If you recognize where the quote for my blog comes from today you're certainly 1) aware that it is not a song quote, per my usual habit 2) you've read a fair amount of dying declarations and 3) (I can always hope) might be John Green.
What's much more likely is that you have, like I have just done, read Looking for Alaska, by the aforementioned Mr Green and took some time to look at unusual dying declarations (Its okay, really, I needed another weird obsession, I really did.). Having read it, I assume you were just a broken and touched by it as I was.
Before I really branch out, I'd like to give one of those general, vague, spoiler free type reviews. Like so:
Pudge was a loser in high school. Well, his first two years anyway. Then he convinced his parents to send him to boarding school where he meets The Colonel, his roommate, and Alaska, who is- of course- the most beautiful, enigmatic, tragic and amazing woman he has ever known in his man-boy existence. And she changes everything.
I have to tell you, honestly, this book is a tear jerker. I'm not a crier either. Not normally. But this book, it had me in tears. I also devoured it in less than a day. Its a quick read that begs (and I will give in) to a slow, languorous re-read that allows you to swim- nay- wallow in the tidal wave of emotions this book will set off in the deeply closeted teenager that you hide inside yourself. Unless you're still a teenager and in that case OMG THE FEELS. JOHN GREEN TOTALLY GETS YOU. I'm not being condescending. Its the truth.
The book has a beautiful tone to it. It holds the odd beauty of a boarding school- that mystique most of us never understand but yearn for as teenagers. It reminds me in some ways of Curtis Stittenfeild's Prep, only in a lot less painfully self-involved way. The setting rings true, and I think both works take a lot of the glamour out of boarding school and its inhabitants. I think the characters are very real and I think the emotions are very accurate and true to life.
That said, I feel like John Green is much better capable of handling deep, visceral emotion and a lot of the questions that plague the lives of teenagers (and adults, let's face it) even when we're not really thinking that they're plaguing us. I think its that overreaching sense of omnipotence that Green, as a writer, really flourishes. The texture and depth is there, waiting to be discovered. Truly, whether you love the characters or you hate them or you chalk them up to tropes (seriously, I read a review like that and I couldn't believe it because these people lived in my mind, truly lived there, for the three hours I was reading it.) you can't escape the feeling that they are real.
Now. At the end of my edition John (can I call you John?) asks five questions of the reader and I have no one to discuss them with so I want to tell you (and him, if he's here) the answers.
1. Is forgiveness universal? I mean, is forgiveness really available to all people, no matter the circumstances? Is it, for instance, possible for the dead to forgive the living, and for the living to forgive the dead?
I think it is, in a way. I think that some of your characters would argue that we have to believe that because it is the only thing that gives us solace in this life. I think maybe they might discuss that (like Pudge argues) because matter, energy, and thus ourselves, cannot be unmade, that we are infinitely enfolded in our own and the forgiveness of others because we exist in a state of forgiving.
My answer is of course it is. I believe our souls are eternal, they exist without our bodies. It is our souls that hold the seat of our emotion and our wisdom (if not always our collected knowledge) and that is something that cannot be taken from us when we die. I think the dead forgive the living because the completion and perfection of not being non-corporeal (call it heaven, nirvana, the summerlands, whatever) prevents you from holding grudges. You are the universe, you have perfect wisdom, you've joined The Force. There is no room for anger any longer because you are perfect and infinite. I think as a living human forgiveness is a choice and our ability to forgive is a signal of our progression towards that perfection and one of the great challenges of our existence.
2. I would argue that in both fiction and in real life, teenage smoking is a symbolic action. What do you think it's intended to symbolize and what does it actually end up symbolizing? To phrase the question differently: Why would anyone every pay money in exchange for the opportunity to acquire lung cancer and/or emphysema?
Okay. This is an interesting one seeing as I started smoking at 15 and I quit just six months ago (for those of you unaware, I am in my thirties). I started, I suppose, because I could. Because people I thought to be like me did it. In a way, they were like me, and I don't know why they started so it might be a vicious cycle. For me, then, it had nothing to do with looking cool or taking a shot at the establishment or whatever- which is what it eventually ends up symbolizing. It just made sense and I didn't think much about it. I did quit for a while and then I started again and I think that really answers the second question, which is why I would do it knowing it harms me. The truth is, I like the flavor of tobacco. Not the horrible stuff, but the nice, imported kind you smoke in a hookah and is soft and sweet and has texture and flavors like wine or nice cheese. In the end, I weighed the health benefits and decided wine and nice cheese were less likely to kill me although only time will tell.
As to what it symbolizes in the book (which is what I think you're actually asking) I would say that it is a portrait of both the feeling of invincibility that teenagers feel and a shadowy foreboding of the pain and shadow that come with growing up and loss. Maybe that's why any teenager does it, in the end; its our one chance to take something grown up that we aren't ready for and control it.
But I will say this- I think the idea that we must avoid death at all costs is silly. Everyone dies. I don't think life is measured by length as much as it is by quality. Granted, a longer life means more opportunity for quality, but only if you make the best of it. I started smoking shisha while I was in Kuwait in 2005 on a truly once in a lifetime trip. The truth is me being gone from the US then (I was there for almost three weeks, I think) and the fallout from me being gone had long-lasting consequences in my life. When I arrived home I did not know it but my life was about to change dramatically and for almost four years, not for the better. But I'll tell you something- even if I had only smoked while on that trip and I would never smoke again and it killed me in the end, I would not change it. I wouldn't. Because eight years ago I was sitting on the Arabian Gulf with a handful of students I had just met, with a group of people I will never see again, at one of the largest TGI Friday's in the world (Who knew, right?) smoking shisha out of a pipe and listening to them laugh in Arabic though I didn't speak a stitch of it and I was having one of the most beautiful experiences I had ever known. And yes, I could have had that without the tobacco, but I would miss the soft and hazy, perfectly relaxed feeling of that memory- and it would lack the aftertaste of rich Egyptian tobacco if I hadn't. And that taste, that moment, and the scent of the gulf air and the taste of my terrible soda was the experience in my life that made me brave enough to survive what came after and aware enough of my own personal beauty to see I was something worth fighting for. When I die it will be one of a handful of moments in my life that I would not trade anything for. If death came for me tonight, it would be one of the things I loved about my life and I couldn't regret it- even if it was the cause.
That said- don't smoke, kids. Give yourself more chances for infinite perfection and happiness.
