15 Day Book Blogger Challenge

So I'm going to try this.
First post comes tomorrow!


~Sophia

Fabulous Findings

My train station has a little shelf where the public library puts all the books it doesn't need anymore. Usually they're just romance novels, but sometimes a classic pops up - hopefully because the library got new ones, not because it doesn't want classics anymore. :-)

Look what I found there:

I'm so excited!!! I got the complete Anne collection on my Kindle, but it didn't have two of the books for some reason. Windy Poplars was one of the ones missing. 

(Also, my Kindle is dead now, but that's another story.)

So now I can continue reading about Anne! I love Anne so much. (If you want to see my favorite quotes from the first three books, click here.)

You may notice it is sadly missing the front cover. :-(

The covers of the books on the little train station shelf are sometimes ripped off so that people know that they don't belong to the library anymore and are free.

(... except for the romance novels. These usually have their cover still intact. Covers of shirtless men passionately embracing scantily dressed women... and the cover of dear little innocent Anne was torn off. Tut tut.)

Anyway, I'm enthusiastically making my way through Windy Poplars. I might write about it once I'm done.

If you've read the Anne books, which one is your favorite? Why?

(And are the movies worth watching?)

~Sophia

Wyrd Sisters and Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett // Epic Footnotes

For her birthday, my sister got a good number of books. When people don't know what to get us, they usually get us books - but I'm cool with that. Remember:



In particular, the books that looked most interesting to me were these two:



While some people read chic-lit for "fluff," I read crazy fantasy books. I literally get lost in books, because reading requires no concentration whatsoever on my part.
I read both those books over the course of about four days, and let me tell you, they were nothing at all what I was expecting.
On the back of the Wyrd Sisters, there's a quote from the Houston Chronicle: 

"Think J.R.R. Tolkien with a sharper, more satiric edge."

It is nothing whatsoever like Tolkien. It's not an edge. It an entire book that's sharp and satiric. It's sharp and satiric to its core.
I would actually compare it more to The Thirteen Clocks, by James Thurber.
It's not Epic Fantasy. It's more like a spoof on Epic Fantasy.
Wyrd Sisters spoofs on Hamlet and witches, and Guards! Guards! spoofs on dragons and the legends that go with them. (How do you get rid of a Patrician and get a King in his place? Summon a dragon, of course, so someone of king material can come and kill him! Logical solution, of course. Especially when the dragon gets mistakenly crowned king...)
Some excerpts:

"The duke had a mind that ticked like a clock, and, like a clock, it regularly went cuckoo." (Wyrd Sisters) 

"It was a good storm. There was quite effective projection and passion there, and critics agreed that if it would only learn to control its thunder it would be, in years to come, a storm to watch." (Wyrd Sisters)

"Thunder rolled... it rolled a six." (Guards! Guards!)

"'Then we are agreed, brethren? You are prepared to practice magic?' 'Oh, practice,' said Brother Plasterer, relieved. 'I don't mind practicing. So long as we don't have to do it for real --'" (Guards! Guards!)

"Normally the only decoration in there was on Sham Harga's vest and the food was good solid stuff for a cold morning, all calories and fat and protein and maybe a vitamin crying softly because it was all alone." (Guards! Guards!)

Almost every other sentence is funny. If I read a few pages without inwardly laughing I would read them again to find the joke(s) that I missed!

And there are awesome footnotes, too. See:

"If it wasn't for the engine of her ambition, he'd be just another local lord, with nothing much to do but hunt, drink, and exercise his droit de seigneur*." (Wyrd Sisters)

"He liked a big noisy banquet and had quaffed** many a pint of good ale." (Wyrd Sisters)

I just love it. There are adaptations for the theater of both these books, and if they ever show up in Chicago, I will definitely go see them.

A weird part - these books don't have chapters. None whatsoever. I generally go by chapters to determine when to stop reading and to cajole my dad/mom/sister into letting me finish "one more chapter," before attending to whatever they are asking me to do. But these books have no chapters. Which means I can say, "Let me finish one more chapter," and get to read the whole book! Mwahahahahah....

If you like fantasy - and a good laugh - try some Pratchett. I'm definitely going to read more of his stuff.

~Sophia

______________________________________________________________
*Whatever that was. He'd never found anyone prepared to explain it to him. But it was definitely something a feudal lord ought to have and, he was pretty sure, it needed regular exercise. He imagined it was some kind of hairy dog. He was definitely going to get one, and damn well exercise it.

**Quaffing is like drinking, but you spill more.

characters vs. CHARACTERS

Since in the title of this post it may be hard to differentiate between the two types of "characters" I'm talking about here it is again:

characters vs. Characters

You may notice that in my posts I vary between referring to characters with either a capital or a lowercase "c." I will, in this post, define what I mean by either, because, yes, there is a difference.

