Kim’s Comments (group member since Sep 17, 2008)

Kim’s comments from the Runs with scissors group.

I normally try to keep our discussions based on books and other book related items, but today I read something in the paper that annoyed me to no end. I would like to give those of you who don't know me off site a little back ground so what I have to say will make sense.

I am a large woman. I have been big all of my life and am comfortable with who I am after many years of dealing with my own personal torture and my treatment at the hands of others. I finally found a wonderful man who treats me well, loves me very much, and has stood by me for the last 4 years and counting, supporting me in my long hard work of becoming a person who is known for who she is and not what she is (i.e. "the fat girl"). I am finally realizing the person my friends have told me I am. I am proud myself for accomplishing so much.

I have friends who smoke and one friend in particular who works for a place that not only banned smoking on the grounds, but also now will not hire smokers, does random checks to see if you are smoking, and will fire you if you are. I do not smoke myself, never have, never will, but I find this wrong. Banning smoking on the grounds is one thing, but telling you that you cannot smoke in your own home or car....

Which brings me to what has me upset. There were 2 things that have me hopping. 1) Some cities and companies are now thinking about doing something similar to this policy with over-weight employees. Some ideas are loose weight or get fired, taxing them with special taxes to cover health care costs, and not hiring over-weight people to begin with.

2) Some so called paper in London published some sort of study that says large people are causing global warming.

Why is it that this "study" is o.k.? If they had said that people of Hispanic descent were causing global warming, you'd have a riot (rightfully so) on your hands for being discriminatory. So why, just because I am a large person, do all the world's problems become my fault?

And the last thing is that retailers,like Forever 21,is going to start carrying 1-2x and Target is going to go up to size 30 in an effort to give plus size teens nice,affordable clothing that is also trendy. This caused the center for obesity to comment that "they don't need to look at fashion, when they should be looking at what goes into their mouth", or some thing close to that.

EXCUSE ME?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(What are they (and I) supposed to do, walk around naked? I mean plus size doesn't always mean large all around. It can mean large busted, wide hips,or your rear end may be a little larger. I wish I had choices like that growing up. All I had was way too old for me clothes in 3 basic colors, black, navy blue,and brown!)

We have all sorts of rules and laws that are supposed to protect people from discrimination based on race, gender, religious beliefs, orientation,etc. but why do we allow these smaller discrimination's? How come you can tax cigarettes and alcohol with special taxes to build sports stadiums,and when they are built, you can only drink in them, but not smoke? It get's labled a public health issue, to pasturize it, to make it palatable.

I think this is just the begining. I think we are on a dangerous road, because where does it stop? You start singling out people because they are big, then what's next, taxing people who are at a higher genetic risk for cancer, people who have asthma, people who are too thin because they may me bulimic?
Are we going too far? Some may think not far enough.

Where do you stand?

Excellent point. I hadn't considered that. GWTW is an excellent example of a good adaptation of a book to a movie, and one of my faves. 'Course, that was made when you went to the movies expecting an intermission, cartoon shorts, news reels,and other pre-movie entertainment. Movies used to be a form of entertainment that was meant for everyone, not just the wealthy or "cultured". With I-pods, You-Tube, texting, sexting, etc., entertainment has reached a saturation level that has to compete with attention spans of fleas. I wonder how todays kids would have reacted to t.v. as we knew it growing up, you know, no cable, no VCR/DVD's,a few local stations and heaven help you if the president came on!

I normally blast adaptations of books made into movies, but I realized something last night while watching the recent remake of the 1939 movie "The Women" (one of my faves) which was based on the play by Clare Booth Luce. While,I have not had the pleasure of seeing the play as of yet, but I do know a few people who have seen or been in it, and they tell me the movie is pretty much verbatim. The re-make is updated, and well done at that, yet I felt a little miss-cast for some of the key characters (what else is new?) but I felt that Diane English (the creator of "Murphy Brown") did a pretty nice job of it.

It got me thinking about several movies I have seen done based on Shakespeare that have been well done, and even one or two movies that have been turned into stage plays or musicals and had those versions re-made into a movie (i.e "The Producers"). For some reason, Hollywood can manage not bollocks up a play, but can and do routinely manage to @#$%up books on a regular basis.

Is this because plays have less to deal with as far as plot or scenery or is it that plays can change actors and we accept that as opposed to who we see in out minds eye when it comes to a descriptive book?

