Stardust

Back again! I am on a roll with the blogging. I am making up for my blog slacking-ness I'm telling you. Anyways, I am reviewing a book that I finished reading a little while ago because I had actually already seen the movie and was curious how the two compared. I tend to do this a lot. If I have seen the movie, I'll want to read the book and vice versa. Usually it's the other way around but anyways, without further ado Stardust by Neil Gaiman.

Characters: Tristran Thorn: hopelessly in love with Victoria Forester/goes hunting for a falling star/is not entirely human
Yvaine: actually a fallen star/is very annoyed that Tristran has captured her/wants desperately to return back to the sky
The Witch-Queen: one of three extremely powerful witches/hunts Yvaine in order to harness her power/wishes to become young again
Lord Septimus: wishes to become the next ruler of Stormhold/has killed off most of his brothers/is the one who gets closest to becoming the next king

The Plot: Tristran Thorn is becoming desperate. He has tried everything to win the attentions of Victoria Forester (not a major character but has an important role in the beginning) but to no avail. Then one night as he walks Victoria home, Tristran watches a star fall from the sky. Victoria tells Tristran that if he brings her the star that she will marry him. Tristran travels across the Wall (Tristran lives in a town where there is a "Wall" and once you cross this "Wall" you enter a wrold of magic and faeries) in his village and into the strange land beyond where unbeknownst to him, he was born years earlier. When he manages to locate the star, to his surprise the fallen star isn't a rock: its a human. A human with quite a temper. Annoyed that she has been captured by the likes of Tristran Thorn, Yvaine attempts to escape Tristran's clutches. However, danger lurks at every turn as one of the oldest witch-queens in the land across the Wall pursues them relentlessly, in the hopes of capturing Yvaine and using her to create eternal youth. Also, Lord Septimus wants to find the amulet of Stormhold, which will make him King, even if that involves killing anyone who gets in his way.

What I liked: It is such a cute premise for a story. I thought it was really original how Tristran goes looking for a fallen star to give to his "sweetheart" Victoria. I use the word "sweetheart" in quotes here because Victoria merely tolerates Tristran's presence. But I thought the overall setup of the novel was cute and all of the characters had distinctive personalities that made the book a quick, entertaining read.

What I didn't like: I think I made the mistake of viewing the book and the movie out of order. Honestly, I liked the movie so much better that I had a hard time enjoying Stardust. Now, I am not one of those people that instantly likes the books better or instantly likes the movies better. Harry Potter? Awesome movies and books but books are still better sorry Warner Brothers. The Lightning Thief and Inkheart? No comparison. Sherlock Holmes? Stories are literary genius and while I love the movie, falls short of the book. Twilight? Both awful, and I enjoy torturing myself with watching the movies when they come out. The point is that I am not one of those people who gets freaked out about preserving the artistic integrity of a book. I think that you need to change a story to make it your own because you can never live up to the original words that people fell in love with. That being said, you cannot drift too far or you will alienate your viewing group. But I felt like the Stardust movie took a book that had potential, and turned it into something that was far better than what was originally written. Stardust (movie version) had so much more humor from the secretly gay ship captain, to the hilarious ghosts commentating on their brothers' deaths, there were so many other cute moments that I feel like Gaiman could have reached. All the elements were in place, the ghosts were present and the ship captain, I just felt...sad I guess that those little details weren't there because that is why I fell in love with the story. But I can forgive Neil Gaiman for that. I cannot forgive him for the ending. The witch-queen just decided that she was going to give up hunting Yvaine. Really? That is not only 1. completely out of character and 2. builds you up to this climax that doesn't really exist. You feel almost like you missed some crucial chapter, and just skipped to the feel-good wrap up at the end. Also, Tristran doesn't really choose Yvaine at the end. Victoria tells Tristran she loves someone else and that she'll marry him but she really doesn't want to, and Tristran wises up and decides not to marry her. He doesn't realize she manipulated him and used him and had no intention of being with him until she tells him. "Oh uh well I guess I'll just marry Yvaine then uh cause I'm afraid of being alone." says Tristran. (Not really but that's what I imagine him saying). Seriously, such an awful ending that I wanted to tell Neil Gaiman to just watch the movie and get ideas for how to fix it.

Overall: 4 out of 10. Missed a lot of attempts for humor and a terrible ending bring this score down but the cute premise and somewhat lovable characters save this book.

Cleopatra's Daughter

Hey everyone! Didn't think I'd be back did you? Ah ye of little faith. I have arrived and I am reviewing a book that I just finished reading yesterday. I figured since it's fresh in my mind why not go ahead and do it? Well here we go: this is my review on Cleopatra's Daughter by Michelle Moran, (kudos to my mom by the way she's the one that spotted this one)

Characters: Kleopatra Selene: daughter of Cleopatra and Marc Antony/the last of the Ptolemies/moves to Rome to stay with the Roman emperor Octavian's family
Alexander Helios: son of Cleopatra and Marc Anthony/twin of Selene/spends most of his time trying to prevent Selene from doing something drastic
Julia: daughter of Octavian/engaged three times since she was two/has been forbidden to ever see her mother again
Marcellus: a potential heir to Rome/currently betrothed to Julia/has a bit of a gambling problem
Juba and Agrippa: two of Octavian's most trusted allies/live in the family compound with Octavian and his sister Octavia/both very sympathetic towards the slaves
Octavia: sister of Octavian/hates her brother's wife Livia/loves to do charity work

The Plot: Kleopatra Selene, Alexander Helios and Ptolemy are the future kings and queens of Egypt. All of that changes when their father, Marc Antony loses his final battle and commits suicide as Octavian, Antony's rival for power in Rome, sweeps into Egypt and takes the throne from Marc Antony and his wife, the famous Cleopatra. As they are taken captive, Cleopatra commits suicide and Selene, Alexander and Ptolemy are to accompany Octavian back to Rome. But along the way, Ptolemy dies and Selene cannot help but wonder how much longer she and her twin Alexander, the last of the Ptolemies, will survive. They arrive on the shores of Rome and find a land that is so unlike their own Selene instantly contemplates running away. But her fear of this new land and her hope that she may one day return to Egypt prevents her reckless escape with her brother. Terrified that Octavian may decide that they are no longer useful at any point, Selene is desperate to prove her worth while not losing the part of her that will not comply with Octavian's will. As slave rebellions rock Rome, Selene is forced to question everything she knows and how far she is willing to go to return home.

What I liked: Okay so I really really REALLY like historical fiction. Sorry, I know it's kind of nerdy and all, but as I have said before I wouldn't be doing this blog if I wasn't a nerd. Just for the sake of clarity, I guess I should tell you why I like historical fiction. I like historical fiction because it captures the essence of a time and takes you to a place that has actually existed. It gives you a taste of what really happened during a particular time, and it gives you a sense of what life was like. It also breathes life into these people that you read about in your history textbooks and they each get a life of their own. I am a major history geek and I want to focus on ancient history, so this was a really awesome book for me to read. Also, I have been OBSESSED with Ancient Egypt for as long as I can remember. I love reading about Ancient Egypt and the mummies and the pyramids and how the pharaohs built these incredible monuments, some of which still hasn't been discovered. Ancient Rome is also a favorite period of mine too. But back to Cleopatra's Daughter now that I have brought my tangent back home - I thought all of the characters were extremely well developed which I found very surprising. I would have thought that because it was a historical novel, that Moran would be limited by the characters and the fact that we don't really know all that much about these people. I was caught off guard though, and pleasantly though. Selene, who had this personality which was very aware of the social injustices of her time, was so close to her brother and had such care for him. I found this very endearing because most of the sibling relationships in the novel were dysfunctional at best. And the fact that she loves architecture made her more real. Also, Alexander, the boy who loves to gamble, ride horses, and yet has a secret that he has hidden for almost anyone. No, I'm not going to tell you what it is (but by the way, I totally called it). I thought all of the events that Moran included shaped the novel beautifully. By having the children required to attend the trials of "criminals" (I put it in quotes for reasons that become clear if you read the book) you got a very accurate, penetrating description into Roman life. I thought that was truly special.

What I didn't like: *MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR SPOILERS.THIS WILL RUIN THE REST OF THE BOOK. IF YOU DON"T WANT IT TO BE RUINED, PROCEED TO SPOILER FREE ZONE* I thought Juba's romance with Selene was rather sudden. Don't get me wrong, I liked Juba the best because I thought Marcellus was an idiot. But all of a sudden, Selene who has been moping the whole novel over Marcellus (yes she was moping-it was pathetic because not only was he engaged but it was to her best friend) and then she suddenly realizes how awesome Juba is. All very very sudden. *SPOILER FREE ZONE* Also, there is a scene that Moran had to include but it made me actually kind of sick. One of Julia's old friends is pregnant and giving birth to a child with an old man that she is married to. He is about sixty and she's about thirteen. When he sees its a girl, he tells the maid to take the child "to the dump". It was in the middle of winter. It was awful. But then Octavian, the ruler who killed Selene's parents, has killed slaves without even caring, says that he wants to leave the old man's house. The old man says something to the effect of that it's too cold and that he should stay. Then Octavian says "I'm sure your daughter would have liked to stay the night as well. When you shiver, remember how cold it is in the dump." OH SNAP. But I had a really hard time stomaching the fact that girls younger than me were married to guys older than my dad and were already pregnant. They had no control over their lives and could be married as many times as their male relatives decided. Sometimes, I am really glad I didn't live in Ancient Rome.

