Since I have already reviewed Cinder, the first book in this series, here, I am not going to say too much about Marissa Meyer's sequel, Scarlet. If you like fairytales and science fiction, these books are a great mixture. Scarlet (Can you guess which fairytale this story is influenced by?) continues the story told in Cinder but adds another set of main characters on their own journey.
Scarlet is sure her grandmother has been kidnapped, but no one believes her. So, when a handsome but dangerous street fighter named Wolf has some clues as to where her grandmother might be, Scarlet has no choice but to follow his lead...even if she doesn't trust him.
I pre-ordered this book (Is there anything so wonderful as receiving a package of goodies in the mail?), and I was thoroughly hooked by the story and sad to have it end. Nonetheless, The Lunar Chronicles aren't over yet. This is one of my top recommended, current, young adult series!
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Jack the Giant Slayer in Theaters Now
Jack the Giant Slayer was my second choice to see in theaters this month, but when you have kids, sometimes you just have to go with the time that works. Oz the Great and Powerful comes out next weekend, and Jack was in town now. So, we went to see Jack. My expectations were set rather low. By now, I should know better than to trust any reviews from Entertainment Weekly Magazine. As much as I enjoy getting my copy in the mail every Friday, I rarely agree with their opinions on movies. Jack got a C+ from them, and though to a certain extent I can see why they thought it was only an average movie, I thought there were aspects of it that really made it stand out from the typical fairytale fare we're often served.
Overall, I really liked Jack the Giant Slayer. I didn't see it in 3D, which is probably an adventure all by itself, but it didn't need the effects to be entertaining. Jack has danger, wild adventure, a bit of romance, and just the right touch of humor, all of these characteristics melding together into a lighthearted but still epic tale of heroism. It doesn't try to be funny just to be funny, but it doesn't take itself too seriously either. It's fun.
The plot itself is very straightforward, but that's not to say it's entirely predictable. The princess gets snatched. The farm boy goes to save her. All kinds of adventure follow. But the conflict isn't drawn out as many other similar movies do. Nothing takes too long to resolve. No conflict lasts throughout the movie. Bad guys die off like flies. But all this keeps the movie moving and changing, and the viewer doesn't get bored. The stereotypical mistrust you often have between a story's good characters, all the misunderstanding that slows the plot down, just isn't there. Although that kind of stuff can make good conflict sometimes, it's so overdone in movies, especially romances, that you feel like yelling at the central characters to get over themselves and see what the audience saw long ago. But Jack moves things right along in a way that's refreshing. Sure, you don't get a lot of in-depth character development, but that's not why you go to see a movie like Jack.
And you don't need a lot of character development when you have fantastic entertaining characters to begin with, as Jack does. Though, admittedly, they are static and somewhat stereotypical, they are also individualized. Even the minor characters stand out, quirky and fun, and you care or at least have an opinion ("he deserved to lose his head") about nearly all of them. I really enjoyed seeing a relatively new face in Jack himself, played adorably by Nicholas Hoult. And Ian McShane and Ewan McGregor give fun, heartfelt, memorable performances as the king and the head guard in charge of the princess's safety. They have the best lines.
Jack is rated PG-13. A fair amount of people die, some rather gruesomely eaten by giants, but nothing is very graphic. There are probably some middle-schoolers who would absolutely love it, but I, personally, wouldn't take younger kids.
(Minor SPOILER alert!) Jack certainly has its over-the-top moments (like falling with a giant beanstalk and landing safely, or the princess coming out of her tent with perfect curls literally ten seconds after looking like she'd just ridden aforementioned falling beanstalk a mile to the ground), but the moments fit in fairytale land without making the movie completely implausible for those of us who like things a little more real. It's a solid fairytale movie without the singing or overabundance of cheap jokes that many lighter, bubblier fairytale movies have. Comparing it to other fairytales adapted for the screen, it's not nearly as serious as Snow White and the Huntsman, but it's not as ridiculous as Ella Enchanted (which I enjoyed anyway, back in the day) or Mirror, Mirror. There's a happy middle that evokes childhood memories of listening sleepily to your parents reading grand adventures. Incidentally, but perhaps not accidentally, that's exactly how Jack the Giant Slayer begins, with children listening to tall tales. And if you go see Jack, just sit back, become a kid again, and enjoy the telling.
Overall, I really liked Jack the Giant Slayer. I didn't see it in 3D, which is probably an adventure all by itself, but it didn't need the effects to be entertaining. Jack has danger, wild adventure, a bit of romance, and just the right touch of humor, all of these characteristics melding together into a lighthearted but still epic tale of heroism. It doesn't try to be funny just to be funny, but it doesn't take itself too seriously either. It's fun.
The plot itself is very straightforward, but that's not to say it's entirely predictable. The princess gets snatched. The farm boy goes to save her. All kinds of adventure follow. But the conflict isn't drawn out as many other similar movies do. Nothing takes too long to resolve. No conflict lasts throughout the movie. Bad guys die off like flies. But all this keeps the movie moving and changing, and the viewer doesn't get bored. The stereotypical mistrust you often have between a story's good characters, all the misunderstanding that slows the plot down, just isn't there. Although that kind of stuff can make good conflict sometimes, it's so overdone in movies, especially romances, that you feel like yelling at the central characters to get over themselves and see what the audience saw long ago. But Jack moves things right along in a way that's refreshing. Sure, you don't get a lot of in-depth character development, but that's not why you go to see a movie like Jack.
And you don't need a lot of character development when you have fantastic entertaining characters to begin with, as Jack does. Though, admittedly, they are static and somewhat stereotypical, they are also individualized. Even the minor characters stand out, quirky and fun, and you care or at least have an opinion ("he deserved to lose his head") about nearly all of them. I really enjoyed seeing a relatively new face in Jack himself, played adorably by Nicholas Hoult. And Ian McShane and Ewan McGregor give fun, heartfelt, memorable performances as the king and the head guard in charge of the princess's safety. They have the best lines.
Jack is rated PG-13. A fair amount of people die, some rather gruesomely eaten by giants, but nothing is very graphic. There are probably some middle-schoolers who would absolutely love it, but I, personally, wouldn't take younger kids.
(Minor SPOILER alert!) Jack certainly has its over-the-top moments (like falling with a giant beanstalk and landing safely, or the princess coming out of her tent with perfect curls literally ten seconds after looking like she'd just ridden aforementioned falling beanstalk a mile to the ground), but the moments fit in fairytale land without making the movie completely implausible for those of us who like things a little more real. It's a solid fairytale movie without the singing or overabundance of cheap jokes that many lighter, bubblier fairytale movies have. Comparing it to other fairytales adapted for the screen, it's not nearly as serious as Snow White and the Huntsman, but it's not as ridiculous as Ella Enchanted (which I enjoyed anyway, back in the day) or Mirror, Mirror. There's a happy middle that evokes childhood memories of listening sleepily to your parents reading grand adventures. Incidentally, but perhaps not accidentally, that's exactly how Jack the Giant Slayer begins, with children listening to tall tales. And if you go see Jack, just sit back, become a kid again, and enjoy the telling.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Divergent Series
Divergent
Divergent has been popping up on my radar for some time now. It's the first in a young adult series, by Veronica Roth, that is still ongoing, and it seems to be fairly popular. I'd seen the cover so many times, I could almost have convinced myself I'd read it, just because it's the kind of book I love and how could I have missed it? But I did miss it...until now. And I'm so glad I finally found out why this book won't go away. It shouldn't go away. It's good. It's epic. I'm not sure it would translate to a movie as well as, say, The Hunger Games (though the film rights have been sold), but it's that kind of a compelling read, written in the same first person present tense as The Hunger Games, and also dystopian, but a whole different kind of story. I really hate when books compare themselves to The Hunger Games, and as I like to say, the next Hunger Games will be something as completely different as that was from Twilight when it appeared, so I guess that rules Divergent out (being similar because of genre only). But it really shouldn't. Divergent is different and fascinating, with edgy, strong characters and strong themes that delve into emotion, or the lack thereof, and what it means to be a decent human in a world where humanity is compartmentalized. In particular, this novel explores what it means to be selfless versus brave.