3. Do you like Alaska? Do you think its important to like people you read about?
Yes. I like Alaska. She's a great depiction of a teenage girl. I really believe that. Because I knew her, and I was her and I see her all the time. She's the depiction of beauty and enigma that lives in all females of a certain age. She is the kiss in the corner of Wendy's mouth.
That said; no, I don't think you have to like the people you read about. I think this is adult perspective creeping in, but I think a lot of important characters are like that. I think Holden Caufeild is a punk, but I get why he was and I know why that's important. Scout Finch was a smart-aleck brat. I liked her, but that's the truth. Lady McBeth was a whiner and a wimp but you can't have Out Spot Out without her crazy ass. I mean, look at the people we idolize now- Frank Sinatra beat his wife. Queen Elizabeth the first had a mercurial temper. Hell, look at all the celebrities who are dead that we idolize- Curt Kobain, Amy Winehouse, Corey Monteith, Marilyn Monroe- most of them were bad people. Unlikable people, but that's part of their charm. In Ken Keysey's One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Randall McMurphy talks about the "average asshole on the street." all of us are that person- the average asshole- but that makes us no less deserving of love or interest, or no less lovable or interesting for that matter. I propose that's what makes us worth reading about. Alaska was an extraordinary "ordinary asshole" and I think that's why I (and everyone in the book) loved her.
Alright, kiddies, this is me tapping out because I have three other spaces to hit on the internet before I have to go to bed because I get up before the sun and its already way past my bedtime. John Green, you're costing me sleep, but you're worth it- you brilliant writer you. I have two more questions to answer tomorrow and those will be the ones with the spoilers.
For those of you who have read the book, what do you think? For those of you who haven't- go get it. Seriously.
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Na Na Na Na Na Na YEAH!
Anyone who knows me well knows that I am a huge fan of Jane Austen. I've got copies, sometimes multiple ones, of all her works. I own all the DVD adaptations. I even have some of the fan work and mashups like Seth Graham Smith's "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies." If there's something out there that smacks of Austen, I've probably got it in my house somewhere.
Naturally, I'm a huge fan of Pride and Prejudice. Its my favorite work of hers, and I think its a brilliantly written novel. For me, there isn't much in this world that's as fun as cracking open my incredibly dog-eared copy of P&P and rereading the exploits of Elizabeth Bennet. I love her humor and wit. I love her mistakes and her ability to learn with humility. She's a great character.
About two or three months ago Sakura came over, and knowing I am a huge fan, he asked me if I had seen the new YouTube series based on P&P. I hadn't. Naturally, I was a little leery of an online adaptation of my favorite book. I thought there was no way that anyone could make the book as engaging on screen as it is in print. I love the movie adaptations, but none of them, up until now, really spoke to me.
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries has changed all of that.
This is Lizzie Bennet, and I'm a little bit in love.
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries is one of the most wonderful adaptations of any book I've ever seen. And I've seen plenty of them. Its part of why I am so critical of movie/screen adaptations of great books. They normally ruin the original. I loved Jurassic Park before I read the book. Gone with the Wind is a great movie, but it will never compare to the original writing. Even the recent adaptations of books like Memoirs of a Geisha (Arthur Golden) and The Hunger Games (Susanne Collins), while wonderful, and really close to the original story, leave a sense of wanting when it comes to viewing versus reading. Not so with the fabulous LBD.
The whole premise of this adaptation is that Lizzie is a graduate student in Mass Communications and is doing a vlog about her life as part of her final project. I love this premise, because it gives the viewer, immediately, a solid reason as to why Lizzie would be recording the craziness of her life and family for all of mankind to view. After you deal with that idea (and its used well throughout the storyline- not just as a set-up for the series) you can dive right in to the awesomeness that is LBD.
The characters are amazing. I love how the creators of the show Bernie Su and Hank Green have managed to keep the show, despite the pantings of the fandom (and there's a surprisingly huge fandom) focused on Lizzie and in a more peripheral way, her family. This isn't about Lizzie and Darcy or about Jane and Bing Lee (great name, right?). The creators got it right- this video series is all about the girl making it. And as an added benefit, you get to see a wonderful cast pf characters, the ones you loved so much in the book, come to life in ways you never imagined.
I won't spoil what happens in the series for you, because I know you're going to trust my judgement of all things Austen and go check it out. You should, really. Even if you go on a marathon watch, you've only lost six hours, and really, that's like watching Lord of the Rings in its entirety. You can do it. But I will say this- it is seriously addictive. When I first picked up the channel on You Tube (you can click here to go there when you're done reading here) I watched the first few episodes, decided it was too much fun for the girls to miss out, so I stopped, waited for them to get home from work, and then spent the evening in front of the computer with them watching the series up until we ran out of videos. We skipped dinner, ordered pizza and ate in front of the television. That's huge in our house. The only other time we've done that was when we streamed election results this last November. From then on, the girls and I watch the newest updates as soon as we can. When the girls started missing some because life gets you busy sometimes, I started watching on my own. And then I discovered what geniuses the creators of the show really are.
There are tumblr accounts. There are twitter accounts. (Go to this page to get them all) Lydia has her own channel on YouTube. Charlotte's little sister has her own channel, too. Heck- Lydia's cat Kitty Bennet (see what they did there?) has its own Twitter account. Weeks before you even see some characters they start popping up on tumblr and twitter, they follow Lizzie's videos. Its amazing and intricate and smart. Pemberley has its own channel, twitter feed. It blows my mind the amount of time that they creators of the show spend working these little trans-media tidbits into the show. Last week there was a fandom explosion. I won't tell you what its about, I'll let you catch up on the series, but there were rumblings of what was going on in the comments on Lydia's channel days before the video that dropped the bomb was released. But if you don't read YouTube comments, you wouldn't know. I didn't. Until I heard. Until I went to find them myself. And I was mind-blown again. So mind-blown, in fact, that I immediately called Sakura to see if he had seen/heard it yet.
This is a series made to be enjoyed by an internet savvy generation. Can you just watch the LBD videos and enjoy the series? Oh, absolutely. They write it with those people in mind. But when you get down to brass tacks, there is so much more there for a person who lives on their computer. Like me. Like most of my friends. I've never experienced something like this- a form of entertainment that is so interactive and exciting. As an experience, its incredible. I get up every day and like the fan geek that I am, I check the channels, I check YouTube, twitter and tumblr. I check it throughout the day to see what's happening. I subscribed on Facebook. I'm obsessed- something no other adaptation has been able to do to me. Do I love the Hunger Games? Sure, but I don't check the fan sites. I lost the obsession with Potter like that days after it started. But for me, LBD is going about this the right way. I can't get enough.