Let's hear your thoughts on the subject!

I recently got the "Dresden Files" from the library on DVD. I love Jim Butchers books about private eye/wizard Harry Dresden, so I was hoping for an excelent adaptation by the Sci-Fi channel. Alas, and alack, I was grieviously disappointed yet again, by some wrong thinking hack who thought he knows Harry better than the loyal reader.

Now, I will say the show was very good, and I will concede a that a few of the changes were needed for the series, such as Harry driving a Jeep instead of a VW Bug as VW may not have given permission to use their vehicle, and making Bob into a non-corporeal, visual representation, vs. a skull with glowing eyes. But, what I am unable to forgive is the lack of Mister his cat, completely changing names and histories of crucial characters, such as Murphy's first name being changed to Connie instead of Karin.

Maybe I expect too much, and this is like our previous dicussion regarding movie adapatations of our favorite books. Maybe Hollywood should just stick to (LOL) original ideas instead of ripping off our fave books.

I recently added a book shelf called "books I'm sorry I read". (See new poll). I know there have been books over the years that either I had to read for school or read for pleasure that were torture on the brain. I failed to see what was or is so special about those works that I wished for brain safe bleach to remove them from my psyche.

I know that not every author is going to hit me or others the same way, and I do truly understand that. As my late father used to say, "There is no accounting for another's bad taste.", and the books we don't like as idividuals or as a group fall under that.

So, what books have you loathed and why? I would like to open the floor up to one and all to weigh in on this. What books do you wish you had brain safe bleach to erase? Yes, so called classics count,as does any book or manga, grafic novel, you name it. It's all good (or bad), depending on how you look at it...

Mea Culpa! I thought I was a little too harsh before, so I decided to re-think the last topic into this one. I thought this version was a little broader and less like an attack on a specific author that may not have deserved to be attacked. I agree with the Narnia books as being a good example of a view point brought to light with out the brain hammers. Brain fart on my part!:)

I read alot of types of books and every once and a while, I come across a book or two that have authors that shove a message down your throat like a pan-galactic gargle blaster, and I don't mean books that are designed to make you think. I am talking about books that an author uses to promote a personal politcal agenda or other personal crusade. While I am not a fan of this type of brain bludgeoning, I am not saying that an author has to write with kid gloves or sugar coat a message, for there are some people who like in your face, ham-fisted messages for this is the way they communicate.

I admit, when I am passionate about something, I may seem like a run-away steam engine, but I do try not to inflict my opionions on someone in such a fashion that I leave them feelling like they just woke up from a TKO.

I try, and I do try hard, not to hammer a point so much that I turn it into a verbal spear. I know that some of my friends and some of my past child-care charges may argue heavily against that last remark, but all in all, I do try.

For example, I am not a big fan of christian fiction (may have something to do with going to a Lutheran school for grades 1-8, and being forced to read the genre for book reports....) but I have encountered a few here and there that have been very well done. They were not knock your brain around until you convert to our way of thinking, they were not "if you are a not christian you will suffer" kinds of books (unlike a few I read for those book reports...). I have no problem with someone being comfortable in their faith, but I do not like having someone else's values forcibly being injected into my valuable mental real-estate.

I know that some people are drawn to that kind of message and that's fine. That is a specific group that is being targeted, but what about the books that don't fit into one genre lable? Some people may think that Carl Hiaassen may be too heavy fisted with his environmental messages in his books for adults and tweens, some may not. I didn't, but there again, I am all for saving the planet.

What about the rest of you? Do you seek out books that bludgeon your little gray cells or do you shy away from those books? Have you banned an author from your shelves for that reason or added them for the same reason?

This idea came from a comment made by Vulture in another discussion regarding turns of phrase, and if we are influenced by the books we read. Agreeing that books do have influence, Vulture said, "Books have been around before t.v.". It was also mentioned about that's why they are burned. I agree. I wonder, though, are we influenced in our reading choices by the latest feature film adaptations, t.v. movie adaptations, or by what some celebrity says we should read (Oprah's book club), or if a book causes a flap, do we, like me, read it just to find out the big deal ? (I do not need somebody who thinks they know how I should think policing my brain!)

