TSS—Books About Books

After finishing The Salinger Contract by Adam Langer, I was reminded of how much I adore books about books. I mean, reading a book while reading about books??? So meta.

One of the more interesting themes to me in books about books is books are usually presented as dangerous. They tend to lead people to places they never intended to go, take over their lives, or unleash evil onto the world. I think this is a reflection of the fact that you never know what a book is going to be until you start reading it. Every unread book represents unlimited possibility, and that can be scary.

Another theme I discovered while compiling this list: a lot of books about books have really long and tortured titles.

Here are a few books about books that I've read. Are there any books about books that you've enjoyed? Share 'em in the comments!

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by JK Rowling

Chamber of Secrets is my favorite of all the Harry Potter books, mainly because it's about a book. But also because it has a hilarious Valentine's Day scene that makes me rotflmao every. single. time.

(Actually, now that I think about it, Order of the Phoenix, which is my second-favorite Harry Potter book, also has a hilarious Valentine's Day scene. Hm.)

Incidentally, if you missed it on Twitter yesterday, in an interview with The Sun Times, JK Rowling said she wished she'd hooked Harry and Hermione up rather than Ron and Hermione.

The Salinger Contract by Adam Langer 

A thriller about a millionaire who spends his money commissioning writers to pen books just for him ("What else am I going to spend my money on?"). But then he, like, DOES THINGS with them.

A Discovery of Witches by Deborah Harkness

A witch and historian recalls a manuscript from the depths of the Bodleian Library, only to discover that the manuscript is so magic much evil, and she's the only person who's been able to recall it since it disappeared hundreds of years ago.

The Thirteenth Tale by Diane Setterfield

A bookish person is hired by a reclusive, famous writer to tell her life story.

Not every book about books is a good book. I actually did not like this novel. At all. I tried to read it several times; the last time was for a book club I was in with Colette from A Buckeye Girl Reads. We were both just like, "Yeahhh. Nope."

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke

Goodreads tells me this a book about a book, but I just seriously do not remember. I think I tried to erase this book from my mind.

The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society by Mary Ann Shaffer and Annie Barrows

This is another book that I read for Colette's book club. Unlike The Thirteenth Tale, though, I very much enjoyed it. It's about people who use books to survive the German occupation in WWII.




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

Review: HARRY POTTER PAGE TO SCREEN by Bob McCabe

Once upon a time there were people who loved books, and made movies from them. One day they received a magical manuscript and read it, not expecting very much. But soon they realized they were reading the greatest book of all time! Thus the people who loved books made a movie from the book, and also seven more movies, all of which brought the world of the magical manuscript "to life." And everyone lived happily ever after.

Harry Potter Page to Screen is basically the story of how the Harry Potter movies were made. Surprisingly, I loved the hell out of it. I say surprisingly because usually these types of books are either complete fluff or eye-searingly boring, with a lot of mutual reach-around commentary from the people involved. I'm not saying there's not some self-congratulation going on in Harry Potter Page to Screen, but what's there is palatable because the text is really well-written and informative. Bob McCabe did an amazing job of condensing tons of interviews and material into something that was honestly entertaining and interesting to read.

Any movie being made is a small miracle--there are so many things that can go wrong to stop production, and often do. Creating a film is a HUGE undertaking; now imagine creating eight of them with the majority of the cast and crew remaining consistent over the course of a decade! I agree that the Harry Potter films are incredible just for that, and that the set design is top-notch. I'm also interested in how involved JK Rowling was in the films (the answer is very: she had final veto on ANY aspect of the movies, and David Hayman, the producer, said Rowling was the only person in the audience he cared about pleasing) and how they inform the world of the books, and Harry Potter Page to Screen is definitely illuminating when it comes to that.

For some reason I found the story of the creation of the Potter films really moving. Like I started crying on page one of the introduction (note that I am a sap; your mileage may vary). Maybe it was just remembering the books first coming out and reading about the enthusiasm the filmmakers felt for them. There's no doubt that nearly everyone on the project, from the producer to the crew, was dedicated to bringing the novels to life, not just wanting to make a movie. Apparently I get all sentimental when people love books! There's also that the majority of the cast DID basically spend their school years at "Hogwarts" and that the last film was a graduation from their childhood life and into their adult careers. Life did weirdly imitate art in a lot ways.

Finally, the visuals in Harry Potter Page to Screen are amazing. I loved the photographs of the kids when they were auditioning for their roles (so cute!), and the concept sketches by Stuart Craig were fantastic. A good portion of the book is dedicated to art direction; and although the text for this section isn't as interesting to read, the pictures of details from the costumes and set design are really great. Tea pot earrings for Mrs. Weasley! How perfect is that idea? I want a pair. And the Death Eater masks were incredible and scary.

