this.

Except, in the past two days I've come across both a book series and a TV show (not based on the book - completely different) that contain elements that are uncomfortably close to my grand opus. I have neither read the book series in question nor ever watched an episode of the TV program. I swear on a stack of bibles a yard high that it is 100% coincidence that my ideas run so close to what has already been produced.

But, damn! How did this happen? How did I come up with the same thoughts as those who took it further and produced something with those ideas? Am I really that completely unoriginal? Are my "pulled from the ether" ideas really that cliché? Am I being subconsciously influenced even by pop culture that I've never directly encountered?

To say I'm discouraged is an understatement. I know that there really is no such thing as a new idea. It has all been done before. And I fully buy into the rhetoric that it's not the idea that makes something worthwhile but rather how you put your own, unique spin on it that counts. Two people can turn out completely different results when given the same basic ingredients. If this weren't the case, humankind would have long ago stopped bothering to write, paint, sing, dance or otherwise express themselves creatively because, hey, been there, seen that.

I guess I'm faced with the question of where the line is between "same basic premise, unique execution" and "same basic premise, very similar execution". How many details must be the same for it to skirt way too close to copying for comfort? And if a writer honestly - honestly - was not in any way influenced by the original by virtue of honestly - HONESTLY - not even knowing what the original was about, is it okay to stay the course?

I refuse to give up on my work. First, I've put too much time and energy into it to abandon it. Secondly, I really do love my characters. The idea of not telling their stories simply because they sounds eerily like someone else's story (either in basic structure or because of a few similar details) makes me slightly nauseated. In the end, if my eyes are the only ones that ever bear witness to what I've created, I'm even okay with that.

Sort of. Because I'm of the philosophy that writing for ones' own personal enjoyment is a great hobby, but if you have no intention of every sharing your story, why not just keep it in your head?

Perhaps my solution should be to cut myself off from all media. Currently I never, ever read any book if it even slightly resembles something I have cooking in my own mind. I don't want to ever be influenced - consciously or not - by someone else's interpretation. But clearly I am being influenced somehow.

Scary.

The Office

2009-03-19T12:37:00.005-05:00

So, I finally discovered The Office.

I'd caught a random episode at one point, and I couldn't figure out what in the world people found so funny about this show. Maybe it's the absence of a laugh track to clue me in to what was supposed to be funny, but I just didn't find myself amused in any way. Office Manager Michael Scott (Steve Carell) was inane and stupid, and paper salesman Dwight Shrute (Rainn Wilson) was downright mean. I was supposed to tune in to watch these two goof balls act like idiots?

Then, a few weeks ago, I was trolling through the remote when I happened to catch the Tuesday night airings of The Office in syndication on TBS. Two episodes, which I watched intently, and I was good and hooked.

I have no idea what spurred me to give this show another try when I hadn't gotten it the first time. Actually, yes, I do know.

Jim and Pam.

In various formats I've come to learn that this couple called "Jim and Pam" are really appealing and offer up loads of UST and are just one of the cutest things to watch on TV. Since I'm always game to find a wonderful new 'shipping opportunity, I even went so far as to YouTube Jim and Pam and caught a few "My Favorite Jim and Pam Moments" vids which, to be honest, were enough to catch me up to their story and convince me that, yes, they seem to be 'ship-worthy. I figured if I ever got the chance, maybe I'd tune in again if only so I could watch this lovely couple get their romance on.

Come to find out, when I watched those two rerun episodes that Tuesday night, I was jumping into the Karen-As-Obstacle chapters of the Jim and Pam romance. Even though this might be consider the lowest valley in the Jim/Pam relationship rollercoaster, I still found them compelling as both a couple and as individual characters. Plus, what do you know, some of the other characters were kind of funny as well.

Some easy wikipedia reading caught me up, I set my DVR to record any old and new episodes, and headed to Amazon to see how cheaply I could find Seasons 1, 2, 3 or 4 in the "Buy New/Used" section.

