Mini Review: Tina Fey's Bossypants

"You know what I like about it? It doesn't remind me of anything."

~Rory Gilmore, some random episode of Gilmore Girls season 6 

Ah, one of the greatest comments one can get (especially if you're Jess and you've been in love with Rory for four seasons). Sadly, this is not one I will be giving Tina Fey. What made me think of it was the fact that her recent humour book/memoir, Bossypants, reminded me of so many things, and not in a good way.

Love it!

She portrays herself much in the way that Jen Lancaster portrays her character in her memoirs, particularly Bitter is the New Black, where she mocks and satirizes her former self. Only, Jen Lancaster is much more successful with this, producing many laughs, whereas Tina Fey only comes off as annoying. 

Hate it!

Her sense of humour is similar to Amy Poehler's. While I do love Amy Poehler on Parks and Rec, I really don't get her sense of humour outside of that show--Baby Mama, her years on SNL, etc. She has a great energy on Parks, but on shows like SNL that hyperactivity becomes grating. She always goes for the easy, obvious, quick joke, rather than building to a big pay off. I don't think I'd enjoy a book by Amy Poehler, no matter how much I love Leslie Knope. Well, in Bossypants, Tina Fey becomes a lot less Liz Lemon and a lot more Amy Poehler, and it's really not that funny. It's is frustrating and weak and just not that clever. 

Love it!

She attempts to pull off a David Sedaris style of storytelling, where she tells a rather mundane story in a rather funny way. But just as she's no Jen Lancaster, she's no David Sedaris. Many of her stories are more exciting than Sedaris's, yet they are not as entertaining. For a woman who crafts such a clever show each week, she certainly doesn't write very interesting short stories. I'd prefer Sedaris to Fey any day. 

Love how much he looks like a wax figure!

She hasn't lived a life like Rob Lowe. Part of the reason to read a celebrity book like this is to see all the celebrity references. In Rob Lowe's Stories I Only Tell My Friends, he name drops like crazy and it's so much fun! Tom Cruise! Charlie Sheen! Martin Sheen! Aaron Sorkin! Francis Ford Coppola! In Bossypants, there aren't nearly as many exciting names like that. You get to hear a lot about Amy Poehler and Lorne Michaels (the producer of SNL), and a little bit about Alec Baldwin. That's basically it. It's not nearly exciting and not nearly as fun. 

None of that was good stuff. If you add it all up, the book is not very good. I literally only laughed twice during the entire memoir. And one of those times I was just laughing at a 30 Rock joke she quoted, which doesn't really count. 

That was an issue I struggled with--is this supposed to be humour, or is it just supposed to be a memoir? When the book was being promoted a few months back, it seemed to be sold as humour, and I guess that's the assumption, since it's coming from Tina Fey. But since I was laughing so little, I felt like I should just judge it as a memoir--like I judged Rob Lowe's book. 

In the end, it doesn't live up to my expectations. either as a piece of humour or an autobiography. 

Book Review: Sisterhood Everlasting

I wrote a whole post introducing it. Now, as promised, I have the review, of the next, but maybe not last, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants novel, Sisterhood Everlasting.

This is the first review where I'm going to institute a new format. It has always bothered me that reviews are so limited. You can talk about the book, but only in general terms. Well, what fun is that? I want to talk about the whole book! I want to analyze it all! I want to discuss how the couple got together, and how the story ended! But I still want to be able to write normal reviews, where people can read about the book and then go buy it themselves.

I don't know how this is going to work, but I'm going to try it. A compromise of sorts. I'm going to insert a line break. Before the break there will be a normal review: summary, my general thoughts on the book. Then, if you choose to click on it, you'll find the full review after the break, where I discuss everything, spoilers be damned. Sound good to you? We'll see how it goes!

Summary: A surprise sequel to the popular Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants Series by Ann Brashares, this book picks up ten years after the last one ended. Bridget is still with Eric, but is as flighty as ever, eager to keep moving, never settling. Lena is living a quiet life, teaching at RISD, still continents away from her true love Kostos. Carmen is now a popular actress living in New York City, engaged to the insufferable Jones. Tibby moved to Australia with Brian two years ago, and her whereabouts have since been unknown to the rest of the Sisterhood. The story begins as the four girls are set to meet up in Greece, when tragedy strikes.

Review: 

I thought I was going to hate it. I didn't. I thought it was going to be so bad that it would make me hate the entire series. It didn't. But it wasn't great.

I loved the original series. Correction: I loved the first three books, especially the third one, Girls in Pants. I didn't really like the last book, Forever in Blue. I thought Carmen's acting thing was stupid. I didn't care about Leo. I found Tibby quite annoying with the whole Brian/pregnancy thing. But on the whole, I loved the series. I loved these girls.

I love them so much that I know what kind of potential they have. I knew that this new book could be great. I think that may be my biggest problem with the novel--the wasted potential. Ann Brashares could have gone anywhere with this. It's ten years in the future--anything could have happened. The direction that she chose was so predictable. Frustrating. All the characters had gotten ten years older, but they hadn't gotten years wiser. They were all stuck in place--Bridget was still running from life, Lena was still running from Kostos, and Carmen was still trying to find a good storyline. That's not even dealing with the whole Tibby disaster.

By now everyone knows, but I should warn this is a spoiler. Stop now if you're the type of person who likes to be 100% spoiler free. If you're still with me, you probably already know that Tibby dies. She drowns in Greece. They don't know if it's a suicide or not. They don't know anything. All they know is that they've lost Tibby. It is their grief over this event that drives the rest of the story.

The death was terrible. It was just so lazy. A flimsy plot device, a cliched move to create drama. It expected us to be sad, but it didn't earn that sadness. I wasn't sad because of 30 year old Tibby died, and I didn't feel bad for her 30 year old friends. Instead, I mourned the old Tibby, and had sympathy for her 20 year old friends, the ones I had loved so much in the original books. The original series had made me invest in these characters. This book didn't. The plot assumed that you would feel sad, but it didn't work for that emotion. It was lazy, and unoriginal, and I really, really wish it hadn't happened.

I hate reading about grief. I find it so boring. I was so freaking bored in this book that I actually skipped thirty pages. Yep, that's right. And I'm not a skipper. Ever. But I just couldn't do it. I was bored to tears! And it was so easy to just flip forward. I didn't miss anything. I wasn't confused at all. That's really a weakness of the book is not one plot point moves forward in thirty freaking pages!

