Every year, we have the Friends of the Library book sale. On the last day of the sale, you can get a paper sack full of books, any kind of books, for $6 which is an amazing bargain.
Conveniently, the sale falls right around my birthday so I usually get a bag or two from a family member as a gift, one that will tide me over for the year to come. This year I only got one bag (going for quality over quantity) which filled yielded about 30 books. Among them, I got a John Irving, three books of poetry, seven books for Emerald, "Walden", a couple of best sellers, a manga, and a seventy-year-old gem.
One of the books, though, I got specifically for this blog.
It is called "The Book of Questions" by Gregory Stock, Ph.D.
As a sort of extension of the "Memories from a Mother's Heart" that I did years ago, this will hopefully scrounge up some thought provoking discussions and personally enlightening self-discovery. Probably not, but you never know.
And we're off!!
1. For a person you loved deeply, would you be willing to move to a distant country knowing there would be little chance of seeing your friends or family again?
-I want to be the type of romantic that would throw abandon to the wind and say, "Of course! I will follow my heart anywhere!"
But I am not. I am burdened with the knowledge of the reality of having two high-needs children, one medically frail and the other developmentally and intellectually delayed. It is damn stressful raising them and the parents (me) need bolstering and support from family. I have to have people I can trust to watch the kids, to take care of them when I am sick or want a date or just need a dang break. Family is important; family is needed.
2. Do you believe in ghosts or evil spirits? Would you be willing to spend a night alone in a remote house that is supposedly haunted??
-I think whether or not I believe in these things has no bearing--if they do, who cares that I believe in them; if I don't, who cares then? It affects very little.
I might spend the night in a remote house if I weren't afraid of the very real possibility of some freak coming in and raping/murdering me, but as for the haunted aspect? That wouldn't bother me.
In the end, I believe in demons and malevolent spirits; I believe in things we don't see and can't understand; don't actually believe in ghosts.
3. If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven't you told them yet??
-Not really the type of person that keeps things bottled down inside. People more or less know what I am thinking at all times because I have no dam that keeps it from all just pouring out and spilling all over the floor at their feet. Honestly, I wouldn't regret not saying anything because I don't think I have anything left unsaid.
Maybe "Mike, please take care of my cats and don't give them away just because I die".
4. If you could spend one year in perfect happiness but afterward would remember nothing of the experience would you do so? Why or why not?
-Well no shit I would. It's not like I am consigned to a lifetime of never being happy again. Just because I wouldn't remember it doesn't mean that it didn't happen and I didn't experience it. And while I was living it, I would be perfectly happy. So yeah, 100% on board.
5. If a new medicine was developed that would cure arthritis but cause a fatal reaction in 1 percent of those who took it, would you want it to be released to the public?
-Ask me when I am suffering from arthritis.
6. You discover your wonderful one-year-old child is, because of a mixup at the hospital, not yours. Would you want to exchange the child to correct the mistake?
-That's tricky. I would want to meet with the other parents and lay all of it out. Maybe they have been great parents and love their child with my DNA as much as I love and care for my child with theirs. In that case, if they were amenable, I would keep the child I took home; we would sign paperwork to make it all official, and then we would stay in one another's lives. Be friends; let our wonderful child be friends with theirs.
It gets more complicated if they are awful. If they are, I would try and keep both babies at all costs.
7. Do you think that the world will be a better or a worse place 100 years from now?
-My optimism says we are making advances toward better humanity all the time. We are becoming more conscientious and loving and more accepting and tolerant and peaceful.
It doesn't always feel like that. Change happens so microscopically and there is still so much shit that we are wading through. I just choose to focus on the beautiful and the good.
8. Would you rather be a member of a world championship sports team or be the champion of an individual sport? Which sport would you choose?
-Team, soccer or basketball. I hate all eyes on me, but comrades and teammates give me strength and confidence.
9. Would you accept $1,000,000 to leave the country and never set foot in it again?
-Probably. Can I take my family? My kids? Then yup. Hell, I would move to Mexico or Canada and have my parents and siblings visit all the time. Set them up in nice digs near the border. Make sure they are still near.
10. Which sex do you think has it easier in our culture? Have you ever wished you were the opposite sex?
-I think men have it easier, but that's coming from my stance as a woman. The feminist movement still has a long way to go toward equality. I want to feel safe walking alone down a dark street, to wear whatever I want without getting harassed, to be valued and admired for my brains and not my ass. I want a society where my daughter's bra strap showing in school is not a sexualized, demonized thing, and where one day she can make every bit as much as male counterpart. And where the antiquated and crap arguments that people used to use to keep women just beneath men would just damn die away.
I have never wished I was a boy. I don't have any desire to sport male genitalia.
So that is post number one! Lets see if I stick with this, or abandon it like so many other fleeting fancies of mine!
---Andie
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Saturday, February 9, 2013
On Writing
At one point, I fancied myself a gifted writer. It came as naturally to me as breathing; stories filled my head every waking moment, and would frequently drag me out of sleep and dance around my head until I feverishly wrote the idea before it would allow peace enough to sleep. Reading, one of my great passions, would further fuel my imagination--my thoughts would gallop away from a single word or phrase or idea until I realize that I have been staring unseeingly at the same page for an indeterminate amount of time.
The odd thing is, I never wanted to be a author. It was not something I chose; it felt like a destiny that was dragging me steadily onward toward the eventual end-point whether I wanted it to or not, “ka”. To me, it was an unchangeable descriptor the likes of “Caucasian”, “Christian”, or “Brown-eyed”. Sure, I could tan, abandon or change my religion, or wear colored contacts, but it would forever be bubbling beneath the surface, evident to all who looked, but to no one so much as to myself. As far as gifts go, this is not the worst that could be had. It brings honor and respect and critical acclaim, in its own modest way. It creates a legacy that will far outlive yourself, a physical imprint on literature, no matter how insignificant or unnoticed.
What if you don’t want to be remembered? Your dreams are understated and unassuming; getting married, having a family, leading a good life are the chiefs of your concern. As a general rule, writers don’t seem to be the most sociable of sorts. Observant, yes. Perceptive to a fault. Introspectiveness and sensitivity and emotions that are sometime too great to feel make it far more comfortable to withdraw from society, social contact, meaningful friendships.
What is worse, when you turn yourself inside out and force all these out of you and onto the page..well, then everyone can see you for imperfect you. Not that smile you have plastered on your face or that polite, demure demeanor you hide behind, but the real, dirty, worrisome, quarrelsome you. The person that we spend our lives repressing and dismissing and hiding because it is not “socially acceptable”; that’s the dirty little secret after all--we are far from socially acceptable.
Then what is the worst fate: being published or being rejected? At least with rejection, you can soothe your wounded ego that some of the greatest artists and authors were unappreciated and ridiculed in their own time; that this very personal creation of yours can go back into seclusion (not unlike yourself), and spend the rest of its days protected and waiting.
No, I think it would be far worse for it to be released unto the world. Then all eyes are on you, in a far more vulnerable state than naked. Looking into your every thought and word and phrase, examining it and interpreting it, changing it. They have stolen and taken charge of your creation, and without your consent it is becoming something ugly and unrecognizable.
Oh then, horror of horrors, you have to TALK about it.
It doesn’t make any definable sense! How can someone that has such a command of the English language, the master word-crafter that has woven so intricate and engaging a story to have drawn the attention of the world...how can they be so clumsy and inarticulate when spoken to? Why do the words that plague me night and day for years, decades, at a time until they overflow and pour to the page allude me, skipping my voice all-together as it rushes to my flying fingertips and out of my head?
Of course, objectively it is perfectly understandable. I have been sitting for an unknown amount of time, in the dark, alone, not uttering a word to another living soul as the demon that drives me exorcizes this damned story out through my pores. My skin has paled from such infrequent sunlight, my eyes painfully sensitive to the light they scarcely remember. Why can my mouth, too, have not forgotten its function? You see, there are no halfway measures with writing. If you want it, if you truly give yourself over to it; nothing else can exist, nothing else can take precedence. Heaven help you if you don’t have a choice.
Maybe you’ll get lucky and get a spouse that understands. An independent individual that can entertain themselves without resentment as you pound away on the keyboard, dead to the world and dead to them. Missed meals, one-sided conversations, and undone chores become the norm; the unasked question of how much longer you will be indisposed is unanswerable. You don’t know how long you will be; the last conscious decision you made was to start a book, and then you’ve been dragged along for the ride, as helpless to stop or get off as your poor, neglected spouse.
I once fancied myself a gifted writer. Then I grew older and tried to adopt my own interests. I got married, I had kids. I learned how to crochet a scarf and bake muffins; I went to church and volunteered in ministries. I thought I had built a life for myself outside the demanding bitch of a mistress that writing had become.