Over the past week, I've watched all of Season 1, all of Season 2, most of Season 3 (the local Blockbuster didn't have the 3rd disc on hand for rental) and the Season 5 episodes that have aired in the last few weeks.

What I don't get is why in the world I didn't find this show hilarious the first time I saw it. This show is a roll-on-the-floor scream! And it's not just the Jim/Pam romance that keeps me hooked. It's Michael taking the women of the office shopping at Victoria's Secret and Dwight giving Pam a hanky to wipe away her tears and The Dundies and Bob Vance of Vance Refrigeration and Jan's boob job and creepy Creed (actually, he's the one character I do not like) and the entire premise and execution and all of it. This show is a masterpiece. Of course there's no laugh track. You don't need a laugh track.

And there is Jim. Oh my goodness, there is Jim. What a wonderful hero. He's every-guy. The perfect template for the true beta-hero. He's cute but not gorgeous, sweet and charming but just a little bit goofy. He's romantic but clueless, he's naughty but not cruel. His sense of humor is right up my alley - sarcastic and dry and amused by the absurd. John Krasinski owns this character, and if I worked for Dunder Mifflin Scranton branch, he'd be the reason I showed up at the office every single day. Never before could I have imagined a fantasy wherein I was a receptionist for a paper company.

Pam and Jim's romance has been absolutely perfect. Friends who feel more than friendship, kept apart by Pam's relationship with another man. When Jim confessed his feelings for her at the end of Season 1, I wanted to melt. And knowing that she wanted to be with him as well but felt she couldn't leave Roy...perfect. Then it was too late. Jim was gone and then he had Karen. Or had he?

Best thing about this relationship is how it unfolded so realistically. Just as such a relationship would in this situation, an office friendship turned romance. You can imagine the daily flirting, the lunches together and shared experiences that little by little by little push these two together and deepen their feelings for each other. That's the way we as viewers got to experience it as well. Each episode gave us the same tiny amount of development that one might expect in the real world, nothing huge, no grand gestures or dramatic events. Just a slow evolution that seems very organic but is unmistakable in its direction. Thus the obstacles standing in the way seemed natural as well. You can believe in this relationship because it's based in our reality.

It will be interesting to see how Pam and Jim's engagement and (presumable) new marriage will play out.

One thing I have come to know about this show is that it does need to be experienced from the beginning to fully appreciate. To a casual drop-in viewer, Dwight's antics and Michael's incompetence come across as absurd (see my above experience). You have to live with these characters to understand them, to care for them and understand their appeal. I think that's what was wrong when I saw my first episode. I had no background from which to gain context, so Michael and Dwight came off as stupid rather than funny. Now I've had a chance to see their layers and their actions make a lot more sense.

He's A Magic Man

2009-03-18T14:11:00.018-05:00

Holy Cow!

Why do I find this guy amazingly sexy?

He is everything not what I normally imagine when I think of my "perfect guy."

First of all, he's openly gay. Not that I have any issue with homosexuality. But I'm a woman, so the preferring of the males kind of doesn't work for me so much.

Secondly, he's really embraced the whole goth/emo look, complete with black fingernail polish and guy-liner so thick he probably goes through more in one night than I have in my entire life. I've never been big on fingerless black leather gloves or jet-black hair dyed colors not found in nature. I've never been a big fan of any look that requires so darned much effort to affect. Give me a pair of faded Levis, a white tee shirt and a comfy gray hoodie any day of the week for pure honest sexiness. Same with the hair. If I have to fight my guy for the flatiron, something isn't right.

And if all that weren't enough "not my cuppa", the guy looks like he's rocking some ear gauges. I hate - HATE - ear gauges. Granted his aren't the inch-wide, disfiguring horrors they could be, and they are black and thus blend in with his hair. Still...ick.

