Oh, Fanfic

I didn't realize that the Draco Trilogy was so long! I can't even fully comprehend reading a fanfic that long, let alone the idea of someone's life being devoted to writing it (or is it the other way around?).
The concept of fanfic itself is strange, because its motivation, at least in my opinion, it to fill some void that fans feel is left untouched by the author, to create an alternate universe where the world fans have fallen in love with can be expanded and endure indefinitely. So long as there is fanfic, the characters never have to stay static--there can always be another adventure.
I can't decide whether HP fans have taken that too far, with things like the Draco Trilogy. It is a story that was written before the author herself had revealed what happened to her characters; therefore, the fanficcers were building stories from sketches, not fully realized characters. I feel that after Book 7, a lot of fanfic like The Draco Trilogy can no longer claim to be about the same characters. It's not just about the plot, but the characters authors are using. They've diverged into two different planes, and I don't think that a fan who disregards Book 7 can really say that they've fallen in love with J.K. Rowling's characters so much as the idea of Hogwarts and Co.
That being said, I'm still not entirely sure that it's really wrong, either. I had a discussion with Alyssa about how we didn't like the idea of a Ron/Hermione relationship, because it seemed so out of character for each of them. But if J.K. Rowling says its true, then doesn't it automatically make it in-character? Maybe that's where fanfic comes it--fans can actively protest something they see as wrong in their understanding of a character. And when it gets to the point where fans are appropriating a character as their own, then I think it is fair game. I mean, look at the Batman character (yes, I had to bring Christian Bale into this). The Batman of the new Batman movies is not the Batman of the Val Kilmer generation, nor does he bear resemblance to the original Batman, he of the bright yellow utility belt and gray spandex. The character has evolved through several comic book authors to one who is completely different, but still accepted by fans as canon. Characters like Batman and Nancy Drew (Carolyn Keene, the "author," was a pseudonym for many different writers) have become such cultural institutions that they are now open for reinvention by anyone. Maybe the same has happened with Harry Potter, with the complication that the original author is still alive and vocal about her own vision of what REALLY happens. I'm really curious to see what will happen to the franchise in the future...

On Fanfic

So, after reading HP 7, I encountered a fan who said something like "let's pretend this never happened and take the Draco Trilogy as the last book." Karen helped me find the Draco Trilogy, and I am now about 800 pages through what may be a 2000 page saga in the Harry Potter universe. I say "may be a 2000 page saga" because I have't opened the third pdf file, and the first two are about 1100 pages together. It's long, let's just say that.
Anyway, reading a novel that uses our beloved characters but is not by JK Rowling is a bit of an odd experience. It's comforting to be back with Harry, Ron, and Hermione, and to see the Burrow and Hogwarts, etc., again, but it's clearly not the same. This particular story is on the right scale as a Rowling story, especially in the later years, but it introduces concepts that I don't find compatible with the world we've come to know. Demons? Hell? Unlike, say, the Golden Compass books (Karen...write your blog post about it!), the HP world is distinctly a-religious. There just isn't a mention of God or Hell or anything theological. I liked that. Introducing Hell and demons introduces a Judeo-Christian conception of the universe, and it was refreshing to read a children's book in which good and bad were drawn resolutely, but not eternally. Voldemort could be good--it's a choice. I could be okay with the presence of this new theological component, but there's something about the voices that doesn't work for me. This story is self-consciously clever, another trait Rowling would never demonstrate. This is something else I liked abou the books--they took themselves seriously, and the humor was neither casual nor intentional. That is, I never got the sense that an act or quote was intended solely to produce laughter. It was always part of the characters, or of the story. Back to the voices; I can't see the Harry or Hermione I've come to know in this story, which makes me wonder if the Harry and Hermione, etc., are the Harry and Hermione *I* know, or the Harry and Hermione everyone knows. How much are these books personal? How much are the characters personal? I know people understand the romances in the JK Rowling books better than I do, and someone might have an undying appreciation for Professor Sprout, but to what degree can characters change for individual readers?
I guess my real questions here are about reader response theory. Woot Humanities honors seminar. Or even Don Quixote like. What happens to characters when the real author puts down her pen? Are they mine? Are they still hers? Can characters live after the books? I think these questions are ones Karen brought up a few weeks ago, but they're still worth asking again. I just reread HP 3. These characters are not the same characters that are in HP 7, but the evolution is clear. Is HP 7 a better book than the Draco Trilogy, for me, because the evolution JK Rowling has seen them through works better, or is it because characters are really tied to the author? A lot of the series I read as a kid had different authors (eg, Sweet Valley twins, Nancy Drew (I think)). I don't remember the characters changing from book to book, but they were also probably flatter characters. Do any of you write fiction? Do you think you can adopt characters from another world and make them your own?