What's even more amazing to me, is that the show's creators, the actors, the producers are all so open about what they do and why they do it. There's hangouts on YouTube and live chats via twitter and Facebook. The people who created the show listen to the playlists that fans make, they look at the fan art. They listen to the joys and sorrows of the fans. They think of things I would never have thought of...when Darcy asks Lizzie to the theater they actually know what's playing in SF at the moment of the airing, what's on in neighboring cities and they even have head cannon answers that make sense within the storyline, even if they aren't playing. The crazy thing is, you'll never know...it never comes up in the story. But they have that answer for you, just because you might ask. I love that.
Even if you don't care how revolutionary and wonderful the adaptation is, the story itself is enough to keep you happy. The execution is amazing. In a vlog, we know we won't see everyone...so how do you deal with that in an adaptation?
Meet Mrs and Mr. Bennet, as portrayed by Lizzie and her bff Charlotte. Its genius, right? The use of costume theater is an amazing idea, and one they use to great effect. Especially with Bing Lee, Darcy and Caroline, who you don't see on camera until much later in the series.
The dialog is fun. The lines are witty. And there is still an amazing amount of original Austen left in there, just in case you're a Janeite. The way the characters are developed and adapted for modern times is great. They're completely believable. The actors inhabit those characters completely. I've even seen on a behind the scenes video somewhere that the actors, for the most part, use their own clothes for the shoots. They are the character they play.
I can't recommend this series enough. I truly can't. But if you don't want to take my word for it, check out these articles about the series:
The Guardian calling it the best adaptation ever. Seriously.
Buzzfeed calling the series YouTube's hidden Masterpiece Theater
Mrs. Magazine discusses how great it is that the series is Lizzie centered here
Those are just a sampling from new sources (The Wall Street Journal even covered the show in January!)
Beyond my trying to convince all of you there's nothing better to watch than this series, I have to express the joy and admiration I feel every time I interact with this series. Yeah, yeah...maybe its just lonely housewife talk. Maybe I'm a huge geek. But in a world where I am increasingly irritated every time I open Facebook or Twitter or whatever social media platform I'm on it is simply wonderful to have something to look forward to. I like knowing that even though the war (its not a debate anymore) about gun control still rages online, even though I still get spammed with Jesus posts on Facebook, despite the fact that I can't get through a day without seeing some stupid, cryptic, passive aggressive post somewhere I can count on Lizzie and her world to make me smile. Even when the series gets dramatic (believe me, it does) there's something sadly real about it, something human, and it makes me relate a lot more than I do when I'm looking at my friends posting about how they need (another) new iPhone but are too broke to get it yet. Is that sad? Yeah, probably. But the truth is that the LBD has managed to create a show that taps in to the essence of what makes us human, fallible and ultimately lovable.
Have you ran into the LBD yet? What did you think? If you haven't, go check it out. Let me know how you feel. Even if you aren't an Austen fan, you'll thank me.
AGxx
Note- the title for this post is the last line of the outtro to Lydia's videos.
Second note- obviously I don't own any of the articles, photos or people I've mentioned. I do not work for the news sources I cited. My opinions are the only thing I possess.
Naturally, I'm a huge fan of Pride and Prejudice. Its my favorite work of hers, and I think its a brilliantly written novel. For me, there isn't much in this world that's as fun as cracking open my incredibly dog-eared copy of P&P and rereading the exploits of Elizabeth Bennet. I love her humor and wit. I love her mistakes and her ability to learn with humility. She's a great character.
About two or three months ago Sakura came over, and knowing I am a huge fan, he asked me if I had seen the new YouTube series based on P&P. I hadn't. Naturally, I was a little leery of an online adaptation of my favorite book. I thought there was no way that anyone could make the book as engaging on screen as it is in print. I love the movie adaptations, but none of them, up until now, really spoke to me.
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries has changed all of that.
This is Lizzie Bennet, and I'm a little bit in love.
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries is one of the most wonderful adaptations of any book I've ever seen. And I've seen plenty of them. Its part of why I am so critical of movie/screen adaptations of great books. They normally ruin the original. I loved Jurassic Park before I read the book. Gone with the Wind is a great movie, but it will never compare to the original writing. Even the recent adaptations of books like Memoirs of a Geisha (Arthur Golden) and The Hunger Games (Susanne Collins), while wonderful, and really close to the original story, leave a sense of wanting when it comes to viewing versus reading. Not so with the fabulous LBD.
The whole premise of this adaptation is that Lizzie is a graduate student in Mass Communications and is doing a vlog about her life as part of her final project. I love this premise, because it gives the viewer, immediately, a solid reason as to why Lizzie would be recording the craziness of her life and family for all of mankind to view. After you deal with that idea (and its used well throughout the storyline- not just as a set-up for the series) you can dive right in to the awesomeness that is LBD.
The characters are amazing. I love how the creators of the show Bernie Su and Hank Green have managed to keep the show, despite the pantings of the fandom (and there's a surprisingly huge fandom) focused on Lizzie and in a more peripheral way, her family. This isn't about Lizzie and Darcy or about Jane and Bing Lee (great name, right?). The creators got it right- this video series is all about the girl making it. And as an added benefit, you get to see a wonderful cast pf characters, the ones you loved so much in the book, come to life in ways you never imagined.
I won't spoil what happens in the series for you, because I know you're going to trust my judgement of all things Austen and go check it out. You should, really. Even if you go on a marathon watch, you've only lost six hours, and really, that's like watching Lord of the Rings in its entirety. You can do it. But I will say this- it is seriously addictive. When I first picked up the channel on You Tube (you can click here to go there when you're done reading here) I watched the first few episodes, decided it was too much fun for the girls to miss out, so I stopped, waited for them to get home from work, and then spent the evening in front of the computer with them watching the series up until we ran out of videos. We skipped dinner, ordered pizza and ate in front of the television. That's huge in our house. The only other time we've done that was when we streamed election results this last November. From then on, the girls and I watch the newest updates as soon as we can. When the girls started missing some because life gets you busy sometimes, I started watching on my own. And then I discovered what geniuses the creators of the show really are.