For me, there was no escape though. You can’t be what you are not, and you can pretend and lie to yourself for only so long. My mind fogged over, my eyes grew blurry. My focus began to wane, and my attention span became nonexistent. Conversation grew baffling, and I was unable to support my end without a great deal of incoherent responses and frequent repetitions. Depression took over; then anger. Irrational, consuming anger. Emotions fled to the surface of my skin, and everything I felt was overwhelming and raw. Insatiable lust, inexplicable sadness, ecstatic mirth...there were no half-measures, no control. Several times a day, I would double over in spasms of anxiety that washed over my body in shuddering, panicked waves when there was no overt cause for my distress.
Finally, my body began to show signs of strain. Soreness, tiredness, pain and cramps became my constant companions. I can no longer deny the truth: the stories that I have ignored and beaten down, dismissed and neglected have infected my body and have become toxic. You can choose to be a writer, but when you are one, you can never choose to be anything else. God or nature or personality have given you this one true outlet, this one way to purge yourself until you are naked and clean; you have to break yourself to make yourself whole.
I once fancied myself a gifted writer.
I know now that is not true.
I am an inherent, a cursed, an unchangable, unexchangable, irreplaceable, insatiable, unavoidable writer; I know no other way.
And so: I write.
The odd thing is, I never wanted to be a author. It was not something I chose; it felt like a destiny that was dragging me steadily onward toward the eventual end-point whether I wanted it to or not, “ka”. To me, it was an unchangeable descriptor the likes of “Caucasian”, “Christian”, or “Brown-eyed”. Sure, I could tan, abandon or change my religion, or wear colored contacts, but it would forever be bubbling beneath the surface, evident to all who looked, but to no one so much as to myself. As far as gifts go, this is not the worst that could be had. It brings honor and respect and critical acclaim, in its own modest way. It creates a legacy that will far outlive yourself, a physical imprint on literature, no matter how insignificant or unnoticed.
What if you don’t want to be remembered? Your dreams are understated and unassuming; getting married, having a family, leading a good life are the chiefs of your concern. As a general rule, writers don’t seem to be the most sociable of sorts. Observant, yes. Perceptive to a fault. Introspectiveness and sensitivity and emotions that are sometime too great to feel make it far more comfortable to withdraw from society, social contact, meaningful friendships.
What is worse, when you turn yourself inside out and force all these out of you and onto the page..well, then everyone can see you for imperfect you. Not that smile you have plastered on your face or that polite, demure demeanor you hide behind, but the real, dirty, worrisome, quarrelsome you. The person that we spend our lives repressing and dismissing and hiding because it is not “socially acceptable”; that’s the dirty little secret after all--we are far from socially acceptable.
Then what is the worst fate: being published or being rejected? At least with rejection, you can soothe your wounded ego that some of the greatest artists and authors were unappreciated and ridiculed in their own time; that this very personal creation of yours can go back into seclusion (not unlike yourself), and spend the rest of its days protected and waiting.
No, I think it would be far worse for it to be released unto the world. Then all eyes are on you, in a far more vulnerable state than naked. Looking into your every thought and word and phrase, examining it and interpreting it, changing it. They have stolen and taken charge of your creation, and without your consent it is becoming something ugly and unrecognizable.
Oh then, horror of horrors, you have to TALK about it.
It doesn’t make any definable sense! How can someone that has such a command of the English language, the master word-crafter that has woven so intricate and engaging a story to have drawn the attention of the world...how can they be so clumsy and inarticulate when spoken to? Why do the words that plague me night and day for years, decades, at a time until they overflow and pour to the page allude me, skipping my voice all-together as it rushes to my flying fingertips and out of my head?
Of course, objectively it is perfectly understandable. I have been sitting for an unknown amount of time, in the dark, alone, not uttering a word to another living soul as the demon that drives me exorcizes this damned story out through my pores. My skin has paled from such infrequent sunlight, my eyes painfully sensitive to the light they scarcely remember. Why can my mouth, too, have not forgotten its function? You see, there are no halfway measures with writing. If you want it, if you truly give yourself over to it; nothing else can exist, nothing else can take precedence. Heaven help you if you don’t have a choice.
Maybe you’ll get lucky and get a spouse that understands. An independent individual that can entertain themselves without resentment as you pound away on the keyboard, dead to the world and dead to them. Missed meals, one-sided conversations, and undone chores become the norm; the unasked question of how much longer you will be indisposed is unanswerable. You don’t know how long you will be; the last conscious decision you made was to start a book, and then you’ve been dragged along for the ride, as helpless to stop or get off as your poor, neglected spouse.
I once fancied myself a gifted writer. Then I grew older and tried to adopt my own interests. I got married, I had kids. I learned how to crochet a scarf and bake muffins; I went to church and volunteered in ministries. I thought I had built a life for myself outside the demanding bitch of a mistress that writing had become.
For me, there was no escape though. You can’t be what you are not, and you can pretend and lie to yourself for only so long. My mind fogged over, my eyes grew blurry. My focus began to wane, and my attention span became nonexistent. Conversation grew baffling, and I was unable to support my end without a great deal of incoherent responses and frequent repetitions. Depression took over; then anger. Irrational, consuming anger. Emotions fled to the surface of my skin, and everything I felt was overwhelming and raw. Insatiable lust, inexplicable sadness, ecstatic mirth...there were no half-measures, no control. Several times a day, I would double over in spasms of anxiety that washed over my body in shuddering, panicked waves when there was no overt cause for my distress.
Finally, my body began to show signs of strain. Soreness, tiredness, pain and cramps became my constant companions. I can no longer deny the truth: the stories that I have ignored and beaten down, dismissed and neglected have infected my body and have become toxic. You can choose to be a writer, but when you are one, you can never choose to be anything else. God or nature or personality have given you this one true outlet, this one way to purge yourself until you are naked and clean; you have to break yourself to make yourself whole.
I once fancied myself a gifted writer.
I know now that is not true.
I am an inherent, a cursed, an unchangable, unexchangable, irreplaceable, insatiable, unavoidable writer; I know no other way.
And so: I write.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
What's Been Happening
So, I haven't written in a while. You would assume that it would be because I have not consumed media worth mentioning since my last post about the Forever Trilogy.
You, of course, would be wrong.
Between now and the last post, I have lost my soul to the form of one Nook Color. Having always been hesitant with e-readers and tablets because of my great love of the experience of reading, I wasn't positive how I would adapt to books on a screen. After all, staring at a computer screen for hours on end is downright painful, and I keep my phone so dimmed that other people can't make out the shapes on the screen.
When Michael surprised me with the aforementioned Nook Color for my recent 25th birthday, I was naturally excited yet apprehensive that I would be unable to adjust to this new literary experience.
Twenty days (and some dozen-odd books) later, I can safely say that I am beyond addicted, spending hours perusing for new and inexpensive books (my upper limit for digital books appears to be somewhere around $10) to bog Jo down with, and the rest of my time is spent blissfully plowing through my eclectic library.
An aside here: I tend to name all my devices, a way of bonding with them. My dearly departed laptop was Calvin; his replacement is Ragnarok (having the most personality of any electronic I have ever met). The Xperia play cellphone is Grover, and my newly acquired Nook is Miss Josephine, so called Jo after my most beloved book, "Little Women" by Louisa May Alcott.
All that blithery is to say: this post will be an update on the my more memorable of recent literary adventures.
"Thanks for the Memories" by Cecilia Ahern...I can't say that I paid more than $2 or $3 for this particular novel. The author had also written "P.S. I Love You", which I have neither read nor watched the related movie, but have heard overall positive reviews for, so I was intrigued enough to purchase this book.
One of the few topics I get passionate about is blood donation. The premise of "Thanks for the Memories" is that a woman, Joyce, who has recently received a blood transfusion after a tragic accident is suddenly remembering places and facts and people from memories that are not hers. Naturally, she is drawn to the gentleman--a handsome American man--that had given her these memories and his blood.
Overall, I enjoyed the book. Joyce's father is a dead ringer for an Irish version of my own father, and the hobble-y resemblance automatically endeared me to the character and therefore the book. It was well-written and engaging, but I felt the plot dragged on in one after another of those frustrating "near miss" situations. It felt as though a third of the book could have been shaved on with little to no consequence.
There were also times where she harped on and on ad nauseam when you inferred her intended meaning from the start. A lot of words felt wasted and as a passionate reader with an unfortunate lack of opportunity, I want every word to count.
The Percy Jackson and the Olympians series was not one I actually purchased; my friend Beth lent them to me to finish reading before she moves away for the summer.
