Leven Thumps, book review

Leven Thumps and the Gateway to Foo by Obert Skye

My review

rating: 2 of 5 stars
I couldn't finish it. It was really quite painful to get as far as I did. Is there a criticism for weight judgments? I mean, like feminist criticism and cultural criticisms--fields of study. In any case, almost all of the villains or even slightly bad guys were noted as being fat or large or worse, and all of the good guys were thin or had no mention of their weight proportions. One of the good guys was even a toothpick. Seriously, a literal toothpick. Perhaps it was all subconscious and not intended to offend people with weight struggles, but it was really too much. I also don't really appreciate repetitive physical punishments even to bad guys, particularly the kind where the audience is supposed to find the punishments funny. It just doesn't strike me as very charitable. Yes, some people need to have justice dealt to them, but it isn't funny.


View all my reviews.

Blink, book review

Blink by Malcolm Gladwell

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
This was a little different from my typical read--an adult book, slightly different, though I still read a fair amount of those, but also a nonfiction, essay-type and not religious. My friend Valerie suggested it, and I actually was really pulled in by it. Those who know me know I don't really care for profanity at all, and there were places with a tasteless dose, so I stopped reading it for awhile, but eventually picked it up again, and overall, I think it was worth the read. Each chapter is pretty well organized, drawing back on a story he introduces at the beginning of the respective chapter to make some point. And also, drawing upon stories and points from previous chapters to build up to a conclusion. However, the concluding chapter itself was rather sparse and not as well connected as I'd expected, leaving me a little less certain about his ultimate intent. Still, it was pretty interesting. It reiterated some of my beliefs and promoted positive ideas that I haven't given as full credence to as I ought, about surrounding yourself with uplifting and positive ideas about all people because the daily, minute influences do contribute to general impressions that impact for the better or worse snap judgments that we can't avoid making on a regular if not daily basis.


View all my reviews.

Seeing the Blue Between

Seeing the Blue Between: Advice and Inspiration for Young Poets by Paul B. Janeczko

My review

rating: 5 of 5 stars
This is a great book for teaching about poetry. The different featured poets share their sometimes contradictory opinions about poetry, which gives the reader a broad scope of perspectives on the subject. And the poems, too, provide a broad scope of the genre, as well as being cute, clever, and enlightening. The targeted audience is obviously children, but it doesn't need to be.


View all my reviews.

Wink, wink

So it’s the last day of summer, officially. Did I get my goals done? Nope. Well, I mean not the critical draft I’d hoped to get done. The writing is no further along than when I last wrote about it, but at least I did make progress on it this summer. However, I have continued reading. The books took a little longer to arrive than I'd expected, though still on time. But I have them all now and have started reading all three of them.

One of them I’d thought wasn’t worth it after a few pages, partly because there were about 10 winks per page and obnoxious dialog tags on a few pages, and the description of the campus and the new roommates meeting each other took over the plot, leaving no room for movement to the conflict—other than to repeat a few more times what continues to be repeated, and was already iterated from the beginning a few times, that the main female character had her heart broken and wants nothing to do with men. Kind of cliché in the first place.

But something told me to keep going, so I did, and I’ve actually found she’s done some things really well, with some reminders to me on things in my own story that I could stand to pump up a bit, like a physical description of the bishop and his counselors. Woops.

I also still don’t have much of a physical description of Dinah, my main female character. But this didn't require reminding. I knew that. I'm just not really sure what she looks like. But more than that, I’m not highly convinced that it’s significant. Somewhat, I suppose, but not the specifics. And maybe even her not being described has the significance I want. That is, I don’t want her to be incredibly beautiful, contributing to the myth that you have to be pretty to get a good guy. In fact, I actually did indicate, by comparison to the Melanie character, that she’s not overwhelmingly beautiful. But on the other hand, for the number of guys who consider her toward the end, reality dictates that she can’t really be a dog either. Is there anything wrong with letting the reader’s imagination take over completely there? Everyone has different ideas about what beautiful is, anyway. And frankly, with these romances that I’m reading, okay particularly this one I'm writing about now, the author describes the main female character's looks quite a bit--and quite a bit too often. It kind of makes me gag every time I hear about her beautiful hair cascading over her shoulders, and sunlight catching a sparkle in it. Maybe I’m not cut out for this romance crap, writing genre.

