Rant!

This evening, as usual, I was perusing the Entertainment Weekly website to catch up on all the day's entertainment news, when an interesting tidbit caught my eye. It looks like Miss Marple of Agatha Christie fame, is going to be making her return to the big screen, in a movie produced by Disney, no less.

I'm a big fan of the David Suchet Poirot on TV, but I haven't always been a fan of the Miss Marple portrayals. I think of her as really small and tiny, almost frail. There have been some actresses who are just not right for the role, at least for how I think of Miss Marple.

Anyway, so Disney is coming out with a new Marple movie/movies - probably sequels if the first one does well. Okay, so who's playing the famous Miss?

Now, for those of you not familiar with Miss Marple, in the books she is described as a fluffy, pink and white old lady. Someone who is sweet, charming and very Victorian and ladylike. She acts fussy and fluttery, but has a shrewd brain.

The actress they cast as Miss Marple: Jennifer Garner. She is not elderly, nor pink and white and fluffy! (Nor small, either) Apparently, the picture is to be some kind of re-boot of the Marple story. And, it is set in the present, so it is a contemporary piece!

So why call it a Miss Marple film at all? Miss Marple is elderly, and she detects crime in England from the 1930's through to the 1960's. The new Disney-Garner production has neither of those things. (Although, to be fair, the film might be set in England; but contemporary England!) So, again, really, what's the point? You've taken away everything people love about the character to replace it with a new character who's not actually the character. Just invent some new detective lady for Garner to play, and leave poor Miss Marple alone! It's not Miss Marple, so why market it as Miss Marple? This is another character, with another set of stories, that the filmmakers are calling Miss Marple. But all the true fans know this character isn't Miss Marple. I definitely won't be seeing this movie. Are any of my readers interested? Or are you, like me, horrified at the desecration of a beloved character?

(Also, as a ranty aside to my rant, why does Blogger keep eating my paragraphs? It is super annoying to post, see no paragraphs, and then have to go back in to re-paragraph my whole post, and have to insert the paragraphs with html tags. Further annoyance!)

Glee!

Ok, so today I'm supposed to be writing about the first read of the bestsellers: Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void by Mary Roach. And don't get me wrong, it's an excellent book and a really humorous and informative read. The problem is the music I'm listening to while I'm writing - I'm listening to/watching videos of Glee on YouTube.

Yes....Glee. I'm a Gleek! And I know, this is supposed to be a blog about books. But as I've said before, when talking about LOST, I'm interested in story. Now, for me, usually, the most compelling stories are those contained between two covers: that is, stories in books. But every now and again, stories from TV or movies draw me in.

Glee is once such program. I didn't start watching it when it came out because I think I was busy - I already had a bunch of shows that I was watching and other activities I was involved in - I didn't have the time to pick up another show. I don't really remember why I didn't start watching it, because it seemed like something I would really like, considering the other kinds of shows that I like. So, a few weeks ago, I decided that maybe I should start watching Glee. It's in the middle of the second season, so I had to catch up on the first season and the first half of the second season. Well, that didn't take very long! I fell head over heels in love with the show and watched episodes back to back to back until I was caught up. I think it took, oh, about a week. And now I'm caught up with the show and have to wait until April for new episodes, like everyone else.

What do I like about Glee? Well, I do like the singing. The cast is very talented at both singing and dancing and their musical numbers are a treat to watch and listen to. Plus, the songs are very singable and I like songs I can sing along to. I also enjoy how they mash up songs together - it really gives you a new perspective on the songs and gives them an intriguing new twist.

However, there's more than just song and dance on this show. I wouldn't be coming back if I didn't love the characters and storylines. I love a good story, especially a romance, and there is enough story and romance on this show to satisfy me! The music, in this case, can often enhance the character's emotions and draw you further into the storyline. What I like about Glee is how the characters have depth and different emotions to them. The writers aren't afraid to create characters with qualities that you might not like. Rachel, the lead, is a complex young woman who is struggling to find her place in the teen society where her talent and drive do not win her friends. All the characters are looking to fit in and to navigate the complex hierarchy of high school. The show examines different perspectives on the teenage life.