Michael and I watched the Percy Jackson movie, and I gotta say...it was awful. Unfairly, I transferred my dislike for the film adaptation to the source material, which was a great disservice to Rick Riordan. Determined to give it another shot at the recommendation from Beth, I borrowed the books and have thus far made it through two (currently tackling "The Titan's Curse").
First, "The Lightening Thief".
Admittedly it was far better than the movie, and it encouraged me to keep reading the series. That being said, it was not the best book I had ever read. Naturally drawn to series intended for younger audiences such as this one, it was not that it was too immature for me. On the contrary, I think most adults would enjoy the stories. That being said, the first book was not one that I overwhelmingly loved or felt compelled to stay up all night and read the next four (as I am wont to do from time to time).
"Sea of Monsters" was improved. Now that all the groundwork had been laid, Riordan was able to really get the story to take off. I like series where by the end of the book, we have some resolution of a story line but hint of more to come.
"Hope in a Jar" was another one of those couple of dollar purchases, a light summer read about two estranged best friends from high school--it jumps between current day, their 20th school reunion and their school days leading up to the hinted-at falling out.
The bane of my reading existence is figuring out the plot "twists" too soon. Of course there is foreshadowing and clue-gathering along the way, but it cheapens it if the hints are too heavy handed. Toss a few red herrings out there, mislead, misdirect so that when we finally do arrive at the big reveal, it is an actual revelation.
For what it was, I enjoyed it. A light, easy, fun story. I wouldn't call it memorable, but it was entertaining enough. Beth Harbison is likely to join my roster of authors when I need something refreshing after a heavy or dark book.
The last book of note was the very first I read on my Nook--I (rightly) assumed that my addiction and obsession with Jodi Picoult books once I started reading would be the perfect learning tool for my new tablet. "Plain Truth" was only $4, a fact that excited me nearly beyond all reason, as most of her books fall more in the $12-15 range.
"Plain Truth" is about a murdered newborn baby found in an Amish community barn, and the search for the murderer. Picoult focuses more on internal, familial drama rather than sensationalism and drama derived from detective cases. The lawyer always has conflicting personal history that causes distress while working the case, but has to remain professional regardless.
Her books are the perfect example of what I was talking about above. Sure, in some books (like "House Rules") I can foresee the ending long in advance, but there is enough doubt left for me to question until the end. In others, I am left wondering and formulating theories all the way up till the end. Regardless, the stories are engaging and engrossing and always thoroughly enjoyed by me. Generally speaking, I prefer physical copies to digital because of the aforementioned $10 rule as well as my pack-rat like hoarding all of all my favorite things for rainy days (Jodi Picoult being one of my favorite authors), but this was an ideal "in" for me and Jo to start getting to know one another and bonding.
Other stories that I have read--The Girl in the Converse Shoes, Sleeping Arrangements, Flirting with Forty--are at best not worth mentioning (Converse) or at worse shamefully bad (Sleeping Arrangements). Two I did read and loved were "Land of a Hundred Wonders" and "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", but I will have to talk about those another time. My recent diet and exercise routine has me sullen and short-tempered, so focusing on a task this long is difficult.
Keep reading for my thoughts on "Widow for One Year" by John Irving!
--Andie
You, of course, would be wrong.
Between now and the last post, I have lost my soul to the form of one Nook Color. Having always been hesitant with e-readers and tablets because of my great love of the experience of reading, I wasn't positive how I would adapt to books on a screen. After all, staring at a computer screen for hours on end is downright painful, and I keep my phone so dimmed that other people can't make out the shapes on the screen.
When Michael surprised me with the aforementioned Nook Color for my recent 25th birthday, I was naturally excited yet apprehensive that I would be unable to adjust to this new literary experience.
Twenty days (and some dozen-odd books) later, I can safely say that I am beyond addicted, spending hours perusing for new and inexpensive books (my upper limit for digital books appears to be somewhere around $10) to bog Jo down with, and the rest of my time is spent blissfully plowing through my eclectic library.
An aside here: I tend to name all my devices, a way of bonding with them. My dearly departed laptop was Calvin; his replacement is Ragnarok (having the most personality of any electronic I have ever met). The Xperia play cellphone is Grover, and my newly acquired Nook is Miss Josephine, so called Jo after my most beloved book, "Little Women" by Louisa May Alcott.
All that blithery is to say: this post will be an update on the my more memorable of recent literary adventures.
"Thanks for the Memories" by Cecilia Ahern...I can't say that I paid more than $2 or $3 for this particular novel. The author had also written "P.S. I Love You", which I have neither read nor watched the related movie, but have heard overall positive reviews for, so I was intrigued enough to purchase this book.
One of the few topics I get passionate about is blood donation. The premise of "Thanks for the Memories" is that a woman, Joyce, who has recently received a blood transfusion after a tragic accident is suddenly remembering places and facts and people from memories that are not hers. Naturally, she is drawn to the gentleman--a handsome American man--that had given her these memories and his blood.
Overall, I enjoyed the book. Joyce's father is a dead ringer for an Irish version of my own father, and the hobble-y resemblance automatically endeared me to the character and therefore the book. It was well-written and engaging, but I felt the plot dragged on in one after another of those frustrating "near miss" situations. It felt as though a third of the book could have been shaved on with little to no consequence.
There were also times where she harped on and on ad nauseam when you inferred her intended meaning from the start. A lot of words felt wasted and as a passionate reader with an unfortunate lack of opportunity, I want every word to count.
The Percy Jackson and the Olympians series was not one I actually purchased; my friend Beth lent them to me to finish reading before she moves away for the summer.
Michael and I watched the Percy Jackson movie, and I gotta say...it was awful. Unfairly, I transferred my dislike for the film adaptation to the source material, which was a great disservice to Rick Riordan. Determined to give it another shot at the recommendation from Beth, I borrowed the books and have thus far made it through two (currently tackling "The Titan's Curse").
First, "The Lightening Thief".
Admittedly it was far better than the movie, and it encouraged me to keep reading the series. That being said, it was not the best book I had ever read. Naturally drawn to series intended for younger audiences such as this one, it was not that it was too immature for me. On the contrary, I think most adults would enjoy the stories. That being said, the first book was not one that I overwhelmingly loved or felt compelled to stay up all night and read the next four (as I am wont to do from time to time).
"Sea of Monsters" was improved. Now that all the groundwork had been laid, Riordan was able to really get the story to take off. I like series where by the end of the book, we have some resolution of a story line but hint of more to come.
"Hope in a Jar" was another one of those couple of dollar purchases, a light summer read about two estranged best friends from high school--it jumps between current day, their 20th school reunion and their school days leading up to the hinted-at falling out.
The bane of my reading existence is figuring out the plot "twists" too soon. Of course there is foreshadowing and clue-gathering along the way, but it cheapens it if the hints are too heavy handed. Toss a few red herrings out there, mislead, misdirect so that when we finally do arrive at the big reveal, it is an actual revelation.
For what it was, I enjoyed it. A light, easy, fun story. I wouldn't call it memorable, but it was entertaining enough. Beth Harbison is likely to join my roster of authors when I need something refreshing after a heavy or dark book.
The last book of note was the very first I read on my Nook--I (rightly) assumed that my addiction and obsession with Jodi Picoult books once I started reading would be the perfect learning tool for my new tablet. "Plain Truth" was only $4, a fact that excited me nearly beyond all reason, as most of her books fall more in the $12-15 range.
"Plain Truth" is about a murdered newborn baby found in an Amish community barn, and the search for the murderer. Picoult focuses more on internal, familial drama rather than sensationalism and drama derived from detective cases. The lawyer always has conflicting personal history that causes distress while working the case, but has to remain professional regardless.
Her books are the perfect example of what I was talking about above. Sure, in some books (like "House Rules") I can foresee the ending long in advance, but there is enough doubt left for me to question until the end. In others, I am left wondering and formulating theories all the way up till the end. Regardless, the stories are engaging and engrossing and always thoroughly enjoyed by me. Generally speaking, I prefer physical copies to digital because of the aforementioned $10 rule as well as my pack-rat like hoarding all of all my favorite things for rainy days (Jodi Picoult being one of my favorite authors), but this was an ideal "in" for me and Jo to start getting to know one another and bonding.
Other stories that I have read--The Girl in the Converse Shoes, Sleeping Arrangements, Flirting with Forty--are at best not worth mentioning (Converse) or at worse shamefully bad (Sleeping Arrangements). Two I did read and loved were "Land of a Hundred Wonders" and "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", but I will have to talk about those another time. My recent diet and exercise routine has me sullen and short-tempered, so focusing on a task this long is difficult.
Keep reading for my thoughts on "Widow for One Year" by John Irving!
--Andie
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Forever Trilogy
Normally I talk on this blog about things that might interest my husband, Michael.
You know, what video games I am playing and what movies he would like that I have watched. He listens to my prattering on about the latest Glee and what happened on Desperate Housewives in real life, so why would he want to read about it?