Harry Potter Page to Screen is a huge, gorgeous, really expensive book (thank god for libraries, huh?) that's totally worth checking out if you're a fan. I liked it.




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

Harry Potter and the Grand Tour

US cover of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, with Roman arches and columns.

It's been a while since I wrote a Harry Potter post, and something must be done about that! Actually I was watching part one of The Deathly Hallows during Christmas, and I realized that Harry's, Hermione's, and Ron's last year of education is similar to the English tradition of the Grand Tour.

The Grand Tour started in the mid-17th century and, by the 19th, was considered a necessary part of every young man's education (at least if you were part of the upper-class). After studying the classics, the civilizations of Greece and Rome, and reading about the art of Michelangelo and Raphael, the best way to conclude one's schooling was by seeing the art and the ruins of these civilizations for oneself. Obvs, since they didn't have the intrawebs or photography back then, the only way to do this was to travel.

Like Ron, Hermione, and Harry, travelers on the Grand Tour would take EVERYTHING with them. I don't know about you guys, but when I go somewhere, even for a really long time, I pack ONE bag. If I need more clothes, I can buy them when I get there. For travelers on the Grand Tour, though, they packed like they were going to the moon and included every single thing they could possibly need, in quantities to last them the years it would take before they returned to England. Unlike the Harry Potter People, however, they didn't have a bottomless purse to stuff everything in, so they had to hire carriages and porters to carry it all. Not to mention guards to keep from being robbed by unscrupulous highwaymen!

More importantly, people on the Grand Tour had a typical set of destinations that defined it as "the" tour. They went in search of specific objects, places, and knowledge. Like, you HAD to visit Paris and sleep with a prostitute, or else what was the point? Haha. They also typically visited the Vatican, saw the Sistine Ceiling and paintings by Raphael, saw an opera, and sketched the Roman Forum. The itinerary for the Grand Tour wasn't too different from the typical modern tourist's to-do list in Italy, actually.

Of course, Harry, Ron, and Hermione don't go to Italy, but they do take a "tour" of sorts of the British Isles, and this is further emphasized in the locations of the films. They visit the Giant's Causeway, Buckinghamshire, Yorkshire, Suffolk, and Wales, among other locations. Also, although Harry isn't technically traveling to "finish" his education, he does learn a lot about himself and the past--especially the past of his hero, Dumbledore. He also collects objects (the Deathly Hallows), similarly to how people on the Grand Tour collected souvenirs.

What would a Grand Tour look like for you?

Harry Potter and the Ungrieved-For Dead

One of the things that's always struck me about the Harry Potter films is that the scenes of Tom Riddle's childhood are so clearly stylized as being circa WWII, from the clothes to the sets and cinematography. To be honest, it's bothered me. Yes, I suppose it makes a certain amount of sense, if Harry is of my generation and Voldemort is of my grandparents' generation, that Tom Riddle would be going to school in 1930s/1940s Britain. But is that kind of time scale really reliable when it comes to wizards? Dumbledore was supposed to have been born in 1881 (although I've always pictured him growing up in late Georgian/early Regency England, mostly thanks to the illustrations in the US editions), and who knows how long Voldemort was alive before he was killed the first time. Furthermore, if the war against Voldemort was the wizarding equivalent of WWII--and Rowling definitely intimates that's the case throughout the books--then wouldn't Harry's parents be part of the "war generation," not Voldemort?



I've never really known what to make of this issue. It seems logical to say that WWII is so embedded in our cultural memory that Rowling naturally drew parallels between it and a world-changing war between wizards, but then why would the filmmakers design the Young Tom Riddle scenes the way they did? A lot of hands go into making movies, but interviews with Stuart Craig, in charge of production design, suggest that JK Rowling was very involved in the look of the film. But to what extent?

In any case, I put this question aside as one of those things I would never resolve, until last week when I was watching Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. During the ending when Harry faces off against Voldemort, I was suddenly reminded of something Anne Roiphe had written in her memoir of 1960s New York, Art and Madness--that post-War America was suffocated by the memory of "the ungrieved-for dead," which she intimates contributed to the zeitgeist of the '50s and '60s, and the Babyboomer generation's sense that their parents were hypocrites.

Are those who died in Voldemort's war, such as Harry's parents, ungrieved? All through the Harry Potter series, memories of the dead are present and affect the actions of the living. Many characters have friends and loved ones who died fighting Voldemort--including of course, Harry himself. But have these dead been put to rest? From nearly the very start of the series, one gets the sense that people are holding their breath, waiting for the other shoe to drop. They may have moved on with their lives, but they still live in fear of Voldemort, refusing to say his name and slightly fearful that he may one day return. Of course, this serves to foreshadow Voldemort's actual return for the reader, and may simply be a useful narrative device.