But it doesn't neglect the adults. The Gleeclub teacher, Will Schuester, is struggling in his own way to fit in. The evil Cheerios coach, Sue Sylvester, could be a one-dimensional villain, but the writers have broadened her character. She still gets in some of the best lines of the show though! (And Brittany, the dumb cheerleader - she has some really daffy lines. But even her character still has heart underneath the fog of her brain.) (Also, Emma, the guidance counselor, has the cutest wardrobe on TV. I want her clothes!)

The show is also very good at portraying the life of gay teen Kurt. Kurt is dealing with coming out, dating, bullying, and finding support and acceptance in the broader community. The scenes with his dad, Burt, are some of the most touching and loving in all television. The show is good at having those "teachable" moments, without making a whole afterschool special about them.

This show can make me laugh and cry in the same episode. It is both sweet and sour - there are touching and sensitive moments, and then a completely ridiculous situation that just makes you laugh. It has heart without being cloying, and wit without being cold. I am waiting in anticipation for April when new episodes begin. I guess I have time to fit in more books until then!

Pet Peeve

While watching Eat, Pray, Love the other day I was so moved during one scene that I cried aloud. No, not during any of the pasta eating scenes, or mediation, or scenery, or the bare bum of one fine young man. It was near the end. Julia Roberts is reading in Javier Bardem's lavish Balinese hut. He, trying to seduce her, takes her book away from her (minus points), and FOLDS THE CORNER OF THE PAGE DOWN (more minus points) before putting it down and sweeping her off to dance or some such. I couldn't help myself - I had to yell at the screen. Folding the corner of a book page is my biggest pet peeve. (Not to mention that I dislike to be interrupted while I am reading. Please don't take my book away from me if you want to keep your arms.) (Although I also hate when people write in books [textbooks excepted] - library books specifically. But that's another post!)

I don't like to damage or deface a book in any way (other than the slightly bedraggled look that comes with being read, and read often - a true sign of a loved book), and so I really hate when people fold the corners of pages. It makes a crease in a perfectly nice page that is now there forever. Yeah, sure, you unfold it when you're done with it, but the crease is still there. And if you reread books as often as I do, all the pages will be creased.

Why do people fold the corners? To mark the page. Now, while I don't keep my page by folding the corner, I have been guilty of not using bookmarks in the past. Even though I had a seeming drawer-ful of them, I used anything but - random bits of paper, cardboard, kleenex.... Or I had the bad habit of leaving my books face down and open, like a tent, on the page I was reading, as if the book was waiting for me to return and pick it up right away - which was not always the case. You can see how good it is for books:

However, all my troubles were solved when I received this excellent Christmas gift.

They are magnetic bookmarks! They are terrific! There are about 12 or so in the box, and they are small.

The bookmark just clips on to a page, and the magnet ensures the bookmark doesn't fall out and get lost.

I use them now on all my books. And what's handy is while you're reading, you just clip it on to a back page until you're ready to put the book away, and then clip right on to your spot. I also use them as devices to stop myself from reading if a book is too entrancing. I look forward from my current spot to the next chapter break and set the bookmark there. Then when I arrive, I have an excuse to attempt to put the book down, as my spot is already marked for me. I now check very carefully every time I send a book back to the library so that I don't send a bookmark with it! I really love these little bookmarks and find them very useful. They are now an essential part of book-reading for me.

Mary Clare

I have been boycotting Marie Claire (the magazine) for several months now, ever since the infamous blog post by one of their writers about how she thought that fat people were disgusting and shouldn't kiss on television, or anywhere else she could see them, for that matter. However, one good thing did come out of that debacle; I discovered the feminist website Jezebel, which has since provided endless hours of entertainment. (That is, until the redesign, which was terrible and has caused the site to hemorrhage commenters.)

The other day, however, I found myself in the possession of a Marie Claire. No, I didn't buy it, and neither did the friend who lent it to me. Someone else bought it, passed it on to the friend when finished, and my friend, knowing my addiction to glossy paper, passed it along to me. So I read it. (It being the January 2011 issue.)

