TSS: Two Sides to the Same Story

It's Sunday! How did that happen again? And this Sunday the Olympics finally closes! I don't know if it's because I'm from Colorado or not, but I have a hard time getting into the summer Olympics to the same level I do the winter Olympics (except for BMX racing, that's awesome). In any case, I was planning on writing a post about spoilers, but then I realized: I really don't care about spoilers AT ALL. So instead let's talk about The Book That Must Not Be Named. Yes, it will probably be difficult to talk about it when we can't name it, but I'm game for trying.



There have been great posts about TBTMNBN--all right, yes, it's Fifty Shades of Grey--recently from Jenn at Picky Girl and Jane at Dear Author. Both posts try to explain the popularity of Fifty Shades, which is indeed curious. I think at some point a really popular book expands beyond its audience and pretty soon everyone feels like they have to read it, whether they have any initial interest in it or not. The same thing happened with The Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, and Fifty Shades' progenitor, Twilight.

The more I think on it, the more I believe Twilight may be one of the defining American novels of our generation, which is really odd. I truly enjoy Twilight and its various sequels, and I don't think Meyer is a bad writer; but would I say Twilight is generation-defining material? Mrm, no. Yet when I look at all the things that have sprung up out of Twilight in the last few years--not just the movies, but tourism to Forks, obsession with RPatt, the popularity of paranormal romance in numerous literary genres, as well as on TV; and several, highly derivative spin-offs, one of which is now among the best-selling books of all time--it seems like Twilight hasn't just started its own industry but its own school.

The most interesting thing to me about Fifty Shades--actually the only interesting thing--is how the series is so obviously based on Twilight, yet at the same time is almost anti-Twilight. Twilight is romantic, in the literary sense of the word. As I argued in my post about New Moon (review here), the series is about Bella following her dreams and remaining true to herself. It emphasizes her isolation, both emotionally and physically, and her struggle to find her place in the world.

Nearly the exact opposite can be said of Fifty Shades. One of the things that really perturbed me while reading it was that it seemed to almost be mocking Twilight; or if not mocking it, taking the story and twisting it into something that, from a philosophical standpoint, was contradictory to everything in the original text. Ana is compelled to do things she doesn't want to do, to suppress her emotions, and both she and Christian subvert their ideals to physical reality (i.e. their physical desire for one another)--as opposed to creating their reality out of their ideals and an emotional and intellectual connection, which was underscored in the relationship between Edward and Bella.

This is true of other elements in the books, too, not just the romance. Take, for example, José in Fifty Shades versus Jacob in Twilight. One is an "ethnic friend," the other is a noble savage straight out of Rousseau.

Fifty Shades and Twilight are like two sides to the same coin--one is about romanticism and idealism, the other is about repressed emotions and physicality. Because of that I would theorize people who like one wouldn't like the other, despite the fact that they have nearly identical plots. So, informal poll: if you have read the books, do you like both of them or just one? Or neither?

The Girl Who Slept

Johannes Vermeer, Girl Asleep, 1657

Have you ever noticed that women in romance novels sleep a lot? Naturally we all need sleep, but with something so ordinary it doesn't seem worth mentioning in a book unless there's a point, like going to the bathroom. So what's the point of all the sleeping? Tired writers? A zombified nation of near-catatonic workaholics who can only sympathize with people in a similar state of ennui? Or does it mean something?

While rereading New Moon last month, I couldn't help but notice that Bella kept passing out--or almost passing out--a lot. And not during entirely appropriate moments (like, you know, bed time), either. Of course, the story is based on Sleeping Beauty, so I figured that had something to do with it, and set the issue aside to think of it no more.

BUT THEN, since I was already thinking about it (despite my resolve not to), I kept noticing heroines in nearly every romance I picked up afterward had a similar problem! It seemed as soon as these women encountered an extremely tense, emotionally-wrought, or high stress environment, they decided they needed a nap because they were super duper tired. "Here I am, alone in the house of a rake who wants to ravish me. Snnnnooorrrrzzzzzzz." Really?