But I was talking about the good things the author’s done. She does have plenty of good descriptions of the surrounding area that 1. don’t mask the plot, and 2. keep her from having talking heads. Those are good things. And she does get over, to a certain degree, the need to reiterate the main female character’s worry about more heartaches. After the bombardment of winks, the plot does moves forward, too, with the characters getting to know each other and thereby revealing other significant aspects of their personalities to the reading audience. They do keep winking at each other, which gets really annoying, but otherwise she uses good verbs and good language. I don’t recall too many metaphors, or images like that, but the story moves along okay anyway.

So in the end, I might even say I'd recommend it to some young LDS people. I still need to finish it to be sure. As I've kind of indicated, I still have some issues with it, and even some I haven't mentioned. So, yes, I am all the more convinced that the LDS-romance-genre publishers could use some improvement in the editing department. However, I should also end saying I've got some issues with my own writing as well. It's not easy to write a novel, especially without the help of editors who know that people don't really wink at each other that much. Wink, wink.

Fresh French

While in Roanoke, I bought a lot of books. I can't help myself. I felt proud of myself for not going to the Green Valley book fair. That's an awful temptation. O didn't even buy any books after the author visits. But I still bought a good handful of other books at the faculty reading. I figured these people I knew and I was happy to get their signatures in the books, too. And then I also received a few gift books from a sweet teacher for my tutorial, in effort to help me with my Sleeping Beauty story by giving me some Medieval history books. Oh boy, history. Yes, I will have to read some history. I actually did read some library medieval history while I was in Roanoke, and it was pretty interesting. You should be proud of me.

But after receiving all these books, I came home thinking I was eager to read so many of them. I just couldn't decide.

Well, because I had taken so many of my own books with me down to Roanoke, and then with the acquisitions, I had a lot of reorganizing to do. I took just about all my books, even the ones that stayed, off the shelves to re-order and even changed the shelves for some topics. I did another project too to make room, but that's another story.

Anyway, in all of this self-enforced rummaging, I ran across this French book that I'd bought in Princeton like about a year and a half ago--le Petit Nicolas. And that was suddenly what I wanted to read. French. All of a sudden English didn't interest me at all. I felt this certain tiredness of English. All of these silly American stories, blah! They all seemed the same. Why couldn't English be like French?

Well, I just finished it tonight, and I have to say it was pretty sweet. Funny, clever, sometimes a little sad--as you'd expect from the culture. Sometimes it was a little predictable. I guess that kind of comes with all kinds of literature. But overall definitely enjoyable. I think I'm going to have to go get some more French books. Is that Green Valley Book Fair still going on?

Just kidding, I think I can read some English again, but I will be reading more French. It's just Fresh. What can I say?

The Cult of the Book

In spite of the title of my blog, I actually am not a fan let a lone a member of the cult of the book. "-phile" just means you like or maybe love something, but I don't put that on the same level as adoration or worship. But I do think there is a dangerous trend toward this.

The inspiration for this post--it's something I've thought about a lot, but last night I began reading "Inkheart" by Cornelia Funke, which I've heard is excellent. But the cult came out loud and strong in the first chapter. Their house was covered with books, piles here and there and everywhere; the main character Meggie and her dad seem to be constantly reading; his profession is repairing old books.

Really, I don't see anything terribly wrong with this. But it does tend toward the border of wondering if these people live outside of their books. Isn't there also life outdoors? I guess I'm not 100% positive on any statistics to this effect, but is there any evidence that it's not just television but also reading that might encourage a lack of outdoor activity?

Aside from that, the more disturbing part (though still relatively mild) came when Meggie made a negative remark about the stuffy man who brought in Bibles to be repaired by her dad. On the surface there's nothing terribly wrong with this either. The man who brought in Bibles to be recovered might have been stuffy and unpleasant. But it's fiction--he's not real. And he has no other significance to the story. That's why I find it significant that of all the books she mentions, the one she associates with negative things is the Bible.

Of course I'll keep reading. It's not terribly offensive, just borderline. And it might have some redeeming religious relations later. Not likely, but maybe. It does stir up in my mind what I'd been pondering before--that there is this trend toward adoration/worship of books, and not just books generally, but books with the exception of the scriptures.