There are tumblr accounts. There are twitter accounts. (Go to this page to get them all) Lydia has her own channel on YouTube. Charlotte's little sister has her own channel, too. Heck- Lydia's cat Kitty Bennet (see what they did there?) has its own Twitter account. Weeks before you even see some characters they start popping up on tumblr and twitter, they follow Lizzie's videos. Its amazing and intricate and smart. Pemberley has its own channel, twitter feed. It blows my mind the amount of time that they creators of the show spend working these little trans-media tidbits into the show. Last week there was a fandom explosion. I won't tell you what its about, I'll let you catch up on the series, but there were rumblings of what was going on in the comments on Lydia's channel days before the video that dropped the bomb was released. But if you don't read YouTube comments, you wouldn't know. I didn't. Until I heard. Until I went to find them myself. And I was mind-blown again. So mind-blown, in fact, that I immediately called Sakura to see if he had seen/heard it yet.
This is a series made to be enjoyed by an internet savvy generation. Can you just watch the LBD videos and enjoy the series? Oh, absolutely. They write it with those people in mind. But when you get down to brass tacks, there is so much more there for a person who lives on their computer. Like me. Like most of my friends. I've never experienced something like this- a form of entertainment that is so interactive and exciting. As an experience, its incredible. I get up every day and like the fan geek that I am, I check the channels, I check YouTube, twitter and tumblr. I check it throughout the day to see what's happening. I subscribed on Facebook. I'm obsessed- something no other adaptation has been able to do to me. Do I love the Hunger Games? Sure, but I don't check the fan sites. I lost the obsession with Potter like that days after it started. But for me, LBD is going about this the right way. I can't get enough.
What's even more amazing to me, is that the show's creators, the actors, the producers are all so open about what they do and why they do it. There's hangouts on YouTube and live chats via twitter and Facebook. The people who created the show listen to the playlists that fans make, they look at the fan art. They listen to the joys and sorrows of the fans. They think of things I would never have thought of...when Darcy asks Lizzie to the theater they actually know what's playing in SF at the moment of the airing, what's on in neighboring cities and they even have head cannon answers that make sense within the storyline, even if they aren't playing. The crazy thing is, you'll never know...it never comes up in the story. But they have that answer for you, just because you might ask. I love that.
Even if you don't care how revolutionary and wonderful the adaptation is, the story itself is enough to keep you happy. The execution is amazing. In a vlog, we know we won't see everyone...so how do you deal with that in an adaptation?
Meet Mrs and Mr. Bennet, as portrayed by Lizzie and her bff Charlotte. Its genius, right? The use of costume theater is an amazing idea, and one they use to great effect. Especially with Bing Lee, Darcy and Caroline, who you don't see on camera until much later in the series.
The dialog is fun. The lines are witty. And there is still an amazing amount of original Austen left in there, just in case you're a Janeite. The way the characters are developed and adapted for modern times is great. They're completely believable. The actors inhabit those characters completely. I've even seen on a behind the scenes video somewhere that the actors, for the most part, use their own clothes for the shoots. They are the character they play.
I can't recommend this series enough. I truly can't. But if you don't want to take my word for it, check out these articles about the series:
The Guardian calling it the best adaptation ever. Seriously.
Buzzfeed calling the series YouTube's hidden Masterpiece Theater
Mrs. Magazine discusses how great it is that the series is Lizzie centered here
Those are just a sampling from new sources (The Wall Street Journal even covered the show in January!)
Beyond my trying to convince all of you there's nothing better to watch than this series, I have to express the joy and admiration I feel every time I interact with this series. Yeah, yeah...maybe its just lonely housewife talk. Maybe I'm a huge geek. But in a world where I am increasingly irritated every time I open Facebook or Twitter or whatever social media platform I'm on it is simply wonderful to have something to look forward to. I like knowing that even though the war (its not a debate anymore) about gun control still rages online, even though I still get spammed with Jesus posts on Facebook, despite the fact that I can't get through a day without seeing some stupid, cryptic, passive aggressive post somewhere I can count on Lizzie and her world to make me smile. Even when the series gets dramatic (believe me, it does) there's something sadly real about it, something human, and it makes me relate a lot more than I do when I'm looking at my friends posting about how they need (another) new iPhone but are too broke to get it yet. Is that sad? Yeah, probably. But the truth is that the LBD has managed to create a show that taps in to the essence of what makes us human, fallible and ultimately lovable.
Have you ran into the LBD yet? What did you think? If you haven't, go check it out. Let me know how you feel. Even if you aren't an Austen fan, you'll thank me.
AGxx
Note- the title for this post is the last line of the outtro to Lydia's videos.
Second note- obviously I don't own any of the articles, photos or people I've mentioned. I do not work for the news sources I cited. My opinions are the only thing I possess.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
It Must Be True, I Read It In The Daily Mail
As a writer and avid reader I am always interested in how people (and media) view the literary world. Most of the people who know me as a writer and reader know that I read a lot of reviews, that I am pretty in touch with the literary community at large. There isn't a whole lot that surprises me anymore. However, this article by The UK Daily Mail really threw me for a loop.
Now, because I am all about source material, I suggest you take a moment to read it. Go on. I'll wait. Back? Sweet. For those of you who know that I'm going to surmise the article and didn't read it- bravo. It says, in essence, that there is a disturbing trend in Young Adult (YA) literature of books that involve harsh and realistic situations in teen life-- suicide, self-harm, terminal illness, etc. It further says that these books have a harmful effect on their readers, that children will read them and be emotionally damaged by them. Not only that, but they are more likely to engage in self-harm, suicide attempts and inappropriate sexual behaviors. It cites several young adult books, though the two most often referenced are The Fault in Our Stars by John Green and Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher. It is a cautionary style article that almost reads as an open letter to parents and educators warning of the dangers of what they call "sick lit." Let your kids read this, it says, and they'll turn in to sexual deviants, drug users, cutters- they'll even try to kill themselves. Stuff like this, they say, is just too depressing. Especially since these books are being marketed to12 year olds.