At least as far as Harry is concerned, he spends most of the books grieving for his parents. I do think there are ungrieved-for dead in Harry Potter, but I don't think they're people like Harry's parents who fought against Voldemort. Instead, I would argue that the ungrieved are those murdered for horcruxes. Tom Riddle certainly didn't grieve for them, and their deaths literally tether his soul to the world, ensuring that he can never die and will always be able to return.

Several people are killed on and off-page during the Harry Potter series, but the ones used to create the horcruxes are different. They're not killed in self-defense or the heat of the moment; it's cold-blooded and self-serving. If just killing someone created a horcrux, wouldn't Snape have a horcrux from killing Dumbledore? Or Bellatrix Lestrange from killing Sirius? Voldemort would also have many more horcruxes than he did if every person he killed became a horcrux. The horcrux spell traps the soul because the horror of that death reverberates with neither justice nor guilt. Instead, said people's lives are nothing but a tool to be used for the wizard's own survival.

I think this why Voldemort's war in the books, and scenes of his childhood in the movies, have such a WWII sensibility. It's not just the fact that many died fighting Tom Riddle, but the fact that one person was able to inspire so much destruction and death, that both the movies and the books want to underscore. It would be enough to tear apart the wizarding world completely if it weren't for one thing--the Boy Who Lived. Harry represents everything Voldemort, and others like him, can never kill: love, hope, the human spirit. Even faced with the worst the world has to offer, Harry keeps on fighting.

Remembering Harry Potter

After Tobacco Wars, I think this blog needs a palate cleanser. How about a short and sweet Harry Potter meme from Tif Talks Books?

When and Where (when you first discovered the series): I first heard about it on Oprah. I think I managed to convince my mom to buy the first two books after that (that was before the third one had even come out!) and I read the first one to my brother. But it seemed too young for me, so I didn't start reading the rest of the series until after the second movie was released and my friends bullied convinced me to give it another shot.

Favorite Character: Snape. Obvs.

Most Hated Character: Probably Delores Umbridge. She is reeeeeally annoying.

Favorite Book: Order of the Phoenix. It's so sexy.

Favorite Movie: Probably Half-Blood Prince because of the Snape element (I love how he swooshes around), but I pretty much like them all equally except for the third one, which I hate. With a passion.

Rank the Books (1 = favorite, 7 = least favorite):

1. Order of the Phoenix
2. Chamber of Secrets
3. Goblet of Fire
4. Deathly Hallows
5. Half-Blood Prince
   
6. Prisoner of Azkaban
7. Sorcerer's Stone
   

Most Memorable Scene: The Weasely twins interrupting OWL exams to explode havoc on Delores Umbridge before leaving Hogwarts for good. I was like, "I heart you guys so hard right now!"

What You Will Miss the Most: Release parties

What You Are Looking Forward To (even despite the end): Pottermore and the class on Harry Potter: Image and Media that no one will let me teach. Sadface.

For the Love of Severus Snape

Note: In this post, I discuss events that occur in the last three Harry Potter books.  I'm going to assume that you've read them, so there are spoilers.

As I argued in Harry Potter and the Book of Double Entendres, Harry Potter is filled with sexual symbolism.  What I left out of that discussion was Severus Snape. Since the last three books are so central to understanding his character, I thought it would be more appropriate to consider Snape on his own in the context of those three books.

Like any teenager, Harry must face anxiety about his sexuality and what kind of person he is through his physical and emotional relationships. But who is the focal point of this anxiety? For whom does he have the greatest unfulfilled desire for connection? Not Ginny, certainly; Harry's biggest worry with her is whether or not Ron will punch him in the face for liking his sister.  Cho Chang was definitely the early focus of Harry's attraction, but he abruptly lost interest in her in the fifth book--where, I would argue, his anxiety over rejection became embodied by none other than Severus Snape.



Snape is most certainly the sexiest character in Harry Potter, but why? He's repeatedly described as being physically unattractive and unpleasant.  And, just as with all the other teachers in Hogwarts, we know nothing of his personal relationships and assume he doesn't have any. However, he is interesting, and we're fascinated by him--because Harry is. This comes to a head in Order of the Phoenix, where they forcibly and repeatedly penetrate one another in an attempt to teach Harry occlumency. The sexual overtones are underlined by small, unconscious actions such as Snape "tracing his mouth with one long, thin finger" whenever he looks at Harry. 

It's no wonder Harry hates his occlumency lessons, as Snape recurrently violates Harry's mind, then berates him for being weak. But what frightens and infuriates Snape more than anything is when Harry reciprocates this insertion, catching a glimpse of Snape's own memories, making him vulnerable and inspiring a feeling of sympathy and camaraderie in Harry that Snape summarily rejects. This isn't the first or last time Harry recognizes a connection to Snape, only to have it turn into a feeling of abhorrence when Snape pushes him away.

