Stuff I Wanted to Like

 Brief notes on stuff I really wanted to like but, ultimately, did not:


The Kingdom of Gods by N. K. Jemisin is the final installment in her Inheritance Trilogy. I am a big fan of the first two and so looked very much forward to the finale. I could not have been more predisposed to like this book so I was pretty sad to find myself checking out before I even hit the 100 page mark. If I did not already have a history of fangirling over this author I would not have finished it.

Cheers:
- Jemisin's deftness in writing believable and complicated relationships
- world building continuity and expansion

Jeers:
- the meandering nature of the plot
- the quickness of Sieh's obsession with the twins (actually much about Sieh's character did not work for me so I re-read the first two books to try to understand better why that was - I think I just had a completely different take on his character and where he would end up)
- how rushed the writing/editing job felt as compared to the first two (if you played a drinking game with the "i/she/he blinked" description in place of other ways to describe "surprise" you would get very drunk indeed)


Empress by Shan Sa is a book I came by at a book sale and picked up because I thought the cover was so beautiful. 

It's about China's only ruling empress (Tang Dynasty, 7th Century). I love historical fiction and I especially love to come by historical fiction not set in Britain or France.

Cheers:
- fantastic period rendering, places literally sprang to life for me
- she wrote what felt like very authentic philosophies/feelings for rulers and a ruling family, there was absolutely no apology for the ruthlessness needed to remain in power
- as I understand it, this is a different take on a much maligned woman and alternate views of history are important imo

Jeers:
- writing was just a bit too flowery for me (written originally in French, author is expat living in France)
- i got really bored when the focus moved away from the demands of ruling and seemed to hang out in the naval gazing arena


Red Riding Hood is a movie that looked like it had some potential. Unfortunately, it ended up being a great idea with extremely poor execution.

Cheers:
- a determined heroine who is comfortable in her mind and body
- supportive female characters. it's so rare that a heroine gets to have a mom, grandma and girlfriends who are positive and caring
- HUGE SPOILER, highlight if interested: her dad is the werewolf and super excited to pass on the family legacy to his eldest daughter. no moaning about how she should have been a son or making due with daughters. he loved his daughters and wanted to share his life with them. how refreshing.

Jeers:
- poor directing, lackluster script, lack of chemistry b/n actors
- offensive casting: i don't know the origins of red riding hood but this was pretty clearly set in The Days of Yore in n. europe. It makes a lot of sense then that the village is filled with caucasians and that the visiting priest is also caucasian. However, when the priest's werewolf fighting force is comprised almost entirely of people of African and Asian descent it is nonsensical and offensive.


The Secret Diaries of Miss Miranda Cheever by Julia Quinn is not a fun romp told through the enjoyable construct of diary entries. I am mentioning this book as a warning that it's not at all interesting. Just a heads up if it should be on your list. You won't miss anything by taking it off.

It's well past begun

The signs were subtle at first. A little thing here, a little thing there... Nothing to really alarm a person, you see... But, now, here I am, watching a movie I have already seen - fully convinced I'd always wanted to see it and had not got around to it yet. And this is the second time this has happened to me this year!

This might seem a fairly innocuous event but it is just another of the characteristics I have undoubtedly inherited from my mother. So it appears that I am part of the "everyone eventually turns into her mother" crowd.

So here I find myself falling asleep if I sit on the couch right after work, falling asleep before a show is over, contemplating whether or not the leftovers in my fridge might make some sort of tasty patty (horrors!), and renting movies I've already seen. So, yeah, it's well past begun but I have many years before the final transformation. You see, my mother is the single most kind, compassionate, generous, forgiving, joyful human being I know. I should be so lucky as to turn into a human like that.

Story gripes

I'm making this tart right now (using figs and pears from our CSA box) and it makes me think I don't have a clear idea of what a tart is. I'm watching this thing bake in the oven and it's crust with some sliced fruit on top. It doesn't seem very tart-like to me. Even after I drizzle on the honey I'm still thinking this isn't going to be much of a tart. Meh.

I've got a little list of gripes going regarding things I encounter in books. Interested in adding your own in the comments?

1. Amnesia as Personality Adjustment

The kind of amnesia often featured in stories is quite rare in real life. I really dig the plot line though so I'm always happy to see it. However, I don't get why people who previously chose to participate in Bad Things are always so horrified to learn of their past behavior. This is so often seen in the amnesia story that I have to assume that there is a very quiet but adamant group of folks trying to subliminally convince us all that we are not blank slates but basically good. Moreover, we want to be basically good and it's environment that leads us astray. I want to read the story where the gal/guy wakes up, discovers awesome powers of BadAssery (assassin, master thief, smuggler extraordinaire) and is totally stoked to get back in the saddle.

2. The overuse of

a) "somehow"

I am so sick of sentences starting with "somehow." Somehow, I managed to get up. Somehow, I knew this was the right thing to do. Somehow, I knew s/he was lying. Somehow, I was able to defeat the mighty dragon. Gah! It was done! I get it. Either create a story in which I can deduce my own "somehow" or explain it. Or, hell, just let it go. The story will speak for itself. If you write it and you don't believe it, trust me, "somehow" isn't going to convince anyone.

b) hatred of self

This is another one that feels like lazy writing. If a character has performed an act that results in actual self-loathing shouldn't I be able to deduce that from the characterization? If I can't, isn't that a bigger problem than finding space to include: "Despite his commitment to never wear purple socks again, he did, and he hated himself for it?"

c) Complete sentence. Adverb!

I don't even know the name for the grammar rule this is breaking but the liberty is used way too much these days. I get that it's stylistic and meant to convey a certain tone, tempo, and feeling but holy shitballs I want it to go away. Badly!

