Elizabeth C. Robinson's Blog: Honest Reviews

Worm by Wildbow (2013) Review #1

Worm

I am currently reading a web serial book known simply as Worm. Its author, the anonymous Wildbow, began publishing sections one by one on his WordPress blog a few years ago. Worm is done, and even has a completed audiobook, despite the fact that it is ~1,680,000 words.

Let that sink in for a moment.

That is 3 unabdirged copies of Les Miserables. That is far more than War and Peace.

So, especially with college and inevitable assigned reading coming my way, I decided I would just go ahead and review what I've read so far. I just began the Hive section (assuming all chapters are of equal length, this is 1/6 of the way through).

This is Worm Review #1.

The Premise

Worm is a soft science fiction superhero novel. Its main character, Taylor, has full control of any insect around her, and desires to one day be a superhero. Additionally, she is intensely and irremediably bullied at school, though she refuses to use her powers on the bullies, in case someone figures out her secret identity. According to my friend who has read all the way through, the book is about Taylor discovering how to be powerful despite having a relatively weak power.


My Opinion so far

I find this review difficult to split up into sections, because few parts of the novel are "remarkable". Not that few parts are good--it's the most impressive web serial I've ever seen, and everyone is obsessed with it--but that most parts are relatively normal.

For instance, the story is told in first person POV (luckily not present tense) by Taylor herself. She speaks like most people do in first person, though I will say that Worm has taught me quite a few new vocabulary words. The characters are mostly pretty one-dimensional, with the so-far exceptions of Taylor, Armsmaster, and Hellhound.

I truly admire both Taylor and Hellhound as characters. I want to some day write characters this well. While most characters in the series have one, maybe two traits, Taylor never fails to surprise me. I identify with Taylor enough to see her point of view, but I don't identify quite well enough to predict exactly who she'll react to certain things. I'm always amazed when she acts without thinking, and I'm always equally amazed when she shows morality that surpasses mine, despite doing far more immoral things.

While Hellhound doesn't often surprise me, I always love a good anti-hero. And boy is this a good anti-hero.

Armsmaster is another can of worms (ha) altogether. He often surprises me, and so far very little has been said about him. I'm convinced that he's somehow going to be an antagonist, but every turn of the story leaves me speculating more and more of what his role as an antagonist will be. Is he the secret boss Tattletale keeps mentioning? Does he even have powers, or does he always just take credit for other peoples' jobs like he did with Taylor? Did he hire some of the other gangs?

Such suspense.

I do also admire the way that Wildbow has incorporated certain "problems" with superhero arcs into his book. For instance, the effect that says most powers don't work that well on living creatures, so a telepathic person can't just blow up your mind or anything. That, and the Undersiders' theory that every superhero and supervillain is mostly in it for the kicks and glory, and the city's OK with it because it brings in tourism. I love how, just like there would be in real life, some supervillains have fans on the Internet, and everyone speculates about which superheroes are dating.

The big thing
I hate not knowing how to title these sections.

Like I said, most of the book is pretty unremarkable. The writing is good, the characters are ok, and pacing is pretty good, and Wildbow has a good use of cliff hangars, some chapters more than others. Most of the time, I just keep reading because my friends gave such glowing reviews--they say that Worm has ruined other books for them. It is the single best book they've ever read. They stayed up until 4 am reading it.

Here's the aspect of the book I'm most enthusiastic about: the creativity.

Never , I mean never have I ever seen such shocking levels of creativity. I wasn't impressed by Harry Potter or Avatar: the Last Airbender (though to be fair, I was introduced to those at a young age). But Worm? I normally hate action scenes, and end up zoning out. But in Worm, people have such unexpected powers, and use them in such unexpected ways, that I just can't stop reading once a battle starts. Taylor using her bugs to freeze Clockblocker in place? Absolutely marvelous. I first caught a glimpse of that kind of creative genius when Taylor made her entire costume of black widow spider silk--very durable, if you can manage to weave it.

I can just imagine a young man, sitting alone in a room, or possibly joking around with a buddy, speculating "but wouldn't people be able to trace costume purchases back to the superhero wearing that costume? And what is Clockblocker froze something that was surrounding him? Could he move? And what wouldn't..."

It's the kind of thing that takes real thought. I'm sure I could come up with a creative way to use a "lame" superpower" if I actually had it. If you had a superpower, wouldn't you think of ways to use it 24/7?

The fact that Wildbow comes up with these things shows that he's thought this through pretty well.

Or maybe he's a discovery writer like I am. Perhaps there is hope in the realm of serials...



What rating would I give the book right now? Probably about a 3.75, rounding up to 4 stars. Essentially, the book's only two defining strengths are the creative uses of powers and the unique way Wildbow works around the question of superheroes/villains being overpowered/acting illogically. But since that in itself is unique, and since Wildbow has managed such high quality work from a serial--a web serial no less--it's admirable enough for 4 stars.

I look forward to being obsessed with this book.

Wolf Brother by Michelle Paver (2004)

Wolf Brother by Michelle Paver

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


It's interesting how all of my positive reviews are quite short.

I said this when my friend first recommended this book to me, and I'll say it again now: I have always been looking for a good fiction book about wolves, and if this is the one I have long searched for, it will go on my favorites shelf.