It's fairly common practice to include in young adult and middle grade books a character who loves reading--some promotion in one way or another of reading. Along with this, many reading advocates promote reading of anything and everything. As long as a child is reading it's great. And then as I've read on many blogs, read in the articles in that Judy Blume censorship collection, and heard more times than I can count, there's this idea that parents should not "interfere" with what their children are reading but let them read anything they want--with Bravos to parents who place no restrictions on their children and don't even give a hoot about what their children read.

Why? So of course, literacy is a concern, and I do understand that when children learn to love reading, their literacy will progress and we'll have more informed and educated citizens and this will all lead to the greater good. But everything? I'm not sure about that.

Why do these people have such confidence in the mass of books out there to instruct better than parents? Does it actually discourage literacy if parents are mindful of their children's reading habits? My guess would be quite the opposite. What children need more than book instruction is loving attention from their parents. Of course, not all parents are good parents, but still. Why should a parent be bravoed for not parenting over such a huge mass of potential influences on their child? That just doesn't make sense to me.

And why, at least in this one case, though it seems a broader feeling, should there be encouragement toward any books but the scriptures? Could it be that the scriptures would be one source that would discourage this cult of the book? Well, I haven't actually memorized the Bible, unfortunately, though I'm pretty familiar with it--had seminary and have attended Sunday School forever. But I haven't really studied the issue of books and such influences specifically in the Bible. In any case, I can't think of something in the Bible that would directly contradict the encouragement to read books.

But there is the verse in Philippians, (Philip. 4: 8) also referenced and reiterated in the Articles of Faith, that says this:
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. "

I like the positive turn this gives to the subject, don't you? It doesn't say don't do this and don't do that, although we do sometimes need that kind of guidance as well (eg. The Ten Commandments do have a handful of don'ts). But it seems with so much good there is out there, as recognized, if we spend our time looking for the good, then why should we waste our time plundering in the bad stuff?

The Doctrine & Covenants, though not as widely familiar as the Bible, also talks to this same point, but actually does address books specifically: 90:15:
"And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people."

So, there you go, another cool verse, --eeh, with a reminder that I shouldn't just be studying fiction, too--learning is a great thing, but it is specific to "good" books, not just any books.

While it doesn't directly address the definition of good here, I think the context as shown in the Philippians verse is revelatory--true, honest, just, pure. Definitely good things there. (In defense of fiction--since the question of truth comes up--I'll say, in case it isn't obvious, that some important truths are masked in tales--Jesus himself taught in parables for the benefit of the people to see at the level for which they were prepared.)

My favorite verse about defining good goes right along with these, the one in Moroni which I mentioned in my long essay about what makes a good picture book, (I think the first post I copied into this blog)--Moroni 7: 12-15:
"12 Wherefore, all things which are ^agood cometh of God; and that which is ^bevil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to ^csin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do ^agood continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and ^benticeth to do ^cgood, and to love God, and to serve him, is ^dinspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is ^aevil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to ^ajudge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night."

It sounds kind of black and white, doesn't it? Just like the definition of charity is broken up into all the things this means (actually in this same chapter, but also in Corinthians in the Bible)--patient, long suffering, kind, etc. I appreciate being able to combine this verse with the Philippians verse to understand better what does bring a person to Christ. Of course there's a feeling to it, some obvious things, or he couldn't say so easily the difference is like night and day, but still. I appreciate the details.

For one, accompanying these also with the D&C verse, we know that the scriptures, although the best at bringing souls unto Christ, aren't the only good books available. And indeed, we need to seek for all or many of the good books and good things there are to be found.

And so, considering the multitude of scriptures that talk about raising up your children well, (which I won't quote because there are far too many), I would think there's room for interpretation that parents might be wise to encourage their children in reading good books. And by personal extension, it would seem that this might best come about by their own reading of good books. As my interest lies in children's and young adult books, I'll put my plug in, too, that parents and other adults alike--particularly those with influence on children---might be wise to read some good children's books! :)

So there's my two cents. Parents can be good parents by reading and encouraging reading, of good books, and promote both literacy and parent-child loving relationships. Don't you think it's great how these things can work together? What do you think?