I never really bought Marie Claire a whole lot anyway, and I remember always feeling vaguely disappointed when I did. Like most magazines, the cover over promises while the content under delivers. This cover promises: "Sexy hair, great skin Revamp your beauty routine", "Another Year, Another Diet...How to really lose those last 5 lbs", Best New Fashion Our Faves from the Runway + 57 great buys for under $100", "Unstoppable Amy Adams 'The world things I'm so innocent, but it's not true'", "Exclusive: The Teacher who sold sex on Craigslist", and "America's Most Wanted Woman p.68". Does it deliver? I suppose. The articles about fashion and beauty are mostly about more expensive fashion and beauty items, Amy Adams is trying too hard to be "bad", and the teacher who sold sex on Craiglist really should have known better.

I find that Marie Claire focuses a lot on very high-end fashion, and not on fashion that's affordable. All women's fashions magazines feature high-end/designer fashion, but other magazines like Glamour make an effort to translate the looks to people on a real budget. Marie Claire does not. Although, to be fair, Marie Claire did focus this month on great buys for under $100, as seen on the cover. But even that's expensive! I want the whole look for under $100, not just one piece of the look for under $100.

Speaking of clothes, I also disliked the "DressCode" article on pages 54-55. This article is purportedly about how "real women" dress. The article showcased two working moms. The one mom is a Freelance Art Director, and the other is Head of Series Development MTV. Both of their looks feature the clothes that people in a non-corporate environment can get away with. That's great, but what about all the people in a corporate environment? It's easy to be fashionable and trendy if you work in areas where that's allowed. But what if you work in a more corporate environment? How do you showcase your personal style while staying within the limits of what's allowed in your work environment? Showing two women in creative fields who can wear things like overalls to work (overalls, really? No.) is not very helpful to all the people who don't work in creative fields. So I would have appreciated a little more diversity in the selection of "real women". Also, not very many moms I know wear 3 to 4 inch heels! Maybe on a night out, or at the office - but not around their little ones!

However, there was one interesting article that I did enjoy in the January 2011 issue. I really enjoyed the article "What it costs to be me" on pages 82-85. This article reports on the salaries and spending habits of 5 women from Uganda, Belgium, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States. I really thought the piece on the woman from Uganda was interesting. I think we in the West have this idea of Africa as a continent full of poverty-stricken people, and it is interesting, to me, to read about a young woman who is not poverty-stricken. She has a job as an assistant accountant, she has an apartment, she hangs out with her friends on the weekends and she faces the same financial challenges of saving vs. spending. I enjoyed the peek into the lives of all these women very much. I also liked the article about Stacy London (of What Not To Wear fame) and her sister, but again, it was too short and could have been longer. (pages 76-77).

I think what I don't like about Marie Claire is its snarky tone. It's trying to hard to be hip and sarcastic, often at the expense of substance and story. I find I prefer Glamour magazine's most earnest and friendly tone. Sure, there are still articles about important women's issues in between fashion spreads and make-up tips, but I like the friendly, upbeat, engaging tone that Glamour uses. Glamour is positive and cheerful. Marie Claire is like the sarcastic friend who talks about you behind your back. Cosmopolitan is like the boy-crazy buddy who dumps you as soon as a new boy comes along, and Glamour is like the friend that will bring you ice cream when you've been dumped by your boyfriend.

I suppose what all this is saying is that I am probably not Marie Claire's target reader. That's okay with me. I'm not missing much by boycotting the magazine and will continue to do so. They probably won't miss me.

Historical Demons

When at the library the other day, I picked up a book by one of my favourite authors: The Master of All Desires by Judith Merkle Riley. I love her mix of spiritual and religious elements into historical situations. Her books are smart and funny and yet have romance as well. After looking her up on Wikipedia (to find the name of the one book of hers [The Oracle Glass] that I really love but they only have at the library in audiobook form so I can get them to order in a paper copy), I was saddened to see that she passed away recently on September 12, 2010. Merkle Riley was very intelligent: she had a Ph.D. and taught in the Department of Government at a college in California. This cleverness comes through in her books which are excellent reads.

