An Equal Opportunity Book Lover

Image created by austinevan

Mjmbecky at One Literature Nut asked a great question on her blog yesterday about what we like to read:

The other day on Twitter, I sat in on a great conversation about what books people associate us with. What types of books do we choose, and why? Have you ever found yourself liking an author or genre for awhile, and then losing interest or simply burning out? Are there books that you just don't enjoy and never read? Have you ever tried something you don't usually like and found you actually enjoyed the experience?

Ever since I can remember, I've loved reading about romance.  So I'm definitely partial to romances, although I do go through periods when I burn out on them and don't read them for a while.  Even when I'm not reading romances, though, I'm always interested in the romantic part of a book first and foremost (this is why I read way too many romances--they're like IVs for romance-addicted veins).  If there isn't any romance?  Well, then it better be the greatest damn book ever, because otherwise I'm *yawn!*  Err... what?

Aside from romance, though, I like to read almost any genre except for:

• Westerns (no particular reason, I just never got into them)
• Chick lit (first and foremost, it's usually sold in trade paperback format, and that's too expensive for me.  Also, with a lot of chick lit books I've read--admittedly not that many--I felt like they were episodic and didn't have a strong plot and storyline.  Add that to very little romance and no HEAs and it's not happening for me)
• Erotica (pretty much ditto the same reasons as chick lit)

Other than that, though, I love genre!  I'm a genre girl all the way.  It's not that I think literary fiction is bad, I just have absolutely zero interest in reading it.  I love formulas and seeing how writers play with the rules of a genre and readers' expectations (that's not just limited to books, btw--I also love genre paintings, and I'm a huge J.M.W. Turner fan (the best genre painter EVER, imo)).

Another thing I've been partial to in my reading since I started (as in literally the first book I read on my own) is the paranormal.  Nearly every book I went crazy over as a kid had some supernatural element in it--vampires, ghosts, witches, you name it.  Unfortunately, now that the paranormal has become über-popular, I'm burned out on it.  I have tons of paranormal romances and urban fantasy books in my TBR pile right now, and no desire to read them whatsoever.  Maybe part of the attraction of those books was that it was a very, very niche market back in the day.  Or maybe I've just read way too many.  Either way, it's sad.

Someone recently called me a very eclectic reader, and looking back on all the books I read, I suppose I am.  But I don't really consider myself one at all.  Maybe because no matter what I'm reading, I'm basically looking for the same thing:  romance, a great story, characters to connect with, and above all a book that can provide an escape from reality.  I'm an equal-opportunity book lover as long as said books provide that.


How about you--what do you like to read?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Instant classic: Harry Potter

From Booking Through Thursday:

Do you think any current author is of the same caliber as Dickens, Austen, Bronte, or any of the classic authors? If so, who, and why do you think so? If not, why not? What books from this era might be read 100 years from now?

Interesting question.  Of course, to answer it we have to ask ourselves what the classic authors have that make their work survives.  Unfortunately, the answer to that question is really too variable to be able to predict--if we knew how classic novels came about, everyone would be writing and publishing them.  I'm sure there are a lot of writers of the same caliber, but are they likely to be remembered as a classic author in the future?  Sadly, the chances aren't great.  You don't just need talent at writing, but the right subject matter, the right place and time to be published, certain people to read and review your books to convince other people they're great, and so on and so forth. 

If I had to pick one work that people will be familiar with a hundred years from now, however, I would say the Harry Potter series by JK Rowling.  Not only has it sold millions of copies, is known world-wide, and has been translated in various media, but I believe it has two major elements that will keep it popular in the style of Sherlock Holmes and Lord of the Rings:

1. It has its own, completely convincing reality that bleeds into our own world.  People still visit Sherlock Holmes' house on Baker Street.  There are people who actually speak Elvish, which kind of blows my mind (I have enough trouble learning living languages, never mind made-up ones).  Will people still be visiting Platform 9 3/4 in the future?  I'm going to say hell to the yeah.
2. There's a timelessness about it that makes it appealing across generations.  Although Harry Potter certainly wasn't written inside a bubble (a lot of the storyline with Voldemort seemed reminiscent of WWII to me), it's not so bogged down in current events or pop culture that it will lose its relevance over time.  Quite the opposite, in fact--there's a universiality to the wizarding world and the story of Harry that allows the books to appeal to people from many different cultures, and of many different ages, right now.  I'm sure that will hold true in the future.