For example, in The Half-Blood Prince, further parallels are drawn between Harry and Snape. After a lesson in Defense Against the Dark Arts, Harry fumes about Snape's passion for dark magic until Hermione points out that he sounds exactly like Harry. Meanwhile, unknown to either us or the book's characters, Harry is developing a man-crush on Snape's young alter ego, the Half-Blood Prince. The Prince is helpful, absolutely brilliant, funny, and the best teacher Harry's ever had. The depth of his attachment to the Prince is apparent in his hope that his father is really the Prince, even though logically he knows this can't be the case.

The point in all this is to say that Harry and Snape are not anathema to each other; quite the opposite. They're very similar and instinctively attracted to one another. In The Sorcerer's Stone, Harry is excited about potions until Snape makes it clear the first day of class that Harry's on his shit list. This pattern of constant attraction and rejection is what fosters in Harry his loathing of Snape--other teachers are hard on him and he dislikes many classes, but it is failure in Snape's class and his criticisms that really sting, because Snape is who he intuitively connects to.

But why does Snape repeatedly reject Harry? By the time we get to The Deathly Hallows, Harry burns with hatred for Snape, and with good reason: as far as he knows, Snape has betrayed the trust of Dumbledore and murdered him in cold blood. But like all passionate emotions, Harry's feelings for Snape aren't that far away from their opposite, in this case love. What Harry sees in Snape's dying memories appeases the negativity of the characters' interactions by once again reaffirming their connection and giving Harry the reason behind Snape's rejections.

Snape's objection to Harry is always that he's exactly like his father, James, a man Snape hated. But as Dumbledore points out, Harry is also very similar to Lily, the woman Snape loved. Therefor, to Snape, Harry is the embodiment of the pain and attraction he experienced as a youth, especially as he's the child Lily had with another man, and a living witness to her murder that Snape was indirectly responsible for. Snape is, perhaps, as attracted to Harry as Harry is to him; but he's also repulsed--by himself, his past, and his actions, all of which Harry is a breathing reminder. One might ask why Snape didn't simply choose to ignore this and instead focus on the positives and the connection he might have built with Harry, but his final memories show why he did not. Snape is completely unfamiliar with how to connect with people; not only that, but how to forgive others and himself. So he fell back on something he was more than practiced in, pushing the person he was most attracted to away.

Nevertheless, Snape recognizes that Harry is the only person at Hogwarts who can truly see him. That's why he demands Harry look at him as he takes his final breath. And would Harry take time out from defeating Voldemort to go wandering around the memories of a man he truly hated, or cared nothing for? Would he name his own child after someone he could never understand, call him the bravest man he ever knew (and that's saying something)? No. Harry never hated Snape, even at his angriest moments. Snape's rejection hurt him, and thus Snape became a symbol of Harry's sublimated desire for a connection with an older male figure. The sexual connotations that occasionally appeared with Snape in the context of that desire are, I think, not a sign that their attraction was sexual in nature, but merely one of the many reasons why it was destined not to go anywhere.

JK Rowling and Oprah: The Interview (In Scotland!), Completely Unnecessary Post-Event Analysis

Rowling so rarely grants interviews.  But no one says no to The Oprah!  So the two billionairesses sat down, with questions burning in fans' minds.  Why never any romance between Harry and Hermione?  Does Rowling think the books would have been better if she'd killed off Arthur Weasely?  And most importantly, any future Harry Potter books?

First, the recap:

• Rowling and Oprah are surrounded by posh elegance, from the high tea service and fancy drapery to what appears to be an Aubusson carpet.  Rowling's make-up is expertly done but her shoes are distractingly inappropriate and an ugly color.  Oprah gets points for having classy-yet-professional shoes, but looks hugely uncomfortable on the spindly chair.  Where's an armchair when you need one?
• Four minutes into interview.  Rowling starts tearing up talking about how she felt when she'd finished the seventh Harry Potter.  Also discusses why she changed her mind on the last word in the series being "scar."
• Oprah says she thought JK was Rowling's name.  What?  Have you ever met anyone with two capital letters for a first name, Oprah? 
  
• Rowling talks about her mother's death.  Tears up again.
• Moving on to happier subjects:  how has your life changed since you won the literary lottery?  Rowling says she dresses much better.  Then she adds that might not have anything to do with it, since, "...you meet lots of rich people who dress atrociously."  Oprah laughs uncomfortably and touches her sweater.  Apparently the O wasn't confident with that fashion choice!
• More blah blah about being rich.  Have you read the books, Oprah??
• Apparently Rowling gave a commencement speech at Harvard.  This is officially the first and only time I've wanted to attend Harvard, lucky bastards.  She talks about how failure made her a better person and the Dementors represent depression (duh!).
  