(Just a quick note about audiobooks - not really my thing. I quite like them for long car trips: especially Agatha Christie and the Red Dwarf series. When we went across Canada I listened to quite a few Vietnam war stories [husband's pick]. But for everyday, around the house kind of stuff? I'd much rather read, thank you very much. Also for commuting - I don't have an iPod or whatever so I can't really listen to stuff on the bus. Also, I'd rather be listening to stuff around me which I can do while I read, in case there's an emergency or I need to get out of there quickly. So it's very annoying that The Oracle Glass comes only in audiobook form at my local library and not in a paper copy. I'm not planning any long roadtrips soon, and I don't think my husband would enjoy it anyway. Maybe I should just suck it up and buy a copy myself!)

Anyway, on to the book I actually read: The Master of All Desires. The book has many different plots that are all entwined. The book is set in France in the 1550's: a bad time for Protestants and anyone who opposes the Queen, Catherine de Medici. At its heart, it's about a young French lady, Sibille. She is the daughter of a rather impoverished French noble family and is supposed to marry the wealthy next door neighbour. That is, until she shoots him. Accidentally, of course! She flees to the city to stay with her Aunt Pauline and try and free her father - who's been imprisoned as a suspected Protestant. Sibille's father hates her aunt and gives up Sibille to her. Sibille herself is an interesting character: she's been well-educated (for a woman of the time) and sees herself as delicate and poetical.

The book is also about Catherine de Medici, Queen Consort to King Henri II of France. Even though Catherine has given Henri many fine children, he is in love with his mistress, Diane de Poitiers - a woman twice the King's age! Henri ignores Catherine and Catherine schemes to get his love. As such, she employs many magicians and soothsayers: including the famous Nostradamus, who travels to Paris to meet with her. Catherine has heard about the mysterious head of Menander the Deathless. This is a cursed head that is supposed to grant the owner of it whatever the owner desires. However, the wisher should beware, as the wishes are not always granted in the most straightforward manner....

Through a twist of fate, Sibille becomes the possessor of the evil head and is thrust into the Queen's conspiracies, as well as learning a secret about her own past. She meets the acerbic Nostradamus, and has to try and navigate the deadly halls of Catherine's court.

The Master of All Desires is a smart and clever read. The character of Sibille is excellent: she is smart and witty, but tries to hide it under a poetical and soft nature. I liked how Merkle Riley switches between voices: we get Sibille in the first person, but we also get some third-person narration from Nostradamus, Queen Catherine, and Diane de Poitiers. In this way, the reader is informed and aware of all the conspiracies and plots swirling at court, but is engaged with Sibille and her journey to discover her true self.

I pointed out above that Merkle Riley includes spiritual themes in her books: how is that incorporated into The Master of All Desires? Why, by the angel/demon/mystical creature Anael, of course! He is the keeper of history, and has some excellent scenes with Nostradamus. I really enjoy this facet of Merkle Riley's books: she often incorporates angels and demons, and gives the usual historical fiction an extra dimension. I hope I've properly conveyed just how good these books are - they're not the usual types of "religious" fiction at all; the plots and characters just happen to contain angels and demons sometimes. The books are quite witty and smart and very entertaining to read.

I enjoy Merkle Riley's books very much. She didn't write very many, but they're all good. My favourites are: The Master of All Desires, The Serpent Garden and The Oracle Glass. Those three are her stand-alone books. Her other three books are a series about Margaret of Ashbury: A Vision of Light, In Pursuit of the Green Lion, The Water-Devil and also include the religious/spiritual element. Of these, I think I've only read one, and that out of order, so I should go back and read the Margaret of Ashbury series in the proper order as I would probably enjoy the books more. However, if you are just beginning with Merkle Riley, I recommend the stand-alone books first. In fact, I may have to add these titles to my own library - as soon as I get another bookshelf!

At the Movies

Yes, I occasionally do put down the books and watch a movie. I love that theatre popcorn, after all! (Although the movies I'm about to discuss were watched from the comfortable privacy of my own home and a friend's.) I especially enjoy watching movies based upon books, and then criticizing said movies for not living up to said books. (However, I do admit that the Lord of the Rings movies were great - it was like they tore the scenes straight from my imagination.) Since I recently watched a couple movies based on books that I had recently read, I thought this would be a good subject of discussion for today's blog.