Beatrice belongs to one of five factions (named for five virtues) who live in a future version of Chicago. Her faction is Abnegation (the virtue of selflessness), but that might soon change. At the age of 16, Beatrice must choose the faction she will live in the rest of her life. Most stay with the faction they've always known, especially since changing factions usually means saying good-bye to family forever. "Faction before family." However, Beatrice doesn't feel like she belongs there. The aptitude tests can help her decide what she's best suited for, but Beatrice's test results just confuse the issue. She has always admired the Dauntless (the virtue of bravery), but is she brave enough to jump off moving trains, fight mismatched opponents in hand-to-hand combat, and defy death itself? Then there's Candor (the virtue of honesty), Amity (the virtue of peacefulness), and Erudite (the virtue of intelligence). It's a world where each faction focuses it's passions on one narrow emotion and contributes to one aspect of society in order to better create a world of peace. But all perfect worlds, as time muddies memory, eventually unravel, the best intentions turning toward selfish pursuit. And when Beatrice stumbles upon a secret worth her very life, she realizes the system has already begun to break.
I love when I discover a book that proves fiction can be edgy without being trashy. This one is very clean (just some kissing on a bed, which I'd never recommend or let my kids do, but which is tame compared to most stuff). It helps that the book doesn't have to get its kicks from, or hinge on, its romance. The romance is slowly incorporated, and the focus remains equally spread among all the other plot points. There's also no love triangle. I don't necessarily mind love triangles, but they are overused as a source of conflict in young adult novels. This book has enough conflict without that.
Edgy and clean are not the only things the book has going for it. It offers a fascinating world and setting with vivid, vibrant storytelling. I will confess, I was a tad skeptical when I realized the book's dystopian setting revolves around five factions based on five virtues. They aren't even the type of virtues you'd expect a society to naturally divide itself into. I was, like, how can you make that interesting? But it works, and I think it works in part because of the characters. The story is narrated by a strong central female character, who is a good role model for readers but also a very cool heroine: an independent thinker and the very opposite of the damsel in distress. The book also explores family relationships and ethics, asking and partially answering some hefty moral questions. This is my kind of story: fully entertaining but also full of the right kind of message.
Not everyone can write a book like that. Though I've found surprising gems in the secular (as opposed to Christian) market, and though I prefer to read secular young adult fiction (partly because I think the preachiness of a novel diminishes its entertainment and value as purely good storytelling), I'm always looking for a book that balances the two perfectly: an amazingly good story with a subtle backbone, holding the story together with a piece of Truth. I shouldn't have been surprised when I saw first thing in the acknowledgments a thank you to God. It's just so rare that an author can write a book I like and not leave a clue (other than the subtle moral bent of the story) that she's a Christian. Just to clarify, this is not a book written for the Christian market. The difference is that the value shows through without the preachiness.
So, after loving the book and then, icing on the cake, discovering the author's worldview, I was very excited about her and went snooping around a bit on her website. She's young, 24, and worked on Divergent in college. She claims to be a Christian, and from what I can tell (since I've only looked at a little of her blog), she is truly. You can read a little bit about some of her beliefs here. This especially excites me because I love seeing Christian authors in the secular market. We need to be there!
Insurgent
Since I am a latecomer to this series, I was fortunate to have a second book waiting to be read after I finished Divergent. Book 2, Insurgent, is fascinating in a bit of a different way than the first (the newness of the concept has worn off, after all), but for me, it worked perfectly to finish one and then start the other because Insurgent literally picks up where Divergent leaves off, no time lapse or anything. I don't want to spoil the plot of Divergent, so I won't say exactly what the sequel is about. The title kind of speaks for itself. One of the interesting things about Insurgent is that we get to see more of each of the different factions and what life is like in each. In Insurgent, Beatrice (known as Tris) is dealing with the fallout of some terrible choices she had to make, so there's some internal conflict, which begins to leak into her interactions with others, particularly her boyfriend, adding to the already extensive external conflicts of a cracking world.
Insurgent tackles a few more big moral questions and also touches lightly and briefly on the subject of God. There is one scene, in particular, that just struck me with its absolute Truth but that could have easily been missed or misunderstood by those who don't share the author's beliefs in God. It contains a simple statement, almost too vague for a Christian, but I thought it was spot-on. Basically, the author, through Tris, declares that whatever happens after we die has nothing to do with us, or at least with our trying. Isn't that the fundamental difference between Christianity and any other belief system? The world believes we have to earn heaven, and Christianity says it is a gift.
I kind of saw the end of Insurgent coming, and it wasn't as big a cliffhanger as I would have liked. However, the third book of the series has a lot of potential to work with, and whether or not you guess the end of Insurgent does not make the book any less of a good one. The whole setting is different from the first, and some might like it less for that. But I think that helps keep Insurgent from being just a repeat of everything we might have loved in the first book. It stands on its own two feet.
According to Veronica Roth's website, her third book comes out in the fall, October 22nd! Too bad I raced through the first two and now have to wait! (Hint, hint to my family, it will be at the top of my birthday wish list this year.) Four stars for each of the books in this series, and bravo to one of my new fiction heroes: Veronica Roth!
Divergent has been popping up on my radar for some time now. It's the first in a young adult series, by Veronica Roth, that is still ongoing, and it seems to be fairly popular. I'd seen the cover so many times, I could almost have convinced myself I'd read it, just because it's the kind of book I love and how could I have missed it? But I did miss it...until now. And I'm so glad I finally found out why this book won't go away. It shouldn't go away. It's good. It's epic. I'm not sure it would translate to a movie as well as, say, The Hunger Games (though the film rights have been sold), but it's that kind of a compelling read, written in the same first person present tense as The Hunger Games, and also dystopian, but a whole different kind of story. I really hate when books compare themselves to The Hunger Games, and as I like to say, the next Hunger Games will be something as completely different as that was from Twilight when it appeared, so I guess that rules Divergent out (being similar because of genre only). But it really shouldn't. Divergent is different and fascinating, with edgy, strong characters and strong themes that delve into emotion, or the lack thereof, and what it means to be a decent human in a world where humanity is compartmentalized. In particular, this novel explores what it means to be selfless versus brave.