How about you--what books do you see people reading 100 years from now?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Covet

Covet by J. R. Ward

Source: My mom loaned it to me.

Can one find angels riding Harleys (apparently shirtless) or playing crickett and talking with English accents? Do demons truly prowl our waking life, waiting to get a hold of us and give us lots of shiny stuff and fabulous sex? These are the questions I found myself NOT asking after reading Covet. Questions I did ask: is Trez a supernatural creature, or just the nicest pimp ever? Shouldn't Vin have lost all his rich stuff? And, if Jim has to save seven souls, and this is presumably a seven-part series, doesn't that mean at least three of the books will be total fails? Cuz I'm not sure I want to read those three.

But I get ahead of myself, as usual. Covet is the first book in JR Ward's Fallen Angels series. Ward is more famous for her Black Dagger Brotherhood series, which is about vampires, and which I haven't read--so I had no idea what to expect from Covet. Although, I have to admit I expected more than what I got.

The set-up is this: Good and Evil are getting tired of going back and forth in their struggle for dominance on Earth. So God decided that one person will have the chance to save or damn seven souls, each afflicted with one of the seven deadly sins. When it's over, the side with the most wins will have total control of Earth for eternity. I feel compelled to point out that this outcome makes noooooooooooo sense on either a theosophical or quantum level, but whatever.

The person chosen is Jim, a character whom I loved. Jim works construction, and at first he seems like your average joe, if a bit of a loner. As the story continues, however, it becomes clear that Jim has an extensive backstory as well as a dark side. Although Jim wants to save the world from evil, one can't help but wonder if his methods will prove more damning than his intentions.

In the first book, Jim has to save Vin diPietro, the owner of the site where Jim is working construction. Vin is super-duper rich and has a beautiful girlfriend to go with his perfect life. Unfortunately, as Jim belatedly realizes, Vin isn't supposed to be with Divina--he's supposed to be with Marie-Terese, a club hooker. Luckily for everyone, Vin realizes this all on his own. Hooray, the world is saved. OR IS IT?!

I have to admit, I have mixed feelings about this book. The majority of it was humorous and fun, and aside from Jim, I loved the characters of Adrian, Eddie, Dog (although why Dog is even there is a mystery), and the other angels. I can definitely see how Ward's books can be addictive. But there were other elements of the writing that just bugged the heck out of me. For example, Ward has this habit of writing a question as a statement. I can see where this might emphasize a flatness of tone, but she uses it wayyyyyy beyond the point to where it has any useful intonation. And what was with calling Vin's girlfriend, "his woman," or "your woman"? WTF? Oh, sorry, let me rephrase that: WTF. How caveman can you get? I kept expecting them to follow it up with, "Woman pretty. Man make good hunting. I drive big noise machine home now. Argh! *chest beating*"

There are larger issues I had with Covet, too, mostly with the characters. At first Vin seems fairly interesting, but it turns out he has no personality at all. And Marie-Terese--uhg, can you say cookie cutter character? The hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold strikes again. I don't have a problem with prostitute heroines as a rule (although it's seriously icky for a romance novel), but I do want to understand and sympathize with her decision to get into that line of work. I did not get that with Marie-Terese. I might have respected her more if 1. she wasn't dragging a little kid around with her, or 2. she didn't hate what she did, or 3. she didn't turn into a mound of putty every time Vin showed up. And the explanation for why she got into hooking in the first place (which came way too late in the book) only made things worse. Major Issues train coming down the track! If I was Vin, I would start running.

Covet was okay, but has major problems with execution. It just didn't feel like the author entirely thought it out before writing it (and I don't mean that in an avant-garde, experimental way, either). There is a certain charm to the book--especially when it comes to Jim's character--that might have me coming back for more. It's definitely not a book to turn me into a JR Ward fan, though. As Colin the angel put it, "There is a point in every endeavor when one feels the burn of too many vertical steps." Unfortunately, I felt that way more than once while reading this novel.

