What I've Been Up To (Basically Books and More Books)

I think it says something about myself that I tried to save the background picture for my header and got this:

So anyway, my internet hiatus gave me a lot more time to read, and made me rediscover how much I love reading. One of the best feelings in the world is reading the last sentence of a book and finding it so beautiful that you just sort of stroke the page and then hug the book to your chest and read the last line over and over again.

Plus I lucked out on thought-provoking, strongly written books in the past two months or so. Here are some brief reviews--think of them as book popcorn. Being thrown at you. Through a computer screen. I've always had trouble with analogies.

***

The Unwind Dystology

Neal Shusterman

Neal Shusterman is now one of my favorite authors, thanks to Aimee at To the Barricade, whose rave reviews got me hooked.

His character development is impeccable, his plotting is twisty but makes sense, and his prose is slick without trying too hard to be YA-ish. He's especially good at describing things in a way that reminds me of those "relatable posts" on Pinterest--he comes up with the best little details. For example:

Roland glares at Connor and Connor glares back. Then he says what he always says at moments like this.
"Nice socks."
Although Roland doesn't look down right away, it derails him just enough for him to back off. He doesn't check to see if his socks match until he thinks Connor isn't looking. And the moment he does, Connor snickers. Small victories are bet­ter than none.

^^I tried it (as a joke). It works.

Anyway, the plot of the Unwind Dystology is that there was a full-out war between the pro-life and pro-choice groups, and the terrible compromise they made was to only permit "retroactive abortions," which meant basically killing teenagers to solve the problems of teen crime and population growth. The main characters are teenagers living in the aftermath of this legislation and trying to stay alive, and maybe change the world while they're at it.

Yes, it's a disturbing plot. But this series made me think more than any other series I've read, and Mom and I still find ourselves discussing the moral issues and character development a month later. Plus it's pro-life in the long run.

Content: PG-13. (Detailed violence, language, suggestive content, and adult themes, all handled with teens in mind.)

The Schwa Was Here
Neal Shusterman

You knew I wasn't done with Shusterman, didn't you?

This one's in first-person, narrated by an easily distracted teenage boy in New York. It cracked me up and, unexpectedly, made me cry. The symbolism is great, and it kind of reminded me of The Great Gatsby.

It's too weird to explain properly. Just read it.

Content: PG (mild language and a few crude comments)

Bruiser

Neal Shusterman

Yep, still not done with this guy. Let's just say this is by Neal Shusterman so it's good, although it's basically a darker version of The Schwa Was Here.

Content: PG-13 (Intense domestic violence, some language, and the occasional crude comment)

The Name of the Wind

Patrick Rothfuss

Also entitled, "A Huge Disappointment but Not Quite a Waste of Time...?"

I LOVED this book. I'm not sure whether I should have, but I did.

It had all the necessities: complex characters, a very sweet friendzone, a dark and brooding protagonist, dragons, a scientifically described magic system, and humor. And a GORGEOUS writing style. Probably the prettiest writing style I have ever read (besides Tolkien's, of course).

Check this out:

“Go out in the early days of winter, after the first cold snap of the season. Find a pool of water with a sheet of ice across the top, still fresh and new and clear as glass. Near the shore the ice will hold you. Slide out farther. Farther. Eventually you'll find the place where the surface just barely bears your weight. There you will feel what I felt. The ice splinters under your feet. Look down and you can see the white cracks darting through the ice like mad, elaborate spiderwebs. It is perfectly silent, but you can feel the sudden sharp vibrations through the bottoms of your feet.
That is what happened when Denna smiled at me.” 


So, you ask, why did I just call this gorgeous book a huge disappointment?

Because of its STUPID SEQUEL. See, the thing about this series (which I believe is projected to be a trilogy) is that it starts out with the main character as a disillusioned middle-aged innkeeper who is "waiting to die." Then it has a massive fast-backward to the MC as a kid, and goes from there to describe how he massively messed up his life.