It's on my favorites shelf.


What was wrong with the others?

I loved reading the Warriors series, and to this day it remains my favorite series. But while I'm not super fond of cats, I was shocked to see that the more someone liked cats, the more issue they took with the Warriors series. It just wasn't accurate enough.

There are certain beliefs that can be suspended. A reader can believe in magic. A reader can believe in time travel. But a reader cannot believe that a character can jump off a ten-story building and survive. One you are expected to take as fiction, and the other is an inaccuracy that the uninformaed may take as truth. For cat lovers, Warriors had too many of those latter inaccuracies to fully enjoy the books.

I think the same applies to me with wolves. I don't even bother reading books that portray wolves as evil, bloodthirsty, cruel, or any other sort. After reading the blurb of the first Wolves of the Beyond novel, I tossed the book aside and never opened it. I would do the same with an inaccurate book about martial arts, about America, about public school (if I wasn't so used to that), or about anything else I consider myself relatively well-educated in.



Wolves and Hunter Gatherers

So it goes without saying that I didn't find any of those "inexcusable" inaccuracies about wolves in this book.

But to my delight, I found something else entirely.

I love anthropology, especially indigenous American anthropology. I love learning about natural healing products, and I love living in a world with new superstitions and the nonexistence of guns. Paver did an excellent job of researching past and present hunter gatherer societies. I was giddy that while reading this I was learning about things one could do with a deer carcass or traveling in the snow. Very few books allow you to do that with such accuracy and finesse. Game of Thrones enraptured me for much the same reason.


Like I said, my positive reviews are short. I have nothing negative to say about this series. Absolutely nothing. And I've already stated what I enjoy.

So with that, I say...

READ
IT



View all my reviews

Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston (1937)

Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Zora Neale Hurston
Their Eyes Were Watching God


Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston


Some of you may have noticed that this book was previously on my "Favorites" shelf with a rating of 5 stars. Though I haven't re-read the book since first giving it that rating, I've simply taken more time to consider and see the book's future impacts on me and my world views. Since this is, to some extent, a "didactic book" (my name for books that teach), its effect on my mind and not my emotion or imagination are what I'm considering.

That being said, I have surprisingly little to say about the book itself (I have very definite and uncomplicated opinions of it) yet surprisingly much to say about the didactic part of the book.

The Book Itself

The Writing:
Their Eyes Were Watching God contains some of the most beautiful writing I've ever seen. It rivals even that of The Great Gatsby in its romantic style.

Those of you who have read this probably want me to mention the use of dialect. In all honestly, I didn't mind it, and I didn't care either way. I've read plenty of books written in dialect, and having never lived in 1930's Florida I can't say whether or not it's accurate. Does it change my opinion of the characters? No. Does it make me racist just to read it? No. I've come to the point in my life where I honestly forget when one f my friends has an accent, and I got so used to the way people speak in the novel to even notice.

The Characters:
Once again, rarely have I seen characters portrayed as realistically as they are in Hurston's novel. Specifically, my mind wanders to the point of their insecurities. The novel tells the audience that all these characters have insecurities, all of them are weak at times, and I cannot remember reading that anywhere else. Sure, occasionally a fiction novel talks about the protagonist's insecurities, or maybe the hesitations of an anti-hero, but hardly ever does a novel reveal through its story that everyone doubts themselves.

Jody, Janie's second husband, feels threatened by other men gawking at Janie. Though Janie comes to view Jody as controlling and irrational when he forces her to wear the headband, we get to see what's really going on: Jody felt afraid, but never told Janie out of masculine pride. The same thing happened when Jody was old and began to make fun of Janie to hide his insecurities.

Growing up, parents and teachers always told me that "bullies" were really far more insecure than anyone they bullied. I never believed it until it happened to me. But I might have believed it if I had been exposed to novels like this growing up. The only works that come close to this kind of honesty I can think of--and don't call me a hypocrite--are Shakespeare's. But Shakespeare has the disadvantage of speaking from another time period. Unless a work speaks modern language, like Hamilton, people have trouble relating to the characters. Society has evolved over time, so it's reasonable that people don't automatically assume that what happened 400 years ago still applies today. Hurston's novel is still modern enough that my English class understood what the characters were going through.

Plot:
I love plots of ambition--I don't say "ambitious plot" because an ambitious plot is a plot that's unusual or scandalous enough that a publisher may not think the world is ready for it. No, I love plots of ambition, where the story is driven by the protagonist's ambition. Why do I love them? They're relatable, I guess. Certainly more relatable than a farm boy who just wants to return home after a long quest.

Janie's ambition, of course, is the far horizon. She wants to see what's beyond her home, and the thing that continually holds her back is marriage and sexism. Only when she meets Tea Cake does she finally get the opportunity to go "to the horizon and back again".

This, I suppose, brings me to....

The Didactic Part

Here's the irony: this book wasn't meant to be a lesson. Yet I still consider it a didactic book.

According to my English teacher, Hurston was part of the "aesthetic movement", meaning that the author writes in order to perfect the beauty of the language, not for any political goal. There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing aesthetic or writing political, and I enjoy and value books of both kinds.