For a book I didn't hate, I've really been hating on it. What was good about it? It's hard to remember. I liked the writing. It was the familiar, sentimental Brashares style that I've always liked. And I'll always love the characters, of course. That's a given. And I liked the ending.

Overall, I don't think this was a very good book. As a standalone, I don't think I would have been able to finish it. The plot was lazy and unimaginative. The characters were stuck. But, as a longtime fan, I enjoyed it enough. I hated Carmen's storyline, and I was annoyed by Bridget's, but I liked Lena's. I thought the resolution to Tibby's death was pretty good. But again, none of that was earned or particularly well developed in this novel. I only enjoyed it because I would enjoy any scene between these girls.

This is a book for longterm fans. Anyone else, please, please, waste your time on something else.

And that's what I have to say to anyone who hasn't read it. If you've already finished it, please join me after the break.

What's Your Favourite Book?

Ah, the eternal question. You say you read, and immediately people ask--what's your favourite book? (quickly followed by "who's your favourite author?", or, if they're feeling festive, "what are you currently reading?"). It's a tricky question. So many books. Some are well written. Some have amazing characters. And some are just inexplicably special to us, in a way that no one else can understand or appreciate.

But still, you must answer. Because it's a good question to ask. It tells you a lot about someone. If they quickly come back with Twilight, you know you've met a Twihard--and you know to get out of there, fast.

Otherwise, they may end the conversation by inviting you to get one of these. To match their own.

If they answer with something boring and literary, you know they're probably just trying to impress you. If they answer with a young adult romance, you know you met your soulmate.

For many years my favourite novel was Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson. It's a young adult novel, but it is also an issue book, so it felt appropriate and worldly, at least to my ten-year-old self. Eventually, I admitted I enjoyed Princess Diaries more, and sometimes this became my answer. I would be a little embarrassed to say it, but at least everyone has heard of it, with the movie and all. It also functioned as a sort of shorthand, instantly telling people that I like realistic romances, typically with teenagers.

Those books still hold a special little place in my heart, along with many others that I formed an emotional attachment to as a child--the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants series, a lot of the Sarah Dessen novels, the Shopaholic books, the Jessica Darling series. Those are the ones I pick up when I'm sad or homesick or just plain bored, happy to spend some time with my favourite characters. The phrases are so familiar; I could practically quote each first page (and, of course, each romantic ending). I love them all so much.

Yet, none of those would be my answer. No, my favourite book is not in that list. It's not even young adult romance! It's not YA at all! I know! It surprises me too! It is actually a literary novel! And I promise, I don't just say this to be snotty and stuck up. This is actually my favourite book:

Crow Lake, by Mary Lawson

Now, this book is not at all famous. It's by a Canadian author, for heaven's sakes (Canadian authors get no love. Ever. It's a rule.). It's set in rural Ontario. It's not flashy. It doesn't have vampires or werewolves or boy wizards or anything like that. 

The plot is simple. To quote the annotated bibliography I handed into my extended essay supervisor:

"Crow Lake is a fictional tale of the Morrison children are torn apart by the sudden death of their parents in a car accident. Luke, barely nineteen, is forced to take responsibility of his three younger siblings: Matt, seventeen, and a brilliant scholar bursting with potential, Kate, seven, serious and thoughtful, and Bo, the baby, the all-consuming centre of attention.

Through this tragedy younger siblings Matt and Kate develop a deep bond, of student and teacher, parent and child, hero and worshipper. He is her guide, and it is his passionate interest in the natural world that sparks an equal passion in Kate. This deep bond is shattered when, in Kate’s eyes, Matt betrays all his potential, and betrays her, essentially, by getting his girlfriend pregnant at only seventeen. Kate goes to on to university, and becomes a professor, leaving Matt behind to raise his child on the farm. She surpasses him in everyway she can imagine. Kate feels terrible about her success, guilty and unworthy of it. It was Matt who had all the potential, but it is her who is living his dreams."

 To me, this novel has everything a favourite book needs:

1) An interesting plot: The plot is simple, but yet so rich. It's not filled with action, and yet it's still fascinating.

2) Attractive characters: All the characters, but Kate and Matt in particular, are well developed. The relationship between these two is so powerful, and so heartbreaking.

3) An emotional connection for the reader: Every time I read this book, even if its just a quick reread, even if its just a light skimming for essay quotes, I cry. Crow Lake connects with me, always.

I don't reread it as often as I reread, say, the ending of Second Helpings (You. Yes. You.). But that's only because I don't have the energy. Some nights, I don't have the emotional capacity to handle Crow Lake. Some nights, I don't want to cry, so I pick up Anna and the French Kiss. But on those rare nights when I do pick it from the shelves, I'm always amazed by it. Awed by the simple yet striking nature of the phrasing. Heartbroken by the characters lives. In love with the characters themselves.

It speaks to me in a way other books don't. I know part of that is just a personal thing. I know other people might not get that, may not enjoy this book. But for me, there's just something there. I feel for Kate, connect with her in a way I don't connect to Mia Thermopolis or Bella Swan or Katniss Everdeen. I understand her relationship with Matt. I live those silences with her. 

I wrote a twenty page essay on Matt and Kate's relationship, comparing it to Jeanette's relationship with her father in The Glass Castle. So I could go on forever. Because I could read this book forever. Because I will love it forever. It is my favourite book, forever. 

And that's my answer. Thanks for asking. 

Mini Reviews: If I Stay and Where She Went

I was so consumed with exams, I missed so many new releases that I would have normally bought the day them came out. My personal reward for finishing exam insanity was to buy all these books. Yes, all of them. Can you imagine? Going into a bookstore, not just buying a book or two, but buying all the ones you want? At full price? If you're anything like me, it's exciting. Very exciting.

Of course, I didn't buy every book. That would have cost thousands of dollars. But I did buy a lot. As a result, I have an awesome to be read pile next to my bed right now, where nearly every book is a must read! Heaven!

Slowly, I've been getting through them. I thought I'd finish them within a week, but I'm trying to pace myself. Recently, I got a comment from a book blogger asking me my thoughts on two of the books from my stack: If I Stay and Where She Went by Gayle Forman, both of which I read last week. Now, part of me just wants to write full reviews. But I don't feel like I have enough to say about either book. Solution? Mini-Reviews! 

