9 Reasons The Vegetarian Will Change the Way You Think About Everything

(Note: As Chrisbookarama pointed out, The Vegetarian cries out for a clickbaity title. So I used a link bait title generator to come up with one.)

A few days late, but still here! As you might know, I hosted a readalong of The Vegetarian by Han Kang for Book Bloggers International last month. Here are the discussion questions and my responses. Feel free to participate in the discussion yourself if you've read the book!

Questions:

First of all! What did you think of the book in general?

Well, I wouldn't say I enjoyed it, but then I'm pretty sure that's not its purpose. It's kind of a South Korean version of The Yellow Wallpaper. It wasn't an easy read, but it did make me think.

We never get to hear directly from Yeong-hye except in brief snippets of dream and memory. Why do you think the author tells her story through the lens of other people? Do you think this is effective?

I think Kang wanted to avoid giving the reader any illusions about Yeong-hye's agency (she has none) or choice. The book as a whole really makes one question how much choice any of us have. Like you may think you have control over your own body, your decisions of what you eat every day, who you marry, and so on, but how much of that is free will and how much of it is an attempt to fit into the role and circumstances you were born into?

Yeong-hye says she stopped eating meat because she had a dream. What do you think the dream was actually about?

I think the dream was about how much she wanted to get rid of her Objectively Awful Person (TM) husband, and she realized she could either kill him or reject violence completely. Hence the veganism.

Vegetarianism and fasting has been used as a form of social protest in the past, particularly among women (see, for example, "The Awakened Instinct: Vegetarianism and the Women's Suffrage Movement in Britain" by Leah Leneman and The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J Adams). Do you think this is what Yeong-hye is doing? Is she refusing to eat meat in order to stick it to the goddamn patriarchy?

In a way, yes, although I don't think she sees it like that because her actions are driven by her subconscious, not logic. She just got so SICK OF IT, she had a mental break. And as my Anthropology 101 professor once said, "Our culture dictates how we break."

As the story goes on, Yeong-hye seems to be transforming into a plant herself (or at least wanting to). Is this an art-imitating-life situation?

Her hubby certainly treated her like a plant. Like, "I got this plant because it looked okay and I thought it wouldn't be high maintenance, and for a while it grew just fine as far as I could tell. Then it started withering up so I decided to get rid of it."

He's a prince, ladies.

Yeong-hye's brother-in-law may seem more sympathetic to her than her husband, but is he?

Uhg, what a perv. He obviously views himself as better than his brother-in-law, but I doubt he sees Yeong-hye or his wife as people any more than Yeong-hye's husband did. There's also a part where he says he just assumes her silence is consent. Um, no.

There's a surprising amount of violence, both psychological and physical, in this book. Why do you think that is?

Yes. One would expect a book about a vegetarian to be violence-free, but nope! I think it's a response to the conformity of the society. People can't act out or express their emotions, so anger and fear and other negative feelings get pushed deeper and deeper inside until a person can't take it anymore and then it explodes out of them in unhealthy ways.

There's a part of the book where Yeong-hye says she felt like the dream that made her turn vegetarian came from her stomach. "The face is inside my stomach. It rose up from inside my stomach." I found that interesting because the gut is called the "second brain," and it responds to a lot of the stimuli in our brains that we don't want to deal with.

I also think part of it has to do with certain social contracts that accept violence as a way life, which exist in all cultures. Extreme examples would be slavery, or war. The killing of animals for meat is also an act of violence, one we accept because we're taught we have the right–maybe even the responsibility–to eat meat. But whether that's true or not doesn't make the members of a society any less complicit in the violence perpetuated by that act.

There are a lot of themes in the novel: obsession, dreams, conformity and acting "normal," choosing to act morally and choosing not to. Which of these themes stood out for you the most?

I would say each part of the book focuses on one theme more than the others. Part 1 was about conformity and Yeong-hye's rebellion against society and her husband's and family's expectations. Part 2 was more about obsession and allowing it to overtake your life to the point where right and wrong don't matter as long as you can make your fantasies a reality. Part 3... well, that one was a little muddy for me. I would say normality and how there's no such thing as "normal," but I don't think Part 3 was as well-realized as the previous two parts of the book.

