I want to know about your rating system, whether you're a blogger or a person who...rates things..in your brain. Are you a star giver? Are you an emotive rater: ZOMG I HEART THIS BOOK'S FACE/ ZOMG I WANT TO SPIT IN THIS BOOK'S FACE. There's no science around here, it's really just a rating system based on how much I want to do violence after completing a book. This violence includes punching people in the arm in order to convince them to read something I love. So I guess we're emotive around here.
Several things contribute to how punchy/stabby I get after reading something- but the biggest thing, honestly, is whether it was boring. The following things bore me: completely unsympathetic characters that have nothing interesting to say except for whinging (as in, Humbert is unlikeable but fascinating while Bella is unlikeable and stupid), bad writing that includes but is not limited to awful dialogue, slllloooowwwwwwwww plots that are not redeemed by any insight or purpose. Too many commas. Themes I've read about a million and seven times. Probably the same things that you find boring.
This? This is totally subjective. I want what I want from a book and if I don't get it, I eat cookies and forget about it and give it three stars or less and Bookmooch it. After I say a bunch of smart ass things about how it was le dumb. But again, it's based on what I want- not what readers in general want (which is never the same thing) or even literary merit- though I like to think that what I want IS literary merit. My rating system is essentially a smart-ass temper tantrum OR a smart-ass book hug.
I'm fine with that. BUT. What do YOU do? What makes you love a book? I love profound things stated simply. I love reading the first book to do something. I love books that are epic and grand and books that can make your heart break over a dinner party. These make me throw things and punch people- with joy. What is your rating system based on? If you don't have one- why? TELL ME ALL THE THINGS.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
It's Not What You're Like, It's What You Like
I'm curious how you all feel about this idea when it comes to your literary passion and your romantic notions. I actually disagree with the statement for the MOST PART- when it comes to long term relationships, I think what you ARE like is more important as far as morals, values, life plans, etc. But honestly? Readers are an odd breed. We collect them. They take over our homes. They occupy lots of our time. We talk about them. When we find other readers, we cling to them and become besties even if we have nothing else in common. If you're dating or married to someone who doesn't understand your deal and isn't willing to express interest, is it going to last?
Personally, my husband is a reader...but he reads things I'm not interested in- lots of Westerns and science fiction. BUT about every other book, he asks me for a recommendation and he sits down and reads Anna Karenina or Gone With the Wind or whatever the hell else I tell him he has to read for us to remain married and he has done this since we met when I was 16. And honestly, when we met I was in a place where I wouldn't have dated him had he not been a reader. It was a deal breaker. Sorta still is. If he up and said one day "reading novels is dumb," I would take it as "what you love is dumb, and therefore you are dumb," and I would cry and through hardbacks at his head.
So I'm just wondering- do you date non-readers? Did you marry one? If you do/did, do you like the same books? If your special love muffin (BAH!) isn't a reader, does it bother you? What do you talk about? SPILL THOSE BEANS.
Personally, my husband is a reader...but he reads things I'm not interested in- lots of Westerns and science fiction. BUT about every other book, he asks me for a recommendation and he sits down and reads Anna Karenina or Gone With the Wind or whatever the hell else I tell him he has to read for us to remain married and he has done this since we met when I was 16. And honestly, when we met I was in a place where I wouldn't have dated him had he not been a reader. It was a deal breaker. Sorta still is. If he up and said one day "reading novels is dumb," I would take it as "what you love is dumb, and therefore you are dumb," and I would cry and through hardbacks at his head.
So I'm just wondering- do you date non-readers? Did you marry one? If you do/did, do you like the same books? If your special love muffin (BAH!) isn't a reader, does it bother you? What do you talk about? SPILL THOSE BEANS.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
"Mrs. Mike" by Senor y Senora Freedman: A Review
So Mrs. Mike is a classic of...uh...I dunno. Young adult literature? Romance-things? It seems to be a sort of underground classic, wherein no professor on the planet teaches it (that I've ever heard of, so it must be true) but everyone has read it and loved it and recommended it, etc, etc. To summarize: Young girl moves from Boston to the great white Canadian..place..and marries Mike. Great white Canadian things happen. Mostly involving cold and slow moving mail systems.
