Books to Movies: The Bee Season

1 Comment

Ack.

The movie was just scenes from the book, which didn’t endear me to it.

If you hadn’t read the book, it wouldn’t have made much sense (I know, because Hubby didn’t get what was going on.)

There was no visible emotion. It was telling us what the actors were supposed to be feeling, but it felt like everyone was going through the emotions.

Richard Gere’s hair was nice, but Juliette Binoche and the girl who played Eliza were just weird.

They did change a bit of the story, drawing out the spelling bee so it lasted the whole story arc, but that really wasn’t enough to make it likable.

And it still didn’t make any sense.

Perhaps I should just chalk this whole thing up to “outside of my realm of enjoyment” and move on.

BOB Final Round

2 Comments

I’m going to make you work for it today. If you want to know who won, click through to the BoB blog. Can I tell you that I like that Lois Lowry said she was pissed that she didn’t have a book in the running? And that she says she has an ax to grind with Roger Sutton?

Just go read it. It’s worth the time. (Even if the ending’s not really surprising.)

P.S. Don’t forget to read the comments. They’re just as fun as the piece itself.

Library Loot #17

3 Comments

Another week, another bunch of books. Only one for me (though I might read the Maureen Johnson one I got for M…), because I really, really, really need to read the books I have on hand. I have made headway since last week, though.

For A/K:
Marvelton, by Bruce McCall
My Bear and Me, by Barbara Maitland/Illus. by Lisa Flather
Lottie’s New Friend, by Petra Mathers
Countdown to Kindergarten, by Alison McGhee/Illus. by Harry Bliss
Duel!: Burr and Hamilton’s Deadly War of Words, by Dennis Brindell Fradin/Illus. by Larry Day**
Naked Mole Rat Gets Dressed, by Mo Willems**
Night’s Nice, by Barbara and Ed Emberley**
Wild Boars Cook, by Meg Rosoff and Sophie Blackall**

For C:
The Magic Thief, by Sarah Prineas
Chiggers, by Hope Larson*

For M:
Devilish, by Maureen Johnson*
Cyrano, by Geraldine McCaughrean
Black Horses for the King (Magic Carpet Books), by Anne McCaffrey
On Etruscan Time, by Tracy Barrett
Stravaganza: City of Stars, by Mary Hoffman*
Stravaganza City Of Masks, by Mary Hoffman*
The Falconer’s Knot: A Story of Friars, Flirtation and Foul Play, by Mary Hoffman*

For me:
Life Sucks, by Jessica Abel/Gabe Soria/Warren Pleece*

The roundup is either at Out of the Blue or A Striped Armchair.

*Ones that M eventually read.
**Picture books we really liked.

48 Hour Book Challenge. Oh, Yeah.

1 Comment

Okay, okay. I know. I said I wasn’t going to do this again when I finished last year. I said I needed to wait a few years. But… I found myself a couple months ago thinking about what I would read “when” the 48 hour challenge came around, and how to plan for the weekend it comes around, and… I realized that, in retrospect, I had a grand time. It was fun. I’m looking forward to it. M says she wants to join me in the whole endeavor. And, yay, the sign up is here!

Follow the link for the rules, and to sign up (hope to see you all there, even those of you who just did the 24 hour read-a-thon!).

The Amaranth Enchantment

5 Comments

by Julie Berry
ages: 10-14
First sentence: “I sit on a velvet stool at Mama’s feet, watching her brush her hair.”
Review copy provided by Bloomsbury.

I’m doing Dewey’s Q&A review, as part of requirement #3 for this week’s geek.

From Sherry: Is the story based on one particular fairy tale or is it just fairy tale-like?
It’s not really based on a particular fairy tale, though it does have elements of the Cinderella story. It does, however, read and feel like a fairy tale. A girl’s — Lucinda — parents are murdered, and she’s brought up being a servant in her Uncle and Aunt’s jewelry shop. Until one day, when a woman — the dreaded Amaranth Witch — comes in and leaves a stone to be repaired. That, and a visit in the night from Peter — a street thief whom Lucinda has never seen before — set in motion a series of events that end up changing Lucinda’s life.