I completely disagree with this article. Completely and whole-heartedly. In part, I think this sort of opinion treats young adults as though they are stupid, mindless lemmings. The idea that just because a teen reads about a character committing suicide means they'll want to is silly. Give the kids some credit. While you're handing out that credit, give them some for being able to handle emotionally difficult situations. By the time you are twelve you've likely had some sort of real-life experience dealing with grief, suffering, unhappiness, sex, poverty or low self-esteem. They know what sex is. They know what cancer is. If they've even caught a glimpse of the television they know there are bad things in the world. They aren't morons. Young people are usually far more observant that adults give them credit for. Moreover, I think there's been some sort of disconnect, because I don't know that they're technically paying attention to the difference between Middle Grade literature, YA12+ literature and YA14+ literature, all of which have very different content.
Laying those things aside, though, I'd like to know why it is the Daily Mail feels that other YA books might be preferable to the ones they object to because they are too "real life" for the kids to handle? I think there's a strong argument to be made, using their logic, that you shouldn't let children read at all. Let's work with this theory that kids are gullible and they can be emotionally damaged by what they read. Let's also agree they might choose to act out in a particular manner because they identify with a character. Running with these assumptions, lets look at other popular YA books and see how they might affect the children.
Let's just jump in with the most obvious. Harry Potter (JK Rowling). Great, intelligent, healthy books- right? Heavens no. Harry Potter teaches children to subvert authority. Harry, Hermione and Ron are constantly breaking rules and disrespecting authority figures and they are constantly rewarded for it. It teaches them that its okay to do bad things if your parents do it too. Draco Malfoy makes out like a bandit at the end of the series, no nevermind that he's responsible for the deaths of several people, the mauling of Bill Weasley and any other number of bad things that happen throughout the books. It teaches our kids that smart people like Hermione, Luna and Ginny are really only worth having around if you can get something out of them or if they're good looking. What's that you say? Harry Potter teaches kids witchcraft? Oh, well, let's just abandon them for something more suitable.
How about Twilight? (Stephanie Meyer) That's a popular YA book. Here's a nice healthy love story about a girl who falls for a good looking guy. She likes him even though he treats her like crap. She likes him even though he's emotionally manipulative and controlling. We'll just ignore the fact that he wants to kill her at first. Or that he's almost 100 years older than her. Or that he's dead. Barring those things, Twilight also teaches us that it is okay to lie to our parents. They're probably overbearing- what with the caring about us and wanting us to be safe and all. It teaches us that it is okay to take unnecessary and stupid risks for the people we love, especially when they've done something stupid that puts their life in danger. Moreover, it teaches us that if the boy/girl we like doesn't like us back, or dumps us, its okay to act like life is over. I mean, there's nothing to life as a teenager outside of having a boy/girlfriend. Right? And those people who actually love you, who want to take care of you, who want to make you feel like you're the most special person ever? Screw them. They don't understand who you really are. Oh, you don't like Twilight either? Too much vampire and werewolf action? Let's move on then.
How about The Hunger Games Trilogy (Suzanne Collins)? Now there is a cultural phenomenon. I hear a lot of schools are assigning it to their students to read. Well, they shouldn't. First off, this is a post-democracy North America. We should never suggest to teenagers that there might come a time when democracy is not the accepted world-wide governing standard. Also, this book is set after ice-caps melt and nuclear weapons have been used. That's too upsetting to the kids. We don't want them to think about the social or political or environmental consequences of their actions. That's too upsetting for them. Worse, this is a book where kids kill other kids. Yes, I am aware that the main characters will die if they don't kill the other kids. It doesn't matter. Killing is wrong and they should take the high road. Reading this will cause children to think it is acceptable to kill people. Worse, it will breed in them the desire to use weapons. It will. What's worse, one of the heroes (Haymich) is an alcoholic. It glorifies drinking. And it paints an undesirable picture of people who want to live in comfort, and who care about fads and fashion. These books clearly are trying to impart socialist lessons that are anti-consumer culture. We can't have that. This book also blatantly glorifies sexuality. Katniss and two different boys kiss. Sometimes more than once. And Katniss and Peeta sleep together in the same bed, even. The end of the series is also wildly inappropriate. All of that death and war is upsetting, and Katniss being medicated with the future equivalent of Morphine tells children its okay to use drugs, even prescription ones, to deal with depression. They will eventually draw the conclusion that using drugs for other purposes is okay. Didn't you see how they painted the morphlings from District 6 in a completely sympathetic light?
Perhaps the problem with these books is that they're too recent. We should address the classics we read when we were growing up. There was nothing upsetting in those books. I mean, nothing that would scar a child like these current ones do...
Except that the March girls in Little Women (Alcott) are poor. And Beth dies. And several times in the book its rather implied that they're on the brink of starvation. In Hiedi (Spyri) one of the main characters is a cripple. Ditto The Secret Garden (Hodgeson-Burnett). On top of that, it teaches children its okay to be brats if you're ill or you've had bad things happen to you. Good lord, A Little Princess (also by Burnett) teaches children that if you're smart and good and well behaved and rich you'll be well loved, but that if you are smart and good and well behaved and poor you'll be mistreated and you'll live an unhappy life because of it. Woodsong (Paulsen) is far too graphic with animal violence and only teaches children escapism- what kind of person actually lives in the woods and raises dogs for sled racing? No normal person. You definitely can't let them read fairy tales. Not the real ones! They're graphic, violent and full of inappropriate language and witchcraft and such. I'd tell you to let them see the clean, Disney versions of them, but since Disney loves gay people, we can't have that either.
Yes, indeed, children's literature is clearly unhealthy. What we really need is to get back to good old-fashioned morals. Children should read the Bible. After all, the Bible has no graphic violence, sexism, racism, or blatant sexuality. Nope, none at all. Wait- what? It does? Well, hell.
I think its clear, then, what has to be done. We can't let children read anymore. Nope. Can't do it. If we do there's no getting around it, our children will be damaged. Or so goes the logic of the UK Daily Mail.
Honestly, I read a lot as a child. Not just the books I mentioned (well, the classics, the others hadn't been published yet.) but many others. I wasn't scarred by The Goosebumps books(Stein). Sweet Valley High (Pascal) had no effect on my burgeoning sexuality or my self esteem. I was not irreparably damaged when I read Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (Schwartz). The Boxcar Children (Warner) didn't make me want to run away. The first time I stumbled across a romance novel at 13 I didn't immediately run out and have sex. I wasn't scarred by the trials and tribulations of Laura Ingalls Wilder in her Little House series. Carolyn Keene's Nancy Drew made me no more nosy than I already was. James and The Giant Peach (Dahl) didn't cause me to cuss, or want to run away, it didn't make me afraid of bugs. Honestly the only effect that book had on me at the time was a propensity to try a rhyme all of my words and sing like the bugs. By the time I was in 4th grade I was checking out books from the Jr. High side of my school's library. I remained unscathed. As I got older I branched into more adult, more graphic books. I've survived all of those as well.