I'll start with If I Stay.

  

Plot Summary: Mia is a normal girl. Adorable musician boyfriend Adam, who she loves, but who is pulling away from her as she thinks about going to an out-of-state university. Goofy parents, who she adores and actually likes to spend time with. A cute little brother, Teddy, who's many years younger than her. An obsession with classical music and a promising cello career. But in a moment, all of that is threatened, and most of it is taken away from her, as she barely survives the car crash that takes her family from her. If I Stay is the record of Mia's decision: Should she live or should she die? Live with the heartbreak and pain or die and give up all the possibility and all the love she has left? 

Review: I actually read this book after my last biology exam, before my french exams, so it seems appropriate to give it an IB score. I say 5MH. For any sane, normal non-IBer, that a 5 medium-high, which roughly translates to a 87%, or a solid A. So, pretty good. But not great.

I should say, as a disclaimer, this is not my type of book. It's much darker than what I usually read. I generally avoid books that deal so heavily with death. I only picked this one up because I really, really wanted to read Where She Went, which seemed like it was a lot more romance and a lot less death and despair. But I'm glad I read it. 

It was well written and well structured. I thought Mia's parents and Mia's brother Teddy were all well developed characters. I only knew them for a few chapters, but I was still genuinely invested in their survival. That's a hard feat, something I really credit Gayle Forman for pulling off. 

Mia's extended family was interesting for me. A little less successful, I would say. I loved her fearless best friend Kim. But I was less sure about Adam. There were a handful of Mia/Adam moments that I absolutely loved, such as the one where she goes to his concert on Halloween. But, on the whole, I didn't love Adam. I felt like he pushed her too much. I just didn't trust him. 

Overall, the book felt a little lacking. Like there wasn't enough there. Not enough meat, to quote my english teacher. But what it set out to do, it did very, very well. The characters were (mostly) brilliant. The writing was solid. The plot was well laid out, though I did get a little tired of all the flashbacks. And, of course, the ending was predictable--there is a sequel after all :) 

And now, Where She Went (Be warned: if you haven't read If I Stay and you don't want spoilers about it, stop reading now!)

Plot Summary: Three years after Mia decided to live, we reenter her world, this time through her boyfriend Adam's perspective. In the years that have passed, his band has skyrocketed to fame, and his personal life has been in tatters. He is tired, depressed, and miserable, turning to pills and causing tensions with his band. He hasn't seen Mia since she broke up with him, until one night in NY, he sees her perform. And it is there we begin again.

Review: 7MH (97%/ A++)! Loved it! Absolutely amazing. Everything I wanted it to be and more. Well done, Gayle Forman, well done (what else has she written other than this series? Because I want to get my hands on those books, fast!).

I commented that If I Stay was lacking. Where She Went wasn't. It's full, so full, just so amazing. I find that kind of odd, since the first book tackles a seemingly more serious subject matter (death) while this one explores what one would assume is a lighter subject (first love). But to me, If I Stay is one of many books that deal with death well. Where She Went is one of a handful of books that deals with the fall out of first love well.

And I didn't even like Adam all that much! Not in If I Stay. But I came to love him here. He's messed up, yes, but he's figuring himself out. He's confused. He's heartbroken. He's just amazing. I know, I should be more descriptive. But what can I say--I fell in love with this boy (Cappie/Michael Moscovitz/Wes/Etienne/ level love. I'm telling you, it's serious!). There are no words.

I also came to love Mia. I liked her a lot during If I Stay, but I found her hard to connect to. I just couldn't imagine wanting to die. But here, she felt so real to me. So vulnerable. I thought she'd be cold to Adam, shut him out. And she did for a little while. But eventually, she opened up to him, and she was so real.

Of course, for me, the romantic fanatic, the best part was the romance. Amazing. So well developed, and so earned. So freaking sweet. The moments in flashback and in present were just amazing. I already loved Adam and Mia, and those moments made me love them as a couple (can I just say--tent scene--Oh my freaking god. BEST THING EVER.).

The book was so well rounded. It looked at love from so many sides. It was realistic, but still satisfying. Sweet, but not too sappy. Nearly perfect.

Some parts bored me, I will admit. A good chunk of the beginning, before he found Mia again. Some of the long band flashbacks. I was less invested in the stuff that wasn't about love. But I understand why it was necessary, so it's not really a fault. Just a personal limitation--I only read for romance! (But we already knew that).

To me, this book has a few connections to Megan McCafferty's Jessica Darling series. One is personal, silly really. The reason I read Sloppy Firsts is similar to the reason I read If I Stay--because another book in the series sounded good (in that case it was Fourth Comings that I really wanted to read). The other reason is more literary, or at least legitimate--they both switched narrators. The first four Jessica Darling books are narrated by Jessica (hence the title of the series), but the last book is partly from the perspective of Marcus Flutie, just like these books switch from Mia to Adam narration.

It's an interesting technique. And I'm sorry to say, Ms. McCafferty, but I think Where She Went pulled it off better. A big part of Marcus's allure was his mystery, which was lost when we finally got inside his head. Adam's perspective was more interesting. I don't know how realistic it was for a boy's voice, but I bought it.

Conclusion: If I Stay and Where She Went are both good books. You should read them! To me, there less like a series, more like companion books, since the subject matter is so different, and the perspective is so different. Any way about it, though, you should read them. They're different books, not exactly what I'd call YA romance. But they're good, nonetheless.

Book Review: What Happened to Goodbye

Sarah Dessen is a brilliant novelist. She is, undoutably, one of the best young adult novelist out there, but beyond that, she is a masterful story teller. Unlike many authors in her genre, she develops more than just a basic plot and character. Her books are so full, coming to life with theme and symbolism and a thoroughly developed world where all these things interact. Sarah Dessen is a genius, a master of her genre, and she will always be one of my favourite authors.

That's the spiel I give every time the topic of Sarah comes up. I am forever singing her praises, and forever recommending her books to my friends. I have loved her for so long that I now purchase her books without hesitation. I read about them months beforehand, hearing about them on her blog, and hunting down early reviews everyday until the release date. But even if I didn't do that, I would pick them up without a second thought, without even reading the back cover. As I have said time and time again, it's Sarah freaking Dessen. She can do no wrong.

