{teatime}

The lovely Mrs. Clare Asper of Come Further Up has a weekly post called {teatime} where she discusses the sorts of things friends do discuss over tea.  Yesterday she tried something new - a video format!  As soon as I saw her video I knew I had to make one too, so, a new youtube account (with a nom-de-plume), some slow processing, a bout of crippling stage-fright, and many venomous thoughts towards Google later, it was done.  Now I can't get it to come up in the video box here on my blog, so I'm afraid I'll just have to give a link.  I do apologize.

http://youtu.be/U61u-uiBrV4

I do ramble a little, and a few times I totally could not figure out how to phrase what I was trying to say.  But I enjoyed the experience, and I'm looking forward to next time Clare has a teatime video!

Book Review: The Shadow Things by Jennifer Freitag

Once upon a time, a very long while ago, Mrs. Jenny Freitag of The Penslayer held a "guess & giveway" where she listed the chapter titles of her book The Shadow Things and had her readers guess which one was her favorite and why.  The winner received the book. To my intense surprise, I was one of  the three people who guessed correctly, and to my even greater surprise (and extreme excitement), I won. Many moons later, I bring you this post.

This is a lovely book.  It's the kind of story you just plunge into and stay absorbed in until you reach the last page and heave a contented sigh.   At first I was disappointed that it was so slim, but it was the perfect size for the story, and created in me an insatiable thirst to read more of the author's work.  I can't wait till her next novel gets published.

Here is the summary from the back cover. (Speaking of covers, I approve of the design of this one.  So many first novels have very amatuer-ish covers - this is not one of them.)

The Legions have left the province of Britain and the Western Roman Empire has dissolved into chaos.  With the world plunged into darkness, paganism and superstition are as rampant as ever.  In the Down country of southern Britain, young Indi has grown up knowing nothing more than his gods of horses and thunder; so when a man from across the sea comes preaching a single God slain on a cross, Indi must choose between his gods or the one God---and face the consequences of his decision.

The writing of the story is colorful, with some unusually-worded sentences and gorgeous imagery.  The time period is an interesting choice, I think -- many newly-published writers start off with fantasy or some part of the 1800's (Regency writers, totally looking at you), but Mrs. Freitag chooses the Dark Ages in Britain, just as Christianity began to show its bright face in the British Isles.  The author is Protestant, but to my knowledge there is nothing against the Faith in the beautiful passages in which the main character learns about Christianity.  Naturally, being a Catholic, I would love to see baptisms and Masses, but the story is told in such a way that I can imagine that they are there and just didn't make their way into the visible action of the novel.  The way certain characters truly follow the life of Christ is touching, and got me thinking on how much more seriously and literally the early Christians took God's Word than we do today.  It is a pity.  (Read a life of Francis of Assisi, and you'll get the same sort of bewildered "wait...oops...we're actually supposed to be doing all this, aren't we?")

Jenny Freitag often cites Rosemary Sutcliff as one of her inspirations, and it is thanks to her that I ever picked up a Rosemary Sutcliff novel.  (If you're wondering what I think of them, words that come to mind are vivid, sad, detailed, and long.  I like them, but find them a bit more boyish than my general literary choices.  I am not fond of battles.)

For those who have read the book and are knowledgeable about these things, does the white horse-god Tir in the book have any connection with the White Horse of Chesterton's epic?  I rather hope he doesn't, but I have suspicions.

I think the book is appropriate for ages twelve or thirteen and up.  Children die and some talk of a character's relations with his wife takes place, but briefly and very tastefully, considering the character speaking.  As always, it depends a great deal on the maturity of the reader.
Four and 1/2 stars.

Quote:
"Paul writes that creation groans, awaiting the revelation of the sons of God.  It remembers, I think, in dreams, the wonders of the sinless, perfect world.  You can hear it in the wild tinkle of the wind through the beech leaves, the splashing of  water through cold, crystal streams, the beauty of a hind poised against the sky on a hilltop, and all through heartbreaking, beautiful things that surround us each day.  They are memories, dear Indi, memories of long-lost days when God walked with man and all was well, when the lion lay down at peace with the lamb, when the wolf and pony ran together on the heights and laughed at the joke the mockingbird made."