3. Series' reviews

I know I gripe about this all the time but it drives me up a wall. I am finally ready to accept the fact that I must be the only person bothered by this because it's in almost 100% of series books. It must be what people want. I've been pretty actively avoiding series this year and this is one of the main reasons. There are a few I'm sticking with (speaking of, the last book of The Inheritance Trilogy is out this month - woohoo!) but I have to really (to the infinity power, lets say) like a book at this point to want to pursue the series if it turns out to be a book that's part of a series. Some time ago I read a book that I really enjoyed that was the first of a series. I was almost there on getting the next book but ultimately decided not to. The last couple weeks have not been fruitful for me in the reading department so I downloaded a sample from the aforementioned series Book Two. It has a prologue. The prologue is a summary of Book One. I suppose that's marginally better than the glaring and awkward way series' reviews are usually shoved into the first chapter but it still annoyed me. It annoys me as a series reader because I've already read Book One and it annoys me as a general reader because it feels like a laundry list of What You Should Know To Enjoy This Story. Why do writers (editors?) not trust a story to speak for itself? Why do they feel a review is necessary?


ETA: This just in! After reading this I hopped over to Ms. Bourne's blog and she has some great advice for series writers. 

My Life as a Book 2011

Pop Culture Nerd posted her meme back in August... I'm just getting around to it now...


One time at band/summer camp, I: (was) Gang Leader for a Day (Sudhir Venkatesh)

Weekends at my house are: Death to the BCS (Dan Wetzel)

My neighbor is: Your Friendly Neighborhood Criminal (Michael Van Rooy)

My boss is: What Angels Fear (C.S. Lewis)

My ex was: Going Bovine (Libba Bray)

My superhero secret identity is: Knave of Dreams (Andre Norton)

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry because: (I'm) The Assassin's Apprentice (Robin Hobb)

I'd win a gold medal in: The Angel's Game (Carlos Ruiz Zafon)

I'd pay good money for: The Known World (Edward P. Jones)

If I were president, I would: Hunt for Red October (Tom Clancy)

When I don't have good books, I: (have) The Fury of the Phoenix (Cindy Pon)

Loud talkers at the movies should be: (in) A Murderous Procession (Ariana Franklin)

The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy

Title: The Hunt for Red October

Author: Tom Clancy

Publisher: United States Naval Institute Press (1984)

After Michael and I both brought up Tom Clancy in our reviews last month, I guess it got our minds thinking about how nice it would be to re-visit an old favorite. So, as usual, I will share a few words about the book and Michael will tackle its film adaptation.

Click here for Michael's movie review of The Hunt for Red October

And click here for its appearance in one of my favorites series: TMT.

For better or worse, I'm in an expansive and nostalgic mood. Earlier this evening (writing on the 29th) I was at my county's annual event celebrating adult literacy learners and the volunteers who help them reach their goals. As a lifetime avid reader, it is a joy to me to help folks in my community who want to improve their literacy skills. It reminds me of the wide world and endless possibilities that are open to us through literacy and through books. I'm also approaching my 500th blog post which is an arbitrary "milestone" at best but one I plan to celebrate by remembering a professor who inspired me and took my relationship with the written word to a new level.

All of these things put me in mind to remember my first experience with The Hunt for Red October and Tom Clancy rather than review the book based off my re-reading from two weeks ago. Any regular visitor of these joint post efforts will recognize what a reversal this is. Michael is the nostalgic half of this blogging partnership and I am the one very much in the moment. But, I suppose, we all have instances of departure from the norm and trips down memory lane. I hope you'll have the patience to get through this one with me.

The Hunt for Red October is a quintessential techno-thriller (one of the first?) and launched Clancy's very successful career which now includes a video game series (this really has no relevance here but I still enjoy seeing his name on video game covers). Jack Ryan is an analyst with the CIA. His particular talent lies in assimilating data from various sources into a cohesive picture of possible outcomes. His uncanny perception leads him to suggest to his bosses that the Red October, a Soviet sub recently launched, is headed to the US for a purpose almost unthinkable: defection. Cue awesomeness and fierce action. Ok, well, awesomeness for sure but this is a techno-thriller so you're as likely to find yourself in an action scene as you are to find yourself in a room with really smart people looking at charts and specs. If you're new to the genre don't be put off: the best thing about techno-thrillers is the balance. This is not a non-stop coaster ride ending in one big climactic finish. Techno-thrillers build their plots, characters, and action with deliberation and, best of all, with a lot of smart people doing really smart things. As a teen, Clancy was my first experience with techno-thrillers. I've never forgotten it.


The Hunt for Red October was Clancy's first published novel but not the first I read. It was either The Cardinal of the Kremlin or Clear and Present Danger that I read first. I can't remember at this point but I do remember how I came to learn of Clancy. I was a sophomore in high school and my english lit teacher told me about Clancy. What is pertinent to this story is that no matter what I thought about Clancy I would have said I loved him. Please bear with 15yo Rachel and her raging crush on Mr. English Lit. I was not alone in this: any student in my school who liked male members of the species had a raging crush on Mr. English Lit. It could have been collective insanity but it was probably a little bit reality, too. I mean, this guy did model to help pay for college. Anyway, there was no need for me to manufacture any interest - I was hooked from the get go.

[Aside: I am objectifying Mr. English Lit here but he was, and I'm sure is, a fantastic teacher. Most people liked the books he recommended because he cared about his students, paid attention to who they were and helped them find works they could connect with.]


It wasn't just the fancy words, the inside views of gov't agencies, the most awesome Baddies ever (oh, how I continue to lament the loss of the Soviets as literary adversaries), the gadgets, the easy-to-root for Ryan, or the America Fuck Yeah! attitude of the books. It was the very satisfying experience of what I mentioned above: following a group of really smart people doing really smart things. You'd think this would be a staple of almost any thriller but, sadly, it is not. And Clancy had such variety! He had Jack Ryan all over the place working on problems (and probably has but I no longer keep up with Ryan's exploits). Clancy didn't shirk on the supporting characters either. Ryan wouldn't even show up til almost halfway through a book sometimes. Clancy had stories to tell and Ryan was the thread that bound them together, however, he didn't allow that thread to limit the scope of the plots.

