Accomplishments and new beginnings

In the last month I have completed my BA and tucked my first editing credit under my belt. Tomorrow my braces are (finally!) coming off. I have had achievements of a more personal nature this year which have been just as important, but perhaps not as interesting to others.

I always find a new year particularly poignant, so in characteristic style my thoughts are moving forward to the many new beginnings I can expect next year.

To celebrate accomplishments and new beginnings, and to remind me that I won't put down my pen until my time is up, I purchased this print today.

It's available at NeverWear, and features a poem by Neil Gaiman and artwork by Jim Lee.

Team Darcy

So I saw New Moon last night. It was god-awful, though not quite as god-awful as Twilight. Unfortunately this also meant it did not provide as much amusement as Twilight did. Of course I'm talking about the film, not the book, because I refuse to (publicly) judge something I haven't read.

Anyway, I didn't get the film. I didn't understand who I was supposed to be rooting for, or why I was supposed to care what happened to any of the characters. Except maybe Jacob. Victoria was kind of cool, but I suspect I wasn't supposed to think so. I do think I finally understand all that 'Team Edward'/'Team Jacob' stuff. As I see it, this is how it stands:

JACOB
Pros: hotness; charm; charisma; allows Bella her own autonomy; funny; fun to hang out with
Cons: might accidentally scratch half her face off

EDWARD
Pros: ... Um ... (thinking really, really hard) ... No, I've got nothing.
Cons: way too pale; looks like he's about to cry all the time; no sense of humour whatsoever; makes Bella depressed; has a strong desire to eat Bella; stalks her; won't allow her to make her own life choices

OK, I suppose that makes me Team Jacob. Except that I think Jacob could do way better than Bella. I think Jacob belongs in a different film altogether. In any case, Jacob is all well and good but he ain't no Darcy. At least in Pride & Prejudice the Byronic Darcy meets his match in Lizzy (as opposed to taking over her entire life and controlling her), and I don't have to feel like an old perv for having a little crush on him.

Now, for your viewing enjoyment, a picture almost as weird and impossible to understand as the film:

Fancy getting up at 04:30 to write?

It's nice to know that even established writers struggle with "the attention-sucking power of the internet."

The Wall Street Journal tells us the writing habits of several prominent writers here. (And by prominent, I mean actually prominent.)

It's definitely worth a look.

What Would Jane Satirise?

An article in this week's Wall Street Journal, What Would Jane Do, discusses the moral virtues of Jane Austen's writing and asserts that Austen's foremost goal "was to provide moral instruction."

My first response was to dismiss the article altogether. Austen wrote satire, everyone knows that. Then I thought about it more carefully. I still do not agree with the article. I don't believe Austen's 'formost goal' was to advise young women to act with sense, propriety and humility. (It is certainly clear that Austen admired these traits, but whether she preached them is a different question.) I have, however, come to the conclusion that Austen's satire and moral values are quite closely tied.

In Austen's time, she was criticised for the 'morals' of her books. Persuasion, for example, was criticised for “its moral, which appears to be that young people should always marry according to their own inclinations and upon their own judgement” (The British Critic, March 1818- in Kirkham, Jane Austen, Feminism and Fiction p.149). Of course, whether or not Persuasion advocates this principle is up for debate.

Stuff White People Like on films based on books

On forthcoming films based on books:

"[T]hese announcements create a ticking time bomb where by a white person must read the book in ADVANCE of the release of the movie. This is done partly so that they can engage in the popular activity of complaining about how the movie failed to capture the essence of the book. But more importantly, once a book has been made into a movie, a white person can no longer read that book. To have read the book after the movie is one of the great crimes in white culture, and under no circumstances should you ever admit to doing this."

Read the full entry here.

Sometimes, though, the film is better. I think this is the case with The Lord of the Rings, but I know that's controversial.

In which I attempt to explain one of the reasons I read

I am one of those empathetic types they call a bleeding heart, a softie. My conscience is permanently in hyper drive. Not that I always do the right thing. I know I should buy fair trade; I do. I also know I should be a vegetarian; I’m not.

I grew up being described (by parents, aunts, uncles, family friends, etc.) in terms which indicated that my good traits are of the ‘soft’ variety: gentle, sensitive, quiet, tender-hearted.

In some ways I’ve changed a lot in the last few years; in other ways I haven’t changed at all. My friends would say I’m tougher. I don’t really think that’s true. I think I was always tough, it just took a while for me to realize it and act accordingly. Some of the things I have wanted to believe have crumbled in my hands; some of the clichés I wanted to reject have persisted. I have surprised myself with my own toughness, my own ability to withstand.