T.S. Eliot - Murder in the Cathedral

Murder in the Cathedral was my last reading assignment in English and my first exposure to T.S. Eliot - and wow.  I just wandered around like a zombie after finishing it because I just could not straighten out what I thought of it.  I liked it but I hated it, it was perfect but it was awful.  In short, it was a very conflicting play.  I get the feeling that most of Eliot's work is like this.

Naturally, the plot was very good, but as it is a true story, that is to be expected,  (For those who have no idea what the play is about, it's the tale of the murder of St. Thomas à Becket in Canterbury Cathedral.)  The atmosphere is what really got to me, though.  It was depressing and just really, really dark for most of the play.  I think it's just one of those books that you know is good, but is not comfortable, if that makes sense.  (Sort of like Gone with the Wind.) It's enjoyable, but one of those things you can't stay immersed in for too long.
The poetry has a strong cadence and almost reads like music; I love strong rhythms in poetry so I definitely appreciated that.  Especially in plays or epic poems a prominent rhythm is important, I think, because it makes it easier to get through the often unfamiliar experience of reading a story set in poetry rather than prose.
Now, many of us know that Eliot is often considered one of the fathers of modern poetry.  I, personally, am not fond of most modern poetry.  Therefore I had rather a bias against the man, fair or not; but while I could see that modernity and how it could have influenced poetry today, it didn't bother me too much - it was still very good.  Because of the leaning towards modern poetry, the lines are simpler, direct, and strikingly forceful.  BUT.  One can feel the taint of  it, not only in the poetry itself but in the overall feeling of the work.  If you pay attention when you read or listen to music you will probably know the feeling of modernity: a sort of empty, despairing taste it leaves in your mouth. It is well-mixed with other elements in Murder in the Cathedral and so was not so overwhelming, but I still detected its presence.

Now, the Chorus.  I usually don't really understand choruses in general (in plays, I mean), but this one takes the cake.  It's made up of the Women of Canterbury, and they seem a pretty miserable lot.  Also, I can't imagine how their lines are supposed to be said in a performance - are they supposed to be said naturally, or sort of chanted?  Especially since it's a whole group of women... If by chance their lines were chanted, it would make a pretty creepifying spectacle, because they provide a lot of the darkness of the play.  Imagine a group of female voices in unison, sort of deadpan-chanting the following lines:  
The agents of hell disappear, the human, they shrink and dissolve,

Into dust on the wind, forgotten, unmemorable; only is here

The white flat face of Death, God's silent servant,

And behind the face of Death the Judgement

And behind the Judgement the Void, more horrid than active shapes of hell;

Emptiness, absence, separation from God; 

The horror of the effortless journey, to the empty land,

Which is no land, emptiness, absence, the Void. 

I'll say this for Eliot: he knew how to create emotions. Only, the emotions he creates are mostly negative, like terror and fear and despair, so no credit for him, really.  Flipping through the book to find that passage, I found a word to describe the element combating the dreariness of modernity: richness.  Eliot's writing has a richness which, though not at all like the color-drenched richness of Chesterton or the spiritual richness of St. Teresa, is essential to the impact his poetry makes, and saves it from being entirely modern.  Modern poetry is generally too concerned with being abstract and pressing the "enter" button as much as possible to have any element of richness.

And do note that I chose the most depressing lines I could find to highlight my point in that excerpt.  There is much heroism and even beauty in the play, being as it is a very Catholic story, though T.S. Eliot himself was not a Catholic, as far as I know.  I find the interest of secular writers in Catholic martyrdom very intriguing - you have this, A Man for All Seasons, various movies made about St. Joan of Arc over the years, etc.  Perhaps it is simply the sensational element in martyrdom that appeals to them, but I like to believe it is something deeper. The Catholicity in Murder in the Cathedral is strongly present, from the perfectly-handled Tempters (and Thomas' refutation of them) to the lines of the Dies Irae in the Chorus to the Archbishop's last words: Now to Almighty God, to the Blesssed Mary ever Virgin, to the blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to the blessed martyr Denys, and to all the Saints, I commend my cause and that of the Church.