Here's the thing, children are generally aware of the world around them. Give them a chance and they'll surprise you. Its amazing what they learn, what they absorb and their capacity for compassion, love and internalizing the life lessons that books like the ones I mentioned teach. Literature is a tool in which writers reach out to the world. Sometimes it is to make a connection, to teach a lesson or to share an experience. But all of those reasons contribute to our world view as we read. All of them give us the ability to live through others, to experience that which might never happen to us, or give us the opportunity to see that we are never quite as alone in our trials and sufferings as we think we are.
As a child, books were one of my greatest companions. I came from a broken home. I had an alcoholic, abusive father. My mother, bless her, worked all the time to support us and was often from home. By the time I was the age of a YA14+ reader I knew all about terminal illnesses, death, sexual abuse and poverty. I'd seen through other school mates first hand what drugs, violence and alienation could do to a person. I knew what it was like to be poor, a little strange, and unpopular. Through all of this, though, I read. And I read. And I read. I was in seventh grade the first time I read To Kill a Mockingbird (Lee). As a 13 year old girl it didn't horrify me, or hurt me or scare me. It spoke to me, in a way I could hardly express. A year after I read Oliver Twist (Dickens) and the violence, poverty and sadness in that book hurt me no more than any other book I read.
What I discovered as I read was that I was not alone in the great human experience. I was not the only one who had felt the things I was feeling. I found comfort. I found acceptance. I found peace reading those books. That, to me, makes every word I read during that time worthwhile.
It is my sincere hope that people will not take this article to heart. What I do hope happens is that parents, teachers and other adults become more aware of the widespread and positive experience that literature can provide. That they realize that their young adults can relate to these works and that they should be not only encouraging them to read, but encouraging them to discuss what they're reading and how it makes them feel. Maybe, just maybe, if we take the time to do that we will emerge with a well-read, emotionally healthy, well-adjusted generation who can reflect well on their place in the world, and how they are connected to it at large.
We can hope, right?
I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts.
Keep Reading.
AGxx
A note and disclaimer: I obviously do not own any of the books I mentioned. I did not write them. That is why I put the authors' names in for you. Additionally, I would encourage you to read any or all of these books if you can. Most of them are great works of literature, and I am proud to have read them. Also, in case you had not caught the tenor of my arguments, I actually quite like most of the books I mentioned.
Also, the title comes from a lyric from The Daily Mail song, which was John Greene's only response to the article. Having followed the link, I can only suggest you do so as well. Its worth a good laugh, anyway.
Now, because I am all about source material, I suggest you take a moment to read it. Go on. I'll wait. Back? Sweet. For those of you who know that I'm going to surmise the article and didn't read it- bravo. It says, in essence, that there is a disturbing trend in Young Adult (YA) literature of books that involve harsh and realistic situations in teen life-- suicide, self-harm, terminal illness, etc. It further says that these books have a harmful effect on their readers, that children will read them and be emotionally damaged by them. Not only that, but they are more likely to engage in self-harm, suicide attempts and inappropriate sexual behaviors. It cites several young adult books, though the two most often referenced are The Fault in Our Stars by John Green and Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher. It is a cautionary style article that almost reads as an open letter to parents and educators warning of the dangers of what they call "sick lit." Let your kids read this, it says, and they'll turn in to sexual deviants, drug users, cutters- they'll even try to kill themselves. Stuff like this, they say, is just too depressing. Especially since these books are being marketed to12 year olds.
I completely disagree with this article. Completely and whole-heartedly. In part, I think this sort of opinion treats young adults as though they are stupid, mindless lemmings. The idea that just because a teen reads about a character committing suicide means they'll want to is silly. Give the kids some credit. While you're handing out that credit, give them some for being able to handle emotionally difficult situations. By the time you are twelve you've likely had some sort of real-life experience dealing with grief, suffering, unhappiness, sex, poverty or low self-esteem. They know what sex is. They know what cancer is. If they've even caught a glimpse of the television they know there are bad things in the world. They aren't morons. Young people are usually far more observant that adults give them credit for. Moreover, I think there's been some sort of disconnect, because I don't know that they're technically paying attention to the difference between Middle Grade literature, YA12+ literature and YA14+ literature, all of which have very different content.
Laying those things aside, though, I'd like to know why it is the Daily Mail feels that other YA books might be preferable to the ones they object to because they are too "real life" for the kids to handle? I think there's a strong argument to be made, using their logic, that you shouldn't let children read at all. Let's work with this theory that kids are gullible and they can be emotionally damaged by what they read. Let's also agree they might choose to act out in a particular manner because they identify with a character. Running with these assumptions, lets look at other popular YA books and see how they might affect the children.
Let's just jump in with the most obvious. Harry Potter (JK Rowling). Great, intelligent, healthy books- right? Heavens no. Harry Potter teaches children to subvert authority. Harry, Hermione and Ron are constantly breaking rules and disrespecting authority figures and they are constantly rewarded for it. It teaches them that its okay to do bad things if your parents do it too. Draco Malfoy makes out like a bandit at the end of the series, no nevermind that he's responsible for the deaths of several people, the mauling of Bill Weasley and any other number of bad things that happen throughout the books. It teaches our kids that smart people like Hermione, Luna and Ginny are really only worth having around if you can get something out of them or if they're good looking. What's that you say? Harry Potter teaches kids witchcraft? Oh, well, let's just abandon them for something more suitable.
How about Twilight? (Stephanie Meyer) That's a popular YA book. Here's a nice healthy love story about a girl who falls for a good looking guy. She likes him even though he treats her like crap. She likes him even though he's emotionally manipulative and controlling. We'll just ignore the fact that he wants to kill her at first. Or that he's almost 100 years older than her. Or that he's dead. Barring those things, Twilight also teaches us that it is okay to lie to our parents. They're probably overbearing- what with the caring about us and wanting us to be safe and all. It teaches us that it is okay to take unnecessary and stupid risks for the people we love, especially when they've done something stupid that puts their life in danger. Moreover, it teaches us that if the boy/girl we like doesn't like us back, or dumps us, its okay to act like life is over. I mean, there's nothing to life as a teenager outside of having a boy/girlfriend. Right? And those people who actually love you, who want to take care of you, who want to make you feel like you're the most special person ever? Screw them. They don't understand who you really are. Oh, you don't like Twilight either? Too much vampire and werewolf action? Let's move on then.