Roald Dahl

Since I've just finished a little parade of Dahl books, I thought maybe I'd make a few comments about his writing.
First the ones I read over the past week or two:
Matilda
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Giraffe, the Pelly and Me
The BFG
The Twits

In the past I've also read: James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator

Of them all, I would have say there is really no argument. Matilda is the best, hands down. The characters were best developed, the story line was most engaging, it was well paced and not overly didactic. It's funny to me that some critics get down on the early children's books for being didactic and remarking how far we've come, and though I haven't necessarily heard them compare the old to Dahl, I would say he kind of defies the idea of progress in that area. However, he definitely has advanced in the aspect of silliness, generally speaking. Of course Alice in Wonderland is pretty silly and so is Edward Lear's collection. Interestingly, however, neither of these earlier works is very didactic.

Well, I don't think my critique is getting too far, kind of hard to comment on the slew of them, but overall they're pretty good books. If anything, I was just surprised at how slow they were. Matilda was and I remember James and the Peach keeping up a good pace, but the BFG and The Pelly were terrifically slow. You'd think they'd be quick reads, being rather short books, but my attention wasn't as readily captivated.

Censorship

For my class this summer, we have our reading list already so I've been reading ahead, as I have for the past four years. And for the most part, I've enjoyed the books I've read for school for the past few years. I mean my tastes varied for the different books, but I haven't been subject to anything too objectionable--until now, my final year. And now from the most objectionable children's author, Judy Blume. Actually she didn't write the whole book, mostly she was the organizer/editor type with an introductory essay. I suppose this is fitting since she is a highly censored author and the book is a collection of short stories by censored authors. But that fact alone makes me cringe to pick it up. I did though, even read her essay--

which thoroughly irritated me. I'll defend myself in a minute, but I have to say that she really wrote some amazingly closed minded things in an essay objecting to such. Additionally, this essay, as way too many I've read, indicated an unfortunate loss of Aristotle's great lessons of good rhetoric--but that's another entry/essay. (which I might actually write, because I do love the study of rhetoric).

In spite of her essay, I read a few of the short stories, mostly because I'm not convinced that all censored authors write about things as objectionable as Blume does. But some are, and indeed I had to stop with the third or fourth--complete trash.

Before I go further, let me give a little background about my views of censorship. First, I am against it, but well, not exactly in the way Blume and other anti-censors would hope.

I do believe I have some pretty high standards. I think they've been made event in my posts. But I don't consider myself closed-minded. I've read a good number of books that have been censored, because in fact, there are a number of censored books that are censored for reasons that I don't understand. I don't see anything really wrong with Huckleberry Finn, including its language, for example. But maybe if I were black, I would. I don't know. And I don't find Harry Potter's magic too objectionable. And back to Blume--I didn't even see anything really wrong with a book that addresses menstruation. It's one of those truly unavoidables.

But even for those books I hate, I'm all for the first amendment and all that, though I think there are some misunderstandings about the first amendment that tend to get promoted by the anti-censors, quite unfortunately. Still, I'm against it--for the first amendment, yes, but moreso as I was saying, for different reasons.

That is, because some of those who would promote censorship are ignorant of a number of things, including the impact of what censoring a book actually does, they effectivly create the opposite effect to what they'd hoped for. An objectionable book suddenly becomes a highly desired book.

Indeed, there are good reasons for this, aside from the curiosity about what the censors are up to and the scattered dirty minds. In fact, many censored authors are very talented, and the books wouldn't be objectionable at all if the author didn't have some rhetorical skills--the ability to get people to buy into their story--i.e. suspend their disbelief. Things are only objectionable if they're influential.

So, as I was saying--these books become highly desired, get upped on the sales charts, and publishers interpret that people like certain things, often assumed to be the things for which the book was censored. And so the envelope gets pushed even further. Effectually, thanks to censorship, things that would have been considered appalling 20-30 years ago (in the context of what children should read moreso than adults--there have been plenty of objectionable things in adult books much longer) are mainstream now--things that one is expected to see as admirable, perfectly normal, and unavoidable. Judy's essay actually honed me into this as I considered some of the things she included that caused eyebrows to raise at that time. I find those things rampant and mainstream now, 20-30 years later.

So what are we to do about it? We don't want to censor them, but it would be nice to reverse the trend, don't you think? Send the envelope backward? Let people publish their trash if they want to, but protect the people who don't want to read it or feel obligated to write it in order to get published.