But, as this is more of a cataloging of my own experiences and opinions so that I can one day look back and say "oh! I DID read that, and apparently that is what I thought about it", it would be an injustice to leave out everything tainted with romanticism and femininity.
That makes sense right? Yeah, I thought so.
So, the Forever Trilogy.
If you know me, you know that I adore Jude Deveraux.
Of course many people can say that--I mean, almost all her books have been New York Times Bestsellers, and she has a disarmingly sweet style and likable, realistic characters.
But she is my favorite, amongst such others as Louisa May Alcott ("Little Women"), Jodi Picoult ("Keeping Faith"), and Laura Wattenberg ("The Baby Name Wizard"--don't laugh, it is sincerely a very well thought out and well organized book, a true revelation in baby naming...but I digress). Jude never ceases to enrapture me, and her ability to make you feel for--even root for--any character no matter how heinous (like a rapist enemy in her famous Angel saga) is remarkable.
Many people look at romance novels as easy-reads, fluffy novels for fluffy women while they eat their chocolates and develop unrealistic expectations about the men in their lives. We are told we should feel ashamed of reading such literature and strive for the greats and classics. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, those people are pompous morons.
Okay! So enough introduction--on to the novels!
I bought this trilogy at the used bookstore, even though it didn't sound like my normal cup of tea, because it would aid in completing my Jude Deveraux collection. I am a mere 5 books away from a complete collection.
The premise is that a man looking for answers about his missing parents and mysterious past recruits the aid of a woman possessing unique powers, and they fall in love as they uncover the truth about what happened.
The first book introduced the characters and had them in a small town investigating the supernatural witch coven. I really enjoyed it. While it was certainly a deviation from what Ms. Deveraux typically writes, her main character Darci Monroe is so charming that you can't help but like her. These are not two perfect people that see each other and fall in love at first sight. They are imperfect people that find perfect love--I think that's why all her stories are so great, because it feels much more attainable than the outrageous beauty and the dashing hunk that tumble head over heels and spend the next 300 pages humping.
Vulgar, I know. I apologize. But Adam tries to hard to impress her and his goofy jokes fall completely flat, and it is so endearing. He is a bit of a snob which is understandable because he grew up surrounded by wealth, and having him completely humble and unaware would feel unrealistic. Darci has trouble taking things seriously, is incredibly strong-willed and stubborn, and is a total skinflint. In other words, things many of us can relate to, either personally or through someone you know.
In the second novel, "Forever and Always", Adam goes missing mysteriously and Darci is left trying to use her powers to track him down while aiding a sexy actor who's son has been kidnapped.
Lincoln Aimes, also known as Linc, is precious and I am quite fond. That being said, this was my least favorite of the three books, and the only JD that I had to force myself to finish. Don't get me wrong--it was far from bad. I don't think Jude ever wrote an actually bad novel. It was just that it was hard to get on board with the main love interest is missing and you have the uncomfortable notion the entire time that Darci is going to cheat. The fact that it would make her even more human and would be understandable does not cushion the blow. At the very least, Linc could have fallen in love along the way with someone else, but he let his horniness override the common sense and knowledge that she was married so he made continual passes at her. I didn't like it.
Last in the series was "Always", and it was my favorite of the three. It had her losing her powers, traveling back in time, and discovering the truth of her husband's disappearance.
My only issue is that many things felt unresolved. It didn't feel like a complete conclusion to me, and it left me a little unsatisfied which has never happened before. Jack worries that Darci will leave his friendship and the camaraderie they had developed like she did with Linc; there was no indication to the contrary in the end. Where Adam and Boadecia (his sister) had been the entire time, and what ever happened with the genie's lamp? It implied that Devlin had something to do with that, but not definitively. Little things like that that still plague me, but perhaps I was not reading closely enough.
All in all, probably not going to make my top 10 list but I could see going through them again in the future. I am happy I read them at any rate. Now I am waist-deep into "First Impressions" which I had obviously read the first couple of chapters to and...what, I don't know. Got bored doesn't seem likely, but misplaced the book or having to return it to it's original owner feel more likely. Maybe I just got the preview on Kindle.
Till next time--Andie!
You know, what video games I am playing and what movies he would like that I have watched. He listens to my prattering on about the latest Glee and what happened on Desperate Housewives in real life, so why would he want to read about it?
But, as this is more of a cataloging of my own experiences and opinions so that I can one day look back and say "oh! I DID read that, and apparently that is what I thought about it", it would be an injustice to leave out everything tainted with romanticism and femininity.
That makes sense right? Yeah, I thought so.
So, the Forever Trilogy.
If you know me, you know that I adore Jude Deveraux.
Of course many people can say that--I mean, almost all her books have been New York Times Bestsellers, and she has a disarmingly sweet style and likable, realistic characters.
But she is my favorite, amongst such others as Louisa May Alcott ("Little Women"), Jodi Picoult ("Keeping Faith"), and Laura Wattenberg ("The Baby Name Wizard"--don't laugh, it is sincerely a very well thought out and well organized book, a true revelation in baby naming...but I digress). Jude never ceases to enrapture me, and her ability to make you feel for--even root for--any character no matter how heinous (like a rapist enemy in her famous Angel saga) is remarkable.
Many people look at romance novels as easy-reads, fluffy novels for fluffy women while they eat their chocolates and develop unrealistic expectations about the men in their lives. We are told we should feel ashamed of reading such literature and strive for the greats and classics. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, those people are pompous morons.
Okay! So enough introduction--on to the novels!
I bought this trilogy at the used bookstore, even though it didn't sound like my normal cup of tea, because it would aid in completing my Jude Deveraux collection. I am a mere 5 books away from a complete collection.
The premise is that a man looking for answers about his missing parents and mysterious past recruits the aid of a woman possessing unique powers, and they fall in love as they uncover the truth about what happened.
The first book introduced the characters and had them in a small town investigating the supernatural witch coven. I really enjoyed it. While it was certainly a deviation from what Ms. Deveraux typically writes, her main character Darci Monroe is so charming that you can't help but like her. These are not two perfect people that see each other and fall in love at first sight. They are imperfect people that find perfect love--I think that's why all her stories are so great, because it feels much more attainable than the outrageous beauty and the dashing hunk that tumble head over heels and spend the next 300 pages humping.
Vulgar, I know. I apologize. But Adam tries to hard to impress her and his goofy jokes fall completely flat, and it is so endearing. He is a bit of a snob which is understandable because he grew up surrounded by wealth, and having him completely humble and unaware would feel unrealistic. Darci has trouble taking things seriously, is incredibly strong-willed and stubborn, and is a total skinflint. In other words, things many of us can relate to, either personally or through someone you know.
In the second novel, "Forever and Always", Adam goes missing mysteriously and Darci is left trying to use her powers to track him down while aiding a sexy actor who's son has been kidnapped.
Lincoln Aimes, also known as Linc, is precious and I am quite fond. That being said, this was my least favorite of the three books, and the only JD that I had to force myself to finish. Don't get me wrong--it was far from bad. I don't think Jude ever wrote an actually bad novel. It was just that it was hard to get on board with the main love interest is missing and you have the uncomfortable notion the entire time that Darci is going to cheat. The fact that it would make her even more human and would be understandable does not cushion the blow. At the very least, Linc could have fallen in love along the way with someone else, but he let his horniness override the common sense and knowledge that she was married so he made continual passes at her. I didn't like it.
Last in the series was "Always", and it was my favorite of the three. It had her losing her powers, traveling back in time, and discovering the truth of her husband's disappearance.
My only issue is that many things felt unresolved. It didn't feel like a complete conclusion to me, and it left me a little unsatisfied which has never happened before. Jack worries that Darci will leave his friendship and the camaraderie they had developed like she did with Linc; there was no indication to the contrary in the end. Where Adam and Boadecia (his sister) had been the entire time, and what ever happened with the genie's lamp? It implied that Devlin had something to do with that, but not definitively. Little things like that that still plague me, but perhaps I was not reading closely enough.
All in all, probably not going to make my top 10 list but I could see going through them again in the future. I am happy I read them at any rate. Now I am waist-deep into "First Impressions" which I had obviously read the first couple of chapters to and...what, I don't know. Got bored doesn't seem likely, but misplaced the book or having to return it to it's original owner feel more likely. Maybe I just got the preview on Kindle.
Till next time--Andie!
Monday, May 7, 2012
New Media
I have been consuming much more media lately. Maybe it is my narcissism that fuels it--it gives me something to talk about on my blog here so that I can chatter away uninterrupted and believe that everyone in the world is just dying to hear about it.
Err, anyways...