At first I guessed that it was some passive-aggressive way of avoiding conflict--kind of like how Scott Pilgrim runs off to the bathroom as soon as he's faced with a potentially awkward situation. But it seemed odd that so many heroines would fall asleep in different books and situations. "What purpose does this serve the story?" I wondered to myself (actually it went more like, "WHAT THE HEEEEEEECK?!?"). Reading about women who keep falling asleep isn't exactly exciting.


John Henry Fuseli, The Nightmare, 1781

It was an embarrassingly long time afterward that I remembered sleeping women in art history=SEX ALL OVER THE PLACE! Exclamation mark! The most famous example being Fuseli's wildly popular The Nightmare. Pointed toes, arched back, and expression of combined agony and bliss--that woman is totally having an organism. And what's being done to the horse behind that curtain? You don't know; and judging by its expression, I don't want to know.

Aside from the pulled-out chair and open doorway that suggests recently vacated company, Vermeer's Girl Asleep is, according to your friendly neighborhood symbologists, full of allegories for temptation, love, and intercourse. It also looks like there's someone under the table, and I don't think they're picking up silverware. IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

In literature, too, a sleeping woman is often a symbol of passive sexuality--think of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, for instance. Again, this is reflected in Twilight: there's a reason why the dynamics of Edward watching Bella sleep puts mamas' panties all in a twist. Or take the scene in New Moon when Jacob sneaks into Bella's room to tell her the Very Important Thing about him being a werewolf and she can barely keep her eyes open. Of course, the fact that she doesn't fall asleep while he's around could indicate that she's not as 'available' to him as he'd like her to be.

For hundreds of years, at the least, a sleeping woman has suggested a sexually available woman. Do I think romance novelists are deliberately using this imagery to make their heroines seem more sexualized? Perhaps--Meyer employs it very effectively--but I think at this point it's become such a part of our culture that we don't consciously take note of it, especially in contemporary-set novels. Most people aren't looking for allegories or subtext in books; if they were, it would make reading certain novels really uncomfortable (I'm looking at you, Lewis Carrol). Even if they aren't consciously aware of it, however, on some level it is clear that the heroine, while asleep, is more vulnerable to the hero. If she's dropping off to sleep, then obviously she trusts him.


Elizabeth Siddal, 1860. Photo courtesy of lizziesiddal.com.

Have you ever noticed this narcoleptic heroine phenomenon? Do stories where the power dynamic is reversed and a woman observes a man who's sleeping have the same subtext?

Book Review: FIFTY SHADES OF GREY by E. L. James

This book will teach me to read novels just because they're nominated on a 'best of' list.

Anastasia Steele (that's a mouthful) is a naïve college senior when she meets handsome richy-rich guy Christian Grey. Although he tells her to stay away from him, he keeps following her around. It's all cool, though, because she likes him! Then she discovers he has some Serious Issues that he likes to express via a BDSM lifestyle (it goes way beyond sex), and Anastasia spends the rest of the book hem-hawing over whether or not she wants to sign his insane contract that gives him the right to tell her what to eat, wear, and shave. Will these two crazy kids get together? More pertinently, DO I CARE?!?

I've heard this book described as being either love-it or hate-it, and I have to say I fall firmly into the latter category. At fist it seemed okay... ish. The writing was not great, and was a very awkward combination of first person viewpoint and simple present tense; but it was light and fun and mixed together secretary-billionaire category romance tropes with Twilight, both of which I love. That being said, even though I was entertained, I was a little bothered by the sense of geography--which can be described as shaky at best--and the fact that the American characters talked like extras from a Harry Potter movie. The author is British, and trust me, that and the fact that she has no ear for North American dialect is ABUNDANTLY obvious. Why didn't she just make her characters British? Damn if I know.

So I was already thinking this novel was a little cray-cray, and then the BDSM thing started.