Woah, ok, this was not what I expected. What I expected was Anne-of-Green-Gables-but-chilly-and-with-more-sled-dogs. While there was certainly the same tooth achingly sweet main character (of course, a redhead with bit of attitude), there was a lot more...uh...backbone in this book. There are BEARS and KILLER MOSQUITOS and AMPUTATIONS and INDIAN LADIES WHO DO WEIRD, POSSIBLY CREEPY THINGS WITH FROGS.
And there's also Mike, who I did not love as much as some people seem to love him. I didn't NOT love him, I just sort of. Meh. He is pretty one-dimensional, but that dimension happens to be Super Mounty Perfect Guy. I find Super Mounty Perfect Guys to be a little boring. He never does, says, implies, or seems to think anything wrong, outside of being a little awkward and nervous when a'courtin. But that just adds to his dimension, no?
This book did make me want to visit the wilds of Canada, however. I love to visit (emphasis on visit, which means I get to leave) vast, scary landscapes. I like places that look fake because they're like every post card on the planet. My mother used to live in Wyoming up by Yellowstone, and when I would go to visit her, that is how that country made me feel. Like it was fake because no place can be that BIG and OPEN and FREE OF 7-11s. Anywoot, one thing the book does really well is capture how living in a place like that can make coming back to society a little awkward. There's a great scene where the main character comes home to Boston to visit her family after experiencing above-mentioned AMPUTATIONS and KILLER MOSQUITOS, etc. Her family starts arguing about toast. Toast. TOAST! PEOPLE ARE GETTING KILLED BY MOSQUITOS AND YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT TOAST. It's classic.
So yeah. It's not literary genius or anything. I would put this on a shelf of "literary palate cleansers, for use after you've just read Proust or Woolf or someone else less plot-tastic and more WTF-tastic."
To be clear, I heart Woolf. But sometimes you just want to read about killer bugs, AMIRITE?
Three stars out of your mom.
Woah, ok, this was not what I expected. What I expected was Anne-of-Green-Gables-but-chilly-and-with-more-sled-dogs. While there was certainly the same tooth achingly sweet main character (of course, a redhead with bit of attitude), there was a lot more...uh...backbone in this book. There are BEARS and KILLER MOSQUITOS and AMPUTATIONS and INDIAN LADIES WHO DO WEIRD, POSSIBLY CREEPY THINGS WITH FROGS.
And there's also Mike, who I did not love as much as some people seem to love him. I didn't NOT love him, I just sort of. Meh. He is pretty one-dimensional, but that dimension happens to be Super Mounty Perfect Guy. I find Super Mounty Perfect Guys to be a little boring. He never does, says, implies, or seems to think anything wrong, outside of being a little awkward and nervous when a'courtin. But that just adds to his dimension, no?
This book did make me want to visit the wilds of Canada, however. I love to visit (emphasis on visit, which means I get to leave) vast, scary landscapes. I like places that look fake because they're like every post card on the planet. My mother used to live in Wyoming up by Yellowstone, and when I would go to visit her, that is how that country made me feel. Like it was fake because no place can be that BIG and OPEN and FREE OF 7-11s. Anywoot, one thing the book does really well is capture how living in a place like that can make coming back to society a little awkward. There's a great scene where the main character comes home to Boston to visit her family after experiencing above-mentioned AMPUTATIONS and KILLER MOSQUITOS, etc. Her family starts arguing about toast. Toast. TOAST! PEOPLE ARE GETTING KILLED BY MOSQUITOS AND YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT TOAST. It's classic.
So yeah. It's not literary genius or anything. I would put this on a shelf of "literary palate cleansers, for use after you've just read Proust or Woolf or someone else less plot-tastic and more WTF-tastic."
To be clear, I heart Woolf. But sometimes you just want to read about killer bugs, AMIRITE?
Three stars out of your mom.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Great Book Purge
Summer gives me a need to clean. Ok, not just clean but obsessively scrub every surface of my house and get rid of as much as possible. I hate being hot. It makes me cranky, and for some reason removing objects from my surroundings makes me feel better. Thus began the Great Book Purge of 2011.