As far as protecting people from reading things they don't want to, it seems like a pretty good idea to let readers know what's in the book that might bother them. And personally, I would certainly hope that I would not be forced to read these things or mocked for choosing not to do so. And yet this is another result of censorship. As I learned from the second introductory essay of this short story collection, the representative from the Coalition Against Censorship, because the anti-censors think that closed-mindedness is the cause of the censorship, they would like to respond by opening people's mind and forcing people to read the books and discuss them in schools, because this is supposedly a safe place for such discussions. Excuse me? I've completely lost the logic here. Force people to read things they know they don't like in order to open their minds? And then to discuss them in schools? I'm sorry but I have never found a secondary school a safe haven for discussion! Sure discussions are possible in school because a teacher is a pre-determined discussion leader, but there's no guarantee a teacher has the same values as children and thousands time less likelihood the children are capable of respecting each other's opinions. School is an environment where everyone is required by law to be, with no pre-sorting for different beliefs. School is the place where a number of children's books adequately and accurately portray much peer abuse--psychological and emotional. Why is this a safe place for discussion? Particularly since you've introduced the discussioin with a basis of coercion--forcing the people in class to read what you think is good for them and with which they may disagree.

As for the other point--even if a person isn't forced to read things, it would be nice to know what a book includes in order to make an informed decision about reading it. But, as Judy argues in her essay, she doesn't want her books to be rated. Let the children read what they want to read, she says. Well, I think my thesis indicates the first fallacy in that, but there are more, believe it or not. How can the children know they want to read it before they know what they're getting themselves into? And second, what about adults? Are children really the only ones who are allowed to be troubled by these things? Seriously, I would love a rating on adult books. Not like the movie system--PG, PG-13, R etc. --those too have imbedded the fallacy that age has something to do with it, and although it is content, not the age of the protagonist that produces these ratings on the particular film, the result is more pushing of the envelope (i.e. if it's not PG-13, no one over 10 will care to watch it). No, that's not the kind of rating system I'd like. I want to know what potential objectionable materials, the author and editor have tossed in. As I indicated earlier, I might not agree that it's really objectionable, but at least I'll know and can make an informed decision.

Of course, you might argue that there are a number of places that do book reviews and I could find such information by doing a little research in this way. But my argument again would be that things that were considered objectionable twenty years ago are mainstream now. You don't find that information in reviews because reviewers either don't find material objectionable or more likely they're afraid to admit it because the ideology has been thrust upon them by the years of envelope pushers.

Some kind of rating system, included on the cover of the book would be ideal--let the publishers be accountable for the material they're putting out.

But more than that, I just want some good authors to step out and stop tossing all the trash in. I'd like to see books that have "clean" written on their "label." Seriously. If you don't like profanity, don't write it! If you don't think extra-marital relationships are acceptable, don't give in! Don't contribute to making the world think that people who do immoral things need to be admired. Stop making us think that everyone does immoral things. Just stop it. If you're doing it because you think you need to capture reality--don't worry, we get. We your readers live in the same world as you. We know reality. Depict the good things in it, the way your real imagination will take you, and give us a break from the bad.

The Runaway Read

Yes, I read an "adult" book, believe it or not. As I was exiting the metro a month or so ago, on my way to work, not to my car :)--one of the peddlers handed me a flier--usually they're for a discount on your coffee so I usually don't stop and take the coupon. But I took this thing and it turned out to be a little ad for a temporary used book place--give and buy--a few blocks from where I work. Nice. I had a few books lying around that I really wanted to give away, so this was the perfect opportunity.

Of course my fear was that I wouldn't be able to get out of the store without actually buying anything, and I was right. Maybe I should have left my purse at work. I did just use cash, though--money I would have used in the vending machine anyway, right? I was really putting it to better use.

Well, their children's book section was kind of hidden, so I first found my way to the regular fiction area and found a couple that interested me, all for only $1 or maybe $2. How could I possibly resist? I actually picked up a few there and then wandered a little and did find the children's section--hidden in the back. Craziness. Once there, I of course managed to talk myself out of most of the "adult" books. Most. I still had a grip on The Runaway Jury. I was curious about a John Grisham because I'd read his Skipping Christmas a few years ago, a copy my mom bought with the idea that she would read some of these nonstandard stories from well-known authors. I read during my break at home and I liked it.