Overall: 8 out of 10. While I really liked it, I found that Selene's random romance with Juba was too quick and kind of took away from the ending of the book.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

Hey everyone! Well, it is the first time that I have written a blog in months but I have been so busy with school that I just couldn't find the time. But my goal *fingers crossed* is to try and blog actively over the winter break. To start it off, I am going to review a book that I just finished reading for AP English - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain.

Characters: Huckleberry Finn: part of Tom Sawyer's "kidnappers" and "murderers" group/ escapee from his father's clutches/friend to Jim
Jim: Huck's guardian's slave/escapes slavery after he hears he will be sold/is very superstitious.
The Duke and the King: two con-artists that Huck and Jim rescue/are truly evil/come up with various schemes to get money and harm people
Tom Sawyer: Huck's friend/is the most "well-read" of anyone Huck knows/thinks that everything can be turned into some sort of epic adventure.

The Plot: Huckleberry Finn has barely recovered from his adventures with Tom Sawyer when more danger arrives in the form of his father. His father, hearing of the money Huck got after he found Injun Joe's treasure, comes to find Huck in order to take his money. Huck is currently living with the Widow and he hates it. But when his father takes him from the Widow, Huck finds his life going from bad to worse. Huck fakes his death in order to escape his father and "sivilization" and decides to live on an island for the rest of his life. Imagine his surprise when one of the Widow's slaves, Jim, appears on the same island. Having heard that the Widow was going to sell him "down the river" Jim escapes and hopes to run away to freedom. When Huck and Jim are close to being discovered on their island, they build a raft and head down river towards the dangerous Deep South. The farther they go, Huck's rebellious spirit makes him question slavery and whether or not turning Jim in is something that he should do.

What I liked: I honestly loved this story. I think part of the reason that I loved this book so much is because I loved Huck Finn. Huck Finn was the type of narrator that any good book should have. Brutally honest, clever but with an affinity for breaking the law, and a good heart, you instantly love him. Huck has this habit of telling people what they want to hear in order to better his situation by playing off what they tell him, and twisting it so they instantly believe them. For example, at one point Huck has locked a bunch of murderers and robbers in a steamboat but feels bad because he thinks they will drown as the boat sinks. He then proceeds to tell the boatman about the boat, but the boatman says his boss won't let him leave his post. So Huck simply tells him that its his boss's family on the boat. Simple cleverness like that makes him a lovable character. The fact is though, Mark Twain chose a good narrator when he picked a young boy. If you have read "To Kill a Mockingbird", its kind of the same situation with the narrator as Scout (a young girl). By having a young child as the narrator, they are able to question society differently because they are so young and haven't accepted the social prejudices of their society. My favorite part of the book is when Huck decides early on that he doesn't want to go to heaven because the Widow's sister Miss Watson says that she is going there. Just this point blank honesty makes Huck a powerful narrator. At one point, Huck can see these men coming down the river and he swims to them to ask for directions. Huck has to decide if he will turn Jim in, even though he has been taught that God approves of slavery. He is sitting there and decides that "well, I'm going to hell then," and decides to not turn in Jim. This young boy has already accepted his fate and is not ready to change what he believes in order to compromise himself. What I thought was really interesting is that a lot of people think that Mark Twain was a racist and that this is a racist book. Personally, I just really couldn't understand that. It seemed so obvious to me that this book was about a struggle between what Huck knew was right and what society was telling him that I just couldn't understand why people think the book was racist. If I had to guess it was probably because the book had the n-word in it. I don't know that just seems ridiculous. Twain wrote a book that was true to the times and preserved the historical accuracies of the time. For me, this made the book more real: I love books that take a historical time period and put fictional characters in it in order to criticize or comment about that society. It makes the book come alive. If you didn't have the n-word, it would be like hiding a part of that society. Twain wasn't a racist, just a man commenting on society. If you want to see more of Mark Twain's satire in "Huckleberry Finn" check out this link: http://www.goatview.com/may21juliamoore.htm.

What I didn't like: Tom Sawyer is a jerk! Sorry but there really isn't a nice word for how he acts. *MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK* Jim ends up being captured and being held as a fugitive slave in Tom's Aunt's house. Tom and Huck decide to free him, but Tom thinks that Huck's plan is too sensible. He comes up with this elaborate scheme that delays Jim's rescue for several months and almost gets all three of them killed, and Jim doesn't even get rescued. Tom even withholds the information that Jim was free all along just so he can play his little game with Jim. While I understand that Twain did this in order to show how Tom hasn't changed while Huck has, I still hated this part.

Overall: 10 out of 10. An American classic that doesn't deserve the bad rap it gets.

Catch 22

Hey everyone! Its been awhile but now I am back and ready to blog since I have a free weekend. I will try to do another blog later in the week because it is almost time for THANKSGIVING BREAK! But without further ado, I am going to review a book that I had to read for AP English, Catch 22 by Joseph Heller. Here we go!

Characters: Yossarian: bombardier for the American army/thinks everyone is trying to kill him/has a dead man in his tent
Chaplain: the minister of the army/a friend of Yossarians/has a hard time dealing with the functioning of the military units
Milo: runs the syndicate/a "friend" of Yossarians/is the mayor of almost every town in Italy
Colonel Cathcart: is obsessed with becoming a general/like most of the people in power he is not too terribly bright/constantly raises the mission levels of his men
Doc Daneeka: military doctor who always thinks something is wrong with him/thinks Yossarian is crazy/has a fear of flying

Plot: There was only one catch, and that was Catch 22. Catch 22 states that in order to willing fly bombarding missions you have to be insane and the only way to get out of flying missions is to prove that you are insane. However, as soon as you apply to get out of flying, that proves that you are sane for not wanting to willing endanger your life, proving you are ineligible to be relieved. This is Yossarians world. A soldier stationed in Pianosa Italy during World War II, Yossarian is plagued with the notion that everyone is trying to kill him and that there is no way he can get out of this war alive. Coupled with the fact that Colonel Cathcart raises the number of missions flown in order to be sent home daily, Yossarian finds himself in his own personal hell. Along with his friends Nately, Milo, Doc Daneeka, and the Chaplain, Yossarian tries to navigate this confusing world while still wondering if it is even possible for any of them to escape with their lives.

What I thought: I know that I usually do a "what I liked" and a "what I didn't like" section but this book is so complex I had a hard time trying to separate my thoughts into two nice neat categories, so I am going to put them all together in one big section, not unlike Catch 22. But anyway back to the book. Let me just start off by saying that I pride myself on being a good reader and being able to follow a book no matter how strange the dialect, or confusing the plot, or crazy the circumstances. This is the first book that I have ever read that has made me confused. I don't say this lightly. Part of the reason this review was so difficult to write is because I am still not entirely sure what went on. However, I don't think that I was prepared for reading Catch 22. I don't mean that I couldn't handle the actual words: there were just so many allusions and references I had no idea what was going on. It frustrated me that none of the characters seemed very well developed. All Nately was was a love sick boy who couldn't wait to get back to his "whore" (Heller's words not mine) in Italy. Yossarian and the rest of his squadron minus the Chaplain were just a bunch of teenage boys who couldn't stop looking at women as some sexual objects for more than two seconds. Frankly, it made me a little nauseous how raunchy this book was. I still don't understand the purpose of the characters being like this unless it was to objectify them and make some statement about the military in general, but I don't think that was the case. However, the actual premise of the book was pure genius. The idea of "Catch 22" was amazing and the situations such as with Doc Daneeka's "death" and the Great Loyalty Oath Crusade really made serious statements about bureaucratic interference in war. Also, the last third of the book was absolutely inspired. Before the last third, Catch 22 seemed to just fly around jumping from character to character and not lasting long enough on each to make the reader love, hate or even get a feeling about any character. The last part though, took a darker turn and focused on Yossarian's loss of most of his friends. One of the last chapters is called "The Eternal City" and it was one of the most haunting pieces of any book that I have ever read. It even had some knock out funny points that made Catch 22 enjoyable to read (something I learned after reading, look up the meaning of "Scheisskopf" in German. Just one of the many things I missed that was pointed out to me by my English teacher). I believe that if I read it again, I would appreciate Catch 22 more. I honestly wish that the book had more of a chronological timeline: it jumped around so much that I had no idea what was going on half the time. Again though, I think this book may have been a little over my head: if I were to read it again though, I might be able to understand it a little bit more.