The Hunt for Red October served as an excellent intro to just how far out Clancy would take his plots. The story opens with the newest and most advanced of the Soviet's sub arsenal leaving port. At his helm is one of the Soviet's most accomplished captains. And in the captain's mind is his plan for defection. Holy crap! Talk about raising the ante from the get-go. How truly satisfying this ambitious plot was when I first read it and how fun it was to pull it off my shelf and re-visit it this month.

So here we are at the end of my thoughts and I realize very few of them were about The Hunt for Red October and its content. I am sure I'll be back on track next month but for now I'm reveling in the memories. I'm thinking about a 2 decade love affair with all things USSR/Russia related, which has only intensified through a visit to that remarkable country and my current literary tastes. I'm thinking about how so many people grew up fantasizing about visiting London or Paris (both of which are quite lovely) but I could never get Moscow out of my mind. I'm thinking about when I first walked into Red Square and saw St. Basil's Cathedral with my very own eyes and how amazing it was. Thanks, Mr. English Lit and Tom Clancy. May our feet always follow where our minds desire to go.



Click here for an index of the joint post series

The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks by E. Lockhart

Title: The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks 

Author: E. Lockhart

Publisher: Hyperion (2008)

I'm a bit late here. Both in that it's Wednesday, and so past SBD, and in that I read this months ago and am just getting to it now. Thankfully I read this on my Kindle so I can click on the handy notes section and read over my copious comments. And even though it's late, I'm hoping the SBD crowd will still be willing to share some thoughts because I'm the odd woman out on this one in that I didn't like it as well as others.

First, a shout-out to Kate for bringing it to my attention. I would not have read it otherwise and, even though I didn't end up liking it, I was interested by it and glad to have read it. Instead of giving a summary I'm linking to this short review because the summary is excellent and because the reviewer had a completely different reaction to the book than me so it's a good counterpoint.

The thing I liked best about this book is that I found it very emotionally authentic. I can't speak to the boarding school experience but some of the things Frankie thought/said I remember hearing from my girlfriends. That part of the book was very impressive to me as I rarely feel that way when reading books set in high school. However, the supposed girl-power aspect of the book was completely non-existent for me. I have notes in relation to this at any number of points throughout the book but the most telling is the one that says "Does Frankie even like women, does the author?" Ouch! Hard to muster up my feelings of empowerment when I don't feel like the protag or the author values women.

Here's what it came down to for me: Frankie's motivation is to attain acceptance into a guys' club (very often, specifically to get personal validation from one particular guy). As in, rather than get her own life she's trying to get a guy's.  I found this to be one of the emotionally authentic aspects of the book as I knew (and, sadly, know) many women who seek "empowerment" through undermining "feminine" pursuits and proving they are "strong" too by trying to be "one of the guys." I actually don't care what people do - whether it's traditionally seen as a "guy" thing or a "gal" thing - as long as what they do is for themselves. The entire time I was reading I kept wondering why Frankie didn't start her own secret society (or not secret, whatever) and use her cleverness, determination, and information to control the Basset Hounds. Cuz how stinking funny would that be? Instead she seemed more obsessed with Matthew not talking to her about what was going on than in being her own person and being valued for who she is.

I completely agree with Frankie that she was suffocated by a male-dominated institution. I completely agree with her that she was underestimated and marginalized by several people in her life. But, again, instead of seeking out those who saw and valued her she aligned herself with those who diminished her. When she's bitching about the way Matthew treats her what am I supposed to think but LEAVE HIM? She kept acting like he was happening to her and seeming not to realize that his presence was under her control. Also, she was often put out by his loyalty to friends he had had for 4 years. I actually re-checked the timeline and when they had been dating for 2 months she was bitching about him keeping things from her that he would only discuss with his friends. Two months!!!! Maybe I'm close-mouthed but I certainly don't start spouting off all my personal business to someone I've known for two months.

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

And then we get to the most frustrating scene in the book. It's the end, her shenanigans have been discovered (shenanigans which were awesome and hilarious, btw) and she's having it out with Matthew. At this point I'm so disgusted by the attitude that I felt was pervasive throughout the book that I about died when Matthew, the guy, gets to make a valid point. Now, it should be said that I don't like Matthew. Maybe one day he'll figure things out and turn into someone decent but he's immature and self-centered for the entirety of the book (I thought less of Frankie for dating him much less for working so hard to get his attention) so he's not exactly someone you ever want to be siding with but when he asks who/what she was being loyal to he's making a good point. He's saying it badly because he's immature and self-centered but the point remains: when she's doing all this behind his back why does she think it's something that will impress him? (Why he describes it as sick and psychotic I have to assume is because his pride is hurt because what she did was brilliant. It's the motivation that drove me nuts.) Conversely, how upset can I get when Frankie feels like he's been lying to her all this time? He's a jerk, break up with him. Also, they hadn't been together all that long, he's had these other friends forever; what is the big deal about him having something with them that he does not have with her? People should have their own lives; Frankie should have got her own life. I for one would have enjoyed her antics much better had she been doing them for herself.


I have so many notes and comments and annoyances here but I was trying to stay concise and mostly be brief which I hope doesn't mean that I ended up not really conveying my point at all. One final comment: At one point I found the undervaluing of the feminine so intense that I thought maybe the author was getting around to that lesson. Frankie learns at the end that to define herself and her value by the men and system around her (a system she identifies as broken) isn't a productive path to empowerment. But no. To me, it seemed that she learned that she needed to have done better at being an imitation guy. *sigh*


rating: 2 of 5 stars

"Monkeys make everything better."

And the fun doesn't have to stop here.

"You think that's air you're breathing now?"

