Gone Girl: Book Review

This book blew up on 2012 lists of best books. You couldn’t look on a 2012 book list without seeing Gone Girl listed. A psychological thriller, a missing wife, clues that keep piling up and keep you turning the pages—what more could you ask for? (As it turns out, mixing all the best things together can make a really bad thing, as Tracy Morgan figured out on 30 Rock by trying to mix all great forms of music into one song, but I digress). It’s called a dark thriller for a reason, you know.

The day of Nick and Amy’s wedding anniversary, Amy disappears without a trace. As the police investigate, the clues seem to point toward Nick as the cause for her disappearance, and maybe even murder. Though it doesn’t look good for Nick because he’d been keeping things from the police, he maintains his innocence. Things aren’t always as they appear….

This is a great theme of the book. The book is written from alternating views of Nick and Amy, which really messes with your brain. If there’s anything to be said, it’s that your view of a character can be completely changed, chapter to chapter, depending on the point of view. This is another interesting point; the same situation with the same facts and events can be manipulated to manipulate the reader, and it gets even more complicated when some facts are revealed and others withheld. The presentation is the thing.

Flynn’s strong suit in the book is presenting these situations to you in order to get you to feel a certain way, but just when you have a handle on the characters and have an idea of what really happened, she rips the rug from under your feet and presents new facts, another point of view. While some people complain that it’s not fair to the reader to play with their emotions, I would like to remind them that this is a psychological thriller, and that is the best part of suspense. Presenting everything all at once wouldn’t be exciting, and this wouldn’t be a good suspenseful story.

I can’t promise that you will like any of the characters. I have to remind myself time and again that it is not a necessary part of literature (to have likeable characters), but it does help in certain books. In The Yonahlossee Riding Camp for Girls, apart from atrocious decision-making and a lack of morals (or any lesson-learning whatsoever), the main character is not likeable at all. In that case, it wasn’t a good choice since empathy is a necessary part of that coming-of-age tale. Gone Girl’s not necessarily likeable characters improve the story and play up on the reader’s perception of the story, what actually happened, who did it, and can completely change the ending of the book.

Boy, did this list creator get at least one thing right, am I right?

I don’t want to ruin anything, and a lot of this novel depends on not knowing, so I will end it here. It might be worth mentioning that this book was “featured” on Orange is the New Black, the Netflix original series. However, Piper Chapman, one of the main characters, clearly didn’t like it as much as I did. Which means the writers didn’t like it very much. This is odd, considering crime and drama are their specialties. They could at least admit that, most opinions set aside, though you may have a full seat, all you will need is the edge.

Oh, and you're a great judge of character, aren't you?

Rating: 8.75 out of 10 stars

You might want to check out Gillian Flynn’s previous novels, if you liked her writing or suspense style, Dark Places and Sharp Objects (Dark Places didn’t really appeal to me, but Sharp Objects seemed interesting). You might also like The Shining Girls by Lauren Beukes, though it is worth noting that that one is more about serial killers and time travelling—it’s gripping and I have to give Ms. Beukes props for such an interesting concept. 

Me Talk Pretty One Day: Book Review

Go take a walk. Seriously. Walk around your house, around your hometown, around your neighborhood, around a city you've never been to before. Now tell me your thoughts and observations.  

It still won’t be as biting and critical as David Sedaris’ notes would be.

I picked up Me Talk Pretty One Day because I mistakenly thought that it was a funny story about a guy trying to learn French. There is a small piece about that, but really the book is a series of observations about his family, the French, Americans (and a sub-category of that: New Yorkers), meth-fueled art, and speech therapy coaches. It wasn’t a bad thing, it’s just that… I realized that I’m not overly fond of David Sedaris. Everyone called his work “hilarious”, “laugh out loud funny” and “sarcastic.” Fantastic, I thought. I like sarcasm and funny books. This should be good. The only part that I actually liked was the French teacher and her insults to the students. The rest of the book seemed like a self-indulgent pity party for Mr. Sedaris without trying to make it a pity party.

David Sedaris hates most things, most people, and wants everyone to love and adore him so that he can shove his success in their faces, turn them down or scoff at them. It’s like he wants to hate to want to be loved. Now there’s a psych case waiting to happen.

I didn’t like the period of his life that involved a lot of illegal drug-taking and so-called “art”, which is just post-modernist weird crap. I thought his family odd- past the point of funny and more into dysfunctional. I disliked his strange interests in things, choosing to learn “bottleneck”, “ash tray” and “lobotomy” in French over more practical phrases. Mostly, I disliked his overall personality. He is the type of person who would watch someone on the verge of a grisly death and memorize the details so that he knew how to tell the story to his friends later. Call me old-fashioned, but I call that morbid and crass.

However, there has to be a reason he is still writing books and people are giving these books good ratings: taste. There is clearly a market for snarky, bitter people who love themselves and love to hate to be loved. Ugh.