But here's where my confusion begins. To me, this book screams didactic and political to me. But why? It's not like To Kill a Mockingbird or Go Set a Watchman where the protagonist states what she's learned at the end. In fact, if you ask me exactly what I think the lesson of Hurston's novel is, I'm stumped. What did I learn to make me assume that Hurston was trying to tell me something?

And then it hit me: I felt that I'd learned something because the book addresses racism and sexism. Because I have never read a book that was so honest and unusual towards the subject. As a female, I felt I'd won a victory every time that Janie stood up for herself, and every time she showed her ambition or independence. I felt like I learned something when I read Janie's grandmother's view on the subject of marriage, and when Janie first discovered she was "colored".

But that was just Hurston's life. She grew up with those attitudes and had to overcome them herself. I even had the (ahem) pleasure of sitting through a lecture about the similarities between Hurston and Janie. Writers write about what they know. Hurston's characters are honest because she wrote about what she observed with no particular message in mind.

I felt that the book was didactic because of its portrayal of the characters. I love it when a show, book, or movie has female characters that aren't love interests (not that that applies to this book), or when the protagonist is a woman, minority, LGBT, handicapped, or just not the typical media protagonist and they don't even mention it! That may sound weird, but I hate it when every female superhero just has to be battling sexism and all the black protagonists just have to be battling racism. Because in our society, that's the only thing we associate with non-conventional protagonists. In our society, a protagonist is never Jewish unless there's a reason for it. Growing up, I never saw a female superhero that was just considered normal! They had to be the "weird" one, the oddball. Their Eyes Were Watching God came across as wise and thoughtful because it assumed nothing of its characters. The female protagonist could be ambitious, the men could be insecure, and even though a fuss was made about it, the book addressed the issue in a way I rarely get to see.


While that was one of my favorite parts of the book, that's also what caused me to drop it down to a 4 star rating. I initially valued the book because it taught me how to teach a lesson, but eventually I realized that it wasn't intended to teach a lesson at all. Not only that, but that part of it that I valued was something that I valued beforehand. Which means, in the end, I took almost nothing away from this book. I learned nothing, my imagination was unaffected, and my emotions will go on just as they always have, unchanged.


But it's still a really good book, and 100% worth the read.



View all my reviews

The Warriors Series by Erin Hunter (2003)

Into the Wild by Erin Hunter

My rating: 5 of 5 stars




Warriors: Into the Wild by Erin Hunter.

I first read Into the Wild in the 6th grade, in 2009 or so, and I immediately fell in love with the series. The Warriors series was a huge inspiration for my books as well as my online writings. I've read the entire main saga as well as a few stand-alone novels depicting the backstories of specific characters (the collective Silmarillion of cats, if you will). I was disappointed at how the quality of the books seemed to decline once I'd read past the original six-book series, so I was eager to see how I would view the series while reading it as a senior. Would I be bored with it, knowing the plot? Would I have outgrown the writing style?

The answer is no. I could hardly restrain myself to only re-reading the first book (because once I start reading the others, there goes about six months of reading time dedicated to one series); that's how good the book is, even the second (or possibly third) time around. Even now that I'm almost an adult, I cannot express how good this book is, but I will try my best. This book was so good, it gave me personal insecurities about my own writing. This book was so good, I read it in two nights. This book was so good, I started fantasizing about possibly writing (more) fanfiction for it. This book was so good, I was hesitant to write a review about it because I had nothing bad to say.

This time around, I paid much more attention to the
writing style
and character development in an attempt to learn from the great writers that comprise the Erin Hunter team. The unique thing about the original Warriors is that it's one of the few books that would be fun to read even if absolutely nothing happened. The writing has an odd addictive quality. It's very soothing, with just the right amount of detail. Something about the writing is so poetic that I feel thrilled just from reading a sentence of the book.


The character development
is something similar to what I've seen in many other books (but that's not to say that it's done in a cliche manner). The characters mostly get their personalities assigned to them through limited dialogue and through other characters gossiping about them. It's interesting how the plot and character development moves forwards so smoothly with this strategy. There is hardly ever a word wasted from those cats.

I remember
the plot
being one that was particularly difficult to predict. Of course, now I remember everything that Tigerclaw did. But it was still interesting to see the plot move forwards, and to see how the Erin Hunter team doled out new information about the clans to the newcomer Firepaw. Because the writing itself is enough to hold my attention, the plot had enough flexibility to not be obliged to throw action at the audience every other page. I've read certain books that want to always stay in motion and never spend time developing their worlds. Other books develop their worlds the way Erin Hunter develops her characters: through shallow remarks. However, the Erin Hunter teams allows itself to spend some time marveling at the beauty of the forest, and not sacrifice time to petty conflicts that do nothing for the plot.
And that's not even to mention that the plot doesn't quite end with Into the Wild. With many YA novels, the plot ties up most loose ends at the end of a predictable period of time. In the Percy Jackson Series, each book ends when the quest ends. In Harry Potter, each book ends with the end of another school year. But Warriors has no such distinction, which I think works both to its advantage and disadvantage. On one hand, having loose ends at a book's finish prompts readers onto the next book. But on the other hand, it is difficult for me to remember the plot after reading it. I can't just say "Oh, at the end of the first winter so and so died, and by the end of the next winter so and so became clan leader". There is no recognizable pattern. Of course, not every book has a premise that allows for this. In the case of Harry Potter, it wouldn't make much sense for the books to last more than one year, because not much happens to Harry over the summer. Percy Jackson could go either way, except that the prophecy claims that something has to happen on Percy's 16th birthday and he only has time to go questing during the summer; therefore, it wouldn't make sense to stuff all five quests into one year, or draw it out over eight. In the case of Warriors, I suppose it doesn't make sense for the plot to suddenly begin every newleaf and end each leafbare.