I've got much love for The Matrix and am really enjoying this retroflective series on the trilogy.

(hat tip: lp13)

Reading Roundup

I haven't done a reading roundup since May!! So it appears that as summer passes us by I continue to eschew my digital life for my outdoor life. To show for it I have a horse capable of suspension at the trot. For many horses this is not that big a deal but for a horse with my horse's conformation it is exciting indeed. Hurrah for unexpected talents. I might even get around to doing some Dressage Tests this Fall. And speaking of Dressage, if you haven't seen Moorlands Totilas you ought to.

But I'm here about books. Because the list will be long, I'm dividing them by my enjoyment level (leaving out books that I've done full posts on or that have been or will be posted at Sacramento Book Review).

For details on my enjoyment level here's the link again on how I dole out stars.

5 stars -

N/A

4 stars -

Shibumi by Trevanian (highly recommended)
The Eiger Sanction by Trevanian
Gang Leader for a Day by Sudhir Venkatesh
The Main by Trevanian
Dawn by Octavia E. Butler (highly recommended)
Adulthood Rites by Octavia E. Butler
The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz (highly recommended)

3 stars -

The Loo Sanction by Trevanian (recommended)
Shadow Chaser by Alexey Pehov
Imago by Octavia E. Butler (recommended)
The Quiet Gentleman by Georgette Heyer
Charlie All Night by Jennifer Crusie
Faro's Daughter by Georgette Heyer
Black Moth by Georgette Heyer
The Talisman Ring by Georgette Heyer (recommended)
False Colours by Georgette Heyer
Arabella by Georgette Heyer (recommended)
The Vagrants by Yiyun Li

2 stars -

The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks by E. Lockhart
--This is the top of my list for an actual post and I hope to discuss it with the SBD folks.

The Memory of Running by Ron McLarty
Whirlwind by Joseph R. Garber
The Reluctant Widow by Georgette Heyer
Powder and Patch by Georgette Heyer

1 star -

N/A

Unrated -

False Angel by Edith Layton
--I can't stomach a hero that strikes the heroine. Remove this and this book is fantastic. Keep it and I can't forget it. (Plus it was totally out of character.) Anyone else have something that will immediately ruin a book?

DNF -

Louisiana: The First 300 Years by Joan B. Garvey
--Not rigorous enough in its research and presentation.

The Proud Breed: A Three-Generation Saga of California by Celeste De Blasis
--Too dated in its sentiments.

The Spanish Bride by Georgette Heyer
--Turns out I really don't care about troop movements.

Red Glove by Holly Black
--You're better off reading White Cat again.


I hope to report soon on the book review sites being up again and with that I'll include a few more books that I had for review.


What have you been reading lately over the past few months?

sgwordy asks...

sgwordy: Doesn't that make you want Axe?

Dr Musacha: I don't know what it makes me want. To secede from humanity, maybe?

The Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsyth

Title: The Day of the Jackal

Author: Frederick Forsyth

Publisher:  Viking Press (1971)

Michael, he of the mighty memory, suggested this title because it's the book's 40th anniversary this month. It was a title that was on my list but hadn't worked it's way to the top so I was happy to give it a go. After reading it, I have decided I am not at all the right person to review it. As any reader of our joint posts can tell you, Michael has a wonderful way of keeping the time frame of a work very much in the forefront. This is something I can almost never do. I am very much a reviewer in the moment with much of my attention going to the experience I am having with a title at that time. I am pretty sure The Day of the Jackal is meant for its time or meant to be read at a certain point in one's reading experience. Sadly, I am past both those possibilities and so I feel I missed much of what makes this such an enduring novel. However, this doesn't mean I'm not impressed with the novel (or its origin story, click on the linked title above for a very nice article) or sorry I read it. Continue below for more book thoughts and follow the link for the review of its film adaptation.

Michael’s film review of The Day of the Jackal at It Rains…You Get Wet

The plot of The Day of the Jackal is very simple: an organization opposed to French President Charles de Gaulle hires an assassin, code named the Jackal, to kill the president. The book is divided into three parts which comprise the various angles of the story. The first is the assassin's prep, the second is the response of law enforcement when they are tipped to the plot, and the third is the assassination day. When I told my neighbor I had just started the book his response was (loosely) oh, yeah, that's the book that started the whole dates, times, documentary-like style for thrillers. I tucked this into the back of my mind and as I got going in the story I realized what he meant. Since this was published 40 years ago it was not, for me, the first documentary-style thriller I read but it may be the most detail oriented one I have ever experienced. As a matter of fact, I didn't get that into the book until Part II and that started on p. 177!!! Oi! Right there we've got a mark against it. If it had not been a joint post my Hundred Page Rule would have meant that I would have put the book down and never finished it. Parts II and III are so much fun, though, that I'm glad I didn't miss out. So, here's your warning, if you do not like blow-by-blow detail-laden thrillers you will not like this title (I'm convinced you can stick with the plot easily enough even if you skip Part I though so you can always give that a try:). Another warning:

***the rest of this review contains mild SPOILERS***

Since the style of the book mimics documentary it's not surprising that the end is "given away" in the beginning. That being the case, the details can become even more tedious. The dry presentation coupled with the absence of suspense really cut into my interest. It's why I liked the second half so much; the manhunt held a lot of interest for me. The Jackal's talents and the talents of his hunter, Lebel, are a pleasure for any fan of thrillers to read. I found the manhunt doubly interesting for its historical value. One forgets just how slow the transmission of information was before the internet and other modes of modern communication. Despite the "slowing" of the action due to historical limitations, I found the tension did not suffer at all. That's partly due to the novel's buildup but it's also to do with, as is mentioned in the book, good old-fashioned detective work. The top brass of French government and military were on this problem but it was police detection that was needed and what made for such an interesting chase. Also, the Jackal was not one of those stupid villains wherein one can predict their downfall. He was damn good and it was hard to know who to root for at times! That leg brace for gun smuggling was just too freakin' awesome. And the disguises! Very well done. My favorite quote stemmed from these:

The other passengers took elaborate pains not to knock against the plastered foot as they took their seats, while the Jackal lay back in his seat and smiled bravely.