By the way, before we begin, I am not even addressing the definition of "character" as, "moral or ethic quality," as in "he was a man of strong character," or the topic of those "character building courses." Here, I'm only talking about a character as in a character in a story. I hope that makes sense.

We proceed.

When I say, "I don't like the character of Javert," for an example of the lowercase version, I mean that I would not like to hang out with him, because he's not a nice guy. It's what people mean when they say, "He's an evil character," or, "She's a funny character," or "He's a calm, sweet character." It's the conventional use of the word.

When I use a capital "C," however, it means something entirely different. Though I may not like the Javert's character, I do like his Character. Character with a capital "C," has to do with Characterization, how the author portrayed the Character. Javert is an awesome Character. Look at his depth! Look at his transformation! In fact if you want a good example of a Character, choose any from Les Miserables. They are all spectacular Characters - though only some are nice characters.

To be able to produce good Characters in your writing, you have to practice. The opposite of a good Character is a flat one without any depth; the opposite of a good character is an evil one.

I hope this makes at least some sense.

See you in the next post.

~Sophia

Les Miz Part 4: A little bit more on Javert

So I realized that I hadn't talked a lot about Javert as a Character, mostly about how he looked.
Which seems a little superficial, doncha think?

So back in Part 2 I said:

Javert is a deep Character, and Russell Crowe didn't even begin to show that depth. He was a villain, nothing more.

First things first, let's get this straight:

Javert is not a villain.

Though Javert may be the antagonist, that does not necessarily mean he is a villain.
He's actually a pretty decent guy, with (almost all of) his morals straight. He just has an extremely strong sense of justice, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Bad guys get punished, good guys get rewarded.

Those who follow the path of the righteous shall have their reward. 

And if they fall as Lucifer fell, the flame! the sword!

(That's from the song Stars from the musical, by the way.)

What makes him not likable is his absolutism and his lack of mercy.
He cannot even consider that people can and do change through the course of a lifetime, and that the law might possibly - just possibly - make a mistake.
Javert likes the simplicity of categorizing people as either "good" or "evil," and does not accept that a good person can become evil or an evil person can become good, or even that a person can be partially good and partially bad.
From this stems the lack of mercy. No emotions need be involved - a person labeled as good by the unfailing law is rewarded, and a person labeled as bad is punished. Forgiveness doesn't even fall into the equation. The concept does not even exist in his mind.

Which is why when Valjean, time and time again, has Javert at his mercy, and, time and time again, lets him go free without harm, Javert's perfectly organized world is shattered. He has never seen anything like it.
He's been begged for mercy before, many times, but never has he been given it. Let free.
His simple world isn't so simple anymore when mercy is put into the picture.
And somehow, a small part of him in the end wants to participate in this world of forgiveness, which is why, in the end, he lets Valjean go.

But the rest of him is utterly shocked that he accepted the mercy into his life, into his world. His whole being rebels against a world like that. It's not the nice, tidy, absolute world of Javert's plan.
And he can't live in a world like that.

So in the end, we pity him. We don't see him as a villain; we don't triumph over his demise; we don't say, "He met his rightful end." He was just trying to do his best for a God he saw as the Great Judge, and when he realized God was Forgiveness, he couldn't handle it. His world flipped.

We can actually draw some nice parallels between Javert and Valjean. When Valjean stole the silver from Monsieur Myriel, Valjean was prepared for the priest's condemnation. Instead, he received forgiveness. It flipped Valjean's world, too. But he was so overwhelmed by it that he decided to follow in Myriel's path, and become Monsieur Madeline. (Side note: I love Myriel. He reminds me of St. John Marie Vienney, my favorite saint.) When Valjean saw the opportunity to continue to give that mercy that had so changed him, he took it, and forgave Javert for continually dogging him. He decided to propagate the forgiveness, and hoped Javert would be as profoundly touched as he had been.

Which Javert was. But in a completely different way.

~Sophia

Here is Les Miz Part 1: Introduction
Here is Les Miz Part 2: Javert
Here is Les Miz Part 3: Marius


I know that this Les Miz series of posts was long, but if you managed to get through it, I'd like to know your opinion on it. Have you read the Book? Seen the Musical? or the Movie? 
Favorite characters, scenes, songs? 
Any philosophical thoughts you may have regarding anything Les Miz? 
Let me know in the comments!

Les Miz Part 3: Marius

Marius is, in short, a stalker.

But he is an awesome stalker.

He is on my list of Literary Crushes. :-)

Lynd Ward's sketch

One part that they didn't include in Les Miz show or Movie is the letter that Marius leaves under a rock in Cosette's garden. (I understand that this would be hard to do... still, it's one of my favorite parts in the book.) The letter is a collection of epigrams he wrote to her when he still didn't know where she lived. This chapter (The Idyll of the Rue Plumet, Book V, Chapter 4: "A Heart Beneath A Stone) is the most romantic chapter I have ever read. Seriously. Here are some of the best:

"The reduction of the unverse to a single being, the dilation of a single being as far as God, such is love."

