Aaaand, I'm back

It occurred that I haven't written in ages, and you probably all wondered what happened. Well, nothing. I just didn't blog anything. Not that I haven't been reading, I have just been reading a lot of Wodehouse and Pratchett, so there isn't anything really to blog about. But, I did just finally finish a series that is not by either of those authors, and that posed some interesting questions, so I actually have something to post about.

I recently finished the Montmoray series by Michelle Cooper. This is a really interesting series for me, because I can't give it a blanket recommendation. I would recommend it, but I'd have to give a caveat first. Primarily because this book deals with various issues of sexuality, and I'd want anyone I recommended it to to know that. And since it is written for a teen audience, I'd want to make sure that there was an adult apprised and ready to address the issues with them. Fiction is great, but I think there needs to be some real world context in some cases.

Anyway, what I did like about this series was that it gave a unique look at what WWII was like for those living in Europe, particularly England. There is a really great feel for the climate in Europe leading up to the War. I really liked the historical aspect of the novels, (although I was a little bit disappointed that there wasn't more detail about the historical authenticity in the author's note at the end).

And now for the issues. Not all of these were bad. For example, questions about puberty and the birds and the bees. I must admit, I do wonder sometimes how that knowledge was passed on in times when it was a more taboo topic, and that is one of the things that comes up in the book and was addressed quite tactfully. The author also has a character that is gay, and while it's not the main theme of the book, it was a running sub theme, you could say. Now, I have mixed feelings about throwing sexual orientation into historical-based plots, because so often, people try to reflect modern attitudes. In this case, the author did a good job of reflecting attitudes of the time--it was not socially acceptable, although people knew it happened, and it was kind of hushed up. And I think that the author did a good job of not interjecting her opinion on the matter, but just showing what the attitudes of the time were.

The author did the same thing with topics like couples living together and having affairs. Now, part of me says, "seriously, how prominent was all this? I mean it happened, but the odds of one family, one person, encountering all of these issues?" And then I say, "Well, how prominent was it? People didn't talk about it, so maybe it was as common. Maybe it wasn't. I don't know." But I think in this case, I think the author was just trying to show the culture of the time--in terms of the war, women's rights, politics, marriage, and these issues. So it works.

The one part I didn't like was the main character had a one night stand with someone (even weirder, it was her half cousin who also had a relationship with her brother, and it was all just weird). It was just a disappointment, because it seemed kind of out of character for her. That is the one thing that would really hold me back from giving it a blanket recommendation. Because it throws that "romance novel" scene in there. So, I'd want to be sure I knew who I was recommending it to, and how they would be affected/how they would react to that. Which, doesn't happen til the third book, but once you've read the first two, you have to know how the war ends for the characters (since we obviously know how the war ended for the world generally).

Anyway, the series did present me with some interesting things to think about. Currently I'm reading Birdology, so look forward to a bit on that. More about birds than you thought you wanted to know. (Still can't say I get the appeal of chickens).

High expectations

This week I watched The Hunger Games with my niece. I have read the books but I'm going to say up front, it's been a while (year and a half?). Anyway, I enjoyed the series--well, enjoyed may not be the right word, but you know what I mean. However, there were some people I know who didn't really like the last book, Mockingjay, because Katniss just wasn't the strong superhero overcoming all the odds that people expect.

I will admit that the third book has a very different feel to it. And no, she doesn't come off as the stereotypical heroine who never lets life get her down. But I don't think that is a bad thing. Because how many people are like that? And how many of you that have had a very hard challenge (or challenges, which is the case for a lot of people, unfortunately) appreciate a heroine that knows that life is hard and sometimes, enduring is a heroic feat? I sometimes feel like the heroine who is never stressed or teary or worn out with all the hardship is pretty shallow. I know that I get worn out by how hard life gets sometimes, and while I try to be the kind of person who always comes out on top, I also know that it's not that easy.

So, yes, I think Mockingjay is not what we expect or even necessarily look for in our heroic protagonists. But I don't think that is bad. I think there is value in showing that there are different types of heroism.

I also think that Mockingjay highlights the clash between Katniss's personality and what circumstances have forced her to become. Katniss was never very comfortable with attention, and never signed up to be an icon, and Mockingjay is all about Katniss the icon. The other books show us Katniss the survivor, which is her strength. Now the story is about Katniss the image, not Katniss the person and that changes things.

Now I feel like I should have this brilliant and witty conclusion (my english and lit teachers ruined me for life--I still cannot write anything without including some kind of conclusion!) but really I guess the moral of this post is that comparing books is fun, but sometimes it is interesting to weigh a book in the context of its characters and plot, rather than other characters and plots and such. The end.

The way things should have been

This week I read Little Women and Me by Lauren Baratz-Logsted. Mostly I was intrigued to find out how the author would make the premise work. I think this is a book that has an audience, and it is good as far as that goes, but if you have qualms about people introducing changes to books you love, proceed with caution. Because the whole premise of this book is changing a classic plot.

While it wasn't the most riveting book I've ever read, it did introduce a new way to look at a classic book, Little Women and pointed out things I have never thought about. For example, this author thought that Little Women is very episodic and jumps from plot point to plot point, and it seems like that was weird to her. It's really not that weird, if you think about it--do you want to read a day to day account of the characters in a book? But it did present an interesting perspective.