Basically, know your taste. Sure, it’s good to reach outside of your comfort zone and try something new (and this was quite outside of my comfort zone), but there’s no need to push yourself to continue something you dislike. For instance, I won’t be picking up another David Sedaris book anytime soon, though I will concede that I was oddly transfixed by a life so different from mine. It’s kind of like the feeling you get when you can’t look away from a car accident scene.

Rating: 2.5 stars out of 5

You would probably like Larry David, Steve Martin, maybe Dennis Leary or Bill Burr. I’m not sure. Basically, any comedian who whines about how the world owes them something is a good bet for people with those “tastes.” You might also like Chuck Palahniuk if you enjoyed the morbidity and peculiarity, but would’ve liked it to be grittier. 

The Mark of Athena- The Mark of Series Gone Bad

House of Hades, the fourth installment of Rick Riordan’s second series set in the Percy Jackson universe, Heroes of Olympus, was released yesterday. Watch as the internet explodes in the next couple of days as Riordan fangirls gush over the new book following the dramatic cliffhanger of Mark of Athena. I know I haven’t reviewed The Lost Hero or Son of Neptune, but I read those before this year, so I won’t review them. Yet.

Before even touching this one, you should definitely read the two previous novels in this series (The Lost Hero and The Son of Neptune), and I would even recommend reading the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series before that. This is definitely not a standalone novel. Picking up right where The Son of Neptune left off, The Mark of Athena now features members from both Camp Halfblood and Camp Jupiter, and together they must embark on this dangerous quest and cooperate to defeat the giants and prevent oncoming doom onset by the Earth Mother Gaea. If that sounds weird to you, you haven’t even come close to the weirdness of Greek/Roman mythology.

To these Percy Jackson fans, Rick Riordan can do no wrong. While I found his Percy Jackson and the Olympians series interesting and fun (quick reads-you’ll breeze right through ‘em), they had so much in common with the Harry Potter series and- oh, you want me to list some of them? Allow me to draw some lines.

	Harry Potter	Percy Jackson
Main character	Harry Potter Black messy hair, green eyes Sometimes sarcastic humor Dreads summer (when he’s not at school) Strong-willed, down-to-Earth, brave, leader More of the brawn than the brains “The Chosen One” Missing both parents Solves “mystery” and fixes things before school ends Has supernatural abilities Hates bad family members- The Dursleys	Percy Jackson Black messy hair, green eyes Sometimes sarcastic humor Dreads school year (when he’s not at camp) Strong-willed, down-to-Earth, brave, leader More of the brawn than the brains Chosen One- at one time anyway Missing one parent Completes quest and fixes things before deadline, and before camp is over Has supernatural abilities Hates bad family members- Gabe Ugliano
Girl sidekick	Hermoine Granger Book smart Curly hair Eventually starts relationship with one of trio The straight-laced one, quick thinker	Annabeth Chase Book  smart Curly hair Eventually starts relationship with one of trio The straight-laced one, quick thinker
Boy sidekick	Ron Weasley Not so great with girls, but eventually gets a girlfriend Plucky comic relief Makes jokes to lighten mood	Grover Not so great with girls, but eventually gets a girlfriend Plucky comic relief Makes jokes to lighten mood
Twins	Fred and George Weasley Fun-loving pranksters who love mischief	Travis and Connor Stoll Fun-loving pranksters who love mischief
Movies kinda sucked?	Yes	Yes
Strong, evil bad guy	Voldemort, keeps coming back, sometimes works through other people	Kronos, keeps coming back, sometimes works through other people
School nemesis	Draco Malfow- bully	Clarisse La Rue- bully
Former good guy, current traitor	Peter Pettigrew Turned friends over to Voldemort	Luke Castellan Framed Percy and Co. and turned to dark side
Is one of trio scared of spider?	Yup- Ron Weasley	Yup- Annabeth Chase
Does someone own invisibility clothing item?	Indeed- Harry’s Invisibility Cloak from his father	Yes- Annabeth’s Yankee Cap of Invisibility from her mother

Okay, so maybe that got a little obsessive, but this was as much for my own curiosity as it was for your education. This is not to say that just because they have a few (okay, many) similarities, either of them is bad or that Rick Riordan’s series is inferior. This is merely to say that Riordan certainly borrowed some things from Rowling, maybe unconsciously or unwittingly, and they’re both fun adventure series for kids and young adults. Hell, my mom enjoyed both series.

 

This could be chalked up to the fact that every movie poster is the same these days...

This brings me to my main point—it’s good as long as it remains a fun adventure series. Mark of Athena has traded that fun, adventurous tone for romantic drama, strained friendships and over-the-top cliffhangers. Gone are the days of a trio on exciting adventures and danger as they fight to save their camp. No, now they have to save the world, and the cast has swelled to include more people to keep track of, more storylines, more drama and crushes.