The two movies are The Social Network and Eat, Pray, Love. I did see the most recent Harry Potter movie in theatres recently too, but as it's been so long since I've read the book I don't think I'd be able to comment accurately on the differences/similarities between the two. That may have to wait for the final movie, coming out this summer, before which I plan to reread the entire series.

As you may remember from my earlier posts, I disliked the book The Accidental Billionaires, the book on which I believe the movie The Social Network is based. I disliked it mostly due to its seemingly rampant sexism. I found that the movie did not seem to be as rampantly sexist as the book. Sure, roles for women in the movie seemed to be slim to none, but it didn't seem to be as sexist as the book. Which is hard to explain, seeing as how all the same scenes that I disliked in the book were featured in the movie. Maybe I was expecting it, having read the book, and so was prepared to be insulted.

That being said, I actually enjoyed The Social Network. It is fast-paced, with witty, biting dialogue. It was interesting to see the friendship between Zuckerberg and Savarin grow and eventually be ripped apart. I appreciated the structure of the movie: cutting back and forth between the present-day lawsuits and the story of the founding of Facebook. I thought Jesse Eisenberg did a great job with the role of Zuckerberg - letting you feel sorry for him and hate him all at the same time. You felt sorry for him because he threw away all of his friendships and ended up alone, yet at the same time, you felt that he deserved it, in some small part, because he acted like a jerk with no thought to anyone's feelings but his own. I quite enjoyed the movie.

The other movie I saw recently was Eat, Pray, Love based on the book Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. I was not extremely fond of the book when I read it, but neither was it that bad. I have pretty much the same feelings for the movie.

I usually have a pretty good memory for books, but I have to admit that it has been some months since I read the book, and many details had slipped my mind. Fortunately, one of my friends that I was watching it with knew the book intimately, and was able to point out where the movie producers had made major changes. For the most part, I don't think the changes added anything to the movie. The book was pretty filmable anyway, so really major changes didn't need to be made.

I thought the movie was okay. The scenery in Italy, India, and Bali was beautiful - especially Bali. I would like a fancy hut like the one she stays in! The story did drag a little bit in India - it's hard to really encapsulate someone's inner spiritual life onscreen. It picked up in Bali though and was pretty good.

I think the problem with the movie is that I never for a minute bought Julia Roberts as the character of "Liz Gilbert". It's not that Julia Roberts is a terrible actress - she's not. It's that she's too well-known. So for me, it was a movie about Julia Roberts jetting off to Italy, India, and Bali, not about Liz Gilbert. I couldn't suspend enough disbelief to really get into the story and the characters. Also, I don't think that Javier Bardem is really all that cute, so I wasn't really interested in him as a love interest for Julia - although he did play the part well. He definitely was younger in the movie than I pictured him in the book! Overall, the movie was all right, but perhaps just not my cup of tea.

While I'm discussing movies, I do have to give a quick shout-out to an excellent movie I saw in theatres recently that isn't based on a book. The King's Speech is an excellent, fantastic movie about a man trying to get over his stuttering problem with the help of a speech therapist. What makes it unique, however, is that that man is the King of England. This was a terrific movie. I loved the slowly growing relationship between Bertie (Colin Firth) and the speech therapist, Lionel Logue. I loved watching Bertie slowly thawing out and becoming human, becoming friends, even, with Lionel, and then suddenly snapping back to his royal persona, his protective shell of prestige. I'm a history junkie, so I loved all the historical bits woven through the story: such as the abdication of Edward VIII. This movie definitely deserved the Oscar. Anyone who is a fan of great film, or is a history buff like me, should watch this movie.

The Underground

My second random fantasy/sci-fi pick was truly random - Mind the Gap: A Novel of the Hidden Cities by Christopher Golden and Tim Lebbon. The title was intriguing (it's no surprise that I'm an Anglophile!) and the description of the book equally so. I took it home.

Mind the Gap is about a street-wise London teen named Jazz (short for Jasmine). Jazz lives with her mother, as her father died when she was little. Jazz's mother is extremely paranoid and is extremely worried about security. She has taught Jazz to always be on her guard, to always be cautious, and to always have an escape route. Jazz, as a result, has the skills of a ninja.

