I finished the Hunger Games trilogy yesterday and felt out of sorts for the rest of the evening. I'd read Mockingjay until 3am the night before, and then finished it throughout the day yesterday. It's like when I read Order of the Phoenix in less than 24 hours, and spent the entirety of the next day thinking about Hogwarts. I finished Mockingjay at 8pm and didn't know what to do with myself. How do you deal with the fallout of something like that? I should have just gone for a walk or something, but I wanted to get out of my head. So I went to the grocery store. I worked out. I tried to watch a movie while I ate dinner, but everything felt so trite. I ended up watching an episode of Buffy; not because it was more substantial, but because I'd seen it before and the mood was right. I was worried I'd still be in Mockingjay land today. Thankfully, I woke up without thinking about it. So now I can try to sort my thoughts...
After finishing the series, I feel like I did upon completing The Dark Tower series (by Stephen King). I feel a little down, a little despairing, and a little homesick. That last part, the homesickness, comes from missing the characters who have become so whole and real and familiar. I still think about The Dark Tower characters all the time. They had 7 books to grow on me, though, while The Hunger Games people only had 3. Still, they were vivid and capable of making a huge impact. I was told that Mockingjay was somewhat disappointing, simply because it was anticlimactic. I'm not sure I'd say that. I think it was disappointing because it wasn't remotely hopeful. I'm not sure, though, that I'd say it was hopeless. Rather, it's very realistic. It paints a picture of people who go through a war and come out changed. As a reader--and their biggest fan--you want them all to come out changed for the better. Suzanne Collins avoids that, though, sticking to the truth that not all change--even positive change--is completely beneficial. I thought Mockingjay did an excellent job of showing the psychological wounds as well as the physical wounds that would be inflicted during a civil war. I imagine that the hard part for readers is watching as the fierce, strong characters from book 1 begin to fall apart. I don't think it's spoiling the series to say that anyone surviving The Hunger Games will have nightmares, trust issues, and an entirely different life than they did before The Games. Fans wouldn't enjoy seeing Harry Potter fall apart halfway through the series. However, Harry had a bigger support system than Katniss. And Harry had more shared experiences than Katniss did. Very few people could understand what Katniss had been through or was feeling. I imagine older readers forgiving Suzanne Collins for Katniss' storyline better than younger readers. But I don't think that's the case.
I told a friend that I'd just finished The Hunger Games trilogy and was not in the mood to go out last night. She said, "Oh no! I was just about to start those books! Are they going to suck me in? I thought they'd be a fun, easy read." I told her that they would probably suck her in, although she might avoid that better than I did. But, no, they're not a fun, easy read. Easy, yes, in the sense that The Giver is an easy read: the words aren't difficult, the writing flows well, and getting through the pages isn't a lot of work. But it takes more brain power than anticipated. The Hunger Games is "fun" the way The Giver is, as well. The way any dystopia read is fun. You've thought, you've enjoyed the characters, you've grown, you've learned, and you've imagined. But now there's a little weight on your chest that wasn't there before, and you aren't quite sure how to shake it. It's a shame that any popular series for young readers gets touted as "The Next Harry Potter!" Twilight was nothing like Harry Potter, and neither is The Hunger Games. Harry gives hope for a better world. I'm still not exactly sure what The Hunger Games gave me.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Dystopia
I finally got around to reading The Hunger Games (by Suzanne Collins). I added it to my list months ago after hearing so many rave reviews. I realized it was coming out as a movie, and knew I'd need to read it before then. However, the more popular a book becomes, the less inclined I am to read it. I'm either disappointed because the title came with so much hype, or I'm disgusted by the fact that so many people enjoyed this book/this type of story. The latter is what happened when I read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. I finished it during my two-day drive to Hollins University (I was obviously the passenger and not the driver). I kept wanting to edit the book as I read it, and I felt bored by the magic and the characters. I love children's books and often think they're well-suited for adult readers; however, this was a title I felt should be solely for children. The writing was obviously for 9-12 year olds, and I couldn't understand why grown-ups would be so drawn to it. Hadn't they ever read such amazing books as Lord of the Rings? Or even The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe? I felt let down by JK Rowling and her fans. Of course, I changed my tune after watching the second movie and reading the third book. The characters became compelling and the plot more interesting, and details of the story got layered. It was obvious bigger things were to come, and it was obvious that Rowling had a ton of back story. I joined the bandwagon. The Time Traveler's Wife is another instance where I happily followed the crowd. I'd put it off for awhile because it was popular and a national book club pick. I was afraid it would be like picking up Nicholas Sparks (who makes me so disappointed in the state of literature today). But I was shocked by the level of writing and the rich characters and the storyline in general. Needless to say, I reached this same conclusion after finishing The Hunger Games.