• Rowling tears up again, I forget why.  Only ten minutes left in the interview, WILL YOU START ASKING ABOUT HARRY POTTER PLEEZ!!!!!
• Finally, the clincher question!  "Will you be writing more?"  Rowling says, "Definitely."  But is she speaking of Harry Potter books or in general terms?  Oprah doesn't press.  Rowling and Oprah bond over a Michael Jackson interview  they both read.
• Awkward high-five moment.  The interview is over.

The analysis:

Although it's always good to see an interview with Rowling, this one felt like a wasted opportunity.  Oprah spent most of the hour talking to Rowling about personal things in her life.  While that's all well and good, I really don't care about Rowling's personal life and wish Oprah had asked her more probing questions about the books.

As for the issue of whether or not there will be more Harry Potter books, I know the verdict in newspapers and elsewhere is yes, but to me it didn't sound like it.  Rowling seemed to be speaking in general terms when she said she was going to keep writing, and spoke of a "new phase" and not chasing the phenomenon.  I know none of us want Harry Potter to end, but I would be surprised to see Rowling publish a new Potter book at any point in the near future.

Oh well.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Harry Potter and the Book of Double Entendres

In this installment of Harry Potter, Harry becomes deeply aware of his "wand"--which, we're informed repeatedly, is an impressive eleven inches long.  Aunt Petunia refers to it as "his thing", and Cousin Dudley is intimidated whenever Harry whips it out.  When Harry proves his manly prowess by chasing away Dementor kisses, the Ministry of Magic tries to emasculate him by threatening to take away his "wand."  The fact that Dementor kisses have a vaguely homosexual overtone only reinforces Harry's masculinity--and further undermines Dudley's, seeing as how he couldn't resist the Dementor's kiss.

Harry is understandably upset about the threat to take away his wand.  Not only does he instinctively know losing it would mean not returning to Hogwarts; unconsciously, he senses that to lose one's wand equates to being emasculated.  He has prima facie evidence of this in the form of Sirius Black, someone who has been un-manned by the shenanigans of the Ministry and his inability to use magic.  Sirius rattles about his miserable house, completely impotent.  This is represented not only by his failure to control Creature, but also the fact that he is the last in his family line, symbolically at least unable to produce children.

When Harry heads to Hogwarts, he faces more challenges and threats to "wand"--namely in the person of Dolores Umbridge, the current Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher.  Umbridge is possibly the most loathsome character in the entire series, but why?  Obviously she represents the evils of bureaucracy, but then so does Prime Minister Fudge.  Umbridge's repulsive personality is antithetical to everything magical or feminine, even though she is a hyper-feminized character.  We're even told her wand is "an unusually short one."

This setting up of Umbridge as the antithesis of everything Harry Potter and Hogwarts stands for creates for the reader a witch in the worst, most frightening sense of the word--a woman who has gone wrong, who does everything a woman shouldn't do.  Instead of eating babies as medieval witches were said to do, however, Umbridge continually attempts to force Harry to deny his manhood and emasculate himself.  She calls Harry a liar and demands that he continues to lie.  From this we learn that the words that issue from a man's mouth (or at the very least a wizard's mouth, which can speak things into existence and thus create) is a metaphor for potency and ejaculation.  As Harry fails to stop himself from speaking the truth and doesn't lessen the power of his words by telling lies, he proves he has the honor and stamina to move on to the next challenge in the story.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the book where Harry comes into adulthood and decides for himself what will separate him from Voldemort and make him his own man.  Therefore it's no surprise the book is filled with so many metaphors for physical and sexual power.  This power will not be actualized, however, until book seven.  For now Harry is merely establishing the parameters and basis for his life as an adult.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Harry Potter and the Kid Who Cried Wolf

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by JK Rowling*

I remember the first time I read Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire very clearly.  It was one of the few times in my life that my heart actually pounded while I read a book--out of pure excitement and sympathy with the main character.  It was completely un-put-downable (I read all 700-ish pages in a single day), and the ending totally blew me away.  In other words, this is the book that turned me into a Harry Potter fan girl.

There's a theme running through Goblet of people who keep crying wolf and, as a result, no one ever believes them.  Mad Eye Moody is a perfect example, as is Harry himself.  Whether or not they've actually spotted danger seems incidental; just the fact that they are the ones that things happen to, and that point out the danger, is enough to make people brush them off and ignore them.  If there's one lesson in Goblet, it's that danger doesn't come from expected quarters or while you're watching for it.  Mad Eye Moody might preach constant vigilance (one of my favorite lines evar, btw), but people neither want to be, nor can they be, keen to every threat.