These skills come in handy when Jazz returns home to find that the mysterious "Uncles" in black, who visit the family on occasion, have this time visited and murdered her mother. Her mother's last message to Jazz is the chilling warning to hide forever - written in blood. Jazz avoids detection and flees into London's Underground - the Tube stations and the dark areas below.

As it turns out, underground London is a warren of unused and old Tube tunnels, air-raid shelters, and other underground domiciles. There is a vast amount of space down there, some of it uninhabited, some not. Jazz meets some of the Underground's inhabitants - Harry and his band of misfit teenagers called the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a rather successful group of thieves, and Harry recruits Jazz. Her well-developed stealth skills make her a natural thief, and Jazz begins to slowly integrate with the group.

However, life is not perfect for Jazz. She constantly worries that the Uncles will find her. She is also curious about the Underground itself: who are these mysterious ghosts that she sees? And where does the terrifying "Hour of Screams" come from? All these are clues to Jazz's mysterious past, and the unique role she must play in the present.

As the story goes on, Jazz meets another thief, Terry, who is looking for parts for a mysterious machine. This machine is connected to the ghosts and the memories and magic of London that haunts the Underground. Jazz's father is somehow connected to this mysterious machine and to the Uncles who are still searching for Jazz.

I have not tried to go into too much detail in my description of the book, and I have been deliberately vague about the ending and what happens after Jazz meets up with the United Kingdom. For a short book, there was a lot of plot packed inside it! The fantasy element of the book is interesting. When I first read the back of the book, I was wondering if it was more of a sci-fi novel - some sort of post-apocalyptic London and the kids of the United Kingdom were going to emerge and save the day. That is not so - the book is set in modern times. Other than Jazz's crazy upbringing, there doesn't seem to be any fantasy element to the book until Jazz goes to the Underground. Then, she begins to see ghosts of London's past - ghosts that are the key to the book itself.

The ghosts are really the main fantasy element of the book. I liked the idea that London has a "soul" almost - that the ghosts of London are caught in the Underground as memories of the city. I thought that was interesting and not something that has been really done before. The magic elements of the book at the end were not as interesting and a little confusing. That said, I think the transformation of Jazz the character by the end was interesting.

I enjoyed this book - it was a nice light read. I liked how the city of London itself really became a character, as opposed to just a setting. The way the book ends there can't really be a sequel about Jazz, and that's fine. There are other books in the "Hidden Cities" series, apparently, but I don't really have any great desire to read any of them. The book was an enjoyable read, but not especially memorable. I liked it, but wouldn't want to own it as I don't think I'd read it again.

That's what the library is for!

Magic

Last time I was at the library, I grabbed a few random fantasy books of the shelf to fulfill my New Year's resolution to read more fantasy. The books, however, were not that random, as I'd actually read one of them before! Fortunately, it improves upon a second reading.

The book I'd read before is Deep Secret by Diana Wynne Jones. Jones writes very interesting and eclectic fantasy/sci-fi novels. One of my favourites from her is Hexwood, which I picked up from the library's used book sale several years ago. It mixes Arthurian myths with sci-fi ideas and is completely brain-twisting; but very excellent. I highly recommend it.

I think brain-twisting is a good adjective to describe most of Jones' novels: certainly Deep Secret became clearer on a second reading. It is about a young man named Rupert Venables. Rupert is a Magid (as are his 2 brothers), and he lives on Earth, helping to maintain magical balance. He is a junior Magid until his senior Magid dies. Then Rupert has to search for a replacement junior Magid, while in the meantime dealing with a succession crisis in the Empire of Koryfos. It all gets slightly more confusing from there, until all of the main characters end up at a very strange sci-fi convention in a magically mysterious hotel.

On my first read of the book, I was quite confused by the Koryfos plot and its resolution (somehow involving centaurs?). I am happy to say that the book makes more sense on its second reading: I was able to follow the plots better and had a better understanding of what went on. Some characters improved over time: the character of Maree, for instance. Maree is one of Rupert's potential new junior Magids. However, upon first read, I quite disliked the character: especially for her propensity to stop her car in the middle of roads to do strange magical dances! But upon second reading, the character becomes more sympathetic. I think this is because Maree is much more sympathetic towards the end of the book. You remember this when you read it again, and so your sympathy for her colours your perception of her at the beginning of the book.