Until now. Until now, I've loved every one of her books. But this weekend, I had my first little bit of free time, and I ran out to buy her newest novel, What Happened to Goodbye. And... I didn't love it. Not even close. Which is very hard for me. I feel such a loyalty, such a love for the Dessen name. I really, really wanted to love the book. But, the truth is, I don't know if I would have finished it if it didn't have the Dessen name on the cover.

I think my criticisms can be best illustrated by the exchange I had with my dad last night:

Dad: So, how's the book?

Me: Good, but it's boring me to tears. 

One of the biggest overarching problems I had was character. I just didn't care that much about Mclean. I was so bored. She kept talking about how she was tired of reinventing herself, and how she didn't know who she was. That's fine. Realistic, even, for a teenager. But she has to have something. Something I can love about her. I spent so much of the book trying to find that thing, but I couldn't. Mclean was perfectly nice, but also terribly bland. After four hundred pages, she was still finding herself, and I was still looking for a character I could invest in. That's a challenge, which really limited my enjoyment of the rest of the book.

I had to push to get through the first hundred pages, I was so bored. I wasn't buying into Mclean, I didn't care about Dave or her dad or her issues with her mother. The book was unstable from there, with a few moments where I thought it had taken a turn for the better, but, in the end, it didn't change course all that much. I was bored, frustrated, disappointed. I expected so much more.

It's not like it was badly written. Of course not. This is still Sarah freaking Dessen. The writing has to be good. But the rest of it was less enchanting. I think for a first time Dessen reader, the following issues wouldn't even register. But for this seasoned fan, it was all I could think about.

It felt like someone had pulled back the curtain, revealing all the mechanics of what goes into a good Dessen novel. It felt so laboured, so paint-by-the-numbers Dessen.

If you read young adult romance like I do, you come to accept some basic issues. For instance, you will always be aware of the male lead, because his physical attributes will be described in multiple paragraphs, rather than the one liners afforded to lesser characters. Also, you know that the guy and the girl will get together at the end, no matter what. But, you accept that there's no way to avoid such traps, no way to sidestep such pitfalls. You accept those predictable problems. You don't let them annoy you too much.

But you don't accept this much predictability. I would literally be reading along, and think "wow, this is just like _____________ Sarah Dessen book". This sexual tension scene is just like in the The Truth About Forever. This basketball metaphor is just like the bike symbolism in Along for the Ride. This character arc is just like Ruby's from Lock and Key. So many of the major moments in the book felt formulaic like that--cheap knock offs of previous Dessen novels.

That's the thing. It was the Sarah Dessen formula, and it wasn't even done all that well! Dave was not a true Dessen boy. He does not belong among the ranks of Wes or Owen or Dexter. The model motif was so forced. And the ending was lack luster. Nothing special. Usually, Sarah's novels are full of great lines. This time, so many of those lines rang false. Even the integration of character's from previous novels, a Dessen trademark, was less exciting than usual. I've had enough of Jason. Yeah, we got Heidi, Colby, Lakeview. I wanted more.

In all, the book was nothing special. Certainly not up to the super special standards I have for Sarah Dessen. Of course, I'll still pick up her next book without hesitation. But if that one is weak as well, I may have to start reading the back covers.

I'll always love Sarah for what she's given me, and I'll probably read every book she ever publishes. I just hope they're better than this one was.

My Most Embarrassing Moment

At school, I am at the top of my class. I'm at top of the honour roll, top ten in the school, where they post both your name and your average for everyone to see. I'm considered smart, by, you know, some people. So, when they catch with a book that looks like this, they usually do a double take:

They think that smart women couldn't possibly read such "girly" books. You should have heard it the week I brought in Perfect Chemistry:

I literally had people ripping it out of my hands to hold it up in front of the class for everyone to laugh at. They read the description aloud, pausing to mock it at key parts. 

People like to poke fun at young adult romance, thinking it's fluff, saying that it is stupid and shallow and girly. You know how, when people read a "smart book" they always try to make sure everyone can see that they're reading it? Well, sometimes, I try to hide my books from people, so they don't laugh. 

So it makes me mad when authors and publishers make it even harder on us, by producing books like this:

I loved Lonely Hearts Club, and I love Elizabeth Eulberg. Otherwise, I would have never picked up this book. It looks so freaking stupid. And I felt so stupid carrying it around. It's just so pink. Moreover, it makes me look like I'm too dumb to read the classic so I have to read some stupid rip off about prom! It gives a bad name to all other young adult romance novels, and that's even before you crack the spine! 

Reading the book inside, I continued to feel embarrassed. Embarrassed for Elizabeth Eulberg and her ridiculous rip off/remake of a book. Embarrassed for Jane Austen and the poor way her work was being treated. Embarrassed for all the girls who actually care about prom. Embarrassed for women, everywhere. 

I actually stopped reading after about 80 pages because it got so bad. But then, last weekend, I was out of books, and I picked it up from my reject shelf. I really don't know how I finished it.

It felt like the main character belonged in a different book. I could connect with Lizzie--she was nice and funny. She felt real, like someone I would actually know, today. But she was so out of place with the world around her. It felt so odd, connecting with the main character, but feeling so alienated by the world she belonged to. Lizzie was a modern character. Yet she was stuck in such an outdated, backwards book. It didn't make any sense. 

People just don't act like that today. Beyond Lizzie, every other character felt like a caricature, a cliche, a waste of ink. They were so flat, so evil, without any empathy. No one is all evil and no empathy, unless they live in a children's cartoon. Real people, even really bad people, have strengths and weaknesses about them, but this book was too shallow to show any of them. 

The entire book felt like that type of anachronism, with people acting so mean and so classist in a way that was so blatant and brash. I don't mean to suggest that classism doesn't exist today. It just doesn't exist in that way, in my opinion. I couldn't relate to it all, and, as result, I had a hard time understanding any of the characters. I had a hard time not burning this book all together, just to watch it's pretty pink cover go up in flames. 

And I understand that that's the way Jane Austen wrote it. And I haven't read Pride & Prejudice, I must admit. But I have read Emma, so I do understand some of the Austen admiration. Jane Austen has a certain charm about her writing. Elizabeth Eulberg loses all that charm in her 21st century translation. 

If you haven't read either, read the classic. Don't settle for this silly substitute. It's a ridiculous remake, a waste of a book, as frivolous and stupid as the never ending line of hollywood movie remakes. As always, stick with the original. 