I liken this story to Steven King's Dark Tower series, though only because they produced similar reactions in my brain. I'm fully drawn into the plot, am not distracted by any bad writing, and find the characters intriguing. And yet, I can't understand why I like it. I'd never tell anyone the Dark Tower series is "good" because it makes me feel so depressed. It's not poetic like Jeneatte Winterson's books. It's not beautiful like The Time Traveler's Wife. It's not hopeful like Narnia. It's not creative in the same way as Harry Potter. Steven King creates a dark, depressing future filled with dark and depressing things. It's creative, but in a way that makes me wonder, "Why would anyone think these things up? And why would they want to share them?" After all, only Steven King would describe a branch brushing your shoulder to the feeling of a skeleton's hand on your skin... All I can say about The Hunger Games is that it's compelling. Once you begin, you have to know how it ends. I believed I knew the ending from the time I started. Turns out, I did and I didn't. I got the ending, but there was a twist. Not 12 hours after finishing the book, I've already begun the sequel.
I'm happy there's a book with a female lead that's become so popular among different genders and ages. That's a rare feat. I'm also happy there's a violent storyline without a lot of gore (which seems impossible). I'm glad there's a popular and compelling plotline that isn't completely good versus evil.
And I wonder what it is that makes dystopic fiction so popular. Why do we enjoy reading (and watching) stories that involve barren, depressing futures? Usually, though, we follow a protagonist who changes, beats, or at least fights the system. It provides a kind of hope, I guess, when we feel that our own world is pretty dark (and seemingly getting darker). We can believe that if things get worse, someone will come along and fix it. There are many dystopic books I dislike. Maybe these are too realistic, too detailed, or too depressing. Farenheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and A Brave New World are three that come to mind. I don't know that Cat's Cradle counts, but I didn't like that one either. Actually, the dystopic literature I feel okay about seem to be young adult books. Maybe this is because they're a little more hopeful and a little less detailed. Not that things get glossed over, but they don't get so well-described. The Giver is a book that I sometimes recommend and sometimes don't. I go both ways on that book. I recently read Unwind, which I think counts and I thoroughly enjoyed. And I feel comfortable recommending The Hunger Games. Maybe it's easier for teenagers to see the world--and the future--as bleak. They're less weathered and therefore less accepting of "the way things are." I realize most YA books are actually written by adults; but I think these are adults with a great teenage viewpoint. An adult dystopic book I would recommend is The Handmaid's Tale. I can only assume I liked it because it was written from the viewpoint of a woman, and it is easily a women's study type of book as well as a dystopia. I can't think of any dystopia movies I particulary enjoyed, either. AI and Gattaca made me feel...icky...afterwards. Why watch that when you can watch something else? A friend let me borrow Battle Royale (the book), and I keep putting it off. I assume I'm going to dislike it, though not for the first reasons I listed here. Rather, it's my distaste for dystopia. I love escaping into books, but that's to get away from depressing topics.
Anyway. Long story short...
I recommend The Hunger Games to pretty much anyone. Reluctant readers especially, since this book seems to suck in anyone and everyone. Read it with a cinnamon roll, then coffee, then a sandwich, then an herbal tea. This book will last you all day, but only one day.
I liken this story to Steven King's Dark Tower series, though only because they produced similar reactions in my brain. I'm fully drawn into the plot, am not distracted by any bad writing, and find the characters intriguing. And yet, I can't understand why I like it. I'd never tell anyone the Dark Tower series is "good" because it makes me feel so depressed. It's not poetic like Jeneatte Winterson's books. It's not beautiful like The Time Traveler's Wife. It's not hopeful like Narnia. It's not creative in the same way as Harry Potter. Steven King creates a dark, depressing future filled with dark and depressing things. It's creative, but in a way that makes me wonder, "Why would anyone think these things up? And why would they want to share them?" After all, only Steven King would describe a branch brushing your shoulder to the feeling of a skeleton's hand on your skin... All I can say about The Hunger Games is that it's compelling. Once you begin, you have to know how it ends. I believed I knew the ending from the time I started. Turns out, I did and I didn't. I got the ending, but there was a twist. Not 12 hours after finishing the book, I've already begun the sequel.
I'm happy there's a book with a female lead that's become so popular among different genders and ages. That's a rare feat. I'm also happy there's a violent storyline without a lot of gore (which seems impossible). I'm glad there's a popular and compelling plotline that isn't completely good versus evil.