Finally, what did you think of the ending? Does it negate the previous sections of the book?

To be honest, when I first read it I hated the ending. I thought the point of Yeong-hye's story was that she wasn't crazy, people just thought she was because she was rebelling against a false construct wherein she had to put up with raw deal she never agreed to. But the ending implied Yeong-hye was certifiably insane. So if that was the case, her family was right and choosing not to eat meat was the act of someone with "hints at hysteria, delusion, weak nerves and so on".

However, later I read this review of The Vegetarian, where the writer suggests that maybe Yeong-hye's gradual starvation is a form of sallekhana, a fast to the death practiced by Jains in order to "extricate... the devotee from the endless cycles of violence in which we are embedded." That sounds like it fits into the themes of the book better than just making Yeong-hye crazy. But it's hard to say for sure if that was Kang's intention.


Have you read The Vegetarian? What did you think?




Discus this post with me on Twitter, FaceBook, Google+ or in the comments below.

INFERNO by Dan Brown — Discussion

It's the middle of the night in Florence, Italy. Robert Langdon, Symbologist!, awakes in a hospital room with no idea of where he is or how he got there. The doctors fill him in: he stumbled into the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head and passed out, muttering incoherently. Robert's suffering from amnesia and the last thing he remembers is sitting at home in Cambridge, Mass., chilling with a bottle of Tanqueray and a novel by Nikolai Gogol. Or was it Bombay Sapphire and something by Dostoyevsky? Either way, the only thing any of us know is that Robert Langdon really needs to work on improving his social life, and possibly cutting back on the gin. Then someone walks into the hospital and starts shooting at him! What-the-what? Fortunately, Robert escapes with the help of an attractive female doctor. Now all he has to do is figure out how he got to Florence, why he's even there, and why someone is trying to kill him. Mysterious!

When I started Inferno, Anachronist from Portable Pieces of Thought asked me if I wanted to discuss it with her. Something you should know about Anachronist is that she hates Dan Brown novels (you can read her review of Inferno on her blog today, incidentally), whereas I tend to enjoy them even though I think they're ridiculous. So what did each of us think of Inferno? Read on to find out!

So, what did you think?

Heidenkind: Uhg. Well, I will say this: it was better than The Lost Symbol (my review), and the beginning was pretty strong. But by the end I was just SMH.

Anachronist: In my opinion it was the worst Dan Brown I’ve ever read. Either the editor was completely drunk/high while doing their job or...I dunno. It is almost fascinating to observe Mr. Brown going from bad to worse - like watching an accident and not being able to turn your head and walk on. I hated The Lost Symbol but this one I simply loathed.

Heidenkind: I had the same thought. Where WAS the editor? I have to say I was in a pretty foul mood by the time I finished this.

Anachronist: Small wonder.



What was your favorite part?

Heidenkind: The scenes where Langdon and Sienna (nice shout-out to Florence’s rival city there) were in the Palazzo Vecchio were really fun. I’m a total sucker for secret passages. I need to get on some of these VIP tours Langdon’s got going.

I also thought Florence was very well-utilized as a setting. The other two locales, not so much.

Anachronist: Florence scenes were nice, plus every mention of Vayentha, one of the secondary characters I felt in love with made me grin. She was of course killed. Murdered in fact. And she was INNOCENT, got it people? Completely innocent! Be warned: Brown murders innocent women in his books!

Heidenkind: At least she wasn’t bald. ;)

Anachronist: no, she was blond with short, spiky hair. I loved her motorcycle! I loved her! And then my least fav author simply finished her off. How not to hate him?



Problems?

Heidenkind: Well quite frankly, there were a lot. There were metaphors that simply made no sense, and the book needed to be edited down a lot. I don’t need to be told the same thing three or four times before I get it, you feel me? At some point I started wondering if Brown thinks his readers are idiots.

Also, the art history tie-in didn’t fit very well with the rest of the plot this time around. The Dante mask, which isn’t really a work of art, was fine, but I’m still confused as to why Zobrist would use a painting by Botticelli to send a coded message. Why not just send a code in a gene sequence or something? Also, that code was pretty lame.

