October is "Read More, Bitch" Month

...and update your blog more, too.

I need to read more. Again. My mind has once again become stagnant and dulled. It begs for life to be breathed into it and at best I've been able to manage a weak sigh.
So last night I sat down, took out a fake Sharpie and a piece of construction paper (because sometimes for important lists you have to be eight... that's just how it is), and wrote down a short-ish list of book to read for next month. Seeing as how it's going to be October, and I love all the fallishness (or what I remember of it, since southern California doesn't have seasons) and Halloween funtimes that go with it, it's a pretty Gothic-centric list.
However, to keep myself on task, I'm tacking on the added challenge of blogging a review of these once a week, hopefully on Tuesdays. That way I satisfy two goals in one, and help my poor story-starved brain recover from its lack of imaginative air.

If you want to peek in every week to check my progress, please do so -- and if you want to know what I might will be reading, here's the list:

Hell House - Richard Matheson (re-read)

Northanger Abbey - Jane Austen

The Vampyre  - John Polidori

Roald Dahl's Ghost Stories - Roald Dahl

Dracula (graphic novel) - Bram Stoker / Marvel Comics*

Bonus Book TBA

*The Dracula graphic novel review will actually show up over at The Comics Observer, likely on 10/29, but I'll post a lil' tidbit and lingage here on that date.

Read along with me... IF YOU DARE. MUAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA!
(See. Halloween. Love it.)

Meanwhile, in the Depths of Editing...

As previously mentioned, I (perhaps foolishly, perhaps brilliantly) agreed to have a readable first draft of Novel the First completed in a couple weeks. After the initial shock of it all, I planned out a rough timeline of how to accomplish said goal.

Week one (now): Scan through binary (i.e. computer-stored) draft, seeking out obvious spelling and grammar issues, major plots holes, items that still need explaining, and logistical problems. If a solution cannot be found to one of the non spelling/grammar issues, mark it, describe the issue, and move on for now.

Week two (next week): Compare edits made on printed draft to those done above. Correct further grammar issues. Hopefully find solution to a few of the other problems.

Week three (oh, lord...): Fix all the things. All the things? Yes. Fix all the things like a mother-effing adult! All the things... or at least as many as I can.



Week four (I predict): Send this wicked child out to be viewed by other eyes. Panic. Begin work on query letters. Panic more. Drink. A lot.

Progress is... progressing. Not at the present moment, obviously. This is in part due to the fact that I have entered the repeated 'shit hitting the fan' section of the book (i.e. the last third) and even in Editor Mode there's a lot of emotional turmoil happening to the characters and it's difficult to look at that with a completely disconnected eye. It's the first time I've really done that to characters I created, so I'm quite new to this feeling.
Still, I continue to press on... or did until I decided to pick up A Feast for Crows and finally finish it. Getting my head out of Westeros is proving difficult. But hey, if I want throngs of readers to one day have themselves sucked into worlds I create because I nurtured those worlds, and my writing, then by the seven I shall find a way to exist in both realms.

After all, when your mind races with thoughts of your own writings along with thoughts of a master's, sleep is irrelevant, right?

Edit all the things!
Fix all the things!
Defend the Wall... erm, all the things!

Jane the Vampire Writer

Just before I succumbed to the Death Flu, I managed a feat I have not achieved in an embarrassingly long time: I read an entire book in one sitting. Granted, it was literary popcorn – quick, tasty and easy to consume – but after my reading drought I consider it quite an accomplishment.

I read Jane Goes Batty, the second in what now looks to be a series (or at least trilogy) of books about Jane Austen as a vampire. It’s a refreshing take on the supernatural Austen genre simply because it puts the author herself in the present day (in a fictional-yet-similar world to our own) as a vampire. It pokes good-natured fun at the Austen clones and supernatural takes and includes a couple of Austen’s literary rivals and contemporaries. I really enjoyed the first book, Jane Bites Back, because it was a fun, quirky, intelligent little mind-candy novel. The second book was much the same, though not quite as engaging, mostly because of the more Hollywood, as opposed to literary, storyline -- and I mean this literally. The first book was all about Jane trying to be published (again), and then dealing with the success while trying to hide her vampirism (especially from the man she likes). This one deals with the now-standard transformation of book to film aggravations, as well as hiding her vampirism from her now boyfriend and his creepy mother.
I enjoyed the characterization of one of Jane’s contemporaries that I won’t detail here only to avoid spoilers from book one… but I will say his escapades at times held my interest more than Jane’s. While the new characters were colorful, none of them interested me as much as the original characters and I would have preferred more with the starting line-up than the newcomers. I hope the next book gets back to the more literary aspects of the first book with a more streamlined and focused story, still for a popcorn read on a Saturday afternoon it satisfied my novel craving.

And if you're curious about book one and don't mind snark and spoilers, you can read my review of it.