People don't take young adult romance seriously, and books like this are the reason. Books like this are the reason that bookstores never bother to put YA books out on the shelves on time, because they think it doesn't matter. Books like this are the reason that movie adaptations of YA romances are always so bad, blatantly ignoring plot, when they stick so diligently to every twist and turn of every Harry Potter plot or every detail of The Hunger Games. Books like are the reason that people think I'm stupid, when I'm actually smart. 

So thank you, Elizabeth Eulberg, for wasting my time with this terrible book, for ruining a classic for me,  and for making me embarrassed for my favourite genre and my entire gender. Thank you indeed. 

Book Review: Babe in Boyland

My Summary: Natalie always wanted to be a an actress. But when that failed, she joined the school paper instead, deciding that she now wanted to be a writer. She takes the position of Dr. Aphrodite, the romance advice columnist. At first, when she finds out about a journalism contest, she can't think of a good topic. When her credentials are called into question, she starts to doubt herself as a writer and as a person, because she only tells people what they want to hear. Eventually, she decides that, in order to actually understand romance and boys she will go undercover at an all boys boarding school. During her week undercover she falls for her roommate, sees how to hard it is to be unpopular, and learns a lot about herself.

My Review:

This book was exactly what I needed. It was light and fun and clever and earnest, almost everything I wanted it to be. It was a nice distraction in a weekend where I had a history culminating and math and history exams to study for. Exactly what I needed, exactly when I needed it.

The first fifty pages were a little bit of a struggle for me. The characters, most notably Natalie and her best friends, were a little too cliched, a little underdeveloped and annoying. The first fifty pages pretty much detailed the lives of three very popular and very pretty best friends. Yeah, thanks, I don't need that.

Once the ball got rolling and she actually started attending the boy's school, things got much better. Natalie became awkward, but also very insightful, finally filling out her character. All the male characters introduced at this new school were also dynamic--Tyler, the adorably geeky guy, Josh the idiot jock, and Emilio the sensitive hottie roommate. Finally, I had someone to like, something to root for.

Source

I love this picture. Do you get it--root for romance?!? CLASSIC!

From there, the book only got better. I thought Natalie's observation were, on the whole, quite interesting. She had a really hard time hiding her girlishness--not only the physical attributes, but the mannerisms and personality. I had never really thought of that. I really connected with this part of Natalie's struggle. I'm not much of a girly-girl, but I have feminine tendencies that I would have a hard time hiding.

I also found the insight in males quite intriguing. There was a little bit of the predictable "they're actually human beings" type of thing, but there was also a lot of study of how boys communicate differently then girls. How boys are (generally) less physical and less verbal, but no less communicate just as much as any girl. How boys are limited just as much as girls, just in different ways. Girls are expected to be skinny. Well, guys are expected to hide their emotions. Which one would you prefer?

The main problem that I had with this book is its similarity to the movie She's the Man.

The minute I read the synopsis, I thought of the Amanda Bynes movie. The review I read of it even mentioned the film by name. Part of me feels like I have no right to complain about the similarities, since I knew what I was getting going in.

The other part of me has a few, somewhat minor complaints. Obviously, if you're going to write a book about this topic in this day and age, you would have seen the movie. If it were me, I would try to distinguish my book from the movie as much as possible. The author, though, takes an opposite approach. As a result, a handful of scenes feel like they're stolen right from the screen. In She's the Man, Amanda Byne's Viola is crazy about soccer. In Babe in Boyland, soccer is replaced with Theatre, but the obsession plays out the same way. There's also the prerequisite girl gets hit in the groin and has to pretend like it hurts scene, and girl has trouble showering with boys problems.

By the end, though, the similarities stopped bothering me. I realized that yes, they do share the same core idea, and yes, they do even share some scenes. But each has different strengths, and, as a result, each can take up a different compartment in my brain.

She's the Man is really, really funny. It has a million different stories going at once, all intertwined a giant web of deception and misconceptions. It's a hollywood production--go big or go bust. It is silly and ridiculous and really cliched and a ton of fun.

Babe in Boyhood is very different. It is less laugh-out-loud funny and more amusing. The plot is less complicated, but the characters are more unique. The purpose of She's the Man is make a sellable movie. The purpose of Babe is to sell books, but also to make the reader think, and provide insight into girls, boys, and life in general. She's the Man is funnier, but also fluffier. Babe in Boyland digs below the surface, providing more than comic relief. In that way they compliment each, instead of being in competition with each other.

One thing they do have in common is the romance problem. When the girl is pretending to be a boy, how can another boy fall for her without being gay? She's the Man handles this issue by having Duke meet Viola and develop a relationship with her, outside Sebastian. Babe in Boyland takes the harder route, which, ultimately, I found more rewarding.

My Final Thoughts: Babe is Boyland will not change your life. But it will brighten your day. It will make you smile and make you laugh, and even make you think. To me, there's nothing more I could ask for in a book, especially right now.

Playing Teen Book Bingo

I am currently in the process of applying for a summer job. I've applied at the school board (because I want to be a teacher), the library (because I maybe want to be a librarian as well), and, now, my local book chain, Chapters (because, well, I love to read). In doing so, I had to look through all the job postings, and I found one I just loved: Children/Teen Book Sales. Oh mon dieu! It's a dream come true.

If there's anything I know in this world, it's teen books. I've either read it myself, have a friend who's read it, read a review of it, or at least heard of it from one source or another. I've read most of the major books, hit most of the major authors. Just this last week I finished up The Hunger Games trilogy, another square on the YA bingo board:

Made by yours truly. With a (huge) slant towards YA romance, and a few classics thrown in.

In addition to The Hunger Games, I also got another chip this week by reading a ton of Elizabeth Scott books:

It scored me a double bingo on my self-made bored! And, of course, it gave me a lot to think about...or, rather, critique.

Elizabeth Scott is a considered something of a YA romance god. Not like a Jesus/Christian God who created the genre and influences all books within it, but more like a Greek or Hindu God, where she is one of many who all the readers and writers look up to. This week was something of a conversion class for me, an initiation into a new church.

I'm sorry to say this to all you worshippers, all you believers, all you fans. But I am not her disciple, and I don't think I will ever be. She is a good writer, who crafts slightly above-average stories. All the power to her. But she's not Sarah Dessen. She's not Deb Caletti. She's not even freaking Simone Elkeles. She's good. But she's certainly not great, in the God-like sense of the word.