Baratz-Logsted also felt that the Laurie-Amy romance was all wrong. I disagree with that analysis, but that's not the point. The interesting thing is that it was this that led her to write the book, which basically asks the question, "If you could change a book, what would you change and how?" I don't generally think that way, myself. To me it's like asking what if about life questions, which is pretty unhelpful. Especially since 'what if' is never guaranteed. Even if you could go back and choose b instead of a, it doesn't mean that you would have outcome d instead of c. You could still get c, or you might get f, or mm, or 38. Anyway, it is interesting to consider what you might change about a book. I haven't come up with any specific books or done any major analysis or anything, but my general reflection is that the books that I love the most are the books I wouldn't change anything about. It is the books that I don't like that I want to change. Which seems pretty obvious. But usually the books that I don't like are books that, for me, have holes in the plot or poor writing, or just don't hold up. It's generally that the book doesn't seem well-written, not that I just happen to disagree with an author's plot choice. But still, it is interesting to consider.

So, any books that you would definitely change?

Books to suit your mood

Have you ever just not been in a mood for a book? Or needed a book to fit a certain mood? I finished one last night, and it was the perfect book if you want to cry. I wouldn't have guessed that I was in the mood to cry, but it felt good to shed a few tears.

The book was See You at Harry's by Jo Knowles. I have never read anything by her, so I don't know what her other books are like, but this one I recommend. Up front, I will tell you it deals with a couple of heavy issues, namely death and homosexuality. But she deals with them beautifully, and I think it is a good book for it's age group--teens (particularly early). From my coursework in graduate school, and just because of the world we live in, homosexuality is an issue that can't be tucked under the rug. It is a topic that brings up strong emotions in a lot of people, and while a parent should never leave education to books or others, this book I think does a really good job of introducing it, showing some of the tension around the issue, and it does it without preaching. I think the author managed to stay fairly neutral, not imposing her views, but just presenting it as a reality. The other issue, death, was also well dealt with, showing some of the feelings and the grieving process. And because the book focuses on a family, there is a good spectrum of reactions. Knowles did a really good job showing real reactions.

The characters in this book are very relatable, which I think in a book of this style is important. When dealing with hard topics, I don't want to read about someone who is practically inhuman in their approach. I like to read books that help me feel not alone in the world when I'm dealing with hard stuff. If the plot is based in reality. (Fantasy and science-fiction have a little leeway in that regard). At the same time, I don't want characters who go to the other extreme. Knowles strikes a good balance.

Anyway, it's good to have your books for all occasions. You know, books to read when you need a laugh, when you are sad, lonely, stressed, bored, etc. People talk about how books are your friends, and while a book can never replace a person for me, there is a lot of comfort in reading a familiar story. I think that is one of the powers of books. Not a bad power.

What makes a story

There is a game called Rory's Story Cubes, that my nieces and nephews have been playing lately. It's an interesting enough game, and I like the concept. Basically, you roll the dice, and make up a story using the pictures. So, what tends to happen is people create links between the items. "There was a mouse, and he found a key, and it opened the door, and then aliens took them to their pyramid on Mars." Something like that. It is connecting things, but a story is more than just taking elements and linking them together.

A story needs a plot. Things happen, there are reasons and results, people/characters change, they act, they do and say things. The 'elements'--pyramids, aliens, keys, mice--all become important because the story is affected by them. They become significant. The pyramid matters because of the reason we are there, and what we do there. Without the pyramid, the story becomes very different. When we are just linking objects together, that doesn't happen.

Of course, with the game, no one wants to sit around waiting for us to create a real story. That would probably take longer than we want. But a skilled story teller could create a story where even the most eclectic items become pivotal in the plot. It is magical.

Real life read

This week, I finished reading Okay for Now by Gary D. Schmidt. I have read a couple of his other books, and enjoyed them, so I decided to give this one a go and it was fantastic.

This book is technically Young Adult fiction, but I feel like it falls into the genre of "real life fiction." Meaning it could actually happen.What makes the book stand out, though, is Schmidt's ability to bring the characters to life. Doug, the main character, is the narrator, and as the story progresses, it is hard not to feel and relate to what he feels. You can feel his frustration when good things start to happen and are then followed by bad things and you begin to figure out how his mind works, the way he acts tough to cover for things.

Another of Schmidt's successes with this novel is his cast of teachers and adults who care. As Doug struggles with family problems and other personal difficulties, it is hard not to feel gratitude for the science teacher who lets Doug  be free from the reputation of his brother, the librarian who takes the time to teach him drawing, and more. By the end of the book, Doug has won everyone over, and it is cool to see how he makes choices to be different from his less-than-ideal family role models.

It was also interesting to read about the time period, when putting a man on the moon was in the works. I grew up post-moon landing, so I think I always take it for granted that we put people on the moon. But Okay for Now gives a new perspective on what it must have been like to live then.

I really haven't done this book justice, but it is really a fantastic read and I highly recommend it. You'll come away feeling like the world is an okay place.

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?