So of course my curiosity was piqued a little more to by one of Grisham's more standard style, particularly because I'd also liked some of the movies based on his books, and I hadn't seen the movie yet for The Runaway Jury, so I wasn't spoiled to the plot. To make a long story short, I bought it.

Now enough with all the preliminaries, you're saying. What did you think? Get to the point. Get to the point. Okay, okay. I'm getting.

I have to say for the first time in quite awhile I was actually tempted to stay up all night and keep reading. I didn't. I have troubles enough getting up in the morning. I didn't even read it in a single day, but I was kind of glued to the book on Friday night, a lot of Saturday and then again Monday when I finally finished--and did stay up a little later than I like to do so.

To back up a bit, a couple weeks ago I read almost the entire book The Schwa was Here in one sitting, but since that sitting was in an airplane where I didn't have too many other options, I'm not sure how much that counts. I did like that one, though. And actually, it does count in some ways because I had another book for the return flight and I wasn't as captivated--slept a little more on that flight and stuff.

The Runaway was also about twice as long as The Schwa, so in one sitting I did actually read as many pages. Anyway, I'm still digressing. So, actually, while I think that the feeling that you have to read the whole book RIGHT NOW is kind of the way a book is supposed to make you feel, I actually didn't like The Runaway as much as I'd hoped. Of course there were some language issues which I really despise, but also there was a point somewhere in the middle, during their sequestration that I got more than I ever cared to about all of the juror's "sleeping" habits. Of course he wasn't graphic, but the mention of so many of them was really quite disturbing and largely insignificant, especially to the detail he brought it. It was all for glamor, I think. I was actually tempted to not continue reading.

However, the plot did intrigue me, and I kept going. Like, the devil tempted me and I did eat. So you see, Grisham did a pretty good job with the plot to keep me into--using contemporary, controversial issues, and weaving in enough irony, potential irony and suspicion to keep me guessing. After a certain point, I actually figured it out, significantly enough before the end that I was hoping he wouldn't actually end it that way--or at least with enough twists to make it worth my while to finish. But he didn't. It ended predictably. I guess that's why these are on the mass market. I mean I thought the ending was appropriate in that the right people won the trial and everything. I almost would have been more disappointed with some other possible endings. But it still left something wanting for the amount of suspense and suspicion built in along the way, if that makes any sense.

There were other good things, though. As a writer, it was interesting to see his character development, particularly with so many to deal with. I noticed there were a handful of characters that had some sense of personality and yet I had no idea what they looked like other than what I'd conjured with my own imagination based on the personality. And some I got an age sense on where the age wasn't exactly revealed, but later descriptions of their lives revealed I was on target. It was interesting too, how he kept people with similar names separate, but repeating things surrounding their significance in the plot in a non-repetitive way, just as reminders, and built into the new developments being revealed. There was definitely some skill employed and I appreciated the good things about it. I also do have a certain hankering for the suspense kind of thing, and so I'm pondering now what to read next. Maybe I should get back to writing. Hm.

Beware of Find and Replace!

So here I am, working along reading my thesis, round 3 I call it, and finding all kinds of typos. I think I mentioned before I kind of expected that. Otherwise, it's actually going pretty well. I mean, I am embarrassed that I've sent this to a few people to look at, since it's more than just typos--other word choices and minor points. But I am pleased to find myself now on p. 143 and I haven't found anything that needed serious re-writing, like things that would affect the plot in multiple locations. That's progress I think. And really, p. 143 on day two of round 3 is actually pretty good anyway.

As I read through it though, I can't help but recall some remarks I recently read in an intro to Les Miserables where the editor comments on how wonderful they are for being the only publisher to stay true to Hugo's desires by publishing an unabridged English edition. I haven't actually read too far in the novel yet, but from what I know about it, I can only say that yes, there is value in having the unabridged edition, but I really believe that if Hugo had had a Word Processor, things might have been a little different. Seriously, how did authors ever get by before they couldn't just click "Find" and get to a part of their novel they knew needed a little revision? I mean, if they had decided to change a character or a place's name at some point in their writing, that's pretty serious paper usage to go back and change it. I would guess such changes didn't happen too often.