And the descriptions. Holy Mother of God. It sounded like Langdon was leading a tour group. “Welcome to Istanbul. Today we’ll be following Kennedy Avenue, said to be one of the prettiest drives in the city. On the right, you’ll see the Blue Mosque, said to be the inspiration for Disney’s Cinderella castle!”

I’m sure I’ll come up with more as I think about it.

Anachronist: Problems? *Snort* There was one major problem: this book shouldn’t have happened. It should have been written with a better plot and the narration which actually made sense. I didn’t even feel like looking for blunders anymore - it would be like kicking a defeated opponent. Honestly, Mr. Brown, your style doesn’t even deserve that name. I’ve read many fanfics which were 200% better - like 99% of them. I might start to think English is actually your second, nay, third language. In fact some parts of your book read as if they were copied and pasted straight from the more horrible Wikipedia entries. I can’t believe it was edited at any point.

Heidenkind: It wasn’t THAT bad. lol Maybe Brown’s contract states that his manuscripts don’t need to be edited, because he’s a literary genius. ;)

Anachronist: oh it was that bad. Honestly, I rarely read such pathetic books and if I do it’s only because from time to time my inner masochist rears its ugly head and roar for food, hungry little monster.



Okay, let’s break down the problems into things that are more specific. What did you think of the twist?

SPOILERY TERRITORY

Heidenkind: I’m still trying to process it. Because on one level, I was like, “Okay...?” But when I really think about it I’m just like, “Wait... what?” It’s not that the twist didn’t make sense in the context of the book, because I can see that Brown set us up for it; it’s more that it was too incredible and complex to be believed. Also, even though I didn’t see it coming, I still wasn’t surprised by it, I think because Sienna is a sketchy character from the word go so I never trusted her like I did the yummy Camerlengo in Angels & Demons.

Anachronist: Sienna was bald. It was emphasized from the very beginning how bald she was - like completely bald and then some. It was done for a reason, folks. As far as I remember no bald Brown character has ever been up to any good so there was no twist in my opinion, not really. Think about the whole symbolism. A bald woman. Unnatural. A Freak. A Shocking beast. *nodding vigorously*



What about the conclusion with Zobrist’s “final solution?”

Heidenkind: Okay, I’m not a geneticist or virologist or anything, but this part really MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Because people have more than one or two kids; that’s where overpopulation comes from! And infertile people still have surrogates carry their kids, or in vitro fertilization, et cetera. It’s not as if having a kid is like having a penis and you either get one or don’t depending on which chromosomes you inherit, so this plan to reduce the earth’s population has no chance of working. Unless Zobrist’s virus removed the biological imperative to procreate, in which case that would be cray.

I also liked how the director of the WHO was all, “Hey, that was actually a good idea! Why didn’t I listen to this mad scientist when I had the chance?” FAIL

Anachronist: FAIL, complete and total fail. You get it even if you know nothing about genetics and viruses. It was like Inferno which never managed to happen because wait, there is a sequel coming and our virile main lead, Saint Langdon the Sweetest, CANNOT BE sterile. Not before he gets a wife and a dozen kids. And he hasn’t married or engaged yet. And Sienna has to save the world somehow or die trying.

END OF SPOILERY TERRITORY



Conclusion

Heidenkind: I honestly wanted to like this book, but I just can’t. Like I said, it’s better than The Lost Symbol, but Brown was still really pulling his punches on this one, and that’s not going to work.

I think Dan Brown is a nice guy, and I think the controversy stirred up over The Da Vinci Code kind of traumatized him. And I don’t blame him for that. But that doesn’t mean one should write inoffensive literary pablum in response to it.

I just really wish he’d get pissed off about something and write about that so we’d have a book with some ideas and conviction.

Anachronist: I honestly wanted to hate this book and I wasn’t disappointed. My inner glee carried me through even the worst paragraphs and made me practically whistling with joy. Yes I enjoyed myself immensely thinking: “That’s it. Perhaps Dan Brown will get the message this time and leave the poor, tormented suspense and action literature be. It deserves better than that. It deserves a new Indiana Jones not Robert Langdon and his old tricks.”