Beatrice belongs to one of five factions (named for five virtues) who live in a future version of Chicago. Her faction is Abnegation (the virtue of selflessness), but that might soon change. At the age of 16, Beatrice must choose the faction she will live in the rest of her life. Most stay with the faction they've always known, especially since changing factions usually means saying good-bye to family forever. "Faction before family." However, Beatrice doesn't feel like she belongs there. The aptitude tests can help her decide what she's best suited for, but Beatrice's test results just confuse the issue. She has always admired the Dauntless (the virtue of bravery), but is she brave enough to jump off moving trains, fight mismatched opponents in hand-to-hand combat, and defy death itself? Then there's Candor (the virtue of honesty), Amity (the virtue of peacefulness), and Erudite (the virtue of intelligence). It's a world where each faction focuses it's passions on one narrow emotion and contributes to one aspect of society in order to better create a world of peace. But all perfect worlds, as time muddies memory, eventually unravel, the best intentions turning toward selfish pursuit. And when Beatrice stumbles upon a secret worth her very life, she realizes the system has already begun to break.
I love when I discover a book that proves fiction can be edgy without being trashy. This one is very clean (just some kissing on a bed, which I'd never recommend or let my kids do, but which is tame compared to most stuff). It helps that the book doesn't have to get its kicks from, or hinge on, its romance. The romance is slowly incorporated, and the focus remains equally spread among all the other plot points. There's also no love triangle. I don't necessarily mind love triangles, but they are overused as a source of conflict in young adult novels. This book has enough conflict without that.
Edgy and clean are not the only things the book has going for it. It offers a fascinating world and setting with vivid, vibrant storytelling. I will confess, I was a tad skeptical when I realized the book's dystopian setting revolves around five factions based on five virtues. They aren't even the type of virtues you'd expect a society to naturally divide itself into. I was, like, how can you make that interesting? But it works, and I think it works in part because of the characters. The story is narrated by a strong central female character, who is a good role model for readers but also a very cool heroine: an independent thinker and the very opposite of the damsel in distress. The book also explores family relationships and ethics, asking and partially answering some hefty moral questions. This is my kind of story: fully entertaining but also full of the right kind of message.
Not everyone can write a book like that. Though I've found surprising gems in the secular (as opposed to Christian) market, and though I prefer to read secular young adult fiction (partly because I think the preachiness of a novel diminishes its entertainment and value as purely good storytelling), I'm always looking for a book that balances the two perfectly: an amazingly good story with a subtle backbone, holding the story together with a piece of Truth. I shouldn't have been surprised when I saw first thing in the acknowledgments a thank you to God. It's just so rare that an author can write a book I like and not leave a clue (other than the subtle moral bent of the story) that she's a Christian. Just to clarify, this is not a book written for the Christian market. The difference is that the value shows through without the preachiness.
So, after loving the book and then, icing on the cake, discovering the author's worldview, I was very excited about her and went snooping around a bit on her website. She's young, 24, and worked on Divergent in college. She claims to be a Christian, and from what I can tell (since I've only looked at a little of her blog), she is truly. You can read a little bit about some of her beliefs here. This especially excites me because I love seeing Christian authors in the secular market. We need to be there!
Insurgent
Since I am a latecomer to this series, I was fortunate to have a second book waiting to be read after I finished Divergent. Book 2, Insurgent, is fascinating in a bit of a different way than the first (the newness of the concept has worn off, after all), but for me, it worked perfectly to finish one and then start the other because Insurgent literally picks up where Divergent leaves off, no time lapse or anything. I don't want to spoil the plot of Divergent, so I won't say exactly what the sequel is about. The title kind of speaks for itself. One of the interesting things about Insurgent is that we get to see more of each of the different factions and what life is like in each. In Insurgent, Beatrice (known as Tris) is dealing with the fallout of some terrible choices she had to make, so there's some internal conflict, which begins to leak into her interactions with others, particularly her boyfriend, adding to the already extensive external conflicts of a cracking world.
Insurgent tackles a few more big moral questions and also touches lightly and briefly on the subject of God. There is one scene, in particular, that just struck me with its absolute Truth but that could have easily been missed or misunderstood by those who don't share the author's beliefs in God. It contains a simple statement, almost too vague for a Christian, but I thought it was spot-on. Basically, the author, through Tris, declares that whatever happens after we die has nothing to do with us, or at least with our trying. Isn't that the fundamental difference between Christianity and any other belief system? The world believes we have to earn heaven, and Christianity says it is a gift.
I kind of saw the end of Insurgent coming, and it wasn't as big a cliffhanger as I would have liked. However, the third book of the series has a lot of potential to work with, and whether or not you guess the end of Insurgent does not make the book any less of a good one. The whole setting is different from the first, and some might like it less for that. But I think that helps keep Insurgent from being just a repeat of everything we might have loved in the first book. It stands on its own two feet.
According to Veronica Roth's website, her third book comes out in the fall, October 22nd! Too bad I raced through the first two and now have to wait! (Hint, hint to my family, it will be at the top of my birthday wish list this year.) Four stars for each of the books in this series, and bravo to one of my new fiction heroes: Veronica Roth!
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Mortal (The Books of Mortals #2)
If you read and loved The Circle Series by Ted Dekker, his newest Books of Mortals fantasy, co-written with Tosca Lee, is right up your alley. The series begins with Forbidden, reviewed previously HERE, and Mortal is the sequel. The third book, Sovereign, will be released this June. If you haven't read Forbidden and plan to, skip this review for now until you are caught up.
Mortal begins nine years after the events in Forbidden. Rom is now leader of the Keepers who have allied with the Nomads in a group numbering over a thousand brought to life through Jonathan's blood. They call themselves Mortals. The rest of the world is essentially dead, purged of all emotions except fear, which keeps them docile and obedient. In a few days, young Jonathan is set to come of age and take the throne to rule the world, but evil has been waiting for this moment to rise. Saric, supposed dead (truly dead) by the Mortals, is more alive than they could possibly guess. Through alchemy, he has devised a way to feel emotion, albeit a darker version than the Mortals experience, and he's amassed a loyal army from his own blood. The Mortals have dedicated themselves to serving Jonathan, in awe and thanks for the life he's given them, and all their efforts have been poured into preparing to live a life under his rule. But when Jonathan's succession to the throne is suddenly called into question and an army stands in the way of what should have been an easy transition, the Mortals are suddenly thrown into chaos. It doesn't help that their soon-to-be sovereign is reluctant to step into the spotlight and doesn't seem cut out to rule. In fact, the boy seems to have plans of his own...plans that could get him killed.
Ted Dekker's fantasy series are far different from his thrillers, and this one is perhaps even more different than his usual fare because it's co-written. Yet his fantasy series are very similar to each other. In some ways, The Books of Mortals seems like a repeat of The Circle Series. Both are somewhat allegorical, containing symbolic representations of similar Christian ideas. Both take place in a world that has fantastical elements (like superhuman power) but is actually our world at a different point in history. The story arcs of the two series are even similar: characters awaken to a new, vibrant life, but they rebel against any further change, and further change is always required. Thematically, as well, the stories are parallel. Further change comes through sacrifice and blood and appears, to those on the outside, to be unnecessary, even a regression. In fact, the only difference I see between the two series is the packaging of the plot itself, and to be honest, though The Books of Mortals series rests on an intriguing premise, The Circle Series is, as far as I'm able to compare the two with one yet unfinished, the more complex, interesting series. That's not to say The Books of Mortals isn't entertaining and insightful. But comparing the two, it seems like it's been done before, and done so well as to be a difficult act to follow.