And, in other news, I'm having a really hard time getting into books this summer (besides HP). Any suggestions?

Warning! Gone with the Wind spoiler! Oh wait, everyone else already knows what happens...

So I just finished Gone with the Wind, having never read it before nor ever seen the movie. Not only did I sob during the last ten pages of the book, but I have been depressed all evening since finishing it.

I grew up reading books obsessively and have often cried before at a sad ending, but my reaction this time has been unlike any I've had before. Normally I feel sad, or even cry if the event is tragic enough to merit tears (e.g. Dumbledore's death in book 6), but then the emotions related to the book end as soon as I'm done reading. But I've been feeling depressed all evening after finishing Gone with the Wind. I even watched and episode of Sex and the City to feel better and ended up crying various times during the show. For some reason, this book is affecting me personally.

Though I had expected, and probably hoped for, a happy ending because most books have them, I hated Scarlett more and more as the book went on so I wouldn't think I would be so upset by her ultimate defeat. But even as I hated her, I became more consumed by the book and it's story the longer I read and for the past week I have been reading during all of my free time. So I guess part of my reaction can be explained by how involved I felt with the characters and their lives. But I also think I may have come to identify with Scarlett a little bit, as much as I dislike her and wonder why Rhett ever liked her. Unconsciously I assumed that things would somehow work out in the end, and that she and Rhett would finally be open with each other and she would admit her love for him. The ending would not have been so bad if it had been dramatic and violent, but instead it was just utterly defeating. The words "I don't give a damn, Scarlett" hurt far more than anger from him would have. I still can't believe the book actually ended that way, not that I blame Rhett since I never thought he should have liked her to begin with.

Ok, enough rambling. I guess I'm just wondering whether my strong reaction is simply a credit to Ms. Mitchell's talent, or whether I identify more with Scarlett than I'd like to think. I hear there's a sequel, but I don't think I have the energy to continue, and since it's by a different author I don't think I would see it as the same story anyways. So, in any case, send me a joke or funny story if you want to cheer me up, though I think a good night's sleep will do the trick for "tomorrow is another day."

Sorry, that was terrible.

Mad Harry (no spoilers)

I've just gotten back from Kepler's big Harry Potter launch party. Hi Alyssa! Hopefully you aren't too exhausted! I got my fortune read by a very soused Professor Trelawney, and apparently I am rational in many things, but not in love. Sad. I guess I will have to stop criticizing others for their stupid love mistakes. Oh wait...that would be me who's making the silly decisions. Boo.


I went to Kepler's with the fond memory of my last Harry Potter party, for book 5 at the Barnes & Noble in Irvine. I mean, I got a snitch and a pair of round, black Harry glasses.

But Kepler's was insane. There were SO many people there. And perhaps I wasn't with the right people, or my buzz was wearing off (I went out with my sister and her bf earlier), but I was sort of put off by the whole thing. I mean, the nasty, critical side of me just came roaring to life, and I was annoyed by the high school girls using the night as an excuse to wear slutty school uniforms, the overbearing parents, the mobs of middle schoolers, the group of high school asshats staging a Support Voldemort rally...honestly, it was a bit much. The cultural phenomenon felt like it had overpowered the simple story of good and evil. In the wake of the hoopla, I feel like I'd lost the crux of the whole thing--the books themselves. So now I have it, and it's sitting next to me on my desk, and I don't really have any desire to open it. I just want to sleep.

Another contributing factor to my placidity about the fate of Harry is that, well, I can always imagine an alternative ending. The Harry Potter phenomenon has spawned an entire world of alternatives based on people's imaginative spins on the characters--the world of fanfiction. I don't know how many of you are familiar with it, but fanfiction is basically taking characters from a book (or what you believe the characters to be) and using them in your own stories. There are similar communities for other cult phenomenon, like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. My friend from high school was a huge celebrity in the Star Wars fanfic community--she told me that when she decided to retire, they held an online candlelight vigil to try to coax her back. It's the ultimate metaworld.

