The Sisters Brothers - Review

I found The Sisters Brothers to be a surprisingly light and pleasant read.  It is a Western about two brothers, Charlie and Eli Sisters, who are hired killers for a powerful and influential man, the Commodore.  Their latest assignment takes them on an adventure to San Francisco during the California Gold Rush to kill Herman Kermit Warm.

Warm's "crime" is his ingenuity in creating a formula to make striking gold a lot more efficient.  The normally cold killers, accustomed to taking out bad men, are faced with a moral dilemma.  Do they uphold their obligation to their boss, reviled by Eli and envied by Charlie?  Or do they spare Warm's life in exchange for friendship and their share of the riches?

It feels weird to say this while also keeping in mind that I enjoyed the book, but not a lot happened.  It was a quick read but not so much because it was action-packed or suspenseful.  There was something refreshing about how simply the story was told.  It was really more about the characters and less about killing or mining for gold.

As the story unfolds you are introduced to Charlie, the older, surlier, deadlier brother and Eli, the younger, more sensitive and sympathetic brother/protagonist.  As the story ends, the brothers seem to come full circle.  Charlie's most deadly appendage is compromised causing him to revert to a more subdued version of himself while Eli suppresses his gentler nature to commit one final violent act to ensure their future peace and security.

The one complaint I would make about the story is its inclusion of animal mistreatment.  It was probably realistic during that time (1850s) but the general lack of respect for the beasts of burden was hard to read.  Then again, told in the context of the characters, I understand its necessity.

I have never read a Western and I find the movie genre painfully boring.  That being said, if all Westerns were like The Sisters Brothers I would read more of them.

The Host - Review (spoilers)

I was pleasantly surprised by Stephenie Meyer's writing abilities and quickly drawn into the story.  I found her style easy to follow, descriptive, and attention-getting.  She also took her time.  The book could have been half as long but she really put in the effort to develop the characters and make you feel part of their world.

I had low expectations because having no interest in vampire/werewolf/human love triangles, I have not read the Twilight series.  Then I read the synopsis of this book and made the connection that it was geared toward adults and not angsty teenagers and decided to give it a chance.  I am so glad I did.

I found myself completely wrapped up in the characters, the suspense, and the love stories.  There is just enough science fiction to make it plausible as alien invasion-inspired but it is more about the relationships between the human resisters/survivors and Wanderer, protagonist/narrator/parasitic alien/human body dweller.  It is also about tolerance, compromise, trust, compassion, patience, and the will to survive.

Wanderer, more familiarly known as Wanda, comes to discover that just as humanity has negative extremes like cruel brutality, it also has positive extremes like undying, all-encompassing love.  Wanda experiences all of these emotions through Melanie Stryder's memories and through her interactions with the humans she comes to embrace as her family.

I had not anticipated that the story would transform from a love triangle - Melanie/Wanda and Jared, Melanie's lover before she became Wanda's host - into a love quadrangle with Ian, one of the human survivors, falling for Wanda, Melanie's occupier.  At times, this became just as overwhelming to me as the reader as it was to the love-torn participants. Melanie and Wanda came to love and respect one another as friends/sisters and did not want to destroy the other.  Wanda fell in love with Jared as a consequence of being immersed in Melanie's intense recollections of him.  Completely independently, she fell in love with Ian.  Jared loved Melanie but also grew to love the gentle spirit that was Wanda housed in her human body.  Ian had the least conflicting feelings having only fallen for Wanda.  It did not matter to him which body she inhabited.  In this story, love knew no bounds.    

It seems like Meyer wanted the reader to feel sympathy for the occupier as much as you felt for Melanie, the oppressed.  At times, because Wanda's voice is more present, I felt that Meyer was pushing the reader to feel more for her.  I felt slightly conflicted but mostly, I wanted Melanie to regain control of her faculties and reunite with Jared.  

Just as Wanda usurped Melanie's body, I felt that she usurped the central love story.  I went into the book rooting for Melanie and Jared's reunion and fully expecting this satisfying conclusion.  Instead, the happy ending goes to Ian and Wanda, in possession of a new host.  While I was pleased for them, I felt gypped that Melanie and Jared's reunion had taken place off-stage.  Even if Wanda's voice is more prominent in the story, the book is called The Host.  Melanie is the victim.  I do not fully understand why Wanda is portrayed as the martyr when it is Melanie who has been (almost) silently suffering in her prison of a body.

The story began with Melanie and Jared's love.  In my opinion, it should have ended there, too.  With the exception of this disappointment, I truly enjoyed reading this book.  I would highly recommend it and I cannot wait to see the movie adaptation in March 2013.

Divergent - Review

I thought dystopian could not get any better than The Hunger Games.  Well, I might have been wrong.