Overall: 8 out of 10. Catch 22 has made me acutely aware that there is much I have to learn about reading and that books can be confusing and crazy yet still be pure literary genius.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (The Manifesto Series)

Alright! So my next book is a mini novel I had to read for my APES (Advanced Placement Environmental Science super exciting right?) awareness hours. My awareness hours involve learning more about the environment through classes, lectures and other environmental experiences. I understand why we have to do it, but it does seem to take up a lot of my time however, I did get to read an interesting book which is part of Manifesto's Words that Changed the World series. So here is my review of Manifesto's Words that Changed the World, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.

Characters: Again, like the previous book I reviewed, this book isn't much of a narrative so it has no real "characters".

The Plot: Not many people had ever heard of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. At least not in today's world. But forty years ago in the 1960's and 1970's Rachel Carson was changing the way the world looked at the environment. Starting from Rachel Carson as a child and following her life as she was thrust onto a national stage, this book follows Rachel Carson on her amazing journey to save the world. It offers a personal and chilling glance into Carson's life as she furiously combats the DDT companies while battling her own demons, namely a cancer that would plague her for the last years of her life. This book not only exposes the tactics the companies used to try to keep the American public in the dark, it brings to light the journey all of us must take in some form or another to push away the ignorance and see what is really before our eyes.

What I liked: I have to admit, this Manifesto series is pretty awesome. My word choice is astounding right? Such a high intellectual capacity being displayed by yours truly. I'll be the first to admit while it is not the most beautiful of phrases, it works well enough. What other series takes books that have changed the very fabric of society and gives them to us in a form that can give the average reader a taste of what these books did to change society. While it is probably because I love books so much that this book appealed to me in the first place, any book that looks at literature critically and examines its effect on society is automatically a winner in my eyes. And Rachel Carson's Silent Spring Manifesto special was no exception. It was very well written, as opposed to An Inconvenient Truth, and also offered up hard details. This book was not catered to the masses, rather it catered to a select group. This is a group that would actually pick up this book in the first place - a more intellectual group that was looking for that kind of knowledge in the already. This is different from An Inconvenient Truth because it catered to the masses and as a result fell short because the masses didn't want to read the book and could not relate to it. Manifesto's book did not leave us disappointed. What I loved was the fact that Rachel Carson was the hero. Obviously she was because she actually wrote the book, but for me anytime I see a woman changing the world completely, it is something to be happy about. Rachel Carson completely changed the world of environmental science while battling against death threats and breast cancer, and that makes me feel like anything in the world is possible and that is truly magical. Also, I really liked the format of the book. The authors started out with a basic introduction into Carson's life which really gave you a basic understanding of who she was and how she became the person she was. For me, this is essential in any good book. You can ask my family anytime I read or watch TV, I always want to know the background. It gives life to the book and creates a realism that nothing else can. It drops you right into the characters world and makes you believe as if they are a close family friend and you are watching the characters like you have always known them. Then the book jumps into Carson's journey to writing the book and then the effect Carson had on the world. This kind of format paints you a complete picture that doesn't leave out any information and yet leaves you wanting to know more at the same time.

What I didn't like: Rachel Carson died at the end. A part of me was crushed inside. But like almost all great leaders, few see the fruits of their labor accomplish the goals they were set out to achieve. Perhaps that is the curse of greatness.

Overall: 10 out of 10. This book showed us a world that is not unlike our own, and the parallels that were drawn between our situation and the problems of Rachel Carson's world cannot be missed even on the most absentminded of readers. I am extremely interested in reading more of the Manifesto series and congratulate the authors on a job well done on a fantastic book.

An Inconvenient Truth

Hey everyone! Long time no see! Well I was reminded this morning that it has been almost a month since I last wrote on my blog. School has been keeping me busy, but I'll make it up to you: today I am going to do two blogs on two books: An Inconvenient Truth, and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (Part of the Manifesto Series). Well here we go and I hope you enjoy...An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.

Characters: Because An Inconvenient Truth is a nonfiction book based off Al Gore's documentary/traveling environmental awareness adventure, their are no main characters.

The Plot: Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is nothing short of a plea to save the environment. Through graphs, polls, interviews and general research, Gore paints a picture of a future in which Earth has been completely depleted and we have let our children down in saving our world. Using his experience as a politician, Gore attempts to convince us that while this problem of global warming may be an inconvenient one, our home is a place worth saving and we cannot allow our children to inherit the problem that we created.

What I liked: I liked that An Inconvenient Truth was an accessible book to the everyday American. Gore created a book that the everyday American could understand and interpret as they wished. The book didn't have a lot of actual words, and the majority of the book was pictures and charts. This makes it easier to read for the everyday individual who doesn't want to read 350 pages of size six font. By making this book accessible, Gore was able to convince a whole new group of people who had potentially never had concerns about the environment, to pick up this book and read about the current state of our world. For me, this struck me as a huge accomplishment. Often times writers create an environmental book that is so complex and unreachable to an everyday person, that it doesn't really get across a point because it is so difficult to understand. The last section of An Inconvenient Truth consisted of information of what we could do as an individual to save the envirnoment which not only gives us something tangible we can latch onto but shows us that it may not be that inconvenient to save the envirnoment anyway. I was surprised by how easy to read the book was for something that was nationally recognized for its impact on the American political system. I would have expected, and I don't think I'm alone in this assumption, that a book that created such a following in the political system would have more to offer than just a few pictures and some graphs. But now I am really getting to what I didn't like so I guess we should just move there.

What I didn't like: This section is where my personal political feelings may come out but I am going to try to be as impartial as possible. First, I don't like that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize because of his slide show, his documentary and his book. While I understand he brought the energy crisis to the attention of the general public, that's not what the Nobel Peace Prize should be about. The Nobel Peace Prize should show the achievements of a scientist and the groundbreaking work they have conducted, and how their work will change the world. For me, Al Gore just copied and pasted the work of others. That doesn't really apply to the book but it created a negative starting point from which the book jumped off of. Then you get into the actual book. When I was looking up Al Gore just to see what else he had done up until this point, there was an accusation that his data was inaccurate, and that his argument was extremely one-sided. While I cannot attest to the first, I can certainly attest to the second: it was extremely one sided. While that is not exactly a bad thing, it is certainly worth noting. The worst part of this book for me though, is the feeling that his work wasn't good enough. For the praise and recognition he received, it was still a list of statistics with an over the top apocalyptic tone. You can ask my parents...I was pretty pro-environment while I was reading, I think they enjoyed how crazy I sounded with my inability to listen to other scientists they told me about. This just emphasizes how one sided the book is: the apocalyptic tone takes you in and eliminates reason from the argument; I was so overwhelmed by the data and the facts presented that I didn't stop to question and analyze where the data was coming from and what it was saying. The book doesn't look at concepts logically, rather it looks at extreme cases and makes it sound as if the world is about to end any second. And for me, that was something that you cannot do as a writer and Nobel Prize winner. Don't get me wrong, I still think we should protect the environment but the hysteria the book seemed to create seemed vastly out of proportion with the problems. Also, the actual writing in An Inconvenient Truth was very poor. There was a lot of "because" and "so this means" and just general bad grammar. I didn't develop a connection with Al Gore and I felt that the actual content of the book, while being more accessible to some readers, actually turned off others, like myself.

Overall: 4 out of 10. I don't understand why Al Gore is a Nobel Prize winner, and the book left a bad taste in my mouth. I am a big believer that nothing is ever as good or as bad as it may seem at first glance: more often than not it is somewhat in the middle. Gore has no concept of working towards the middle. Its his way or the highway and maybe that's the problem with the current environmental situation. Both groups are so adamant that they cannot change their paths (and that the other side should), that nothing really gets done and we are left with a middle that will never be reached.

TRIPLE BLOG DAY- Part III Narative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave

Whew! Last blog of the day! I had to read this book as one of my first assignments for AP English, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Written by Fredrick Douglass, a freed American slave, an adamant abolitionist and a symbol of African-American freedom, he became a legend in American history. With his Einstein-esc hair and brilliance with words, Douglass inspired a nation with his strong words and set the nation on a course of freedom for all people. His first novel, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave Written by Himself, became an instant bestseller soon after it was published.

Characters: Frederick Douglass: a slave in the 19th century/escaped slavery from his controlling masters/never knew his birthday or for certain who his father was
Mr. Hugh Auld: Douglass's last master/the master who attempted to take his wages that he earned/the last master Douglass ever had
Mistress Sophia: the originally kind wife of his master/allowed herself to be corrupted by slavery/was Douglass's master in Baltimore
Mr. Covey: the slave-breaker who was in charge of Douglass/almost made Douglass give up on his dreams of escaping slavery/master of Douglass for a full year

The Plot: Enter the world of the southern plantation. Enter a world of constant fear, oppression, sickness, and death. Enter a world where your word means nothing against the words of your superiors. Enter the world of slavery in the 1800s. Young Fredrick Douglass knows very little about himself; his birth mother was separated from him at a young age, his father may or not be the plantation owner, and he isn't even sure of his birthday. By the age of seven, he has experienced more horrific tortures and killings than most people see their entire life. Ferried from master to master, Douglass begins to see more of the world and as the evils of slavery become more obvious, he begins to strive to break out of his bonds. He teaches himself how to read with the help of urchin boys in the streets of Baltimore, and how to write with his master's spelling books. Along the way, the reader sees the evils of slavery through a slave's eyes, making it a revolutionary book that would change the face of America forever.