There are entire novel-length stories out there about the continuing adventures of Harry, Hermione, and the lot. Some carry the stories where J.K. Rowling vows never to go, into the adult world of careers and marriage and children. Many of them focus on aspects that Rowling neglects, or does poorly, such as romance. Alyssa and I were giggling the other day over the idea of a Harry and Draco romance, but there are legions of "shippers" out there who swear about the plausibility. What will happen to this construction when people read the final book and find out the REAL ending? Will it even matter? What happens when a fan community appropriates the characters from books and form canon around those characters? Part of me thinks it isn't necessarily all that bad, because it's all about inspiring that belief in another world, but the other part of me says--well, it's just cheating. It's not canon unless it's in the book. But sometimes it's fun to choose a different ending...

On that note, happy reading to all! And remember, there's always fanfiction!

a plea....

hi guys! sorry for being a little slow on the uptake in terms of posting...but this is just going to be a short entry. i'll try to write a longer spiel later.

ok, i know i'm being really anal, but can i just make a quick request that people not post about book 7 without proper warning? like, a massive "THIS IS ABOUT HARRY POTTER BOOK 7! DO NOT EVEN GLANCE AT THIS POST IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT YET!" sort of thing. i just don't know when everyone's going to read it, and it makes me so sad to think about spoiling even one bit of the story. on the way back from the bookstore tonight, my dad was looking at his copy and pretending to read it aloud, and i basically almost went berserk. it's kind of scary how invested i am in this one book.

anyway, on that kind of intense note, happy reading! hopefully we can have some good posts about the final installment when we've all read it. and thanks for indulging my obsessions. i'm off to read book 6 in preparation...

Slowly Going Mad

An aside before I begin my proper post: Google has whole texts of books online! I may be very late to the game on this.

My Proper Post:
I saw Karen today, so she already knows this, but my happiness and emotional well-being is currently completely wrapped up in the fate of Harry Potter. This is not a healthy state to be in. I read an article that explains how Harry Potter will die, and the world goes dark. I read another article that explains how he will live, and all is well again. A huge part of me does not want to read the seventh book. In my world, Harry and Hermione and Ron are alive and surviving, if not thriving, and Voldemort is not exactly an immediate threat, although he looms on the edges. If Harry is going to die, especially, I just don't want to, don't need to, know. Of course, I'm going to read the book, because how can I not?
I was skeptical of Harry from the beginning. I didn't start reading until after Book 4, and even then it was only because I ran out of reading material and needed something for a plane ride. I read HP1 and HP2, twice, within three days. The world is so engrossing (much like His Dark Materials, Karen), and the characters so real and relevant that it was hard not to get hooked. So, of course, I did. This time it matters more, though, what happens. Because it's the last, yes, and because it is a cultural phenomenon. I think a lot of the hype is overdrawn and the whole "it's our generation" thing is a bit ridiculous, but when kids come into Kepler's to buy the book, there's real passion and enthusiasm. We don't see that much, at a bookstore.
I think this is what really gets me about these books. Harry, et al, are characters that kids have always been able to relate to. That's why Book 5 was so annoying--because we knew, we were, those kids with bad tempers and hormones. And when it comes down to it, killing Harry would betray that familiarity. Because, really, we don't know kids who die, especially not if we're actually the generation that grew up with Harry. 18 year olds, who started reading these books 10 years ago, are not in a world that is dangerous. So, yes, Harry Potter's world is now the world that we all live in, with threats of terrorism, and it is a fantasy novel, in which terrible awful things happen, but it's still a world that we should be able to recognize for the potential for good. If Harry dies, what does that tell kids about their role in life? Martyrdom is not a viable life plan, and it's exactly that sort of idea that's gotten us into a lot of trouble in the Middle East. This is heavy stuff for a blog, so I'll stop here, but maybe I've just convinced myself that Harry can't die, because JK Rowling's not stupid enough to make a whole generation of children believe they can't do good without death coming along for the ride. Even if I believe this now, though, someone will convince me that, actually, Harry's been a ghost the whole time, and that he has to finally move onto the next world--behind the veil, a la HP5--for peace to reign. Or something like that. Hopefully, at the very least, I can stop having dreams about Harry Potter. Hopefully.

Meet my Daemon!

The Golden Compass

I'm doing it.

Is it horribly shallow that I was partially inspired to read it by the fact that I was coasting along apple trailers and saw the movie preview?

Now I just have to find a copy of the book, since boo-hiss the library's copies are all checked out, though Cubberley has a first addition that I can drool at, but not read.

On another note, does anyone else find the phrase "read voraciously" oddly delicious? It gives me a bit of a thrill.

