An Author to Check Out

I have lately come across the Twitter feed and livejournal of Sarah Rees Brennan, an Irish YA author who recently released the novel The Demon's Lexicon.

I have yet to read her book, though I want to. (Lack of financial resources, and bills to pay are resulting in few to no books being bought at the moment, however...) I can say that what I have read shows her to be funny, clever, and good at writing.

What I really want to bring to your attention, however, is the promotion she's started. Every week that the sale of her book does well, she is going to post a short story on her Livejournal.

I think this is a great idea, for it rewards her steadfast readers, as well as gives people who are just discovering her a way to glimpse her writing before paying for it. (I hate buying a promising book to be disappointed by poor writing.)

The first story is up. It deals with some of the characters and settings that are in her book, but she promises it isn't filled with spoilers.

Teaser & Question

First, watch this:

I'm curious - does the idea of meshing Austen's beloved characters with supernatural horrors intrigue you, or enrage you?

Austen made it clear that she thought gothic novels could be taken too seriously in Northanger Abbey. So what would she make of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Mr. Darcy, Vampyre?

I am inclined to think that she would disapprove, as her novels tend to support the value of thinking sensibly and clearly.

Yet, I like horror novels, so I'm tempted to try reading one or both of these novels.

What are your thoughts?

Edit: The author, Amanda Grange, is giving away a free copy to people who advertise the contest she is holding. Interested? Here's the link.

Purporting to be Austen

I recently read Charlotte, Julia Barrett's continuation of Jane Austen's last written work-in-progress, revolving around a place called Sanditon. If you are an avid fan of Austen (and if you're not, I kind of have to assume you have no soul; (shrugs) sorry), I do not recommend this book.

This continuation is an ambitious project. While Jane Austen only wrote six complete novels during her lifetime, each of those novels is beloved by many, each of those novels is distinct, and a work of art. The beginning of the novel Jane Austen tentatively entitled The Brothers is a promising one, and causes the reader to want to know what happens next, and to be further saddened that Ms. Austen was taken from this world so soon. To ruminate on where the story might have gone, and publish those ruminations for other Austen fans to read takes courage, imagination, of course, and I admire Julia Barrett for sharing her thoughts with the world.

The manner in which this book is packaged, however, led me to believe that Julia Barrett's writing is supposed to resemble that of Ms. Austen's. The transition from Austen's writing to Barrett's is not at all seamless, but is instead rather abrupt. The first sentence of Barrett's, in fact, changes the attitude of the main character.

One thing I did like about this book is that Julia Barrett re-formatted Ms. Austen's writing so that it reads a little bit more like a more modern novel. This re-spacing was done, undoubtedly, to help make the transition to Barrett's writing less distinct.

Another thing evident in the book is that Barrett obviously did research on the time period. She also writes using archaic vocabulary, and really does try to make the reader feel that they are reading about people in the nineteenth century.

The difference between her writing and Austen's is evident, however, perhaps because Austen is writing from the vantage point of someone living in the nineteenth century. Rather than the point of view of someone looking back on that time and trying to recapture its essense, Austen WAS part of the nineteenth century, herself.

Barrett does research, and has some interesting ideas as to where the book was heading. Personally, I don't agree with her. I feel that Barrett changed some of the characters too drastically too fast, and while certain parts of her storyline seem accurate, many of them do not, to me.

Thus, while I congratulate Barrett on her thorough research, and for the mere fact that she attempted to complete a novel by such a famous author, I do not think that this book does justice to the story that Ms. Austen's fragment begins.

My First Laurie Halse Anderson Book

I finished Anderson's book Speak today.

This book has been around for ten years. I've seen it in bookstores, I've seen the Lifetime movie, and it was the movie which made me think, "I need to read this book."

It is well written. It is interesting, and it sounds like a teenage girl (named Melinda Sordino) with some issues.

It has touched a lot of people, but I don't think it's a book that everyone needs to read, necessarily. It's a good read. It's intelligent, and it shows the journey of someone who's been through something horrible, and is slowly dragging herself out of the muck and dealing with a frightening issue.

The scene which was sort of a let down, however, for me, was the scene which involves what it is that happened to Melinda. It was horrible, but I felt like the author toned it down a lot. It didn't have the impact I was expecting, the impact that the movie had. A scene towards the end, where there is a threat that the horror will be re-lived is very vivid, and I felt like I was there. The memory, on the other hand, felt kind of flat. It lessened the horror a bit, because the narrating was sort of bland. Kind of like reading a history book - a person can be talking about really amazing, interesting things, but the manner in which it is related (usually dry) makes it harder to realize how impressive or horrible the past has been.

