Testing my newfound skills with Windows Movie Maker and helping a friend promote at the same time...Tell me what you think!
*ten minutes trying to post video to blog post*
Hells bells, Mary, the linky no worky! I'll have to re-route you...
The Opera Ghost Unraveled by Michelle Rodriguez
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXQG0vpTSIw
Your pal,
Angels
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Reviews From an HBN (P.S. I Love You - Cecelia Ahern)
How to sum up trying (and failing) to keep things up around here?
YIIIIIIKKKKKKEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!!!
Anyhoo...
Holly couldn't live
without her husband Gerry, until the day she had to. They were the kind
of young couple who could finish each other's sentences. When Gerry
succumbs to a terminal illness and dies, 30-year-old Holly is set
adrift, unable to pick up the pieces. But with the help of a series of
letters her husband left her before he died and a little nudging from an
eccentric assortment of family and friends, she learns to laugh,
overcome her fears, and discover a world she never knew existed.
MY RATING: 4 STARS
I saw the movie first, and came into the book understanding that the two were very different...so much so, in fact, that it doesn't even seem fair to me to say one is better than the other. This focused a lot more on Holly's grief, but it was still downright hysterical at times and balanced humor and sadness rather well. That's a quality I like in a book, and a skill I admire in a writer.
Oh, look! A readers' group discussion guide! I'll use it to write a review! (Spoilers ahead!)
At what point does the book hook you? What makes you keep reading?
Well, not to be cliche, but I was hooked from the first page. It had some slow points and Holly's constant bellyaching got old a few times (I know she's in mourning, but can we please move on with the story?), but it was mostly the humor that kept me going. I couldn't wait to see what kind of hijinks was around the corner.
Keeping in mind that Cecelia Ahern was twenty-one when she wrote P.S. I Love You, discuss her strengths as a storyteller.
Being, ahem, a young storyteller myself, I was rooting for her, and she stacked up a hell of a lot better than other young authors I've read. Her prose was light and funny, but also impressively mature and moving. There were a few times her inexperience showed in the way she told her story and the language she used to tell it, but that's only my opinion, for what it's worth. For the most part, the narrative was so good that I couldn't believe a twenty-one-year-old had written it. It had much more depth than I was expecting, based on prior experience, from such a young writer.
Look at the first two paragraphs of Chapter One. What information does Ahern provide at this early stage to set up the story that follows?
Oh, wow. Like I said, I was hooked from the first page. That was a pretty powerful opening, and I knew I was going to cry before the book was over. The impact of Gerry's death on Holly and the loss she feels hit me right in the head like a frying pan. I repeat: this was very mature and moving coming from someone so young.
What is so compelling about a list left by a loved one who has died? How does the list help Holly?
What a premise to base a story on! It was so intriguing and felt so novel! Gerry was gone, but he was still there with Holly through his notes, and I felt her anticipation and excitement as she waited until it was time to read another. Ultimately, though, the notes had to come to an end, but they were a way to ease Holly into letting Gerry go and moving on with her life, and it was such a bittersweet and thoughtful way of doing it.
Think about Holly's reaction to Gerry's karaoke instruction. How does the experience help her?
The karaoke! One of the best parts! A little lump came to my throat when I read Gerry had planned it months in advance, knowing he wouldn't be there with her and that she would have to go through with it for her own sake. It was good for Holly to step outside of her comfort zone and face an old fear with the actual karaoke, and then to be surrounded by family and friends without Gerry at her side. She had to find an identity outside of his wife, and the karaoke was just another step towards moving on.
Even though Gerry is dead, how does he come alive in the book?
See, now, he didn't really "come alive" for me. It felt more like hearing everyone talk about this wonderful person, but never actually meeting this person for myself, and that came as a disappointment. To be fair on Ms. Ahern, it's hard to resurrect the dead for the reader, and I think it would have been tough to pull off. It was such a shame for a character with such impact on the story to come off so...ghost-like, especially when the others were so vivid they just seemed to fill my head, but I guess it's only fitting that it worked out that way, given what the book is about.
Discuss who experiences a transformation in P.S. I Love You.
I'm taking the easy way out and going with the obvious answer. At the beginning of the book, Holly is a devastated widow. She won't leave the house, she won't eat, and she's lost the other half of her heart. I cried for her and with her. Then little by little, she starts taking baby steps towards recovery, and it's wonderful that Gerry was still able to help her move on, even while she mourned him. She has her triumphs and setbacks when she reverts back into the wreck she was at the first, but by the end she emerges stronger, a woman who has learned to shape a new life for herself, to find herself and a sense of purpose, and to just live, period. It started so sad, but it ended so hopeful I had a smile on my face when I finished reading.