Harry Potter and the Hormones

I'm supposed to be working right now. Oh well. I'm glad we started this again! I'm not reading nearly enough this summer. So, Harry Potter. I am SO excited for the seventh book. I just reread the fifth and sixth books, and enjoyed them far more than I thought I was going to. HP5 in particular, I was more impressed with than expected. Harry is not *that* annoying, and the hormones aren't *that* in your face. As we come to the seventh, though, the big question of course is whether he'll live. Mostly I say "he has to". But every once in a while I think about Don Quixote, and how the easiest way to ensure there will be no unauthorized sequels is to kill off your main character. Which leads me to the thought of black market book sharing. I had lunch with Ashni today, and we were talking about the Chinese black market. You can read such delightful books, there, as...I can't find any right now, but they have really strange fake books. What kind of career is inventing books that don't exist? Is there a skill in authoring a fake book? To whom do we attribute authorship (does it matter?) for books like the Sweet Valley twin series, that aren't actually written by a single author. Sorry this is so rambling. My brain is incredibly fuzzy at the moment. Someone with more intellectual power than I should post. Yay books!

It's that time again!

Hi all,
The blog has been on hiatus for some time, but it's summer again, so we should start reading and writing and posting!

Do you all want to start off reading the same book and posting on it?
My suggestion: any of the Harry Potters/the series

Karen

Thank Ctrl+S

I wrote this post last night but my internet mysteriously shut off before I could publish it. But I saved it to a notepad file, and here it is. I thought of some good additions to it as I was waiting to fall asleep, but as usual, forgot them after a night of grinding my teeth (I got fitted for a nightguard today!).

The post:

I hope your teeth (or rather, the gaps where your teeth were) are feeling better, Bronwen. But why cold tea bags? That sounds like torture upon torture.

To report on my own health, I'm happy to say that all the reading I've been doing (and maybe a tiny bit the television) have made my eyesight just that much worse and I'm getting a new set of glasses/contacts. What have I been reading to contribute to this diminished state?

Since I last blogged, I read How to Breath Underwater by Julie Orringer, one of the three books for this year's froshies. It's a collection of short stories, most of them about young girls or children. I particularly liked "The Isabel Fish" and "Note to Sixth-Grade Self." I read the stories pretty much in one sitting (in between periods of nausea from the bus), so I think I will have to reread some of them. They started to fall flat for me after the first few stories, and I felt like the characters were not as fleshed out as they had been in other stories. Or maybe I just didn't like the characters. At any rate, I am a bit nervous about having to help lead a discussion group on the book, or any book, so if any of you have tips on how I should start, I will love you forever.

I also read this fun little nonfiction book, Don't Eat This Book by Morgan Spurlock, the director of the documentary Super Size Me. It's part behind-the-scenes of the book, part call to action against the fast food industry, part Fast Food Nation-lite. The writing is informal, some of his quotes are a bit dodgy, and it gets a little repetitive, but it's still pretty interesting info presented humorously. I've read Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, which is much more solid as a piece of journalism/nonfiction. Sort of like Nickel and Dimed versus The Working Poor.

Also, I finished Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer, one of the Strangers with Candy bookclub picks. I'd never read anything by Foer before, nor anything at was quite so postmodern. At first I was really struck by the experimental feel of the book--he played a lot with the form of the text and incorporated images into his narrative--but toward the end I sort of wondered whether it really did anything. Or was I just too dim to get it? I don't know. What do you all think about the postmodern book? Innovative or too gimmicky?Good read though, if anyone has some time or wants to add to their pile.

I'm trying to read History of Love by Nicole Krauss but I think I ruined it for myself. Also will try to make my way through Kite Runner without wanting to kill myself too many times from the emotional weight on my brain.