And another thing that got me is how much Melinda is an outcast. You see, I was an outcast. I still am an outcast. In reality, I do not have any friends. I have my family, I have my boyfriend, and I have me. That's it. I'm not exaggerating. I'm bad at socializing. I don't know the right things to say and do. I'm not charming. I'm not pretty. I'm just me.

The character of Melinda kind of made me feel bad. I don't think that was Anderson's intention, at all, but it's how I felt. You see, Melinda doesn't have any friends because of her horrible past, and misunderstanding, and because she's dealing with all of these issues. And nothing even close to the caliber of what happened to Melinda happened to me. I feel like something that horrible should have happened to me, to cause me to be in the same situation - but since nothing did, I feel like an impostor or something. It's stupid, but while I recognize that this is a good book, I don't like this impression that I received. This impression wasn't implicit in the words or anything, though, I think it's just something my brain came up with to torture me. Yet it's still there.

Anyway, to quickly summarize: it is a good book, and I recommend it for people who like YA, or stories about people who live through something and get through an issue, where you are experiencing the person discovering herself and her life again.

The Thing to Do

With National Poetry Day out of the way, of course, a new, literary fad is going to be pushed down your throat.

Today is the day you're supposed to "Buy a Book from an Independent Bookstore."

There are all of these really great reasons you're supposed to do this - b/c, like many small things, indie bookstores are cute, it helps stimulate the local economy, blah, blah, blah. You can read someone else's (probably better) blog to discover REAL excuses.

I say, it's an excuse to buy a book, and feel compelled to point out that today is also the technical release date of the paperback of Maureen Johnson's Suite Scarlett.

Coincidence? Or marketing ploy? See, it doesn't matter. Now, if you don't know what to get today to do good for your local economy, you're going to have to buy it, because I pointed it out.

Avid fan of Johnson? You need the paperback AS WELL AS the hardcover version, of course.

Never read Johnson's work? Now is the perfect time to start.
Already own a copy of Suite Scarlett? It also makes a great gift. (Look at that prettty cover!)

Don't read? You should start. But you probably won't, so now is the time I'm going to point out how many OTHER uses books have:

*They make you look smart. Even if you haven't actually read the books in your living space, if you have a bookshelf with books on it, people are all impressed and whatnot.

*They prop up coffee tables rather well. This has been proven in countless movies, cartoons, etc.

*Are you considering not participating in the day of buying indie b/c you don't want to seem like a hippie? Books are made of PAPER. If you buy one without intending to read it, you're wasting paper, killing trees, and making long-haired freaks everywhere cry.

Obviously, you NEED a copy of Suite Scarlett.

So, I'm just going to stay here, and keep saying the name of the book until you go out and buy it.

Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Seriously.
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
My energy is unflagging.
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Have you left? Good.
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
I can't stop!

A Religious Book "Not Intending to Prove Anything"

I recently received this book in the mail:


In case you're having trouble reading the cover, it's entitled: Who really goes to hell? The Gospel You've Never Heard: What a Protestant Bible written by Jews says about God's work through Christ (A book for those in the church and those offended by it), and it's written by David I Rudel (with a foreword by Rev. Edward Hopkins).

Basically, even the title gives an indication of what this book seems to be aiming to do - show that the modern interpretation of the gospels is flawed, and offer a viable alternative.

Those who know me personally are aware of my views about Christianity - let's just say, I'm not a fan of the religion. If you believe what the Bible says, and do your best to follow it, you'll be a good person. That's cool. If it gives you comfort, that's great, and I envy you. I, personally, however, have done much thinking on the matter, and I am not a Christian, nor can I force myself to be one, nor am I going to pretend to be one.

This book didn't change my mind.

Yet, I'm going to be honest - I can't bring myself to finish it. I read up through page 20, which is the first chapter of part 1 ("Questing").

The following will be, step by step, some of the problems I had with the chapter that I read:

*On page 10, the author claims that Matthew Henry's Commentary is wrong with the interpretation of Luke 10:28. Yet part of the commentary which he seems to think is a problem is explicitly in my battered King James Version. In my version, it specifically says that the questioner asks the second question to "justify himself." Concerning this, the author states: "That commentary then says his second question is an effort at looking for a way out."