I've read and liked novels with strong BDSM themes, but in those cases the sex felt integrated into the story and made sense for characters. The sex in this book is hot, no doubt, but in a porntastic way, and quite frankly I got bored with it pretty quickly. It has very little to do with the characters, especially Anastasia, who's not even a submissive and has no interest in BDSM at all--I think that's probably the most ridiculous part of this whole thing. I really wanted her to tell billionaire guy to fuck off, but knew she wouldn't because, one, it wouldn't be much of a book if she did; and two, she's a spineless idiot whose actions make no sense.

Plus, if you're thinking of trying this book because it's Twilight fan fiction, I strongly urge you not to do so. The details of the novel may be ripped out of Twilight--it's set in the Pacific Northwest, Anastasia has a flighty mother who's remarried and living in another state, her father is a monosyllabic sports fan, and she has two guys chasing after her (other than Christian): a boy-next-door-type who works with her in a hardware store owned by his family, and the 'ethnic' best friend, José, whose dad is her dad's friend--but those details have absolutely NOTHING to do with the plot, and the tone of this book is not in any way similar. In fact, judging by the amount of lip-biting that goes on, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that James has watched the movies more than she's read the books. Like many other elements of this novel, the Twilight aspect feels like a poorly hacked-on gimmick. It's not an homage to the Twilight series, that's for certain.

I don't know what I find more annoying/insulting about this book--the throw-away Hispanic character, the fact that it could be set in Rio de Janeiro and be the same story, the total lack of attempt on the part of the author to make her AMERICAN characters sound like actual Americans, that it made me want to projectile vomit on several occasions, that finishing it stole away FOUR DAYS of my life that I will never be able to get back, or that the author implies BDSM is good substitute for psychotherapy--but overall it was pretty annoying.

I do not recommend this novel. But if you want to read a book that contains little to no research, poor writing, no attempt at character development, a heroine who falls into every stupid Victorian trope that ever existed, and sex scenes that are little more than porn, then by all means have at it. I would like to thank the publisher for sending me a copy of the book to review, however! That was really nice of them.



Musical Notes: "Marry the Night," by Lady Gaga

Thoughts on NEW MOON by Stephenie Meyer

After seeing Twilight (the movie) on TV, I felt the need to bleach Kristen Stewart's quote-unquote acting from my mind, but I've already read Twilight (the book) three times. So decided to reread New Moon, instead. Bonus: my mom bought me the new edition after I casually mentioned one or six times how incredibly hot Taylor Lautner looked and how I would buy it just for the cover art ALONE! Exclamation mark! Look at him, all muscly and tanned and protecting Bella from the man-with-too-much-eye-make-up-in-the-moon. I think my favorite part of this cover, though, are Jacob's fellow tribesmen looking like they're climbing out of the primordial ooze, protozoic beings not yet evolved into humans. Subtle as always, Hollywood!

To be honest, I never planned on rereading this book, because it's a little hard to take. If any of you have suffered from depression, Bella's reaction to Edward leaving is all too easy to relate to, and I don't think the payoff is that satisfying. There are moments in this novel when it's absolutely impossible not to hate Edward, who not only leaves but takes away Bella's family and the entire future she's dreamed for herself. It takes most of Eclipse for Edward to fully redeem himself for that. Despite that and the fact that it's way too long, however, the novel ends up working. After rereading it, I can see that Meyer put a certain amount of literary ambition into this one.

Once upon a time, there was a young girl who lived at the edge of a great forest...
Like many romances, these books are based on fairy tales. But if Twilight was based on Cinderella--complete with a ball at the end--then New Moon is based on Sleeping Beauty. Bella says several times that she's asleep, and the course of the novel is about her waking up. At first glance, one might assume that Jacob is the prince who wakes her up--but he's not. Bella wakes up before she sees Jacob, when she goes to Port Angeles with Jessica and hallucinates Edward's voice for the first time. "...whether it was the zombies, the adrenaline, or the hallucinations that were responsible--it had woken me up," she says.