Piles of Books

It's been ages since anyone besides Karen has posted. Thanks for keeping it up, m'dear!
Bookwise, it's been a somewhat frustrating summer. I feel like I've read less than normal, which is probably true, and I have a pile that I don't think I can finish (a never before seen phenomenon). I'm also reading too many books at once, which makes completing anything difficult. Some highlights, I guess, of my recent reads I'll provide. Sorry for the Yodarific syntax. I'm trying to remember, Karen, what questions you've posed. But I can't, so I guess I'll just ramble about my books.
My most exciting literary find this summer has been Allegra Goodman. Her first novel, "Kaaterskill Falls", took my breath away. Her most recent is called "Intuition" and it's very, very different from KF, but is also magnificent. Goodman has a way of engrossing the reader that I've rarely seen before. The worlds she creates are thoroughly captivating and realistic, and few authors are able to capture me in those worlds as quickly as she does. Her characters, similarly, are real, and she writes of serious issues without judgment. I'm excited to read her other novels.
"The History of Love," for the new and exciting Strangers with Candy book club, was fun. It's the kind of book that I expected a lot from, and received a lot, but not as much as I was hoping. When I finish a book, I expect to cry or feel some sort of heavy emotion (Goodman's make me feel like I've been hit by a truck, for example). I was satisfied with HoL, but not captured. I really enjoyed the book, and there are a lot of layers worth exploring, and I loved her writing, but I needed more of an emotional hook. I needed to care a bit more about the characters.
I read, quickly, "Water for Elephants," which is a big deal book-club type book right now. "Spangle" is an epic, slightly trashy, circus novel from the 1980s, and is one of my favorite books ever. This paled in comparison, but was enjoyable enough.
My current pile includes "Remains of the Day", which has gotten a lot of press, was made into a movie, and comes highly recommended. It's about a butler, and I like it, but I'm having trouble caring. It's very quiet, possibly too quiet. I'm also reading "March", about the father in "Little Women", and some book about the rise of anti-Semitism in medieval Europe (approximately). It's a loan from my crush du jour, and so I'm obligated to read it. And finally there's "The Confessions of Max Tivoli" by a local author. I was excited to read this, especially because I liked his first novel and this was supposed to be even better. Thus far I'm not entranced. Why have I lost my momentum? Aagh. Also on the docket for upcoming days are "A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian" which I want to read for the title alone; the Harry Potter series, because I just got the paperback of HP6; and the entire oeuvre of Barbara Kingsolver. I also have a huge stack of other books from the library and from my $100 graduation gift certificate to Kepler's. I need to move faster on these books if I'm going to make a dent in my pile.
I'm always daunted by my book list, but never before have I been daunted by my book pile. Partly I think this may be because I work with people who read more than I do, and because I hang out with people (ie, Seth), who read better than I do. I'm not used to feeling insecure about my reading abilities. Hopefully the momentum that may have been jumpstarted with "Intuition" and "Water for Elephants" will follow through to these other books and I can move on with my life.
I did like "Princess Academy", Karen. The twist was a bit predictable, or maybe unnecessary, but it was a sweet book. I'm all about judging books by their covers and making snap purchases. There's a legitimate question for you all: they say never to judge a book by its cover. How then, are we supposed to judge them? And what's wrong with judging by the cover? The design of the book tells us a lot about its intended audience, and often about the book's story. I, for one, sometimes judge books by their titles and the feel of the cover (matte versus glossy, usually). Sometimes I'll judge based on the scent of the book's pages. These things are part of the reading experience, and so why shouldn't they be part of the selection process?

That's all I've got tonight. Sleep beckons. Hope you all are well! Happy reading!

Into the Light

Yay! I'm very excited to be back on my computer. We had a power blackout that lasted about 24 hours on my street because a transformer blew out in my neighbor's yard. I was scared that I was missing somthing crucial, but I checked my email and learned that I hadn't missed anything at all.

I finished The Bean Trees by Barbara Kingsolver. I haven't read anything else by her, but I could see what Alyssa meant when she wrote that it was obviously an early work (heavily paraphrasing). It's a simple story, simply told. I started thinking with a Southern accent, which is always a good sign (I like any excuse to think with a Southern accent). I liked her style for the most part, except for her habit of ending a section by tacking on a metaphor about a bird in a tree or whatever. I'm excited to see how she grows in The Poisonwood Bible.

I've also started reading The Corrections. Possibly a bad idea after Kingsolver. Their writing styles are very different, and I keep thinking that Franzen is making everything way too convoluted. It's not pretty the way De Bernieres is pretty, but more artsy and modern stream-of-consciousy. I don't know if I'm meshing with it right now. So to take a break from it, I'm rereading The Perilous Gard by Elizabeth Marie Pope, a book from my childhood that I love. I'm also reading it to counteract the effect of reading Princess Academy, a book I bought on a whim for Alyssa. Never judge a book by its pretty pastel cover. Or its book flap. It wasn't terrible, but it didn't really accomplish what it wanted to do. The characters were wooden, the plot contrived, and the ending...can we say deux ex machina (pronounce it properly for me, Laura, because I can't manage it)? Ok, maybe not quite. But it was lame-o. I apologize, Alyssa. I like to be spontaneous and choose books at random, but sometimes it just doesn't work out.

I'm closing my eyes

I saw that you have a draft post going, Bronwen, but I stopped myself from looking.

I scrapped the Hemingway because I forgot where I put the book and took up with Disgrace by J.M. Coetzee instead.