Now, I go through this cycle about four times a year. Books are everywhere, my shelves start to groan, and even I start thinking that my library is a little ridiculous. People come over and say "have you READ ALL THESE BOOKS" and I have to say "No, actually, I've only read about half of them. And I didn't even really love most of those." So when I got the itch to PURGE a week ago, I sat down to rethink my strategy.
In the past, this has consisted of getting rid of the books I hated, and keeping everything else whether I've read it or not. Unless it had a pretty cover. Or I thought my husband might want to read it one day. Or I spent a lot of money on it. Or. Or. Or. This resulted in the removal of...maybe two books. Except in the last purge, where I went a little crazy and got rid of The Pillars of the Earth (ick), and extra copy of Jane Eyre ( I don't really NEED more than one), and some Agatha Christie I'll never read again because...I already know the ending. That was more than two. Not really a PURGE. More like a gentle reprimand. I needed Stalin-level purging here. I needed SPACE.
So. New rules. If I don't foresee myself rereading it, it goes. If I didn't love it, or at least like enough to know that I'll get more out of it at a later date, it goes. And the big one: IF I HAVEN'T READ IT AND IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS, IT GOES. This yielded the biggest number. Out went a frayed copy of The House of Seven Gables that I've had since high school and have toted through more than five moves. Goodbye, thrift store copy of Invisible Man that was so heavily notated that I couldn't really focus on the pages. Adios, copy of Hardy's poems- let's face it, I rarely read poetry and when I do get around to it, I ain't gonna reach for Thomas. I also rejected The Jungle (gross, I'm never going to get over the raw meat on the cover...I did keep Oil!), Water for Elephants (HAHAHAHAHAHA where did that even COME from), and yeah. I feel better.
When all was said and done, it was a giant box of maybe 50 books. Too many to put on Bookmooch, plus if I did that they would just sit in a corner or closet until I got around to mailing them, which would be never. So they went to the thrift store. There are no more piles. Just three floor-to-ceiling shelves in a nice row, all full.
Oh, and the other shelf in the living room. And the half shelf by the door. But that's it.
So what are your PURGING rules? Do you PURGE often enough? Can you say PURGE without the all-caps? I can't. PURGE. See?
Now, I go through this cycle about four times a year. Books are everywhere, my shelves start to groan, and even I start thinking that my library is a little ridiculous. People come over and say "have you READ ALL THESE BOOKS" and I have to say "No, actually, I've only read about half of them. And I didn't even really love most of those." So when I got the itch to PURGE a week ago, I sat down to rethink my strategy.
In the past, this has consisted of getting rid of the books I hated, and keeping everything else whether I've read it or not. Unless it had a pretty cover. Or I thought my husband might want to read it one day. Or I spent a lot of money on it. Or. Or. Or. This resulted in the removal of...maybe two books. Except in the last purge, where I went a little crazy and got rid of The Pillars of the Earth (ick), and extra copy of Jane Eyre ( I don't really NEED more than one), and some Agatha Christie I'll never read again because...I already know the ending. That was more than two. Not really a PURGE. More like a gentle reprimand. I needed Stalin-level purging here. I needed SPACE.
So. New rules. If I don't foresee myself rereading it, it goes. If I didn't love it, or at least like enough to know that I'll get more out of it at a later date, it goes. And the big one: IF I HAVEN'T READ IT AND IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS, IT GOES. This yielded the biggest number. Out went a frayed copy of The House of Seven Gables that I've had since high school and have toted through more than five moves. Goodbye, thrift store copy of Invisible Man that was so heavily notated that I couldn't really focus on the pages. Adios, copy of Hardy's poems- let's face it, I rarely read poetry and when I do get around to it, I ain't gonna reach for Thomas. I also rejected The Jungle (gross, I'm never going to get over the raw meat on the cover...I did keep Oil!), Water for Elephants (HAHAHAHAHAHA where did that even COME from), and yeah. I feel better.
When all was said and done, it was a giant box of maybe 50 books. Too many to put on Bookmooch, plus if I did that they would just sit in a corner or closet until I got around to mailing them, which would be never. So they went to the thrift store. There are no more piles. Just three floor-to-ceiling shelves in a nice row, all full.
Oh, and the other shelf in the living room. And the half shelf by the door. But that's it.
So what are your PURGING rules? Do you PURGE often enough? Can you say PURGE without the all-caps? I can't. PURGE. See?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