I will not lead with my opinions on "The Avengers", mostly because it is the most recently watched, but also because I know you will stop reading right after it. I am a sly boots, you know.
American Dad
In the beginning, I had a general disinterest in this show. Like every other college student, I watched "Family Guy" and "Simpsons" and "Futurama", but "American Dad" looked so stupid. The alien looked annoying, the concept overdone, the fish just plain stupid...the only point of reference I had was the whining voice of Roger the Alien saying "You forgot the pecan sandies" and that is all I needed to know to say I was not interested.
But we had Netflix Instant Queue before it became cool and American Dad was one of the more interesting shows available when there was literally nothing else to watch of interest...so I tried an episode. From there, Michael and I ended up watching the first four seasons and really liking the show. When we saw that the fifth season had been added, we were excited to have it back to watch during lunchtime.
Thus far, half way through the season, I have been disappointed.
Family Guy is known for its non sequiturs that sometimes work and sometimes don't; American Dad feels like it is trying to capitalize on that and it is falling flat. I hate to keep drawing the comparison, but as with the later seasons of Family Guy, American Dad has started trying to use topics as jokes that make me frankly uncomfortable and it ruins the entire episode for me.
Okay, so admittedly I am getting older and I am the mother of three young, impressionable kids, and--oh yeah--I am conservative southern republican church of Christ. So what the hell am I doing watching these shows in the first place?
Controversial topics or mildly tasteless jokes I can find humor in. Insensitive (or offensive) as they may be, the show never hides the fact that it is irreverent, which is why I can hardly take affront just because it does ventures into topics that make me unhappy. But some of them feel like they just aren't trying. Can we as a society just please move past the anal-raping hillbilly stereotype and jokes? I do not plan on ever watching "Deliverance", but it is 40 years old at this point--it beat you to the punch, can we just drop it now?
Anyways, some episodes are all right, but for the most part they are falling below the level of hilarity that we found in it before.
The Hunger Games
When there is a book or series that is causing a lot of commotion, I make a point to read it. Of course I was at the midnight release for the later Harry Potter books, and I plowed through all four "Twilight" travesties (hey--don't shoot the messenger, Bella spoiled the whole deal). So when I heard of "The Hunger Games" and got confirmation from my sister that the books were good, I bought a bundle pack on my Kindle app for iPhone to read with my husband.
Once I started, I couldn't stop and read the whole trilogy in a weekend.
Some parts were tedious, and at parts it became overly political...but it was an interesting concept and engaging story, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. When Michael's parents agreed to watch the kids, Michael took me to Popeye's Chicken (yum, yum, yum!) and to watch the movie version of "The Hunger Games".
The brutality was considerably toned down for the movie, which I for one greatly appreciated. It is one thing for you to read it, but I cannot imagine actually watching some of these things enacted. I really liked the girl they got to play Katniss--she was pretty but not inaccessibly-so and she did a very good job playing the role.
I am going to take a moment here to say: anyone who tries to make a case that Katniss is a Mary Sue should reexamine the definition. A Mary Sue is without notable flaw, creating a one-dimensional wish-fulfillment for reader or author. Katniss Everdeen was emotionally stuck at 11 years old and unable to read or interpret normal, healthy human interaction. The girl herself is not what was important. The rebellion needed a symbol and they made her into one.
Anyways, not to get off on a tangent there. The movie was very good. I really liked Peeta, just as I did in the book. Gale was well-played and quite attractive. The show was stolen, however, by the marvelous Haymitch Abernathy. He was so perfect, so well done that it brought the entire thing together. They absolutely did the book justice, even if they changed minor details to fit the story.
Supernatural
Everyone had been talking about Supernatural, the show on CW. Once again having shotgunned all currently interesting shows, we were searching for something new to fill the void, and Michael suggested this show about paranormal hunters.
As soon as I saw Jeffery Dean Morgan, I was sold.
The first time I had seen JDM was as Comedian in Watchmen, and I did not like the character. It is a common discussion between me and Michael--which characters are redeemable through selfless action, regardless of a heinous and vile past. Comedian was not I could see redemption in.
Months later, I fell in love with him as Denny on Grey's Anatomy, a handsome terminal heart patient that Katherine Heigl got involved with. He was wonderful, and I was warming to the actor considerably.
So when we start this show and he is looking like a major component, my interest is peaked. The sons were both actors I recognized as well--one as a love interest in Gilmore Girls, the other as a former boyfriend of Miss Lana Lang in Smallville--and the opening introductions was one of the most compelling I have ever watched.
Since then it has somewhat become a demon-of-the-week type, like Angel in early seasons but more light-hearted, which is fine but I am hoping for more substance, more long-term enemies.
The Avengers
We all know you only read to see what I thought about Avengers. I mean, come on--it is all anyone anywhere is talking about, which is why I deliberately kept my opinions off Facebook. When officially does saying anything ever at all become spoilers? Because if you don't want spoilers, read something else, I won't censor myself adequately.
My husband pretty much summed my feelings up with "I would have paid the price of admission just to watch the mid-credit scene".
Oh, my god you guys...Thanos.
Fucking. Thanos.
I cannot express with any words how wildly and obscenely excited I am about seeing that half a second of purple sock face. It was....so awesome.
Let me give you some back story. I didn't read comics before I met Mike. But as any good girlfriend, I was going to show interest in what he enjoyed, which meant that I started by playing Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 and Devil May Cry 3 for his love of video games, and I started reading The Infinity Gauntlet to gain more insight into his love of comics.
That was some 6 or 7 years ago at this point and I have since adopted these interests as my own and started forming opinions and insights and tastes regarding what I read and play, but I fell in love with the character of Thanos from that series. He is one of the unknown strengths of the Marvel Universe and I am glad he is getting a chance to really shine in the world.
Okay, enough of my girl-boner for Thanos (now THAT is an unnerving phrase. Now you're thinking about it. Stop that.). What about the actual other 2 and a half hours of movie?
Obviously I knew this movie was going to be fan-freaking-tastic. What else could it be with Joss Whedon at the helm? The man is a wonderful writer with strong connections in both the movie and the comic world. He knows how to make a movie exciting, a story compelling, characters engaging, and all without sacrificing the integrity of established universe. He treated all these characters with the utmost respect which is something you cannot expect from a director that sees comics as "intended for children" (a gross assumption made by the majority of people). Everything in the movie was great.
The two brightest spots in that movie for me were Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo.
First, Ruffalo.
The first two Hulk movies I enjoyed. Probably more than I should have, but I took them for what they were and even though they weren't great, they were entertaining to watch. Somewhere during the more recent Hulk movie, I developed a strong dislike for Edward Norton, and at no point in either movie did I feel they captured both the characters of Bruce Banner and the Hulk. It is like they were told basics about these characters and made assumptions based on that--Banner is a scientist which makes him a total dorky-dork, and Hulk is a mindless, anger-fueled beast. I would personally disagree with both of those assessments.
In this movie, I think they solved the fundamental problem with other incarnations....Hulk is not meant to be a stand-alone character.
In comics, sure--you can have entire series devoted to him. But those are differently paced than a movie, and a 50 years of back story and recap can be boiled down to a half page of print. For a cinema version of the character, you have to waste precious screen-time trying to explain who this guy is before you can actually have him do anything, and that hurts the story.
With him in a team, all you need to know they tell you, which is that he is a genius scientist that was exposed to gamma-radiation and now has a rage-beast form. Now he is free to interact with the rest of the story and develop as an individual without the tediousness of trying to force a love interest or him trying to figure out how to control this thing.
What I really liked was that the other characters respected his work and saw the potential in him, instead of writing him off as a mindless beast. And they played the Hulk as a redeemable character, one that aimed for an abandoned factory instead of falling on a bunch of innocent people; one that fought the invading enemy alongside the hero, and that caught a falling Tony Stark from the sky. If we had used the Ed Norton Hulk, there was not enough expressed inherent good or usefulness in him to explain why he is on the team--he was portrayed as the villain, as the enemy, even when fighting a greater threat.
Ruffalo played not only a fantastic Hulk, but a spot-on Bruce Banner. There was no caricature of a nerd here, but a respected doctorate-level genius that is more-or-less in control of his baser urges to become a valuable asset to the team. There is none of that whipped-puppy thing going on with him, the guy that took crap all his life until he found an outlet through a monstrous transformation. I hated that. Come on, we have enough of that through many of the villainous characters that are portrayed; have faith that the character that has stood on his own story for nearly half a century has the chops to make it on the big screen.
Jeremy Renner is not a man I would normally find attractive. No offense to the guy, but I have a very specific type and he is just not my cup of tea.
Holy crap, does he make one sexy Hawkeye.