I know for a fact that it’s not because I don’t enjoy romantic sub-plots; I can be a huge romantic sap if I want to be. However, when the adventure and action, which are the main points of this series, take a backseat for teenage angst, fighting over romantic partners and more time spent gazing longingly into each other’s eyes, I start to roll my eyes. What is this, Twilight? Look, someone even compiled all the staring scenes, and it's almost half an hour. Even a minute of staring is too much! 

I missed the times when romance came second to, I don’t know, saving the world??  Honestly, at one part, while they’re rushing to save the world on a deadline, Annabeth and Percy stop, take in a sunset, and spend a few paragraphs talking about how they wish they could just be together. REALLY? Wouldn’t it be a better time to yearn for that when people’s lives depend on you, as well as the fate of the world? Shouldn’t you be more focused on saving the planet than a sunset? Ugh. My eyes hurt from rolling into the back of my head so much. Just get over it, complete the quest, be heroes, then find appropriate time to make googly eyes at each other. How would you like it if Michelle and Barack Obama (that’s right, they rule together for some reason) put off making a decision on a nuclear war to share an ice cream sundae and wish they could just be a normal couple?  When did Indiana Jones say “This is a good time to make out with Marion, right when I should be stopping the Nazis from taking over the world and unleashing the horrible energy of the Arc!” Oh, right, NEVER. Because he prioritizes his time effectively. It comes with the job; save the world first, fall asleep as girl is kissing you second.

So what is the solution? Limit the relationship drama. I didn’t read this series for it to turn into fricking Grey’s Anatomy (do they actually do any hospital stuff?? I’ve never actually seen the show) with mythology.

 

Because discussing your relationship over brain surgery is always the best option...

Rating: 5 out 10 stars

You’d like this series if you liked Harry Potter, and you might also like… uh… the Hunger Games series I guess? Or if you’re into Greek Mythology, those stories by themselves are quite entertaining.

The Best and Worst Candy and Flavors

There it is, the bright green of the box calling out to you. Mike and Ike specifically made this box for you, and it would just be plain rude to turn it down. Who are you to refuse a gift? You insensitive, callous, ungrateful jerk! You buy that box of candy before they slap you!

My friend told me today, while we were basking in the glow of the brightly colored candy aisle, that people always think that should not get excited over candy, but she will not accept that. As I watched her pick out the single pumpkin-shaped Reese's Candy bar, I realized that there should never be a time when you, as an adult, don't excited by something. Even as a senior in college. Especially as a senior in college.

"I bet it tastes like pumpkin, too!"

But there is a time you shouldn't get excited by something, and that is the flavor of banana. Honestly, the candy companies pushed that one out last just to say they've done something new and slap it on their resumes, but banana is the worst flavor. When was the last time you heard someone say their favorite candy flavor was banana? Oh, right, never. That is because it cannot count as a flavor! It's bland, and bananas are always thrown in with another flavor to say "Strawberry-banana" because you can't reuse a plain flavor in a bag of Tropical Starburst. It's not even creative! And you know who loves bananas? Old people. Because they're soft and bland. When you are ordering banana flavored things on purpose, you might as well pull out that AARP card to get a discount, and while you're at it, why don't you order grilled cheese and fruit at this restaurant and complain about things the waitress has no control over. Nice suspender pattern, by the way.

This banana isn't soft. This banana goes hard.Wait, is that an "E" at the end of banan-? 

I do love my grandparents, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with loving your grandparents. They tell the greatest stories. And volunteering for the army? Respect. 

Another flavor I wouldn't miss is green apple. God, green apple is the worst. I take it back, banana, green apple is worse. Way worse. There was nothing more disappointing than reaching into that Jolly Rancher bag and pulling out a green apple. When that happens, you might as well just chuck that across the street because the only good that come out of that is thinking of really creative ways to destroy the candy companies. Hey, sometimes the best creativity can come out of anger!

I would like to clear something up quickly. A lot of people like bananas. Hell, if they didn't, bananas would be way more of a seasonal thing, like mangoes or kiwi. And I've been known to eat a banana once in a while! And apples, though I stay away from the green ones. They aren't ripe yet, put 'em back! However, many things don't translate well to candy flavors. Butterscotch, for one. Cherry, for another. I don't even really like cherries on their own, but now I'm expected to stick a cherry-flavored Jolly Rancher in my mouth for an extended amount of time? I don't think so.

Good flavors, on the other hand, are a little more versatile. I hear blue raspberry is popular, but for short amounts of time. I can't imagine working on a whole pile of blue raspberry Jolly Ranchers all day. Strawberry ain't too bad, especially in Mike & Ikes or Starburst, but citrus is where it's at for me. I don't know what it is, but lime, lemon and orange are the best part of that package. I can't even think about getting sick on those.

But whatever your flavor is, you can't be as bad as that person who mixes M&Ms and Skittles. You are one sick, sadistic creep, and I hope you like being wrong 90% of the time when you're trying to distinguish between the two.