There are those books that make you say "Wow" when you read them, even though you aren't quite sure you could say why. This was one of them. It was a painful book to read, because it's full of reality. Nothing is unambiguous. You feel as though the story could be a true story, because the characters are full of complexity and act as real people do, inexplicably. When I finished the book, there were no definite conclusions but somehow that felt right, because the way the book is written, the reader experiences things as the protagonist (meh on the term...he's a bit of an anti-hero) does, and you know that he just goes on living. But at the same time I felt that maybe I didn't really understand anything at all, and the answers to my questions were in the text, and I was just too ignorant to recognize them.

Which brings me to the question of "getting" a book. After reading the conclusion, most of the time I have this moment when I'm holding my breath, remembering everything I've read and wondering whether I really "got" the book. Then, whether or not I liked it. The former tends to have a heavy impact on the outcome of the latter. If I don't feel like I really understand a book, I can't bring myself to say that I liked it. Not that it isn't a "good" book, in that it is well-written and thought-provoking. But I wouldn't put it on my favorites list, or want to read it again and again. Do any of you distinguish between a good book and a book you liked? Is it necessary to "get" a book for it to be good or likeable?

Finally

I finally finished Corelli's Mandolin. I threw myself a little party in my room and had a bit of a victory dance.

Why did it take me so long? Several rather bad reasons: a) it was longer than 200 pg (aka the length of your typical children's book/YA) and b) I had issues with motivation because I committed the cardinal sin of reading and skipped ahead to skim the ending.

Despite all that, I stuck with it, because the characters drew me in. There's this catlike animal called Psipsina that was just so CUTE I squealed every time she made an appearance. Captain Corelli was adorable, and I really resent the fact that they put Nicholas Cage on the cover of my book because gaaaah gross miscast. The same goes for Penelope Cruz, for whom I harbor an inexplicable resentment (the Tom Cruise connection?). Pelagia, the character Penelope plays, is terribly entertaining. Despite the whole epic nature of the story, the characters are very real because De Bernieres animates them with a sparkling, playful sense of humor amid the tragedy. There is also a deep nostalgia, in the Odysseus sense of longing for home as well as in the longing for history. I guess the author took the whole Greek thing to heart, and it shows in his writing. There's one passage that communicates that pretty well that I particularly enjoyed when I read it, because it somehow articulated the overwhelming feeling of the sublime that you get when you finish a hike to the top of a mountain (after the wheezing stops):

"The second thing that struck me, curiously enough, was the incredible size and antiquity of the olive trees...they made me feel strangely ephemeral, as though they had seen people like us a thousand times, and had watched us depart. They had a quality of patient omniscience...here it was possible to place one's hand on that antique bark, look up at the fragments of sky that glittered through the canopy, and feel dwarfed by the sensation that others might have done this very thing under this very tree a millennium before."

Fun fun. I'm reading Hemingway now, because he's terse, and I could probably learn something from him.

I feel like an old lady

I realize that I always say I'll respond to your compelling posts, and then never do. This time is no different. One point I want to raise and a book list, and then I need to sleep (England/Portugal had me up far too early this morning). I was hanging out in the young adult section at work today, shelving bright pink books, when I realized how many of them are about explicit sexual topics. Example: The Lipstick Party, I think it's called. A high school sophomore invites a bunch of people over to her house for a "lipstick party", hence the title. There have to be six girls and six guys, one for each color of the rainbow. Each girl puts on lipstick and gives each guy oral sex, so the guys all end up with rainbow-hued genitals. The point, I'm not sure. Turns out, though, that someone has gonnorhea, and by the end of the book, something like 2/3rds of the sophomore class at this high school have the disease. I clearly just gave away the plot, so sorry if any of you were going to read this. The point, from the author's and publisher's perspective, is to teach kids to engage in safe sexual practices. Plenty of the other books, though, don't seem to have any redeeming social qualities: The Crush Diary, The Gossip Girls, The Clique Sisters (or something), and so on. The Lipstick Party is more explicit, I think, than any of these other books, but they all kind of revolve around ditzy girls being manipulative and using sex as a social method. Two questions, I think, emerged for me: 1. Were these around when I was a kid? I certainly never read them. I did skip a whole lot of YA, though, so it's possible I just missed them. And my parents never censored my reading (I've thus read a lot of really strange and inappropriate stuff), but I can't imagine they would have been okay with their twelve-year-old daughter reading about oral sex parties. Which leads to 2. Do kids read these things and process the messages? Do their parents care? I feel like a prude, but I'm not sure twelve-year-olds need to know about the dangers of oral sex? Maybe I'm naive or sheltered, but is this really an issue for most middle schoolers? Just some thoughts. And I realize I misspelled gonorrhea. Maybe that time it was correct. Anyway, some food for thought.