As for Mortal itself, I didn't really get into the book until halfway through. It's not as punchy as a Dekker thriller. It takes its time setting the stage for the second half of the book. That's just how fantasy is, often, but since I'm normally grabbed pretty quickly by a Dekker book, I noticed the slow going even more than I might have. The second half of the book, however, is thrilling. The payoff begins. Everything unravels. The characters' lives get worse before they get better. It's the type of conflict that keeps you reading, and it's everything good storytelling should be. Not comparing it to the books of The Circle Series, it's a crazy ride by its own right in an intriguing world with edgy, conflicted characters who explore the deepest themes of life in the ultimate good versus evil plot.
For Ted Dekker, who often likes to blow your mind by making everything you thought you knew about God wilder and more uncomfortable, Mortal is not his strongest portrayal of Truth, though it's certainly full of the right stuff. For me, it was only a three-star read. But that doesn't mean I won't own and treasure this series, like I do most of his other books, because when it comes to Truth, Dekker hits it on the nail.
Mortal begins nine years after the events in Forbidden. Rom is now leader of the Keepers who have allied with the Nomads in a group numbering over a thousand brought to life through Jonathan's blood. They call themselves Mortals. The rest of the world is essentially dead, purged of all emotions except fear, which keeps them docile and obedient. In a few days, young Jonathan is set to come of age and take the throne to rule the world, but evil has been waiting for this moment to rise. Saric, supposed dead (truly dead) by the Mortals, is more alive than they could possibly guess. Through alchemy, he has devised a way to feel emotion, albeit a darker version than the Mortals experience, and he's amassed a loyal army from his own blood. The Mortals have dedicated themselves to serving Jonathan, in awe and thanks for the life he's given them, and all their efforts have been poured into preparing to live a life under his rule. But when Jonathan's succession to the throne is suddenly called into question and an army stands in the way of what should have been an easy transition, the Mortals are suddenly thrown into chaos. It doesn't help that their soon-to-be sovereign is reluctant to step into the spotlight and doesn't seem cut out to rule. In fact, the boy seems to have plans of his own...plans that could get him killed.
Ted Dekker's fantasy series are far different from his thrillers, and this one is perhaps even more different than his usual fare because it's co-written. Yet his fantasy series are very similar to each other. In some ways, The Books of Mortals seems like a repeat of The Circle Series. Both are somewhat allegorical, containing symbolic representations of similar Christian ideas. Both take place in a world that has fantastical elements (like superhuman power) but is actually our world at a different point in history. The story arcs of the two series are even similar: characters awaken to a new, vibrant life, but they rebel against any further change, and further change is always required. Thematically, as well, the stories are parallel. Further change comes through sacrifice and blood and appears, to those on the outside, to be unnecessary, even a regression. In fact, the only difference I see between the two series is the packaging of the plot itself, and to be honest, though The Books of Mortals series rests on an intriguing premise, The Circle Series is, as far as I'm able to compare the two with one yet unfinished, the more complex, interesting series. That's not to say The Books of Mortals isn't entertaining and insightful. But comparing the two, it seems like it's been done before, and done so well as to be a difficult act to follow.
As for Mortal itself, I didn't really get into the book until halfway through. It's not as punchy as a Dekker thriller. It takes its time setting the stage for the second half of the book. That's just how fantasy is, often, but since I'm normally grabbed pretty quickly by a Dekker book, I noticed the slow going even more than I might have. The second half of the book, however, is thrilling. The payoff begins. Everything unravels. The characters' lives get worse before they get better. It's the type of conflict that keeps you reading, and it's everything good storytelling should be. Not comparing it to the books of The Circle Series, it's a crazy ride by its own right in an intriguing world with edgy, conflicted characters who explore the deepest themes of life in the ultimate good versus evil plot.
For Ted Dekker, who often likes to blow your mind by making everything you thought you knew about God wilder and more uncomfortable, Mortal is not his strongest portrayal of Truth, though it's certainly full of the right stuff. For me, it was only a three-star read. But that doesn't mean I won't own and treasure this series, like I do most of his other books, because when it comes to Truth, Dekker hits it on the nail.
Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (Entire Series) on DVD
My husband and I just finished watching the very last season of the anime series Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. We had to watch all the episodes on the last disc in one go because the end is just crazy!
I was hesitant to even review this TV show (based on a Japanese manga book series) because of its violent and gruesome content, and I wouldn't recommend it for most of my readers here. As far as anime goes, it's pretty tame and clean on the sex (there isn't any, and about the most you see is cleavage). There's a bit of language, but not the worst kind. In fact, I don't think the F-word is used at all, but don't quote me on that. Still, I would rate the show R (it's actually rated TV14) for violence and disturbing images of evil.
The premise is rather complicated, so if you are already a fan of the show, you'll notice how much I leave out here as I try to make it as simple as possible. Ed and Al Elric are two young brothers who live at the turn of the twentieth century in an alternate version of our world where certain humans can use alchemy to achieve inhuman feats, such as reshaping metal into a sword or creating flames with the snap of a finger. When the boys' mother dies, they try to bring her back to life through alchemy, but what they "bring back" is an abomination that costs the older brother, Ed, an arm and a leg, literally, and costs Al his entire body. Ed binds Al's soul to a nearby suit of armor, thus saving his life in some form. Determined to get their original bodies back, the two boys, barely in their teens, one with a metal arm and leg, the other apparently an empty suit of armor, set off to find out all they can about alchemy and the fabled, powerful philosopher's stone. But the journey leads them through unexpected twists and turns, and evil lurks around every corner, waiting to destroy them or, worse, use them for its own nefarious purposes.
Just a side note here (but it's important!): Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood is not quite the same as Fullmetal Alchemist, in case you look it up. The original TV anime is simply called Fullmetal Alchemist, and it ends very differently from Brotherhood because it caught up to the manga books and had to veer off on its own and make up an ending. Once the manga was finished, the show was rebooted with Brotherhood, the ending following more closely to the book. Where the two TV series diverge from each other, they become completely different shows. I've seen both. From what I can remember of the first, comparing the two, Brotherhood is darker and bloodier with a completely different thematic focus. Note that this review is about Brotherhood.
So, interesting as it may sound, if the show is so graphically violent, why am I reviewing it at all? Amazingly, this is a show about right and wrong, about morality, about how far is too far, and about the value of a single human life, among other large-scale moral questions. In other words, it's actually perfect material for this blog.
In Ed and Al's world, alchemy's greatest rule is that everything must be traded for something of equal value: equivalent exchange. In the attempt to raise their mother's body back to life, the boys lose parts of their bodies. What they try is not permitted among alchemists for good reason. The show explores what equivalent exchange looks like throughout every aspect of the world and whether or not it is a decent rule to live by.
(Minor SPOILERS) Later, when Ed and Al realize what the philosopher's stone really is, they refuse to use it to get their bodies back, and they become the voices of reason and right in the show. At times, they stray, but ultimately, they choose right. It's not easy for them. They have to make hard choices, and again and again, they prove that the easy, obvious choice is not always the best. They refuse to cave before evil, and they refuse to use evil means to get their way. They are the counterpart to the adults on the show who think they have to kill sometimes for the greater good; the Elric brothers are always looking for ways around that, looking for the good in people. Several times, they spare their enemies, which sometimes leads to surprising benefits later. Equivalent exchange at work again.