Yes, Satan? Oh, you want to play a game?

Checking In

So I haven't posted anything in.... admittedly too long. Remember when I said I was going to review a book a week and then occasionally write about something else random? HA. I mean, I lie to myself like everyone else, but this is ridiculous. It was probably setting myself up for failure to promise to anything in hindsight, but that happened and I'm moving past it. I can't say I haven't been reading this entire summer. In fact, I am ahead of schedule of my Goodreads book goal of 60 books this year- which is a little more than a book a week for all you math-challenged folk. I am apparently word-challenged as well because a red squiggly line appeared under that first "challenged" and I realized I had written "challanged."

Mondays.

So yeah, I actually have read 45 books this year (almost 46), and I didn't technically start this challenge until April, so I think that's pretty impressive. Admittedly, most of these books are in the 200-500 page range (approximately. It's hard to tell how long a book really is on an E-reader), so you could use that quantity/quality argument effectively against me. However, I think this is a good learning experience for me and I will set a lower goal in the future. More like 50. Even though I still have about 300 books on my to-read list. Even if I did read a book per week, that would still take me about 5.7 years! And I'm still using approximate numbers! It also doesn't help when you're in college and have to do homework and work on top of that, then you decide to write book reviews on top of that. I'm not even giving ratings or recommendations yet! Let's just say this blog needs to be re-vamped. And this isn't even for work or credit. Sigh.

So this is just a checking in, and I really want to write up all the books that I haven't reviewed yet and I still want to try for some funny or candid writing. My literary journalism class is inspiring me to write, and my fiercely competitive streak is compelling me to read and not only match my goal, but beat it.

Here are some reviews to expect in the future (in no particular order):
Mark of Athena by Rick Riordan (3rd in the Heroes of Olympus series)
Mr. Churchill's Secretary by Susan Elia MacNeal (1st in Maggie Hope series)
Princess Elizabeth's Spy by Susan Elia MacNeal (2nd in Maggie Hope series)
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay by Michael Chabon
Looking for Alaska by John Green
Sorcery and Cecilia: or the Enchanted Chocolate Pot by Patricia C. Wrede and Caroline Stevermer (1st in Cecelia and Kate series)
Life, the Universe and Everything by Douglas Adams (3rd in Hitchhiker's Guide series)
So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish by Douglas Adams (4th in Hitchhiker's Guide series)
Mostly Harmless by Douglas Adams (5th in Hitchhiker's Guide series)
Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn
Clash of Kings by George R.R. Martin (2nd in Song of Ice and Fire series)
The Ocean at the End of the Lane by Neil Gaiman
The Yonahlassee Riding Camp for Girls by Anton Disclafani
Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk
Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen
Rivers of London by Ben Aaronovitch (1st in Peter Grant series)
Poison by Bridget Zinn
Asking for Trouble by Elizabeth Young
Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton
Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman
The End Games by T. Michael Martin
Crazy Rich Asians by Kevin Kwan
Hoot by Carl Hiaasen
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnergut
Heat Wave by "Richard Castle" (1st in Nikki Heat series)
Chocolat by Joanne Harris
Once On a Time by A. A. Milne
The Shining Girls by Lauren Beukes

I have other random ideas to write about as well, if i ever get around to them, but you can bet I am going to make myself very busy in the future.

She's a Party Girl, But Not the Way You're Thinking

How do you recreate the magic that inspired you in the first place?Sarah Mason sure doesn't have the answer to that one. She is one of those “good first novel, mediocre sequels” authors for me. She wrote a brilliant first novel, and the sequel was still pretty good (just couldn’t measure up to the first), but by the third, the magic has been drained. And from what I hear, her fourth isn't so hot, either. 

As I’ve said before in my review of Sarah Mason’s other book, Society Girls, Playing James is a great British chick lit book I would definitely recommend to people. The characters were varied, funny, loveable and pretty well developed (it is chick lit after all; I’m not exactly expecting Pulitzer Prize-winning material here). The plot moved along quickly with plenty of hilarious snafus and the ending left me satisfied. In the sequel, the Colshannon sisters were up to their usual adventures, but it just didn’t have the same oomph.

Party Girl does not pick up where Society Girls left off, nor does it have any of the same characters. Instead, it follows Isabel (I kid you not, I had to look up her name. That’s how memorable she is), a party planner in London who is requested to plan an event for a family she spent her childhood with. The estate she spent her summers on now holds bitter memories, all because Simon Monkwell flipped from best friend to bitter enemy in a matter of weeks.