That sentence is significant because while Edward is still the fairy tale prince, just as he was in Twilight, he's not the one who saves Bella. She knows she's hallucinating when she sees him and that his voice is only in her own mind. It's actually Bella who wakes herself up--she's the one who decides to buy the motorcycles, she's the one who asks Jacob to fix them, and she's the one establishing the rules of their relationship. She makes the conscious decision to reestablish connections with her friends and family and not go back to the numb sleep-walking state she was in before.

She's also the one who saves the prince at the end of the story, not vice versa. So while New Moon is based on a fairy tale, it also turns the conventions of that fairy tale around. Bella's the hero of her own story, not Jacob or Edward.

Jacob Black: Convenient Plot Device
Speaking of Jacob, you've got to feel for the guy. In Twilight he was a convenient plot device used to clue Bella into the fact that the Cullens were vampires; and in the rest of the series (which, let's face it, is really just the first book re-written with a love triangle and werewolves) he basically serves to help Bella find dangerous things to do, rebel against Edward, and keep Renesme from being eaten by the Pack. But on the plus side, at least he's a convenient plot device with a personality.

I know there are a lot of people who are Team Jacob, especially after New Moon (the movie), which is understandable. But really there was no way he and Bella were ever going to wind up together. I take that back--there might have been a chance if he'd stayed human. But as soon as he turned into a werewolf there wasn't, and I would go further to say that's probably a good thing. As Bella says, "He was not my Jacob," the one she knew before he became a werewolf. The human Jacob had a crush; the werewolf Jacob is closer to obsessed. And Bella only 'needs' him because he keeps the yawning nothingness away, so she's essentially using him. That's not the greatest basis for a relationship.

Past Hope, Past Cure, Past Help
There are a lot of references to Romeo & Juliet in this novel, which I think is quite effective. Not because it feeds into the whole star-crossed lovers thing (since the books have a happy ending that's not very convincing), but because thematically Romeo & Juliet really informs what's going on in this novel.

What was Romeo's and Juliet's major downfall (aside from the fact that they were impatient and overdramatic teenagers with no life experience)? They had no faith in themselves and the people around them, and lost hope that the situation would end favorably. Admittedly, it is pretty difficult to maintain hope when your wife's lying in a coffin, but still. If Romeo had kept his faith in Juliet, then a lot of the things that led to the tragic ending would have been avoided.

Edward and Bella have pretty much the same problem. Edward has very little faith or hope for himself, which is why he leaves at the beginning of the novel. What he does have is destroyed when he hears that Bella killed herself. Bella likewise had little faith that Edward loved her as much as she did him; but it's because Bella allowed her hope to survive--pursued it, in fact, in the form of her hallucinations--that things worked out. During the brief moments when she considers "acting like a grown-up" and being with Jacob, she's really considering giving up hope. It's not Edward that haunts her nightmares but a world without hope.

1 Corinthians 13:13 is one of my favorite quotes ever: "For there are these three things that endure: Faith, Hope and Love; but the greatest of these is Love." Love may be the greatest, but I've always personally believe faith was the most important--because without faith, love can't survive. Meyer seems to be arguing something similar in this book: that hope is the most important, because without hope nothing can endure, not love and certainly not the people who are searching for it.


Although I know there's some controversy regarding Bella's independence, or lack thereof, in New Moon, on the second read I found her to be much stronger than I expected. She fights back against the existential nothingness and chooses to create meaning out of her shell of a life. I would never go so far as to say New Moon is empowering, but I do think the novel makes an argument for the power of faith, hope, love, and never giving up on your dreams, which to me seems a pretty positive message.


Musical notes: "Where is My Mind" by The Pixies

Movie Review: BREAKING DAWN Part 1

Originally Released: 11/18/2011
Starring: Taylor Lautner, Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, also did I mention Taylor Lautner?
Directed by: Bill Condon
Based on: The novel of the same name by Stephenie Meyer

If you go to the theater expecting this movie to be "good," I really don't know what to say to you other than, Have you seen any of the last three movies? Look, there's basically two ways this is going to go: either it's a manflesh fest during which you spend two hours giggling at inappropriate moments, OR it's boring. I'm happy to report I found this movie pretty freaking hilarious. And RPatt and Stewart don't even act as badly as they did in the previous films! WIN.