He's not an alpha male, at least not in the traditional sense. He's a hard core theatre boi, as far from the special operator/firefighter/super spy/he-man manly man as any male could probably be. He's prettier than most women, and not in that masculine male-model way. He's androgyny personified.

So what is it about American Idol contestant Adam Lambert that has me glued to the screen whenever he's performing? I simply cannot look away. I'm mesmerized.

I find him to be walking, talking sex appeal on a stick. He's a gay man who makes straight women want to do very wrong things. He's the antidote to vanilla. He's the thing that entices you into the dark and keeps you coming back for more. He's Spike. He's that boy your mama warned you about but you just can't stay away from.

And I have absolutely no idea why this is. Really.

I do know that I'm not the only one who has reacted to him this way. In last night's critique of his performance, Kara DioGuardi told Adam that he made her feel "confused, but happy." I'm so on board with this. Completely.

Or, as recapper Jacob put it in his latest AI recap on TWoP:

"It is... I hate this, because he makes me talk like Paula because people words don't work for things that are essentially otherworldly, so every week it's difficult to describe without resorting to these weird labored metaphors. So -- beyond saying that the Jeff Buckley vocal resemblance gets stronger every week and somebody needs to mention that already -- like... It's sort of like what if that movie Queen Of The Damned were not only real, but interested in slipping you a roofie and selling you on the black market. He screeches out some kind of artsy orgasm and nearly pulls his shirt up over his head, and then just starts wailing like some forgotten homosexual Greek myth about sailors that never come home. It's... Totally awesome. Of course. I feel weird and crazy, and entertained. Those sudden register shifts used to freak me out with Jeff Buckley too, like, "And now I am a lady... And now I am a dude again." I can't imagine how uncomfortable that must have been for lots and lots of people."

There just aren't the right kind of words out there to describe what goes through my head when Adam performs. It's beyond me.

I can identify one undeniable aspect of his appeal, at least as far as I go. Adam simply oozes confidence. He knows who he is, what he is, what he wants to be, and he makes zero apologies to anyone for any of it. I think confidence is the sexiest trait a man can have, and Adam has it in spades. When he's on it, he owns the stage.

I admit, Adam is an extremely polarizing performer. You pretty much either love him (!) or hate him. You get him or you don't. Unfortunately, from what I've garnered on various message boards and via various Idol reviews, getting him/liking him or not is much dependent on where you stand in general conservativeness or liberalness. Seems like the Obama supporters are on board whereas the McCain/Pallin cheer team simply doesn't get him. I think you have to have a pretty wide open mind in order to appreciate the experience that is Adam Lambert.

You can check out the video of his performance last night here. Check out the rest of his videos if you want to see if you, too, will fall victim to Adam's brand of magic.

Should Be a Four Letter Word

2009-03-04T13:45:00.011-06:00

There are a few words in the English language that I cannot stand to hear spoken. One of those words is a racial slur, and two others are slang for parts of the female anatomy. Honestly, I hear those words and my skin crawls and I want to find a hole to hide in.

But now there is another word that causes me to cringe when I hear it used in a particular context - cougar.

I'm talking about cougar when defined as: a woman, usually over the age of 35, who seeks out the sexual attention of men who are younger than she is, usually in their early-to-mid twenties.

Basically, cougar as it is used to describe the female version of a dirty old man.

The local radio station that I listen to recently ran a gag wherein they were sponsoring a "cougar" party, stocking the event with young guys and inviting self-proclaimed or wannabe cougars to call in and win chances to attend. The radio station would play a snarling cougar sound byte as part of the promo, and every single time I heard that sound, I had to turn the station.

I have no idea why this irritates me so much. Maybe it's because I'm over 35 and the idea of anyone thinking of me as a cougar humiliates me. I do appreciate the pleasing face and form of a young, physically fit male, but I'm in no way on the prowl. In my world, cougar is far from a compliment.