Writing definitely gives you a new perspective on writers of the past. However, that is not to say there aren't dangers of modern technologies! For example, if I had printed up my thesis after round 2 and handed it to my professor it would not only have been the simple typos that embarrassed me. I mean, I found some things that simply did not make sense. And why did they not make sense? Because I used a Word Processor function called Find and Replace!

See, at one point in my novel, some of the characters are discussing a few different dance halls. One of them I had originally named Plash, and then in round 2, I changed it to Pier One. How? Find and replace. Well, as it so happened, I forgot to narrow the find to "match case" so it would only change it when the P was capitalized. As a result, in a few places where I have the word "splash" such as when a character observes things going on in the swimming pool and when another character ends up in the botany pond, I had things like this, "I held the bars of the surrounding fence for a second to watch as the basketball sPier Oneed back and forth between the water and the people" and "Sam’s large form plopped into the water with a weighty sPier One."

It looks kind of like subliminal advertising, doesn't it? So yeah. Beware of Find and Replace!

Miracles on Maple Hill

The fictophile is back in business! I found a book I liked again! Were you worried about me? You should have been. I was worried about me. I think I've mentioned this one--it was one I pondered about buying. Well, the truth is that it is not LDS fiction, unfortunately, so the story still goes that we need a good one of those. But it was good! So nice to know there are LDS people out there who can write well! And she didn't just write well, she wrote beautifully. Her use of language was exquisite and pacing was tremendous. It's not surprising it won the Newbery, regardless the year.

I was glad, though, to have taken the Family Story class at Hollins a couple summers ago because it helped me to appreciate it on a different level where I might not have as much otherwise. It seems during that time frame, and maybe earlier, the family story was a little more predominant, though not always called as such. Basically, the family story is what it says it is--a story about a family. But there are a few more things to know about it. For example, not all, but those of that era are more episodic than plot-driven, and my professor's experience from teaching this style to undergraduates is that it needs to be understood to be appreciated, particularly among the younger generations who are used to quicker-paced plot-driven stories. Episodic stories do have a cohesive plot-line, but it's not as strong as the plot-driven. Usually every chapter has a stronger smaller plot, conflict-resolution scenario.

Additionally, although in Miracles the narrator did focus on one character more than the others, often in family stories, there isn't necessarily one individual character with more attention, rather the main character is the family. Although I don't think Enright is the professor's favorite all-time author, I do believe she's his favorite family-story author. Perhaps this is why I have the impression that her work in the Melendy quartet seems to embody best this genre, but it almost might be that this is simply why she's his favorite--because it does so. Some other authors we read were Edward Eager, Kenneth Grahame, and E. Nesbit. I'm sure there are many others as well. We also read some more contemporary stories that didn't follow the style as closely, but we looked at how the similarities weaved through.

In any case, in Miracles, though Marley gets the focus, the story is still about her family, particularly about her father's growth and about her adjustment to an admired older brother who is outgrowing the desire to explore with a kid sister. But it's also about the broader human family, understanding a more holistic meaning of loving your neighbor and taking care of each other during hard times and during beautiful times as well.

In sum, a must read! Whether you'll like it or not, I think it will be as good for you as the aromatic maple syrup it makes you hunger for throughout the text.

Cohesion, or incohesion, or Cohesiveness or Incohesiveness. ???

A few follow-ups that may or may not cohere, except inasmuch as I will in some way talk about cohesion. Maybe. Maybe not. You know one of the qualities of a hero? Consistency. I learned this in high school. The teacher also pointed out that a hero can be consistently inconsistent. So I still have some hope of being a hero, right? No, a heroine. Even if I don't have a romance? No, that was the other way around, romances can only be for heroines, but not all heroines have to have romances. Though I still think I might like one.

Anyway, so the first, follow-up. I'll call this one Defying Murphy's Law.
Yesterday, the day after my splurge at Dress Barn (okay, so I didn't admit it then, but I'll admit it now--I bought more than just the one pair of pants. I also bought a couple shirts and another pair of pants), I received a coupon in the mail for Dress Barn. Can you believe it? It was for sales from the 12th to the something--anyway, I made my purchase on the 11th. Stink! Well, I figured I could just return them. It was interesting because when I got up yesterday morning, I had kind of wanted to wear one of those outfits, but I felt I shouldn't. Good thing, eh? So, today, I wrapped them back up and took my lunch hour to return my purchases and buy them back. I did think I might give them an opportunity to just give me the $s off amount. But they couldn't do that (I kind of figured they wouldn't). They almost didn't even want to let me return the items and buy them back. She kept reading the coupon for the stipulations saying it couldn't apply to previous purchases and even if I returned them it would still be a previous purchse. Oh brother. Technicalities!