All in all, I enjoyed reading this. It made me laugh, cry, and think, and as far as I'm concerned, that makes it a success with me. I was pestering both my mother and my sister to read this once I was done with it, and I would be quick to recommend it. I felt a sense of camaraderie with Holly that doesn't often happen with other books. She felt so genuine and so real, and it's rare that I feel so close to a character so quickly. That Ms. Ahern was able to pull that off was terrific.
***
Your humble book nerd,
Angels
YIIIIIIKKKKKKEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!!!
Anyhoo...
MY RATING: 4 STARS
I saw the movie first, and came into the book understanding that the two were very different...so much so, in fact, that it doesn't even seem fair to me to say one is better than the other. This focused a lot more on Holly's grief, but it was still downright hysterical at times and balanced humor and sadness rather well. That's a quality I like in a book, and a skill I admire in a writer.
Oh, look! A readers' group discussion guide! I'll use it to write a review! (Spoilers ahead!)
At what point does the book hook you? What makes you keep reading?
Well, not to be cliche, but I was hooked from the first page. It had some slow points and Holly's constant bellyaching got old a few times (I know she's in mourning, but can we please move on with the story?), but it was mostly the humor that kept me going. I couldn't wait to see what kind of hijinks was around the corner.
Keeping in mind that Cecelia Ahern was twenty-one when she wrote P.S. I Love You, discuss her strengths as a storyteller.
Being, ahem, a young storyteller myself, I was rooting for her, and she stacked up a hell of a lot better than other young authors I've read. Her prose was light and funny, but also impressively mature and moving. There were a few times her inexperience showed in the way she told her story and the language she used to tell it, but that's only my opinion, for what it's worth. For the most part, the narrative was so good that I couldn't believe a twenty-one-year-old had written it. It had much more depth than I was expecting, based on prior experience, from such a young writer.
Look at the first two paragraphs of Chapter One. What information does Ahern provide at this early stage to set up the story that follows?
Oh, wow. Like I said, I was hooked from the first page. That was a pretty powerful opening, and I knew I was going to cry before the book was over. The impact of Gerry's death on Holly and the loss she feels hit me right in the head like a frying pan. I repeat: this was very mature and moving coming from someone so young.
What is so compelling about a list left by a loved one who has died? How does the list help Holly?
What a premise to base a story on! It was so intriguing and felt so novel! Gerry was gone, but he was still there with Holly through his notes, and I felt her anticipation and excitement as she waited until it was time to read another. Ultimately, though, the notes had to come to an end, but they were a way to ease Holly into letting Gerry go and moving on with her life, and it was such a bittersweet and thoughtful way of doing it.
Think about Holly's reaction to Gerry's karaoke instruction. How does the experience help her?
The karaoke! One of the best parts! A little lump came to my throat when I read Gerry had planned it months in advance, knowing he wouldn't be there with her and that she would have to go through with it for her own sake. It was good for Holly to step outside of her comfort zone and face an old fear with the actual karaoke, and then to be surrounded by family and friends without Gerry at her side. She had to find an identity outside of his wife, and the karaoke was just another step towards moving on.
Even though Gerry is dead, how does he come alive in the book?
See, now, he didn't really "come alive" for me. It felt more like hearing everyone talk about this wonderful person, but never actually meeting this person for myself, and that came as a disappointment. To be fair on Ms. Ahern, it's hard to resurrect the dead for the reader, and I think it would have been tough to pull off. It was such a shame for a character with such impact on the story to come off so...ghost-like, especially when the others were so vivid they just seemed to fill my head, but I guess it's only fitting that it worked out that way, given what the book is about.
Discuss who experiences a transformation in P.S. I Love You.
I'm taking the easy way out and going with the obvious answer. At the beginning of the book, Holly is a devastated widow. She won't leave the house, she won't eat, and she's lost the other half of her heart. I cried for her and with her. Then little by little, she starts taking baby steps towards recovery, and it's wonderful that Gerry was still able to help her move on, even while she mourned him. She has her triumphs and setbacks when she reverts back into the wreck she was at the first, but by the end she emerges stronger, a woman who has learned to shape a new life for herself, to find herself and a sense of purpose, and to just live, period. It started so sad, but it ended so hopeful I had a smile on my face when I finished reading.