 It is a very true play, and is certainly worth taking the time to read.  It's a lot to process - so sorry if I have rambled unnecessarily here, especially about modern poetry!  As you may see, I have still not entirely made up my mind about it, though I am recommending it.  If you have read it, tell me about it so that we can discuss its relative merits and demerits.  It's the sort of book that must be discussed to be understood properly, I believe.

Recommended for ages 16+, unless you are especially mature. No star rating because I just can't decide!

Little Dorrit: Book + Film

I was going to post more poetry, but I do feel the need to vary my posts a bit more.  However, I have enough intellectual stuff to do in school (yes I am still doing it, but am trying to get done by the end of this month) without coming up with extra work for myself by writing worthwhile deep posts here.

So...what shall we talk about?  Shoes and ships and sealing wax, cabbages and kings?  You know, even though I use that line all the time, I can never remember what poem it's from.  It's just like when a line of song gets stuck in your head, but with poetry.

OOOH. LITTLE DORRIT.  Yes, that was extremely random, but my eye fell upon a list of films I have tacked up on my magnet board, and saw it written there, and then I remembered that I kinda really liked it and wanted to talk about it. (I promise to be as spoiler-free as possible.) I actually - shame on me - read Little Dorrit mostly because I wanted to see the film version.  Of course, I was happy to read it, it being Charles Dickens.  You know, at this point I really enjoy Dickens much more than Austen.  *collective gasp*  Yes.  I know.  Anyway, first of all the book was lovely.  I just discovered that you can post Goodreads reviews on your blog, so here you go:

Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Four-and-a-half stars. The last half is deducted simply because it was really long and I felt that it could have been cut down a bit. However, I've been feeling that way about a lot of books lately, perhaps because I have a lot less time than I used to, so maybe you should just ignore that.

I completely fell in love with Arthur Clennam. He is just the quiet kind of character that most appeals to me. Amy's forbearance was amazing, and though of course fictional, she really did inspire me to greater patience in my own life. I am very fond also of many of the secondary characters, which doesn't always happen with Dickens...Rigaud is one of the creepiest villains I've ever come across, and I'm not even quite sure why.

Note: I recommend the BBC film adaptation of this, with Matthew Macfayden. While of course very far from perfect, I thought it captured the story quite well, besides being a great film in its own right.
View all my reviews

My last little comment there is a good segway into talking about the film, no?  Well, it is visually lovely, has a gorgeous soundtrack, and was fairly faithful.  I did not like what they did with Tattycoram's story, however.  Ick.  It was certainly interesting to see Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman) from Doctor Who in period costume, however!  Let's see, what else can I pick at... some say that Matthew MacFayden was too young and good-looking to play Arthur Clennam, but I dunno, I think it works.  He is not dashing, and I felt like he understood the character.  Also, he has very mild eyes.  He always looks like a sad puppy and I want to reach through the screen and hug him.

Via.  All subsequent images from same link.

Moving on....
Amy I suppose was pretty good as well.  Naturally they had to make her show a little more spice than in the book, to appease the feminists, but it wasn't too bad.  They showed her sweetness and cheerfulness enough to make me ashamed of my...er...opposite traits.

I like that they didn't make her stunningly beautiful.

Like I said in the review, this story has some of my favorite secondary characters ever.  High on the list are Mr. F's Aunt, a senile old lady who takes a very deep dislike to poor Arthur, and Maggie, a girl cared for by Amy who was mentally retarded by a fever and now is perpetually ten, though in years she is twenty-five.  She's funny and sweet and devoted to Amy.  Also there's Mr. Meagles, Mr Doyce (who looked Indian, which was a bit odd for 19th century England, methinks), poor silly Flora with whom Arthur was once in love, and who is still in love with him, Mr. Pancks (who is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BALD) and, of course....
Rigaud.
*cue creepy music*

Played by Andy Serkis of LOTR fame, I found him truly creepifying.  (No, that is not a real word.  Deal with it.)  In both book and film he makes the blood run cold whenever one hears the phrase "death of my life!" or a French children's song that runs "Qu'est-ce qui passe ici si tard ? Compagnons de la Marjolaine..."  (It will get stuck in your head.)

Ack, I forgot one of my FAVORITE favorite characters!  Frederick Dorrit, Amy's uncle. Perhaps it is from him that Amy inherits her temperament, for he is as mild as she, and only one one occasion cannot take it any more and stands up for her to her ungrateful family.  I don't know, I just feel really sorry for him, he's so gentle and seems so confused most of the time.  Especially in the latter half of the book, I felt bad for him.