Now for the list:
This week was Phantom Tollbooth, Crossing California, and The Moffats, I believe I said. I surprised myself by finishing all three. Partly because I didn't leave the couch for three hours this morning. Phantom Tollbooth, as always, was magnificent. Crossing California was enjoyable, but ultimately too long and lacking any true point. And The Moffats was remarkably dated (yeah 1941), but still cute. Not as good as I'd remembered, but a good hour-long read.
I've started The Princess Academy, and I like it so far. I'm also planning to read something from my pile of library books (Skeletons on the Zahara, about Africa, maybe, or The Lake of Dead Languages which I got for the title), and something from my ever-increasing pile of books that I've bought at Kepler's (possibly Alice Munro's Runaway or Orhan Pamuck's Snow). And then there's my nine months worth of Believer Magazines (Dave Eggers' wife's magazine about books. I love it.). Bronwen, I know I just emailed you, but I have the Philip Pullman books for you, if you want to borrow them.

Okay, c'est tout. One of these days I'll actually respond, instead of just posing new questions.

happy reading!

Emails

I figured out the culprit for my missing emails problem: LAURA!

Just kidding. But it turns out that blogger only lets you send email alerts to one email address, so I formed a mailing list for us on google groups. Hopefully it will work. This post is partly to test that.

I just returned from the library and picked up: Twelfth Night, As You Like It, Corelli's Mandolin, The Corrections, Disgrace, The Bean Trees, The Poisonwood Bible, and The Old Man and the Sea. I might end up volunteering at the library's bookshop--they need help and I can't resist a place that has a little moneybox and a bookcart outside the door with the message, "If the bookstore is closed, place money here."

I was reading The Prisoner of Azkaban again today and the whole books-to-movie issue kept popping up, because I had the images and sounds from the movie stuck in my head and they would flash up in my mind when I was reading. It was a little distracting, actually. I mean, I love the movie, but I liked being able to use my own imagination to visualize the characters. And now that seems impossible.

Curses on Hollywood? Or does someone want to give the counterargument?

P.S. I haven't read LOTR either, Laura. Except for the appendix about Eowyn and Faramir, because I'm a sap and it wasn't in the movie.

P.P.S. Blogging about books at a bookstore is very appropriate, I think. I'm sure your bosses would agree that it's better than reading the tabloids. Not that I do that...much.

Squiffy, from the Mouth of a Brit

According to the boy, "'squiffy' was a term used in the early part of the century but I haven't heard it for a long time in modern idiom; it means drunk/pissed. The play 'the inspector calls' has it quite a lot but I'm sure there're tons of other literary references" (punctuation mine). So there we are. Maybe it's like punchy, as Bronwen said, and it means drunk in England because everything means drunk in England, and it means slanted or whatever it was here.
I like the questions you raise, Karen, and will respond to them later. The real question for me: is blogging about books allowed when there's nothing else to do at the bookstore?
By the way, "The Phantom Tollbooth": still soooo good. :)

Literary Prostitutes

I have to echo what Alyssa said: Wow. Good postings. For some reason the email function wasn't working, so I didn't get my email notices and didn't check the site (and didn't see Laura's dig about my hair grrrr).

I started reading the Alanna series again a few days ago. I read them as a child and they've been on my list of recycled books for years (the ones I read at least once a year). I hadn't picked them up, however, in a while and so when I was reading them again, I felt very conscious of what I was reading, rather than reading to relive old memories, which is what I usually do. It's happened to me a lot lately (maybe college is finally sinking in?), and it's somewhat disheartening, because a lot of my old favorites have lost a little of their gleam in the process. I'm sorry to say that this happened with Alanna. I have to agree with most of Bronwen's criticisms--the writing really is atrocious at times, and the plot predictable. It read as a "children's" book, somewhat dumbed down and overexplained (her later books definitely show an improvement). Pierce's strength, I feel, is in her characterization of Alanna. She makes you root for her characters, and that makes you keep reading to see that they succeed, even though you're pretty sure they will. The gender issue Bronwen discussed is key because Pierce tries(and succeeds on some level) to break the divide between what is considered male and female literature, and consequently male and female roles.