I am not a delusional hater. I would shake hands with Dan Brown on the street. Maybe he is a good guy. Maybe he, like his favourite protagonist, professor Langdon, has a good heart (very deep down of course - look what he’s done to Vayentha!). He’s earned more than enough; I am sure any writer would be satisfied having such a bank account. Let him play golf and fly fish now. Let him crochet. His novels will be remembered - and loathed - forever. Imagine how many trees you can save by not publishing his next book.



Have any of you read Inferno? What did you think?

Discus this post with me on Twitter, FaceBook, Google+ or in the comments below.

Novel Conspiracies

I heard about this article on Conspiracy Theories About Classic Characters at Bookarama and immediately got sucked in. They aren't really "conspiracy theories," more like reinterpretations--for example, Nick from The Great Gatsby is gay. Actually every character in the article is gay. Anyway, I immediately started thinking of my own "conspiracy theories," as you do.

Theory 1: Snape is Harry's father figure, not Dumbledore. I already wrote about this extensively in For the Love of Severus Snape, so I'm just going to leave it at that and let the original post stand.

Theory 2: Elinor Dashwood is in love with Willoughby. "ELINOR Dashwood?!" you're no doubt thinking. "But it's Marianne who's supposed to have fallen in love with Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility." You're right, voluble reader, Marianne did fall in love with wandering Willoughby. But I think Elinor did, too. I'm sure we can all agree that there is nothing attractive about Edward, and it's a well-known law of romance novels that opposites attract. Wouldn't it be natural for uptight, logical Elinor to develop a tendre for the romantic and brooding Willoughby, especially after learning Edward was already engaged? Who better to serve as Mr. Rebound than him? No wonder she didn't tell Marianne to pull herself together and stop acting pathetic after they learned Willoughby was engaged--she was glad her sister wasn't going to get him! And since it turns out he's really a beta male anyway (totally Sophia's bitch), Willoughby and Elinor are actually kind of perfect together.

Theory 3: Doctor Seward is actually mental. I find it very weird that Doctor Seward from Dracula lives in the asylum where he's a doctor. Who does that? You'd think he'd want to get away from his job... IF IT REALLY IS A JOB. How do we know he doesn't just THINK he's a doctor there and that the real doctors are humoring him to see if his delusion runs its course? After all, it seems like the only "work" he does is to natter into his phonograph, and he can take off whenever he wants. Very suspicious. His "mentor," Van Helsing, is probably Seward's psychiatrist, and he encourages the people at the asylum to accommodate Seward's illness by giving him employment. The whole thing with Lucy being a vampire and Arthur "thrusting his stake" into her was a delusion brought on by her rejection of Seward's marriage proposal.



Further Reading:

• "Conspiracy Theories About Classic Characters" by Emily Temple on Flavorwire
• "Friday Bookish Buzz: Looking for a Snow Day" on Book-a-rama
• "For the Love of Severus Snape" on Truth Beauty Freedom & Books

Discus this post with me on Twitter, FaceBook, or in the comments below.

Disqualifications for Being Agreeable (According to Jane Austen)

See more on Know Your Meme

In Sense and Sensibility, Jane Austen enumerates the many ways by which a person can lose Elinor Dashwood's approval. I know you're thinking breathing has got to be on the list, but no! Her standards are slightly higher than that. To be specific, people are not good company if they have:

• Want of sense, either natural or improved [why would someone without sense improve their sense?]
• Want of elegance
• Want of spirits [I hope this refers to spirits of the liquor variety]
• Want of temper

As an illustrative example, we're told that after a dinner party, the women in the group get into a long conversation about who is taller, Harry Dashwood or Lady Middleton's son, William. Mmkay. Not to be disagreeable or anything, but if you want to talk about something more interesting, Elinor, you can bring up a topic yourself. You don't have to listen to that cow Fanny talk. Maybe Sense and Sensibility should be retitled How to Be Agreeable While Screaming on the Inside.

In any event, I thought it would be appropriate to list my own disqualifications for being agreeable, should I ever find myself in Elinor's company.