What other books did it remind you of, if any?
That’s a hard one, mostly because I’m bad at that. I would say it feels similar to a Shannon Hale or Jessica Day George book. It’s a bit darker, though, more like the original Grimm tales. But really, it’s its own thing.

From Shannon: Did the fact that The Amaranth Enchantment was fairy tale based make it more interesting to read or less? I did find that it felt like a fairy tale made it quite interesting to read. I did like that the magic felt effortless, and wasn’t overbearing. It did have many of fairy tale elements, including the requisite bad guy, but he didn’t really do much except lurk around in the background. It really was just a tale of a girl trying to figure out how to get her old life back.

From Care: Is this the first book you’ve read by Julie Berry? Would you read another?
Yes, because it’s her first book. I would like to read more by her; she’s a good storyteller.

If you could only pick three words to describe this book, what would they be?
Unique. Intriguing. Fun.

And a bunch from Suey: Is this book a fantasy? It sounds like one.
It is but it isn’t. It’s could be called historical fiction, the country and place felt real even if it was imagined. And although there’s magic, it doesn’t really play a huge role. So, yeah, I think it’s fantasy, but not your traditional one.

What was your favorite thing about the story?
Hmmm. Tough question. I liked the mix of religion (of sorts) and history (of sorts) and magic (of sorts) to create a fairy tale (of sorts). It felt different than what I was expecting.

Who was the most interesting character?
I liked Peter best. Lucinda was interesting, but I never really quite got into her head. And Gregor (the love interest prince guy) was a bit too… shallow? perfect? good to be true? one-dimensional? for my taste. But, Peter. He wrapped me around his fingers and stuck me in his pocket from the moment he climbed in Lucinda’s window until the very end.

Thanks to all who provided the questions!

The Last Olympian

17 Comments

by Rick Riordan
ages: 9/10 (depending on the reading skill level) +
First sentence: “The end of the world started when a pegasus landed on the roof of my car.”

Things you need to know about this book, without giving too much away:

1. If you have not read the Percy Jackson series (I’m looking at you, Corinne), you are totally and completely missing out. However, now you can safely start the series, since the final one came out today.

2. Rick Riordan is an AWESOME plotter. He writes brilliant action, but he also does lulls and humor and keeps it all going so that you want to keep turning pages. I. Could. Not. Put. This. Down. (But then, I expected that.)

3. He also writes first person narrative really, really well. M was saying that he’s captured Percy’s voice perfectly, and I have to agree. That holds true in this book.

4. For the first time in the series, he hasn’t (I don’t think) taken on a Greek myth. There’s mythological aspects to the story, but it’s not based on any (well-known) at least. **Edited to add: Actually, a friend told me that this is the story of the Iliad. Didn’t know that. And, I have to admit, now I want to go read the Iliad…

5. There will be HP7 comparisons. But I think he handles the “understand your enemy by understanding their past” well. And it’s not too long or too boring.

6. It’s a perfect ending.

Go read it.

The Lucky Ones

3 Comments

by Stephanie Greene
ages: 10-14
First sentence: “They were two little girls, six and eight.”

I picked this one up at the library because the cover caught my eye. It’s a very cute cover, isn’t it?

But. (You were expecting that, weren’t you?)

I’m halfway through, and I just can’t get into it. I can’t figure out when this is supposed to be taking place — it’s about family on an island, told from the point of view of the third child, 12 year old Cecile — is it contemporary? The 60s? The 40s? And for some reason this fact really bugged me. I didn’t particularly like any of the characters: Cecile is struggling with the loss of a relationship with her older sister, Natalie, and with the impending doom of puberty and is alternately cute and really annoying. Natalie is, however, a royal wench. I loathed her. And their mother. I know women can really be like her, but I really wanted to throttle her. And halfway through, the plot consisted of Cecile whining and trying to enjoy the vacation on the island, and everyone else being different than before. Not much to keep my attention, especially when Percy Jackson is beckoning.