One more character: Edmund Sparkler.  In the book I found him more annoying than anything, though I did recognize how good-natured he was under his silliness, but in the movie he's really rather adorable, poor boy.

Be quiet, Sparkler.

Oh, one more thing.  Amy's brother Tip is played by Arthur Darvill, also from Doctor Who.  I found this irrationally hilarious.

Well, as you see my method of movie-reviewing is more gushing over characters than anything else.  I crave your pardon, but remind you that I said in the beginning of this post that I am not up to anything complicated.

I'd say ages 10 & up would be fine with the film, but there is murder and creepy French villains and whatnot, so it depends on the person.  I give both movie and book 4/5 stars.  In other words, watch and read.  The book is on Project Gutenberg and probably free for Kindle as well, and I watched the movie on Youtube.

I leave you with a little bit of the soundtrack - which the BBC, as is its irritating practice, never released.

Here, also, is a link to a piano cover of the main theme, performed by the gentleman from whom I got the piano music to Thornton's Walk.

Have you seen or read Little Dorrit? What did you think?

"Do you have joy without a cause, yea, faith without a hope?"

Once again, this is a post which I began some time ago and never finished.  I am no longer writing the essay in question - it has long since been graded, and I got an A, so you should listen to me when I talk about it.

The eponymous White Horse. (via google images)

 
I am continuing my time-honored tradition of procrastinating on English essays by writing about the subject of the essay here on my blog.  (See here, here, here, and here.)  It's like a passive-aggressive reaction or something.  I dunno.

This time the essay - and thus the blog post - is about my favorite epic poem in the history of ever - namely, The Ballad of the White Horse.  What's so great about it, you ask? Well, first and foremost, IT'S CHESTERTON.  I have about as much respect for him as I do for Tolkien, though in rather different ways.  Chesterton's intellect is intimidating, but that doesn't mean he's difficult and boring.  Au contraire.  His writing is the most hilarious, colorful, gorgeous thing that you can imagine.  But anyway, back to the the Ballad.  Just in case you don't really know or "get" what it's about, I'll give you a bit of a synopsis. 

The Ballad of the White Horse is the tale of King Alfred the Great of England and his battle against the Danish invaders in the ninth century.  On a greater scale, however, it is the endless story of the struggle betwixt good and evil, Christian and pagan.  Religion, history, legend, and myth blend seamlessly into an epic poem deserving of the name.

There.  Publishers should totally employ me to write their blurbs.

Really, I hardly know what else to say.  Does that every happen to you, where you like something so much that you don't know what to say about it? Maybe not.

I suppose the best thing is to let it speak for itself.  Here's my favorite part, which also happens to be the most famous, thanks in part to a certain Regina Doman, whose novel The Shadow of the Bear included the first stanza about the Men of the East.  That was actually the way I was introduced to the poem, and as it is quite lovely, it sparked my interest, so thank you, Mrs. Doman.

To give you some background, this is Our Lady speaking to King Alfred in a vision.

"The gates of heaven are lightly locked,

We do not guard our gold,

Men may uproot where worlds begin,

Or read the name of the nameless sin;

But if he fail or if he win

To no good man is told.

"The men of the East may spell the stars,

And times and triumphs mark,

But the men signed of the cross of Christ

Go gaily in the dark.

"The men of the East may search the scrolls

For sure fates and fame,

But the men that drink the blood of God

Go singing to their shame.

"The wise men know what wicked things

Are written on the sky,

They trim sad lamps, they touch sad strings,

Hearing the heavy purple wings,

Where the forgotten seraph kings

Still plot how God shall die.

"The wise men know all evil things

Under the twisted trees,

Where the perverse in pleasure pine

And men are weary of green wine

And sick of crimson seas.

"But you and all the kind of Christ

Are ignorant and brave,

And you have wars you hardly win

And souls you hardly save.

"I tell you naught for your comfort,

Yea, naught for your desire,

Save that the sky grows darker yet

And the sea rises higher.

"Night shall be thrice night over you,

And heaven an iron cope.