• Hungry. I am not in a good mood when I'm hungry.
• I wanted to write that day, but for some reason I didn't, or what I did write was crap. This will make me VERY disagreeable.
• It was too cold to go outside. Grrr.
• Too much pressure.
• There was a want of coffee. HULKSMASH

Apparently I have a want of temper. But on the plus side I do have lots of spirits.


What do you guys think of Elinor's disqualifications for being agreeable? And why do we have to be agreeable, anyway?

Discussion: COME THE NIGHT by Susan Krinard

When Bridget from Books as Portable Pieces of Thought recommended Come the Night by Susan Krinard to me, I was a little hesitant to read it, since I don't usually go in for werewolf stories. As soon as I started Come the Night, though, I knew why Anachronist had suggested it--it had a very unusual and interesting setting, and a great premise.

Seeing as how we both read the book, we decided to have a discussion about it. Bridget is also posting her own review of Come the Night today on her blog, so be sure to check it out!

First, a bit about the book:

Gillian Delvaux, nee Maitland, a young widow with a 12-year-old son, belongs to a very exclusive pure blood British werewolf family. Noblesse oblige – she must marry an appropriate candidate even if it is the 20th century and normal people have something to say about it. She doesn’t. The problem is her father, sir Averil Maitland, still treats his children and household as if he was a medieval prince and them – his chattels. It concerns mainly Gillian but also to some extend her younger brother, Hugh. Marrying or in fact doing anything without their father’s consent is out of question. Sir Averil plans to organize a Convocation of all pure blood werewolves from Britain and abroad and he wants to choose Gillian a new husband (of course without consulting anybody, let alone his own daughter).

Still there was that Great War not so long ago (the novel is set in the Roaring Twenties) during which Gillian worked as a nurse in London and met a very nice young American soldier, Ross Kavanaugh. Ross was only ¼ of a werewolf but somehow it didn’t bother her. In spite of the fact her dad would disapprove (to put it mildly) she decided to have a child with him (and didn’t inform him about it – are you seeing a pattern?). Then she married promptly a Belgian werewolf who, very conveniently, went to war one week after his marriage ceremony and died. The boy, named Toby, has been raised at Snowfell, the manor his grandfather, and, being a bright boy, found out about his real father and decided to visit America and meet with Ross. All alone and without as much as by your leave of course. Like mother like son…

Meantime Ross Kavanaugh, a disgraced ex-police officer, is having a lot of free time as a down-at-heel unemployed without any hopes for a new career and hardly any money. What’s more, the New York police force, his former buddies, are almost sure he has been corrupted by a mafia and has killed a woman. When young Toby shows up as a stow-away and declares he is his son it seems that it is just another stroke of bad luck, especially that his mother and uncle are close behind. Who needs a son when he hardly has two dollars to rub together? Who needs a former aristocratic lover who abandoned you once for no reason at all and haven’t contacted you ever since? Who needs more problems? Or maybe it is actually a chance to start anew?

What was, in your opinion, the most important message, conveyed by this story? 

Tasha: Probably that there’s no such thing as a “pure race” of whatever you happen to be. Also that love conquers all. ;)

Bridget: Yes, ‘love conquers all’ is a very good summary of this one. I would also say: ‘never give up, no matter what circumstances’. Very uplifting.

Was Gillian, in your view, just another ‘doormat heroine’? Do you think any sensible, reasonable guy would stick by her no matter what?

Tasha: That’s a really good question. I don’t think Gillian was a doormat heroine, but she was pretty passive-aggressive. She reminded me of that blonde chick from Vertigo, only more difficult to relate to. And no, I didn’t understand why Ross and the other guys in this novel were so into her. If someone rejected me purely based on my antecedents, I’d be like, “Well, that’s the end of that relationship!”

Bridget: Personally I was surprised how repressed she remained for most of the novel. After the Great War plenty of women learned how to take their life in their own hands - it was one of the reasons behind that “Roaring Twenties’ phenomenon after all. I imagine Gillian would have loved to join their ranks, move out and start living as a ‘normal’ human being, no matter the cost. Still she didn’t. Maybe it was the ‘pack’ thing - in most stories few werewolves are able to live on their own. When it comes to her sex appeal or lack thereof...yes, she was such an ice princess I was rather surprised she was able to attract attention of so many suitors. Ross definitely deserved somebody warmer and less snobbish. Still there is no accounting for tastes - some like it hot, some like it cold.