It sounds depressing. And it is. And it sounds like the suspense would be ruined because you already know what happens to him, but it's not. It's just that instead of wondering what will happen, you wonder how it will happen. Also the writing style is so gorgeous that it's hard to stop reading anyway.

Anyway, the problem with the second book, which I'm not even putting on this list because I stopped reading it, is that it takes the main character's flaws too far, and in an explicit direction that was demeaning to women. That put me off the story enough to put it down even though it was so, so good.

In conclusion, it hurts to say this, but DON'T READ THIS BOOK. You will just be disappointed because the second one is so immoral and lame. But The Name of the Wind will nevertheless go down as one of my favorite fantasy books of all time.

Content: PG-13...? (Violence, the occasional bit of explicit language, and a lot of suggestive stuff that would probably push the PG-13 rating. Mostly because the main characters are immature teenage boys.)

***

Ta-da! Lots of intensity. I think I literally cried over every one of those books, so yeah, you should read them too.  ;P

I will leave you with a highly satisfying gif:

Have you read a particularly awesome or affecting book in the last month or two? And if you've read any of the ones I've just reviewed, what's your opinion?

The Fault in Our Stars Review (Spoiler-Free)

This book is depressing.

Not the vague sort of depressing that makes you shrug and forget about it later, but the kind of depressing that makes you cry so often that towards the end of the book you stop noticing the tears rolling down your face.

Then again, I'm a teenage girl who read it straight through from 10 pm to 1:30 am, so I suppose crying is to be expected.

This book is just so...ugh, I can't figure out how to describe it. The first thing that comes to mind is it's really, really good. The second thing that comes to mind is it's really, really depressing.

I'll start with the really, really good aspect. Let's use headings for this bit. Headings are cool.

***

Why The Fault in Our Stars is Really, Really Good

1. Writing style

There was something on almost every page that gave me chills. John Green puts ordinary things in such delicious ways. For example: 

"I cut a glance to him, and his eyes were still on me. It occurred to me why they call it eye contact."

"His every syllable flirted." 

"I enjoy looking at beautiful people, and I decided a while ago not to deny myself the simpler pleasures of existence."

"Kaitlyn never wore open-toed shoes on account of how she hated her feet because she felt her second toes were too long, as if the second toe was a window into the soul or something."

"You could hear the wind in the leaves, and on that wind traveled the screams of the kids on the playground in the distance, the little kids figuring out how to be alive, how to navigate a world that was not built for them by navigating a playground that was."

"I fell in love the way you fall asleep: slowly, and then all at once."

2. Point of View

I suppose this could fall under writing style, but it deserves a section to itself. Green chose a first person POV, and as an aspiring writer I was amazed (and a little jealous) at how well he included Hazel's thoughts and opinions so I forgot I was reading a book and became immersed in Hazel's experiences. (All of the above quotes are from Hazel's narration, except for the "beautiful people" one, which is a piece of dialogue.)

Also, Hazel's sarcastic narration made me laugh out loud. A lot. *ignores the fact that I was sleep-deprived while reading it*

3. Questions

Yes, this book is technically a romance, but it seems that the main point of it is to examine the "problem of pain," as C.S. Lewis put it. It's basically a bunch of existential crises strung together, as the main characters deal with the excruciating pain, humiliation, and death that arise from terminal illness. 

It examines questions such as "Why are we here?", "Is life worth it?", and "What happens after death?". But what's cool about it is it examines these questions from the point of view of modern teenagers. This made it relatable and it revealed to my sheltered self what a lot of modern non-religious youth are struggling with.

If that doesn't sound fun to read, then this book is not for you. 

***

Why The Fault in Our Stars Is Really, Really Depressing

1. Answers

In this story there are a lot of questions, but there are no answers. Hazel shoots down all the usual explanations of pain, questioning God's existence and denying typical expressions about pain having some sort of point such as showing us the joy of life. 