Do you have joy without a cause,

Yea, faith without a hope?"

Isn't it just lovely?  Maybe it's just me, but I think it makes you feel very strong and fearless, like you could withstand anything in the strength of the Faith .  I don't know why.  Paradoxes (like "joy without a cause" and "faith without a hope") just really appeal to me.

Now to make this a proper book review.  I give it 5 out of 5 stars, suitable for....erm, anyone who can understand it, really.  In general, I'd say highschool level.

Have you read The Ballad of the White Horse? (If you haven't, go get it now.  You can read it on Project Gutenberg here, if you like.) What did you think of it, if you did read it?  And have you read any of Regina Doman's books?

A Ramble-y Post on *The Scarlet Letter*

 People.  This book.  I thought I was going to hate it, but I don't.  It's full of interestingness and ideas and STUFF, which I will now proceed to ramble about.  Oh, and I must put out a major spoiler alert.  Don't say I didn't warn you.  You won't understand what I'm talking about, if you haven't read the book, by the way, because I'm not going to explain who or what I'm discussing.  I have to do that all the time in real life, and I very much dislike it.

First of all, The Scarlet Letter made me very grateful to be a Catholic.  Catholic confession would have been the saving of Dimmesdale!  He wouldn't have had to struggle with all that guilt and hypocrisy, because his sin would have been cleansed by the sacrament of Penance.  But no, he was a Puritan, and so he had to struggle with his guilt and try to avenge it on his own.  I do feel very, very sorry for him, even if he was a spineless jerk most of the time.  But shame is a horrible thing to bear.  It's not even explainable, it's so ghastly.  So I feel for Dimmesdale, and I wish I could hop in a TARDIS or something and bring him a Catholic priest.  (Do TARDISes go to fiction?  I'm not very well-versed in Who-ology.)  I did like that the author had confession (in a general way) be essential to Dimmesdale's redemption.  Hawthorne didn't just have him say "oh, in my heart I'm sorry for this, and that's all it takes so everything's fine now.  Glory hallelujah."  Also, the author didn't make excuses for the sin.  I mean, the whole book is about the consequences of a couple's adultery.

Random point #2: Pearl scares me.  I know she's supposed to be the living incarnation of her parents' sin and their punishment, but the girl is freaky.  You have no idea how relieved I was to find out that she was "humanized by sorrow" and eventually married and had a child.  I would have liked to see what she was like after her "transformation."  Too bad Nathaniel Hawthorne is dead.  A Pearl-centered sequel would have been interesting.

Speaking of weirdness, I was a bit confused by all the mentions of witchcraft.  Did Hawthorne mean to imply that all the flying about in the sky and whatnot actually happened, or was he just giving  the local opinions?  Very strange.

I found the characterization to be very good.  All the characters were three-dimensional: no one was  all good or all bad, yet the division between good and evil was very visible.  Even revengeful old Roger Chillingworth had his sympathetic moment in the beginning of the story, when he admits that he was wrong to marry Hester.   One almost feels sorry for him at that point.

Well, I'd better wrap this up.  It's nearly dinnertime and I'm too hungry to think anymore.  But I shall make this into a proper review by giving The Scarlet Letter 7 stars out of 10, a PG-13 movie-style rating (for mature themes), and recommending the book for readers age fifteen & up.

Note: I did not give the "mature readers"/"ordinary readers" distinction because once a reader is old enough for the mature themes, he/she is already old enough to be comfortable with the style.  Hope that makes sense. 

If you've read The Scarlet Letter, what did you think of it?  (Seton students, my eye is upon you.  I know you've read it because it's required for 11th-grade English, so I am expecting your comments.  Muahaha.)

Book Review: The Hunger Games Trilogy {Part 2}

Now, after all the criticism of the last post, what did I actually like about the series?  Well, I have a confession.  I always insist that I hate post-apocalyptic fiction - it's absurd, sensational, depressing, etc.  But the truth is, it's terribly interesting.  I like thinking about the scenarios and trying to discover if they could really happen.  Quite intriguing.  So I liked The Hunger Games because I felt that some of it was applicable to real life, or how real life could be, eventually.  Also, despite my earlier condemnation of Katniss, there is one aspect of her character which made me realize something about myself: her dislike of owing people.  Kindnesses can make me very uncomfortable, and I always wondered why.  After reading this series I realized that it's because, like Katniss, when someone goes out of their way for me or my family, I need to try to pay them back, even out the score.  And it's silly, because a true kindness looks for no return, especially if it's something I really can't repay.  But it happens, nevertheless, and knowing the problem is always the first step towards fixing it.  So I'm grateful to Katniss for that.  (But I don't feel the need to repay her.)