The problem with this novel does not lie with the hijinks or the plot. It lies with the main characters themselves, who are just trite. It’s pretty bad when the only word you can come up with to describe your protagonists is “trite.” Simon is now this businessman with a ruthless reputation, which in the grand tradition of chick lit is revealed to be a façade. I apologize to those of you yelling “spoiler alert” at your computer screens, but if you can’t see it coming, I think you need to read more. He has a hybrid between an icy attitude and cool politeness aimed toward Isabel, yet she’s supposed to be in “like” with him. They’re also supposed to have chemistry, especially once Isabel understands why he acted the way he did, but I just didn’t feel it. The chemistry between them is just not palpable.

 

"Oh, uh, I failed chemistry...."

The lack of chemistry could be attributed to the boring Isabel and Simon. I hate to compare Party Girl to Playing James, but I just can’t help myself. While James Sabine was cynical and uptight, he was the perfect antithesis to Holly Colshannon’s chaotic whirlwind of a life. His wry and dry comments made everything that much funnier (think House, Chandler or Frasier in terms of witty quips). Simon is just boring and Isabel isn’t much more memorable. I take it as a bad omen that I had to look up her name because I couldn’t remember it for the life of me.

It’s left to the crazy relatives to carry the weight and offset Simon and Isabel’s “relationship” by making irrational decisions, creating comedic mishaps and shaking up everything with their eccentric personalities. At one point, there is a tarantula loose in the house, which causes panic and mayhem among the residents. There was a great opportunity for a tension-filled romantic scene between Simon and Isabel, but because they’re boring, nothing happens. Go figure. If it weren’t for the stereotypical, yet still enjoyable, crazy family members and coworkers, this book would have fallen on its face faster than a drunk giraffe on roller skates.

It is important to remember that this is a fluff novel. It doesn’t need the substance other novels need, as long as it makes the reader happy and leaves them feeling warm and squishy inside. Party Girl did not leave me feeling happy, just bored.

This brings me to an interesting question: how do you qualify boring? Boring is subjective. What you might qualify as boring (baseball, fishing, most nonfiction, vanilla ice cream) others might qualify as some of their favorite things. In the end, it comes down to what you think is boring. If you can’t handle the craziness of the Colshannon family or don’t like eccentric characters, you might like this novel more than Sarah Mason’s other novels. However, if you can’t stand a single moment of normalcy, I would recommend Sophie Kinsella or Jill Mansell. You can still pick up this book, but be warned that not even the cringe-worthy scenes can make up for the love story that is lacking. 

Wentworth Hall- Not Worth Your Time

As a recent fan of Downton Abbey, I feel the need to transition from the show and genre back to real life (the new season doesn’t start until September). When I came across a Hellogiggles post  that recommended Wentworth Hall by Abby Grahame for fans of Downton Abbey, I was intrigued and I picked it up.

What a mistake.

My first tip off should have been that the blog post author said she had to finish watching Friday Night Lights. I’ve never actually seen more than 3 episodes of Friday Night Lights, but from what I’ve seen, it’s not really my type of show. High school, drama, high school drama, mediocre acting and mediocre writing are all things I try to avoid, especially in my TV shows.

Edit: I apologize for the Friday Night Lights prejudice; The Writer’s Guild of America listed Friday Night Lights in spot 22 on their list of 101 best written TV shows of all time. It is also interesting to note that they placed it above Frasier, Friends, SNL, Modern Family and US Office, which are all shows I count as well written. But hey, to each their own. I may not like high school football drama, but some people do.

Secondly, the writer of the post admits to never having seen an episode of Downton Abbey, but from what she’s “gleaned by looking at cast pictures and glancing through Kate Spencer’s recaps, Downton Abbey features pretty dresses, Maggie Smith wearing big, beautiful hats, and scandal.” Maybe that’s what some fans get out of the show, but there is so much more to the show than that! It’s about intrigue, relationships, family, compromise, justice, tricks to get ahead, and there’s a fair amount of fashion in it, too. I like Downton Abbey for the intrigue, the writing, the characters, the acting etc.

To be fair, Maggie Smith does wear a lot of hats. And the same expression, apparently.

Maggie and Lila Darlington are the daughters of a Lord and Lady Darlington, owners of the crumbling Wentworth Hall in Sussex. Maggie is 18 and recently back from a long excursion in Europe. Lila, 16, is disappointed to find out that her older sister has changed from the wild, high-spirited, energetic girl that used to play and get into all kinds of mischief to a cold and reserved “mature” woman. Luckily for Wentworth Hall, which desperately needs money, recently orphaned twins Teddy and Jessica Fitzhugh are coming to stay with the family until they turn 18 and inherit their father’s self-made fortune. Teddy is to be matched with Maggie, but she does not reciprocate his feelings. However, everyone at Wentworth Hall is hiding secrets, some of which are exposed and satirized in a column in the local newspaper.