It is hard to not compare the two when they are both young adult series and center around a post-war world.  In Divergent, their society is based around five factions, which focus their energies on the opposing virtues to the vices they believe cause war.  There is Abnegation, the faction that the female protagonist, Beatrice (Tris) was born into.  They remind me of the Amish - plain in clothing and not valuing possessions but hard-working and virtuous.  They believe that man's selfishness caused war so they walk through life always thinking of others' needs above their own.  Amity promotes peace and kindness (their members are the hippies of society).  Candor believes in honesty.  Erudite looks to knowledge for clarity and finally, Dauntless values bravery and honor above all else.

Again, reminding me of the Amish, at 16, these kids get to choose which faction best represents their fundamental beliefs.  When it comes time to take her aptitude test to help determine which faction fits her best, her results are inconclusive.  Tris is considered "divergent", which is something she learns must be kept secret or her life will be in danger. Though born into Abnegation, she chooses Dauntless.  If they choose a faction different from the one they were raised in, they essentially cut themselves off from their families. Loyalty to one's faction comes before blood.

I think Veronica Roth's imaginings of this dystopian society, set in the desolate ruins of Chicago, are kind of brilliant.  It is beyond fascinating to think about five sectors of society managing different spheres of influence based on their virtues.  The Abnegation, for instance, are the leaders because their selflessness, in theory, should keep them level-headed and impartial.

I want to emphasize in theory because you can tell almost immediately that despite the planned segregation of society for good, there is a current of animosity that runs beneath the surface.  Abnegates, or the "Stiffs" as they are referred to by deriders, are pushed around in school and condemned by the Erudites in politically-charged literature.  Society was split for peace but by over-emphasizing their differences or preferences, they created a hostile and competitive atmosphere that is set to combust at any given moment.

I did not find Tris as likeable as Katniss.  In fact, much like my reading experience of The Hunger Games, I prefer the male protagonist, in this case, Four.  I am relieved that there does not appear to be a soapy dopey love triangle.  If you wanted to be critical of The Hunger Games you could argue that the love triangle got in the way of the action or the political rhetoric.  In this case, there is a very healthy dose of the societal issues with a nice sprinkling of romance.

One critique, I found it annoying that Roth felt the need to emphasize Tris's unattractiveness.  I mean, what is she?  The dystopian Jane Eyre?  Her physicality, aside from her stature and strength, should have no bearing on her character.  Or is there a hidden message in there like, if you are smart and strong the hot guy will overlook your ugliness?    

Divergent is an incredibly easy and fast read.  I started it on Friday and finished by this afternoon.  Like The Hunger Games, despite being classified as young adult, its themes are very adult-like.  There is a good deal of mature content in terms of death and violence and unlike The Hunger Games, sex is even mentioned.  *gasps*

I should add that there are also A LOT of differences between Divergent and The Hunger Games.  Before I started reading Divergent I was ready to call it a rip-off but the stories, characters, political conflicts are so different that they can be appreciated as completely separate and original entities.  

It is exciting, well-written, thought-provoking, chilling, and I cannot wait to read the rest. This will be a trilogy so I will wait until the final book is out before I start the second book.   I can sit on the cliffhanger Roth left after Divergent but it will be a challenge!  I also think these books (based on my reading of Divergent) will be easier to translate to the big screen than The Hunger Games.

The Hunger Games - Movie review (some spoilers)

Well, I finally saw it! I got back into town the Thursday before the premiere and pre-arranged with my viewing party (husband and parents) to hold off until two weeks later. I did not want my viewing experience to be marred by a bunch of rabid teenagers.

Overall, I thought it was good. I enjoyed having a canvas from which to see everything I had imagined while reading the book. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss is perfection! The casting director should get a big cut of the profits. As I suspected, Lawrence's Katniss was a little softer than the book's Katniss. I can understand why they made this subtle change because it makes her a more sympathetic character. She was still tough as nails but I thought her reaction to Prim's name being called at the Reaping was a little more unglued than her reaction in the book.

I also think that Liam Hemsworth is well-suited to play the part of Gale. I have read that some people have "switched teams" due to the actor's portrayal of Gale whereas, they were on Team Peeta in the book. I am still on Team Peeta after having watched the film but I can see how Gale comes across as more sympathetic/appealing in the movie. Again, I think this was a subtle move on the director's part to amp up the romantic tension.

Josh Hutcherson as Peeta is adorable but he is quite a bit shorter than what I pictured to be a 6'2 Peeta in the book.  I was hoping they would compensate for his shortness by putting lifts in his shoes but he and Jennifer Lawrence look to be about the same height in the movie.  Hutcherson's face, however, totally fits my imaginings of Peeta.  I know they have limited time to fit in all the major plot elements but I think he got a little gypped. Peeta was much more prominent in the book than in the movie. I also felt cheated by what seemed like a semi-rushed cave scene, the whole basis for the Katniss/Peeta romance.

I was pleased with pretty much ALL the casting with the exception of Lenny Kravitz as Cinna. Sorry, Lenny, but I think you need to brush up on your acting skills for the next round...