Another thing I must mention is that I loved the songs included in the story - the valley song and The Hanging Tree.  The valley song is quite pretty and The Hanging Tree is creepy and intriguing, getting both stuck in my head even without tunes.  I wish there were tunes.

 Deep in the meadow, hidden far away
A cloak of leaves, a moonbeam ray
Forget your woes and let your troubles lay
And when again it's morning, they'll wash away.

Taken on a shallow level, (a.k.a the level normal people would take it on), the series was enjoyable and fast-paced enough that it didn't start dragging at any point.  It was easy reading but, because of the content, didn't feel like reading an eighth-grade book.  


Overall, here's what I'd rate it:


Four stars out of ten
Two-and-a-half out of ten morality points
If it were graded the way movies are, I'd say PG-13
Recommended for mature readers age twelve and up, ordinary readers age fifteen and up.


Have you read this series? What did you think of The Hunger Games?
  

Book Review: The Hunger Games Trilogy {Part 1}

**Note: I have tried to keep this post as spoiler-free as possible, but it is difficult.  Minor spoilers may be given away, and I think I have made the ending rather obvious.  If you have not read the series,you somehow don't know the storyline yet, and you don't want to know what happens, you mayn't want to read on, especially where I discuss the plot.**

Oh, and just so you know, I'm having strange font-size problems, so if it's too big or too small, I apologize.

When a bunch of people in the writer's club I belong to said how much they loved this series, I became rather interested.  When I found out they were making a movie of it, I got more interested.  When two close friends of mine read the series and liked it (one loved it), I became desperate to read it.  Finally one of those two friends lent me the books.  (I finished them in four days, of course.) I was extremely curious as to exactly why these books are so popular.


Well, I am glad to say that once again I am not obsessed with what the rest of the world is obsessed with.  *pokes nose in the air*  It's an okay series, but it's definitely got problems. Like most things, it has good points and bad points.  I shall now proceed to ramble on about it all in no particular order.


Before I begin, I must say one thing.  WHY did Ms. Collins give her characters such odd names?  Some of them are okay, like Gale and Prim, but Katniss? Even worse, Peeta???  *shudders*


Apart from the names, I found the majority of the main characters to be largely unlikeable and a bit flat.  I did understand them, which is important, but I didn't particularly like most of them.  The one exception was - you probably guessed it already - Peeta.  The boy with the bread, he-whose-name-is the-worst-in-the-entire-series, the one truly good character.  Peeta is the only one whose love is true and unselfish.  (This goes back to the true love post, if you missed it.)  Oh, and I also liked Rue, but she's not really a main character.  I didn't like Katniss.  I understand that she had a shocking amount of hardships to bear, but I still couldn't stand her selfishness.  Most of the time she only does what will help herself, not taking into account anyone else.  The only one she seems to truly love is her sister Prim.  


 The series has a lot of morality problems, even if one leaves out the fact that nudity seems to be entirely acceptable in the world of Panem.   Supposedly the books are meant to protest violence, and to a certain extent I can see that, but the thing is, violence doesn't seem to be protested against if the "good" characters commit it.  Katniss's countless killings.  Gale's ruthless traps that play on human sympathy and charity in order to murder the most people possible.  (One may argue that the traps were not presented in a necessarily good light, but I don't think it was clearly against them, either.)  It's hard to explain it properly without giving away major spoilers, but you probably get the idea.  The books seem to subscribe to the philosophy of the ends justifying the means, which is of course wrong.