All in all, I enjoyed reading this. It made me laugh, cry, and think, and as far as I'm concerned, that makes it a success with me. I was pestering both my mother and my sister to read this once I was done with it, and I would be quick to recommend it. I felt a sense of camaraderie with Holly that doesn't often happen with other books. She felt so genuine and so real, and it's rare that I feel so close to a character so quickly. That Ms. Ahern was able to pull that off was terrific.
***
Your humble book nerd,
Angels
Friday, February 15, 2013
Valentines From O.G.
You know, Valentine's Day doesn't strike me as a likely candidate for Erik's favorite holiday...
Your pal,
Angels
Your pal,
Angels
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Happy Valentine's Day!
And now, I would like to share with you a song...
Carlene Carter - Little Love Letters
What? Were you expecting a love song? :)
Your pal,
Angels
Carlene Carter - Little Love Letters
What? Were you expecting a love song? :)
Your pal,
Angels
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Reviews From an HBN (The Phantom of the Opera - Gaston Leroux)
Get ready for some serious spoilers! One note before we begin: I'm discussing the novel, source of all things canon, so apart from a few passing remarks here and there, there will be absolutely no mention of any subsequent adaptations whatsoever. Pure Leroux, baby!
The Phantom of the Opera was first published as a serialisation in Le Gaulois from September 23, 1909 to January 8, 1910.
The Phantom of the Opera lives under a famous opera house. A mere chorus girl, Christine Daae, becomes, under his guidance, a well known singer with a beautiful voice. But her old child hood sweetheart, the Viscount Raoul de Changy, has also entered the picture. The past comes back to haunt her, the future ahead is uncertain, and the present is undecided. Who will win the heart of Christine; the handsome, rich Raoul or the masked Angel of Music? A story of romance, murder, sacrifice and sadness, this riveting, seductive tale will keep your emotions high until the very last page of the shocking conclusion.
MY RATING: 5 STARS
Here it is, the little serial that started it all...*salutes Gaston Leroux*
Please, let's not deceive ourselves, high literature this is not. It's not a romance. It's not a tragedy. It's not a horror story. What it is, is an inventive combination of the three presented as factual by a man who was first published as a journalist. And you've got some mystery thrown in for good measure! The only proper introduction to Phantom is through this book (which, I maintain, is still the best money I ever spent, beginning a love affair and obsession that hasn't let up to this day).
M. Leroux begins with his assertion that "the Phantom of the Opera really existed." He describes his research into the abduction of singer Christine Daae, the disappearance of Raoul de Chagny, and the death of his older brother Philippe. He says it's all the work of one man, known only as a ghost and believed to be just a myth. He has all sorts of evidence to prove his story, given by policemen who worked the cases, staff at the Opera, and the tale of the mysterious man known as the Persian. It all unfolds like a detective novel, and even being so familiar with it, the style still intrigues me.
To be perfectly honest, I didn't even know this was a book until I found it at the store one day, and having only heard of the musical I didn't know what to expect from it. The "nonfiction novel" concept took me by surprise at first, but it didn't stop me: I finished the book in one day. I couldn't stop thinking about the themes and the characters, and they filled my head so much I re-read the book several more times that week and kept puzzling them all out. It's filled with symbolism as well, but I never really got into that, apart from what each character represented to the others.
Erik, also known as the Phantom and first known to Christine as the Angel of Music. Disfigured since birth and the most extraordinary genius who ever lived. I was drawn to him from the beginning, and I have to confess that my first feelings towards him were of fear. He was a cold-blooded killer, a manipulative sociopath, and hardly more than a child in an adult's body with no conscience and no respect for humanity. But then I read on...despised by his mother, made an outcast because of the way he looked, his many talents turned towards evil, eventually driven to hide underground in the cellars of the Opera...he's a case to be pitied. Compassion came after fear and some pretty convoluted emotions, considering what more he was compelled to do by his dangerous obsession with Christine. I could understand, and yet I couldn't condone. Despite all of that, killing and kidnapping and blackmailing and terrorizing and Lord knows what else, he still had that moment of redemption where all the wrong he had done didn't matter anymore. An act of compassion on Christine's part touched him, and touched him so deeply he was moved to do the right thing for the first time in his life and "tasted all the happiness the world can offer." He finally learned what it meant to truly love someone else, and to know kindness. The end of his story hit me like a freight train the first time, and if anything the impact of it has only grown as my understanding of everything behind the novel grows.