And then there’s all this sub-plot stuff that I kept reading into it: why was the oldest boy, Harry, banished to Canada? Are the mom and the next door neighbor on the island, King, having an affair? Really, do I care that much?

For the record: when I announced at breakfast that I was abandoning this one, M looked a me, kind of sheepishly, and said, “Well, I thought it was good.” So, there. Someone in the age group it’s targeted for liked the book.

That’s probably a better recommendation than I could give, anyway.

The Screwtape Letters

13 Comments

by C. S. Lewis
ages: adult
First sentence: “My dear Wormwood, I note what you say about guiding your patient’s reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend.”

This book is a difficult one. To categorize — where does a religious epistolary allegory go? Non-fiction? Fiction? To read — it’s a dip-in-and-put-down book, not one that can be devoured, or even read in large chunks. And, to review — what does one say about the formidable C.S. Lewis, especially about his Christian writing?

Well, for one: I’m glad I read it. It gave me a lot to think about, even if I didn’t particularly get “into” it (lack of plot, lack of characters except for Screwtape himself). And not just the idea of everyone having a personal devil, but Lewis’s idea of Christianity itself, and what it should be, and what Christians should be doing.

For two: the preface that C.S. Lewis wrote in 1960. That I found fascinating. My favorite quote in the whole book was from the preface:

I like bats much better than bureaucrats. I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of “Admin.” The greatest eveil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.

I can get behind that.

For three: Well… it’s about time I read something other than Narnia, actually diving into some of Lewis’s Christian writing. So, for that, the experience was worth it.

Will I be reading more? I’m not going to rush downstairs (yes, we own them all) to pick up another one. It’s not really my “kind” of reading. But, eventually, some opportunity will present itself to read Mere Christianity or The Great Divorce or one of the other ones, and I won’t turn it down.

Geeky Review Formats

8 Comments

I wasn’t going to do this week’s geek, mostly because I don’t think I have a format, but then I saw Suey’s post (yeah, she references me, but that’s not why I’m doing this…), and I thought, hey, maybe I could explain a bit about what goes into what I write (some days, anyway). I’m going to shamelessly copy the way Suey did it, too. 🙂

1. Explain your review format – if you have one. Or maybe your rating system?
I’ve modified it over the years, so this is what I do currently. My reviews have always been my initial reaction to the book, what I thought about it and why. Currently, I always put the title in the post heading, then the author, what age range I think it’s appropriate for (or what the publishers think, if I really don’t have an opinion; I do have to admit, though, that sometimes I age the YA low because I’ve let M read it…). This year I’ve started putting the first sentence, too, and I’ve found I actually like doing that.

As for the rest, well, it depends on my mood and my creativity level. I’ve done lists, conversations, rants… I generally try to put some of the plot summary there, and most definitely what I think of it. If I’m inspired, and on the ball, I’ll add some quotes.

I would like to take the high road and say I don’t do stars or grades or ratings systems because I think they’re subjective and not at all reflective of what I write, but the reason is much more selfish: I’ve found that when I come across ratings systems in my reading, I just glance at the rating and if it’s not a 4+ or an A, I don’t even bother reading the review. And I want you to read — or at least skim — my writing. 🙂 So I don’t do the whole rating thing. See? Selfish.

2. Highlight another book-blogger’s review format by linking to a favorite example – don’t forget to tell us why they are a fave!
Most of the bloggers I read do the standard “here’s the plot and here’s what I think about it” format whenever they review. That’s not to say that it’s bad; the reviews are often interesting and insightful. However, it makes it hard to answer a question like this. Going through my feed, three stood out: Leila at bookshelves of doom stands out for her humor and her asterisk asides (I know others do them, but she was the first one I came across); Julie at Best Books has the best one line reviews (she rarely writes more than one line, too). And I adore Emily’s haikus at emilyreads.