The religion on the show is not just a little hokey, and religion mucks things up a bit at the end. But at the same time, some Christian values creep in there: redemption; the value of giving more than one receives (not equivalent exchange!); compassion, even for the vilest of creatures; loyalty; and giving up what makes us who we think we are. The series also tackles heavy themes of loss and grief, sacrifice (both forced and freely given), and choice (do we choose what's right, even after we've messed up and redemption seems hopeless?). It's rather beautiful, after the dark.
And that sums up the show for me: beauty amidst despair, hope in the darkest places, pure goodness breaking apart the forces of evil. Despite the violence, this is a show that is overall uplifting and deeply moving. It's not for everyone, and I certainly don't agree with all of its message. But for what it is, it has value and merit. I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the series and look forward to every disc in the mail, but I really want to emphasize that this is not typical fare for this blog, nor is it something I recommend you watch. Also, it's definitely not for kids. Anime is not animation, though both are animated (I may be speaking to the veterans here, but you never know).
If you do choose to watch it, knowing full well what you are getting into, I hope you appreciate it as much as I do because there is certainly entertainment and worth here.
I was hesitant to even review this TV show (based on a Japanese manga book series) because of its violent and gruesome content, and I wouldn't recommend it for most of my readers here. As far as anime goes, it's pretty tame and clean on the sex (there isn't any, and about the most you see is cleavage). There's a bit of language, but not the worst kind. In fact, I don't think the F-word is used at all, but don't quote me on that. Still, I would rate the show R (it's actually rated TV14) for violence and disturbing images of evil.
The premise is rather complicated, so if you are already a fan of the show, you'll notice how much I leave out here as I try to make it as simple as possible. Ed and Al Elric are two young brothers who live at the turn of the twentieth century in an alternate version of our world where certain humans can use alchemy to achieve inhuman feats, such as reshaping metal into a sword or creating flames with the snap of a finger. When the boys' mother dies, they try to bring her back to life through alchemy, but what they "bring back" is an abomination that costs the older brother, Ed, an arm and a leg, literally, and costs Al his entire body. Ed binds Al's soul to a nearby suit of armor, thus saving his life in some form. Determined to get their original bodies back, the two boys, barely in their teens, one with a metal arm and leg, the other apparently an empty suit of armor, set off to find out all they can about alchemy and the fabled, powerful philosopher's stone. But the journey leads them through unexpected twists and turns, and evil lurks around every corner, waiting to destroy them or, worse, use them for its own nefarious purposes.
Just a side note here (but it's important!): Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood is not quite the same as Fullmetal Alchemist, in case you look it up. The original TV anime is simply called Fullmetal Alchemist, and it ends very differently from Brotherhood because it caught up to the manga books and had to veer off on its own and make up an ending. Once the manga was finished, the show was rebooted with Brotherhood, the ending following more closely to the book. Where the two TV series diverge from each other, they become completely different shows. I've seen both. From what I can remember of the first, comparing the two, Brotherhood is darker and bloodier with a completely different thematic focus. Note that this review is about Brotherhood.
So, interesting as it may sound, if the show is so graphically violent, why am I reviewing it at all? Amazingly, this is a show about right and wrong, about morality, about how far is too far, and about the value of a single human life, among other large-scale moral questions. In other words, it's actually perfect material for this blog.
In Ed and Al's world, alchemy's greatest rule is that everything must be traded for something of equal value: equivalent exchange. In the attempt to raise their mother's body back to life, the boys lose parts of their bodies. What they try is not permitted among alchemists for good reason. The show explores what equivalent exchange looks like throughout every aspect of the world and whether or not it is a decent rule to live by.
(Minor SPOILERS) Later, when Ed and Al realize what the philosopher's stone really is, they refuse to use it to get their bodies back, and they become the voices of reason and right in the show. At times, they stray, but ultimately, they choose right. It's not easy for them. They have to make hard choices, and again and again, they prove that the easy, obvious choice is not always the best. They refuse to cave before evil, and they refuse to use evil means to get their way. They are the counterpart to the adults on the show who think they have to kill sometimes for the greater good; the Elric brothers are always looking for ways around that, looking for the good in people. Several times, they spare their enemies, which sometimes leads to surprising benefits later. Equivalent exchange at work again.
The religion on the show is not just a little hokey, and religion mucks things up a bit at the end. But at the same time, some Christian values creep in there: redemption; the value of giving more than one receives (not equivalent exchange!); compassion, even for the vilest of creatures; loyalty; and giving up what makes us who we think we are. The series also tackles heavy themes of loss and grief, sacrifice (both forced and freely given), and choice (do we choose what's right, even after we've messed up and redemption seems hopeless?). It's rather beautiful, after the dark.
And that sums up the show for me: beauty amidst despair, hope in the darkest places, pure goodness breaking apart the forces of evil. Despite the violence, this is a show that is overall uplifting and deeply moving. It's not for everyone, and I certainly don't agree with all of its message. But for what it is, it has value and merit. I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the series and look forward to every disc in the mail, but I really want to emphasize that this is not typical fare for this blog, nor is it something I recommend you watch. Also, it's definitely not for kids. Anime is not animation, though both are animated (I may be speaking to the veterans here, but you never know).
If you do choose to watch it, knowing full well what you are getting into, I hope you appreciate it as much as I do because there is certainly entertainment and worth here.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Les Miserables in Theaters Now
My first introduction to Les Miserables was a magnificent stage production of the musical in a beautiful old theater when I was in college. The songs and story took my breath away. In fact, I think most people are more familiar with the musical than the book. Several years after I saw it for the first time and then watched a movie version (which did not have any singing and did not do the work justice), I read through the unabridged book by Victor Hugo, nearly 1500 pages, 20-or-so pages a day. I made it through in approximately three months. Yes, it is a terribly long book that rambles and goes on long bunny trails about priests and battles and sewers. Yet, it is fascinating. What's amazing, though, is how the musical adapts the book so well. Some people think the musical improves on the book, and in some ways, I agree. While there is certainly much more story and insight to be gained through reading the book, the musical is emotionally and thematically tighter. And as for 2012's on-screen production, it's outdone any previous work I've seen and the book altogether.
Just briefly, for those who don't know the story, it's about a French prisoner named Jean Valjean who spends nearly 20 years in prison in France for stealing a loaf of bread and comes out a worse man than the one who went in. But when he gets caught stealing from a priest who had sheltered him, the priest covers for him, forgives him, gives him the silver, and tells him to use it to start over and live a better life. And that's what Jean Valjean does. He changes his name and becomes the mayor of a French town. But a very devoted police officer named Javert is determined to track him down, putting Jean Valjean on the run again. The story follows Valjean through his life as he cares for the prostitute Fantine on her deathbed; encounters the thieving Thenardiers, from whom he rescues Fantine's little daughter, Cosette; and then, several years later, helps fight in the students' revolution alongside the boy Cosette loves. It's a heartbreaking story in many ways, but its message and beauty make it an enduring, powerful tale people remember and go back to again and again.