It's a shame that Christine's character is butchered so often as it is. Sure, she's a little on the gullible side, but rarely is she portrayed like she has a brain in her skull (Webber, I'm looking at you...). She's a born singer that loses her genius with the death of her father, only to be coached into divinity by the so-called Angel of Music. Erik, prompted by his obsession, appears to her as the angel her father promised to send her, and she is taken in by the lie until she finds herself in Erik's home--which is closer to Hell than Heaven, in a little twist of symbolism--and strips away both mask and fantasy. From that moment on, she has to keep her wits about her, going along with Erik's demands and doing what she can to keep her sweetheart safe. She fears Erik and she pities him, pities him so much she can't bring herself to hate him. Isn't that something? You would think she had plenty enough reason to, after all, but it's hard to say which she was more reluctant to do: return to him when she must, or break his heart. Stockholm Syndrome, anyone?
That's right, I said it! Stockholm Syndrome! No great romance, no true feelings of love and devotion! As M. Leroux wrote it, Christine's feelings were that of a bonded captive, bordering on an Electra complex. He took the place of her absent father when she believed he was an angel, and when she learned the truth, their relationship turned into that of jailer and prisoner. Sorry, E/Cers, but I gotta call it like I see it. While we're on the subject, Erik wasn't really in love with Christine, either. He was fixated on what she represented: beauty, purity, the chance to be accepted. He's also got a few mommy issues thrown in there; I mean, who in the world thinks about their mother when kissing someone else? They were each without a parent, and each filled in the role for the other.
Now, onto Raoul! First time I read it, I liked him. No, really! I blame Andrew Lloyd Webber and Gerard Butler for making me think Raoul sucked giant jawbreakers! Once I saw the 2004 movie I was convinced that Raoul stood in the way of true love (and ironically, it was also the movie that eventually made me respect Raoul as a character), but when I first read the book, I liked him. Don't get me wrong, he was a very young, very emotional young man, but he was brave, devoted, and he genuinely loved Christine! Enough to risk his life to save her! Doesn't that count for something? Raoul generally gets a bad reputation for simply not being Erik, and he does have his flaws. He's too impetuous for his own good, candid to the point of being tactless, a tad nosy, pretty darn bossy, and did I mention he's very emotional? BUT he is also sweet and lovable, truly in love with Christine, honestly concerned about her welfare, and ready to die to rescue her. He curses her and renounces her when it looks like she's playing him, but I only attribute that to a broken heart, and seeing just how he's hurting to think she doesn't love him, I'd say that says quite a bit about how he loved her.
One question: WHY IS THE PERSIAN SO NEGLECTED IN OTHER VERSIONS?!?! You want the hero of the story? Here he is! A former acquaintance and the closest thing to a friend Erik ever had, he watches over the Opera House once he learns who it is living in the cellars and playing tricks on everyone inside. And when all hell breaks loose, he's right there in the middle of the action, trying to do right by everyone. He's like Christine in that he pities him too much to hate him. In fact, he saved his life once upon a time! He tries to serve as Erik's nonexistent moral code, his very own Jiminy Cricket, as it were. He leads Raoul through the Opera to come to Christine's aid and is the reason the dear viscount didn't get himself killed in the attempt. He's such an interesting character, and my favorite apart from Erik himself.
All right, I'm trying to wrap this up...Leroux toys with his readers, if you ask me, to give them what is in parts a vivid narrative and in others a sketchy outline. Erik's masterpiece, Don Juan Triumphant, has always fascinated me, for all that it's only mentioned a few times. Sorelli, a principal dancer in the Opera ballet, is only a major player in the first chapter, but there are intriguing little hints about her character that always make me wonder about her. Count Philippe is one of my favorite mysteries: his relationship with Raoul, his reputation among society (he seems to be something of a ladies' man and yet nobody seems to dislike him), his death...if only I knew more!
Important note on translations--do not, I repeat, do NOT get stuck with the translation by Alexander de Mattos! Why, you ask? It's incomplete! Where the French didn't quite work over into the English, he just left it out, and consequently I've been getting short-changed all these years. This is still the most common translation available, but it's what you might call abridged. I've heard good things about the Lowell Bair and the Leonard Wolf translations, so I'll have to see if I can't get my hands on them someday...