So I just said I'd return them straight out. Why should I be the one with the loss? I couldn't help which day my pants ripped. So that's what I did. Then after I'd returned them, she said she'd ask her manager if she could override the coupon. Of course. See, the solution to Murphy's Law: Attitude. Stick to your guns. I could probably use some help on the right kind of attitude. I mean when I hear work on your attitude in Church, I think of bowing humility and submissiveness, but maybe that's not always the right way to see it. Sometimes stick-to-your-guns attitude is good, right?

The manager said of course they could seel them back and use the coupons. They didn't really need to lose out, here. So they got there sale and I got myself a nice $20 back--and a tote, to boot. Not that I needed the tote. If my totes had some cohesion to them, I could probably sell them all and make more than $20.

Second follow-up. I'll call this one Bookaphobe. No, that's not really it. Abook. Anti-book. Well, maybe a little Bookaphobe. I am getting a little afraid to try new books because I've started so many bombs lately. As for that history book for the fictophile (this is the follow-up part), I couldn't finish it. I did read at least 100 pages. I think that's doing pretty well. But it got to be so much about war tactics that I lost interest. I kept hoping they'd get out of the war. It's not like the Revelotionary War constituted the whole of General Washington's life. I mean, we don't usually even refer to him as General so much as, okay usually we just call him George, but really we remember him as President. I didn't get that far.

So you don't think it's just history book that's putting the snooze on, I'll go on. I've started reading Uncle Tom's Cabin here at work, because it's free online and that's pretty cool. I can look like I'm busy working or something even though I have nothing to do, and it's free. And it's got a lot of history to it, too, so I can feel like I'm doing some duty in that regard. However, it's downright depressing and I think I might be done. I have no idea how many pages I read because that's now how things work online, but I did get into Chapter 16, I believe, out of 40 something. Heh.

And, now so you don't think it's just history I don't like, whether fictionalized or opinionized (is there a difference?), I'll say the next book that I'm struggling with right now is this incohesive fiction book that isn't historical. I mean at least not yet. It's still contemporary. :)

I'm trying to read these LDS fictions so I have at least a little background when I write my critical part about it, and I thought this one series looked pretty a propos, a girl through her high school and college years, and it looked like some romance involved. I didn't buy the first one though, because it didn't look too interesting, and was earlier in high school than concerned me. I did buy the second one, however. In some ways it's actually pretty in-line with what I need--it includes her last year of high school and first year of college. But I'm kind of missing what ties those two years together. I'm much further in this one--like maybe 150-200ish pages? I don't know, and I'm just not seeing the cohesion--what's the threading plot? Conflict? I mean there is conflict, but I thought it was one thing, but now the book is half way over and it's resolved so it's not that. Hmm.

Generally speaking, the cohesiveness in the plot isn't the only thing amiss, though. From the three authors of LDS lit I've read over the past few weeks, I will say that if the LDS fiction market needs anything it's an author who actually knows how to write. I'm not saying that's me, but one is needed. There are LDS people who know how to write, but it doesn't seem to me that they are writing LDS fiction. What a pity.

And then the other thing isn't really a follow-up, but it's about the LDS market and incohesiveness. Just saw the Singles' 2nd Ward movie, and it lacked cohesiveness. Just thought I'd throw that out there, as my incohesive conclusion to this talk about cohesivness.

Or was there something else? I seem to feel the need to keep writing. Is it because I'm cohesed to the computer? No silly, that's adhesive. You're not stuck to the computer. You can leave now.

Oh yea, the other follow-up. See. I'm cohesed! or adhesed or adhered? I don't know. Anyway, so I'll call this one: ReFicto
I'm actually back to writing the creative part, letting the critical part rest for just a little bit, because I thought of a few plot things I needed to add and embellish and stuff, and now I've got to make them cohesive throughout the story. Hee hee hee.