It's the "smiled bravely" that just slays me. It's a quintessential moment for our villain as he hoodwinks those around him and shows his acting chops by playing the martyr. He's working for a dodgy organization to assassinate a political figure but damn if you just don't want him to succeed most of the time if for nothing more than his moxy.

Just as a protagonist is boring without a good antagonist so would our Jackal be quite dull without Lebel. Lebel is the unassuming but dogged investigator in this case and he knows how to get the job done. This is not a stupid man counting on plot conveniences and coincidences to advance his case (thankfully this is not one of those books) but an astute detective who uses every resource to his advantage. What I can't figure is why I was still rooting for the Jackal when Lebel was just as worthy (well, moreso, actually because he wins). I guess it might have something to do with my love of villains but I'm also suspecting it's because I am a sucker for disguises. In any event, I'd be interested to know if anyone else got sucked in by the Jackal. (Apologies to de Gaulle, etc for being so fictionally mean.)

I found the time jumping to be slightly disconcerting at first (Forsyth played fast and loose with hopping back and forth in a character's timeline) but soon settled into the style. I also had a bunch of notes on what I felt was a huge hole in the Jackal's character but found at the end that Forsyth had this one pretty tightly written. I won't spoil it for those who haven't read it but I was pleasantly surprised at the end. I ought not to make it sound like there's a character arc or anything because this book is 98% plot. It's a series of events peopled with characters who serve or instigate those events, character-driven it is not.

There was so much that I liked but none of it can make me forget that I was bored for almost the entirety of the book's first 177 pages! I know the Jackal was making plans, getting those cool disguises ready, and ordering his gun but it was only marginally more interesting than a detailed description of a grocery shopping trip. The style might not be a problem for a reader new to it but to one, such as myself, who is very familiar with it (I spent my teens buried in Tom Clancy novels, after all) that's a very high hurdle to cross.

So, have I unforgivably maligned a much beloved classic? Wait, don't answer that! Instead, join me at It Rains... You Get Wet for the film review.

rating: 3 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

"Insufficient tail lamps"

Amish Teen Leads Police on Drunken Buggy Chase


*snicker*

Source Code's (2011) Big Red Button

Ok, I'll admit, I had a set-back. I took on too much "assigned" reading and then had a fit of impulse Kindle buying that led to a Heyer glom. So, um, goals? What goals? My horse and I continue to progress in our training but I've pretty much been ignoring all else.... But now let's dust off those goals again and get going... but first...

Since we know I'll watch Jake Gyllenhaal pretty much no matter what it should come as no surprise that I gave Source Code another try after not liking it in the theatre. Even with the lowered expectations I lost interest at about the same spot and had all the same questions at the end. I think the most disappointing aspect of the movie is how well it starts off and how badly it ends. But, whatever, we're here to talk about the Big Red Button.

**If you haven't seen Source Code here's your SPOILER warning. Also, if you haven't seen The Matrix Revolutions here's your SPOILER warning (yeah, I get that that seems weird but it's going to come up).**


The Big Red Button in Source Code is located on a control panel that is positioned at about waist height in a room with a poorly guarded (from humans and bacteria) soldier whose brain is linked with a computer, or similar. The entire operation is, it can be inferred, the source of several people's livelihood and quite an expensive endeavor. I'm talking millions of dollars and wo/man-hours here. Big bucks!!! So much money! Please understand how much money is at stake here. Now that you have envisioned a big pile of money, let's think about the Big Red Button again. It's on a control panel. The panel is about waist high. It is not shielded by a plastic cover. From this information you might think to yourself, Oh this must be a button that calls emergency personnel. Well, that's a good idea! It should be easily accessible and obvious to the eye. Yes, very good design here of an emergency button. But wait! It's actually a kill switch. Yeah! It kills the only fucking soldier that has been found to be compatible with source code. Besides the fact that it exists AT ALL it exists in a locale that an untimely stumble might lead to its being depressed! What????? Are you kidding me?


Apropos of nothing, I was thinking of the final battle in The Matrix Revolutions earlier today.  Much like the Big Red Button, the design of the fighting machines the soldiers controlled for shooting lots of bullets was nonsensical. I could make a list but it's mostly the 15th Century Coal Delivery-like technology that always struck me. If you've seen The Matrix you know the kinds of technology available to our rebel fighters (if you haven't seen it then this will make no sense anyway), and yet they chose to employ unarmored youth and hand carts to supply ammo to the fighting machines. The carts, by the way, had to pushed across a platform riddled with cords, spent casings, fighting machines, detritus, flexible piping, etc. What???? Are you kidding me???

Bid Time Return by Richard Matheson

Title: Bid Time Return

Author: Richard Matheson

Publisher:  Viking Press (1975)

Note: This title was also released in 1998 by Tor Books under the title Somewhere In Time

Note2: I thought the original title was far superior and can't figure why it was changed.

Michael; genius, movie reviewer extraordinaire, and all-around fantastic human; and I are sticking with sci-fi again this month but our chosen title is markedly different from the last two pairings we’ve done. I saw this movie many years ago and have read the book for the first time just this month. Click the link below for movie thoughts and read on for bookie stuff.

Michael’s film review of Somewhere In Time at It Rains…You Get Wet

O Call back yesterday,

Bid time return

-Richard II, Act III, Sc.2

After this quote the book starts with a note from the brother of the protagonist. Amongst other things he says, “Yielding to the publisher, I’ve done extensive pruning in the first section of the manuscript. Again, I’m not sure I’ve done the right thing. I can’t dispute the fact that this section was lengthy and occasionally tedious.”