Your humble book nerd,
Angels
The Phantom of the Opera lives under a famous opera house. A mere chorus girl, Christine Daae, becomes, under his guidance, a well known singer with a beautiful voice. But her old child hood sweetheart, the Viscount Raoul de Changy, has also entered the picture. The past comes back to haunt her, the future ahead is uncertain, and the present is undecided. Who will win the heart of Christine; the handsome, rich Raoul or the masked Angel of Music? A story of romance, murder, sacrifice and sadness, this riveting, seductive tale will keep your emotions high until the very last page of the shocking conclusion.
MY RATING: 5 STARS
Here it is, the little serial that started it all...*salutes Gaston Leroux*
Please, let's not deceive ourselves, high literature this is not. It's not a romance. It's not a tragedy. It's not a horror story. What it is, is an inventive combination of the three presented as factual by a man who was first published as a journalist. And you've got some mystery thrown in for good measure! The only proper introduction to Phantom is through this book (which, I maintain, is still the best money I ever spent, beginning a love affair and obsession that hasn't let up to this day).
M. Leroux begins with his assertion that "the Phantom of the Opera really existed." He describes his research into the abduction of singer Christine Daae, the disappearance of Raoul de Chagny, and the death of his older brother Philippe. He says it's all the work of one man, known only as a ghost and believed to be just a myth. He has all sorts of evidence to prove his story, given by policemen who worked the cases, staff at the Opera, and the tale of the mysterious man known as the Persian. It all unfolds like a detective novel, and even being so familiar with it, the style still intrigues me.
To be perfectly honest, I didn't even know this was a book until I found it at the store one day, and having only heard of the musical I didn't know what to expect from it. The "nonfiction novel" concept took me by surprise at first, but it didn't stop me: I finished the book in one day. I couldn't stop thinking about the themes and the characters, and they filled my head so much I re-read the book several more times that week and kept puzzling them all out. It's filled with symbolism as well, but I never really got into that, apart from what each character represented to the others.
Erik, also known as the Phantom and first known to Christine as the Angel of Music. Disfigured since birth and the most extraordinary genius who ever lived. I was drawn to him from the beginning, and I have to confess that my first feelings towards him were of fear. He was a cold-blooded killer, a manipulative sociopath, and hardly more than a child in an adult's body with no conscience and no respect for humanity. But then I read on...despised by his mother, made an outcast because of the way he looked, his many talents turned towards evil, eventually driven to hide underground in the cellars of the Opera...he's a case to be pitied. Compassion came after fear and some pretty convoluted emotions, considering what more he was compelled to do by his dangerous obsession with Christine. I could understand, and yet I couldn't condone. Despite all of that, killing and kidnapping and blackmailing and terrorizing and Lord knows what else, he still had that moment of redemption where all the wrong he had done didn't matter anymore. An act of compassion on Christine's part touched him, and touched him so deeply he was moved to do the right thing for the first time in his life and "tasted all the happiness the world can offer." He finally learned what it meant to truly love someone else, and to know kindness. The end of his story hit me like a freight train the first time, and if anything the impact of it has only grown as my understanding of everything behind the novel grows.
It's a shame that Christine's character is butchered so often as it is. Sure, she's a little on the gullible side, but rarely is she portrayed like she has a brain in her skull (Webber, I'm looking at you...). She's a born singer that loses her genius with the death of her father, only to be coached into divinity by the so-called Angel of Music. Erik, prompted by his obsession, appears to her as the angel her father promised to send her, and she is taken in by the lie until she finds herself in Erik's home--which is closer to Hell than Heaven, in a little twist of symbolism--and strips away both mask and fantasy. From that moment on, she has to keep her wits about her, going along with Erik's demands and doing what she can to keep her sweetheart safe. She fears Erik and she pities him, pities him so much she can't bring herself to hate him. Isn't that something? You would think she had plenty enough reason to, after all, but it's hard to say which she was more reluctant to do: return to him when she must, or break his heart. Stockholm Syndrome, anyone?
That's right, I said it! Stockholm Syndrome! No great romance, no true feelings of love and devotion! As M. Leroux wrote it, Christine's feelings were that of a bonded captive, bordering on an Electra complex. He took the place of her absent father when she believed he was an angel, and when she learned the truth, their relationship turned into that of jailer and prisoner. Sorry, E/Cers, but I gotta call it like I see it. While we're on the subject, Erik wasn't really in love with Christine, either. He was fixated on what she represented: beauty, purity, the chance to be accepted. He's also got a few mommy issues thrown in there; I mean, who in the world thinks about their mother when kissing someone else? They were each without a parent, and each filled in the role for the other.