Why Are All My Relatives Such... Twats?

Having recently finished Jane Goes Batty (which I may rant/rave about soon), and with the timely-yet-unexpected random inspirational quote from one of my dear friends, I find myself compelled to follow in the footsteps of scholars and fans far more deserved than I to explore the realm of what many consider the anti-Brontë: Jane Austen.
One might surmise that my overall disdain for two-thirds of the Brontë sisters would create an automatic enjoyment of all works Austen. Sorry to disappoint, dear quick-to-judge readers, but I find Miss Jane flawed as well, though admittedly not with the kind of vehement passion I aim at her Byronic successors. Still, on the whole (and though I have not read all their works), I do gain more personal enjoyment and find more intriguing and worthwhile in Jane's writing than in Charlotte's or (*hurk*) Emily's.
The quote which helped spur on this Austen topic quite took me as both accurate and bitingly amusing:
Apparently to have an Austen-esque romance, your family must be filled with twats.
(Texts from my friends are not, I think, like most people's texts... also, at least in my circle, 'twat' seems to be making a much needed comeback.)

While at first glance the assessment holds true to the 'it's funny because it's true' adage, both for works of Austen and those who hunger to emulate her, on reflection it caused pondering of classic feminine literature in general and how applicable this statement may be.
First, with Austen, it rather amuses me that by all accounts her own family was quite stable and satisfactory, if a little wanting for financial stability. Yet the heroines in most of her novels must deal with family (or those who may become family) who exemplify twattiness while on their individual journey to personal (and matrimonial) bliss.
Obviously Lizzie has to put up with not only her own but Darcy's atrocious relations (I'm looking at you, Aunt Lady Catherine de Twatourge). Twatilicous Lydia even ends up marrying a complete asshat, and I still wonder who got the worst end of that deal: her or Wickham. Even the almost nauseatingly perfect Jane and Bingley must contend with Charles' complete twat of a sister. No wonder Caroline so longs to be in Darcy's family -- she and Aunt Twatty would be the Twats of the Town. And in an informal facebook poll, my friends unanimously crowned Mr. Collins as the King Twat of Pride & Prejudice.
Then we have poor Fanny whose own immediate family pawns her off on her rich relatives at an age where her female cousins can be expected to shat on her like their pet puppies do on the front lawn. Then of course we have the Twat Twins who seduce various members of the Bertram family and end up exposing the fact that Edmund and Fanny are about the only respectable people in that circle -- and even they almost get duped and seduced by the Cunty Crawfords (yeah, I said it).
Similar patterns of familial twattery appear in Emma, Sense & Sensibility and (at least the parts I've read) of Northanger Abbey. The only Austen work which I am almost completely unfamiliar with is Persuasion but I would wager the twat theme queefs mightily in that novel as well.

Still, on my brief contemplation of female literature in general, Jane is not exempt from familial twatishness as a plot device. Miss Charlotte created an epic family of twats with the Reeds, and even the boorish Emily ensured her characters would never see happiness due to their über-twat relatives (of which Heathcliff and Catherine both suffer from and then become themselves). Yes, even my Brontë goddess Anne enlisted the family twat device in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (though Gilbert's family of twats pales in comparison to Helen's husband and Lord Twat, Arthur Twatingdon).
While not 'feminine' literature, She Who Has More Money Than Everyone Else In The World Combined (aka Jo Rowling) excels at using FamTwat. Though young adult literature is steeped in twat tea, few families twat it up as well or as much as the Dursleys or the Malfoys (when your parents' names are Lucius and Narcissa, you're pretty much guaranteed a twatty childhood and thus becoming a top class twat yourself).

Obviously this is not a plot epidemic limited to female authors (Shakespeare was king of family twats), but from one little text I find yet another way to examine feminine literature and authors. I know Familial Twats: Exploring Twatticism in Post-Colonial British Female Authors probably won't garner me any academic accolades or grant money, but it is very interesting as a topic and damn fun to write about... or maybe I just like finding new ways to use 'twat.'

Coming Soon:
Coping with Twats Leads to Bliss? -- how the twatty behaviour of literary families correlates to the ultimate happiness of their protagonist relatives.

Planes and Princes...