Now, I am not positive they ever called him Hawkeye. They more or less referred to him as Barton, occasionally Clint, and once "the Hawk", but I cannot recall an actual incidence of Hawkeye. Which is fine, as he never "officially" suited up either, just maintained his SHIELD uniform which was admittedly badass.
I was a big fan of him being a bad guy for half the movie. I mean, talk about true to the character. It also gives him a chance to come into his own. As all the other characters have been introduced in some form or another previously to this movie, he had to work harder to prove his worth than the others, I believe. Sure, he had that brief cameo in Thor, but all we saw was a brawny guy wielding a sweet-ass bow. He never even got to shoot it.
The way that he mapped his targets so that he was not even looking at them when he let loose his arrows? Masterful. The set up of traditional arrows with unique tips, easily interchangable without mix-up? Brilliant. The aforementioned Katniss looks like a big pile of suck and die next to our Clint. He was just the right amount of cocky and quippy, head-strong and obedient. I loved every second he was on screen.
Why am I not fawning over Cap (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), the admittedly big 3? Because they all had their own movies--I have been excited about them for years. I feel like they are finally having Captain America come into his own as he lacked the confidence he needed to lead a group of self-absorbed superheroes. Leader of a patriotic and indebted World War II soldiers, absolutely. But we are talking about is individuals that have rarely if ever worked with anyone else, and that Steve has no understanding of.
Black Widow I would like to send a gift basket to Joss for not reducing her to eye-candy and sexy poses. As the only female character on the team, the respect we afford her sets the tone for any female characters yet to come, and I think Scarlett knocked it out of the park.
As for minor quibbles, I will say this:
Nick Fury has been black for 10 years. Get over it. It does not break the character if he is black, white, Asian, or Martian--he is the comic embodiment of badassery and there is no one and nothing more badass than Samuel L. Jackson.
JLA will never happen. Why? Because it would suck ass. That and the sheer force of Ryan Reynolds, Christian Bale, and Brandon Routh would never ever in a million years work and could not possibly contend with the magnitude of the characters of Batman and Superman. There would be no screen chemistry, no one knows enough of the characters, there would be a tedious amount of explaining why this movie is just happening...if you want a good DC team up, try the Superman/Batman animateds. They are quite good and they are not trying too hard. Part of the reason Avengers worked so well is because the average asshole is passingly familiar with the characters, but not enough to know anything about them. Batman and Superman everyone feels personal ownership over and you will be walking a fine line the entire time just trying to maintain the sanctity of those characters to satisfaction before even taking into consideration the other members of the team.
Not gonna happen. Forget about it now.
Ah! Gotta go.
--Andie
Err, anyways...
I will not lead with my opinions on "The Avengers", mostly because it is the most recently watched, but also because I know you will stop reading right after it. I am a sly boots, you know.
American Dad
In the beginning, I had a general disinterest in this show. Like every other college student, I watched "Family Guy" and "Simpsons" and "Futurama", but "American Dad" looked so stupid. The alien looked annoying, the concept overdone, the fish just plain stupid...the only point of reference I had was the whining voice of Roger the Alien saying "You forgot the pecan sandies" and that is all I needed to know to say I was not interested.
But we had Netflix Instant Queue before it became cool and American Dad was one of the more interesting shows available when there was literally nothing else to watch of interest...so I tried an episode. From there, Michael and I ended up watching the first four seasons and really liking the show. When we saw that the fifth season had been added, we were excited to have it back to watch during lunchtime.
Thus far, half way through the season, I have been disappointed.
Family Guy is known for its non sequiturs that sometimes work and sometimes don't; American Dad feels like it is trying to capitalize on that and it is falling flat. I hate to keep drawing the comparison, but as with the later seasons of Family Guy, American Dad has started trying to use topics as jokes that make me frankly uncomfortable and it ruins the entire episode for me.
Okay, so admittedly I am getting older and I am the mother of three young, impressionable kids, and--oh yeah--I am conservative southern republican church of Christ. So what the hell am I doing watching these shows in the first place?
Controversial topics or mildly tasteless jokes I can find humor in. Insensitive (or offensive) as they may be, the show never hides the fact that it is irreverent, which is why I can hardly take affront just because it does ventures into topics that make me unhappy. But some of them feel like they just aren't trying. Can we as a society just please move past the anal-raping hillbilly stereotype and jokes? I do not plan on ever watching "Deliverance", but it is 40 years old at this point--it beat you to the punch, can we just drop it now?
Anyways, some episodes are all right, but for the most part they are falling below the level of hilarity that we found in it before.
The Hunger Games
When there is a book or series that is causing a lot of commotion, I make a point to read it. Of course I was at the midnight release for the later Harry Potter books, and I plowed through all four "Twilight" travesties (hey--don't shoot the messenger, Bella spoiled the whole deal). So when I heard of "The Hunger Games" and got confirmation from my sister that the books were good, I bought a bundle pack on my Kindle app for iPhone to read with my husband.
Once I started, I couldn't stop and read the whole trilogy in a weekend.
Some parts were tedious, and at parts it became overly political...but it was an interesting concept and engaging story, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. When Michael's parents agreed to watch the kids, Michael took me to Popeye's Chicken (yum, yum, yum!) and to watch the movie version of "The Hunger Games".
The brutality was considerably toned down for the movie, which I for one greatly appreciated. It is one thing for you to read it, but I cannot imagine actually watching some of these things enacted. I really liked the girl they got to play Katniss--she was pretty but not inaccessibly-so and she did a very good job playing the role.
I am going to take a moment here to say: anyone who tries to make a case that Katniss is a Mary Sue should reexamine the definition. A Mary Sue is without notable flaw, creating a one-dimensional wish-fulfillment for reader or author. Katniss Everdeen was emotionally stuck at 11 years old and unable to read or interpret normal, healthy human interaction. The girl herself is not what was important. The rebellion needed a symbol and they made her into one.
Anyways, not to get off on a tangent there. The movie was very good. I really liked Peeta, just as I did in the book. Gale was well-played and quite attractive. The show was stolen, however, by the marvelous Haymitch Abernathy. He was so perfect, so well done that it brought the entire thing together. They absolutely did the book justice, even if they changed minor details to fit the story.
Supernatural
Everyone had been talking about Supernatural, the show on CW. Once again having shotgunned all currently interesting shows, we were searching for something new to fill the void, and Michael suggested this show about paranormal hunters.
As soon as I saw Jeffery Dean Morgan, I was sold.
The first time I had seen JDM was as Comedian in Watchmen, and I did not like the character. It is a common discussion between me and Michael--which characters are redeemable through selfless action, regardless of a heinous and vile past. Comedian was not I could see redemption in.
Months later, I fell in love with him as Denny on Grey's Anatomy, a handsome terminal heart patient that Katherine Heigl got involved with. He was wonderful, and I was warming to the actor considerably.
So when we start this show and he is looking like a major component, my interest is peaked. The sons were both actors I recognized as well--one as a love interest in Gilmore Girls, the other as a former boyfriend of Miss Lana Lang in Smallville--and the opening introductions was one of the most compelling I have ever watched.
Since then it has somewhat become a demon-of-the-week type, like Angel in early seasons but more light-hearted, which is fine but I am hoping for more substance, more long-term enemies.
The Avengers
We all know you only read to see what I thought about Avengers. I mean, come on--it is all anyone anywhere is talking about, which is why I deliberately kept my opinions off Facebook. When officially does saying anything ever at all become spoilers? Because if you don't want spoilers, read something else, I won't censor myself adequately.
My husband pretty much summed my feelings up with "I would have paid the price of admission just to watch the mid-credit scene".
Oh, my god you guys...Thanos.
Fucking. Thanos.
I cannot express with any words how wildly and obscenely excited I am about seeing that half a second of purple sock face. It was....so awesome.
Let me give you some back story. I didn't read comics before I met Mike. But as any good girlfriend, I was going to show interest in what he enjoyed, which meant that I started by playing Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 and Devil May Cry 3 for his love of video games, and I started reading The Infinity Gauntlet to gain more insight into his love of comics.
That was some 6 or 7 years ago at this point and I have since adopted these interests as my own and started forming opinions and insights and tastes regarding what I read and play, but I fell in love with the character of Thanos from that series. He is one of the unknown strengths of the Marvel Universe and I am glad he is getting a chance to really shine in the world.
Okay, enough of my girl-boner for Thanos (now THAT is an unnerving phrase. Now you're thinking about it. Stop that.). What about the actual other 2 and a half hours of movie?
Obviously I knew this movie was going to be fan-freaking-tastic. What else could it be with Joss Whedon at the helm? The man is a wonderful writer with strong connections in both the movie and the comic world. He knows how to make a movie exciting, a story compelling, characters engaging, and all without sacrificing the integrity of established universe. He treated all these characters with the utmost respect which is something you cannot expect from a director that sees comics as "intended for children" (a gross assumption made by the majority of people). Everything in the movie was great.