Now, onto Raoul! First time I read it, I liked him. No, really! I blame Andrew Lloyd Webber and Gerard Butler for making me think Raoul sucked giant jawbreakers! Once I saw the 2004 movie I was convinced that Raoul stood in the way of true love (and ironically, it was also the movie that eventually made me respect Raoul as a character), but when I first read the book, I liked him. Don't get me wrong, he was a very young, very emotional young man, but he was brave, devoted, and he genuinely loved Christine! Enough to risk his life to save her! Doesn't that count for something? Raoul generally gets a bad reputation for simply not being Erik, and he does have his flaws. He's too impetuous for his own good, candid to the point of being tactless, a tad nosy, pretty darn bossy, and did I mention he's very emotional? BUT he is also sweet and lovable, truly in love with Christine, honestly concerned about her welfare, and ready to die to rescue her. He curses her and renounces her when it looks like she's playing him, but I only attribute that to a broken heart, and seeing just how he's hurting to think she doesn't love him, I'd say that says quite a bit about how he loved her.
One question: WHY IS THE PERSIAN SO NEGLECTED IN OTHER VERSIONS?!?! You want the hero of the story? Here he is! A former acquaintance and the closest thing to a friend Erik ever had, he watches over the Opera House once he learns who it is living in the cellars and playing tricks on everyone inside. And when all hell breaks loose, he's right there in the middle of the action, trying to do right by everyone. He's like Christine in that he pities him too much to hate him. In fact, he saved his life once upon a time! He tries to serve as Erik's nonexistent moral code, his very own Jiminy Cricket, as it were. He leads Raoul through the Opera to come to Christine's aid and is the reason the dear viscount didn't get himself killed in the attempt. He's such an interesting character, and my favorite apart from Erik himself.
All right, I'm trying to wrap this up...Leroux toys with his readers, if you ask me, to give them what is in parts a vivid narrative and in others a sketchy outline. Erik's masterpiece, Don Juan Triumphant, has always fascinated me, for all that it's only mentioned a few times. Sorelli, a principal dancer in the Opera ballet, is only a major player in the first chapter, but there are intriguing little hints about her character that always make me wonder about her. Count Philippe is one of my favorite mysteries: his relationship with Raoul, his reputation among society (he seems to be something of a ladies' man and yet nobody seems to dislike him), his death...if only I knew more!
Important note on translations--do not, I repeat, do NOT get stuck with the translation by Alexander de Mattos! Why, you ask? It's incomplete! Where the French didn't quite work over into the English, he just left it out, and consequently I've been getting short-changed all these years. This is still the most common translation available, but it's what you might call abridged. I've heard good things about the Lowell Bair and the Leonard Wolf translations, so I'll have to see if I can't get my hands on them someday...
Your humble book nerd,
Angels
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Bookmarks Are Important!
Eek, falling behind again! I'll have February's artist of the month up tomorrow and a book review on Friday, but for now, here's a little something that just popped into my head.
I have problems when it comes to finishing certain books. I just can't stand coming to the last page and having to leave the story and the characters behind! If I've enjoyed the book that much, I'm tempted to start reading it again and never ever ever let it go. Remember going over to a friend's house as a kid and having so much fun there that you didn't want to leave when your parents came to take you home? That's exactly the feeling I'm talking about.
It's kind of dorky, but it helps if I leave a bookmark in those books, right at the first page and waiting for me to pick it up again. That way, setting it aside for another doesn't feel so final, and it's like a promise that I'll come back soon. Which is why I end up reading at least three books at once, skipping back and forth between ones I haven't read yet and those favorites that I can't leave on the shelf for too long. Those favorites?
Your pal,
Angels
I have problems when it comes to finishing certain books. I just can't stand coming to the last page and having to leave the story and the characters behind! If I've enjoyed the book that much, I'm tempted to start reading it again and never ever ever let it go. Remember going over to a friend's house as a kid and having so much fun there that you didn't want to leave when your parents came to take you home? That's exactly the feeling I'm talking about.
It's kind of dorky, but it helps if I leave a bookmark in those books, right at the first page and waiting for me to pick it up again. That way, setting it aside for another doesn't feel so final, and it's like a promise that I'll come back soon. Which is why I end up reading at least three books at once, skipping back and forth between ones I haven't read yet and those favorites that I can't leave on the shelf for too long. Those favorites?
- The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux - it seemed only fitting that the permanent bookmark in this one be the joker from a trick deck of playing cards.
- Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen - my go-to read when I need a pick-me-up! It's an index card with a list of adjectives marking this one (random, I know)
- Opera Macabre by Michelle Rodriguez - this one has a marker promoting her next novel.