What I liked: It was so real. I know that sounds really redundant and not particularly intellectual, but it is the absolute truth. Every image, every word, every moment catapulted the reader hundreds of years in the past into a world so unlike our own. Douglass creates an image of his own personal hell, filled to the brim with demons so horrific; it’s hard to believe these creatures of the past could possibly be real. However, with every horror he presented, every injustice he was faced with, he never seemed bitter. I don't want to say that Douglass accepted his station, but in a way he did. He accepted that he would never amount to something greater if he allowed himself to be bullied into submitting. Douglass's strength was showing us how so many slaves lost their hope, and that he was one of the only ones who had enough strength to get beyond the oppression. Not because he wished to brag about it, but because he wanted to show us how remarkable and unrealistic it truly was: these slaves were not going to be able to save themselves, someone was going to have to help them. Without ever mentioning this theme, it cuts you to the core every time you turn a page; you feel the injustice almost radiating off the page and you are filled with a sense of disbelief that these events ever happened. Also, his projection of religion in the south was brutal and sickening. While he frequently references this in the novel, the appendix shows the extent of his disgust for these so-called devotees of God. For me, this was the part that hit home. How could someone who sings the praises of God enslave another, beat their brothers until they are senseless and sell families apart for the master's own economic benefit? If you read nothing else in this novel, read the poem at the end of the appendix.

What I didn't like: Douglass didn't tell us how he escaped from slavery when he was under Master Auld. I understand that he couldn't tell us because it could have alerted slave masters to other alleys of escape; however I really wished that I could have learned the secrets to his daring departure.

Overall: 10 out of 10. Books that change history don't come around very often. In fact, when you think of literature that changed the world I can think of a few pieces: the Magna Carta, Common Sense, the Declaration of Independence. In my mind, Douglass's brilliant novel ranks up there because it did exactly what these momentous pieces did: it changed the opinion of a population and forced them to examine themselves and who they really were as a people and how they were treating each other.

TRIPLE BLOG DAY- Part II How to Read Literature Like a Professor

Part two time! Back story behind this: I had to read this book as part of my AP English summer assignment and decided to review this as part of my blog shortly after reading it. So here goes! How to Read Literature Like a Professor (HTR for short) by Thomas Foster!

Characters: HTR is more of a avid readers guide to understanding the wide-world of literature as opposed to an actual story, so there are no characters to be found, minus the ones Foster references throughout the novel.

The Plot: Again, there really is no plot, but I can give you the premise of the book. Thomas Foster is a professor of English at the University of Michigan-Flint, and has written several novels about literature in general. HTR is the one of these novels and was created as a basic guide to understanding literature at a higher level. Foster has divided the chapters in a way that you would organize a how-to guide. Some of the chapters are related, some are not; however common themes stretch throughout the entire novel. More on that in a moment. At the end is a fabulous appendix, which has Foster's recommended books list. As the nerd that I am, yes I am a nerd I wouldn't be writing this blog if I wasn't, I was a little overly enthusiastic about the appendix. I was almost convinced to go straight to my library and put several of the books on hold but then I remembered that school started in one week. Never fear, I shall not remain thwarted for long-Christmas break isn't far away.

What I liked: Let me first start off by saying that I was a little bit of a skeptic. I honestly didn't believe that there was really a deeper meaning when you read literature. In part, I blame my seventh grade Language Arts material: it was drab at best and I was often unable to find a so-called deeper meaning in those unfortunate memories. I still shudder a bit whenever I see a copy of The Outsiders. Regardless, from that point forward, I didn't believe in symbolism or a underlying reference to something else: I thought they were the made up stories of desperately cruel English teachers, searching for away to make us lose points. A series of somewhat unreliable English teachers fueled my growing cynical view of deeper meanings. Professor Foster (I feel compelled to call him this based off the title) changed all of that. In AP English, we discussed the importance of establishing ethos, a relationship with the reader that makes them believe and trust what you say. I have never liked a person more than Professor Foster while reading this novel. With intellectual humor and well thought out explanations, I believed him the instant I read the book. As soon as my mind began to express a "no way that's not intended", he jumps in with a "haha but it is and here is why based off this classic piece of literature". Professor Foster could have easily focused on the well-known classic authors such as Mark Twain or William Shakespeare but he didn't: while showing us the true meaning of water, he references obscure novels and enthralling scenes that make you wonder what the rest of the novel looked like. In case you were curious, water can be a variety of things, including but not limited to, death, cleansing, renewal, and danger. I still am a little bit of a cynic, but Professor Foster opened up a whole new side of literature with this accessible book that I had never seen before, and I have no doubt that I will reference this book in the future.

What I didn't like: Occasionally, Professor Foster would jump from subject to subject a little to quickly for my taste. I would have liked to have a little more focus on a few areas, but I do understand that the point of this novel was supposed to be a general guide.

Overall: 9 out of 10. Honestly, the most fun I've had reading a book for class in a long time.

TRIPLE BLOG DAY- Part I A Walk To Remember

Long time no-see blogosphere! Well it has been almost three weeks since I have last written on my blog, so I feel kind of guilty for leaving all of you avid readers hanging. However, I have an excuse: AP classes - they are killing me here! Seriously, I have the Junior Year Blues. Just kidding that's not real, but I have been getting slack on the blogs so I am going to make it up to you by having a triple blog day! I am going to review three books (two of which I have read for AP English, and one I just finished (literally I just took out my bookmark) that I got for my birthday). Narrative Life of Fredrick Douglass, a Free Slave, How to Read Literature Like a Professor, and A Walk to Remember. First up, A Walk to Remember by Nicholas Sparks, an adult fiction writer.

Characters: Landon Carter: child of a North Carolina Congressman/high school student of Beaufort High/doesn't really think of anyone but himself
Jamie Sullivan: child of the Reverend/one of the smartest girls at Beaufort High/spends all of her free time volunteering for the poor and the orphaned
Reverend Hegbert Sullivan: Jamie's father/writer of "A Christmas Angel", the high school play/doesn't like Landon's family at all
Eric Hunter: Landon's best friend/star football player/constantly makes fun of Jamie
Worth Carter: Landon's father/doesn't understand Landon at all/is hardly ever around due to his job in Washington D.C.

The Plot: Landon Carter is a senior at Beaufort High School with no extracurriculars, no worries and he wants to keep it that way. Sure, he isn't too close with his dad who only talks to him when he needs to be hard on Landon, but he is relatively popular with somewhat reliable friends. But when Landon becomes student council president, and gets stuck in drama, his whole world unravels because of Jamie Sullivan, the Baptist church Reverend's daughter. Saintly, kind, and strange, Jamie has been the running joke of the Beaufort High teenagers since elementary school. But when Landon ends up going to Homecoming with Jamie and starring along side her in the school's Thanksgiving play, he ends up getting stuck with a girl he never thought he could like, let alone love. No matter how hard he resists it, Landon learns that there is more to life then what is right in front of you. Sometimes you just have to have a little faith.

What I liked: A Walk to Remember was a truly remarkable story because of the characters. Any character written differently than how Sparks wrote Jamie and Landon would have just fallen flat. In the case of Jamie, she could have come across as unreal in a bad way: so holy and perfect that it was unrealistic to relate to her. But every now and then, Sparks would inject a bit of vulnerability, showing Landon, and the readers that no matter how firm her faith is, even she can be scared and confused like any other teenager. It made Jamie real and lovable which became important when we found out Jamie was sick. When the Reverend told the families at the church that Jamie was sick and everyone began to cry, a part of the reader was crying too. She was so strong and so kind, but at the same time she was only a kid: she didn't deserve the hand that fate dealt her. Landon could have very easily made the reader mad: Sparks was extremely clever in his writing of Landon because he could have come across very poorly. Early in the novel, the reader's sympathies clearly lie with Jamie but you are still unsure about Landon. By not making Landon too much of a "bad boy" it prevented us from hating him outright. He had sparks of brilliance and true compassion, such as when he tried to cheer Jamie up when the head of the orphanage rejected her play...that made you think that it was possible they could deserve each other. The truth in the novel was that Jamie and Landon needed each other. Landon needed Jamie to teach him how to grow up, and Jamie needed Landon to be her miracle. I don't believe that she would have survived as long as she did without him and I think that was Sparks's point. When a miracle happens, it is not just a miracle for one person. It is a chain of events that pull people in until they too are a part of a miracle, otherwise it is just good luck. A miracle transformed the town of Beaufort...from Jamie and Landon to the Reverend and Eric, this miracle changed their lives forever. In that way, this novel became more than a story about Landon and Jamie; it turned into a story about a sleepy little town that experienced its own little miracle in the face of devastating tragedy. Lastly, I loved the title. Absolutely brilliant. The reason behind the title was not revealed until the very end, and I won't spoil it for future readers, but I thought it symbolized the whole novel in one moment.