3. Do a review in another book-blogger’s format of your latest read.
I just finished The Amaranth Enchantment, by Julie Berry (beautiful cover, no?). I always liked the reviews Dewey did where we’d ask her questions about the book and she’d answer them. So, if you’d like to leave me a question about the book in the comments, I’ll put up a post answering them sometime later this week.

4. Highlight a past review that you are particularly proud of and why the format or structure may have had something to do with it.
The most recent one that I’m particularly proud of (generally, so you know, I like my negative reviews better than my positive ones: they’re so much easier and fun to write) is the one I did of The Darcys and The Bingleys for Estella’s Revenge. While I was reading the book, I kept going back and forth between my enjoyment of it, and the fact that it was absolutely nothing like Pride and Prejudice, which mildly irritated me. So, I decided that the best way to express this was as a conversation between my intellectual and emotional (rational and irrational? scholarly and fluffy?) sides of my brain. I think it turned out well. At the very least, it was fun writing it!

Don’t forget to leave a question about The Amaranth Enchantment: what do you want to know about the book?

Extras

6 Comments

by Scott Westerfield
ages: 13+
First sentence: “Moggle,” Aya whispered. “You awake?”

The thing I liked most about Uglies — and that I missed most in Pretties and Specials — was that I thought it was a brilliant piece of social commentary. As far as worlds go, the one that Westerfield has created is certainly interesting and over-the-top, but what really drew me in was his observations on beauty and acceptance of self. And that was lost in the whole sci-fi adventure story that occupied the sequels.

Well, social criticism was back in Extras, at least for the first half to two-thirds of the book, and it had me totally captivated. It’s three years after the “mind-rain”: Tally’s dismantling of the world system in the previous three books. In Aya’s city, the way they’ve dealt with it is to create a merit- and reputation-based economy: only those who are popular get the good stuff: nice houses, clothes, invites to all the best parties. Aya is an “extra”, with a face-ranking of nearly 500,000 (in a city of 1 million), she’s someone who doesn’t really matter. She is determined to change that, by “kicking” a story that will get people talking about her, thereby bumping her face rank, and allowing her to get out of the lousy dorm that she’s in. She discovers the Sly Girls, an anonymous clique that thrives off danger and having low face rankings, and infiltrates them in the pursuit of a story.

In my opinion, this is the best part of the book — Westerfield’s created a world where everyone has a say about everything, where the trivial is important, if you can get people to talk about it. (The second most famous person — Tally is first, even though she doesn’t live there — sends out feeds about what she eats and what she wears, and people all over buzz about it. It doesn’t matter that it’s totally trivial; she’s famous because people talk about her.) There’s elements of Facebook and Twitter in there — the popularity contest that is having hundreds or thousands (or millions) of followers hanging on your every twit (or whatever it’s called) or status update. It was simultaneously very enlightening and very disturbing.

However, the second half of the book veers back into sci-fi adventure territory. Aya discovers (accidentally) and kicks a story that could possibly mean the end of the world. Tally shows back up (with Shay, Fausto, and David) to use Aya (and her friends) to discover the sinister plot behind it all. And everything just gets weird. The ending is totally unsatisfying, as if Westerfield had too many ideas and just needed to end the book because it was getting too long. He abandoned the Sly Girls (which, I thought, were the most interesting part of the book), and the whole social commentary (mostly) in favor of bringing Tally back into the story (not that she was bad, it’s just that I really didn’t care for her by the end of Specials, and I’m not sure she entirely redeemed herself here).

That said, it’s a good book. Westerfield’s writing is the kind that gets under your skin: I found myself thinking in hyphens (wow, so mind-altering or that was crazy-making type of thing), like I remembered doing during the first three books. His world building is great, too. And most of the book is worth reading, so it wasn’t a total waste.