- The Opera Ghost Unraveled by Michelle Rodriguez - I've got an old piece of paper with the lyrics to one of my favorite songs with this one...yep, I write down an awful lot of lyrics...
- Outlander by Diana Gabaldon - all right, so this one is definitely the newbie on the list, but I loved it that much. This one has a guest check from the restaurant I work at, complete with step-by-step instructions on how to time in!
Your pal,
Angels
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Reviews From an HBN (Outlander - Diana Gabaldon)
What's happened to me?! I'm the consummate fantasy nerd, reading this, of all things!
To be fair, though, this has some fantasy elements to it...
The year is 1945. Claire
Randall, a former combat nurse, is back from the war and reunited with
her husband on a second honeymoon--when she walks through a standing
stone in one of the ancient stone circles that dot the British Isles.
Suddenly she is a Sassenach--an "outlander"--in a Scotland torn by war
and raiding Highland clans in the year of Our Lord...1743.
Hurled back in time by forces she cannot understand, Claire is catapulted into intrigues and dangers that may threaten her life...and shatter her heart. For here she meets James Fraser, a gallant young Scots warrior, and becomes a woman torn between fidelity and desire...and between two vastly different men in two irreconcilable lives.
MY RATING: 4 STARS
So I finally broke down and decided to read Outlander, then I finally got lucky enough to spot it on a shelf at Goodwill. Then I enjoyed it enough to read it twice in a row.
Let me start with what turned me off, as that's a shorter list. Time travel stories aren't really my thing (unless there happens to be a Time-Turner involved), and it seems Diana Gabaldon has an even more chaotic approach than usual in her rationalization of the whens and the whys and the what-times. The detail I'm picking on is that, Claire's marriage to Jamie is valid because her marriage to Frank is technically still two hundred years into the future, but if all time runs side-by-side (and I'm assuming that's what she's getting at, what with Claire going on about how she's been gone from 1945 for such and such amount of time) then that means she's still married to Frank and her marriage to Jamie isn't legal after all...maybe the Doctor can figure this one out for me, because I'm confused.
And...over eight hundred pages? I'm torn here, because my instincts as a writer say that this thing could have been heaps and bunches shorter by cutting out anything and everything that did nothing to further the plot. But then, I get all mixed up because this doesn't really have a plot, per se. And on top of it all, my sensibilities as a reader wouldn't hear of cutting anything out, because I liked it all. I spent half the book in titters at all the humor, the last quarter in near-tears because of the turn of events, and all the rest of it racing as fast as I could onto the next page because I was dying to know what was coming.
Claire had her moments of being just that irritating, but what can I say? She dropped the F-bomb in front of a total stranger within the first few pages and later cussed a man out for daring to get himself injured on her watch. She was bound to win me over eventually. She's kind of like one of those people you're not really sure why you're friends with, but you can't imagine not being friends with them anyway.
And then there's James Fraser...dear God and Jesus at Olive Garden, I've become one of those females that swooned after him the instant he arrived on the scene. It's easy to consider him the stereotypical romantic hero, but he really isn't. Which gives me cause for relief, to be honest, or I'd lose all my self-respect entirely. He's mainly responsible for all the aforementioned humor, and most of it is my favorite kind of bawdy, raunchy humor, God bless him. And that sentiment goes double for his genuine love and affection for Claire, and just for being so bloody amazing. The best part? He's flawed! He's realistic! He's the perfect guy, and he's not even perfect!
Someone stop me, I'm going in circles...
The sex, once it started happening, felt like it hardly stopped happening. But Ms. Gabaldon handled it in a way that it wasn't just Jamie and Claire doing it for the sake of it, but achieved some kind of growth through it. It felt like they were actually coming closer together, emotionally and spiritually as well as physically, so points for that. And for keeping the dialogue interesting! It was never even too explicit for all that they were constantly hopping into bed or hiding in a convenient stand of trees or haystack, and that spells accomplishment to me! I do, however, have to ask if the whole episode with Jonathan Randall at Wentworth prison is really necessary...it felt like one of those things that didn't really do much for the plot and it was almost overdone, but I'll live with it. It gives Randall complexity as a villain, which is always a good thing.
Speaking of Randall, that didn't quite impress me, either, making him a counterpart of Frank. I get it, it adds to the emotional train wreck for Claire to be confronted with her beloved husband's doppelganger only for him to turn out a sadist, but...it was too easy! What better way to make her turn to Jamie than to make Frank somehow seem less appealing by extension?