And now for the big question, the entire reason I decided to read Covet in the first place...



Are angels the new vampires?

In a word: no.

While reading the summary, you might have noticed something. Or rather, the lack of something. That's right, angels! Although the series is titled The Fallen Angels, no angels, fallen or otherwise, make an appearance before page fifty. And even after that they don't play much of a role until the very end. So to call this series The Fallen Angels seems something of a marketing misnomer. It also makes it hard for me to judge if they're "the new vampires." But from what there was of them, I'd say no. Vampires are compelling, sexy, and dangerous--from what I've seen of Colin, Bertie, and the gang, they are none of those things.

As for the fallen angels, they have potential (although they are not dangerous), but I have many unanswered questions about them. Why are they fallen? What exactly is a fallen angel in this alternaverse, anyway? And while angels aren't exclusively Christian figures by any means, I find it to be simply wrong that these angels perform Pagan-ish rituals. WRONG. And kind of lame. You couldn't have come up with something better, Ward? So far I'm not impressed with the angels' powers--not by a long shot. Angels at the very least should have either awesome cosmic powers or kick-ass fighting skillz. And wings. These angels got nothing. They better pick up their game if they expect to even be equal to vampires on the literary circuit.

Score so far: vampires 1, angels 0 (vampires win by default whenever angels fail to impress me)

Next up in my über-scientific test: The Fallen, by Tom Sniegoski

Other opinions about Covet:
Smexy Books
Dear Author
The Good, the Bad, and the Unread
Darque Reviews
Love Vampires
Alpha Heroes
Did I miss yours? Please let me know in the comments!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Angelic Links

That little guy just gets creepier and creepier every time I look at him.

I'm taking a quick break from all the feminist rhetoric today to devote some time to my Angel Month project (you're welcome, men-folk).  May I present:  links!

Want to read your own angel books?  The Story Siren is hosting a contest for two hot YA books about angels:  Fallen by Lauren Kate, and Hush, Hush by Becca Fitzpatrick.  The contest closes December 8th, so you have plenty of time to enter.

Bermudaonion has a great interview with Bruce Foster, who engineered the pop-up book, Angels.  There's also a contest to win the book!  It ends November 27th, so again, plenty of time to enter.

Finally, the oft-proclaimed doyenne of vampire fiction, Anne Rice, talks a bit about why she's now writing books about angels at The Wall Street Journal.  I also loved what she said about the appeal of Twilight.



Stay tuned for a review of my first Angel Month book, Covet!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Women Unbound by Moonlight

I haz decided to join yet another reading challenge.  This one is for women's studies and is called Women Unbound.  Very catchy title.  There are three levels you can sign up for, and I'm going with Philogynist, which means I have to read at least two books, one non-fiction (I would have liked to sign up for more, but two books is all I think I can handle at the moment).  The good news is, I already have my one fiction book down!  But before I start with that--meme time!

1. What does feminism mean to you? Does it have to do with the work sphere? The social sphere? How you dress? How you act?

Yes, yes, and yes!  I think at its heart feminism is about women being seen as people and not just a gender.  For myself, I try to be a feminist by promoting women artists in my classes and doing research on women and women's issues in art.  For a long time, women have been invisible members of our society--we shouldn't be invisible anymore.

2. Do you consider yourself a feminist? Why or why not?

I do consider myself a feminist, but not in the proactive way--I'm not going to try to go out and be the first women to do fill-in-the-blank just because it needs doing.  I do, however, want and expect to follow my dreams regardless of whatever gender expectations there are just because I'm a woman.

3. What do you consider the biggest obstacle women face in the world today? Has that obstacle changed over time, or does it basically remain the same?

Well, I would have to say ourselves.  Not that women aren't oppressed by both societies and laws all around the world, but realistically speaking, we're at least fifty percent of the population.  If women banded together to accomplish something, I have no doubt it would get done.  The problem is recognizing what needs to be changed and passing ideas of independence and equality on to daughters/nieces/granddaughters, etc.

And now for the review portion of this post...




