I have often wondered why it is that some of the most well-known fantasy books are written by Brits: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia. And many more of my favorites are written by members of the commonwealth, or however it is called: Jonathan Stroud and the Bartimaeus Trilogy, Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer, Robin McKinley's books. Admittedly, they probably aren't the end all and be all of great fantasy, but the British have something when it comes to fantasy. And I have been wondering why.
I think there are multiple factors, of course. First of all, I imagine that part of it is just publicity, and because it is literature from across the pond, it gets more press when it is successful over here. And I think we tend to look at things that are homegrown with less excitement. So there is that.
But today, I came across this article Why are fantasy accents British?, which really seemed to give a good explanation. I think one reason why British fantasy has such a strong presence is because of their history--they had witches and magic and lore to base their fantasy on. And the mythological history of America is different, and since I am not a native of that culture, it isn't a mythology I relate to. My roots are in England, so that has somehow shaped my idea of fantasy. It is interesting to consider. It also makes one think about American fantasy. I think, for one thing, I need to read more of it, but it seems like it has a very European flavor. But how much of that is the mindset I bring to the book?
Anyway, it is interesting to think about. I'd be interested to know what your experience has been with fantasy.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Character
One of the things that can really make or break a book is the characters in the story. I can't say I have a great definition for what makes a good character. It's not something I've spent loads of time considering, truth be told, but here I am writing this post, so I guess it's high time I think about it.
Good characters have to be believable. By believable I don't mean believably human. But they do have to be believable in the context of the story. They have to be true to the parameters of the world they live in in the story.
I think good characters are 'people' we can relate to. Even if they aren't people, because not all characters are human. And we don't have to relate to every aspect of the character--I'm not going to relate to being a furry little animal--but there has to be at least some element of the character I can relate to.
Characters in a book need to have some depth. I don't think it has to be explicitly written, but there has to be some awareness that there is depth to the character. I think that is part of the believability.
One of my all time favorite characters is Atticus Finch, from To Kill a Mockingbird. Admittedly, there are a lot of terrific characters in that book, but Atticus is one of the best characters ever. One of the interesting things about Atticus as a character is that he's introduced to us through Scout's eyes, so we never actually see what he thinks of himself, really. Another interesting thing is that he doesn't really change or grow. Characters often grow and develop in the story, and Atticus doesn't, not in the usual way. Rather, his character is tested, and we find out that he is true to his principles. I think that is what I like about Atticus. He is just an ordinary man trying to do his best, and to be true to what he believes in. He's a great character.
It's by no means a comprehensive list, and I will definitely be adding to it, but it's something to start with. Feel free to share your thoughts. What do you think makes a good character?
Good characters have to be believable. By believable I don't mean believably human. But they do have to be believable in the context of the story. They have to be true to the parameters of the world they live in in the story.
I think good characters are 'people' we can relate to. Even if they aren't people, because not all characters are human. And we don't have to relate to every aspect of the character--I'm not going to relate to being a furry little animal--but there has to be at least some element of the character I can relate to.
Characters in a book need to have some depth. I don't think it has to be explicitly written, but there has to be some awareness that there is depth to the character. I think that is part of the believability.
One of my all time favorite characters is Atticus Finch, from To Kill a Mockingbird. Admittedly, there are a lot of terrific characters in that book, but Atticus is one of the best characters ever. One of the interesting things about Atticus as a character is that he's introduced to us through Scout's eyes, so we never actually see what he thinks of himself, really. Another interesting thing is that he doesn't really change or grow. Characters often grow and develop in the story, and Atticus doesn't, not in the usual way. Rather, his character is tested, and we find out that he is true to his principles. I think that is what I like about Atticus. He is just an ordinary man trying to do his best, and to be true to what he believes in. He's a great character.
It's by no means a comprehensive list, and I will definitely be adding to it, but it's something to start with. Feel free to share your thoughts. What do you think makes a good character?
Saturday, March 17, 2012
An almost biography
A month or two ago, my sister was telling me about a book she heard about on NPR. This book was about introverts, and from my sister's description, and what I read on NPR, I really wanted to read this book. So I got my hands on Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain, and it was worth the read. I'm always a little wary of books like this, and try to take them with a grain of salt (I don't know why--maybe because I don't like to feel like I have to fit someone else's characterization of me, I like to feel like I decide my personality. Who knows. Just a hunch). Anyway, this was a really insightful book. Very validating for an introvert, and at the same time, it didn't paint the issue in black and white. It was nice to feel understood, and also to feel like, even though I am a behind the scenes kind of person, I can accomplish great things, and that I have talents that other don't. The book also helps build understanding between introverts and extroverts.
Anyway, what I learned is that it is totally okay that I find being an part of an audience one of my talents. And it's wonderful that there are people who like to do things that need an audience, so that I can develop that talent. It is terrific that there are different types of people, because we all have our niche, and I think this book just helps us know how to get along better.
So, if you are an introvert, it will help you understand how to better contribute, and if you aren't an introvert, it is great to help you understand us introverts, because we may be kind of confusing. And if you fall somewhere in between (because there are all types of people out there--yay!) you'll get the best of both sides. It's an easy, enjoyable read, and has a lot of great insights for anyone interested in people.
Anyway, what I learned is that it is totally okay that I find being an part of an audience one of my talents. And it's wonderful that there are people who like to do things that need an audience, so that I can develop that talent. It is terrific that there are different types of people, because we all have our niche, and I think this book just helps us know how to get along better.