And did I happen to mention that Jamie is so awesome? I did? OK then, moving on...
I can see the haters' point about where this book is lacking, but I can also pose an argument in defense of it. So I guess that means I'm a fan, then, doesn't it? I couldn't help myself! It was exactly the kind of escape I love in a book, no matter what the genre! For crying out loud, I read it again right after I finished it the first time, and that's explanation enough in itself!
Your humble book nerd,
Angels
To be fair, though, this has some fantasy elements to it...
Hurled back in time by forces she cannot understand, Claire is catapulted into intrigues and dangers that may threaten her life...and shatter her heart. For here she meets James Fraser, a gallant young Scots warrior, and becomes a woman torn between fidelity and desire...and between two vastly different men in two irreconcilable lives.
MY RATING: 4 STARS
So I finally broke down and decided to read Outlander, then I finally got lucky enough to spot it on a shelf at Goodwill. Then I enjoyed it enough to read it twice in a row.
Let me start with what turned me off, as that's a shorter list. Time travel stories aren't really my thing (unless there happens to be a Time-Turner involved), and it seems Diana Gabaldon has an even more chaotic approach than usual in her rationalization of the whens and the whys and the what-times. The detail I'm picking on is that, Claire's marriage to Jamie is valid because her marriage to Frank is technically still two hundred years into the future, but if all time runs side-by-side (and I'm assuming that's what she's getting at, what with Claire going on about how she's been gone from 1945 for such and such amount of time) then that means she's still married to Frank and her marriage to Jamie isn't legal after all...maybe the Doctor can figure this one out for me, because I'm confused.
And...over eight hundred pages? I'm torn here, because my instincts as a writer say that this thing could have been heaps and bunches shorter by cutting out anything and everything that did nothing to further the plot. But then, I get all mixed up because this doesn't really have a plot, per se. And on top of it all, my sensibilities as a reader wouldn't hear of cutting anything out, because I liked it all. I spent half the book in titters at all the humor, the last quarter in near-tears because of the turn of events, and all the rest of it racing as fast as I could onto the next page because I was dying to know what was coming.
Claire had her moments of being just that irritating, but what can I say? She dropped the F-bomb in front of a total stranger within the first few pages and later cussed a man out for daring to get himself injured on her watch. She was bound to win me over eventually. She's kind of like one of those people you're not really sure why you're friends with, but you can't imagine not being friends with them anyway.
And then there's James Fraser...dear God and Jesus at Olive Garden, I've become one of those females that swooned after him the instant he arrived on the scene. It's easy to consider him the stereotypical romantic hero, but he really isn't. Which gives me cause for relief, to be honest, or I'd lose all my self-respect entirely. He's mainly responsible for all the aforementioned humor, and most of it is my favorite kind of bawdy, raunchy humor, God bless him. And that sentiment goes double for his genuine love and affection for Claire, and just for being so bloody amazing. The best part? He's flawed! He's realistic! He's the perfect guy, and he's not even perfect!
Someone stop me, I'm going in circles...
The sex, once it started happening, felt like it hardly stopped happening. But Ms. Gabaldon handled it in a way that it wasn't just Jamie and Claire doing it for the sake of it, but achieved some kind of growth through it. It felt like they were actually coming closer together, emotionally and spiritually as well as physically, so points for that. And for keeping the dialogue interesting! It was never even too explicit for all that they were constantly hopping into bed or hiding in a convenient stand of trees or haystack, and that spells accomplishment to me! I do, however, have to ask if the whole episode with Jonathan Randall at Wentworth prison is really necessary...it felt like one of those things that didn't really do much for the plot and it was almost overdone, but I'll live with it. It gives Randall complexity as a villain, which is always a good thing.
Speaking of Randall, that didn't quite impress me, either, making him a counterpart of Frank. I get it, it adds to the emotional train wreck for Claire to be confronted with her beloved husband's doppelganger only for him to turn out a sadist, but...it was too easy! What better way to make her turn to Jamie than to make Frank somehow seem less appealing by extension?
And did I happen to mention that Jamie is so awesome? I did? OK then, moving on...
I can see the haters' point about where this book is lacking, but I can also pose an argument in defense of it. So I guess that means I'm a fan, then, doesn't it? I couldn't help myself! It was exactly the kind of escape I love in a book, no matter what the genre! For crying out loud, I read it again right after I finished it the first time, and that's explanation enough in itself!
Your humble book nerd,
Angels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)