What do you think of the “roaring twenties” background, presented here? Do werewolves fit it?

Tasha: I knew you would ask that. :) I love the Roaring Twenties in NYC as a setting, and I think I found it more plausible here than you did; but Krinard didn’t do a very good job of setting the scene. I think it’s mainly just lack of research: things like clothes, cars, buildings, etc., are hardly ever described aside from a few isolated mentions. Even Coney Freaking Island wasn’t described very well (and there was no point to that scene, either). I feel like the book could have just as easily taken place in the 1930s, ‘40s, or ‘50s, and that a later time period would have made more sense with the theme of the story.

As for werewolves, I liked how the NY werewolf packs were similar to gangs, but again that could have been set into any other time period. And the European werewolf packs were kind of Nazi-ish and didn’t really feel as if they “belonged” in the 1920s. But admittedly I don’t know much about Europe in the ‘20s outside of Berlin and Paris (and then just the artists in those cities).

Bridget: Oh, I know, I am so predictable ;) The whole conference/convocation thing reminded me a bit of “The Remains of the Day” book by Kazuo Ishiguro (and the movie based on it) so I liked that aspect of the setting. It was also a classic plot device straight from any Agatha Christie novel : gather all the interesting characters under a pretext in one place, keep them there because of a murder and show how they interact. Still I admit  the fact that there were just few  “Roaring Twenties” scenes made me disappointed.

I admit the idea of werewolves as race-obsessed Nazis won my heart - they were somehow right, with all that pure blood craze which made them even tolerate Hitler, a ‘mongrel’ if not worse, just because he promised them more power. As far as I remember Nazism started in the twenties of the 20th century so at least the timing was historically correct (it is true that Hitler consolidated his power from 1933 to 1934 but it had to start earlier). NY werewolves were too schematic to suit me, though, maybe because we saw so little of them.

What did you think of Toby?

Bridget: A precocious, intelligent child, surprisingly normal, taking into account the lack of peers’ company (or any healthy company in fact) and what household he had to endure. He also proved that ‘mixed’ parentage can be a very good thing for your gene pool -  it seems he got the best traits from both his parents. I am pretty sure Toby is the future alpha werewolf in making. ;)

His character  was used as comic relief - a typical, likeable ‘double trouble’ urchin which makes you smile whenever he appears on the page. He acted often as a catalyst - the very person able to move the plot forward, speed up the action and motivate other characters (mainly his mother and father but other people too).

Tasha: I loved Toby! He was definitely my favorite character. I agree, he’s an alpha in the making. ;) But I also think he’s possibly the only main character who embodied the zeitgeist of the 1920s. He’s the only one who used expressions from the time period and brought that energy of experiencing new things one associates with the Roaring Twenties. The kid had chutzpah, for sure. I’m not sure I’d want the entire book to be about him (not this book, anyway), but he did pull the entire novel together for me.

Why do you think Ross and Gillian were both so emotionally repressed? Did that draw a convincing connection between them as characters?

Bridget: That’s a very acute remark - they were repressed like hell, both of them but for different reasons. Gillian was most of her life under the thumb of her monster of a father - I actually was surprised he didn’t smother her or his grandson in the cradle! She had few chances to show her real self or to enjoy the luxury of free choice; she was also constantly fed lies and worthless propaganda. Ross was expelled from the police force under false accusations - it was as if he was thrown out of his family! I suppose he felt guilty even though he knew pretty well it wasn’t his fault.

You would think Ross and Gillian should sympathize with each other from the very beginning but somehow they didn’t, mainly because they lacked enough information about each other’s situation and, mostly in the case of Gillian, they were too afraid to ask pertinent questions. Have you noticed how Gillian froze almost every time she was afraid?

As a result, the connection between them was far from convincing for most of the time, at least in my view; surprisingly their loneliness and misery kept them isolated even when they kissed and had sex (proving that both those activities can’t substitute a meaningful conversation). Only their son was able to puncture their respective bubbles from time to time.