It really comes down to a quality vs. quantity issue. Either a writer can choose to go for quantity, like in The Hunger Games, where there's so much going on, such a complicated setting, so many strong supporting characters, and many plot threads all charging forward at once. Or, they can take a more qualitative approach, like Sarah Dessen, focusing on a few specific characters and a handful of plot lines, and slowly building to a strong and satisfying ending. Both approaches can work. Both approaches can make great books. If they're done the right way.

Elizabeth Scott is obviously going for quality. Her world's aren't overly complicated, her mythology non-exsistent, her plot few and far between. But she doesn't do it with awe-inspiring skill. She aims for quality, but it simply isn't there. Her main characters are too bland, her supporting players too under developed and cliched. Her settings are mundane and forgettable. Most of all, her plot lines are just too bare.

My english teacher is a very excitable person. When someone gets an answer she particularly likes she yells out "bing!". If no one is digging deep enough, she tells them to go for the meat, the good stuff. Sarah Dessen is a bing. Elizabeth Scott needs to go for the meat. Her stories, while perfectly pleasant, lack a substance, a real heart. They are stable skeletons, well plotted and thoughtfully executed, but they lack the meat that would really make them a good meal.

Something, Maybe really attempts two story lines, and only really pulls one off. The successful story is the romance between the main character, Hannah, and the goofy guy Finn. It is easy, enjoyable, sweet, and predictable. The other story, with Hannah's father, is flashy and obvious and never particularly interesting. It's a semi-original idea, but it's pulled off with little finesse or believability.

Bloom is better. It too attempts only a couple plot arches, once again pairing the predictable romance with the abandonment issues. The romance is slightly more engaging, and the character's seem to have some type of chemistry, this time being allowed to develop beyond basic cliches. The parental storyline is also superior. This time I actually felt connected to the character, felt something beyond basic empathy. The story was realistic, charming, and, once again, pleasant.

Perfect You is the best of the three, developing three whole story lines. There is, of course, the prerequisite romance, which is often frustrating and rarely rewarding, because it centres on a male character I never much came to care for, and unfolds in a less than ideal way. Then, there is, once again, a parent story, about the father who quits his job to sell vitamins. The characters involved are rather flat, but are all together fine. The stand out storyline is the decaying friendship between Kate and her best friend Anna. Their relationship was painfully realistic, and actually brought me close to tears at many points.

Out of three books and seven plot lines, only one really got me. That's not God-like quality. Elizabeth Scott is not a saint; she lives among us mere mortals, and that's more than alright. Her books are pleasant, enjoyable, fine, but nothing more. I would be less disappointed, expect my sights had been set so high.

SURPRISE!

I have a surprise for you! A really boring video where you have to hear my really annoying voice! 

I've seen a lot of the videos that April from Good Books and Good Wine does, and I always find them interesting and adorable. And, I had a huge stack of books that I was very excited about, but didn't want to take a bunch of time to type about. It seemed like a good time to try the whole video thing. Tell me what you think. 

Of course, I have a few notes, a few caveats, a few warnings:

-Yes, I know my voice is really annoying. I know, most people say this, but I really mean it. Because people tell me this all the freaking time. Sometimes in a polite way, like, "your voice carries", and sometimes in a less polite way, like, "will you please shut up". So, if you're watching the video and thinking I have most annoying voice ever, I guarantee you that you're not the first person to think that. 

-I tried really hard to not show my face in the video. Partly because I hadn't had a shower yet, and my hair looks like crap. Partly because I want to maintain a little bit of my mystique. 

-What you see behind the books is my window seat and the stain glass window in my room. In case you were wondering about that, for some odd reason. 

I'll probably never do this again, but I wanted to try it out. If you like it for some strange reason, please comment!

To My Readers,

I thought I share some thoughts with you, so you can understand exactly what type of freak I am.

As a sometime book reviewer, I have somewhat-odd reading habits:

-I don't read prologues. I never have, even when I was 8 or 9. I would say it was because prologues are usually random parts that authors add for no reason, but I haven't actually read one in so long, that I don't know. I just don't read prologues.

-I go through periods of reading like crazy--book a day crazy--and then I don't read at all for a long time. Right now I am in a crazy period--6 books in the last 5 days.

-I usually read books really quickly. Usually, once I get "hooked on a book", I can't do anything, basically, until I finish the book.

-Young adult romance are my safety books. They are the books I read the fastest, the books I read the most, the books I read when I'm feeling scared or sad or insecure.

-I love finishing a book just so I can see it on my bookshelf. I love my bookshelf :)

-I read every word of every book, but sometimes I glaze over on some parts. Particularly action sequences.

-I root for the male best friend. Always. Even when it looks improbable or even impossible. Yes, sometimes, this is annoying, because the main character ends up with some guy I was totally ignoring because he wasn't the MBF, but hey, what can I say?

-I love books about girls who go on reality tv shows just to find out that the only people they can trust are their real family and friends.

-I have to read a book to fall asleep every night. Sometimes just a few pages--and, sometimes, the whole thing.

-My cat curls up next to me when I'm reading sometimes, and she doesn't like the lack of attention, so she bites the covers of my books. In fact, she's curled up next to me right now as I write this. If she could bite the computer, I bet she would. She's very high maintenance that way.

In fact, now she's started sitting on my hand so I can't type. And she just sat on some button that tried to close the blogger window. I think I have to go.

From,

Your (sometimes) book reviewer

Rules of Attraction

What makes the perfect male lead? This is a controversial topic, particularly in the young adult blogosphere. Some guys are not desirable enough. Some are too desirable, too perfect, too idealized. What, exactly, are the rules of attraction?

Everyone will have a different answer to this question, because everyone is attracted to different things. I can only attempt to explain my rules of attraction, by analyzing my favourite couples, and discovering what it is I like most in male characters. 

The first thing that comes to mind is vulnerability. I love, love, love vulnerable guys. For example, I don't watch The Vampire Diaries, but I always check in on it just to see Jeremy and Bonnie's relationship. I love Jeremy because he is so nervous, so unsure, so vulnerable. When he finally kisses Bonnie, he waits to see her reaction. When she smiles at him, he looks so shocked and relieved. I eat that right up. Just like the next week, when he asked Bonnie if she liked the kiss. So cute. Melts me to the ground. 