Overall, if you haven't read Warriors, read it. This isn't just my normal hope that if you read it you might pick something up. I honestly believe that these books are so unique that you would be missing something crucial in your cultural/writing style/premise development education if you do not read it. Reading this book will change you as a person.



I also recommend searching up Warriors tributes on Youtube. There is a huge and vastly talented community of artists, animators, and regular fans out there. I still get a lot of my new music from the new tributes. Many of them are truly epic, and all the fans have a great taste in music.



View all my reviews

The Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins (2008)

The Hunger Games Trilogy Boxset by Suzanne Collins

My rating: 5 of 5 stars




The Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins

I never noticed before, but those little dark circles in the background of Hunger Games and Catching Fire are broken on Mockingjay.

It's still RE-READ SEASON and still going well! The Hunger Games series is also better than I remember! In fact, in years past I didn't read these for re-read season because they didn't rank very highly in my mind. But I've discovered a few new things in the series, and especially after reading Collins' Gregor the Overlander, I've gained a new respect for the series' moral (it's much more subtle in Hunger Games, so I hadn't even noticed it before). I'll discuss the rest in the review itself. Since most of my review will be positive, and there's no real need to split it into positive and negative sections, I've split it instead into the categories of what changed from my previous read, and what stayed the same.



Things that stayed the same

(**SPOILER**)Rue's death (**End Spoiler**) still made me cry. This is why The Hunger Games has officially been added to my Favorites shelf; there have only ever been two books that have made me cry (the other is I Am Malala).

It still makes me want to take archery lessons and learn survival skills. And martial arts. And get stronger. Come to think of it, the series makes me feel completely vulnerable and weak. But in an ambitious way...

I still hate the present-tense writing. There's a reason we have past-tense writing, and that reason is to avoid unnecessary confusion.




Things that changed from last time

The Romance: The series is particularly famous for its romantic element, specifically that some people adore it while others despise it. And, of course, the interesting mix of Peeta X Katniss. While the romance did annoy me last time, this time I went in expecting to despise it again. But after reading Collins' Gregor the Overlander series, I began to see the Peeta vs. Gale as representative of (as much as I hate to talk about symbolism) Katniss' struggle between Innocence and Survival. Peeta, as she explains near the end of the series, is the flower that blooms during peace. He is good at speeches and art but not much of a fighter. Gale, conversely, has no use for artistic things and is perfectly willing to give into instinctual hatred and revenge. Additionally, this time I found Peeta's (**SPOILER**) brainwashing utterly hilarious. I love the way he became so sassy with Katniss. Though, on that note, I didn't like how he eventually figured out a way to figure out what was real or fake, judging by how "shiny" things were. I think that detracts from his character's strength and gives him an easy way out. (**End Spoiler**)

The Premise: Before I didn't care much for the dystopian atmosphere. And I still don't. What changed had to do with the genius of the arena. Before I thought it was just an interesting premise, possibly based off of the Minotaur myth. But you know what? I envy that premise! Plenty of writers for books, TV shows, and movies jump through all kinds of hoops to get their characters to do heroic things or put them in dangerous situations or otherwise deus-ex-macchina their way out of them. But guess what advantage Collins gave herself? The Games! The Gamemakers want there to be a show, so they don't kill competitors right off the bat. Katniss gets a bow and not a gun because they would make for poor TV ratings. Katniss gets parachutes at the last moment(s) (and not a super cool weapon) because of the rules in place. She doesn't die in the wilderness because the Gamemakers provide some tools so that a popular person won't die off. All these things are controlled by a higher power, which does make for good entertainment: both for the Capitol and for the reader. Even when the Games are over, (**SPOILER**) Katniss keeps her bow and is sent almost without training into battle because she has an imagine to keep up. She gets to dress like a superhero because the public needs to see her as one.(**End of Spoiler**) How incredible is that? Because the characters care about the media in their world, it provides better media in our world! It's remarkable! It's ingenious!