"Yes, hello, I'm afraid the prognosis is vampire baby."

Let's recap the highlights! Reasons why you should see this movie on as big a screen as you possibly find, maybe even 3-D:

• Taylor Lautner takes his shirt off in the first five seconds. HELLS YES.
• The homoerotic overtones of Edward only 'hunting' men. LOVE IT.
• Virgin hero reference ftw.
  
• I cried three times. Damn you, weddings! *shakes fist*
• Jacob with stubble! *rowl*
  
• Charlie threatening Edward with his gun (I would also like to thank the women I went to see this with for sighing as loudly as they could whenever Charlie appeared on screen. Team Charlie!)
  
• The headboard scene was totally not a metaphor for what I thought it was going to be. Three words: "Ooops." "It's okay."
• The belly rubbing. OH THE BELLY RUBBING.
• This installment of the Twilight ~*Saga*~ brought to you by: Yahoo! And also: Apple, Inc.
• Conversations in wolf MINDSPEAK. Thank god none of them saw a squirrel.
• Drinking blood through a straw, YUM. Totally reached for my Sprite during that one.
  
• Unnecessary artery and bone marrow shots!
  
• Unnecessary and frankly obnoxious use of bokeh!
• BIRTH SCENE! Okay, so it wasn't as gory as I was hoping it would be (why no blood spray, Condon? WHY), but it was still pretty gruesome.
  
• Renesme grows up to be the Anti-Christ and brings about the Apocalypse! Wait, that's the fan fiction I'm writing in my head...
• The Volturi! You can't have a Twilight movie without them! The one on the right is my faaaaavorite.

Now the real question is, what happened in the second half of this book again? Because it seems like they covered 80% of it already, other than Bella yelling at Jacob because he imprinted on her 10-minutes-old baby. I'm guessing there's going to be a lot more of vampires punching wolves in the snout and wolf MINDSPEAK. Also probably more kissing.

The Attraction of the Paranormal in the Modern World

Paranormal normal novels.  You've seen them.  You've read them.  You've tried to ignore the fact that Twilight is taking over the world as well as the consciousness of our youth.  But have you asked yourself why?  Why here, why... now?  Why Pride & Prejudice & Zombies? 

Well, I have a little theory.  I mentioned in my review of The Immortals:  The Crossing that I found the fact that fairies used the internet to be ridiculous.  Even the fae don't need magic anymore; they just google everything!  I was also a little sad when I read The Vampire Diaries:  Nightfall that cell phones had eliminated the need for Bonnie's telepathic abilities--instead of calling someone with her mind, she could have just texted them.  In Slave to Sensation, the Psy are basically hooked up to the mind version of the internet; and in The Lost Symbol, people are raised from the seemingly dead--through simple science.

In other words, as these books demonstrate to some degree, technology is allowing people to have more "abilities" than they ever did before--abilities that could be conceived as preternatural in another context.  I think our increasing realiance on technology is taking an unexpected turn in that it is fueling a parallel fascination with the paranormal.  But is this interest based on a sense of nostalgia, a longing for mystery that we've lost?  Or is it instead built on the anticipation of what is to come, advances in science that we're building towards but have yet to make?

If I had to guess, I'd say the latter.  Do current paranormals give one the feeling of mystery or nostalgia?  Do they make your spine tingle with the fear of what's out there, in the dark and unknown depths of the world?  Unlikely.  For the most part, paranormal novels that I've encounted (particularly UF titles) treat the supernatural as a matter-of-fact part of daily life.  And I wouldn't exactly call Twilight spooky.  In fact, ever since I convinced my mom to read Twilight, she has been obsessed with vampire books.  When I ask her why, she says she wants a vampire to make her live forever.  I suspect she's only half-joking.  And you know there are scientists somewhere working on making the live-forever thing possible.