When I first started reading, the book reminded me of how I felt when watching the movie Buried: what a great idea, I’m glad someone thought of it and pursued it, it’s a shame it’s not the type of thing that keeps my attention. But then, as I progressed through Bid Time Return, I kept coming back to “lengthy and occasionally tedious.” It’s not only an apt description of the beginning, it pretty much describes the entire book.

In 1971 Richard Collier is 36 and receives some news that makes him re-evaluate his entire life and what he will do with the rest of it. Deciding to pursue a personal journey across the US (not even telling his brother where he is going), he flips a coin and makes San Diego his first destination. He had intended to stay only a few days but seeing the portrait of a beautiful actress who performed at his hotel in 1896 changes his plans completely. He is haunted by her face and his attraction to her. He becomes consumed with researching her life and the more he learns about her the more convinced he becomes that he was a part of that life. He expands his research to time travel (as you do) by reading, and obsessing over, a book he finds called Man and Time by J.B. Priestley (his brother kindly inserts a bit of info to let us know he edited out the detailed notes Richard took on the book).

**The rest of this review includes SPOILERS**

Richard’s style begins as one of dictatorial lists of his activities and feelings (with a bit more naval-gazing than I can tolerate in books but he did just learn that he is going to die soon so I should probably forgive him that). I actually enjoyed the point by point movement through his days. It’s easy to read over even if it’s not necessarily compelling in a narrative sense. As he moves closer, in emotion and in time, to Elise McKenna the style changes to traditional story-telling (Richard, being a writer, even comments on his own style changes). Of course, by the time that happens I’d mostly lost interest in the story and was spending my time wondering why. You see, even though I described this as sci-fi it’s pretty much straight up Romance (with one exception that I’ll go into later). This is not a problem for me as I like and read Romance. However, I like and read Romances that are much better than this one. Honestly, I wondered at one point if the entire book was a joke poking fun at Romance. It would have been such a poorly executed joke, though, that I had to assume I was meant to take the story seriously. So, why am I such a hater? It came down to the fact that the characters had no personal agency.

The book almost has only the one character because Richard dominates so much of the story (naturally, it is his story, after all) but Elise certainly ought to get a lot of attention from the reader. The thing is, neither of the characters is that interesting. Richard’s motivation: saw pic of hottie actress and immediately fell in love with her. Elise’s motivation: was given two predictions regarding a man in her future and decides Richard fits those predictions. Whenever either of them talks about why they want to be with the other it’s always described as this “need” or as being “mysterious.” How is that interesting? It doesn’t even seem to have anything to do with who these two people actually are (at one point Richard expresses fucking surprise when it turns out Elise has a bunch of really great qualities that have nothing to do with her beauty or charisma). This is not the kind of Romance that can keep my interest. Mysterious needs and unexplained attraction do not feel like the elements of a meaningful relationship. But, hey, once they met maybe they had wonderful experiences together over a period of time that would make motivations less mysterious. Oh, woops, they spend about 36 hours together and have some of the most painfully awkward conversations I’ve ever had the displeasure to read (I kept thinking, this guy is a writer and this is the best he can come up with?????). It’s not exactly the sort of thing that would make a reader believe the two of them would like to spend their lives together.

Richard is also so agitated and desperate in his need to be with Elise that he professes his love enough to make anyone wonder what his deal is (psycho being the first answer any normal person would come up with) and he’s constantly evasive about where he’s from (or should I say when). In short, he behaves in such a way that any rational woman would ask him to leave her alone. But, of course, Elise is experiencing her Mysterious Pull for Richard so she only expresses dismay at the complete reversal of her normal behavior (if only she had known about Mighty Wang and Magic Hoo Hoos she might not have been so dismayed).

The one exception to this being a true Romance is that it doesn’t have a happy ending. By the time the end came around its unhappiness had little effect on me because I didn’t care about the characters. I was tired of Richard’s Too Stupid Too Live moments and Elise’s willingness to make a life commitment to someone she doesn’t even know. A Romance that centers around two people who have no choice in the matter and then are pulled apart by circumstance is not interesting. It’s easy - and possibly able to engage your emotions (though, in this case, definitely not mine) - but it’s not compelling. There is no journey to go through with the characters, no hard choices to be made, no reason to care for anything other than that it’s too bad this had to happen because now everyone is sad.

But this does give me a chance to say that I can recommend several great Romances for anyone who has read this and thought, “There must be something better out there.” There certainly is and I’m happy to share. I can recommend Romances with well-developed characters who actively make choices, sometimes very difficult choices, for themselves and for the people in their lives, Romances with characters who converse in ways that make you believe they’d actually want to have multiple conversations, Romances that show two people growing together over time and learning that they can be as strong, or stronger, together than apart. 

rating: 2 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

The 15 Questions Movie Meme

Michael, of the myriad and fascinating movie posts, recently posted this and I thought it would be fun to join in. I've decided to limit my answers to the last two decades as these types of movie questions are often so paralyzing that I can't come up with any kind of answer at all. I figured using only 2 decades would help.

1. Movie you love with a passion.

You can say you don't like Galaxy Quest and I will accept that as a legitimate response. However, this little gem is perfect in every way as a movie so all other negative comments will elicit lengthy rebuttals.


2. Movie you vow to never watch.

Avatar. In fact, I won't even search it on the internet for a screen shot because I don't want the internet bots to get the idea I'm interested.



3. Movie that literally left you speechless.

I thought about picking any number of war-related films to put here but one over another wouldn't communicate the truth: war films leave me emotionally wrecked and I can rarely speak after one so almost all of them fit here.


4. Movie you always recommend.

If you haven't seen Stranger Than Fiction, you ought to! It's fantastic, funny, refreshing, well-acted, quirky, satisfying and watched by too few people.


5. Actor/Actress you always watch no matter how crappy the movie.


If Marky Mark hadn't just made a boxing movie he would have been the front runner but sgwordy does not do boxing films.