"But Battle Royale did it first!" And Battle Royale probably found it from somewhere else, modifying it slightly. And that source found it from somewhere else, and that source found it from somewhere else. People repeat story elements all the time, constantly improving them, adapting them to new times and new audiences, and then eventually adding their new masterpieces to the public domain. The Hunger Games combined with and added twists and new elements to whatever premise Battle Royale may have, just as Percy Jackson put a spin on Greek mythology and Shakespeare put a twist on Pyramus and Thisbe and a million other authors put a spin on the Odyssea. Still think it's unfair? Well, bare this in mind: I'd never heard of Battle Royale until the Hunger Games. If Battle Royale's story is no longer in the public mind, and a significant portion of the population has never even heard of it, then it's unfair to say that no one can remake it or take a single idea from it, because then the public would lose the story altogether. So don't complain about Collins taking the Games from some other book unless you also want to complain about her taking the name Cesar, or the idea of a love triangle, or mutations, or brainwashing, or illegal poaching, or battle to the death for entertainment, or the idea of tributes from the Minotaur myth, etc. If it was an unnecessary, cheap knockoff of Battle Royale, it would never have achieved popularity. If it's a better version of Battle Royale, then all the better for the public/readers. If it, like every other book in the world, is an eclectic mix of every piece of media the author has ever experienced, then leave Collins alone; she wrote a great story.

Catching Fire was better: Last time, I could barely make it through the second book because it was so boring. But this time, I was anticipating the parts that I remembered, and I was invested in comparing those scenes to my memory whenever they came up. I kept waiting for Peeta's big announcement, for Snow's big announcement, for their escape, etc.

I felt worse about (**SPOILER**) Prim's death:(**End Spoiler**) Last time, I didn't really care at all. I think I'm just getting more empathetic as I get older. Supposedly teens mature emotionally. A bit late, but what other explanation is there?

The message: Last time, I completely missed the idea that there was a moral to the story. But after reading Gregor the Overlander, and paying close attention to the About the Author, it became far more obvious. And I applaud Collins for fitting it subtly into the story-arch.


If you haven't read the series, read it. It will definitely be worth your time, and it's important to gain knowledge on such subjects and form your own opinions. These books may last a generation or two into the future, maybe more, so you'd better get your reading done while it's still age-appropriate!


What do you guys think? Up to reading it again?
All questions, comments, or concerns are appreciated and may be eventually demanded at gunpoint.



View all my reviews

Othello by William Shakespeare (1603)

Othello
Othello
By William Shakespeare.

So once again English class took a masterpiece and ruined it.
But you already knew that.

Today I am going to set my complaints of English class aside and give my opinion on Shakespeare's Othello.

What I Liked
This is the hardest category for me when it comes to Shakespeare.

Iago: This is one of the funnest villains I've ever seen, right up there with Scar and Maleficent. I'm almost tempted to call him the main character of the play, just because of how much it revolves around him. His skillful manipulation isn't as horrifying as it is remarkable. I almost want to learn from him, in case I ever need to take revenge on someone some day!


Less Comic Relief: This may sound odd, but my preference for less comic relief really only applies to Shakespeare. I don't find Shakespeare's jokes funny, likely because a) they're too hard to understand, b) they're too outdated, or c) they're too British. This play focused a lot less on subplots and comic relief.


I Didn't Know the Plot Going In: People think I'm an uncultured swine or ungrateful whipper snapper whenever I say that I don't like Shakespeare. Most people assume that I don't like Shakespeare because I'm rebelling against my school or because I just haven't seen it acted out properly. But no, I generally enjoy the books my school assigns, and I have seen several Shakespeare plays acted out/in movie form. I just don't like Shakespeare. And for those of you out there who just called me a witch, I will give you my most generous explanation: I already know everything about every play. I also didn't like Harry Potter, and I theorize in both cases that this apathy stems from the fact that I already knew what was going to happen. As far as great works of literature go, I prefer books that can teach me something or give me some great epiphany about human nature. Some people find that in Shakespeare, but I don't. So I theorize that Shakespeare represented English culture enough that, as I'm part of that culture, I already know his lessons (don't any of you dare say that Shakespeare was just oh so smart and just came up with all of these lessons. Nothing is made in a vacuum).

That being said, I prefer Othello over Shakespeare's other plays because I had no idea what the plot was. I didn't end up enjoying the plot, but for a while there was some actual suspense involved because I didn't know how anything would play out.




What I Didn't Like
Pretty much everything else.

The Characters:

I mentioned above that I didn't know anything about Othello before reading/watching it. In fact, most of what I had heard turned out to be wrong. But why is Othello so obscure when some of Shakespeare's other plays are so famous?

My theory: the characters are bad. Sure, Iago is fun to follow, and some of the characters are interesting...but nothing about them really pops. There's no desire to write fanfiction, or read a prequel explaining someone's backstory, or volunteer to act as that character in your English class' rendition. Shakespeare's strengths come in archetyping characters; even today we might say, "He's such a Romeo", or "You messed that up worse than Brutus". Honestly, in a year I'm sure I'll have forgotten everyone's name except for Iago (and I'll only remember his because of the bird from Aladdin).


The Plot:
Like I mentioned above, I wasn't really impressed with how things ended up. A few people died, but no one I really cared about. No one gained anything. No civil wars ensued. The conflict didn't even leave a little ripple on time. It's just, "Iago manipulates Othello, he goes nuts, and people die".