I wrote a post a while back about how I didn't like "bad boy" characters, and I think this why. Bad boys are always so confident. They make the protagonist come to them, not the other way around. Jess made Rory practically beg him. He wasn't vulnerable, most of the time. I'm not attracted to confidence like that. So, for me, vulnerability is the first ingredient. 

I also like boys who are unique. I cannot stand generic guys. To me, there is almost nothing worse than a male lead that has blond hair and blue eyes. He's just too perfect. In that way, I agree with the people who complain about idealized guys. They're boring. Too easy. Too bland. 

In Hellcats, I barely pay attention to Dan. He's just so stock, so stereotypical. Like Evan on Greek. Or Carter on Make It or Break It. Or Nate from Gossip Girl. Or Finn from Glee. They are too generic, too easy to like. They're not memorable. I like a guy who is unique, who has faults. I would much rather have an interesting guy that a perfect one. 

Chuck, for instance, isn't perfect. My god, he can be an awful, awful person, selling Blair for a hotel. But, at least, he's different. He doesn't look like everyone else, and he doesn't act like them either. He's his own character. Or, of course, Cappie. He's immature and irresponsible, but he's also hilarious, and loyal, and passionate. He's always Cappie, always unique. He doesn't always do the right thing, but at least he's not afraid to break the mould. 

In terms of stereotypical guys, I have already rejected the bad boy and the perfect guy. I also detest the jock, no matter how nice they try to make him, and the male slut, no matter how many times he may pledge to love the main character. The biggest stereotype I buy into is the geeky/nerdy guy. I always fall for him. First, because they are usually very vulnerable characters. They aren't very popular, and they usually don't get the girl. And I love them for that. 

I also love them for their intelligence and their awkwardness, two things I can relate to. I love Michael for his brilliance, but also for how long he waits for Mia. I love the end of the second book, when he has such a hard time telling Mia he likes her dress. Just like I love Dexter in This Lullaby because he's always so clumsy, with so much nervous energy. I'm always pulling for the nerd, because I can understand him, relate to him. I think we all can, at some point or another. 

Another quality I always fall for is earnestness. I adore a guy who can love his girl full forced, not caring about showing too much emotion or revealing too much. Not crying, by any means (though a guy can cry anytime he wants, with no judgement from me), but real, genuine love. 

The best example I can think of is Damon from Make It or Break It, specifically, the end of the first season, when he sings the song for Emily and does the radio interview. He admits to the whole world that he loves her. And he's not ashamed, not embarrassed. He's truthful, earnest. No wonder I am salivating waiting for the new season of MIOBI to come on!

I'm usually not into huge romantic gestures. I like the last scene of Anna and the French Kiss, rather than the get together scene. It's less dramatic sure, but it's also so much more real. 

I guess that's all I'm really looking for. A vulnerable guy, with faults and self-doubts, just like everyone else. A unique guy, who'd actually be interesting to talk to, fun to be around. A smart, awkward guy, who I can relate to. An earnest, truly romantic man I can fall for. In short, someone who's real, for better or for worse.

I don't think I ever found a character that meets all those requirements. Seely Booth is close. Michael Moscovitz is close. 

But the real question is: Will I ever find a man like them in real life? 

The Hunger Games: A Romantic Perspective

I made a mistake on thursday night. I was tired, and I just wanted a few pages to read to fall asleep. The book that I was reading, Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, had gotten to slow part. So, I looked at my book stack next to my bed, where I keep all my "you should read this eventually, it'll make you smarter" books, and picked out The Hunger Games. I had started it before, and it didn't really take, so I figured it would put me to sleep fast.

And it did. But, then, on friday night, I was trying to avoid doing homework, so I picked it up again. And, BAM, I'm a gonner. Cover-to-cover in less than 24 hours. Normally, I'd be happy about this. I love getting caught up in a book like that. Especially one that's so out of genre for me (ie. one that doesn't ooze romance off every page). But not this weekend. This weekend I had SO MUCH FREAKING HOMEWORK that I really, really couldn't afford to get caught reading. Because once I get hooked like that I can't do anything else until I finish. Not my giant math essay or my french presentation or my english study notes, or the prep for the presentation I give tomorrow morning at 9am (which I am still screwed for, by the way). So, instead of doing homework on saturday, like I should've, I read. And read and read and read. I'm currently 2/3 through Catching Fire (while still managing to get the giant math essay done!). 

Now, I know some people measure how much they like a book based on how fast they read it. I mean, if you speed through a book, you must really love it, right? Well, not me. For a lot of books, I just get hooked. Sometimes they are great books (Forever Princess!). Sometimes they are beyond awful (Leaving/Returning to Paradise). Because, for me, all it takes is a good plot for me to get hooked. And a good plot does not a good book make. I read Twilight in one night because it was so fast paced. But it wasn't that good. Because plot is only one part of the equation (ahhh! Been doing math all day! Never want to see that word again!). 

Writing is another. My favourite book of all time, Crow Lake, is not fast paced. It has a rather boring setting, and almost a lack of plot. But I love it for its writing. And Suzanne Collins writing in The Hunger Games is good. Not blow-me-out-of-the-water good, but straightforward and enjoyable. The novels are really well planned out, and I give her a lot of credit for that. 

Of course, character is another criteria. The main character, Katniss, is amazingly developed. She is strong and oh so smart, and so caring, and freaking stubborn. She won't let anyone help her, so help her God. She's such a well defined character. I may not like everything she does, but I love for how she is always herself. A well developed, consistent character. 

The setting is another (usually less significant) aspect to consider. In a book like Princess Diaries, the setting isn't all that important. But here, it is paramount. Now, I don't read a lot of science fiction-y, futuristic city stuff, so I really can't say how it measures up. But I really love it. I love getting immersed in this foreign world, with all these different rules. At first the Hunger Games horrified me, of course, but as I came to understand the world, they fascinated me more than anything. 

So, all of the boxes seemed to be checked. Good plot? Check. Well developed character? Check. Good writing? Good setting? Check and check. But still, something felt off, but I couldn't put my finger on it. What else was there in a book like this? What could be wrong?

Then it hit me, like a ton of freaking bricks. What do I look for in any book, any tv show, in any movie, anything, ever? 