The two brightest spots in that movie for me were Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo.
First, Ruffalo.
The first two Hulk movies I enjoyed. Probably more than I should have, but I took them for what they were and even though they weren't great, they were entertaining to watch. Somewhere during the more recent Hulk movie, I developed a strong dislike for Edward Norton, and at no point in either movie did I feel they captured both the characters of Bruce Banner and the Hulk. It is like they were told basics about these characters and made assumptions based on that--Banner is a scientist which makes him a total dorky-dork, and Hulk is a mindless, anger-fueled beast. I would personally disagree with both of those assessments.
In this movie, I think they solved the fundamental problem with other incarnations....Hulk is not meant to be a stand-alone character.
In comics, sure--you can have entire series devoted to him. But those are differently paced than a movie, and a 50 years of back story and recap can be boiled down to a half page of print. For a cinema version of the character, you have to waste precious screen-time trying to explain who this guy is before you can actually have him do anything, and that hurts the story.
With him in a team, all you need to know they tell you, which is that he is a genius scientist that was exposed to gamma-radiation and now has a rage-beast form. Now he is free to interact with the rest of the story and develop as an individual without the tediousness of trying to force a love interest or him trying to figure out how to control this thing.
What I really liked was that the other characters respected his work and saw the potential in him, instead of writing him off as a mindless beast. And they played the Hulk as a redeemable character, one that aimed for an abandoned factory instead of falling on a bunch of innocent people; one that fought the invading enemy alongside the hero, and that caught a falling Tony Stark from the sky. If we had used the Ed Norton Hulk, there was not enough expressed inherent good or usefulness in him to explain why he is on the team--he was portrayed as the villain, as the enemy, even when fighting a greater threat.
Ruffalo played not only a fantastic Hulk, but a spot-on Bruce Banner. There was no caricature of a nerd here, but a respected doctorate-level genius that is more-or-less in control of his baser urges to become a valuable asset to the team. There is none of that whipped-puppy thing going on with him, the guy that took crap all his life until he found an outlet through a monstrous transformation. I hated that. Come on, we have enough of that through many of the villainous characters that are portrayed; have faith that the character that has stood on his own story for nearly half a century has the chops to make it on the big screen.
Jeremy Renner is not a man I would normally find attractive. No offense to the guy, but I have a very specific type and he is just not my cup of tea.
Holy crap, does he make one sexy Hawkeye.
Now, I am not positive they ever called him Hawkeye. They more or less referred to him as Barton, occasionally Clint, and once "the Hawk", but I cannot recall an actual incidence of Hawkeye. Which is fine, as he never "officially" suited up either, just maintained his SHIELD uniform which was admittedly badass.
I was a big fan of him being a bad guy for half the movie. I mean, talk about true to the character. It also gives him a chance to come into his own. As all the other characters have been introduced in some form or another previously to this movie, he had to work harder to prove his worth than the others, I believe. Sure, he had that brief cameo in Thor, but all we saw was a brawny guy wielding a sweet-ass bow. He never even got to shoot it.
The way that he mapped his targets so that he was not even looking at them when he let loose his arrows? Masterful. The set up of traditional arrows with unique tips, easily interchangable without mix-up? Brilliant. The aforementioned Katniss looks like a big pile of suck and die next to our Clint. He was just the right amount of cocky and quippy, head-strong and obedient. I loved every second he was on screen.
Why am I not fawning over Cap (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), the admittedly big 3? Because they all had their own movies--I have been excited about them for years. I feel like they are finally having Captain America come into his own as he lacked the confidence he needed to lead a group of self-absorbed superheroes. Leader of a patriotic and indebted World War II soldiers, absolutely. But we are talking about is individuals that have rarely if ever worked with anyone else, and that Steve has no understanding of.
Black Widow I would like to send a gift basket to Joss for not reducing her to eye-candy and sexy poses. As the only female character on the team, the respect we afford her sets the tone for any female characters yet to come, and I think Scarlett knocked it out of the park.
As for minor quibbles, I will say this:
Nick Fury has been black for 10 years. Get over it. It does not break the character if he is black, white, Asian, or Martian--he is the comic embodiment of badassery and there is no one and nothing more badass than Samuel L. Jackson.
JLA will never happen. Why? Because it would suck ass. That and the sheer force of Ryan Reynolds, Christian Bale, and Brandon Routh would never ever in a million years work and could not possibly contend with the magnitude of the characters of Batman and Superman. There would be no screen chemistry, no one knows enough of the characters, there would be a tedious amount of explaining why this movie is just happening...if you want a good DC team up, try the Superman/Batman animateds. They are quite good and they are not trying too hard. Part of the reason Avengers worked so well is because the average asshole is passingly familiar with the characters, but not enough to know anything about them. Batman and Superman everyone feels personal ownership over and you will be walking a fine line the entire time just trying to maintain the sanctity of those characters to satisfaction before even taking into consideration the other members of the team.
Not gonna happen. Forget about it now.
Ah! Gotta go.
--Andie
Lonesome Road
After leaving Honest Hearts, I puttered around the wastelands of New Vegas for a while before randomly choosing a new DLC to take on. The radio transmission from the "original courier six" Ulysses was next in line, so I headed for the Divide.
The pop-up recommends that players not attempt this content until they are a minimum of level 25, but it has a unique feature for the DLC--if you enter and find it too difficult, you can travel back to the Mohave at any point with no consequence. In all other downloadable content, your character is stuck in the other world until you complete the main quest line; Lonesome Road is very unusual in its allowance in this regard.
Another way Lonesome Road is different is that there is no opening cut-scene, which was a bit refreshing after sitting through so many. At least for me, I go into new content ready for action and everything that keeps me from that makes me antsy and distractable, missing pertinent information in the process.
As with Old World Blues and Honest Hearts, you cannot take any companions in with you or take any you find back out.
My impressions: this content made me realize why I love this game so much. I will tell you, I went in with a great deal of over-confidence. At level 45 entering and with nearly all my skills completely leveled up, I was strutting around like the cock on the walk. Even this did not keep me from struggling--and dying--a lot. Practically every minute, I was loving it as the enigmatic Ulysses taunted me along and I ran into some familiar faces, both friendly and unfriendly. Along the way, you learn more about an old pal and question your alliances, making choices that will influence the rest of the game outside the Divide.
New Weapons
There were several new weapons when you enter this world, but to be honest none of them grabbed me enough to stick with them for long. It's not that they were not really neat, it was that after 40 some-odd levels of gameplay, you get a feel for your character and they develop their own style of fighting and favorite weapons. Forty-five might not seem that old, but in New Vegas it is practically geriatric and my Calley had all ready lived (and died) and loved--I had infused so much life and personality into her that it felt irreverent to change it.
Enough of me being a fuddy-duddy though--the guns!
The arc welder is likely the first, and one of the most plentiful, gun you will run into. It uses electron charge pack ammunition and shoots what is essentially a steady stream of lightening at enemies.
The Blade of the West is similar to the Bumper Sword we are used to from the core game. It is modeled after Legate Lanius's Blade of the East, but is not quite as powerful.
I wished someone had told me this before I had gotten the Flash Bang grenade--stand the fuck back before you throw them. Traditionally, you toss a grenade and it may land a bit too close, but it is really not that big of a deal; takes a bit of your health, you heal up and move on. Flash Bangs do damage as well...and damage your fatigue....and damage your damned weapon skills. So you toss it too close to yourself, you are essentially screwing yourself against any enemy the bomb didn't kill. If you are too, too close it will render you combat- (and hearing-) impaired until it wears off.
All that being said, it is a sweet weapon if you wield it effectively and can be life-savers against some of the scarier enemies in the Divide.
Red Glare makes you feel you more badass than any other weapon in this game. First of all, it is just huge. I mean, take-up-half-your-screen huge. It is fully automatic, able to empty its magazine (13 rounds) in a matter of seconds, its splash radius is 500 units, and it can be modded so that the magnification is x4.35, the highest in the game.
Of course, that is all information gleamed from the Wiki vault. What I know is that Red Glare makes big goddamn boom.
The last weapon of note is the Laser Detonator. There are thirty nuclear warheads casually hanging out across the landscape that can block your path onward or just conceal a hidden cache. One of your first goals upon entering is to retrieve this gun that requires no ammunition. It does absolutely zero damage versus any enemy unless the poor shmuck happens to be standing near the warhead you're about to blow, but it is good for mass devastation if you use it properly. You do have to note that any bomb you explode is going to --shock--leave behind areas of high radiation, so be sure to carry a lot of RadAway.