I see myself as as iconoclast in ever sense of the word, and I am trying my damndest to keep the written word alive and kicking. I read to kids, give books as gifts and I feel that I am in a losing battle for the minds of children and adults. In a world of purposely mis-spelled words in advertising or by musical artists, text message and instant message short hand, teachers who do not correct mistakes because it can damage a child's delicate psyche (which is a big pile of cow plop!), I feel like a lone island of rebellion.

Am I? Or do you and others feel the same way? Here is my challenge. Invent new words, resurect old words and turns of phrase, use whole words, use comeplete sentences, correct your child's spelling and grammar....do something to help preserve our languages, our culture, our written word.

Buck the trend! Dare to be different! Stand up for books, or watch them burn when Farenheit 451 comes to pass....it's your choice.

Good point.

I just finished the newest book by Tim Dorsey. He is delightfully twisted and has unique turns of phrase that I incorporate into my daily vernacular. For example, "crock pot of slow cooked bullshit", and the newest one, "we crossed the turnstile to that amusement park ages ago". I have picked up unique ways of expressing myself over the years from the literature I read. I know that in common circles, most phrases are either unique to the group dynamic,by race, or region, or that they come from movies or t.v. I must say that my friends tend to quote movies and books. I also am prone to comming up with my own words, like "dorknut" and it's sister word "dorkf***" for someone who really screwed up. I also use the phrase "f***nut/f***nutstupid", and "f***stupid". And more recently "too old to ninja". One of my friends is prone to use the pharase "dingle nuts" which promted a whole other thing...(Vulture, I know you are laughing). I detour. Sorry, but my train of thought frequently derails at the station.

I guess that is my point. Do any of you get your turns of phrase from the books you read? Do you know of any common phrases that have come from books? (I love trivia and would love to add to my vast mental file cabinets). Do you think that literature once gave way to common vernacular like movies and television do now or do you think that only a small percent has always and only been influenced by the words we read?

This idea was prompted by this past weekend in Cleveland, where we got close to a foot of snow over 2 days. It got me thinking about what types of books I read and when I read them. On cold, snowy days like this weekend, I seem to gravitate to fantasy books that take me away to a far off land and keep me there.

When I read, I don't move, only stopping for bathroom breaks or for food that is easily eaten while holding a book. I normaly read quickly anyway, but I found myself going through 2 books start to finish, and almost completing a third in just 2 days time, due to the weather. Rainy days do not seem to effect me the same way. Those seem to be days that I seem to gravitate to DVD or video tape watching instead. Nice days, I go to the park and read outside.

I read all sorts of things at all times, but I noticed that I tend to read more mysteries in the fall and winter months and more fantasy and sci-fi in the spring and summer, and this also includes re-reading my own vast personal library when I am out of books from my local library, which is often. I do not read many romance books anymore, upon occassion I do, but I do not seek them out any more like I used too, that may be due to age...like I have kinda out grown my horror book phase too...yet now I will willingly read biographies and memoirs that I hated to read when forced to for school....that may be age related to I guess.

The purpose of all this rambling is to pose the question to all of you for you to think about. Does weather or time of year affect your reading choices? Do you read certain types of books at certain times of the year (and this excludes holliday themed books) or re-read certain books (again, excluding holliday books) because of the season or weather? Is your reading choice affected by your mood? If you are feeling depressed do you reach for the joke book or the Sylvia Plath? Have your tastes changed as you get older, either not reading a genre you have you used to read all the time, or by reading a genre more than you used too?

I think that it is a worthy thought to ponder, and I will be interested to know what you all have to say.

Benefit of the doubt is important. Part of what sparked this thread, was the same teenage verbal pugalist,that raked me over the coals regarding the series mentioned in my rant (for those of you who haven't read that), is that I do not want to read the newest book by the same author. It is a stand alone book greared for the adult audience, but since I don't like the authors style, I don't want to read her again. A lot of people felt that we should give authors a second chance since not all books will sit well with all people. As I have said, if you don't like the style of an author, then why would you want to read anymore by that person, series or not? *Sigh* I guess intollerance runs rampant in all areas of life, not just polotics and religion....

I think that (like in this case where I read all 4 books) you can get a feel for an authors style based on the first few or even just the first book written by an author. I don't mean just the genre they choose, but the way they set up the story, how the characters do or do not make me feel...I know that some first time writers have to set up a new series, but if there is no potential for the charactes or sympathy....well... why waste time and brain space on drivel?