The back cover promises secrets and intrigue, but the book only provides the former. The entire book is just lacking. The characters are two-dimensional and not very well developed, even to the point of being stereotypes. Grahame half-heartedly tries to introduce some character development to several of the characters, but the only part that shows is the half-heartedness. Jessica Fitzhugh is portrayed as haughty and just plain mean, but then Grahame tries to pass it off as someone who was set off by the uptight and aristocratic people she met in London and is proud of her father’s self-earned money. With good writing it is possible to pull that off, but Grahame misses and it falls flat. It’s as if she read through the first draft and decided to throw in justification or a backstory to close up a loophole or add complexity to a character, but it just isn’t believable. Someone did not spend enough time paying attention in Creative Writing 202. If she wants to see how a character develops and how haughtiness can be perceived, she should take a look at Jane Austen’s Fitzwilliam Darcy or Emma Woodhouse. 

I need to re-watch this Darcy scene for literary reasons....

Then look at the parents! Lord and Lady Darlington don’t have any personality at all. They don’t even come close to their counter-parts in the satirical column because you can’t satirize a person without any personality at all. Teddy is reduced to a wrench thrown in Maggie’s love life (and isn’t even granted a personality), Lila is the stereotypical younger sister who seems to have a crush on almost any man that crosses her path but is ignored by most adults, and the oldest brother Wes is simply a plot device.

The characters are not only simple, but they are also contradictory. This is even more of a shame since a character that simple wouldn’t be hard to keep consistent. Even appearance, the most basic aspect of a character, isn’t consistent. Maggie is described as having “soft blond hair” on one page and only a few pages later, Abbey Grahame says that “her dark curls fall free.” Personalities, I understand, are harder to get down and keep consistent because humans are complex creatures, but I’m pretty sure you should be able to remember a hair color. Lila is supposed to be quiet, yet everything she does in the book screams the opposite. Maggie herself is riddled with inconsistencies, and not just in hair color. I easily guessed the writer of the column I within a few paragraphs, not because of my sleuthing skills or the clues hidden in the book, but because it was the most obvious. And even when it is revealed who wrote the column, it is inconsistent with that character’s narration of previous chapters. You can’t write what a character is thinking, then contradict it later when they’re being viewed from another point of view! That’s just bad writing.

This book was described as having a Gossip Girl-esque quality to it in the sense that everyone has secrets, drama arises, and someone at the house is anonymously writing a satirical column about the Darlington family and their drama in the Sussex Gazette. The column is supposed to be satirical, but it is outlandishly so and certainly out of taste of 1912. The scandals promised couldn’t hold a candle to those found on Downton Abbey; they are all simplistic and are “fixed” much too easily for real life. Not only that, but like a good murder mystery, there needs to be clues and consistency. When a maid talks about the baby and its mother to Lord Darlington, she asks if he could see the loving way the mother looked at and handled the baby. That would have been fine had there been any evidence for it earlier! In fact, the mother and the child are hardly shown together and in the rare scenes that they are, there is no loving manner to be found, even if you squint.

Yup, that's exactly what people in my high school and college looked like. 

After all the trudging through the beginning and middle, I had hoped the ending would at least by a welcome respite and be somewhat satisfying. How wrong I was. The ending is probably one of the most poorly wrapped up endings possible. All the family’s so-called scandals are revealed at once and only Maggie and Michael’s storyline is hastily wrapped up in, I kid you not, 19 paragraphs. And I’m being generous. No one else gets an ending! You never quite find out what happens to Wentworth Hall or the Fitzhughs, or even more importantly, Nora, Ian, Wes or Lila.

It also seems like the book was hastily researched, if at all. Did servants in a house really address their employers and people of the house so informally? Were pencils so popular and common that a servant would make a grocery list with a pencil and pad of paper? And how much does the author know about fashion? She describes fashion in ways that do not appear authentic, but definitely romanticized. I suppose that is rather nit-picky, like the Jane Austen super-fans who criticized Pride and Prejudice film adaptation for their fashion, historical inaccuracies (like Mr. Bingley knocking on and opening Jane’s bedroom door while she’s sick)or just plain inconsistencies with the book.

But still. If you’re going to write a book, and you want it to be good, you have to do your research. Fact check, fact check, fact check. Why do you think the New Yorker is so reputable? They have tons of great fact checkers. Then there are some basic editing errors that should have been taken care of. I would like to say that it was due to some decoding or downloading issues when I got the e-book, but sadly, I cannot vouch for that. Due to the book’s quality and other errors, I would not put it past the editor to let some basic grammar and punctuation mistakes slip by as well. I’ve read fanfictions that are written better than this book.