By the end of the novel, it's clear that illusion of safety is more important in most cases than actual security--but then no one can really provide safety, can they?  The people from the ministry go through a lot of trouble to make sure the participants of the Triwizard Tournament are "safe," but fail miserably every step of the way.  And some things meant to keep people safe, like the Dementors, are akin to making a deal with the devil.

When I mentioned I was reading Goblet on Twitter, Amanda from The Zen Leaf said she didn't enjoy it any more because of all the holes in the plot.  Me:  Holes in the plot?!?  I didn't notice any holes!  So, naturally, this made me look for the holes while I was reading.  And, I have to say Amanda was right; there are tons of plot holes littering Goblet.  The one that bothered me most had to do with Harry's placement in the Goblet of Fire itself--so, just to review, anyone can write down anyone else's name and put it into the Goblet, and the person would then be bound by a magical contract, even though they had nothing to do with signing up for the Triwizard Tournament?  That seems like a rather HUGE loophole in proceedings.  So, if that's the case, an older student could have just written a younger student's name down and dropped it in the cup?  Wouldn't you think that kind of issue would have come up before????

I didn't enjoy Goblet quite as much the second time around, but I did like listening to it on audio, which seems to be getting better and better as the books go along.  If there was a book I wish I could re-read as if it was the first time, this one would be it--it's just not as much fun when you know what the ending is going to be.  But it's still a good (if holey) story.

Suspicious Dumbledore moment:

"He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore.  "He said the protection my--my mother left in me--he'd have it, too.  And he was right.  He could touch me without hurting himself; he touched my face."  For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw something like a gleam of triumph in Dumbledore's eyes; but the next second, Harry was sure he had imagined it....

WHAT THE HELL????  A gleam of triumph?  Dumbledoor is soooo in league with Voldemort.  I bet he had a secret affair with Voldy at some point, and that's why they hate each other so much.



I listened to the audio and read this book as part of Galleysmith's fab Harry Potter Reading Challenge. 

*I got the audiobook from the library, and the book from my brother.  So no one's getting nothing, FTC.  Take that and shove it up your %&@^.

Powered by ScribeFire.

My Year in Reading

"Everything Men Know About Women" by dailyinvention

It's the end of the year, which means it's time to start reflecting on my year in reading.  I guess.  The only problem is, 2009 pretty much sucked on the reading front.

I read very few books, even fewer of which I liked.  I burned out on two of my favorite sub-genres, historical romance and urban fantasy.  But on the plus side, I started book blogging, made a lot of bookish friends, and discovered new books.

So, instead of doing a top-ten list of books, which would only serve to torture me as there were barely three books I loved that much in 2009, I decided to do a montage o' highlights.



Favorite new author:  Meredith Duran

Duran is definitely an author to watch.  I've really enjoyed all her books so far, and Bound By Your Touch is probably my favorite historical romance of 2009.



Favorite new genre:  Manga

OMG, so addictive!  Manga is my new crack.  Seriously, you can't stop reading the stuff; it should come with a warning label.

Favorite challenge:

This is a tie between Jenner's Take a Chance Challenge and Galleysmith's Harry Potter Reading Challenge.  The Take a Chance Challenge was really fun and creative, but I think reading-wise the Harry Potter Challenge has been the most rewarding.



Things I ignored:

Dystopian fiction, m/m romance, e-books, chick lit, and most of my challenges.

Things I didn't ignore (completely):

Angels, The Strangely Beautiful Tale of Miss Percy Parker, YA, erotica, Jane Austen adaptations



Jumped the shark:

Christina Dodd.  The books she published this year that I read (Danger in a Red Dress, Storm of Visions) were pretty all-around horrible.  It's like she's not even trying anymore.

Subcategory--Authors who are going to get one more shot:  Gaelen Foley.  My Wicked Marquis was simply a train wreck.

Chunksters:

Despite my loathing of overly long books, I managed to read Johnathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, Drood, and The Lost Symbol.

Things I wish I'd read more of:

I read hardly any sci-fi/fantasy this year, I don't know why.  Usually that's my second-favorite genre after romance.



Biggest surprise (in a good way):

Water for Elephants, which I read as part of A Buckeyegirl Reads' bookclub (when are we going to read another book for that, btw, Colette?).  I was pretty sure this book was either going to be horribly boring and/or depressing, but it was absolutely brilliant.  I also read The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society for Colette's book club, and that was really good, too.



Hmm, now that I've broken it down, it doesn't seem like my reading year was that horrible after all.  What were the highlights of your year in books?

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Book Purge

Image courtesy of macinate

Ever since Angel Month concluded, I've been feeling at loose ends about what to read.  Despite the fact that I spent at least 2 of the four weeks whining about how sick I was of angels, without them I couldn't manage to focus on a single book.  I spent most of the entire week starting and quickly tossing various books, such as:


Captive of Sin by Anna Campbell

At first this was a fun book because it takes place in winter, and it was very wintry outside.  I also thought (and still think) Gideon and Akash are both interesting characters.  But the rest of it was just so clichéed, I couldn't stand it.  What's wrong with me?  I usually eat this stuff up, clichéed or not.