 Now for the fun part - style/plot/characterization critiques. (Mwahahahaha...)  The first thing that struck me when I began The Hunger Games was the first person, present tense writing.  It took about a third of the book for me to get used to it.  I'm not necessarily saying it was a bad choice, just different.  It actually makes sense, really, given the action-driven plot.  It adds to the feeling of immediacy in the series.  I don't think it's something I personally would have chosen, but I didn't write the book, so it doesn't matter.  It was quite interesting.  I've never read a book written like that before, so points to Ms. Collins for originality there.  I did find the actual writing to be a bit simplistic and limited, but given the audience and, once again, the plot, that is understandable.  There were some nice descriptions, mostly in the first book, but for the most part the vocabulary was unremarkable.


As for the plot, in general it was pretty tight.  I do rather believe in history repeating itself, so I find the idea, mentioned in Mockingjay, of a Panem et Circenses world believable.  The Romans kept it up for a while.  It's not like it's unprecedented, though the Romans didn't use children.  They were not averse to killing entire families, though, if sources are correct, so it makes little difference.  I shudder to think what they would have done with modern technology like that in The Hunger Games.   Anyway, enough with the history lesson.  The one MAJOR problem I have with the plot is District 13.  It's part of what makes the series so depressing: the leaders of the rebellion which is supposed to free Panem don't seem much better than the Capitol.  The monotonous, gray life led by the residents of Thirteen is not something I'd be happy about!  Sure, they're warm and they don't starve to death, but they are allowed no individuality, no self-expression.  Realistically, I doubt people could live like that.  Humans have an all-too-apparent need to express themselves.  Perhaps I am reading into it too much, but by her characterization of Thirteen Ms. Collins seems to degrade humanity into something that needs only the basics of bodily survival - food, clothes, shelter.  At least the Capitol made some twisted sort of concession to beauty, and it did not meddle in the daily life of its subjects.  Thirteen seemed to be, far from a savior, only a new power ready to take total control.  It is very sad.  


Well, that's all for today.  This was beginning to be one of my excruciatingly long posts (and perhaps already is), so I've split it in two.  Tomorrow I shall post the second part, where I discuss what I actually liked about this series and give my final evaluation.  I promise that it's shorter than this one.
 

She Who Loves Required Reading.

Yes, I am odd.  I get so excited when I get to read new things for school!  As weird as it may sound, I am truly grateful to Seton for providing me with such awesome literature, such as:

 
The Scarlet Pimpernel.  This is now one of my all-time favorite novels.  My mom read it immediately (and I mean immediately) after I finished it, and she loved it as much as I did.  Now I'm reading Petticoat Rule by the same author - only, I'm using Project Gutenberg, because it's out of print.  *insert guilty glance at the Pledge to Read the Printed Word  button in sidebar*  But anyway, this is a really awesome book.  Please don't just see the movie instead: it's rather different from the book, and it has some quite inappropriate parts.





Lay Siege to Heaven. The story of St. Catherine of Siena, this was very inspiring for me.  I actually wrote the book analysis for this one (as opposed to my BA for The Scarlet Pimpernel, which I never did....) and though I didn't grade too well on it, it made me think about the story more deeply.  It's beautifully written - much more like a novel than a biography.  I can't wait to read Louis de Wohl's other novels, like The Quiet Light and The Living Wood.  Definitely try this one!





The Screwtape Letters.  Okay, so what if this is for eleventh-grade English and I'm still stuck with tenth-grade English?  I couldn't help but "preview" it, and it's so very good - amusing and scary and lesson-teaching, all rolled into one unusual story, which takes the form of letters from a devil to an under-devil.  Weird, right?  I was skeptical too, but now I'm converted. (No pun intended.)  Hopefully I'll get to read Lewis' other works soon...I'm especially interested in Till We Have Faces.  If I ever get to read this, it may mean another literature feature for my lovely (and long-suffering) readers!





A Tale of Two Cities.  Charles Dicken's famous, well-beloved, and well-hated novel.  (HOW COULD YOU HATE THIS BOOK, PEOPLE?)  I don't believe I can write very coherently about it, especially without giving Important Things away.  Suffice it to say that it's a beautiful tale of love, injustice, and sacrifice.  And it'll probably make you cry, unless you are one of the above-mentioned haters.


 Well, that's all for now.  Now tell me:  have you read any of these books?  Did you like them?  Got any suggestions for the bibliomaniac?  Tell me everything!  I'd love to hear from you.


PS - Would you happen to have anything that you'd like me to post about?  Let me know, if you do!