Sparkly skin.  Eternal youth.  An academy for wizards.  Zombies that want to eat your brain.  Be on the lookout; in this world, fantasy all often becomes what some people want for a reality.  And then, before you know it, it is reality.


Do you love paranormal- and supernatural-themed novels, TV shows, or movies?  What do you think is the basis of their appeal?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Simone Elkeles Author Interview

Simone Elkeles is an YA novelist and the author of Perfect Chemistry, which I read a few months ago and loved.  It's a contemporary twist on the downtown boy/uptown girl love story that feels completely fresh.  Alex (or Alejandro) and Brittany go to Fairfield High School, where the children of wealthy Chicago suburbanites mix with poorer Hispanic kids.  Through a twist of fate, Brittany and Alex are paired together in chemistry class and forced to work together.  Despite their initial anathema, the two quickly discover that chemicals aren't the only thing with chemistry. *wink wink* 



Anyway, really bad puns aside, this book was fun to read, had great characters, was very romantic, and also dealt with a lot of substantive issues like gangs, developmental disorders, and teenagers having sex (*gasp!*).  I can't say enough good things about it, so I thought for my first author interview, it would be great to talk to Simone Elkeles about Perfect Chemistry:

Hiedenkind: 

Thank you so much for taking the time out of your schedule to do an interview with me.  I read Perfect Chemistry in January and it is definitely going on my short list of favorite books of the year. 
 
Perfect Chemistry takes place in a North Chicago suburb, and it says in your bio that Fairfield is loosely based on a suburb near your hometown.  Were the class divides as sharp in your own high school as they are in Fairfield High?

Simone:

First of all, thank you for liking Perfect Chemistry so much!  I loved writing the book and the characters.
 
Unfortunately, my high school did not have a diverse population.  The school that I based Perfect Chemistry off of is Highland Park High School, which was our rival school.  In my opinion the class divides are pretty sharp there.  On one side of town there is a high Hispanic population, and on the other side is people living in mansions on Lake Michigan, but they all go to the same high school.

One of the secondary characters who is really memorable in the book is Mrs. Peterson, the chemistry teacher.  Did you base Mrs. Peterson on yourself?

Mrs. Peterson is partly me...I guess there's a little bit of me in every character I write.  Mrs. Peterson, actually, is a lot of teachers I had growing up...fun, but tough.  A few teachers I had really challenged me to be the best I can be (whether I hated it or not).

Secondly, Alex--he is undoubtedly my favorite character in the book.  He's so well-drawn and totally believable as a macho guy who’s more sensitive than he lets on.  Is it difficult for you to write from the male perspective?
 

Oddly enough, my male characters are so much easier to write than my female characters.  I have no clue why.  I didn't have any brothers growing up, but I was definitely a tomboy and hung out with my guy friends a lot.  My guy friends definitely treated me as "one of the guys" and I learned a lot from them. 

Changing tone a little bit, there are several scenes relating to gangs in the book, because Alex is a gang member.  In the acknowledgements, you thank a police officer for teaching you about gangs and challenging you while you wrote this book.  How did she challenge you?  Did you start writing the book with some assumptions about gangs that turned out not to be true?

The police officer I know worked in a very dangerous gang neighborhood at one point.  She saw horrific events and even got beat up by gang members. In her words, "No way could you convince me a gang member can be a hero of a book."  That challenged me not to take Alex's life or situation lightly.  Even though my book is total fiction, her words made me make Alex not all perfect (he carries a gun and gets in fights, and even collects money for drugs...NOT heroic things) and I definitely didn't want to glamorize gangs.  It's a tough world out there, especially for teens in gangs.  I knew that, but maybe in my first draft I didn't portray it as such.

That's interesting.  I think the gang side of Alex's life is definitely not glamorized, partly because he's so conflicted about what he's doing.  Do you think that's what Alex and Brittany have in common--that they're pulled in two different directions?

I think teens are conflicted and trying to be who their parents want them to be, who their friends want them to be, and who they want to be. I want to show how two totally different teens are actually so similar.