"The soul only needs to see a smile in a white crepe bonnet in order to enter the palace of dreams."

"Separated lovers cheat absence by the thousand chimerical things, which, however, have their reality. They are prevented seeing each other, and they cannot write, but they find a number of mysterious ways to correspond. They send to each other the song of the birds, the light of the sun, the sighs of the breeze, the rays of the stars, and the whole creation; and why should they not? All the works of God are made to serve love. Love is sufficiently powerful to interest all nature with its messages."

"O spring, though art a letter which I write to her." 

 "You gaze at a star for two motives, because it is luminous and because it is impenetrable. You have by your side a sweeter radiance and greater mystery - woman."

"If you are a stone, be a magnet; if you are a plant, be sensitive; if you are a man, be love."

"What a gloomy thing it is not to know where to find one's soul!"

"I have met in the street a very poor young man who was in love. His hat was old, his coat worn, his coat was out at the elbows, the water passed though his shoes, and the stars through his soul."

"If there were nobody who loved, the sun would be extinguished." 

There are so many more. So many wonderful letters.
After such spectacular writing, I think I'm just going to leave it at that.
There might be a Part 4 coming if I think of anything else to say.

~Sophia

Here is Les Miz Part 1: Introduction
Here is Les Miz Part 2: Javert

Les Miz Part 2: Javert

Surprisingly, I have never seen the Broadway production (which I shall call Les Miz, to differentiate it from the book. The movie will be The Les Miz Movie, or simply The Movie.). I have sung songs from it for voice recitals, I have heard others sing songs from it, and so I knew that the music was excellent. I truly wanted to see it.

When The Les Miz Movie came out, I considered it my chance to see the Broadway production without having to deal with buying expensive tickets. However, I happened to be on vacation for the extent of its playing in theatres. I eagerly anticipated the DVD, and finally - finally - saw it the night before I left for Costa Rica. It being my first experience with a theatrical version of Les Miserables, either live or filmed, I will combine my comments.

As I said in my last post, I could go on forever about the Hugo's excellent characters and their many layers. But I'm going to skip over a couple and go straight to Inspector Javert.

Javert is an awesome Character because, even though he is the villain in the story, he is not evil at all. You can't condemn a guy for trying to pursue justice. He is only doing what he thinks is right and what God wants him to do. His ideas of right and wrong are pretty spot on except for the fact that he has no concept of mercy - none whatsoever. Other than that, he is a good guy.
But that one fault - no mercy, only justice - is a pretty big one, and so he becomes a villain.
Javert believes that the law is impartial, and therefore it is perfect - and whoever is a convict must have done something wrong to merit imprisonment. And once a convict, forever a convict.

If you've seen The Movie, you may have guessed what I am about to say about Javert. It is the general consensus - and I do agree with this - that Russell Crowe was not exactly the best Javert.
Disregarding Characters, and Characterization, he didn't even look like Javert. Here is the description of Javert from the book:

His human face consisted of a stub-nose, with two enormous nostrils, toward which enormous whiskers mounted on his cheeks. You felt uncomfortable the first time that you saw these two forests and these two caverns. When Javert laughed, which was rare and terrible, his thin lips parted, and displayed, not only his teeth, but his gums, and a savage flat curl formed round his nose, such as is seen on the muzzle of a wild beast. Javert when serious was a bull-dog; when he laughed he was a tiger. To sum up, he had but little skull and plenty of jaw; his hair hid his forehead and fell over his brows; he had between his eyes a central and permanent frown, like a star of anger, an obscure glance, a pinched-up and formidable mouth, and an air of ferocious command.

Which one of these Javerts looks more like the description?
This one (from the Movie):



Or this one (the sketch by Lynd Ward from my book):

Here's some more Hugo:

Javert's entire person expressed the man who spies and hides himself... His forehead could not be seen for it was hidden by his hat; his eyes could not be seen, because they were lost under his eyebrows; his chin was plunged into his cravat, his hands were covered by his cuffs, and his cane was carried under his coat. But when the opportunity arrived, there could be seen suddenly emerging from all this shadow, as from an ambush, an angular, narrow forehead, a fatal glance, a menacing chin, enormous hands, and a monstrous rattan... As we have said, he had no vice; when satisfied with himself, he indulged in a pinch of snuff, that was his connecting link with humanity.

(Side Note: A rattan,by the way, is a switch or cane made from a palm of the same name.)

Here's another sketch:















Javert is a deep Character, and Russell Crowe didn't even begin to show that depth. He was a villain, nothing more.
(And don't even get me started on his vocal abilities - but this is a literary blog, and I will restrain myself.)

We move on to Marius next time.

~Sophia

Here is Les Miz Part 1: Introduction.