Maybe that’s exactly what Abby Grahame was going for when she wrote this. Maybe she didn’t want a great book. It is her first novel, after all. Maybe she wanted a 1910s historical drama that was a mix between Downton Abbey and Gossip Girl. However, the only thing she got from Downton Abbey was the setting and what she got from Gossip Girl was the over-the-top drama and an anonymous gossip writer. If you want to shut off your brain and read a hybrid of Downton Abbey and Gossip Girl despite my scathing (all right, just unfavorable) review, I would ask why you’re even reading in the first place. Just go watch Gossip Girl. There are so many other books that you can benefit from, and they have better writing and better stories. From the books that I have read, I would say Mr. Churchill’s Secretary by Susan Elia MacNeal was enjoyable and The Red House Mystery by A.A. Milne (creator of Winnie the Pooh, actually) was recommended to me. Looking at some reviews on Amazon.com, I think Kate Morton and Julian Fellowes (writer of Downton Abbey) have some books that are well written and are similar to Downton Abbey. If you really like classic literature, you could always try Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier.

A Solitaire Addiction Was in My Cards

I… I have a confession to make. One of a very serious nature. It’s not easy to talk about, but if the internet isn’t a safe place to talk about serious and personal matters, then what is? A therapist? Please.

I have an addiction. They say admittance is the first step, so I guess you could say I’ve taken the first step. I am admitting I have a problem. I should get help, but I don’t think I’m at that point in my life that I can get it quite yet.

Just looking at it gives me an itch...

I am addicted to solitaire. I know about the problems that arise from card addictions. Solitaire is, after all, the gateway to other game addictions. I can’t help it. If I open a video, I drag it to one side and play solitaire on the other. It started out with plain solitaire, but then it evolved to spider solitaire, despite my intense phobia and severe aversion to spiders. That doesn’t stop it. It doesn’t affect my addiction in any way. If anything, it just proves my addiction to solitaire is stronger than my phobia of spiders.

I imagine my addiction will only progress farther if I don’t try to stop it now. One day it’s solitaire, then it’s spider solitaire, and before you know it, I’m playing a full blown game of Monopoly. And it doesn’t just have to be digital. I have the Monopoly app on my iPod, where I can play against the computer, but what if my iPod dies and I can’t charge it somehow? I will have to resort to playing a full board game of Monopoly against myself! I will be the banker and 2-4 players. I will buy myself out, I will bankrupt myself and I will win and lose. And not only that, but we have several editions of Monopoly! I could play 4 straight games of Monopoly and they will all be different!

The worst part of the situation above is that I don’t even like Monopoly. Seriously. We play it every Thanksgiving as a family and I am one of the first people to go bankrupt because somehow I can’t figure out the balance between liquid capital and assets. I have come to loathe Monopoly. It’s sad to admit that 75% of that reason is simply because I’m not good at it, but I also simply don’t enjoy it.

"Look how much we don't want to kill each other! I'll get you back for taking
St. James Place,  Bobby. You best sleep with one eye open tonight."

Give me Pictionary or Cranium- now there’s a game that I enjoy. Also Clue.

But Clue will probably be on the list of games I will be addicted to. I will start carrying around this giant bag and it’ll be chock full of portable or travel versions of board games and a deck of cards to play solitaire with when my laptop/iPod is dead. Maybe it’ll get so bad that I will actually learn how to play Hearts, Free Cell or, God forbid, Bridge.

Rock bottom will be all those games that are so mind-numbingly boring or so easy that as soon as you’ve set the game up you’ve already regretted your decision. You know which games I’m talking about. I’m talking about Go Fish, Chutes and Ladders, Risk (I am NOT a strategist, nor am I patient when it comes to this game), Candy Land, Battleship, and at the very worst, the card game of War. That’s right. A card game where there is no strategy involved, not even the hand eye coordination of slapping cards to acquire them like in Egyptian Rat Race. You just lay down cards and keep laying down more when you and your “opponent” have laid down the same card. And it’s such a long game- it just keeps going and going and going and going and going….

Good God, there's even a card game app. This is a new low. 

It does feel better to get this off my chest, I must admit. I’m still on the gateway game, but I have no idea when solitaire won’t be enough for me. Some of my friends started and run the Tabletop Gaming club at my university, and I went to some meetings thinking it was a support group. How wrong I was. It was an enabling club was what it was. What it is. There they were, a deck of cards, just begging me to play a physical game of solitaire. How bad could it be? Bad. Very bad. I perpetuated my addiction of solitaire and I was introduced to a slew of new board games to become addicted to.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, like opening up a game of solitaire every time a YouTube video starts, change the things I can and when a card game is acceptable, and the ability to know the difference between enjoyment and obsession…

The Help Have Opinions Too

Apparently I was one of the only people who hadn't read The Help by Kathryn Stockett. I have no idea why I didn’t, but I just never quite had the desire to pick up a book about relationships and people—I prefer my books to contain action, adventure, a fantastical setting if at all possible, humor and all that. I suppose I also view civil rights as a very serious issue and found it hard to believe that someone could make light about the situation.

How wrong I was. Not that the book made light about the situation, but it portrayed the conflicts in the book as a very real problem, but not to the point that it felt like a serious drama. The Help is more of a book about people and relationships, about how different people handle oppression and injustice. It’s almost offensive to simplify it in such a way.