Alanna is a great "sheroe," because she combines the best of boys' and girls' books--as my lit professor would say, it's a combination of boys' school stories/adventure tales and girls' fairy tales/romances. My sister used to say that fantasy/sci-fi books were really just romance novels dressed up in armor for boys. Pierce's books are appealing because her characters battle in wars AND get the prince to fall in love with them. As Laura said, Alanna's problem throughout is that she tries to put on a false performance as a boy according to the stereotypes she's grown up with, and she doesn't think she can be both feminine and knightly (?) and be accepted. I think that is why she includes the part about Alanna wanting to dress like a female, because she's suppressed one side of her entirely, from her clothes to her emotions, and she has to learn that it isn't healthy. If you continue reading the series, you'll see that Pierce handles the problem in interesting ways, especially in dealing with sexuality and marriage. As you follow her character through the series (and other Pierce books she appears in) you see that Alanna sort of breaks the boundaries of the female domestic sphere and the male war/politics sphere and helps to push the idea that a maiden knight (oh sounds ridiculous) is a "proper" role for a woman (this comes to fruition in the Kel series).

I just realized how boring this must have been for people who haven't read the books. Apologies!

To sort of make up for that, some questions:
What does squiffy REALLY mean?
What do you think of the translation from book to film? This comes to mind because Anne Hathaway, who starred in the murder that was Ella Enchanted, is starring in The Devil Wears Prada, another book to movie I really want to see for some frivolous reason, though I haven't read the book. And The Da Vinci Code, of course.

And an answer:Why do we love those "not real" books so much? Because they're fast, cheap, and easy. Literary prostitutes. I can't stay up all night reading if I actually have to think about what I'm reading; it's too exhausting. And the metaphor gets disturbing...

Last words:I'm blown away by Alyssa's reading list FOR THIS WEEK--I can't read ONE "real" book in a week, let alone three. But I'm going librarying soon, so maybe I can try.

Fictional Babies

Wow. I must admit I'm pretty intimidated by the quantity and quality of posts here. To avoid having quality in mine, I'll just write a review of the books I've read this last week. Quality will come later.
"The Last Girls"--Lee Smith. Karen asked that I review this because she likes books about the South. So do I. This one is about five women who took a trip down the Mississippi when they were at an all-girls college in the 1960s, and who take another trip thirty years later to scatter the ashes of one of the women who died under slightly mysterious circumstances. Smith is ambitious in her attempt to detail the lives of five women, and the story of them all as a group. The characters are precisely drawn, but none of them are really likeable, and so it's hard to care. It's also a much bigger story than Smith can accomplish in 400 pages or however long it was. I liked reading it, and I was drawn in, but I'm not sure I would read it again.
"The Da Vinci Code"--Dan Brown. You've all heard my ranting and raving about this book. I got drawn in, I admit it. But it was also terribly written and pretty predictable. And the ending sucked. I liked where the Grail ended up being, but I really wanted to see the Church get turned upside down. Cop out, is all I can say.
"The Bean Trees"--Barbara Kingsolver. Okay, I love Barbara Kingsolver, with a passion. This is her first novel, I think, and much less ambitious in size and scope than her later ones (ie, "The Poisonwood Bible", which is kinda the best book ever). It's obviously a first novel, and it's easy to see where Kingsolver will go later, because the themes she alludes to are so rich and could easily have filled novels of their own. Kingsolver is such a good writer though, and her characters are so real, that it doesn't even matter that there are flaws in the book's scope. One of the characters is a three-year-old girl whom I want to adopt. This three-year-old is probably the cutest kid in literary history. I would see this movie, if only for the kid. Anyway. Turtle is her name, and she has a fixation with vegetables. That never really gets explained, but it's pretty darn cute. Two thumbs up for this one.

On my list for this week: "The Phantom Tollbooth". Because it's time. "Snow". This got a lot of press maybe two years ago. It's Turkish and is supposed to be stunning, but I haven't been able to get past the first three pages. Cross your fingers for me, because it's one I own. "Crossing California". Jewish Chicago in the 1960s. Another one I may not make it through. And when all else fails, "The Moffats". Eleanor Estes wrote a series of books in the 1940s, I think, about four kids growing up in the South (this is what I remember from when I was six. I might be wrong.). The main character is Rufus, a name worthy of attention, I should say. I loved these books when I was young, and then they went out of print. Recently back in print, I bought the first one at a children's bookstore in New York (Books of Wonder. Go. It's amazing. And they have a cupcake cafe on site.). We'll see how it compares to my youthful expectations of it.

Happy reading, friends, and enjoy the cooler weather!