Some questions about writing… first, how much do you know about the characters and plot of your book before you sit down to write it?  Does it come to you as you go along, or is everything pretty much fleshed out in your mind before hand?

When I sit down to write, I have a vague idea what the book is about and then I just start writing. It's exciting because I have no clue what happens before I write it.

Second, I get the sense that you do a lot of research for your novels.  Do you think there’s ever such a thing as too much research?  Is there some sort of line that you wouldn’t cross in the name of research?  I know you went to a jail for one of your earlier books, Leaving Paradise.

I do just enough research for my books that I think I need to make my story seem authentic. I wasn't about to live or hang with gangs, though.

Okay, now for some just-for-fun questions.  You've said several times that you're a fan of the Twilight series.  Are you on Team Edward or Team Jacob?  Have you thought about writing a paranormal novel?

I have to be honest and say I'm a Twilight fan, but I'm not a fan of the entire series.  I loved the forbidden love story in Twilight, but I wasn't a fan of the love triangle aspect to it which pretty much dominated the last three books in the series.  In my eyes, once you know who your true love is, that's it...you'll do anything to be with that person and nobody else should be an option.  That's just me.  So I'm definitely an Edward fan all the way (although if I watch the movie New Moon, I have a feeling I might become a Jacob fan.  I have a feeling that Taylor can change Edward fans into Jacob fans...only time will tell.)
 
I would love to write a paranormal novel, but I'm just not sure I can pull it off.  I might try it one day, but it's not in my near future plans.  I do have a time travel idea I'd like to write.

Okay, one last question.  You've been to Israel several times, and the books of your How to... series are set there.  Do you have any favorite foods or drinks that you like to have when you're there?  Or favorite places you like to visit?

I love the dessert Crembo - it's like a marshmellow with a cookie bottom dipped in a hard chocolate shell.  Since it melted, they only have it in winter in Israel.  My husband and I like it so much, we named our dog Crembo.  People have no clue what we're saying, they think our dog's name is "Crumble" and I tell them, "It's like Creme Brule, but Crem-bo" instead.    
 
You can't beat the pita in Israel...it's chewy and has just the right fluffiness (I made up that word).  And if you ever go to a falafel stand, they shove these specialty salads (not lettuce...other types of veggie salads) in the pita along with the falafel, and it's amazing!  I have to say their spaghetti is really weird - it has a hole in the middle like a straw.  Not my fave. 
 
I love to visit the Golan Heights, and Masada, and the Dead Sea.  I haven't been to Jerusalem in a while, but I remember being awed by the history at the Wailing (Western) Wall the last time I was there.

Thank you again so much for taking the time for this interview, Simone.  It was great for me to ask you questions about Perfect Chemistry.  Is there anything you want to add about your current or upcoming projects?

I just want my fans to know that the sequel to Perfect Chemistry will be coming out spring, 2010. It will be about Carlos - Alex's brother.  And I'm excited for How to Ruin Your Boyfriend's Reputation to come out in November.  I love hearing from fans, so if you like any one of my books email me off my website at www.simoneelkeles.com.
 
Thanks so much!

Thank you, Simone, for going out of your way to do an interview with me!  Check out the promotional video from Perfect Chemistry and keep an eye out for Simone's next book.

Check out Perfect Chemistry at Amazon

Check out Leaving Paradise at Amazon

Look at How to Ruin a Summer Vacation on Amazon

How to Ruin My Teenage Life on Amazon

Simone's next release, How to Ruin Your Boyfriend's Reputation, on Amazon

Powered by ScribeFire.

Vampires without a Bite

Shop Indie Bookstores

I just finished reading Secret Life of a Vampire, which my mom loaned me.  And by finished I mean, I decided I wasn't going to read any more of it. 

This book started off promising, if light-hearted, with the "dashing" vampire Jack Casanova (he's the son of the legendary lover-turned-author, Giacomo Casanova--why not just make him Casanova?) meeting the beat cop Lara Boucher after a wild bachelor party.  Sparks fly, who knows why.  Lara knows Jack isn't normal, since strange things happen when he's around.  But she can't figure out what he is.