The Help is set in Jackson, Mississippi, 1962, and is told from three points of view: Aibileen and Minny, two maids; and Miss Skeeter, a white girl with a very different opinion about the way black maids are treated. Miss Skeeter gets the idea to write a book about how horrible some of the help’s employers are and the stories the maids can tell. Of course, such a decision never goes off without a hitch; you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Maybe some grated cheese, a little salt and pepper, sauteed peppers and onions, a little ham...

Here are the main players:

The Help:

Aibileen: a caring, sweet, loving caretaker of Me Mobley, daughter of Miss Elizabeth Leefolt. She is good friends with Minny. She is not married and has no children.

Minny: Sassy, foot in her mouth, not afraid to speak her mind (gets her in trouble a lot), great cook. Funny! While Aibileen provided much of the sentimental parts, Minny provides a lot of the comedy, but that doesn’t mean either of them are caricatures. Aibileen has her share of laugh out loud lines and some of Minny’s parts elicited “awwww” reactions. 

The White Females:

Miss Elizabeth Leefolt: Not a maternal woman at all, in financial trouble, dislikes people of color, but doesn’t really stick up for herself. While she isn’t outright hateable, she isn’t likeable right off the bat either. She has character depth, though, and her timidity causes her to be more of a background character than she could be.

Miss Hilly Holbrook: a larger, overweight, horrible woman. She is the kind to just commandeer everything and take charge, even if she doesn’t do it right or if no wants her to. She’s bossy, she’s rude and she looks down on the help more than Miss Leefolt. You really get to hate her. She’s the one who starts the Home Help Sanitation Initiative, a movement started to get the help their own bathroom because God forbid someone with darker skin uses her own toilet and spreads “germs only the help have.” Like I said, you really hate her.

Miss Skeeter (Eugenia Phelan): Tall, skinny, frizzy hair, described as not very attractive. Considered a failure by her mother for not being married yet, daughter of a plantation owner. She is very intelligent and a hard worker. She has a degree in journalism and wants to move away from Mississippi and get a life. She is very friendly toward the Help and views them as actual people. She’s the one who starts the book initiative to give them a voice.

Yes, I am sure this is exactly the image Kathryn Stockett had in mind. I am not one of those
people to get upset over small details that- LOOK! HER HAIR ISN'T FRIZZY, OK??!? 

Celia Rae Foote: Newly married to her husband, no friends but is always trying to get into the women’s group Hilly, Miss Skeeter, and Leefolt are in, even though no one is friendly toward her. It’s because she’s built like Marilyn Monroe, wears tight tacky clothing, high heels and lots of makeup- she just doesn’t fit in with all the other women. She needs help acting like a good housewife, but doesn’t want to tell her husband. She is sweet, but clueless. Nice to Minny and treats her like a human being. She doesn’t leave the house!

The way Stockett writes is so true to the characters' personalities. She writes the help with true voice, with no regard to grammar or full sentences. When Aibileen or Minny is speaking, it actually sounds like a black maid in the 60’s and makes for some of the funniest parts in the book. When any of the women’s club members of talking, you believe they are women bred to be housewives in the south.

When it comes down to it all, the book makes you care. From the moment I turned the first page to the moment I closed the book and set it down, I cared. It just made me feel all the things! I laughed, I cried, it moved me Bob. It made me laugh, gasp, tear up, get all squishy inside, happy, sad, angry, yell, etc.

And it’s not just because the characters are good and likable, but the way they are written just elicits a response so subtly and yet necessarily. Miss Leefolt is usually more on the side of Miss Hilly, and yet, she shows moments of vulnerability and fairness that make you still want good things for her. (most likely the opportunity to unconditionally love her children and become a better mother, but not everyone is fit to be a mother.) When I closed the book, I felt like I had been on a journey with these women and been with them every step of the way. I laughed with them, I cried with them and I feared with them.

I read another book review on this man's blog that had a less than favorable review; I wonder if I was just awed by the characters that I overlooked some writing flaws or dimensions of characters. It could be that the book is more suited toward my age group (16-24) than a middle-aged man's age group. Or maybe it's just a question of personal taste. Everyone else I know who has read it fell in love with it like I did. And that blogger's opinion of "an ending that left me feeling unsatisfied" is not something I had a problem with. Given the amount of stirring the characters did in the novel, it made sense that they didn't get their happily-ever-afters. (Though this is not to say that they got the short end of the stick, either.) And if some people don't like the vague ending of the book, I would tell them that life is not a book. There is no ending for us until we die. Until then, there will constantly be new struggles, new joys, new heartbreaks, new people and new adventures. We will never see the "The End" of our lives. 

Oh wait, there's the end. 

Despite other people's reviews, I cannot stress how good this book is. I highly recommend it. I am waiting for Kathryn Stockett’s next book with eager anticipation. If she’s taking her time because she wants it to be good, however, I hope she takes as much time as she needs.