Too, I can't get out of my head the stereotypical image of a middle aged woman, face painted with layers of makeup, body stuffed into lycra pants and a gaudy beaded top, cruising the bars looking to score. This is just as bad as the depiction of some balding middle aged guy cruising college campuses in his mid-life crisis vehicle, looking to score some young ass. Ick on so many levels.

I guess I also have issue with what I perceive is certain amount of desperation being turned into some kind of joke. I'm sure there are many cougars out there who love their lives, are happy with their choices, and are very proud of their ability (after a certain age) to attract the attention of younger men. But for me, the word cougar denotes a certain amount of desperation and neediness - that these women must have the attention of younger (and presumably attractive) men in order to validate themselves. If this is the case, why is it okay to make that into a joke? Nobody thinks it's okay to be a dirty old man. And certainly no radio station I know of would consider sponsoring a "Dirty Old Man" event wherein men over the age of 35 or 40 are encouraged to call in so that they can win a chance to attend a party stocked full of women in their early twenties.

Of course, my pity is probably unwarranted. These cougars are probably having the greatest sex possible and should be the subjects of envy. Somehow, though, I can't manage that reaction.

I'm not a fan of extreme May/December romances, which I admit is totally unreasonable. No reason an older woman can't or shouldn't find love and happiness with a younger man. But I've figured out why I have a problem with it - I can't manage to get rid of the cougar factor.

This Is Good Writing?

2009-03-02T09:47:00.004-06:00

Holy cow. Ever have one of those reading experiences that leaves you wondering in complete bafflement why in the world that particular book ever got published?

I'm not talking having a problem with the plot being full of holes or the characters acting TSTL. I'm talking about the writing just being so bad that you can't believe that this is what passes for publishable writing?

Over the weekend I tackled my To Be Read pile, which has begun to take over my house. I realized there are really a lot of books that I own that I'm just dying to read, and I need to get busy. So I grabbed a YA title off the top of the pile and crawled into bed an hour early.

After the first chapter, I was left shaking my head over the narrative voice, which was so scattered that it made buckshot look like a laser beam. The story was told in the first person, so I can handle some amount of stream-of-consciousness flow. But this was so out there, all I could think was that the narrator - a young, 15 year old girl - must be afflicted with schizophrenia. The dialog was equally random, with non sequiturs so abundant I wondered if parts of the text had gotten deleted from the file used to create the printing press plates.

Then there were the type Os that somehow squeaked past copy editing. In a book of 80,000 plus words, you've got to expect the occasional missed type O. But I found six - SIX! - within the first two chapters alone. And these are ones that jumped out at me. I wasn't looking for them with a fine toothed comb. Some copy editor out there is highly overpaid.

But what really got me was just how bad the writing was. I mean, it was just bad. It reminded me of a rough draft, where a writer just brain dumps the story with the intention of going back and fixing sentences to avoid duplication of words (within the same sentence!) and make things less awkward wording-wise. But in this case, that second (or third or fourth) pass was never done, and the book reads like a very amateur offering.

I'm not discussing this to rant about my disappointment over the book. More, I'm just a bit confused and frustrated that something like this got published in the first place. For the past five years, I've paid a lot of attention to the publishing process, following with keen interest the anecdotes and advice offered by published writers of all different success levels as well as editors and other publishing professionals. And the the one issue that always comes up first is how competitive the industry is and how good you have to be to make it to the top of the pile.

But then I read something like this and I have to wonder that if THIS is what represents something someone in the publishing industry considers good writing, what is going on?

When people don't like a book because of story or character, you don't necessarily need to wonder what the editor/publisher was thinking for printing it. If the writing is good, then other aspects are subjective enough to believe the decisions were a matter of taste. But when the writing itself is bad - so bad that you can't get over it to even see the story or characters - what is the answer to the question of why this particular writer is considered "good enough" to be published? I just don't get it.