How about The Hunger Games Trilogy (Suzanne Collins)? Now there is a cultural phenomenon. I hear a lot of schools are assigning it to their students to read. Well, they shouldn't. First off, this is a post-democracy North America. We should never suggest to teenagers that there might come a time when democracy is not the accepted world-wide governing standard. Also, this book is set after ice-caps melt and nuclear weapons have been used. That's too upsetting to the kids. We don't want them to think about the social or political or environmental consequences of their actions. That's too upsetting for them. Worse, this is a book where kids kill other kids. Yes, I am aware that the main characters will die if they don't kill the other kids. It doesn't matter. Killing is wrong and they should take the high road. Reading this will cause children to think it is acceptable to kill people. Worse, it will breed in them the desire to use weapons. It will. What's worse, one of the heroes (Haymich) is an alcoholic. It glorifies drinking. And it paints an undesirable picture of people who want to live in comfort, and who care about fads and fashion. These books clearly are trying to impart socialist lessons that are anti-consumer culture. We can't have that. This book also blatantly glorifies sexuality. Katniss and two different boys kiss. Sometimes more than once. And Katniss and Peeta sleep together in the same bed, even. The end of the series is also wildly inappropriate. All of that death and war is upsetting, and Katniss being medicated with the future equivalent of Morphine tells children its okay to use drugs, even prescription ones, to deal with depression. They will eventually draw the conclusion that using drugs for other purposes is okay. Didn't you see how they painted the morphlings from District 6 in a completely sympathetic light?
Perhaps the problem with these books is that they're too recent. We should address the classics we read when we were growing up. There was nothing upsetting in those books. I mean, nothing that would scar a child like these current ones do...
Except that the March girls in Little Women (Alcott) are poor. And Beth dies. And several times in the book its rather implied that they're on the brink of starvation. In Hiedi (Spyri) one of the main characters is a cripple. Ditto The Secret Garden (Hodgeson-Burnett). On top of that, it teaches children its okay to be brats if you're ill or you've had bad things happen to you. Good lord, A Little Princess (also by Burnett) teaches children that if you're smart and good and well behaved and rich you'll be well loved, but that if you are smart and good and well behaved and poor you'll be mistreated and you'll live an unhappy life because of it. Woodsong (Paulsen) is far too graphic with animal violence and only teaches children escapism- what kind of person actually lives in the woods and raises dogs for sled racing? No normal person. You definitely can't let them read fairy tales. Not the real ones! They're graphic, violent and full of inappropriate language and witchcraft and such. I'd tell you to let them see the clean, Disney versions of them, but since Disney loves gay people, we can't have that either.
Yes, indeed, children's literature is clearly unhealthy. What we really need is to get back to good old-fashioned morals. Children should read the Bible. After all, the Bible has no graphic violence, sexism, racism, or blatant sexuality. Nope, none at all. Wait- what? It does? Well, hell.
I think its clear, then, what has to be done. We can't let children read anymore. Nope. Can't do it. If we do there's no getting around it, our children will be damaged. Or so goes the logic of the UK Daily Mail.
Honestly, I read a lot as a child. Not just the books I mentioned (well, the classics, the others hadn't been published yet.) but many others. I wasn't scarred by The Goosebumps books(Stein). Sweet Valley High (Pascal) had no effect on my burgeoning sexuality or my self esteem. I was not irreparably damaged when I read Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (Schwartz). The Boxcar Children (Warner) didn't make me want to run away. The first time I stumbled across a romance novel at 13 I didn't immediately run out and have sex. I wasn't scarred by the trials and tribulations of Laura Ingalls Wilder in her Little House series. Carolyn Keene's Nancy Drew made me no more nosy than I already was. James and The Giant Peach (Dahl) didn't cause me to cuss, or want to run away, it didn't make me afraid of bugs. Honestly the only effect that book had on me at the time was a propensity to try a rhyme all of my words and sing like the bugs. By the time I was in 4th grade I was checking out books from the Jr. High side of my school's library. I remained unscathed. As I got older I branched into more adult, more graphic books. I've survived all of those as well.
Here's the thing, children are generally aware of the world around them. Give them a chance and they'll surprise you. Its amazing what they learn, what they absorb and their capacity for compassion, love and internalizing the life lessons that books like the ones I mentioned teach. Literature is a tool in which writers reach out to the world. Sometimes it is to make a connection, to teach a lesson or to share an experience. But all of those reasons contribute to our world view as we read. All of them give us the ability to live through others, to experience that which might never happen to us, or give us the opportunity to see that we are never quite as alone in our trials and sufferings as we think we are.
As a child, books were one of my greatest companions. I came from a broken home. I had an alcoholic, abusive father. My mother, bless her, worked all the time to support us and was often from home. By the time I was the age of a YA14+ reader I knew all about terminal illnesses, death, sexual abuse and poverty. I'd seen through other school mates first hand what drugs, violence and alienation could do to a person. I knew what it was like to be poor, a little strange, and unpopular. Through all of this, though, I read. And I read. And I read. I was in seventh grade the first time I read To Kill a Mockingbird (Lee). As a 13 year old girl it didn't horrify me, or hurt me or scare me. It spoke to me, in a way I could hardly express. A year after I read Oliver Twist (Dickens) and the violence, poverty and sadness in that book hurt me no more than any other book I read.
What I discovered as I read was that I was not alone in the great human experience. I was not the only one who had felt the things I was feeling. I found comfort. I found acceptance. I found peace reading those books. That, to me, makes every word I read during that time worthwhile.
It is my sincere hope that people will not take this article to heart. What I do hope happens is that parents, teachers and other adults become more aware of the widespread and positive experience that literature can provide. That they realize that their young adults can relate to these works and that they should be not only encouraging them to read, but encouraging them to discuss what they're reading and how it makes them feel. Maybe, just maybe, if we take the time to do that we will emerge with a well-read, emotionally healthy, well-adjusted generation who can reflect well on their place in the world, and how they are connected to it at large.
We can hope, right?
I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts.
Keep Reading.