This discussion was begun as a side thread based on the discussion that led to my rant. The idea was brought up that since that I didn't like the "Twilight" series I should still give Meyer a chance. I feel that I do not need to give any author a second chance to enterain me if they fail the first time (or in this case 4 times, as I did read all 4 books). So do we owe an author, even if we did not care for the book, a second chance or more to strike our fancy? I am an ameteur writter and I know that many authors do not "hit the mark" with their first offering, but is it the genre or is it the style that turns us on to or off from them? I read books of all types (look at how many shelves I have!) and there are authors I like that write more than one series. Some series' I like, others I don't. For example, I already like Stephnie Plum books, so I read Metro Girl by the same author. Didn't like it very much. So do I owe something to the author,just because I like her other series, to keep reading this one? If I read a book that either becomes the flavor of the month or because everyone I know says that "I have to read this amazing book", and I don't like it, should I feel that I need to give that author a second chance because that first book may not have hit my fancy?

A few of you members are authors. What do you think? Do you do the same with other author's or do you give everyone at least 2 books to get your attention?

Thank you! I was reamed repeatedly by a 16 year old for not liking her precious "Twilight" and could not be brought around to her way of thinking. Anyone I know will tell you that I am passionate about a lot of things and that I am not shy about telling people what I think, but I do try to respect other's opinions, unless they are based on false information, because everyone is entitled to have said opinions. The sad thing is,the book club this all started in is called "Books I loathed".....go fig.

I have a rant that I need to get off my chest. You all may choose to ignore me or you might feel how I do, either way, here goes. I did not like the "Twilight" series. I do not like Stephanie Meyer's style and do not want to read anymore of her books, yet so many people feel the need to call me out on the carpet for having an opinion that differs from their love of the books, like I am some sort of villain for daring to go against popular opinion. I am facinated by the resulting shit storm I have aparently created on one of the other book clubs I belong to for this discenting opinion. Yes, I am harsh on the books, but after reading all 4 books before passing judgement, and keeping in mind that I read that genre a lot,I have seen it done much better. I read all types of books geared for all ages, so I am not just an "old fart" who doesn't get it. Am I the only person who feels this way? I don't mean just about "Twlight" but about books in general. All of you have read and rated books that sometimes we have agreed on and others not, yet I don't see any of you raking each-other over the coals for a difference of opinion. Am I wrong in thinking that is a supposedly free country where we are allowed to be different, or are we only allowed to be different under the geas of popular opinion? As long as you think like us it's alright, be an iconoclast and you must be blasted for your opinion, tried to be brought around to our way of thinking, or refusing that, we will stone you to death?

I know that if I have an opinion, so will somebody else, but since when do I need to be bludgeoned into submission by someone else's opinion? A lively discussion is one thing, but to have verbal boxing matches over what you think of a book?! For crying out loud, if you like it,fine. Read it, love it,own it, treasure it, but don't attack me for not lovingit along with you. Respect others opinions and don't treat discenter's like dirt or the plague,or...you get the point. I guess I am done for now, but how do the rest of you feel? Have any of you been atacked for not liking a popular book of the moment? Or am I just being an "old fart" who doesn't get it?

I like to read books that scare me as well. I prefer to read a horror book than watch a horror movie so I can control how violent it is.

That too.

I agree. Who has the right to decide what anyone else may read or not based on what they "feel" is moraly correct or some such. Not everyone's moral compass is as tightly wound as others. If you want to police your own children based on your beliefs then you should, but don't tell me that I can't or shouldn't just because you don't like the book's ideas or one word offends you. In cases of historical works, like "Tom Sawyer" there is a word that in our society is offensive. Read the word in the context it was used and use that as launching point for why we don't use this word now instead of acting like the word does not exist.

Albus Dumbledore put it best when he told Harry that fear of a name gives it power. So does fear of an idea or a word.

Some times, I find at least, that no matter how good my imagination is, I do benefit from seeing someones vision on the big screen, wether it be animated or live action with F/X. I have seen movies get hacked from the book to the screen (i.e any Stephen King novel) that had absolutely nothing to do with the book. As Vulture pointed out in one of the polls, "Breakfast at Tiffany's", good book, good movie,, yet the movie had very little to do with the short story. Yet both are seen as classics....

So, does this mean we should boycott Hollywood when they adapt our favorite books or should we go into see them with a grain of salt?