The Lack of Substance:
This is where all the huge Shakespeare fans will get mad at me. Maybe it has to do with my particular upbringing/age/world view, but I didn't really see anything of substance in this play. I didn't learn anything. My mind wasn't thrown into a whirlwind of philosophical debate. I was still expecting a lot going into the play when I heard that the main character was Moorish. A Moorish protagonist in Elizabethan England? I've got to see this! But the very substance-full topic of racism or Muslim-Christian relations is only occasionally referenced in the play. Heck, I think that handkerchief gets more attention than the color of Othello's skin. Though I'm sure it was a huge step forward for a playwrite to just not be racist, I wish that Shakespeare had gone a little farther with the whole ordeal. As it is, all I saw on the subject of race was, "Oh hey, those 17th century Venetians are mildly prejudiced."



Do I recommend it overall? No. But then again, I've never recommended a Shakespeare play. There's nothing particularly wrong about it. It's just that there's nothing particularly right about it, either.

Did you like Iago? Many of my friends didn't like his character, but I still adore him.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Want to fight about William Shakespeare? All comments are well appreciated.

The Percy Jackson Series by Rick Riordan (2005)

The Lightning Thief




Percy Jackson and the Olympians by Rick Riordan

What time is it?

RE-READ SEASON

Every year around the holiday season (from Halloween to the end of winter break, this year January 5th) I allow myself to re-read my favorite old books. This year was especially fun because there were several plots I'd forgotten completely!
I started off with the Percy Jackson series. Just like many books I'm re-reading, it's a lot better than I remember.

Premise
The Greek gods are real and are living in America. They still have children with mortals, who have to fight the reincarnations of the monsters of the past. The book is meant for kids, focuses on humor and suspense, and is sometimes criticized for its infantile writing style.



What I liked
Now that I'm older, I appreciate all the cameos more. My parents always loved the clever the introductions to certain gods, but I never really understood their enthusiasm until now. This must be Riordan's favorite part to write!

The premise, as well, is perfectly crafted to set up an engaging story. Think about it: in many books and movies, writers try to come up with convoluted explanations in order to put characters in situations worthy of fanfiction: why would kids ever need to be put in dangerous situations? why not use guns isntead of swords? But in the Percy Jackson series, all of that is already perfectly handled: the gods are in charge, and they're fickle, so Percy's dreams, dilemmas, and deus ex machina (quite literally) are all justified in whatever way Riordan wants to use them!

The writing fascinated me. It amazed me how well I could envision the story and how invested I could be in the world with so few words dedicated to description! Just the right amount of words were dedicated to the camp, each god, each character, etc. It truly does astound me that a story can be so full and so personal with such simple writing!

And, of course, what got me to read the series in the first place: the chapter titles. If you read the chapter titles, you'll know what I mean, and you will instantly want to have these books on your shelf!



What I disliked
Romance: I'm often unimpressed with romance in books, but I remember (**SPOILER**)Percy X Annabeth being a lot more...fun? I do appreciate that Riordan develops the romance well. He gives the characters time to get used to the fact that they like each other, gives them a reason to suddenly start liking each other (puberty), and even makes Percy's thoughts both tame and gushy at the same time (he blushes when she hugs him, he describes knots in his stomach. But something about it feels insincere. They never actually say what qualities they like in each other, Annabeth often acts quite irrational for a daughter of Athena, and in the end their teasing doesn't seem real...I can't entirely put my finger on it.

But I do still love the underwater kiss(**End Spoiler**)


The fact that (**SPOILER**)everyone ignores Percy's questions: I was initially amazed at how well Riordan spaced out the explanations of the premise, giving it to us piecemeal so that we're constantly engaged and never overwhelmed. Until I realized how he managed it; whenever Percy asks someone a question, his friends/teachers/gods brush it away. Really, quite a few times someone simply walks away from him or stares off into the distance after Percy asked a completely logical question. Other times Percy just doesn't ask because...politeness? (**End Spoiler**)





Overall, I definitely recommend a read. The humor will be good for kids, a bit harder to swallow as an adult. But by book 3 (The Titan's Curse) I was almost as hooked as I originally was. That's when the series really takes on its true character.


I didn't feel the need to explain the premise at first because I assumed you all have read it. But have you all? And, if not, have you heard much about it besides...how should I say?--interesting--reviews of the movie?
All questions, comments, and concerns are welcome. Happy New Year!

The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde (1895)

The Importance of Being Earnest

Yes, we read two plays in a row. And we were made to act out this one, too.

This will be a short review, because I don't have much to say about the play. What is there to say? It's incredibly funny (pay close attention to that dry humor), and it does make you think about certain things, both trivial and deeply philosophical. For instance, the comment "If it was my business, I wouldn't talk about it" adds a bit of knowledge to my repertoire. Cute little phrase. Might use it in the future.

But then (and this mostly comes from my notes on the Aesthetic Movement) there's a deeply philosophical question for all us artists: should we create Art for Art's Sake, or should we also include Political/Social/Moral messages in our works? Personally, I'm fine with either one. And I also think that Wilde is a bit of a hypocrite for being a part of this movement, considering all the satire concerning gender roles and "the social lie" in his play.

Most people say that the characters are wonderful, but I disagree. Sure, they get off some funny comments and they have eccentricities, but that doesn't make them good characters. They're almost like computers programmed to have witty responses to things. None of them is relatable; they have no hobbies, hardly any ambitions, and they're all. So. Stupid. They care about nothing and no one changes over the course of the play.