The movie is like the musical on steroids. If you aren't familiar with Les Mis (as it's affectionately called), don't go expecting the usual movie fare, and be prepared for the singing. Les Mis is a musical done completely in song. Although the movie breaks the songs with a quickly spoken word here and there, it's still mostly music. I've heard third-hand that people are saying the words are hard to understand. That's simply not true. If you go to a musical in a theater, sometimes the words are hard to understand. If you watch a movie with a lot of exposition and "talking heads," people talking about what's going on instead of the viewer getting to see the action, sometimes the words are hard to understand. This is no harder. In fact, it's easier than a regular musical because you get to see the faces of the singers up close and you can read their lips as they sing.
On a stage, there is a great deal of make-believe involved. Not so in a movie. You can make anything seem real in a movie. But what I think is interesting is that the movie doesn't stray too far from its stage roots. The sets are lovely and gigantic and multifaceted and, well, very movie-like, but they are relatively few (for a modern screen production). Watching this Les Mis in the movie theater is similar to watching a musical on a stage, but everything that's distracting about a stage is gone. You can see the actors' faces and the emotion. There are no breaks or set changes. There are no props standing in for other things. Everything is bigger, better, closer, more cleanly done, more real...but it's still a musical, still a set, still a stage...just a fantastic one. I think this kind of shocked people who didn't know what they were getting into, people who didn't really know what Les Mis was to begin with. If you are one of those people, I'm preparing you. You are going to be watching actors sing entire solos in your face, some of them in a single shot that doesn't cut away or show any other action, and it's going to be spectacular...if you know it's coming.
As for the actors, Hugh Jackman is fabulous as Jean Valjean, but Anne Hathaway has the best solo. In one take, she belts out her heart and soul, her face a whole palette of emotions, her voice choking up and then releasing in full, and the camera never cuts away! In some ways, movie acting seems easier than stage acting because you don't have to memorize as much in one go and you get the luxury of doing it all over if you mess up. This was movie acting with all the difficultly of the stage. I wonder how many times Anne Hathaway performed that song for the camera. It's a long song. Was she perfect every time? In the movie, she was as perfect as it gets. Truly amazing.
All the actors are great. Perhaps the weakest voice is that of Russell Crowe, but his acting is still undeniably good. And I absolutely love the Thenardiers. Maybe I feel this way because they are the comedic relief in a story that's otherwise pretty heavy stuff, but casting could not have been more perfect than Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen. Oh. My. The scene where they are stealing from their customers as they come in...so ridiculous and fun! Every choreographed move of that scene is genius. And it's so funny to me that even though they are despicable people, Mr. and Mrs. Thenardier love each other, as much as two such people can. In the middle of all that mayhem, the wife mouths "I love you" at her husband. Hilarious! This movie needs that lighter side to give the viewer a break.
Speaking of needing a break, there are so many emotionally weighty scenes. I won't detail or spoil them here. Suffice it to say that two measly little squares of kleenex in my pocket were totally insufficient. I used up one pretty early, held it together through most of the middle, then thoroughly soaked the other tissue and finished up the movie sniffling and swiping at my face with bare fingers. Yeah, gross, but hey, my own husband cried. And if you've seen it, don't pretend you weren't suppressing a sniffle, too. But who's pretending? I've seen grown men freely admit on Facebook that this movie impacted them in deep emotional ways. With a movie this good, there's no shame in that.
Besides the obvious places where one might cry (death scenes, for example), I was also particularly struck by anything involving little children (a sick little baby with its mom on the street; also, the child Cosette singing about her castle on a cloud). As a mom, everything strikes me a little harder, I think, but especially the suffering of children. And this movie's very title tells you right off the bat, this is a story about suffering. But it's also about so much more.
As I said before, thematically and emotionally, this movie is powerful. But it's not just about the raw emotion in every song. There's such a message of redemption and hope in this story. In the opening scene, the prisoners sing, "Sweet Jesus, here my prayer [...] sweet Jesus doesn't care," reflecting Jean Valjean's initial mindset. He is in complete despair. But a priest gives Valjean a chance, and his life is forever changed. Throughout the story, you can see the candlesticks he stole from the priest, there as a reminder of all he's been forgiven. It's beautiful. My husband also pointed out to me the various times the image of the cross is used throughout the movie. And it all wraps up with the promise of heaven. Breathtaking indeed, especially for a Christian viewer who knows it all to be true.
...I sat there in the movie theater, without my popcorn and soda (because the concessions were slow and we didn't want to miss anything), suppressing a cough and feeling a headache from my sinus congestion coming on, listening to the people two rows behind narrating and clarifying the major story plots to each other as the film progressed (apparently they were among the ones who couldn't understand all the lyrics), crying and sniffling into two soaked tissues...I sat there with all that distraction, and I absolutely loved everything about this movie. See it in the theaters now while you have the chance. I don't know how you couldn't love it.
Five stars...of course!
Just briefly, for those who don't know the story, it's about a French prisoner named Jean Valjean who spends nearly 20 years in prison in France for stealing a loaf of bread and comes out a worse man than the one who went in. But when he gets caught stealing from a priest who had sheltered him, the priest covers for him, forgives him, gives him the silver, and tells him to use it to start over and live a better life. And that's what Jean Valjean does. He changes his name and becomes the mayor of a French town. But a very devoted police officer named Javert is determined to track him down, putting Jean Valjean on the run again. The story follows Valjean through his life as he cares for the prostitute Fantine on her deathbed; encounters the thieving Thenardiers, from whom he rescues Fantine's little daughter, Cosette; and then, several years later, helps fight in the students' revolution alongside the boy Cosette loves. It's a heartbreaking story in many ways, but its message and beauty make it an enduring, powerful tale people remember and go back to again and again.
The movie is like the musical on steroids. If you aren't familiar with Les Mis (as it's affectionately called), don't go expecting the usual movie fare, and be prepared for the singing. Les Mis is a musical done completely in song. Although the movie breaks the songs with a quickly spoken word here and there, it's still mostly music. I've heard third-hand that people are saying the words are hard to understand. That's simply not true. If you go to a musical in a theater, sometimes the words are hard to understand. If you watch a movie with a lot of exposition and "talking heads," people talking about what's going on instead of the viewer getting to see the action, sometimes the words are hard to understand. This is no harder. In fact, it's easier than a regular musical because you get to see the faces of the singers up close and you can read their lips as they sing.
On a stage, there is a great deal of make-believe involved. Not so in a movie. You can make anything seem real in a movie. But what I think is interesting is that the movie doesn't stray too far from its stage roots. The sets are lovely and gigantic and multifaceted and, well, very movie-like, but they are relatively few (for a modern screen production). Watching this Les Mis in the movie theater is similar to watching a musical on a stage, but everything that's distracting about a stage is gone. You can see the actors' faces and the emotion. There are no breaks or set changes. There are no props standing in for other things. Everything is bigger, better, closer, more cleanly done, more real...but it's still a musical, still a set, still a stage...just a fantastic one. I think this kind of shocked people who didn't know what they were getting into, people who didn't really know what Les Mis was to begin with. If you are one of those people, I'm preparing you. You are going to be watching actors sing entire solos in your face, some of them in a single shot that doesn't cut away or show any other action, and it's going to be spectacular...if you know it's coming.