Bound in Moonlight by Louisa Burton

Source: la bibliothèque

This is the second book in The Hidden Grotto series by Louisa Burton.  I normally do not read erotic fiction, but a few months ago I decided to try Burton because she's one of my favorite authors (previously, she wrote mysteries under the name PB Ryan, and historical roms as Patricia Ryan).  It might seem strange that I'm reviewing an erotic novel for the Women Unbound challenge, but I believe it qualifies, as I will explain later.

The Hidden Grotto series centers around a chateau in France called La Grotte Cachée, named after a mysterious cave.  The chateau is perpetually inhabited by several follets--supernatural creatures who HAVE to have sex.  Elic, an elf, is in love with Lili, a succubus.  But they can't sleep together because follets can only to do the nasty with da humanz.  Ergo, the chateau has a continuous round of visitors looking for a good time. 

The House of Dark Delights,
Burton's first book, was okay, but didn't really win me over to the
erotic romances--too much of the ick factor.  That being said, after a
few months I found myself wondering was happened to Elic and Lili, so I decided to order the next book in the series, Bound In Moonlight.

Unfortunately, Bound In Moonlight was not what I was expecting.  First off, there was very little Elic and Lili in this book at all (kind of a bummer when that's the reason I wanted to read it in the first place).  At least half of it is a short story told in epistolary format (not a big fan of that) about a former Gilded Age heiress who writes an erotic novel after visiting La Grotte Cachée.  Because the narrative is told in letter format, the erotic scenes--of which there are many--feel extremely voyeuristic.  Also, since we only have one set of letters, it's kind of like listening to one end of a phone conversation--one of the awkward ones at the grocery store where the person shopping in the same aisle as you is giving out wayyyyyy too much information.

One of the things I noticed early on in the story, however, was that Burton seemed to be drawing a parallel between sexual freedom and women's liberation--which of course makes perfect sense.  The main character, Em, is independent and comes from a debutant background.  She's all set to marry some British lord, when she finds him in the middle of a three-way at La Grotte Cachée.  She threatens to call off the engagement, he begs her to reconsider because he needs her money, and he ends up leaving her there for a few days to mull it over. 

As a result of her experiences at the chateau, Em pens an erotic romance titled Emmaline's Emancipation (EMANCIPATION, note) all about a sheltered heiress who finds freedom and confidence by visiting an English house party/bacanal.  She also takes off to Paris (after breaking it off for good with the fiance), and lives what I can only describe as a lifestyle of free love.  Plus she flies airplanes, skiis--does just about anything she wants to, really.  So I think it's clear that Burton is drawing a connection between Em's sexual liberation at the chateau and the freedom she experiences throughout her life.

This something I can definitely agree with.  Not that I'm suggesting all women need to turn into nymphomaniacs like Em (good lord, does the woman do anything other than have sex or think about sex?), but patriarchal societies definitely have a pattern of trying to contain or even debase female sexuality.  And some of who we would consider to be the earliest feminists flew in the face of these sexual restrictions--women like George Sand, George Elliot, and Mary Wollstonecraft spring right to mind.

So I got the message:  reading erotic novels=good. :P

As for the story itself, I found it a bit depressing.  Yeah, Em may be having super-hot affairs with men several years younger than her, but they don't love her.  And she doesn't love them.  Without emotion, all the sex in this book was just a total did-not-need-to-know.  I would love to read Emmaline's Emancipation, however (I was seriously hoping it was an actual book--no such luck).  Why didn't Burton write that?

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Divine Jane

I saw an online exhibit about Jane Austen (c/o Smart Bitches) the other day that is a companion to a real-life exibit in The Morgan Library & Museum in New York. What caught my attention was the short documentary, The Divine Jane: Reflections on Austen. It's basically a gathering of a bunch of famous people who love Jane Austen and tell us all why, and there's one thing I noticed right from the beginning:

This documentary starts off with two quotes and two interviews. What do all of the four people in the opening of this film have in common? They are all men. And the third person interviewed, a woman, describes Austen's work right off the bat as, "masculine... not dainty."

What?!? Woman, are you listening to yourself? What in the world does masculine writing even look like, pray tell? And why is it better than "womanly" writing? Here's a clue: Austen wrote books about women and the issues women cared about, for a largely female audience. Afterall, she was a woman, though some people in this documentary seem to be doing their damnedest to forget that fact. And I believe it was the same woman who called Austen, "small minded"--as in confined (does that equate to what Tennyson referred to as "her small sphere," one wonders?).