And I wonder what it is that makes dystopic fiction so popular. Why do we enjoy reading (and watching) stories that involve barren, depressing futures? Usually, though, we follow a protagonist who changes, beats, or at least fights the system. It provides a kind of hope, I guess, when we feel that our own world is pretty dark (and seemingly getting darker). We can believe that if things get worse, someone will come along and fix it. There are many dystopic books I dislike. Maybe these are too realistic, too detailed, or too depressing. Farenheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and A Brave New World are three that come to mind. I don't know that Cat's Cradle counts, but I didn't like that one either. Actually, the dystopic literature I feel okay about seem to be young adult books. Maybe this is because they're a little more hopeful and a little less detailed. Not that things get glossed over, but they don't get so well-described. The Giver is a book that I sometimes recommend and sometimes don't. I go both ways on that book. I recently read Unwind, which I think counts and I thoroughly enjoyed. And I feel comfortable recommending The Hunger Games. Maybe it's easier for teenagers to see the world--and the future--as bleak. They're less weathered and therefore less accepting of "the way things are." I realize most YA books are actually written by adults; but I think these are adults with a great teenage viewpoint. An adult dystopic book I would recommend is The Handmaid's Tale. I can only assume I liked it because it was written from the viewpoint of a woman, and it is easily a women's study type of book as well as a dystopia. I can't think of any dystopia movies I particulary enjoyed, either. AI and Gattaca made me feel...icky...afterwards. Why watch that when you can watch something else? A friend let me borrow Battle Royale (the book), and I keep putting it off. I assume I'm going to dislike it, though not for the first reasons I listed here. Rather, it's my distaste for dystopia. I love escaping into books, but that's to get away from depressing topics.
Anyway. Long story short...
I recommend The Hunger Games to pretty much anyone. Reluctant readers especially, since this book seems to suck in anyone and everyone. Read it with a cinnamon roll, then coffee, then a sandwich, then an herbal tea. This book will last you all day, but only one day.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Garden Spells
I started Garden Spells (by Sarah Addison Allen). It's a complete 180 from Scorpia, and a completely different type of book than I usually read. I'm leading my first book club this summer, and I felt like I should use something kind of breezy, light, and fast to read. The group is full of women, too, so I wanted something with female leads. I think as the book club progresses, I'll always pick "themes." I decided on a food theme this time so that our first meeting will also include a potluck. In my experience, sharing food makes everything more comfortable (and more fun). It also gives people something to be proud of if they aren't necessarily "skilled" readers.
Garden Spells tells the story of two sisters, Claire and Sydney, who are sharing a home for the first time in ten years. Through various changes in their present lives, and experiences in their past, they're learning how to live with each other and themselves. Of course, you have to throw in drama like gay relationships, domestic violence, sexual intrigue, and single parenthood. Add a dash of Southern culture and a sprinking of romance, and you've got Garden Spells. Oh, and Claire and Sydney have slightly magical gifts: Sydney can change people and read people through their hairstyles, and Claire has the power to influence mood through cooking with flowers from her garden. They're strange magic indeed, but it keeps my fantasy-loving self amused.
Claire's time in the kitchen has made me eager to cook (and eat) as well. Garden Spells is filled with recipes for savory and sweet dishes, but it's the desserts that make my mouth water. I've read the novel in the morning after baking a coffee cake, and in the evening with freshly made chocolate silk pie.
Garden Spells tells the story of two sisters, Claire and Sydney, who are sharing a home for the first time in ten years. Through various changes in their present lives, and experiences in their past, they're learning how to live with each other and themselves. Of course, you have to throw in drama like gay relationships, domestic violence, sexual intrigue, and single parenthood. Add a dash of Southern culture and a sprinking of romance, and you've got Garden Spells. Oh, and Claire and Sydney have slightly magical gifts: Sydney can change people and read people through their hairstyles, and Claire has the power to influence mood through cooking with flowers from her garden. They're strange magic indeed, but it keeps my fantasy-loving self amused.