As for the actors, Hugh Jackman is fabulous as Jean Valjean, but Anne Hathaway has the best solo. In one take, she belts out her heart and soul, her face a whole palette of emotions, her voice choking up and then releasing in full, and the camera never cuts away! In some ways, movie acting seems easier than stage acting because you don't have to memorize as much in one go and you get the luxury of doing it all over if you mess up. This was movie acting with all the difficultly of the stage. I wonder how many times Anne Hathaway performed that song for the camera. It's a long song. Was she perfect every time? In the movie, she was as perfect as it gets. Truly amazing.
All the actors are great. Perhaps the weakest voice is that of Russell Crowe, but his acting is still undeniably good. And I absolutely love the Thenardiers. Maybe I feel this way because they are the comedic relief in a story that's otherwise pretty heavy stuff, but casting could not have been more perfect than Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen. Oh. My. The scene where they are stealing from their customers as they come in...so ridiculous and fun! Every choreographed move of that scene is genius. And it's so funny to me that even though they are despicable people, Mr. and Mrs. Thenardier love each other, as much as two such people can. In the middle of all that mayhem, the wife mouths "I love you" at her husband. Hilarious! This movie needs that lighter side to give the viewer a break.
Speaking of needing a break, there are so many emotionally weighty scenes. I won't detail or spoil them here. Suffice it to say that two measly little squares of kleenex in my pocket were totally insufficient. I used up one pretty early, held it together through most of the middle, then thoroughly soaked the other tissue and finished up the movie sniffling and swiping at my face with bare fingers. Yeah, gross, but hey, my own husband cried. And if you've seen it, don't pretend you weren't suppressing a sniffle, too. But who's pretending? I've seen grown men freely admit on Facebook that this movie impacted them in deep emotional ways. With a movie this good, there's no shame in that.
Besides the obvious places where one might cry (death scenes, for example), I was also particularly struck by anything involving little children (a sick little baby with its mom on the street; also, the child Cosette singing about her castle on a cloud). As a mom, everything strikes me a little harder, I think, but especially the suffering of children. And this movie's very title tells you right off the bat, this is a story about suffering. But it's also about so much more.
As I said before, thematically and emotionally, this movie is powerful. But it's not just about the raw emotion in every song. There's such a message of redemption and hope in this story. In the opening scene, the prisoners sing, "Sweet Jesus, here my prayer [...] sweet Jesus doesn't care," reflecting Jean Valjean's initial mindset. He is in complete despair. But a priest gives Valjean a chance, and his life is forever changed. Throughout the story, you can see the candlesticks he stole from the priest, there as a reminder of all he's been forgiven. It's beautiful. My husband also pointed out to me the various times the image of the cross is used throughout the movie. And it all wraps up with the promise of heaven. Breathtaking indeed, especially for a Christian viewer who knows it all to be true.
...I sat there in the movie theater, without my popcorn and soda (because the concessions were slow and we didn't want to miss anything), suppressing a cough and feeling a headache from my sinus congestion coming on, listening to the people two rows behind narrating and clarifying the major story plots to each other as the film progressed (apparently they were among the ones who couldn't understand all the lyrics), crying and sniffling into two soaked tissues...I sat there with all that distraction, and I absolutely loved everything about this movie. See it in the theaters now while you have the chance. I don't know how you couldn't love it.
Five stars...of course!
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Wrapping Up the Year with a Few Nonfiction Titles
My goal this year was to read 50 books, and I knew I was pushing it when I reached December and had yet to finish three nonfiction titles I was counting on to round out the 50. But I did it. Though each of these probably deserves its own post, I'm going to give myself a break and punch out shorter, but hopefully pithier, reviews all at once together.
One Thousand Gifts
By Ann Voskamp
I started to read this New York Times bestseller around the end of this summer. It was given to me as a gift, ironically enough, and I never would have guessed the impact it would have on me. I found it strange at first when I started reading. It was too poetic, a style of writing that was way over-the-top compared to what I normally read. I don't hate poetry but, you know, it's poetry. Voskamp's book doesn't appear to be poetry, at first glance, and it's not meant to be. It's definitely prose, like most other semi-autobiographical, inspirational, self-help books out there. But the way she writes, the images she uses, the turns of phrase and the word choice, all have a poetic bent to them. It's just how Voskamp is. She's this farm girl with a soul on the lookout for beauty, whether that be through her camera lens or in the very way she sees the world and expresses it verbally. It doesn't make her book easy to read, but perhaps the words stay with you longer. I managed to drag the book out over a third of the year, but it wasn't because it was a bad book. Rather, it was hard to read in more ways than one. I quickly got over the poetic nature of the book; that wasn't even the issue. It was a hard book to read because it made me cry. It challenged me. It met me where my soul was at. The beauty seeker in Ann found a match in me, and I needed time to let her words percolate and dissolve. And time is something I didn't have a lot of this year with two young children running around. That's why I was pushed to get 50 books read, this one included.
So, what is it about this book that gripped me so hard? It's really a very simple message, so simple you'd scoff unless you took the time to read it yourself. It's about giving thanks. It's about how counting the daily gifts God gives you leads to a fulfilled life, even if you are just a busy mother with no obvious "greater" calling from God. Count the gifts, even the ones that don't look like gifts. Realize God is in total control, ordering all the events of your life, the painful ones included. See God's love in it all. Let go. Live. That's what this book is about, and I challenge you to read it, too. As for me, my next goal is to count my own gifts. I believe it has the potential to revolutionize my life.
Night Light: a Devotional for Couples
By Dr. James and Shirley Dobson
My husband and I started reading this book at the beginning of the year. There are only 26 weeks of mostly one-page daily devotionals, but I'm not gonna lie, this was difficult to get through in 52 weeks. Maybe we were too busy. We probably could have taken the time. Instead, we were left to scramble through whole weeks at once in an effort to get this book done this year. Thank you, Nick, for bearing with me through this crazy 50-book goal! But despite the fact that we were busy, I'm going to just go ahead and blame the book itself. It isn't applicable enough. It isn't entertaining enough. It isn't always believable, and the questions are often textbook rather than thought-provoking. I have to confess that my husband and I often have a hard time finding marriage self-help books to be applicable to our circumstances, so where it doesn't match us, it might match you. But I can only tell my own experience.
Each week of this devotional has a theme. Sunday usually starts off with a story, often written by someone other than one of the Dobsons. Monday through Friday, the devotionals are followed by three or four questions and a prayer. Saturday is a recap day of sorts, often with some sort of story or insight from the lives of the Dobsons. This set-up isn't bad, but the content is sometimes filler stuff.
It just didn't always seems that applicable to us, and even when it was, the questions often required regurgitation of the message rather than self-scrutiny and application. Some weeks were better than others, and even some questions were decent. But overall, it didn't impress me.