Tasha: I did notice that Gillian would freeze whenever she was afraid. It also seemed like she never expected anyone to have any emotions (probably because of her father). For example, her confusion over what Ross “wanted” with Toby--yeah, why would a guy want to spend time with his kid, for heaven’s sake? *eyeroll* She only expected people to act with the basest flight-or-fight responses.

I can kind of understand how repressed Gillian was, but it seemed over-the-top. I also thought making Ross similarly repressed just didn’t work. For one, he didn’t really have a reason to constantly suppress his emotions like Gillian did; and for another, to me it made it seem less believable that they would ever get together. Opposites attract and all that. I would think someone more outgoing and demonstrative would be a better match for either of these two.

Do you think this is a coming of age story?

Bridget: You know, initially I was rather inclined to say firmly ‘no’. It seemed to me rather a story about finding out what is the most important thing in your life - whether these are family bonds,  love, the truth about you and your parentage or support for an idea. It was somehow connected with discovering your inner core, your real self and allowing it to resurface. Then I thought how men remain children for most of their life (sometimes even their entire life) and I suppose Ross, while rediscovering his strengths, matured a lot as well. Also Gillian emerged as a much stronger person who finally knew how to arrange her priorities. So yes, to some extent it is a coming of age story. Among other things of course. ;P

Tasha: I definitely think of it as a coming of age story, although it’s certainly not framed in the usual way. After all, finding out what you stand for and who you are is part of growing up! Not only did Toby find his father and his inner wolf, but Hugh (Gillian’s brother) came into his own, as well.

I also felt like Ross’s inability to change into a wolf made him feel emasculated, especially since the woman he loved left him over it. After all, she changed RIGHT AFTER they had sex for the first time, then abandoned him as soon as she realized he couldn’t turn into a wolf. He was, in fact, a strong wolf/man, but he couldn’t see that at the beginning of the book.

TSS: Characters I'm Supposed to Hate but Actually Love

Hello, Sunday Saloners! I decided to go with something lighter this week, since I've been encountering a lot of characters in the past few weeks who are villains so awesome I kind of secretly root for them.

Do you have characters you know are loathsome but you still like them? Maybe the writer sets us up to sympathize with the devil, so to speak, or maybe there's just something about the character that you identify with. Either way, despite that fact that you know you're supposed to be rooting against the character because they do Bad Things, you find yourself disappointed when the story just kind of dumps in the dirt of Villain Hell and moves on.

• Lady Audley from Lady Audley's Secret--Lady Audley is pretty evil. But I have to admit a part of me was kind of rooting for her. Can anyone really blame her for taking advantage of the men who treat her like a child? If it wasn't for one action--which I still don't quite believe--I would have been happy to see her get away with it all.
  
• Brian de Bois-Guilbert from Ivanhoe--The book may be called Ivanhoe, but the character of Bois-Guilbert gets more page time and is more interesting than the hero. Despite the fact that Sir Brian participates in some questionable activity, he's really not a bad guy. His biggest mistake is falling for a woman who clearly isn't that into him.
  
• Julian from The Forbidden Game trilogy by LJ Smith (also: every bad boy character from every LJ Smith novel)--I picked Julian because he was the character I was most flabbergasted didn't wind up with the heroine--whatever her name was--but this could really go for any bad boy in any LJ Smith novel. They're always more interesting than the do-gooder heroes.
  
• George Wickham from Pride & Prejudice--Am I the only one who isn't convinced Wickham's that bad? Yes, I suppose by Mr. Highfalutin Darcy's standards he's super flighty, but maybe he just likes to have a good time and is misunderstood. I keep waiting and waiting for an Austen adaptation where Wickham's the hero and it never happens.
  
• Bananach from Wicked Lovely--Bananach is the embodiment of war and discord, but practically speaking she's what the Beatles would call a mixer. She likes stirring things up. And that's what keeps the books interesting! Plus I think she's really funny.
  
• Rumpelstiltskin from Once Upon a Time (yes, I know that's not a book, but it's a bookish character)--Rumple is the only person on this show who has any sense of humor. That's worth my loyalty right there. Plus he looks good in a suit.
  