What I didn't like: This was a beautifully written novel. Each scene flowed seamlessly into the next. There is nothing I would change and I challenge anyone to find fault with this novel.

Overall: 10 out of 10. Sparks's mastery of storytelling is exemplified in this amazing novel.

The Host

Hey everyone! Well it has been awhile since I've written on my blog due to my extensive amounts of AP homework and just general junior year craziness. But when I looked through my old posts, I noticed that I had been pretty critical of the Twilight series and Stephenie Meyer in general. While I stand by my previous statements about the Twilight series and Meyer's writing in that series, Meyer has written other books that better showcase her abilities as a writer. So, I decided to review my favorite Stephenie Meyer book, The Host.

The Characters: Melanie Stryder: taken over by Wanderer but refuses to fade away/sibling of Jamie and in love with Jared/knows the location of the resistances's hideout
Wanderer: the alien who has taken over Melanie/has been to numerous other worlds which have been taken over by aliens/has never been resisted by a host before
Jared: man who loves Melanie/is afraid it isn't really her and that it is some elaborate plot to hurt his family/is trying to protect Jamie
Jamie: Melanie's brother/the only person who likes Wanderer/looks up to Jared
Ian: brother to Kyle/in love with Wanderer/wants Wanderer to stay in Melanie's body

The Plot: Enter a world where the human race has been completely overrun by aliens. But these aliens you can't even see. These aliens attach themselves to the brains and spinal cords of humans, and take over the minds of the humans they possess. Over time, the human's soul fades completely away and the alien takes over the human body. No resistance, no means of defense. Until now. Melanie Stryder refuses to be taken over by the Wanderer, the alien who has entered her mind. As part of a secret group of free humans, Melanie is desperate to get back to her brother and her friends and she is determined to make it back with Wanderer's help. But even if they make it to the secret hideout, will Melanie and Wanderer be able to overcome their differences and learn to live together?

What I liked: The Host was a mesmerizing read. All of my complaints about Meyer's previous novels don't hold true in The Host. Instead of flat one-dimensional characters, you have the amazingly complex and gripping characters in Melanie and Wanderer. Melanie is torn between her desire to see her family, and the realization that they will never accept her because they don't believe she still exists. Wanderer is torn between her expectations as a alien and her strange attraction to this new world and people. The writing was flawless, and the plot was intense. When you read The Host, you are drawn into a read that touches you on a level beyond just reading. The Host forces you to consider what it would be like if the body of the person you loved was still there, but the spirit of the person was completely gone, replaced with the person who had taken your loved one away from you in the first place. To top that, Melanie and Wanderer each fall in love with different people, which raises the question whose body is it anyway and whose life is it now? It would be easy to side with Melanie if Wanderer was cruel, but Wanderer isn't. She is a kind soul who had never really considered the lives that were lost in the process of the alien takeovers. More importantly, you are left with a sense of originality that was lacking in the Twilight series. Meyer has a cast that doesn't leave you bored or irritated, and keeps the twists coming. The Host keeps you hooked from beginning to end, and unlike Twilight, you aren't left wondering why you picked it up in the first place.

What I didn't like: Honestly, I thought the whole novel was flawless. I absolutely loved it. As opposed to the other Meyer novels that were brimming with flaws, The Host had none. It almost makes you wonder how the novels that were written after The Host still have the flaws present in the pre-Host novels. My guess? That Meyer wrote Twilight when she wasn't very experienced as a writer, and when she went to write Breaking Dawn (final Twilight novel written after the release of Host) she was still stuck in the same ruts and had no way to get out. The Host was a clean slate, and Meyer could do whatever she wanted, unrestricted by the limitations of Twilight. If I was her, after writing The Host, I don't know if I would have been able to finish the series. Perhaps that is why she didn't seem to be as into her last novel, Breaking Dawn. When you read Breaking Dawn, you don't feel like it is even Stephenie Meyers writing and that maybe a direct result of her boredom with the Twilight series.

Overall: 9.5 out of 10. Stephenie Meyer gives me hope that she truly belongs on the New York Times Bestseller List.

Eclipse

Hey avid readers! So today is the last day of summer. In a weird sort of way I am ready to start school because I figure that I will be able to get my hard classes over quicker. But I am excited to start the new year as a JUNIOR! WOOOO UPPERCLASSMAN! But for the last review of the summer, I am going to do the next Stephenie Meyer novel Eclipse. Here we go!

Characters: Again I am just going to add the new characters. If you want a more complete list, check out my previous reviews of New Moon and Eclipse
Victoria: vampire that is creating a newborn army/trying to kill Bella/was James's mate
Jasper Cullen: Edward's "brother"/can control the emotions of people around him/has the most fighting experience out of all the Cullens
Jane: one of the Volturi/can make people believe they are in inexplicable pain/has a twin named Alec
*None of these characters are new, they just play a more central role in this novel*

Plot: Bella Swan has just barely survived her last run-in with the Volutri and she is not hungry for another visit. However, her next meeting may be sooner rather than later. As the vampire police force, the Volutri are responsible for keeping the vampires' secret. So when a group of vampires threaten to expose their entire existence, the Volutri act. Quickly. And with a new vampire threat from Seattle looming over the horizon, the Cullens and Bella have to figure out how to prevent a Volutri intervention before they discover Bella is still human. And with Jacob Black still vying for her heart, will Bella choose to stay with Edward, the one she truly loves, or turn to Jacob, her best friend?

What I liked: I think Eclipse had the most interesting concept of the Twilight novels written at that point. The idea of having a newborn army marching on Forks was a potentially great storyline. However, I think the potential for the novel is the extent of my praise. Meyer could have done so much more with the newborns. But she didn't. However, this is the wrong section for this: this is supposed to be what I liked. Since I can't think of anything else though, I guess I will just have to switch sections.

What I didn't like: As I previously mentioned, the idea of a newborn army is particularly intriguing. Meyer could have taken this opportunity to showcase the unruliness of newborn vampires and how seeing them in action would make Bella hesitate in her desire to become a vampire. Instead, we saw no newborn action because Bela was conveniently in another location. More on that in a moment. But Meyer could have had Volutri spies infiltrating Seattle who discover that Bella is still human in the process. There could have been dramatic show-down scenes with the Cullens and the newborns facing off. Oh right there was one. But we didn't get to read about it because Stephenie Meyer couldn't figure out how to write a battle scene. That is the only logical explanation why we didn't have a back-in-forth section in Eclipse cutting from Edward, Bella and Seth in the mountains to Jacob, the pack, and the Cullens down in the valley. If you also notice, when Meyer actually writes an account from the newborns perspective called The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner, you don't experience the fighting scene much there either. Bree (main character) actually ends up coming late, so you see very little of the scene. But back to Eclipse. Meyer totally dropped the ball. But moving on from that and back to Bella aka the worst heroine in existence. So Bella has the nerve to drag along both Edward and Jacob. She strings them both along saying she can't live without them and she needs them both. With Jacob, she won't let him get over her by constantly leading him on and telling him how much she cares about him. She doesn't need him because she has Edward right? And if she does need him, she shouldn't be with Edward. She doesn't have the decency to let Jacob live his own life. She just drags him back into her own. And poor Edward. He puts up with all of Bella's crap and then has to deal with her almost not picking him, making him sit out of the fight because she cannot bear to lose him. For me this was the most annoying thing in the book. You see thousands of wives whose husbands go to war, and I am sure that they cannot bear to lose them either. But they are strong and work to go on with their lives. Bella sniffles and pouts and plots and pretty much blackmails Edward into staying. "If you don't stay, I will be suicidal and put myself in danger." The reason this upsets me is because this isn't an adult novel where women who read this already know that Bella's behavior is unhealthy and unacceptable. Instead, Eclipse is directed at the teenage fan base and they don't know yet that Bella is acting completely ridiculous. If you are going to write a teen novel, you have the duty to create a heroine that is a good example for teen girls, or if you want to create a bad heroine, LET THE AUDIENCE KNOW THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO ACT. Instead, Meyers says again and again how unselfish and brave Bella is. Newsflash. If she was unselfish she would let Jacob go and move on. And if she was brave she would have been in the valley in order to ensure that the Cullens won the battle. Bella is the worst heroine in existence and if you look at a character like Hermione Granger from Harry Potter, even if you don't like the novel, there is really no comparison in terms of strength, bravery, character, unselfishness, and beauty. Bella may be prettier, but Hermione Granger is a beautiful person while Bella is a shallow, self-absorbed creature. Lastly, nothing happened in the over 600 pages. The only real action was the last fifty or so pages but this has become a reoccurring trend in Meyer's novel. No interest until the very end. A lot of buildup, but no results.

Overall: Dull 3 out of 10. I don't have anything else to say about this except I am just glad that the world of Bella Swan consists of only four novels.

The Choice

Hello blogosphere! Well today I am going to review my first Nicholas Sparks novel, The Choice. I wanted to read some Nicholas Spark's novels because he is a North Carolina writer and he is a New York Times Bestselling author. So I was pretty excited to read the book and I had pretty high expectations. But without further ado, here is my review of The Choice.