Claire's time in the kitchen has made me eager to cook (and eat) as well. Garden Spells is filled with recipes for savory and sweet dishes, but it's the desserts that make my mouth water. I've read the novel in the morning after baking a coffee cake, and in the evening with freshly made chocolate silk pie.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
From the Stomach
It's amazing how strong the mind-body link really is. When you're sick and someone tells you to think healing thoughts, it's so easy to laugh it off as nonsense. Mind-body writing often sounds so touchy-feely. And yet, I'm incredibly stressed out about my super-sick cat and my dwindling savings account. At the same time, my stomach's in knots. I have to admit the two must be related. If I meditate and think positive thoughts and let my mind relax, will my tummy feel better? If I can force my muscles to calm down, will my mind feel easier? Let's hope so! Scorpia should be a great distractor, what with the world-in-crisis plot. However, I'm less than 50 pages from the end and haven't finished. That's rare for me, and proves my stress level more than anything else. I also intended to try my hand at biscotti this week and haven't gotten to it. The company that supplies my coffee shop with biscotti has gone out of business. While I'm sure there are excellent alternatives, I'd really love to be the new biscotti-maker. If I provide the shop with biscotti, cookies, and cupcakes, perhaps I can rent out my own kitchen space and go into "business" for real. ...Of course, that will completely defeat my plans to quit sugar... And I've been so worried about my kitty that I've barely stepped foot in the kitchen. Last night I made burritos; the super fast kind that's just salsa, rice, beans and guac. I didn't even add potatoes. I meant to make a chocolate pie and some biscotti this week, and it sounds like the hardest thing in the world. Hopefully it will happen soon, and I'll find myself dipping biscotti in tea while I finish Scorpia and eating pie while starting Garden Spells.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Scorpia
I'm reading Scorpia, by Anthony Horowitz. It's the fifth book in the Alex Rider series, and I'm finding it as silly, unbelievable, and addicting as the previous installations. The series' premise is that Alex Rider, a fourteen-year-old, winds up working for MI-6. His uncle was an MI-6 agent, and when he's killed in a car accident, Alex learns the truth about his uncle's work. MI-6 recruits Alex to finish his uncle's assignment. But after they train Alex, MI-6 realizes how useful it is to have a fourteen-year-old spy. After all, who would expect a teenager to be working for the government? In the fourth book, Eagle Strike, Alex learns that his father worked as an assassin, and was actually killed by MI-6. Understandably, Alex is furious that the agency who has taken over his life also killed his father--and didn't tell him about it. Alex travels to Vienna to uncover the truth, and he quickly gets involved with Scorpia, a criminal organization that employed John Rider.
Obviously, the book's premise is quite far-fetched. I realized this when reading the series' first book, though, so I'm not surprised. I've learned to suspend my disbelief and just enjoy the ride. This kind of plot is what drives a reader to stay up into early hours to finish a book. I think it's the most popular style of book in America, which is why mass market mysteries are so quick to sell. James Patterson, Nora Roberts, and Michael Connelly stay at the top of the best-seller list for good reason. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo has as fast-moving a plot as Scorpia, so it makes sense that people go crazy for that book. Scorpia is also the style of book that's been crossing over the age lines in literature. Titles like Harry Potter and The Hunger Games are quick-moving and are also popular among adult readers. I personally avoid realistic fiction because I find reading to be excellent entertainment and a great escape from "real life." I think this is the same reason why so many adults read mysteries and thrillers: they're not as far-fetched as fantasy books, but they still take the reader out of the drama of normal living. On one hand, I find it disgusting that best sellers in our culture typically include murder, violence, and crime. On the other hand, these plotlines are so addicting that it makes perfect sense.
I like to read Alex Rider at any hour of the day, but I find these books particularly pleasing with my early afternoon iced coffee, or my late-night herbal tea.
Obviously, the book's premise is quite far-fetched. I realized this when reading the series' first book, though, so I'm not surprised. I've learned to suspend my disbelief and just enjoy the ride. This kind of plot is what drives a reader to stay up into early hours to finish a book. I think it's the most popular style of book in America, which is why mass market mysteries are so quick to sell. James Patterson, Nora Roberts, and Michael Connelly stay at the top of the best-seller list for good reason. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo has as fast-moving a plot as Scorpia, so it makes sense that people go crazy for that book. Scorpia is also the style of book that's been crossing over the age lines in literature. Titles like Harry Potter and The Hunger Games are quick-moving and are also popular among adult readers. I personally avoid realistic fiction because I find reading to be excellent entertainment and a great escape from "real life." I think this is the same reason why so many adults read mysteries and thrillers: they're not as far-fetched as fantasy books, but they still take the reader out of the drama of normal living. On one hand, I find it disgusting that best sellers in our culture typically include murder, violence, and crime. On the other hand, these plotlines are so addicting that it makes perfect sense.
I like to read Alex Rider at any hour of the day, but I find these books particularly pleasing with my early afternoon iced coffee, or my late-night herbal tea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)