Overall, I'm not sure whether or not to recommend this play. On one hand, it is funny. It's not bad by any means. It could be a good way to spend an afternoon. But what I got out of the play could have just as easily come from iFunny or Tumblr.

Yes, that's what this play is: the same mixture of sarcasm and midnight-epiphanies as internet teens.


Who was your favorite character?
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Everything you write in that little text box you see below you is highly appreciated.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932)

Brave New World


You may have heard the phrase "Brave New World" before. It's from Shakespeare. And a character in Brave New World doesn't just happen to say it; he actually quotes Shakespeare all the time.

This was, once again, a book I was required to read in English class (though I had the luxury to choose from a list). However, this is now one of my favorite books of all time. That's right; it's going on the Favorites shelf!

Of course you'd like to know why. That's why you're reading a book review.


What I Like
This book is what I strive for in many of my books. It uses romantic language without sacrificing clarity. It teaches a lesson without sacrificing plot. It's funny without using pop-culture references or potty-humor. Really, it's everything you could want in a classic novel.

As I've mentioned, the descriptions are wonderful. Huxley uses such creative language, metaphors, idioms, and phrases; I often paused in my reading to appreciate them! And while there are some words that my teenage 21th century mind doesn't know, I never had trouble understanding what Huxley was saying or what was going on.

Just like Candide (but more subtle), I find Huxley's novel masterful in its lesson. The plot honestly invests the reader, revealing just the right amount of information at the right time, all the while exploring a dystopian future with lessons to take note of.

My favorite line from the book: "Cleanliness if close to Fordliness". I love all the little details Huxley throws in, like the time Lenina forgot to put the vaccine in the embryo, and the constant references to Ford in place of Lord. I love a book that can be funny without breaking the fourth wall, and without breaking character.



What I'm Ambivalent About
There is one thing about the writing style that bugged me around the beginning: the constant flipping between perspectives. It gets less annoying later on, and it actually does do a good job of juxtaposing important scenes, but it can be a bit excessive sometimes.

The constant references to Shakespeare, and the insistence on his greatness. Personally, I don't like Shakespeare's works very much. Huxley makes it sound as if Shakespeare's poetry is so powerful, it can make your heart beat along to its rhythm. He makes it seem like Shakespeare can drive people to daring feats, and that he realized things that no one else on earth could possibly imagine. I disagree. Heavily. BUT I do agree that John the Savage needed to quote some kind of book and embrace some kind of art (preferably writing), so Shakespeare might as well fill the role.


The Only Two Things I Don't Like
This first one is very specific: consumerism is still there. The entire place works like a communist society, yet somehow they still use consumerist lingo regularly. Maybe it's just left over from the good old Ford days, but I never see any indication that money still exists. Someone mentions a "salary", and Bernard gets fussy about leaving the tap running, but we only ever see soma rations being handed out. And, if everything is provided, why would anyone need a salary?

Poor character development. Really, no one in this book changes much. That's typical of "educational" books with built-in morals, but couldn't a single person have learned a single lesson? Helmholtz did, maybe. In the end, I really didn't like any single character. No one is charming, funny, or surprising in any way.



The Book's Meaning To Me
Like most dystopian novels, this book comes with a purpose. But that's where the similarities end. In Brave New World, the futuristic society seems to be everything but miserable, and while the book features many futuristic technologies to be abused, the message of the book does not focus on them. The technology is, of course, the ability to assign humans traits, condition them, and control every aspect of their environment from birth/"decanting". But while there is some commotion about these, the main conflict seems to be the classic story of the Wolf and the Dog: would you rather be a well-fed slave, or starving yet free? Would you give up your freedom for comfort/safety? To what extent have we done that already?

That is what the message of this book is to me. In fact, it's not much of a message; Huxley himself doesn't even seem to know! It seems almost as if he's exploring the up-sides and down-sides of this dilemma, as well as questioning how effective the controlling technologies could really be. Bernard and Helmholtz, for instance, differ from those around them, so obviously their upbringing was flawed. Additionally, Linda becomes pregnant and finds herself trapped on the reservation, exposing another flaw in the system. The story isn't even resolved, per say. I'm still unsure of what became of several characters at the end of the novel. But that will be for you all to find out on your own.

I do think that I have an answer to Huxley's inquiry. He makes it sound like humanity is ultimately doomed to the fate seen in the book if we follow our self-indulgence. But from what I've seen, read, and learned from history class, humanity would likely never reach the point of contentment it does in the novel (and if it did, the situation wouldn't last long). Even in the novel itself, humans from different regions of the world still compete with each other: their ambition has not been completely lost. Some people are still sexually frustrated. My opinion is that human greed and ambition has absolutely no limit. We are motivated by not just fear (basic animal survival instincts. This is why your dog is lazy when it's well-fed) but also by joy. We seek thrills even when it threatens our own health. We throw away everything to pursue art and higher levels of science. We enjoy adventure and danger and getting new things, as well as the prestige we gain from discovering. Huxley's civilization does not even explore space! What human society would never think of the stars? Supposedly the totalitarian regime has bred out most human curiosity and excess greed, but the World Controllers and Alphas (as the book states) need to retain those qualities in order to keep humanity on top of the food chain.