AGxx
A note and disclaimer: I obviously do not own any of the books I mentioned. I did not write them. That is why I put the authors' names in for you. Additionally, I would encourage you to read any or all of these books if you can. Most of them are great works of literature, and I am proud to have read them. Also, in case you had not caught the tenor of my arguments, I actually quite like most of the books I mentioned.
Also, the title comes from a lyric from The Daily Mail song, which was John Greene's only response to the article. Having followed the link, I can only suggest you do so as well. Its worth a good laugh, anyway.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Jane Austen, Vampires and Genre Writing
This is the lovely Anita Blake. If you haven't met her, you should.
It's been a rainy week or so in my area of the US. I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to start collecting the animals two by two if things don't let up soon. The rain has really curbed my outdoor activities, since thunderstorms and tornadoes aren't really what you'd call conducive to gardening and yard work. As a result, I've found myself reading a lot more and keeping one eye on the television when the girls are watching movies (yes, I can do both at the same time.)
I had a couple of thoughts on books this week. The first thing I was thinking about was Jane Austen. Part of that stems from me having watched and read Jane Austen Book Club reently. Botht hte bookand the movie are nice and light, so check them out if you like Jane Austen. The book is by Karen Joy Fowler.
Anywy, I'm a big Austen fan. I have multiple copies of Pride and Prejudice, and all of her other books except Northanger Abbey, which I have yet to read. I also have the BBC version of P&P on Dvd, you know, the one with Colin Firth in it. Its one of my rainy day go-tos when I'm feeling a little low.
I don't know how many Austen fans I've got out there, so I'll pose this question to you: If you do read her, love her, what3ever, do you like the storylines for what they are or do you truly identify with the characters?
That's the one thing that bothered me about JABC the book and the movie. This idea that somehow there is this Jane Austen character lurking in all of us. I don't know that I agree.
I don't think all pretty girls are waiting to make great monied love matches. I don't think that they settle for slightly less handsome but stable and proper men after being jilted by a good-looking rake. I would like to think most mothers (not mine, maybe, but most) are sensible and want to look out for their children and not push them into wedlock. I want to think that not all boorish men are bad-looking and that not all intellectual men have to be ugly or churchish.
I like the stories because they are situation comedy from I time period I love, and they are well written. I like them because I find the characters amusing and engaging. But I don't, and have never, likened myself to one of the characters.
Something to think about.
I was also thinking about vampire books this week. Say what you will, they are my guilty pleasure. I love them. I can talk classics with the best of them, but nothing pelases me more than finding someone else who hates Richard from the Anita Blake series or someone who wishes Sookie Stackhouse would stop crying and man up already.
I got to thinking about the vampire genre because in about a week the new Sookie Stackhouse book "Dead Reckoning" is being released (May 3, for those who are counting down) and in June of this year the newest Anita Blake novel "Hit List" is going to be released. These books are 11 and 20 in their series' respectively. Those are big milestones for series writers. Its a lot of books. In my opion of both these authors, its also a lot of well written books.
Now, say what you want about vampire books ingeneral, or these two series inparticular; Charlaine Harris and Laurell K. Hamilton are excellent writers. I'm not saying that the books are highbrow, or modern classics. they aren't. But they are really good for their genre, and both of them have defied traditional ideas within their genre, and branched out. Both these authors do their research, both of them write will becautiful imagery. Their characters feel human. It's part of why I am so addicted to them.
Now, I know, a lot of people would say that vampire books are actually a sub-genre for fantasy or for horror. I disagree. If I were organizing my local Barnes and Noble, or had I (dare to dream) my own bookstore, I would be shelving all of the vampire books in one section under the heading "VAMPIRE."
Vampires have moved beyond sub-genre. You can't catagorize them. There are vampire mysteries, vampire romances, vampire fantasies, there are modern vampire novels and historic vampire novels. I even saw a vampire biography a few months back. There is cross-genre within the vampire genre. There are YA vampire books and adults only vampire books. There are crossover series. I don't think you can stick vampires next to faeries (sic) or demons or princesses encased in magical jewels or dragons anymore. I think they get their own heading, and I think the authors that have worked hard to make this genre what it is deserve the credit.
I think you start with Anne Rice and thank her for making vampires sexy and modern, then you thank Laurell K Hamilton, who started plugging away at the Anita Blake series in the eighties for making vampires even sexier than before, and Charlaine Harris who made a vampire series so popular HBO picked it up and ran with the idea. And yes, I do think my hating friends, you thank Stephanie Meyer for making the Young Adult and Crossover a legitimate part of the vampire genre. I had never heard of the Nightworld Series, or The Vampire Diaries, or any of those other great(ish) YA books until I was trolling through the YA section to get Stephanie Meyer merchandies. She gets credit for that. I also think you give a nod to Elizabeth Kostova for reminding us that vampires can still scare the bejezus out of you, when done properly.
There are so many authors out there that are contributing to the vampire genre, and I think there ought to be a separate section in the bookstore just for them. You could fill aisles with vampire books. I'd wager you could probably get a whole store if you tried (maybe the next branch off for Powells City of Books in Portland?).
I have an enormous respect for authors who take an age-old concept and make it new, fresh and riveting. I love that Charliane Harris is using the concept of modern technology to make me wonder whether or not in a few years I might actually meet a real vampire. I think it kicks ass that every time I am in Branson, MO I go down a specific road I get the heebie-jeebies because I know that there's a master vampire lair there because Laurell K Hamilton took the time to find that spot somehow in her research. I love that in any one of her given books I can see where exactly in St. Louis Anita is, because she knows that on the corner of this street there's a Union Planter's Bank and a Burger King, and she puts it in. They are taking the old mythology and making it new again. They are creating completely new universes set in our universe. I think that's a talent every writer should envy.
In light of the upcoming book releases, I'm probably going to go reread the last few in those serieses, because I like to remember what's going on.
Have a creepy, awesome night.
AGxx
I also need to disclaim that I do not own Jane Austen, Charlaine Harris, Elizabeth Kostova, Karen Joy Fowler, Laurell K Hamilton, Stephanie Meyer nor any of their characters or books,nor any other book I might have mentioned in this post, as much as I might like to. I also got the lovely image at the top of the page from wikia.com, which has a wonderful index of all things Anita Blake, check them out. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that image is from one of the Marvel Comics of Anita Blake. I don't own Marvel either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)