 

ROMANCE! That was it! There was a problem with the romance! I couldn't believe I had missed that! That's my thing!

In theory, The Hunger Games trilogy has all the makings of an excellent love triangle. A male best friend (my favourite!). A adorable guy who has been in love with her forever. What more could you ask for, right?

WRONG! See, the theory's good, but the execution sucks. In theory, I should love Gale and Peeta. I maybe should be pulling for one above the other, but it'd be a hard choice. Instead, I'm finding that the romance is the part of the book I care about the least. I know, shame on me! I call myself a (fictional) romance expert! And I'm practically skipping past the romance! Blasphemy! 

But I don't love Gale. Because I never get to see Gale. He's barely in the first book. And he's only sparingly in the second. Sure, Katniss talks about him a lot, and I know stuff about him, but I don't feel like I know him. I can't invest in him. And, therefore, I can't invest in that part of the triangle. Which is very odd for a girl like me, who, remind you, has read entire books rooting for the male best friend, even when she knew there was no way in hell it was going to happen. I love male best friends! And I'm trying REALLY hard to love Gale. But I just can't. I don't know him; I wish I did. 

Peeta has a very different problem for me. I like Peeta enough. I certainly know him. He's loving and sweet and loyal. He doesn't know all that much about nature, but he can bake and paint better than anyone. He's charismatic and charming and an all around good guy. And you know I love a good love her from a far romance. But, no, not buying into this one either. But the problem isn't Peeta. The problem is Katniss. 

Because Katniss, my sweet girl, doesn't know how to love people. Gale has always loved her, but she never knew how to deal with it. All through the games, she could kiss Peeta, and feel almost nothing. She's not good at the romance thing. And I feel bad for her, I do. But I also get frustrated with her. Because it could be so much better, if she'd just get past her own issues. But she doesn't, so we get all the motions, with none of the feelings. The first kiss, and all the kisses after that. The sweet nothings. The "I love you", and the engagement. We go through it all, but we never really get to experience it, because Katniss keeps herself at such a distance. 

Now, I'm fairly certain that she'll end up with one of them by the end of the third book. But I'm fairly certain I won't care. Because I've already gone through the motions. Now, a real first kiss won't matter. Now "I love you" holds less weight. I've had the moments, but I haven't gotten to enjoy them. So the romance has been okay. Sub par for such an awesome book. If the romance was as good as the rest of the book I would not have been able to do my math essay this weekend. I would have had to read all three in a day. 

I can see why people love these books. Especially if they're not so obsessed with romance like me. But for me, they're not great. They're good, with a lot of potential for improvement. Who knows, maybe the next book will wow me, melt by cold heart. 

But I doubt it. 

C to the R to the A to the P!

The Summer I Turned Pretty

By Jenny Han

Let's be frank here: This book was crap. Garbage, junk, crap, crap, crap. Barely finished it, barely cared about it crap. Sorry to Jenny Han, but your book sucked.

Let's start with the characters. The protagonist, Belly (stupid name. Stop trying too hard to be unique) was fine. Stupid and annoying, but fine. I had one problem: I didn't understand her at all. Not like I couldn't connect to her--no like, I couldn't freaking understand what she was saying! First, she says that she waits all year to go to the summer house, that it was the highlight of her year. But then she spent the whole book complaining about the summer house. She complained about how mean and distant Conrad was. She complained about her mother. She complained about how Conrad, Steven, and Jeremiah always left her out. If this is the highlight of her year, I feel pretty bad for this girl.

Conrad himself was awful. I couldn't understand why anyone would love him, even for a minute, let alone the years and years and years that Belly was obsessed with him. He was cranky and withdrawn. He was right out mean to Belly again and again and again. I just hated him.

Jeremiah was okay. Better than the other two, but still pretty generic. He was funny and sweet, but he was also a player. I almost wanted him and Belly together, but then he'd go and hit on some girl, and I would just hate him. I liked the bond he had with Belly. But overall he was just a mildly interesting character that would be utterly forgettable in any good book.

Cam was fine. Barely worth mentioning. Steven needs to die, along with Taylor. I loved Susannah, but her supposed secret was so freaking obvious from the first page. Susannah said Belly had a great mom, but I never saw why.

With crap characters like that, it didn't take much make this book crack.

Let me just say, I'm not categorically opposed to summer books. That wasn't the issue. Summer is a cliche, sure, a tried but true plot device. I can see why authors like it so much. They don't have to deal with the daily details of school. They don't have to deal with responsibilities or rules. There is a freeness to summer, a ubiquity to it. YA authors in particular love summer, because they think it is some grand coming of age thing, like one summer can change your whole life. If your Sarah Dessen you can do this. If you're Jenny Han, apparently, you cannot.

So, the whole summer thing sucked. Then there was the stupid freaking love triangle/square. When I read the blurb on the back of the book, I assumed she'd end up with Jeremiah. But then the book didn't seem to be going that way. I was very confused. Who was I supposed to be rooting for?

It bothers me when books do that. I read a book last summer called Loathing Lola, by William Kostakis. The main character had a male best friend, Tom. You know what that means.

Female Protagonist + Straight Male Best Friend = LOVE

So for the whole freaking book I kept pulling for them, even when it seemed less and less likely they would end up together. Then, she ended up with some other guy I had largely been ignoring because I was so focused on the male best friend. I was very frustrated with that book. And I was very frustrated with this book. When a girl has been in love with a guy forever, and you say from practically the first page that he is a complete JERK, they don't end up together. I assumed that much was true. I thought she'd up the alternative guy who was there all along, who she didn't notice until she gave up on dream boy. Jeremiah seemed like a perfect candidate for that role. But then we went on a total detour to Cam-land, which produced nothing of any use. And then she didn't really end up with anyone in the end! There was a hell of a lot of discussion of love, but now actual lovin'. And there was not heat. No chemistry. Zip. Zada. Zilch. Nothing but crap.

So, to summarize, this book was crap. Crappy characters. Crappy plot. Crappy title (what kind of title is that--The Summer I Turned Pretty??? Superficial much???). Harsh I know. No offence to Ms. Han. I'm sure you're a lovely person. And I've read good reviews of your book (which is why I bought it in the first place!). But I'm done with this crap.

P.S. That last part there was just me feeling bad for writing such a mean review

P.P.S. Sorry for all the crass language. I get kind of carried away...