My other support for this theory is that humans cannot possibly control everything forever. We can control each other, in theory. But the book mentions nothing about the environmental effects of human consumption. Does the place just eventually turn into Soylent Green, with the earth infertile and animals extinct? And what about space? With no space program, how do they prevent meteors from striking their factories? What about solar flares or aliens? Disease? What about global warming or earthquakes? An emergency will pop up eventually, and holes will be made in their tight net of control. It has happened to many societies that controlled their people in the past: Egypt, India's caste system, Japan's patriarchy, the Aztecs, the Soviet Union. Some of these lasted over a thousand years (many thousands in Egypt's case), yet Huxley seems to think that his 600-year-old Fordist society is impressive and inescapable!

I've recently read Brave New World: Revisited, in which Huxley reviews his own book in the context of the state of the world 27 years later.

Take a moment to think of how cool it is that an author critiqued his own predictions a quarter of a century after his book's publication.

In Revisited, Huxley underscores issues that he left out of his original book (such as atomic bombs) and finishes by lamenting how close some societies (especially the Soviets) come to his idea of Dystopia. Revisited highly disappointed me, because very few of the topics discussed actually turned into anything that could be called a revolution or apocalypse. And how could he have known about the Internet, or the fall of the USSR, or anything like that? Huxley seemed to be incredibly frightened, and was intent on frightening his audience over issues that bore no fruits. He did, however, do a very good job of citing the evidence for his interpretation of the future. In terms of governmental control, he delved deeply into Hitler's strategies. In terms of population expansion, he cited very specific statistics and studies. The only problem with the actual research he did was when he put too much bias in certain data; he completely dismissed some studies while praising others like gospel, without any apparent reason.

So I think it suffices to say that we all see the future differently, and not a single one of us will be correct.

And, as some food for thought: in the case of Brave New World, I have to separate in my mind the high quality of the art from the low appeal of the author. I like the book but dislike the author's attitude. And there's nothing wrong with that.


I would definitely like to hear ya'll's thoughts on my theory as well as the book. Feel obligated to respond with any questions, comments, or concerns.

Candide by Voltaire (1759)

Candide

Above is the translation that I read: Candide by Voltaire, translated by Lowell Bair.

As you may expect, I read Candide for the sole purpose of passing my English Literature class. But that does not stop me from liking it!

Not that I'm being pressured into liking it because it's considered one of the greats by most English teachers. In fact, overall I give the book the highest possible rating just short of my All-Time-Favorite-Books. Candide doesn't quite make the list, but it comes pretty darn close. Why?

Why Candide is close to being one of my All-Time-Favorites:
The same reason that I don't completely hate Shakespeare: the philosophy. This book was written for the sole purpose of sharing Voltaire's philosophy. Heck, it was written in response to someone with whom he was having a debate.
Because Voltaire chose such a naive and stubborn protagonist (hint: his name is Candide), we get to see the battle between the two philosophies of optimism and pessimism throughout the entire book. Candide is an example of something I've been searching for ever since I read To Kill a Mockingbird: a fictional book that convinces without ranting. I admire books that can convince so many young minds because, as I'm sure many other young philosophers do, I want to one day influence attitudes with my writing.
And, somehow, it's still entertaining. This book is more captivating than certain YA action books, and that's no small feat for a philosophical satire written in the 1700's.
Normally the lack of description would bother me, but I'll refrain from complaining for two reasons:
1. My friend had a different translation with much better descriptions, so perhaps I'm not getting the full scope of the original writing just because of the copy I bought.
2. The main purpose of the book is to follow the philosophies and, to some extent, the characters. The descriptions are only mentioned when they serve the purpose of the plot. It wasn't Voltaire's intention to describe, so I won't criticize him for lacking descriptions.
And do I even have to mention the satire? I love books that can be funny without resorting to slapstick or pop-culture references (unless it's Percy Jackson or some other personal narrative), and Voltaire really hits home.

Why Candide is not quite one of my All-Time-Favorites:
Mostly because I just don't agree with the philosophy. In fact, Voltaire's philosophy (both the one of pessimism and the philosophy that philosophy itself is maddening) is what I've been fighting against my whole life. I won't try to convince any of you against Voltaire's philosophy. I'll just say that their happy ending couldn't possibly last in Voltaire's world because many innocent villagers were displaced in the past, and something equally horrible or worse could easily happen to the main cast in their little orange garden.
I also have to disagree with Voltaire's idea of a Utopia (El Dorado), which is something that my class discussed. It reminds me more of a communist Dystopia than an ideal society.
Lastly, of course, there's nothing objectively wrong with a book that's been through this many editions and corrections. No grammatical mistakes, no historical mistakes that went uncorrected (though it's historical fiction), etc.


As you can see, the good section outweighs the bad in this review, even though I naturally feel smarter for having criticized something important (Pococurante, anyone?). A nice little praising review for a nice little pessimistic book.


Questions? Comments? Concerns? Even if you haven't read Voltaire, or only pretended to read it for English class, which philosophy do you side with? Do you think that pessimism or the belief that philosophy itself causes misery is really mainstream? I welcome any and all comments below or via PM.