New Enemies
I am going to leave this area to your imagination, save to tell you this:
After going underground, your typically fearless companion begins to whimper in fear. You see something dart around corners ahead of you, never letting you get a good view. Sneaking along, you stumble across a Deathclaw, one of the most fierce opponents you face in the core game...and he has been torn to shreds.
Fallout really gets back to it's roots of suspense and helpless fright with their new creations, and it feels good to feel the thrill of exhilaration and fear again.
That aside, the ending boss fight in Lonesome Road is the most engaging I have had yet in this series. Much of my "fights" are done verbally, as I pass nearly every speech check I encounter (I actually leveled up once on a single speech alone). This one has more of a traditional feel to other action games as opposed to RPG bosses, and it was a fun way to end the plotline.
Other new features include the commissary--in lieu of merchants and vendors, there are mechanical commissaries liberally dispersed across the world. Let me tell you, if you play your cards right, it is very easy to get rich off of these machines, though they carry a mere 6000 caps starting budget apiece.
The way I played it--I traded for their 6000 caps, then utilized their repair feature to restock their money so I could continue to sell. NOTE: do not repair your gear all at once, as the commissary can only hold 6000 caps at a time, which means that if you repair 14000 worth of equipment, you just lost 8000 that you will have to earn back some other way.
It is also very easy to stock up on things that are extremely difficult to sell because of the sheer worth of them. You could take a financial hit for it or simply wait until you are back in the wasteland and find a vendor with deep pockets, but the sheer amount of valuable loot is surprising.
In every DLC I have chosen certain skills to focus on--in Old World Blues, it was Repair and Melee. In Honest Hearts, it was Survival. In Lonesome Road, I put my points into Explosives, Energy Weapons, and Barter. As far as strategic moves, this one did not seem to benefit me at all as my favored weapon was the riot shotgun, a weapon with satisfying force but annoyingly scarce ammo.
There were a few annoyances. I got frustrated at one point and genuinely considered leaving, though that was just homesickness for the missions and people and gameplay that I was so very familiar with and frustration that here, in this place, I was not the idolized Messiah that everyone had heard of and admired. I was a nobody, the sole target moving across the world alone.
As I said in the beginning--absolutely worth a play through. It was by far the most fun DLC I have played so far for either Fallout game, and that is saying something because all of them are quite enjoyable.
Now all that remains is the rather daunting Dead Money. Let's see how my young Calley fairs!
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Honest Hearts
Continuing with Fallout New Vegas, the next DLC I tackled was "Honest Hearts". Though I have managed to make it through this once before, I remembered very little about it so it felt about time I plowed through again.
The content starts out with a radio broadcast requesting adventurers in possession of pip-boy to join them on a caravan to Utah's Zion--like all DLC, you are unable to have companions accompany you, but HH has the added stipulation that you carry 50 pounds or less of inventory. If that is simply too restrictive for you, pass a speech check with the douche-taco carrying a broken pip boy and make him carry some of your extra gear.
As soon as the caravan gets to Zion, it is ambushed by tribals called White Legs, who are so named because of their completely awkward and unflattering tan-lines. After slaughtering the rest of your group, you are left in a strange place with no way home.
Now, my initial impression of this DLC was that it was too short, comparatively. Admittedly, I did not seek out side quests as I would in the bulk of the game, as in other extra content the sheer force that is driving you forward will cause you to uncover many side quests. Not so much here, and there seems to be far fewer named NPC's which you can generally find missions from. I also hate that there seems to be no right or wrong answer, just choices.
Let me explain.
In Fallout 3, there was DLC called "The Pitt", a particularly buggy but exceedingly fun visit to what I assume was old Pittsburgh (though I could be mistaken). There, you were given a choice on how to proceed--there were not "good guys" and "bad guys", there were slaves with ambitions and masters with good-intent. There was no karma associated with your choices because it was never really clear which was the morally right choice, whether to steal the baby and free the slaves or leave the baby and the slaves the way they were.
In Honest Hearts, there is a similar choice where you can side with the Burned Man Joshua Graham or his missionary friend Daniel, but Graham doesn't seem to care whichever way you chose and Daniel refuses to be happy regardless of your actions. It is kind of obnoxious.
Companions:
The man to save you from your wrecked caravan is your first companion, Follows Chalk. He is one of the Dead Horse tribe following the command of Joshua Graham, and he gives you the Perk of +2 to your perception.
Here is my problem, though.
He sounds like a Mexican-Canadian, looks like a Caucasian, and is acting like a Native Indian.
I understand the merging of cultures, but it doesn't feel that way here--it feels like after a big nuclear war that destroyed most of the country, a bunch of white guys and gals banded together to take over someone else's heritage and ethnicity. It is inexplicable.
But say that I am just a cynic. After all, unless they have a race-specific name (like Dr. Usanagi of the New Vegas Medical Clinic), it is rather difficult to determine ethnicity among the NPCs. Maybe he, and the rest of the Dead Horse Tribe and the rest of the Sorrow Tribe, are honest-to-goodness, genuine Native Americans and not some bastard whiteys that are playing dress-up.
That means that two undeniably white guys--Joshua Graham and the soft-hearted Daniel--swooped in and took over leadership of these two groups of dark people.
When you put it that way, it might be construed as a little insensitive.
It doesn't really help that all the Sorrow women are dressed like that. That guy in plaid?
That is Daniel, the man who so bravely found a tribe of mostly-naked native women and became their leader. Inspiring.
Okay, enough of that--the hottie to the forefront is actually your second companion, when Follows Chalk becomes too annoying to bear. Her name is Waking Cloud and her associated perk is that she lowers the perception of your enemies, making sneaking and stealth attacks more effective for you. The downside is that she is an ignorant savage that refuses to go in "sacred" places like caves, stores, campgrounds, rivers, mountains, or the side of the road, but you can tune her out and she is not so bad. She also has a really badass glove made out of the arm of a Yao Guai,
I think the best companion of Zion is Joshua Graham, however. Regardless of the choices you make, he accompanies you for a brief time leading up to the end of the story, and his presence has the added benefit of .45 weapons being more effective with less spray.
All throughout the core game, you hear whispers and rumors of how Caesar's right hand guy failed him so he started the poor bastard on fire and tossed him down the hill. Of course, this raised my suspicions for later--for one thing, as any first grader will tell you, to put out fire you stop, drop, and roll. So setting this guy on fire and then making him roll down the hill is pretty much ensuring that this guy is going to look burnt toast, but probably survived the encounter with surprising badassery.
So when you get to Zion and you are pretty sure this has something to do with that crispy critter, you don't really know what to expect. Everything here has a bit of a savage, tribal look with enemies chucking spears and sporting loin cloths. When Follows Chalk takes you to his leader, the last thing you are expecting is this guy:
Calmly checking and loading guns as he makes small talk with you. It is a little unsettling, especially since the facial wraps recall every horrific story of Caesar's Legion to flash through your mind. Let's be honest, if there is someone that you most certainly do NOT want to be siding with (regardless of your political leanings), it is this guy. You have no idea where he stands, but you can safely assume he has no fond feelings toward either the NCR nor Caesar.
Anyways, not a ton of new enemies--you have some green geckos which now spit poisonous acid, and yao guai you may remember if you played FO3. In case you need a refresher:
That friendly fella.
The big selling point for this DLC is that you learn a lot of new Survival skill recipes for you to make at campfires or reloading benches. Of course, my survival skill was abysmally low before I came here and I have little to no experience with crafting in this game, but it was pretty awesome feeling like you were coming in having to actually learn and adapt to survive.
Weapons are plentiful and all right, though nothing stood out to me as much as the Proton Ax from Old World Blues. I guess I got used to Melee, so reverting back to old-fashioned guns was kind of a culture shock. I probably just wasn't looking as well as I needed to.
A considerable drawback (for me at any rate) is that at no point during my travels did I encounter someone to sell all my useless shit to. I am a Prospector, also known as a scavenger, who picks up every item I come across in the game in the hopes that a) it will prove useful to me, or b) it can be traded for some caps. Even if it isn't worth a fortune, many little items add up. So not long after I have landed in this strange country with little more than the clothes on my back, I am so weighted down with the possessions of my fallen enemy and every flower, rock, and tree on the way that I cannot possibly stuff another bullet in my heavily-laden pockets...and there is absolutely nothing to do with all of it! Obviously that is why they set the carry-weight limit, but I balk at the idea of leaving valuable and possibly useful items on the side of the road.
So there you have it! Fallout New Vegas: Honest Hearts. It was pretty good, definitely (like all fallout DLC) worth a purchase or at least a deeper look into, but replay value is not as high as it is in other content. Maybe it has more to do with stagnancy with my current character who is fast approaching level 35 and is therefore infinitely "over the hill".
The Reunion is the next set of missions I plan on tackling, so look forward to reading about that soon!
--Andie
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)