That's the main reason that I'm still feeling down after finishing this book: a lot of people probably think like Hazel. And it makes me sad that people live with such a nihilistic view of life: that we're just random conglomerations of atoms and the best thing we can do is "notice the universe." 

It's like a Douglas Adams book, but without the humor. 

2. Cancer

I've never been close to anyone suffering from cancer, so before I read this book I didn't realize how much suffering cancer patients go through. Green goes into excruciating detail with the treatments and the humiliation that the main characters have to deal with. It would be okay if it was a fantasy story but it's just really sad to read about this stuff knowing that all of it is real and that people have to endure that kind of suffering now. 

It puts my own little struggles into perspective.

3. I can't think of a third one. So there you go. 

***

Content Warning

There's a sex scene in the middle that I had heard about from other people and I could see it coming so I just skipped it. It's immoral and completely unnecessary to the plot. I'm disappointed that Green included that. The romance would have been much better without that stuff.

Also, there's pervasive language. Only one instance of "strong" language, which is sort of understandable because it's at a really heart wrenching moment. But still, that is also unnecessary and limits the accessibility of the book to those who are willing to wade through the crude language. There are a couple suggestive comments too.

***

In conclusion, would I recommend this book? With the content warning and the depressing factor in mind, probably not. It's a hard decision to make though because it's so well-written and there are so many beautiful moments in it and a genuinely stunning passage about true love. 

Am I glad I read it? I learned a lot from it, some of which I listed in my review and some of which I didn't. So yes, I think I am glad.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go read some C.S. Lewis to cheer myself up.

Have you read The Fault in Our Stars? If so, what did you think? Do you have a favorite Young Adult book (if you dare to wade into the genre at all)?

Moana Review

Maybe I'm biased because I haven't watched many movies lately, but I think Moana is right up there with Meet The Robinsons and The Emperor's New Groove when it comes to freshness and emotional clout.

It definitely isn't the best or most original Disney movie ever made, it's just refreshing to see something with a different setting and plot than usual.

The Story: Moana, destined to be the chief of her island tribe, joins the arrogant demigod Maui on a quest to save the world. They are accompanied by a chicken.

Good or Bad: The story was compelling, and I actually cried towards the beginning (hehe yes, animated movies definitely get to me) which is unusual for me at that stage of a film. So it definitely packs emotional punch, and through the whole story I found myself rooting for Moana and even the annoying Maui. 

The main thing that I liked about the movie was that it just felt different from the other 3D animated Disney movies--Frozen, for example. It's set in a tropical environment, and the main characters aren't the usual unrealistically skinny Disney characters. There's no love interest. The animal sidekicks are occasionally viewed as food. The plot is a quest story rather than a character-driven drama. 

And the animation was amazing. I noticed it especially when water was dripping off of Moana's skin.

It was amazingly realistic and it made me wonder how long it took to create just one scene like that, much less a whole movie.

There are some hilarious lines and genuinely funny slapstick humor sprinkled through the movie, which made it a lot of fun to watch. Also, Moana's parents are alive--what a shock!

Finally, the music. Lin-Manuel Miranda cowrote the music.

I'll say that again: Lin-Manuel Miranda, the same guy who wrote Hamilton, the musical that I've been referencing in pretty much every blog post and conversation, cowrote. That's the main reason that I wanted to see this movie, honestly.

Needless to say, the music was fantastic. At first I had trouble not comparing it to Hamilton's music, but now that I'm listening to it on Spotify I really like it. There are several full-out musical numbers, the best being "Where You Are" and "You're Welcome."Hamilton. 

For those who like going into detail about such things, the music plays with unusual chord changes, which are some of the things I really like about Hamilton's music. The major songs drop occasionally to minor chords, which adds tension so it doesn't all sound like Muppets music. I'm sure that happens in other Disney music too, but I noticed it particularly in this film.