6. Actor/Actress you don't get the appeal for.

7. Actor, living or dead, you'd most like to meet.

8. Sexiest actor you've seen.

It's possible this was not meant to be taken literally but the statement really made it seem like I was supposed to have actually seen the actor. And, anyways, I like this story because Michelle Williams was so completely, fantastically beautiful when I saw her (she was running an errand where I worked not dolled up for some sort of event) that I was blown away. At the time, her acting gig was not a vehicle for seeing her beauty and charm, or her acting chops. I'm glad to see things have changed. What an exciting young actress!


9. Dream Cast.

Starring in a futuristic film in which the US has a royal family of which they are the head.

10. Favorite Actor pairing.

Duh! They get mail... and stuff. HA! Gotcha!

I ended up defining this as two actors who are excellent alone but end up stealing the show together. That could only mean:

11. Favorite movie setting.

12. Favorite decade for movies.

Since I only did two this almost seems like a silly question but I'm giving the honors to the 90s. Over the 90s, the field of movies served up for viewers was consistently stronger than in the aughts. Also, I can't pick any decade that saw Gladiator and Crash winning Oscars for Best Picture.

13. Chick flick or action movie.

I don't answer bullshit questions that use monikers?? adjectives??? like "chick" in completely useless ways. (Refer to bullshit "women's fiction" etc for more on this.)


14. Hero, villain, or anti-hero.

15. Black & White or Color.

Color.

The Hangover (2009) Guest Review

It’s been a couple months since my last guest review (The Social Network) on sgwordy, so I guess it’s time for another one.  I was in Las Vegas a couple weeks ago and it put me in mind to finally watch The Hangover.  Now that I’ve seen it I have a few thoughts to share, so let’s get to it!

Warning: This will be more of a deconstruction of comedies using The Hangover as the dominant example than a review, so all the typical spoiler warnings apply.  If you haven’t seen The Hangover yet and are planning to do so, give this column a miss for now and come back after you’ve watched it.  Also, it should be noted that comedy is probably the most subjective genre out there.  We all have a different sense of what is “funny” and what isn’t.  So take my thoughts simply as my own opinion…your mileage with this film will vary.

The Story in a Nutshell:

Doug is getting married in two days, which means it’s time for that most time-honored pre-marital tradition: the bachelor party.  To celebrate the impending nuptials, Doug heads to Vegas with his best friends Phil and Stu, as well as his soon to be brother-in-law Alan.  The boys are looking forward to a final night of drunken debauchery, but things go terribly wrong when they wake up the next morning to discover that Doug is missing and they have no memory of the previous night’s events.  With the wedding looming, Phil, Stu, and Alan slowly piece together what happened, as it becomes increasingly clear that they were involved in some strange activities…and now they’ll have to deal with the consequences if they ever want to see Doug again.

What Worked for Me:

* The R Rating – Not all comedies need an R rating to be funny for adults.  The Princess Bride is PG, and it’s one of the funniest movies ever made.  But a movie about four buddies going to Vegas for a bachelor party and getting into outrageous trouble has to be R rated, or it isn’t being true to the source material.  I guarantee that there was some point where an executive got his grubby paws on this picture and argued for toning it down to a PG-13 so they could score the teen audience that Hollywood so greatly covets.  Kudos to the filmmakers for refusing to give in and keeping the raunchy material in the film at the possible cost of a little box office largess.

* The Cinematography – Most movies filmed in Vegas show the city in a very similar way.  Lots of iconic casino facades, people gambling and looking happy, flashing lights, beautiful showgirls…we’ve all seen that montage before.  Now, I’ve been to Vegas many times and consider myself to be quite the aficionado.  While it’s fun to think of Sin City that way, the reality is that when you pull back the curtain a bit, it’s a blue collar city (most of the jobs are not exactly high paying) with more than a bit of a seedy underbelly.  The Hangover starts with a Vegas montage, but it’s shot in a darker way, with a lot of the iconic Vegas sights (ex. The Bellagio fountains) framed at a low, askew angle.  It’s a clever visual that parallels the events of the movie, in which the characters are seduced by the flashy exterior and find a more dangerous Las Vegas lurking behind.  Overall, I thought the movie was shot well.  It felt like the real Vegas and not the illusion that you normally get. 

* Ed Helms as Stu – Helms is probably best known for his work on The Office (American version).  He’s actually cut his teeth as a comedic actor, which gives him a leg up over his costars Bradley Cooper (better known for light action fare like Alias and the movie remake of The A-Team), Zach Galifianakis (better known for his stand up comedy), and Justin Bartha (better known for…hmm…being Nick Cage’s side-kick in the National Treasure films?).  It’s no surprise that Helms has the best comedic timing of the bunch and carries the movie for scenes at a time.  Also, of the four main characters in the film, Stu is the only one to have what could be considered an “arc.” 

Quick aside: I sort of hinted at this in my last review, but I’m old school in my movie tastes and look dimly on films without arcs.  A character arc gives the story, no matter how comedic or fantastical, a grounding with which the audience can identify.  If none of the characters experience any personal growth, if they don’t change their life situations, if no lessons are learned, the events of the film will often feel pointless and arbitrary.  To be fair, not all movies have to conform to this formula, and occasionally great movies can be made without any of the characters experiencing a significant arc (a recent example is Lost in Translation).  Still, it’s walking a wire to omit character arcs and most director/writers who try it end up falling.

Back to The Hangover…Doug, Alan, and Phil have no arc at all.  Stu, on the other hand, starts the movie as a meek coward who is terrified of Melissa, his vile harpy of a girlfriend.  He lies to her about going to Vegas (claiming that they’re actually going to wine country), he placates her on the phone every time she calls to “check in,” and he justifies her shrewish behavior to his friends.  Over the course of the movie, Stu becomes more self-confident and independent, ultimately dumping Melissa to take a shot at a more healthy (if odd) relationship with a stripper.  Okay, it isn’t MUCH of an arc, but it’s as close as we’re getting in this movie.