So, if you are an introvert, it will help you understand how to better contribute, and if you aren't an introvert, it is great to help you understand us introverts, because we may be kind of confusing. And if you fall somewhere in between (because there are all types of people out there--yay!) you'll get the best of both sides. It's an easy, enjoyable read, and has a lot of great insights for anyone interested in people.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Book vs Movie
Today, I came across this, which kind of ties in to last week's post, so I thought I would share it with you. I think I am going to use this as my new classification system.
Today's book: The Help, by Kathryn Stockett. I'd never heard of the book until the movie came out. Everyone seemed to be raving about the movie, and I heard good things about the book, too, so I decided to break down and read it. After waiting through the queue on the wait list, I finally got a hold of the book, and I really enjoyed it. One of my favorite things about it was the balanced view of racial relations in the south during the 60's. I know that the negative things tend to get the most attention, but it was nice to get a different perspective, and the writing style was really enjoyable.
Once I'd read the book, I watched the movie, and I must say, they did a really good job. I wasn't expecting it to follow the book exactly, and I think they did a really good job of choosing what to capture in the movie. They were true to the characters and the feeling of the book, which is really important, in my opinion (they being the movie people, whoever all that may be). The casting was well done, and most of the alterations to the plot line were pretty minor. The romance story line was downplayed, but for the movie, I think it worked--it kept the focus on the main story line, and if they'd developed the love story as much as the book did, it wouldn't have worked as well.
The conclusion is, I recommend both, but, being a proponent of books, I definitely wouldn't just go with the movie, because, as good as it is, you will miss out on a lot. So, read the book, treat yourself to the movie, laugh, cry, and enjoy!
Today's book: The Help, by Kathryn Stockett. I'd never heard of the book until the movie came out. Everyone seemed to be raving about the movie, and I heard good things about the book, too, so I decided to break down and read it. After waiting through the queue on the wait list, I finally got a hold of the book, and I really enjoyed it. One of my favorite things about it was the balanced view of racial relations in the south during the 60's. I know that the negative things tend to get the most attention, but it was nice to get a different perspective, and the writing style was really enjoyable.
Once I'd read the book, I watched the movie, and I must say, they did a really good job. I wasn't expecting it to follow the book exactly, and I think they did a really good job of choosing what to capture in the movie. They were true to the characters and the feeling of the book, which is really important, in my opinion (they being the movie people, whoever all that may be). The casting was well done, and most of the alterations to the plot line were pretty minor. The romance story line was downplayed, but for the movie, I think it worked--it kept the focus on the main story line, and if they'd developed the love story as much as the book did, it wouldn't have worked as well.
The conclusion is, I recommend both, but, being a proponent of books, I definitely wouldn't just go with the movie, because, as good as it is, you will miss out on a lot. So, read the book, treat yourself to the movie, laugh, cry, and enjoy!
Sunday, March 4, 2012
So much to read, so little time
I have a serious problem. There are too many books to read. At present, I am in the middle of 5 books, not counting the one I started over a year ago about English history (no, I am not making balanced progress on all of them, but they are all on my list and I am past page one and I started them within the last 3 months), and my to read list is over 50 books long. True, it probably needs to be culled. But still...there are WAY too many books to read.
My dilemma is not helped by having access to a very good library, or by being part of book clubs and a family that reads a lot and a very literature oriented circle of friends, or by limited time (which, yes, should be spent reading, but not of the leisure kind. Reading of the scholastic kind, which is also great), or by the amazon era, in which recommender systems compound the problem by finding even more books to add to the list. Honestly, how am I ever supposed to keep up? I think I need some tougher standards for what makes my to read list.
A few weeks ago, I was seriously considering buying a Kindle, so I could put my class readings on it and read on the bus and while walking around campus (yes, I can read and walk, and have never injured myself doing so. Other than taking a year or two off my life here and there when I almost run into a tree or something). It was a really tough decision because, yes, it would be handy, but it's not really a necessity. I just need to be smarter about using my time. But the argument that clinched it for me was this: If I were to buy a Kindle, I would feel obligated to read homework assignments on the bus, instead of feeling justified in doing some nice leisure reading. And I sometimes spend 45 minutes doing bus rides. Now, why on earth would I want to take away my one justifiable reason to read for fun?
I did not buy a Kindle.
What's on your to-read list?
My dilemma is not helped by having access to a very good library, or by being part of book clubs and a family that reads a lot and a very literature oriented circle of friends, or by limited time (which, yes, should be spent reading, but not of the leisure kind. Reading of the scholastic kind, which is also great), or by the amazon era, in which recommender systems compound the problem by finding even more books to add to the list. Honestly, how am I ever supposed to keep up? I think I need some tougher standards for what makes my to read list.
A few weeks ago, I was seriously considering buying a Kindle, so I could put my class readings on it and read on the bus and while walking around campus (yes, I can read and walk, and have never injured myself doing so. Other than taking a year or two off my life here and there when I almost run into a tree or something). It was a really tough decision because, yes, it would be handy, but it's not really a necessity. I just need to be smarter about using my time. But the argument that clinched it for me was this: If I were to buy a Kindle, I would feel obligated to read homework assignments on the bus, instead of feeling justified in doing some nice leisure reading. And I sometimes spend 45 minutes doing bus rides. Now, why on earth would I want to take away my one justifiable reason to read for fun?
I did not buy a Kindle.
What's on your to-read list?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)