And these are just the characters from the top of my head--I'm sure there are a lot more characters out there who are so bad they're good. What are some of your favorites?

Discussion: THE FLIGHT OF GEMMA HARDY by Margot Livesey

Today I'm discussing The Flight of Gemma Hardy by Margot Livesey with Colette from A Buckeye Girl Reads. This is part two. To read part one, please head over to Colette's blog, then come back! :)

Did you notice that whenever someone drove Gemma around, they braked for small animals?

Tasha: Yes. This book was filled so many random details. Maybe it's a symbol of something, but if so, I don't know what.

Colette: You are right, they always did break for small animals. I'm sure it was a metaphor for something. However when I read I don't look for metaphors, so when used in books they are always lost on me unless it's super obvious. There were a lot of random details in this book, and I'm sure they all were connected in some way that we are missing.

Tasha: I do read for metaphors and symbolism, and if the details represented anything, I think it was an unwillingness on Livesey's part to kill her "darlings." Perhaps she added extraneous detail because she wanted the novel to sound "Victorian" and didn't understand that the detail was there to make a point? I did like her writing style, but this book needed a lot more work and a heartless editor.


Birds are mentioned a lot throughout the book, what do you think they were trying to symbolize?

Colette: At first I thought the bird thing was there just to connect us to the original story of Jane Eyre. Now, though I'm thinking that it could have been a metaphor for how much Gemma changes... and the different birds mentioned show her changing from someone with little confidence to someone who is sure of herself. I thought birds were an odd hobby for a young girl to have in the era this book was in.

Tasha: I thought the birds were a symbol of Gemma's longing to be independent and an adult. That's probably why she and Sinclair reunited on the plane.


Why did you keep reading?

Tasha: lol Well, when I was in the first part, I was holding out hope the second part would be better, even though you warned me it wasn't. And at first I did really like second part, with the description of the Orkney's; but then it started to feel like it wasn't flowing naturally and things were just happening because they happened in the original Jane Eyre, you know what I mean? By then I wanted to finish it just so I could whinge about it, haha. ;)

Colette: I did love the Orkneys landscape. The descriptions were beautiful. I think you are right, the problem with the second half is that things were happening with the original version, only updated to match the time period of this book.


What did you think of the ending when Gemma goes to Iceland to reconnect with her mother's family?

Colette: I hated the ending. I liked her going to Iceland, but unlike in Jane Eyre, I didn't understand why her family couldn't contact her after her uncle died. Why not hire someone to do it? Why do think they had Gemma be from Iceland instead of England? I couldn't figure that out... except to have it be a reason for her aunt not liking her.

Tasha: The whole Iceland thing did seem pointless. For one, she was doing fine without her family, I didn't get why finding them was such a pressing issue she HAD TO STEAL MONEY FROM HER FRIENDS to go there (again, unlike Jane, Gemma's actions strike one as selfish at best and amoral at worst). For another, that wasn't much of a family; and even if she did find them, who cares? They live in frigging Iceland! This isn't going to make a significant difference to her life. Good luck making international calls, Miss I-don't-know-how-to-use-a-phone.


What did you think of the book overall?

Colette: This is one of those books that when reading reviews on GoodReads on I felt like I read a completely different book then everyone else did. I can't help but wonder if it's because I was expecting a little romance and didn't feel like that part of the book came through very well at all. Do you think that is why we, as romance lovers had such a hard time with this book?

Tasha: I think it's reasonable to expect some romance in a novel that advertises itself as a Jane Eyre adaptation, but the main reason I didn't like it was because of Gemma. Jane Eyre is about a woman who never compromises her ideals to make her life easier, but still gets what she wants. Gemma is like the female version of Meursault from The Stranger. She doesn't have ideals, she's just out to get everything she can for herself... and also the characterization was really weak.

Although Colette and I didn't hate The Flight of Gemma Hardy, it definitely didn't get better as it went on, and the ending was horrible. You'd be better served to spend your time reading or rereading Jane Eyre over this trying-too-hard-but-still-not-getting-it adaptation. We would like to thank the publisher for providing us with copies for review, though!