So I feel I must publicly expound my Severus Snape theory before the last Harry Potter book comes out. I know, it's a total guilty pleasure, but damni...moreSo I feel I must publicly expound my Severus Snape theory before the last Harry Potter book comes out. I know, it's a total guilty pleasure, but damnit, I love that ragtag bunch of misfit wizards. So prepare to be awed by my genius analysis of the eternal question: Is Severus Snape evil?
Well, in one word - Completely. Quiet down, quiet down, quit your uproaring and just hear me out. In the world that Rowling created for Harry Potter almost every character is either goodness and light or darkness and doom. Sure they have conflicts and sometimes shit ain't easy, but their motivations are always clean cut. Snape is the one mystery. He seems evil, but he protects Harry, sort of. Dumbledore trusts him, but he makes pacts with the Malfoys. What's a muggle to think? Well, I'll tell you what to think. Snape is only looking out for #1. He's got designs on blossoming from the picked on nerdy potions kid to the unquestioned dark overlord or everything.
Oh, spoiler alert: If you haven't read the 6th book, I'm totally about to blow the ending for you.
You might be saying, 'Well then why does Dumbledore trust him? Dumbledore's super smart and would know if he was evil.' Well it's because when Dumbledore asks him, "No, seriously Snape, are you done with Voldemort?" Snape can say, "Of course, guy," and be telling the truth. He's done with that shit and he's got his eyes on the prize for himself. Even under the control of the Veritaserum he can honestly say he's not working for old Voldy. So thus he gains Dumbledore's trust in that he's no longer a Death Eater. Booyakasha! (And how genius was it for Snape to arrange a plan with Dumbledore to kill him (Dumbledore) at the end of the 6th book!? We all know that shit was preordained, what with all the "Snape, you just gotta do it," jive by big D. So everyone's led to think that even though Snape now seems like a bad guy he really isn't. Oh you poor, feeble-minded saps.)
Ok, so now you're going to ask why would Snape ever protect Harry? He hates Harry's dad and he's got no love for the boy either, so why has he saved him in the past? BECAUSE Harry's the only one who can destroy Voldemort and quite possibly vice versa. So what's Snape gonna do? He's gonna pit the two of them against one another and let them destroy each other. Then the way will be clear for Snape to rule unopposed. Ha! Goddamn I'm a genius! (less)
At first, a lot of the appeal for me from this book was that it's the story of a freshly graduated newbie in New York City's publishing world. It was...moreAt first, a lot of the appeal for me from this book was that it's the story of a freshly graduated newbie in New York City's publishing world. It was easy to relate to because I just closed out my first year doing that same thing in that same city. The stories/sorrows the author/main character (I feel like this is an autobiographical book, but I don't know anything about the author so I can't say fore sure) carefully betrays are out and out weird, largely disgusting, and occasionally serendipitous, but in a way that is very believably New York. It's a great depiction of all the oddities that you inevitably see when you walk around the city enough. Maybe you haven't seen the homeless woman with her hair intentionally on fire that he describes, but you've seen something equally shocking. Each time he talks about a place and the weirdness that he saw there you think, "That's just like when I was at X and Y happened." As the character's year of endless sorrows goes on, I realized I wasn't liking the book just for the triumph of understanding the jargon and thinly veiled references to famous publishing houses and bars, but I was loving it because it was so well written. It has an interesting, but unpretentious vocabulary. It is detailed but not tedious. You see what the author is saying in that effortless way that makes you forget you're even reading. When the year was up and the book was over I felt like I was being cut-off from a friend. I didn't want the character out of my life; I wanted to keep meeting him for lunches and happy hours, but his story was told, and I guess it's the signature of a great book when even when it's over and there's nothing left to say (it's not like the story should have gone on and I felt short changed, it was actually a very good length), you still want more. (less)
There is something really satisfying about getting through a dense Russian classic during the winter. I don't know that I can add anything worthwhile...moreThere is something really satisfying about getting through a dense Russian classic during the winter. I don't know that I can add anything worthwhile to the wealth of criticism on Dostoyevsky, so I won't say too much. Crive and Punishment was interesting to me because of how easy it was to sympathize and even relate to its desperate antihero, Raskolnikov, as well as the range of other disparate characters. The story is a full immersion into another time, place, and circumstance; and what more can you ask for from a novel than to be taken somewhere you can't actually go?(less)
This is a great book for broadening your methods of honing your creativity. It's an even better book if you hate your job and you want to become extre...moreThis is a great book for broadening your methods of honing your creativity. It's an even better book if you hate your job and you want to become extremely jealous of people who have awesome jobs like being cartoonists. I don't even hate my job and this book made me wish my artistic skills had advanced beyond that of a 6 year-old and I went into cartooning.
But it's not just for cartoonists. It really is a fun book for working out/around a creative block you might have. You know, getting outside the box and breathing some fresh air. Plus, you know, funny cartoons. No naked people though. Not really anyway.(less)
Ok, I'll admit it. I don't really read The New Yorker, but I sure as hell love the cartoons. If you're like me, which you probably are but are too sha...moreOk, I'll admit it. I don't really read The New Yorker, but I sure as hell love the cartoons. If you're like me, which you probably are but are too shamed to admit it, then this book is great. It's all of the cartoons EVER with none of the useless articles you only pretend to read. (Don't tell my boss I said this.)(less)
What a fun book. It was engaging and ball to let your imagination go with. The characters were enjoyable to conjure up and make your own. The story wa...moreWhat a fun book. It was engaging and ball to let your imagination go with. The characters were enjoyable to conjure up and make your own. The story was intriguing, with several plot lines all going at the same time. Hiaasen managed to bounce between them at the perfect moments, leaving you momentarily upset about the cliffhanger from one chapter but then a second later you were glad to be back to the other story to find out what was happening there. None of the stories were boring, so the common pitfall of having your readers love one storyline but dread another was avoided.
I'm not going to say this book was prolific or life changing. It's just fun to read.(less)
I'm generally pretty good at dismissing all the sexist stuff you find in older books, because you know, such was the style of the time to think of wom...moreI'm generally pretty good at dismissing all the sexist stuff you find in older books, because you know, such was the style of the time to think of women as less than equal. Fine. I get that, but this book actually has a section about the inferiority of women with adages like, "Black dress, white pearls, and a silent mouth is the best outfit for a woman." Ok, in a lot of cases that's true, but you don't have to write about it! Dang. Plus he says women haven't even mastered cooking. Someone had a bad mommy in my opinion. Shit. I hate that I really loved that book when I read it, then I got to the this part at the end and now all I can remember is my rage.(less)