The manner in which the author's sentence is phrased at least indicates that he does not agree with the commentary interpretation. Yet, according to my KJV, that's not even an interpretation, but a statement of facts.

Now, Rudel is not using the KJV for his scriptural quotations. He's using one of those newer interpretations. So maybe his version is phrased differently, and takes out the connotation that the questioner is trying to flatter himself that he's still all right.

This possible difference brings us to an important concept, for me, however: translation.

We all know that if you translate something from its' original language, some of the original understanding is lost. The New Testament, specifically the gospels, were written in ancient Greek, later translated into Latin by St. Jerome, and later still, translated into English during the reign of King James. So, unless you're going to learn ancient Greek and read the gospels in the earliest form that you can find, I don't really think that you can look at the tiny differences between modern English bibles, pick the version you like best, and go, "See! I have a point!"

*On page 12, Rudel writes: "Evangelists today can sketch out their message in five minutes; you'd think if it were an accurate depiction of Christ's work, each writer would clearly write it somewhere in his gospel."

First of all, this passage is extremely rude. I really don't think that most modern Christian holy men are setting out to mislead people. I think that they have had a lot of theological training, and have read the gospels closely, and are trying to pass on the knowledge that they have gleaned. I assume Rudel is referring to a sermon, in which many pastors/preachers/etc. summarize the main points of their lecture. Still, Rudel's wording sounds very close to a personal attack. I don't see why anyone with an orthodox view of Christianity is going to read this book if Rudel's going to talk about the views they grew up with with such disdain.

Secondly, why? Why should the gospel writers have a clear interpretation of the overall message? When I read the Bible, it sounds authoritative in that it sounds like a primary source. And when you're talking about history, primary sources are to be read avidly, critically, and with interest. You can't get a better glimpse of history than from someone who says, "I was there. And this is what I saw." The disciples claim to be faithfully depicting the actions and at least the gist of the words that Jesus spoke - kind of like a memoir. Or maybe, more like a play, in which the reader/audience member sees the actions and hears the words, but needs to find meaning in the play him- or herself.

*Again on page 12, Rudel writes: "...it is hard to understand why they would not affirm the modern gospel (if it were true); instead they chose (or the Spirit chose for them) to relate teaching after teaching that chafes against it."

This statement is pretty broad, and the author has not given us evidence showing "teaching after teaching that chafes against it."

*On page 13, the author writes: "It appears the Greek version of Matthew we have today might come from an earlier Hebrew version written before the Gentiles were welcomed into the church." He says this to make a point. Well, if that's the case, then why should we consider the gospels reliable at all? It says that Matthew is a tax collector. As a government official for the Roman Empire, Matthew, if he's literate at all, is most likely to read and write in Greek or Latin. And considering the area in which the gospels are set, most likely to read and write in Greek.

And don't you think that it's kind of odd that Matthew isn't introduced in his own gospel until chapter 9 verse 9? Everything that is related before we, the readers, meet Matthew is therefore heresay, rather than something Matthew witnessed himself.

*On page 13, Rudel quotes Matthew 5:19-20, the beginning of the sermon on the Mount. "Jesus says, anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

He uses this passage to point out that many modern Christians deny that being a good person and doing the right thing gives you favor in God's eye. I don't know that that's true, exactly, but many modern interpretations of the gospel claim that people are ONLY saved through faith and the grace of God. Which means that it doesn't matter what you do, because you will never be perfect like God, and so can't gain eternal life without his help. I don't think, however, that most Christians are like, "So do whatever you want b/c good works don't really gain you shit," which is kind of the impression Rudel is giving me.

I also find Rudel's interpretation of the passage not simplistic enough. That sounds odd, I know, but since he's claiming modern views are wrong b/c they've strayed from literal interpretations of the gospels (which, considering how often Jesus spoke in metaphor, doesn't really sound that weird to me, but whatever), I kind of expect him to pull apart these passages that the church generally interprets "wrong" and explicitly show me how he interprets them differently. But he just kind of makes these general statements that I don't even usually agree with.

I'm skipping ahead to page 19, which has one of the worst lines, in my opinion: "Nothing here is meant to prove anything, just indicate why the modern gospel does not seem the natural conclusion from Jesus' teachings for a number of reasons."