Characters: Travis Parker: veterinarian/extreme sports enthusiast/the only one of his friends to not be married
Gabby Holland: PA at a pediatricians office/dating long-time boyfriend Kevin/has a pregnant dog
Stephanie Parker: Travis's sister/Travis's best friend/is studying biochemistry at UNC Chapel Hill
Joe, Laird, and Matt: Travis's best friends since kindergarten/worried about Travis never getting married/all married with kids

The Plot: Travis Parker's life is falling apart. With no hope, he looks to the past for answers, and for comfort in a time when he was happy. Go back eleven years and you would find Travis Parker, the happily single veterinarian. A lover of extreme sports and good times, he used to feel that a girlfriend would only complicate his life. Enter Gabby Holland, a PA at a pediatricians office with a boyfriend with series commitment issues. Together they discover that what they thought love was, wasn't love at all. But when Gabby gets into a car accident and falls into a coma for three months, Travis has to make a choice. Keep Gabby alive, or respect her wishes that he take out her feeding tube if she was still in a coma after three months? Terrified with no one to turn to, Travis must search his soul and ask himself the question that is the theme of this book "how far will you go to keep the hope of love alive?"

What I liked: Well there was a lot of good in this novel. Because I have started reading another Nicholas Sparks novel since finishing The Choice, I have come to see that the sort of flashbacks to the past while dealing with a problem in the present are sort of a trademark for him. To be honest, I really enjoy how he writes his novels in this way. I think that too often romance stories are just the time it takes for the couple to get married and then it is the end. But with Nicholas Spark's novels, you see the couple's whole life and how their whole story played out, not just the beginning. He doesn't write a naive romance novel where love is shown as always perfect and happy, the couples in these books get into arguments just like the rest of us. And they aren't artificial, fake arguments used to cause tension and a climax. Like in The Choice, Travis must decide to honor the vow and living will his wife made, or he must keep her alive at the detriment to his family (Travis and Gabby met another family where the mother went into a coma and the whole family fell apart because the wife became a burden on the family that prevented them from moving forward. This prompted Gabby to make the living will). I also liked *Major Spoilers Ahead* Travis's decision. If I had a family member in a coma, I would also keep them here as long as possible in the hope that one day I could have them with me again. I can't go against people who make the other decision because I also understand why but I know I couldn't let my hopes of being with them die. Lastly, I loved when Stephenie and Travis were talking and Travis asked Stephenie why she said no again when her boyfriend asked her to marry him for the third time and she said because she was waiting to make sure that he loved her as much as Travis and Gabby loved each other because she didn't want anything less. I thought that was beautiful and that it expressed so simply how people look for love. I know I want someone who loves me as much as my parents love each other so I can honestly relate to that.

What I didn't like: There honestly wasn't anything I can think of off the top off my head. Thinking through the novel, I honestly enjoyed every part of it.

Overall: 9.5 out of 10. I truly beautiful novel.

New Moon

Hey avid readers! So today I am reviewing Stephenie Meyer's second book, New Moon. For this review I am going to do the same thing I did with the Ally Carter reviews, meaning I am only going to list new characters. Here we go :)

Characters: Jacob Black: Bella's childhood friend/changes into a werewolf/is in love with Bella
Victoria: is hunting Bella after Edward killed James/cannot get to Bella because she is being guarded by werewolves/sent Laurent ahead of her to do her dirty work
Sam, Embry, Quil, Jared, and Paul: all members of the wolf pack in La Push/ live to kill vampires/cannot kill Victoria even though she is attacking hikers
The Volturi: the secret police men of the vampire world/work to keep vampires a secret/have a small army of vampires who all have extraordinary powers
*Can we just make a note of how sad my descriptions are? We will go back to this in a moment*

The Plot: Bella Swan is still recovering from the vampire attack that almost claimed her life at the end of last year. Now more than ever, she realizes just how much she needs Edward around. Too bad that Edward doesn't seem to feel the same way. Edward leaves Forks after telling Bella he doesn't care about her and he doesn't want to be a part of her life anymore. The news completely destroys her. Sinking into a four month depression, Bella cuts herself off from all aspects of life and only reemerges with the help of childhood friend Jacob Black. But when Jacob says he can't be friends with Bella any longer, she is determined to not lose him too. But with danger lurking around every corner, and a secret as old as the Cullens itself, will Bella be able to handle the news and move on from Edward, or will his memory continue to haunt her forever?

What I liked: Jacob Black. That is pretty much it. But Jacob was just so great. He was a person who was honestly there for Bella even when she didn't deserve him (which was the entire book). He has a developed sense of right and wrong and he was willing to put up with all of Bella's crap because he cared about her. Jacob is the one that Bella should have chosen. He is human and he represents the normal life that she could have had if she had left things as they were. But no. More on that in a moment. But Jacob was one of the truest characters in the book, one of the few that wasn't one dimensional and my personal favorite.

What I didn't like: This book is a disaster. Lets start from Stephenie Meyer's end before we actually get into this ridiculous plot. For a New York Times Bestseller, New Moon has the most atrocious writing I have ever seen. Here are the most common phrases in New Moon: I bit my lip, he grimaced, ugh, oh, arg, jeez, he glittered and more ridiculous phrases. This horrendous writing adds to the poor novel, making it impossible to take seriously. A page in New Moon wouldn't be complete without Bella biting her lip or saying ugh. Or falling. Seriously, Bella is such a caricature it makes my mad. So lets just take a break from the terrible writing and focus on Bella, the worst heroine in existence. So her boyfriend leaves and for four months Bella becomes completely dead. She has no personality, (well I would argue she didn't have one to start with but whatever) she just mopes around and does homework. She avoids everything having to do with Edward. GET A FREAKING GRIP. Gahhhh (another Stephenie Meyer word). Bella cannot get over herself and see past her patheticness to get a grip. She doesn't see how she is hurting Charlie, her friends and herself. For someone who is described repeatedly as a "remarkably unselfish person" all I see is layer upon layer of selfishness. She uses Jacob and when Edward comes back, "its a huge party cause like my sparkly hot boyfriend is back". Awesome. But honestly, I would expect nothing less of a girl who has no interests. She likes to cook and clean so she is pretty much a maid in her house with no life. But back to New Moon specifically. This book was extraordinarily dull. Nothing happened until the last five chapters but by then I was so bored it seemed rather anti-climatic. The dynamic between the wolves and the Cullens had the potential to be interesting but was instead dumb. So the La Push wolves don't like vampires because they kill humans: I agree. But the La Push wolves don't like the Cullens because why? They don't kill people. I am confused. Just these little details bug me. Also, why is every female in this story just a glorified housemaid. Esme is so flat and dull it's saddening, and Emily (the girl Sam imprinted on) is only shown cooking. And Alice likes clothes and Rosalie likes being pretty. DO NONE OF THE FEMALE CHARACTERS HAVE A HOBBY OR A LIFE? Nope. So this book drove me nuts. Lastly, if a guy as imperfect as Edward leaves you with no explanation, completely hurting you, you don't take him back in an instant. You just don't.

Overall: Blahtastic. 2 out of 10. Poor writing, poor plot and poor characters make this book an all around snooze. The only bright light? Jacob Black, Bella's personal sun and while I was reading New Moon, Jacob was my sun too.

Twilight

Hello blogosphere! Today I am doing a book you may not have heard of...it's called "Twilight". Apparently, there have been some movies made out of the series and it's really popular with teenage girls and it's a global bestseller. Just kidding. If you haven't heard of Twilight, you might have been living under a rock for the past five years. But just in case you have, here is my official review of Twilight. However, it comes with a slight disclaimer: I am no longer a Twihard. I have recovered from the Twilight addiction and am now able to look past the superficial story line and dig into something deeper. So for the next few days I am going to review the Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer and be warned: I am about to make millions of teenage girls a little mad.

Characters: Bella Swan: recently moved to Forks/is crazy clumsy/wants to know Edward Cullen's secret
Edward Cullen: has a secret he wants to keep from everyone around him/has a very low body temperature/he is a vampire
Charlie Swan: Bella's father/chief of police in Forks/really good friends with Billy Black
Mike Newton: likes Bella/cannot stand Edward/one of Bella's new friends at her high school
Alice Cullen: another vampire/has the ability to see the future/one of the only members of Edward's family that actually likes Bella

The Plot: Bella Swan hates everything about her new hometown of Forks. It's cold, rainy and is a small town where everyone knows everyone else's business. But when Bella meets Edward Cullen, her whole life changes. After a hostile encounter in Biology class, Bella assumes Edward hates her, but when he repeatedly saves her life in a series of mysterious events, Bella has to reexamine what she thought about Edward Cullen in the first place. As she delves deeper into the mystery, Bella begins to realize that Edward Cullen isn't human. He is something else entirely. He is a vampire. A vampire that could kill her at any moment whenever she is with him.