Gateway by Sharon Shinn

Shinn is unquestionably a great writer, and wrote one of my favorite books of all time, Archangel.  I hadn't tried out her YA novels yet before Gateway, though; and I'm not likely to again.  The concept was interesting--modern St. Louis teen is transported to China (seriously, China has got to be the hot new thing these days. Move over, Japan)--but the beginning was so incredibly slow and, again, clichéed.


The Little Book by Selden Edwards

Okay, I haven't officially given up on this book yet, but it's getting close.  I picked this one up at the library because it purported to be a time-travel novel about Nineteenth-Century Vienna.  Awesomesauce (The Illusionist, The Illusionist, The Illusionist).  The beginning started off really well, but it quickly became meandery due to the fact that we're given loads of unnecessary backstory about everyone.  I'm wondering if it's worth continuing--I would like to think so, but the main character is too wacky to be believable.


Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire by JK Rowling

The only book that I've been able to stick is HP & The Goblet of Fire.  I freaking love this book!  I started off on audiobook, but had to switch to actual reading because my attention wanders too easily when I'm "listening."  Damn attention!  To repeat:  what's wrong with me?

Which leads me to...

the book purge.

Around the time of Gateway, I started feeling a bit despair-ish and decided my problem was my TBR pile.  Yes, my TBR pile!  Now, we all love having books to read, but there comes a point when the unread books start stressing me out.  And that point is when I can no longer sit in my favorite reading spot, the two-foot space between my bed and bookshelf, which was literally crammed with books.  I couldn't even step in that area anymore, let alone sit!  So I did a book purge, taking out all of the historical romances and urban fantasies I'd collected, except for the ones I still actively wanted to read, and donating them to the library. 

You may gasp with horror, but I have to say I do feel a lot better now.  Sure, this whole thing may have been a transfer of frustration for three books I couldn't finish onto my entire stack of unread books, but at least I can read in my itty-bitty reading nook now.  The two-foot space has become a one and a half-foot space due to the fact that there's still books piled next to my bed, but that's okay.  It's kind of like sitting in a miniature library.

Hopefully, the book purge will take care of this urge I have to READ EVERYTHING very quickly, and I can settle into a book again after I finish HP&tGoF.



How's your reading going this week?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Harry Potter and the Review of Unnecessarily In-Depth Analysis

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by JK Rowling*

Source:  My little brother for the book; the library for the audiobook (I alternated between the two).

I've had issues with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban ever since I first read it.  I know it is some people's (coughsandycough) favorite Harry Potter book, but I didn't like it.  Unfortunately, I wasn't blogging when I first read it, so for the life of me I can't remember why.  I mean, two of the smexiest men in the entire series, Sirius Black and Severus Snape, have major roles in this one; and then there's Lupin, who is just lovable like a little puppy.  The storytelling brilliant; and despite the fact that this isn't the middle book, it is book upon which the entire series seems to hinge.  So why didn't I like it?  And would a reread change my mind?

By the third Harry Potter book, the formula for the series has already been established:  Harry goes to Hogwarts and Voldemort finds some sneaky way to attack him; but in the end Harry escapes and Voldy is defeated.  Yet Prisoner doesn't follow this formula at all.  Of all the books, this is the only one where Voldemort isn't a direct threat.  Furthermore, Harry doesn't defeat or conquer anything in this book--we expect him to, and we certainly want him to, but in the end he only does what he can.  And that isn't enough to stop Voldy from gaining power and becoming a major pain in everyone's rear end.  In fact, one could argue it's because of Harry that Voldemort can return to his physical form (although we don't know that until the later books).

So that was one source of my discontent:  my expectations were unmet.  I never really felt Harry was in much danger from Sirius, and there wasn't a big smack-down scene at the end.  But I think my reaction to Prisoner went a little deeper than that due to the two themes running through the novel.

The first is that nothing is as it seems.  That's not unique to Prisoner, of course--how could you even have a wizarding world where things were just as they appeared, after all?--but I think it runs the strongest through Prisoner out of the seven books.  It all starts when Harry goes to Hogwarts, expecting a safe haven, but instead finds it riddled with Dementors.  Enemies turn out to be friends, friends to out to be enemies; the all-powerful Snape turns out to be nothing more than a bitter nerd; and Harry gets the first hint that his parents, his father in particular, might not have been what he imagines.  There were so many change-ups and fake-outs in this book that it made me wonder if anything can be trusted in these books.  The wizarding world is no longer a comforting--if occasionally hazardous, but always quaint--place to be anymore.