Way to wuss out. If you're not trying to PROVE that the modern interpretation is wrong, and offer a viable alternative, why did you write this book? And why should I read it?

So I'm not.

Title: Who really goes to hell? The Gospel You've Never Heard: What a Protestant Bible written by Jews says about God's work through Christ (A book for those in the church and those offended by it)
Author: David I Rudel
Publisher: Biblical Heresy Press
Copyrite: 2009
Website that goes with book: www.John173.net

Another Look at Twilight

I have a long, tangled history with the book Twilight, by Stephenie Meyer.

Meyer's book had a great marketing team. They got her to change the title of the book from the less appealing Forks to a less obvious title, and they picked really visually appealing covers. I read young adult quite a bit, actually. I browse that section of the bookstore, particularly when I was looking for a less mentally demanding book to read for fun (because I picked a major that forced me to do a lot of dry reading, and a lot of analysis; sometimes, I needed a break). My eye was caught many times by the book with the black cover, and the pale arms, with hands cupping an apple. I noticed the cover, I read the back cover, and I put it back on the shelf. Frankly, those famous "three things" Bella's "absolutely positive" about make it sound like the protagonist is an airhead. Not that that's a bad thing, but I have a kind of intolerant attitude with regards to idiocy, and I didn't think I would like this book.

Well, then the trailer for the movie came out. The trailer looked pretty interesting, and I was like, Okay, I'm going to suck it up and pay eleven dollars to read this book. That clever cover was right - this book is interesting.

And then I read the book, and was very underwhelmed. Not at first, but at the end.

See, here's the thing. The book starts out okay. Excluding the epilogue, it ends okay, too. Yet for 500 pages, this book doesn't pack the punch I'm aiming for. If we are an S&M couple, I'm bent over, expecting to get smacked hard, and I feel a tap. I want to be sore for a week, and am instead only slightly irritated for a few seconds.

I know this book has a lot of fans. That's great; Meyer got lucky with this book series. And have you seen her interviews for The Host? She might not realize how lucky she got with this series, but she is appropriately humble about her writing skill. She says she was kind of "raw." I appreciate that she isn't acting like the greatest writer who ever walked the earth because some obsessed girls say it's true.

(Also, I would like to say, I like Meyer much more after seeing this interview. What a bitch! She refers to her readers as "girls," when I know there are some boys, middle-aged moms, etc. who rave about these books. Then, while she said she's got cool fans, she still puts them down, insinuating that they're not open-minded when she says they might just throw the book on the floor because it doesn't have Edward in it. While she's got a clear view of why many of her fans like the Twilight series, it is still deliciously evil to call them out on being love struck ditzes.)

I'll ignore the inconsistencies in this book - suffice it to say, they exist.

I won't go into detail about the abusive relationship, because many others have discussed this, and I doubt I can do better than they have. I would like to say that Bella is afraid of Edward many times, though, and that any impressionable people who read this book and happen to stumble upon this review, please keep in mind, if you're scared of your significant other, that is wrong. Don't date someone you're scared of, physically or otherwise.

I didn't mind reading the book as much this time around, but I'm definitely not going to rave about it.

Bella gets kind of whiny, kind of annoying, and says some really stupid things. She's a teenager. You know what? She sounds like a teenager most of the time. Meyer did a good job of capturing that phase of life. I like reading about teenagers who are more intelligent.

The big problem with this book for me, though, is that a lot of the dialogue is really shitty. I'm sorry, there's no way around this. Around page 206 (and remember guys, this book is FIVE HUNDRED FREAKIN' PAGES LONG!), the dialogue just starts to get ridiculous.

Let's put it this way - when I watched the movie with my boyfriend, he was guffawing at the dialogue, and actually said, "This dialogue is terrible!"

My response: "It's from the book."

Sometimes, the narrative writing gets a bit saccharine, too, at least for my tastes. An example of this can be found on page 257: "I tried to keep my eyes away from his perfection as much as possible, but I slipped often. Each time, his beauty pierced me through with sadness." Now that is just bad writing.

Still, while there are a lot of dopey moments, Meyer has some good writing in here, too. There were times I giggled, and believable moments. I would not call this a good romance, though.

If you like your reading to be witty and clever, I say skip this one. It is Meyer's first book, and the writing might get better later in the series, but this book's pretty rough.

(P.S., this book counts towards the 2009 Romance Reading Challenge I'm doing.)