What I liked: The first time I read Twilight, I finished it in about two days. I flew through it. I cannot explain the hold this book has on people, myself included, but for some reason I was completely hooked the entire novel. Smarter people than me have tried and failed to understand the power Twilight has over the mind as soon as you read the book. If I had to guess what it was though, I would have to guess that the deciding factor here is Edward Cullen. At one point, and I am ashamed to admit it, I was on Team Edward too (book three reference sorry). Edward is pretty much the "ideal" guy for a teen girl: brooding, good looking and mysterious... he is a teen dream. I was able to realize while reading he is not the ideal boyfriend (not even close) but teen girls all over America compare every guy they meet to Edward Cullen. Basically I was one of a million teen girls who was high on Twilight. And you cannot deny that Stephenie Meyer can create an addicting book, just how she did it boggles the mind.

What I didn't like: This is why Twilight baffles me. Twilight is so addicting but if you stop reading the romance and look at the book as Twilight and not A Diary of How Edward Cullen Is Totally Awesome, the cracks in Stephenie Meyer's beloved novel begin to show. To be fair though, the cracks aren't as pronounced as in later books. So if I am going to focus just on this book, we should focus on the characters - stalker Edward and super dependent Bella. Hello my name is stalker Edward let me tell you a little bit about myself. I am an undead vampire. I am like totally in love with this girl I just met at my school. In case you didn't know, I cannot sleep at night so I decided to spy on this girl while she sleeps in order to learn more about her. Don't worry I promise I'm not a stalker and she is totally okay with it. Hey I'm super dependent Bella and I am like totally in love with Edward. He's so hot like I feel the need to describe how hot and good looking he is and how inferior I am compared to him every ten seconds. Did I mention he is hot? This is literally Bella and Edward's relationship. In Twilight, it is not as disturbing but their relationship becomes more and more unhealthy as the books go on. So I guess you could say that I find it upsetting that our main characters are a girl with no hobbies, interests, or redeeming qualities and a stalker, vampire boyfriend. Sweet.

Overall: 6 out of 10. While I cannot explain it, Twilight is a compelling read that makes you ignore all the other glaring defects. However, as you will see in my next review, the cracks become fissures that split open Meyer's other novels. Her poor writing, limited vocabulary, and one-dimensional characters turn her novels into a mess of a series that resorts to playing with teenage emotions in a last ditch effort to save a dying series.

Catching Fire

Hello avid readers! So today I was looking at my blog and noticed that I have made a mistake. My July review that was titled Catching Fire and had the picture of Catching Fire was really The Hunger Games. Don't worry the information was correct and I adjusted the post to display the correct title and picture. But it got me thinking that I haven't reviewed the second book in the Hunger Games series (titled Catching Fire) so my error turned into a review!

Characters: Katniss Everdeen: co-winner of the Hunger Games/member of District 12/a threat to the Capitol's power
Peeta Mellark: co-winner of the Hunger Games with Katniss/in love with Katniss/is trying to protect his family from the Capitol's wrath
Haymitch Abernathy: mentor of Katniss and Peeta/trying to keep the Capitol's agents from hurting the new champions/has a secret agenda
Gale: Katniss's best friend/contemplates resisting the Capitol/is also in love with Katniss
President Snow: President of the Capitol/trying to quell the resistance/threatened by Katniss Everdeen

The Plot: Catching Fire picks up almost exactly where The Hunger Games left off. Katniss and Peeta have returned to District 12 and are poised for a life of luxury. Or so they thought. On the eve of their cross country tour in order to show off the new Hunger Games champions, Katniss gets a surprise visit from President Snow. His threatening arrival reveals to Katniss in her heart which she already knew: rebellion against the Captiol's wicked ways have begun, and at the center of it, her defiant gesture against the Captiol at the end of the games. The only way that Katniss can save herself, her family and all of District 12 is to prove to the world that she did what she did because she loved Peeta and couldn't bear to live without him. But as Katniss goes on her Victory Tour, she must face the truth about the Capitol, about Peeta, and about how far she will go to save what she loves most.

What I liked: Catching Fire was a fantastic sequel to The Hunger Games. Often, it is hard for sequels to live up to their predecessors but in this instance, this was not the case. Collins spun a flawless tale of deception, resistance, love, violence and self-realization that cannot compare to other novels out in the market. Part of the reason that Catching Fire was so great, at least in my mind, was because it seemed as if Collins had a plan. Too often, sequels are thought of after the original is published because the author wants to drain the last coin out of a dying series (Shrek anyone?). However, in this case, I felt as if the entire time Suzanne Collins knew exactly what she was doing. Every detail was meticulously planned, like the encounter with Rue's parents and it would have been impossible to write such a great novel if while writing The Hunger Games, she wasn't thinking about the next addition. I would compare it to the Harry Potter novels in that way, because J.K. Rowling brought back events from the first novel that I had forgotten about and wove them back into the final novel. That takes thought-out planning and it creates a novel so much more intricately woven and elaborate than a cut and dry sequel.

What I didn't like: I don't like Katniss's relationship with Gale for a couple of reasons. First, I think it is unrealistic. Katniss knows that by being with Gale, she puts her family, Gale's family, Peeta's family, Gale and Peeta in danger. She is too smart for that and so I doubt that she would be willing to take that risk. Second, I just like Peeta better. He understands her on a level Gale will never be able to comprehend. This is not a dig against Gale. Peeta was with Katniss in the arena; Gale wasn't. Gale will never be able to truly get what Katniss went through: Peeta is the only one who can do that. Plus, I just like Peeta better. So if I was going to turn this into a Twilight reference, I would have to say that I am firmly on Team Peeta. But that is only if I wanted this to be a Twilight reference.

Overall: 9.5 out of 10. Suzanne Collins once again delivers, and I for one cannot wait until the final Hunger Games novel, Mockingjay, comes out on August 22nd.

Giant Post Day

Well I'm back! Did you miss me blogworld? Actually I got back from San Francisco a few days ago but I have kind of been putting off writing my next review. But before I get to why I am filled with such trepidation with writing this review, I want to share a very special book nerd adventure that occurred while I was in San Francisco!

I visited the City Lights Bookstore! Woooo! That's great Augusta but what's the big deal? Well the City Lights Bookstore is one of the most famous bookstores in all of America. While not only being one of the last successful, privately-owned bookstores in the country, City Lights also has a rich and famous history. City Lights has always been a "stick to the man" kind of book store if you will pardon the School of Rock reference. Specializing in stirring up political change, City Lights took their beliefs to a whole new level when the store published a book called Howl. Now, in 1956 Howl was considered obscene, and the government arrested the author and publishers for spreading obscenity due to the book's depictions of homosexuality. But City Lights would not back down. Aided by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), City Lights fought the arrests and said that the refusal to distribute this book violated their First Amendment rights. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and City Lights and Howl won. This lead to an explosion of new, ground breaking literature that hadn't been published before and made City Lights a literary legend. So seeing the bookstore was a really cool moment for me and I actually made my profile picture me outside City Lights. So that is my San Francisco nerdtastic adventure.

Now on to why I have been putting off writing this review. It was because of the book I am going to review today The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson. The truth is, I had a hard time wrapping my brain around the book and I was unsure of what to write in the blog. But without further ado, here we go.

Characters: Mikael Blomkvist: finacial writer/convicted for libel of banking tycoon Wennerstrom/hired by Henrik Vanger to find out the truth about Harriet Vanger
Lisbeth Salander: private investigator for Milton Security/is an expert computer hacker and excellent at getting information from anywhere/aids Blomkvist in his search for Harriet Vanger
Henrik Vanger: hires Blomkvist to find out what has happened to his niece Harriet Vanger who disappeared over forty years ago/ex CEO of Vanger Corporations/hates most of his family
Hans-Erik Wennerstrom: man who sues Blomkvist for libel/is attempting to destroy the Millenium, Blomkvist's old magazine/part of a crime circle that stretches over several continents

The Plot: Henrik Vanger has been plagued by the mystery of his favorite niece's disappearance for almost forty years. With no new leads for decades, the case has completely dried up and Henrik is aware that his time is limited. But the mystery still haunts him today. So in one last attempt to discover the truth about Harriet Vanger, he hires recently convicted of libel and soon to go to jail writer Mikael Blomkvist. Out of a job and out of options, Blomkvist reluctantly accepts and is thrown into a case decades old. The problem? The only suspects are Henrik's insane family who are all either dead or in their older years. Some don't even remember Harriet that clearly. In need of help, Blomkvist turns to Lisbeth Salander, a girl who can dig up information on just about anybody. With her aid, the two discover a mystery bigger than either one of them expected and learn that Harriet Vanger wasn't just a rich heiress with no problems in the world.

What I liked: The title. It was catchy.