I'm not saying men can't enjoy Austen--of course not. And also, Cornell West is as cute as a button. However, the purpose of this mini-documentary seems to be to legitimize Austen as a major figure in literature (uh, duh) by subtly shoving aside the fact that her novels are essentially about finding love and security, and talking instead about how her books are a study of human nature. And some stuff from the Irish novelist about how he'd rather take an Austen book to bed than a real woman (kinky!).

Quite frankly, I don't think the filmmakers did Austen any favors with documentary. And in light of the PW Top Ten List debacle a few weeks ago, I think it's clear that women authors are still valued below men just because of their gender--even when that writer is someone incomparable like Jane Austen. She needs the approval of male writers and critics, and a masculine voice to legitimize her as a great novelist--never mind that probably more people have read her work than that of either Tennyson or Beckett. Oh, but then those are just romance novels.

I'm counting this toward the Everything Austen Challenge. Because I can. Two down, four more to go!

Powered by ScribeFire.

My Favorite Reads: Archangel

My Favorite Reads is a meme hosted by Alyce from At Home With Books.  You simply blog about books you read and loved before you started book blogging!

The book I chose this week fits into the theme I've set for the month, angels.  It's not only one of my favorite books, but the standard by which I measure all books about angels.

The book:  Archangel by Sharon Shinn



Archangel takes place in another world called Samaria.  There, humans live with angels in a bit of an uneasy partnership:  angels are the governing body, more or less, and since their songs and prayers to Jovah keep Samaria running--bringing water, sunshine, even manna from heaven if they ask for it--humanity is fairly reliant upon them.  And the angels in turn generally feel pretty superior.

The highest-ranking angel in all of Samaria is the Archangel.  As the book opens, the young Gabriel is preparing to take over this post from his predecessor, Raphael.  He knows that in order to rule he must find his Angelica, the human woman (angels are only allowed to marry humans) destined to be his wife.  And when I say destined, I mean Jovah's got his hands all over this world:  most people in Samaria have stones inbedded into their arms at birth that flare when they meet the man or woman they're supposed to marry.

Unfortunately for Gabriel, his Angelica, Rachel, is not inclined to be singing to save the planet or making babies with one who is winged.  In point of fact, she's a slave.  Yes I know--you would think a world ruled by angels would be utopic, but it's not.  There's a nomadic race on Samaria that is considered fair game for slave traders.  The angels look the other way because the nomads don't rely on them to sing prayers--they sing their own prayers, and the angels kind of hate them for it.  Rachel's entire tribe was wiped out in a raid, and now she's a slave in a wealthy household.  And she remembers it was angels that attacked her tribe.  So girl's got some issues.

Nevertheless, Gabriel carries her off to his aerie, and Rachel tries to train for the changing-of-the-archangel ceremony on the Plain of Jordan and learn how to fit into the angelic community.  And she also gets to know her husband, sexy sexy Gabriel.  Yum.  With the wings and the shirtlessness, and the dark looks and leather pants (because angels HAVE to wear leather pants, that's like a rule or something...).

What I love most about this book is the absolute believability of the characters and the setting of Samaria.  I can see most of the locations in my mind--to this day--as if I'd visited them myself.  Shinn really does a great job of transporting you to another world as you read the book.  Rachel and Gabriel I got to know as if they were friends, but even the secondary characters are wonderful.  I was totally pissed when the second book in this series didn't take up where this one left off so I could find out what happened to them after laying awake for nights on end wondering.

Plus, the music--this novel bleeds music.  At the aerie, there's someone singing constantly, and the angels live and breathe music.  Being able to sing is also a pivotal part of Rachel's personality and how she heals herself emotionally from the trauma of being a slave and seeing all her family and friends murdered.  I can't imagine reading this book without mentally trying to set it to music.

Archangel is a brilliantly written novel that has all the themes I love to read about--not just love (I did mention this was a love story, right?), but equality and freedom and even the importance of faith.  I can't recommend it enough.

Powered by ScribeFire.