Jones creates a very interesting fantasy/magic/techy universe in Deep Secret. And while I wouldn't mind more stories about Rupert and Maree, I would also like to read stories set on other worlds within the same universe. I especially like her linking of magic and computers: I think that is very clever to have both magical ways of doing things, but also still have to rely on modern-day conveniences such as computers.

If you are a fantasy fan, I definitely recommend checking out either Deep Secret or Hexwood by Jones. I think I will try to check out some of her other books, now that I've read Deep Secret twice and Hexwood a few times. However, if her other books are anything like these two, I'm going to have to read the book a few times!

Canada Reads 5

Finally, nearly a month later, I have obtained and read Essex County, (by Jeff Lemire) the fifth book (and first voted off) in this year's Canada Reads contest. However, it wasn't until I received the book that I realized that I'd somehow only ordered the first volume. Apparently there are two other volumes - which I sadly admit I probably won't get to.

Well, what did I think? It was interesting, to say the least. It was different from a comic book in that it had a hard cover, but other than that it sort of seemed like a comic book. There was even a superhero in it! I think I just don't know how to read graphic novels: I opened the first page to find spare black and white drawings of farm equipment and a little boy. No words. I was sort of at a loss. I could see in a second what the pictures were saying: trying to set the scene in writing would have taken a lot longer to read. But I didn't feel like I really had to stare at the pictures for a long time to get the meaning - I got it and moved on.

At the beginning, I was trying to narrate the book for myself because I'm so used to reading novels with that narrative voice. I was somewhat thrown for a loop by not having one. But that got kind of tiresome: it was like watching an amateur hockey game and doing the play-by-play yourself in your head instead of just watching the action unfold. So it didn't take me long to read because it was mostly pictures, with limited dialogue. I still caught myself trying to describe scenes and feelings as I went through, however. I was trying to put words to the pictures.

Surprisingly, I did get into the story. A little boy goes and lives with his uncle on a farm after his mother dies of cancer. I could see the uncle's emotions on his face as he tried to parent his nephew. In that respect, I enjoyed the pictures. It gave a window on feelings that a writer could use words to hide. It was sort of cinematic. So I did enjoy the story until the aliens showed up at the end. That moment of complete unreality really ruined the story for me. It was so deep and heartfelt before that, so to suddenly introduce this moment of fantasy really pulled me out of the story and detracted from it, in my opinion. It was hard to tell if it was the boy's imagination or if this was really the way that the story was going to go. I felt it took away from the relationship that was developing between the boy and his uncle.

I suppose one should discuss the artwork of the book. It was very spare and simple - just black and white pen/ink drawings. (I suppose - I'm not really in to art.) I would have appreciated some colour. I did like how the flashbacks were done in light grey and with softer lines. Also, the kid's comic book in the middle was very well done. However, I can't say that I would stare at the pictures for hours, as Sara Quinn said she would on the Canada Reads show. They were not detailed enough for me to do that. However, the artist did do a good job of showing place and landscape in his pictures, as well as human emotion. I must say though, that if I didn't know that the book took place in Ontario, I would have thought the farm located in Saskatchewan, due to the expansiveness created by the drawings. Also, my only experience of Southern Ontario was more urban, whereas I associate Saskatchewan with a more rural image. So for me, when I imagined the image colourized in my head, it was the colours and shadings of Saskatchewan that the images took on, instead of those of Ontario.

I did enjoy most of the story of Essex County, but I'm not really interested in reading another graphic novel (or the rest in the series). When I read a book, I want to read it. I want to read words and sentences and paragraphs. I want to marvel (hopefully) at how the author has created the characters or describe the landscape and be swept away into a different world. I like to read the words and then have my imagination take over instead of having the images presented to me. That said, I'm glad I tried it - it was interesting. It was mostly a good story too. Should it have been the pick for Canada Reads? No. But it's good that it was put out there and given some exposure. Maybe some of my readers will try reading a few graphic novels for themselves.