Definitely on my list of favorite celebrities

 Dad and I are so into Hamilton right now that when we heard Lin-Manuel's voice come in on one of the songs, we looked at each other in the light of the movie screen and grinned. Good times.




Favorite lines:

"If you wear a dress and have an animal sidekick, you're a princess."

"I'm his mom. I don't have to tell him anything."

"Boat snack!"

If you've seen Moana, what did you think of it? Which Disney movie is your favorite?

The Little Prince Review

Ahh, The Little Prince. I must admit that I read this book for a discussion a couple years ago and I didn't like it; I thought it was just weird. I've never liked the kind of story that's just bizarre with no apparent point to it *cough* Alice in Wonderland *cough*, but when I watched the new movie adaptation a few weeks ago I realized that maybe there is a point to this wacky little story.

As G.K. Chesterton writes,

I wonder if he tried to do anything
with his hair in the mornings.

The Arts exist...to show forth the glory of God; or, to translate the same thing in terms of our psychology, to awaken and keep alive the sense of wonder in man. The success of any work of art is achieved when we say of any subject, a tree or a cloud or a human character, 'I have seen that a thousand times and I never saw it before.' 

(For you grammarians out there, I used single quotation marks just for GKC. He was British.  :D)




So how does this relate to The Little Prince? Well, first of all I should warn you that this won't be a comprehensive review. I'll be talking about a few little things that stuck out to me, rather than about the overall writing--or screenwriting--of the book and movie.

Actually, I might just end up quoting stuff from it because it's hard to express the points made in this book without using the original words. (Well, it was originally written in French, but you know what I mean.)

Well, I must endure the presence of a few caterpillars if I wish to become acquainted with the butterflies. 

 Grown-ups love figures... When you tell them you've made a new friend they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you "What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies? " Instead they demand "How old is he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make? " Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him.

I could keep copying quotes from Goodreads all day, but if this is the kind of story that's for you, perhaps those excerpts piqued your interest. It seems that the main conflict in the story is between adulthood and childhood--not an issue of age, but an issue of looking at the world. The book (and the film, which is beautifully done too), are steeped in a childlike wonder. The author gives you a new way of looking, at hats, at snakes, at wells, and most of all, at stars. 

G.K. Chesterton would be proud.

Saint-Exupéry looking epic

Plus, check out this the author's bio! According to the back flap of the book, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry was a pilot for France in the early 1900s. "A year after the book's publication in 1943, Saint-Exupéry disappeared over the Mediterranean while flying a reconnaissance mission for his French air squadron."

Isn't that intriguing? Now you have to read it.  ;)  And the movie's on Netflix, so if you have it there is no excuse! 

If you feel like commenting, your turn! What do you think of the Little Prince, if you're familiar with it? What do you think about Alice in Wonderland, or the "nonsense story" genre in general? It's okay if you like that sort of thing. I will restrain my indignation. ;)

Pete's Dragon (2016) Review

Okay, it's been about a week since I saw this movie so it's not exactly fresh in my memory...I'm actually way more excited about another movie that just arrived on my radar (The Little Prince, 2016 version...review coming up), so we'll see how focused this review is.

The story: Pete is left alone as a small child in the forest after a car crash and he befriends a dragon named Elliot, who is the victim of townspeople' prejudice. If you've seen the classic 1977 movie, yep, that's the plot.

Good or bad? 

*clicks fingers at my amateur-film-critic-minions* Bring in the Black Mambaaaaaaaaaaa!

Bad! This movie was bad.

Muahahaha, that's so satisfying to say! I love having a strong negative opinion on things because usually I really like them or I'm sort of indifferent, but this was just an awful movie. It was failed to keep my interest, so much so that I actually started wondering, "When is this going to end?", which is a rare experience for me.  

I'll talk about the good stuff first, though. The good thing was that it had Bones in it *swoons*
Those who aren't familiar with that character in the new Star Trek movies will know him as the bad guy in Red or as...I dunno, some guy. He's not super handsome or anything but I love his acting for some reason. And I like the shape of his face. (It's a thing. Some face shapes are just nice to look at.)