What I didn't like: This is a forewarning to all of the people who like this book who are reading my blog. I am sorry but I just couldn't stand it. Apology in advance. So now to the meat of the novel. This may take a while. First off, the whole premise of the novel. Ruined writer has to solve decades cold murder to regain his honor and solve a decades old wrong. Not terrifically original but enticing enough. But then the novel starts. This may have been the most boring book I have ever read. It was certainly the most boring mystery novel I have ever read. So much of the novel was spent on Blomkvist and his fall from honor as a financial writer. I had multiple problems with this. First, Larsson stressed again and again how he was the only writer with "real detective instincts" who really looked at the big CEOs. Not realistic. Plus, Blomkvist was such a pompous, self-centered character who looked at every woman as some sort of object of his desires. Great mix for a main character. And anyway, this book is a MYSTERY NOVEL. Not a drawn out saga about a writer regaining his inner writing skills. So then we finally eighty pages in get to the real mystery. And we meet the overly messed up Vanger family. There were no characters besides Henrik Vanger that you could actually like. The family had rapists, murderers, Nazi supporters and crazy mothers. I could go into more detail but I really don't want to. So anyway I hated all of them making Blmokvist's dialogue with the family painful to read. But it's not like I was in too much pain because the next a hundred and fifty pages were about Blomkvist going on little adventures about the town and his gross, creepy relationships with all the women in the town. Don't get me started on him and Erika Berger (she's married for crying out loud) and with him and Lisbeth Salander (age difference-please!) So we finally, FINALLY get to some mystery details and it's so short and simple I kind of feel depressed while I'm reading it. Someone turns out to be part of a serial family of killers and rapists and its so disturbing I find it hard to believe. Larsson (SPOILERS AHEAD) wrote about how Harriet was raped and tortured by her father and brother. Disgusting and revolting. But she never mentioned it to anyone not even her beloved uncle. Also, no one knew in the entire family. I found that hard to believe no one figured it out; the family knew everyone else's business and every little detail but no one knew anything about Harriet. And Harriet was really alive the whole time to top off the ridiculousness. Want to know why? Because Larsson couldn't figure out how to kill her off. He had weaved a situation so impossible he had to cop out by making her be alive the whole time. And when the murderer was finally close to being apprehended, Larsson had him killed in a car accident because he didn't know how to deal with the fallout from the reality of the Harriet situation. Lastly, Lisbeth Salander. She made me mad as well. She gets assaulted by her new guardian multiple times and she "gets even" with him by tattooing and torturing him. Ridiculous. And personally I wasn't overly impressed by her skills. She can hack a computer. Wow. But the worst part? All the female characters in the story were a letdown. I couldn't cheer for any of them because they just let men abuse them time and time again and didn't want to take control of their lives. And the one woman that did (Salander) was so psychotic in her plan for revenge that I couldn't cheer for her either. So the cast of characters consisted of weak females and abusive males. Terrific literary material.

Overall: 2 out of 10. After all the great things I had heard about this book I tried so hard to over look all of its deficiencies. But the more I read the more the reader in me realized that this is not a good book and I can't see how people couldn't realize that. I am starting to realize that being a New York Times Bestseller doesn't exactly mean that it is a great novel.

Abarat

Hello blogosphere! Well today is officially the last blog I will be doing for a while because I am (finally) going on vacation! San Francisco here I come! Well anyways, I just finished the book Abarat by Clive Barker and I thought reviewing it would be good as long as it is fresh in my mind.

Characters: Candy Quackenbush: girl from Chickentown/travels via the Sea of Izabella to Abarat/is one of the first people to come to Abarat from the Hereafter in many years
John Mischief: is aided by Candy to escape from Mendelson Shape/has giant antlers where the heads of his eight brothers live/is a renowned thief
Christopher Carrion: Lord of Midnight/obsessed with finding Candy/has a glass helmet filled with nightmares that surround his face
Malingo: rescued from slavery by Candy/has some skill with magic/aides Candy in escaping Otto Houlihan
Otto Houlihan: aka Criss-Cross Man/Christopher Carrion's number one henchman/inspires fear into all who see him

The Plot: Candy Quackenbush is afraid her life isn't going anywhere. She lives in Chickentown, a slaughterhouse based community, she is hated by her teacher, who kicks her out of class as much as possible, and her father is a washed-up drunk who frequently hits her and her brothers. In short, Candy wants out. Badly. And one day, Candy gets her chance. After getting kicked out of class by Miss Schwartz (again), Candy walks to the edge of Chickentown in order to escape her mundane exsistance. However, just as she is about to turn around and go home to her normal life, John Mischief appears begging for her help escaping Mendelson Shape. Mischief and Shape aren't human; Mischief has antlers and Shape has swords fused to his body. In the process of helping Mischief escape, Candy gets swept to his magical homeland, Abarat. However, as soon as Mischief and Candy arrive at a safe stopping point, the two get separated and Candy is left to navigate this strange new land on her own. Along the way, Candy learns that she is more significant than she ever thought possible, and that Abarat is not as unfamiliar as she originally thought.

What I liked: Wow. That is literally all I can say. From start to finish, Abarat was a thrill ride that kept you guessing until the very end. But before I go further into the plot I just want to say the artwork in Abarat was amazing. Clive Barker drew every single picture in this book and each one was amazing. The pictures added so much to the story and made it so much more real yet abstract at the same time. With vibrant colors and creative ideas, these pictures were hard not to love, even if they could be a little dark and scary. Also, I liked the quirkiness of the book. Abarat was filled from start to finish with weird and strange ideas that shouldn't have worked all together. But because the world of Abarat was such an abstract place - the drawings, story lines, and characters all worked within the story in ways in which they normally couldn't.

What I didn't like: Nothing. I can't think of a single thing. Perhaps if I was getting extra extra super super picky, I could say that I didn't like how quickly Barker went from location to location. I wish I could have read more about each island. But it was essential for the story to be running from place to place as Candy was pursued so it was okay. And I satisfied my need for more information about the islands by reading the appendix at the back. Yes I know I'm a nerd but I wouldn't be writing this blog if I wasn't.

Overall: 9.9 out of 10. Amazing. Thrilling. Colorful. Dramatic. I would recommend this to anyone. I am fiercely upset that the next book doesn't come out until 2011.

Eragon

Hello everyone! Well I'm going to try to get a few more blogs in before I go to San Francisco (wahooo), so this might be the last blog for a little while. But I might sneak one in if I have time. So without further ado, Eragon by Christopher Paolini.

Characters: Eragon: the last dragon rider/rider of dragon Saphira/remaining hope of the Varden, a resistance group against the Empire
Brom: Eragon's mentor/a grumpy old man who is rather good with a sword/who is hiding a secret
Saphira: Eragon's dragon/one of the last of her kind/mentally connected with Eragon
Murtagh: man who saves Eragon/is a great fighter/helps Eragon and Saphira in their quest to reach the Varden
Arya: elf charged with protecting Saphira's egg/one of the only elves to leave their secret homeland/delegate between the elves and the Varden

The Plot: In times past, the Dragon Riders kept order in Alagaesia with their magic, fighting abilites, and diplomatic skills. But one rider, Galbatorix, turned against his fellow riders and destroyed almost the entire clan of Dragon Riders. Galbatorix only spared the riders who turned to his side, the Forswarn, and the dark riders built a new empire that Galbatorix commands. After the riders fell, Galbatorix destroyed every last dragon egg, preventing the riders from ever rising again. However, one egg was stolen back from Galbatorix and has been kept safe by the Varden, a resistance group against the Empire. Now, the egg has found its way into the hands of Eragon Garrowson, and has hatched, making Eragon the last rider. When the Ra'zac, Galbatorix's personal assassians, come looking for the egg, Eragon is forced to flee with Brom, a mysterious old man who knows the ways of the Dragon Riders and who agrees to train Eragon. The goal? Get Eragon and dragon Saphira to the Varden and enlist their help in fighting Galbatorix. The only thing standing their way? Thousands of miles of sand, rock, and mountains, and the entire Imperial army.

What I liked: I loved Brom. Your classic wise old man archetype (thank you English II for making me learn that word), Brom was a dynamic character who always gave Eragon sound wisdom and training. My most favorite scene from Eragon was when Brom and Eragon had their first sword fight and Eragon thought he would hurt Brom. He was in for a surprise. But this kind of comedic relief was present throughout the whole novel. I liked all the places that Paolini created. From the dwarf's home in the Beor Mountains to Gilead and Carvahall, all the places were interesting and each had distinct personalities and identities with their own dangers our heroes had to overcome. Overall, the novel was quick-paced and quick-witted, and also very well written; I can't deny Paolini's skill at weaving a story.

What I didn't like: Here is what bothers me about Eragon. I don't think Paolini broke any literary barriers when writing Eragon. It was just your classic hero's tale. The home attack and the journey, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring. The Empire: Star Wars. Honestly, that is such a cliche. Evil Empire? Come on. Please. I wish Paolini could have thought of something more creative because I think he has the talent. And the Urgals felt like a twist on the Orcs from Lord of the Rings. I like a good reference to classic hero novels such as this but this felt almost like a copy and paste. Paolini's writing was underused here and I can't help but worry that Eragon may have to make a journey to a volcano to defeat Galbatorix.

Overall: I would give Eragon a 6 out of 10. Addicting yet commonplace. Engaging yet familiar. I can only hope that the next Inheritance Cycle novels have a bit more originality, but just as good writing.