* Dan Finnerty! – The wedding singer at Doug’s ceremony is Dan Finnerty of the super-awesome Dan Band.  That likely means very little to anyone other than me…but I was stoked.

What Didn’t Work for Me:

* Pretty much everything else – There are so many misfires here, it’s hard to mention them all.  Just doing some freeform rapid-fire style criticisms:

- The plot is threadbare and ancillary to most of the action/humor.  The movie is just a series of comedic set pieces without a cohesive narrative.

- With regards to point #1, the “clues” that they follow to find Doug don’t make any sense and don’t lead to the final outcome in any sensible way.  Seriously, count the number of times in this movie where the plot moves forward through external coincidences rather than through actions taken by the central characters.

- The characters are flat, one-note stereotypes.  Rachel Harris should be embarrassed to play Melissa, an amalgam of every “controlling spouse/girlfriend” cliché in the book.  Every scene involving Melissa and Stu is cringe-inducing.

- Justin Bartha as Doug is one of the blandest zeroes in the history of film.  I realize that he disappears part way into the movie, but it still isn’t clear why Phil, Alan, and Stu think he’s such a great guy.  There are several points in the film where they sing (?!?) about how much they like Doug, yet there isn’t a single scene that would clarify why they’re such close friends.

- Speaking of which, Stu and Phil are supposedly very old friends, yet are polar opposites and seem to barely tolerate each other.  When people become friends, it’s usually because they have something in common, share similar values, etc.  It’s sort of implied that Doug is the keystone holding the whole thing together, but again, he’s portrayed as a total dud.  How are these people friends?

But the most damning thing of all?  It’s just not very funny.  At least, not to me.  And that’s kind of a deal breaker in a comedy.  So the question is, why did I not find it funny when so many people did?  After all, it made a lot of money.  It was popular enough to get a sequel.  I’ve thought about this, and I think I’ve hit on the answer.

Let’s take all the humor in comedic movies and split it into two broad groups: “jokes” and “gags.”  Jokes come in many forms, including brief one-liners, setups with clear punch lines, double entendres, and even referential humor tying the current situation to other material.  Gags also come in many forms, but are far more self-contained than jokes.  Most of the “shock” moments in comedies are gags, relying on people doing or saying things that are not appropriate for the situation.  How can you tell the difference between jokes and gags?  Imagine describing the humor to a person who hasn’t seen it.  If you can just straight up state the dialogue:

Dr. Rumack: Can you fly this plane, and land it?

Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious.

Dr. Rumack: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

…then you’re probably telling a joke.  If you have to describe the context of the scene in detail for it to make any sense:

“So then, Cameron Diaz’s character is sitting in the bar, and her hair is sticking up at a funny angle because she thought it was hair gel…”

…then it’s probably a gag.  Notice that in the first example, a person who hasn’t seen Airplane could still find the lines funny.  But a person who hasn’t seen There’s Something About Mary wouldn’t understand the context of the gag and would therefore not see the humor without a lot of explanation.

I don’t mind gags, and sometimes they can be really funny.  There’s Something About Mary had a lot of really funny gags (remember the zipper scene?), but it also had jokes to back up the gags, as well as sympathetic characters (one of whom has a fully realized arc).  That’s good comedy.

The Hangover is part of a recent trend I’ve noticed in films – comedies with no jokes.  I’m not kidding, there are almost no jokes in the whole movie.  I glanced over the IMDbsite for The Hangover before writing this piece, specifically looking through the quotes that people posted for the film (if a comedy is really quotable, that’s a sign of good jokes).  Of the entire list, there’s really only one or two that qualify as jokes.  The rest are things that people were saying during the movie’s various gags.  If you laugh at the quote, what you’re probably doing is remembering the gag that it’s matched with from the film.

Let me give some examples of the kind of humor that comprises The Hangover:

- Mike Tyson watches security footage of the guys peeing in his pool while they sit next to him looking uncomfortable.

- Alan finds a slice of pizza in the hotel room couch and eats it.

- Stu, Phil, and Alan get beat up by a naked man.

- Alan notices that there’s a tiger in the bathroom and pees all over the floor while escaping.

Or how about this comedic gem straight from the IMDb quotes page:

Alan Garner: I want you to know, Doug, I'm a steel trap. Whatever happens tonight, I will never, ever, ever speak a word of it.

Doug Billings: Ok, I got it. Thank you. I don't think that...

Alan Garner: Seriously, I don't care what happens. I don't care if we kill someone.

Doug Billings: What?

Alan Garner: You heard me. It's Sin City. I won't tell a soul.

That sort of looks like a joke, but notice that there’s no punch line, no wit, no meaning beyond the context of this scene.  Alan is a weird guy who blurts out inappropriate things.  Either you think that’s funny, or you don’t.  There’s no additional level to appreciate.  And that’s why this isn’t a joke, it’s a gag.

The Verdict:

I like comedies with jokes, and The Hangover wants you to be content with gags.  If you’re a big fan of films like Epic Movie (all gags and no jokes), then you will probably love The Hangover.  If you’re like me and prefer jokes to gags, then I’d pass on this one.  So with apologies to the many fans of this film, I can’t recommend The Hangover and I won’t be seeing the sequel.

Two movies in a row that I didn’t really like…  Maybe for my next review, I’ll make a point of choosing something that I actually enjoyed! 

 ____________________________________________________________________

Many thanks to Dr Musacha for his guest reviews. His real name might not be Musacha, but Dr is his real title. If you're interested in other ways the Doctor spends his time when not unraveling the secrets near and dear to a cardiologist's heart (ha!), check out The Doctor and the Dude Show. You can also find him here and here.

Under Pressure

(hat tip: Jed)