The sass!

Anyway, he does a great job with the limited reactionary, greedy part that the moviemakers gave him. He does not, however, come close to the wonderful hokeyness of the villain from the '70s version:

Why don't they make musicals like this anymore? These lyrics are fantastic.   xD

So yes, the main perk of this movie is that Bones was in it. The flying scenes and the forest were gorgeous, though. And Lindsey Stirling and the Lumineers were in the soundtrack, the awesomeness of which cannot be ignored. Also, the first scene was beautiful. So don't get me wrong, I did like some things about this film.

Ya ready for the bad stuff yet? Here we go: 

I grew up with the old version, so I'm definitely biased, but objectively I really don't think this movie was very good. The plot was thin--even thinner than the '70s plot, which is hard to believe. They actually cut out that wonderful side plot with the main woman, Nora, waiting for her fiancé. ("I'l be your candle on the water. My love for you will always burn...") They also cut out the side plot with her bar-frequenting father, which is understandable but disappointing.

In addition there is very little character development, which was perhaps the main thing that made this movie seem lacking. I love seeing characters grow and change, and I have trouble caring about a story if it's not character-driven. Pete is the same throughout, as with the other wooden child actor and the adults who all act either concerned, terrified, or angry.

The old movie, in my opinion, was good because it covered these character and plot problems with awesome songs. Seriously, who can beat the lyrics of songs like "Passamaquoddy"?

The songs reflected the soul of the '70s version, too: lighthearted, not trying to be anything more than a cheesy family movie. Case in point:

I love this version of Elliot.  :)

The 2016 remake changed the feel of the movie to that of a depressing slice-of-life drama, which made it drag and exaggerated the thin plot and acting. I left the theater feeling down, which defeats the purpose of watching a movie in my opinion. I think even the saddest movies are feel-good, if they're any good, because they have some sort of redemptive message. The only message I got out of this was that certain fixtures of the environment can be saved (such as dragons). 

It could have used more jingle-jangle sound. (Oh yeeeeeaaaaaah!)

Mr. Holmes Review

Ok, you got me. I'm writing this review just so I can cover my blog with pictures of this movie's gorgeous scenery and costumery. That said, I'll still give you my opinion.  ;)

The story: An aging Sherlock Holmes seeks to unravel a mystery in his past while he struggles with the fear of death and loneliness.

Good or bad? Really good. The gem of this film is the acting. If you thought Ian McKellan was good in LoTR, you should watch this movie because he blows his Gandalf performance out of the water.

And isn't this makeup amazing?

The other actors (basically only three other main characters), are all marvelous too.

Also, the dialogue was brilliant:

"There seems to be an outbreak of mortality."

"When you're a detective, and a man comes to see you, it's usually about his wife."

And the plot was unpredictable (at least for me as a relatively inexperienced film connoisseur). I can't recall a time that I knew where the story was going, so that made it interesting and more realistic.

Speaking of realism, Mr. Holmes doesn't brush Sherlock's "high-functioning sociopath"ness to the side; rather, it examines it.

I like this because the BBC show (the only Sherlock adaptation I've seen--sorry) seems to mainly make light of the detective's antisocial tendencies rather than to address them. (I've only seen 3 episodes, though, so if any Sherlockians are reading feel free to correct me). There are some times when this problem is addressed, but it is all too easy to brush it off because…well…he's Benedict Cumberbatch! His sociopathness is kind of eaten up in his youthful spirit and his ridiculously amazing acting abilities and his gorgeous voice and...and this gif, and...

I'm getting a bit distracted.

The point is that this film, focusing on an older, more broken Sherlock, puts a more tragic light on his social difficulties--a view of him that I think is much more realistic and much easier to identify with.

I highly recommend that you watch it, and I'd love to hear your opinion!

Whoops, wrong Mr. Holmes. How silly of me.     ;)