Visually, I found the movie to be really interesting and very true to what I had conjured in my imagination. Things I found disappointing but understandable? A few minor plot elements were cut completely and some aspects were changed to make things easier for the moviemakers. An example of a subtle change - Peeta's leg injury. In the book, the cut is to the bone and he is essentially at death's door with blood poisoning. When they are declared the victors and hovercrafted out of the arena, his leg is promptly amputated above the knee and he is fitted with a prosthesis. Obviously, this would have posed a logistical challenge for the moviemakers so I can understand why they altered this bit.

I sensed that my parents were bored with much of the movie (neither had read the books nor have any interest in doing so). I suppose I can see how some parts of the movie were "slow" but having read the books I knew that when there was no dialogue, Katniss would be strategizing and working things out in her head in the book. A lot of the book takes place in Katniss's head, which would have been too hard to parlay into the film unless she was constantly talking to herself.

Having read the book, I was a little disappointed by how some of the information was conveyed. For instance, I knew that the "prize" for winning the Hunger Games was not only walking away with your life but a surplus of food for the victor's district. I am not sure the non-reading viewing public came away with that. I was particularly annoyed when President Snow crowned Katniss. WTF? That is NOT the point of winning the Hunger Games. That makes it seem like a vanity thing. Katniss and Peeta won to SURVIVE and to feed their starving district and families. Period. I feel like that could have further confused and misled the movie-goers into thinking that winning the Hunger Games was an honor, like winning the Olympics. That could not be further from the truth. The Hunger Games are horrifically manipulative, vengeful, and cruel. There is NO honor in winning games that pit children against children.

One of my favorite aspects of the film?  The interaction between Katniss and Rue.  I found this part of the movie to be the truest to the book.  It was really touching to watch and certainly, the most emotionally-driven part of the movie.

I could talk about this all day but I will refrain. Suffice it to say, I liked it and I look forward to seeing the rest of the series but as always, the books are better. If you want to fill in the blanks, you have to read the books.

Fifty Shades Trilogy - Review

I am a little embarrassed *blushes* to be reviewing these books so instead of rating the books in individual blog posts, I will review the trilogy as a whole.

I could not escape the hype of this series and admittedly, I was intrigued. I do not usually read books from this genre or as CNN aptly called it "mommy porn". Though, I am not sure what "mommy" has to do with it.

Anyway, let me cut to the chase. This series is by NO MEANS a literary masterpiece. Some of the dialogue and description is laughable. I rolled my eyes and chuckled fairly frequently at some of the "sexy" one-liners and puns and later, the cheesy romantic banter between Anastasia Steele and Christian Grey. That being said, I found myself really drawn to the characters and in particular, Grey, the tortured and vulnerable male protagonist. What is it about women and their innate need to save emotionally fragile men that mask their hurt with strong and forceful personalities?

It is an interesting story with compelling characters, but it is conveyed in an almost adolescent voice. Despite the weak writing, I found myself swept up in Ana and Christian's romance and rooting for their success.

I am really excited that the rights have been sold to make it into a movie because I think the right screenwriter could clean up E.L. James's sloppiness. I am also waiting with bated breath to see who they cast in the leads. I am a little less invested in who they pick for Ana, though she should be beautiful and innocent. Personally, I have already selected my Christian and I think he should be portrayed by Sebastian Stan.  I think his look holds the perfect amount of fragility and impenetrability.

Case in point:



ETA:  Apparently, the Fifty Shades Trilogy came from a fan fiction that was written with the romantic stars of Twilight, Edward and Bella, in mind.  I have never read the Twilight series and have no intention of doing so, but I am glad that the story was altered in its final form to make room for different characters.  I am sure that those who have read both series could argue that the similarities are uncanny but I have the dis(advantage) of only having read Fifty Shades.

Another note, I have read a lot of negative reactions to Fifty Shades, many of which seem to be from Twilight fans who read it for free under a different name when it was still a fan fiction.  Personally, I think some of the negativity stems from jealousy.  I mean, give E.L. James a little credit.  She saw an opportunity to strike gold and she seized it.  Good for her.  That being said, I understand and sympathize with the critiques of her writing prowess.

I do not usually indulge in badly written fluff. It would be fair to categorize Fifty Shades as such.  Even so, I got something out of it.  I was entertained, I was able to escape, and like I mentioned previously, I found myself drawn to the characters and invested in their romance. Could it have been crafted better? Yes. Could it have been less predictable and cheesy?  Absolutely.  But I believe that they will make these necessary improvements in the movie.

At its core, it is a flight of fancy.  When I read it I put myself in Ana's shoes and imagined how cool it would be to be fawned over by a multi-millionaire, whisked away in fancy cars and helicopters, spoiled with expensive champagne, food, and clothes.  Yes, Grey has his unpleasant side in the form of his control issues but it stems from his painful past and well, that only makes him more attractive.  Every woman, I do not care how self-reliant you are, wants to be taken care of and Christian Grey fulfills that fantasy...with a side of spanking. Haha.