Then there's the issue of time.  I didn't even realize this could be considered a theme of the book until I reread it, because we don't know about Hermione's secret until the very end.  But it's definitely spread out through the entire novel--Lupin, Sirius, Peter Pettigrew, and Snape all have the past coming back to haunt them; the "threat" to Harry is one based entirely upon the past as opposed to anything that's happened in the present; and because of the Dementors, Harry relives something he experienced but can't even remember!  The frustrating thing is, even though Harry and Hermione can go back in time, they still can't seem to change the past, even if said past needs to be righted--they can't restore Sirius' good name or give him his life back.  I supposed even in the wizarding world there is an expiration date on do-overs.

I must take a moment to gush about how much I love Harry.  I've mentioned this before, but the majority of heroes are so white-bread--I know this is because they need to be an "every man" type, but as a result they have no personality.  Harry, on the other hand, does appeal to practically everyone, but has his own complete personality.  There are times that I really bleed for him (metaphorically speaking, of course) in these books, but most especially in this one.  Can you imagine listening to your parents be killed over and over?  And the scene where Harry chases the Dementors off of Sirius and himself and then realizes that he's his dad, makes me cry every time.  Like, I'm seriously getting teary-eyed right now thinking about it.  So obviously it's time to move on.

After rereading Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, I still can't say it's my favorite Harry Potter.  But neither can I remember exactly what I disliked about on the first reading, either.  This is the book where everything changes--when you suddenly realize this isn't just a series of children's books, and there's a whole mess of stuff going on in this world that you don't know about.  Yet.  In other words, this book is deep, man.


Random things I find suspicious:

Dumbledore:  A secret--I usually find Dumbledore suspicious.  Maybe it connects to my Santa aversion because of his long, white beard, but there's a moment in every single Harry Potter book where I become convinced he's colluding with Voldemort.  In this book, I have to wonder how exactly Dumbledore knew Harry and Hermione should turn back time to save Buckbeak and Sirius.  It's like he knew what was happening before it even happened--while it was happening!  HOW DID HE KNOW????  And why did he expressly tell Harry not to interfere with the whole losing-of-Peter-Pettigrew debacle, hmmmmmmmm?

Crookshanks:  The cat can freaking READ.  That is not right.  That cat has got to be more than cat, I'm telling you.



I read this book as part of The Harry Potter Reading Challenge hosted by GalleySmith, which is turning out to be the greatest challenge OF MY LIFE. 


I'm curious... how many people out there consider Prisoner of Azkaban their favorite Harry Potter?

*The bad news: this is an Amazon Associates link.  The good news: well, there is no good news.

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.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

Shop Indie Bookstores

This is one of the dumbest books I've read in a while.  And that's saying something.

Clary is a normal 15-year-old girl.  Then, one night at a club, she witnesses a murder.  Turns out the murderers are Nephilim or Shadowhunters, and the murderee was a demon.  The Shadowhunters kill demons to save humanity, or mundanes, from their (demons') evil ways.  But mundanes aren't supposed to see Shadowhunters or mundanes, so Clary is obviously not the normal human girl she thought she was.  Then her mom goes missing and Clary discovers a whole mess of stuff as she befriends the trio of Shadowhunters (one of whom bears a striking resemblance to Hayden Christensen) that live in NYC.

After I started reading this book, I found out the author, Cassandra Clare, is famous in certain circles as a fan fiction writer.  Her most well-known work was The Draco Trilogy--which, it turns out, was actually plagarized (side note:  how lame do you have to be to plagarize fan fiction?).  After reading The City of Bones, I have to say I'm not surprised--with the charges of plagarism or with the fact that she wrote fan fiction.  Originality, thy name is not Cassandra Clare.  I don't think I'm giving anything away here, since it's obvious twenty pages into the novel, that the story is a total rip-off of Star Wars and Harry Potter, with a little Buffy the Vampire Slayer thrown in.  And by rip-off I do not mean "inspired by."  All of the plot twists in this book are taken directly from those movies and books, thus making them not very twisty at all.

Hrmmmmm....

In addition to being completely derivative, the book has continuity and pacing problems.  There are times when the actions of the characters seem totally random, and at some point there was a paragraph-long description of earl grey tea (because god knows there's a lot of 15-year-old tea afficionados out there--wtf?).  The quality of the writing is also really uneven.

It wasn't all bad.  The book was mostly entertaining, I'll give it that; and the world that Clare creates is definitely one that you feel like you can jump right into (which makes Stephenie Meyer's quote on the cover of this book not only true, but diplomatic--she doesn't say it's a good book, now does she?  Good play, Meyer *golf clap*).  Actually, this book would be totally awesome in manga format.  And my mom liked this book, so someone liked it.  But not me.

Powered by ScribeFire.