Because this book is a YA title, I had the scary suspicion that no one thinks it needs to be any better that it is, given the target audience. It's okay to print crap because the only people who read this stuff anyway are teenage girls. How discouraging that idea is.

I couldn't stomach this book enough to finish it, so I started to toss it in the bag to be taken to the used book store, only to pause thinking that maybe my daughter would want to read it in a couple of years. But heck if I want her to read this tripe. Into the bag it goes.

But here's the real WTF moment for me. Wondering if anyone else out there (everyone else!) agreed with my assessment of this book, I went searching for some online reviews. I was horrified - All About Romance gave this title a B-, and one YA review site simply raved about how great this book was.

Am I really that off base? I am not a literary snob by any means. My standards are not uber high. This was really, really bad. I would love to post excerpts here and gather other opinions, but that's a douchey thing to do. Darn it.

A Hard Stop

2009-02-17T13:11:00.003-06:00

I had this great idea for a story. It was loosely based on a classic about three sisters (as in, same basic plot arc but with a lot of changes to specifics and situations). One of the sisters - the youngest - didn't actually have much of a story in the original. But I determined that all three ladies would get equal time in my story, so I went about arcing something interesting for her.

But then something unexpected happened. I found myself way more intrigued by the littlest sister's story than the other two sisters'. I got more excited when writing about her, and the scenes I needed to write for the older girls became chore-like.

In addition, this young lady's antagonist began to develop a personality and a voice all his own. Originally I sometimes wrote out scenes from his POV, both because it helped me fill in some things, let me explore why this guy acted the way he did, and, well, I kind of like him a lot and love to spend time with him. I'm finding those throwaway scenes are some of my favorites, and relegating them to my "Little Darlings" file is really unappealing.

All of the sudden, my story has gone from a three POVs to four.

So now I'm faced with a dilemma. I feel like I should let go of my original idea. Cut the two older sisters loose and focus on the youngest. She's far more original, and I like her best of the three.

Except, when I originally concepted the story, the three individual sisters' plots intertwined. What happened to one sister affected the actions of the other sisters, which in turn moved their plots forward. If I cut out the two older sisters, some of the younger sister's story wouldn't happen.

Too, the younger sister's personality was formed by being the youngest of three girls. She fits into a particular slot in her family, and the ways she's differentiated herself from her two older siblings makes her a lot of what she is. If all of the sudden she is sister-less, she changes fundamentally.

I could shove the two older sisters deep into the background. Flesh out only what I need to have fleshed out in order to keep the plot intact. But part of me kind of misses the thought of writing the older sisters' stories, at least at some later date.

Ideally, I'd write three books - one from each sister's POV. Their stories would happen simultaneously, which is where it all falls apart. Any sense of anticipation would be nonexistent, because in reading one sister's story, you'd know what happens to the other two.

Grrr.

I may have to poke around this one for a while longer.

The Things I Know

2009-02-16T11:39:00.007-06:00

Yesterday my husband looked over my shoulder at the website I currently had open on my laptop.

"Why are you reading about jellyfish?" he asked.

"I need to know how to treat a jellyfish sting," I replied.

A moment of silence while he processed this. "Is there something I should know about?"

"Nope."

This got me to thinking about all the obscure things I now know or know how to do because of writing.

For example, in addition to offering first aid for a jellyfish sting, I can:

• Start a fire with a flashlight.

• Name all of the runes in the Elder Futhark and their general meanings

• Discuss in disturbing detail the various ways of collecting horse semen for use in artificial insemination

• Identify which plants and herbs would have made a good hair dye in late sixteenth century colonial America

• Explain the process a juvenile delinquent would follow if he were to commit a crime in the UK

• Spew obscenities in eight different languages (well, three of these are variations of English but they count)

• Tell you what drugs to add to a cup of tea to render the drinker unconscious

• Find a great topless beach in Maui

• Take photos in the dark, without using flash so as to not give yourself away

If I get nothing else out of writing, at least I'm gaining an interesting education.