By a certain point in life, one sometimes believes they know themselves well enough; that random epiphanies and revelations occur only to later turn out as extensions of what we already know. Yet then the right set of ideas, circumstances, emotions and frame of mind align and we experience something we might have begun to think impossible: a new revelation about ourselves.
This revelation, however it happens, can occur due to a shattering life experience. However, though it may be through my own limited experience of the world and the people I know, often these revelations come at the oddest and seemingly most mundane times. One such revelation emerged piece by piece over the past week, though the bulk of it formed over the course of plane trips to and from my hometown for the holidays. While it's too personal a revelation to speak of right now, too close to my emotional core, for the sake of expanding on the randomness of revelation I'll elaborate a tad on what concepts and items of inspiration led to the ultimate realization.
The holidays, as we grow up, fire within many of us deep rooted memories, emotions, familial ties, traditions -- whether good or bad, we constantly grapple with the past and either fight or strive to work towards or against that past. I have yet to meet anyone who treats the holiday season with complete ambivalence, and if I ever do I'm likely to even chalk that emotion up to influences from their past. Combine this with the stress of life, work, money, relationships, adulthood -- all those things we deal with on a daily basis -- amplified by the rush and fervor of the season and it's already a cocktail for examination of our lives.
Flying always causes a certain amount of reflection for me, mostly because I'll think of anything to keep me from focusing on the miraculous and always potentially horrific science and luck that allows us to fly. It's one of those commonalities of modern life which I refrain from contemplating too much lest I go mad with the knowledge of all that can go wrong.
The final unexpected ingredient in the revelation cocktail is reading. As I get older I have this horrendous habit of seeing reading not as a necessity, a productive activity which spurs on my mind and endeavours through enjoyment and enlightenment, but a time consuming activity which yields less than more important activities like paying bills, doing laundry, overworking myself, looking at facebook, and speed-watching TV. Erroneous and ludicrous a concept as that is, it's a trap I find myself in more and more these past few years. Then I pick up a book and invest myself in reading it and I realize once again how insane I've been for ever seeing reading as a chore, or worse, an utterly unproductive activity.
This particular trip I chose the first in a series of novels on Plantagenet England and Wales, Here Be Dragons. An historical and imaginative novel, it chronicles the story of kings Richard and his brother John, their kin, and the parallel stories of Llewellyn Fawr and his kin -- centering primarily around Llewellyn's story and his marriage to John's illegitimate daughter. The story and characters fed into sections of my mind and emotions I hadn't allowed myself access to in a long time, and as a result, in combination with all other factors, caused me to stumble headlong into my newest revelation.
It's comforting and terrifying at this juncture to realize myself still capable of discovering new aspects of myself and the world around me. Even more than that, it's inspiring.

All-American Ghost Story

While I have been remiss in watching some Halloween-inspired horror the past few days (life and theatre, what can I say?), I decided I needed to flex my atrophying reader muscles. Even though a selection of (potentially) great books I have not read yet sit on my shelves -- including the most recent Stephen King and Joe Hill novels and several Dracula-inspired fictions -- since it feels eons have passed since I last picked up a book much less read one, I decided to start out 'easy' with one of my favorite horror novels: Hell House.
I say 'favorite horror novels' yet honestly Hell House ranks among my favorite books ever. Though I haven't read all of Matheson's fiction, I have read a very sizable amount and, for me, this novel is his most thought-out, has the best characterization, possesses a brilliant blend of horror and black humour, and is perhaps the best American ghost story yet written. Yes, stories like 'The Fall of the House of Usher' are incredible and terrifying (and anyone who hasn't experienced the brilliance of early-American Gothic masterpieces like The Turn of the Screw and Wieland needs to read them immediately), but what causes Hell House to shine (other than spectacular writing, plot and pace) is the connection it creates between classic supernatural stories and modern (for the '70s) science. It sets out with a main character coming to scientifically explain paranormal phenomena and an extension of the human subconscious which, in some people, is capable of causing every form of residual haunting, poltergeist activity, possession, etc. It makes a damn good case for it, too... that is until the house and its 'residents' decide to come out and play, and play they do.
While the novel relies on some traditional horror and ghost story conventions, and is easily paralleled to The Haunting of Hill House, it stands on its own as a mastery of the genre. Matheson crafts a disturbing, horrifying atmosphere very early in the story to establish that it's not going to be a fun trip. What works so well is he weaves the horror through the tale in a way that only explicitly describes gore a handful of times. This lends itself to allowing the reader's imagination and early description of the House's history and recorded phenomena to fuel the real horror without over-saturating descriptions of violence, sex and psychological fuckery.
With the characters, each one is well-rounded and slightly unhinged in their own way, but not to the extent that they become unbelievable -- they are intelligent, progressive individuals who, although they have very differing views on what paranormal activities are and their causes, have sound reasoning and experience related to their own opinions and actions. Until the house starts screwing with all those opinions, of course.
My final assessment of the triumph in the novel's construction lies in the character of Fischer. He enters the house as the sole survivor of a previous examination of the house and shuts himself down in an attempt to keep the House from affecting him -- of course in doing that he allows the House access to the others with disastrous consequences. Yet you cannot hate him for protecting himself due to his ultimate redemption and his sardonic, cautious attitude toward a place which historically destroys anyone who enters it.
I have a deep, burning desire for this novel to become a film as a true American ghost story (unfortunately in the original movie adaptation in moving the story to England it sucked out that aspect). However, time has shown that unless Matheson writes the screenplay himself, his stories always gets completely screwed...