I also had one other major problem with the stories shared. I wasn't always sure they were real. I am a writer, and there is a practice some writers have of embellishing the truth, especially for devotionals. I hate that practice. If you want to write fiction, own up to the fact that you're writing fiction! Don't pretend a story is true for the sake of a lesson! In this book, I'm not saying stories were made up, but I'm not sure they were always verified true accounts. In one case, the Dobsons make a point of saying they verified the story. But if they felt the need to clarify that in one instance, that makes me wonder how many times they just included other stories that have been passed along by word of mouth. For instance, one particular story they shared was something I'd heard in a different setting told a little differently. Maybe the Dobsons were the ones who had it right, but really, how do you collect so many perfect stories and anecdotes together? I just have that feeling that many of these kinds of stories are only based on truth. It really hurts your credibility if you can't even tell an honest story.
Anyway, I'm not sure my husband and I really gained anything from this book except the awareness that we really do need to spend that quality time together, albeit perhaps with different material.
New Testament (NIV)
It seems like cheating, but I'm counting half the Bible (and not even the longer half!) as one of my books this year. It was my goal to get the New Testament read through this year, and I was planning on counting it as a whole book if I was down to the line at the end of the year. Well, turns out I need it for the numbers. I'm not really going to review the Bible. If my readers don't know it by now, let me just say it straight out: I'm one of those who believes the Bible to be written by God through man, and I believe it's infallible and complete. It doesn't need my review or approval, but I do have an observation to make on my reading this year. Reading the New Testament in a year is easy. It requires five chapters a week. Even so, I had almost more trouble staying on task than I did last year when I read through the Old Testament as well. I guess, last year, I knew I didn't have room to skip. This year, I could read a whole week's worth in a day if I got behind. Granted, I probably needed the leeway this year (have I mentioned how crazy two little kids has made life for me?), but I don't feel like I got as much out of my reading as I did last year. I feel like I didn't spend as much time with God this year because, well, I didn't. I would like to try to read the whole Bible again next year. It's not just the content. It's the time spent. My soul needs both. What about yours? Want to take the challenge with me?
So, that's it then. Fifty books in fifty-two weeks. Next year, I likely won't be reading that many. No goals about it anyway. But I'll still be reviewing what I do read, so stay tuned!
One Thousand Gifts
By Ann Voskamp
I started to read this New York Times bestseller around the end of this summer. It was given to me as a gift, ironically enough, and I never would have guessed the impact it would have on me. I found it strange at first when I started reading. It was too poetic, a style of writing that was way over-the-top compared to what I normally read. I don't hate poetry but, you know, it's poetry. Voskamp's book doesn't appear to be poetry, at first glance, and it's not meant to be. It's definitely prose, like most other semi-autobiographical, inspirational, self-help books out there. But the way she writes, the images she uses, the turns of phrase and the word choice, all have a poetic bent to them. It's just how Voskamp is. She's this farm girl with a soul on the lookout for beauty, whether that be through her camera lens or in the very way she sees the world and expresses it verbally. It doesn't make her book easy to read, but perhaps the words stay with you longer. I managed to drag the book out over a third of the year, but it wasn't because it was a bad book. Rather, it was hard to read in more ways than one. I quickly got over the poetic nature of the book; that wasn't even the issue. It was a hard book to read because it made me cry. It challenged me. It met me where my soul was at. The beauty seeker in Ann found a match in me, and I needed time to let her words percolate and dissolve. And time is something I didn't have a lot of this year with two young children running around. That's why I was pushed to get 50 books read, this one included.
So, what is it about this book that gripped me so hard? It's really a very simple message, so simple you'd scoff unless you took the time to read it yourself. It's about giving thanks. It's about how counting the daily gifts God gives you leads to a fulfilled life, even if you are just a busy mother with no obvious "greater" calling from God. Count the gifts, even the ones that don't look like gifts. Realize God is in total control, ordering all the events of your life, the painful ones included. See God's love in it all. Let go. Live. That's what this book is about, and I challenge you to read it, too. As for me, my next goal is to count my own gifts. I believe it has the potential to revolutionize my life.
Night Light: a Devotional for Couples
By Dr. James and Shirley Dobson
My husband and I started reading this book at the beginning of the year. There are only 26 weeks of mostly one-page daily devotionals, but I'm not gonna lie, this was difficult to get through in 52 weeks. Maybe we were too busy. We probably could have taken the time. Instead, we were left to scramble through whole weeks at once in an effort to get this book done this year. Thank you, Nick, for bearing with me through this crazy 50-book goal! But despite the fact that we were busy, I'm going to just go ahead and blame the book itself. It isn't applicable enough. It isn't entertaining enough. It isn't always believable, and the questions are often textbook rather than thought-provoking. I have to confess that my husband and I often have a hard time finding marriage self-help books to be applicable to our circumstances, so where it doesn't match us, it might match you. But I can only tell my own experience.
Each week of this devotional has a theme. Sunday usually starts off with a story, often written by someone other than one of the Dobsons. Monday through Friday, the devotionals are followed by three or four questions and a prayer. Saturday is a recap day of sorts, often with some sort of story or insight from the lives of the Dobsons. This set-up isn't bad, but the content is sometimes filler stuff.
It just didn't always seems that applicable to us, and even when it was, the questions often required regurgitation of the message rather than self-scrutiny and application. Some weeks were better than others, and even some questions were decent. But overall, it didn't impress me.
I also had one other major problem with the stories shared. I wasn't always sure they were real. I am a writer, and there is a practice some writers have of embellishing the truth, especially for devotionals. I hate that practice. If you want to write fiction, own up to the fact that you're writing fiction! Don't pretend a story is true for the sake of a lesson! In this book, I'm not saying stories were made up, but I'm not sure they were always verified true accounts. In one case, the Dobsons make a point of saying they verified the story. But if they felt the need to clarify that in one instance, that makes me wonder how many times they just included other stories that have been passed along by word of mouth. For instance, one particular story they shared was something I'd heard in a different setting told a little differently. Maybe the Dobsons were the ones who had it right, but really, how do you collect so many perfect stories and anecdotes together? I just have that feeling that many of these kinds of stories are only based on truth. It really hurts your credibility if you can't even tell an honest story.
Anyway, I'm not sure my husband and I really gained anything from this book except the awareness that we really do need to spend that quality time together, albeit perhaps with different material.
New Testament (NIV)
It seems like cheating, but I'm counting half the Bible (and not even the longer half!) as one of my books this year. It was my goal to get the New Testament read through this year, and I was planning on counting it as a whole book if I was down to the line at the end of the year. Well, turns out I need it for the numbers. I'm not really going to review the Bible. If my readers don't know it by now, let me just say it straight out: I'm one of those who believes the Bible to be written by God through man, and I believe it's infallible and complete. It doesn't need my review or approval, but I do have an observation to make on my reading this year. Reading the New Testament in a year is easy. It requires five chapters a week. Even so, I had almost more trouble staying on task than I did last year when I read through the Old Testament as well. I guess, last year, I knew I didn't have room to skip. This year, I could read a whole week's worth in a day if I got behind. Granted, I probably needed the leeway this year (have I mentioned how crazy two little kids has made life for me?), but I don't feel like I got as much out of my reading as I did last year. I feel like I didn't spend as much time with God this year because, well, I didn't. I would like to try to read the whole Bible again next year. It's not just the content. It's the time spent. My soul needs both. What about yours? Want to take the challenge with me?
So, that's it then. Fifty books in fifty-two weeks. Next year, I likely won't be reading that many. No goals about it anyway. But I'll still be reviewing what I do read, so stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)