I have retained my bleeding heart. And that, I think, is the toughest character trait I have. It’s not easy to keep beliefs when acting on them takes great effort. It’s much, much easier to stop caring and go with the flow. If you ask me, jaded cynics are the soft ones.

I buy fair trade because I’m tough enough; the reason I’m not a vegetarian is that I’m too soft.

What has this got to do with reading?

Magicians and Graveyards

I mentioned Lev Grossman's brilliant The Magicians some time ago. Well, here is an interview of Grossman in which he discusses his book, among other things (e.g.; the disappointment of the Harry Potter epilogue).

The book gives a lot of insight into the nature of fantasy novels and fantasy worlds. So does the interview. =)

Grossman also has an Time Magazine essay (written in 2005) entitled 'The Geek Shall Inherit the Earth', about the increasing coolness of geek culture. Neil Gaiman gets quoted, which always wins points with me. You can find the essay here.

Speaking of Neil, I just finished reading The Graveyard Book. What can I say? Neil is genius!

Books for the people?

Another Guardian blog this week (found here) discusses the new Penguin Classics range, released in the original orange striped covers. The wonderful thing about the range is that the RRP of each book is $9.95. The books even have a little blurb on them explaining how Penguin was founded to make good books affordable for the general public.

The item pictured here, however, is not one of these books. It is a notebook. Blank except for the lines.

Released with the orange-striped books was a range of 'Penguin Classics' products. Love Pride and Prejudice? Get the notebook for only $19.95! Or the mug for only $24.95!

Anthony Cummins makes the astute observation that this attempt to make Penguin Classics into 'culture products' undermines the ethos of providing affordable books for ordinary people.


EDIT: Tony Davis, who instigated to project to sell these products, makes a reply here. Basically, his response is What's wrong with book-related products if they promote reading? Fair point, but he completely fails to address the problem of the price of the Penguin Classics merchandise. The high prices on this merchandise makes Penguin into a brand for the wealthy and (already) cultured.

They are products for people already in love with reading and books, for people who have already collected the books. There's no way these products are going to make reading 'cool' for those who aren't prone to reading anyway and/or can't afford expensive books. In other words, expensive culture products can only serve to alienate the demographic Penguin Classics were meant to serve.

Reminiscing

What did you read when you were a kid?

This week Guardian's Sam Leith wrote an article, here, about how children's books aren't scary enough anymore, and Alison Flood (also from Guardian) blogged here about how many of the books she read as a child turned out to be Not Very Good upon rereading as an adult.

I read voraciously as a child. Here are a few of the things I read:

• Dr. Seuss books- excellent adult reading, not scary
• Winnie the Pooh- still worth reading, not scary
• The Chronicles of Narnia- still worth reading as an adult, mildly scary
• L.M. Montgomery's books- still worth reading, not scary at all
• The Babysitters Club- Not Very Good after all, not the least bit scary
• Nancy Drew- OK (but they are all a bit similar after a while), mildly scary
• Heidi, Pollyanna, etc. etc.- good books I'm sure, not scary

I don't think I read anything truly frightening as a child. But I don't have anything against scary books for children. I do remember being devastated by sad stories, such as the Swan Princess.

Graceling- a review

Graceling is a curiosity. The first few chapters were rather disappointing in their clichés, the flatness of the characters, the lack of original plot. I usually refuse to finish a book I’m not enjoying, but for some reason I stuck with this one. I was richly rewarded.

Graceling is author Kristin Cashore’s first novel, and simultaneously suffers the marks of inexperience whilst being an exceptional first novel.

This is what I will say of the first few chapters: the story is set in a rather typical medieval fantasy world with seven kingdoms and (surprise surprise) a few kings grappling for more power. The protagonist is Katsa, a feisty, bad-tempered girl who happens to have a supernatural knack (a ‘Grace’) for killing. Aside from her killing Grace, Katsa could be lifted straight out of a Tamora Pierce novel; she’s exactly that kind of hot blooded, strong young woman.

Imagination is New Shoes

I just had to share some artwork from my favourite picture book. It's called The Last Resort and it's just incredible! Roberto Innocenti is certainly one of the best picture book artists of our time. The story (written by J. Patrick Lewis) is also superb. The collaborative effort on this project worked beautifully: the story and the pictures complement each other perfectly. (I know that's far too many adjectives, but it honestly deserves them all.)

The book is somewhat difficult to get hold of in Australian bookstores, but if you order from Amazon I promise you it will be worth both the wait and every penny!