Now, one of the things that drives me absolutely crazy in books is when the main character can't figure out something that we as readers already know.  That's something I really appreciated about Twilight--at least Bella figured out Edward was a vampire as quickly as she possibly could have.  But something that drives me even more crazy, and which is what stopped me from continuing this book, is when the vampire characters are absolutely, positively non-threatening.  I mean, no wonder Lara has no clue Jack is a vampire!

Note to authors:  vampires are supposed to be dangerous.  That is the entire POINT of vampires.  I'm not saying they can't be tortured or sensitive or guilt-ridden, but the whole drinking blood and lust thing is kind of essential to the genre.  Sparks' vampires make Edward Cullen look like The Predator.  They don't even drink real blood, they drink synthetic blood--and this blood is flavored to imitate human food like Blisskey (whiskey) and Bubbly Blood (champagne).  They don't want to hurt da humanz because they're too nice to want to harm anyone.  In fact, everyone in Sparks' books is just so nice.  So there's a situation wrought with drama. 

This isn't just isolated to Sparks' books; there appears to be a whole movement of books with vampires who are de-fanged.  Why why why?  Is this, like, some sort of desexualization of human beings or something??  Because apparently the dirty secret of a vampire is that he doesn't want to suck your blood.

/rant

Powered by ScribeFire.

Twilight

Well, I finally saw it. I know you're happy for me.



I love this series (in book format) because of the characters. So I was pretty excited about the movie. Overall it was... okay. Kind of at the same level as Highlander for me. Not that I dislike Highlander. (I won't say how many times I've seen it, as that might discredit what little authority I have, but let's just say it's been more than once. Voluntarily.) But like Highlander, I think Twilight could have been a lot better.

In case you've been living in a cave and have no idea what I'm talking about, Highlander is about a group of immortals who cut one another's heads off and have an orgasmic-like "Quickening" in which they absorb the other immortal's power. Oh, you wanted to know about Twilight... that's about a shy human girl who falls in love with a vampire and I can't believe you didn't know that.

So the movie was pretty hilarious. I'm actually kind of bummed it was such a success, because this is exactly the kind of thing I'd enjoy torturing people with by recommending. ;) Kristen Stewart has "teenage angst" down to a science, I'll give her that. None of the teenagers look like actual teenagers, the special effects are terrible, and it's way too long.

But none of that really bothered me too much. What did really bother me was Robert Pattinson, aka Edward. He is not how I imagined Edward at all. Creepy stalker much? Lordy lordy who thought it was a good idea to cast him in this role? Actually, he reminded me of James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause--he would have been great in that movie! This one, not so much.

Uhg, seriously, what is up with that guy? Okay, message to RPatt: I know that for some guys (if you're a total pussy), playing Edward as he's supposed to be (re: a gentleman--you know what that is, right? RIGHT?) might be seen as a threat to one's masculine integrity. But if that's the case, the least you can do is play him with some dignity instead of going for the total creepazoid factor.

On to the special effects--HORRIBLE. I was so disappointed with Edward's sparkliness; it just looked like he was covered in sweat. I was really looking forward to the sparkly skin, too. And the running through the forest made me lawl.



And I think this is the perfect example of what is wrong with this movie (besides weirdo RPatt): the running through the trees was kind of cheesy even in the book, so why in the name of his holy Edwardness would you put it in your movie, especially when you clearly don't have the budget to do it anyway? Why not take all the good things from the book, throw out the not-so-great things, and then throw some imagination into the mix? There is a total lack of imagination in this movie. I mean, the vampires don't even have fangs. I want my vampires to have fangs, dammit! You followed ye olde rule of bad vampires dressing in ridiculously flamboyant outfits (that's where the term "vamp" comes from, fyi... not really), so why not the fangs?? Hmm? Why. Not. the Fangs.

So the movie was okay. I think I might need to watch it again, actually. Maybe it's better the second time around...? I'm glad I saw it, anyway.

Powered by ScribeFire.