Based on the books on your bookshelf, what conclusions would people draw about you?

Well, I'm not in the habit of pretending to be other people... or at least not assuming what their thoughts might... OK, even I couldn't make it through that sentence. I'm very much in the habit of imagining what other people think, it's just a matter of whether or not I care.

In the case of my bookshelves and their contents, it depends on the bookcase. Our downstairs by-the-telly case contains my small non-fiction collection and a smattering of general fiction & mysteries. One book in particular garners a lot of attention, and I will admit that's why I put it there. I haven't read it yet, but considering there are about 100 books on my shelves at any given time which haven't been given even a perusal yet, this means little in the grand scope of my reading habits.
One shelving unit upstairs, which acts as an additional headboard/room divider, contains more non-fiction (most of these related to 'the biz,' writing and how to keep hold of money), all my sheet music and instructional piano materials, a gothic-horror section, an historical fiction section, and my American Lit section... with a topper of myths, fairytales and huge anthologies.
The final bookshelf, my favorite shelf in terms of placement and scope, contains many, many books divided by subject per shelf. Top shelf is theatre, poetry, journals and spill from the shelf below which is... British Literature. Below that, at eye-level-for-my-midget-self, sit every copy of Dracula I own plus research books, related vampire novels, etc. Next is the King family shelf: Uncle Stevie, Tabby, Joe and Owen. Down one more, at rugrat level, are my youth novels (the entire Harry Potter & Lemony Snicket series, plus half a dozen Roald Dahl books and the Inkheart trilogy included). Bottoming out in the best way, the last shelf holds my Tolkien & Jasper Fforde collections, along with gothic mysteries/adventures by Louis Bayard, Matthew Pearl, Ellis Peters and Arturo Perez-Reverte.

I think 'eclectic' and 'voracious' are choice terms for my shelves on first glance. Anyone who pays particular attention will notice a trend towards darker, gothic, macabre fiction (hello Dracula and King family shelves), but not slasher-fic. It's also a collection of books for book lovers with a slant towards historical and fantasy fiction -- but not high-fantasy. There's a lot of epic/series collections included as well.
So what would other people think? Generally?
This bitch has a shit ton of books.

And they'd be right.

Reasons to 'like' the Interwebs

I realize I've been very 'down with the internet' recently when it comes to books, reading and writing. So today I'd like to take a moment and address somethings I love about the internet when it comes to these categories. For as much as I might rant and rail about the perils of too much technology, there exist some pretty damn awesome sites and resources online that would otherwise never be available to us. (Also, I'm going to leave off The Twitter on this post. It has its own advantages and pitfalls that deserve their own recognition at a different time)
Here are just a few that I love. If you have others, please feel free to comment!

Goodreads:
What it's for - Keeping an online catalog, or bookshelf, of books which can vary from books you have read or want to read to very specific, user-designed shelves for whatever you wish.
What else is cool - Goodreads now has authors involved with the site to follow and connect with, as well as other members across the world. There are various quizzes and polls to partake in and create. There are also book swaps and giveaways, and even meet-ups organized for some cities.
The downsides - Like any social networking site if you choose to be searchable by anyone, you can be found by anyone. However, you can lock your account down as well. Though in the reading/writing community I'm more apt to add someone who shares similar interests than on most sites. Some aspects of the site are difficult to navigate, but overall it is pretty intuitive.

Amazon:
What it's for - The mecca of online shopping. Amazon is responsible for fueling and destroying the publishing industry.
What is cool - The wishlist will always be my go-to place for tracking items I want. It's also very user-friendly in terms of navigation and typically has the most detailed descriptions and reviews of any other site.
The downsides - see above re: destruction of publishing industry. It also can be a little too overwhelming with all the information. And if that homepage tries to shove a Kindle down my throat one more time I may vomit.

Writer's Digest:
What it's for - The official site for the main writers' magazine in the US. Designed to help writers learn, explore, craft, network and get work.
What else is cool - Their email newsletters are incredibly helpful and cram a lot of great information and links into a digestible space. I have yet to be able to afford one of their webinars, but many of them look very helpful
The downsides - As a subscription-based magazine there is some 'members only' content unavailable to us poor folk. Also, it is a MASSIVE resource site and thus navigating and finding what you want can be a little difficult This is why I love the emails, because those break great sections down into smaller bits that are linked to for easier resource-finding.

National Novel Writing Month:
What it's for - As the title states... writing a novel in the span of only one month. November, every year, to be exact. The site focuses on uniting participants in this crazy undertaking to assist them in writing and connect them so they can help each other.
What else is cool - Municipal liaisons for many major cities/areas who organize meet-ups and write-ups during the month. Word sprints on Twitter. Encouraging pep talks by the staff AND famous (often participating) authors. Areas on the site specifically designed to help break writer's block and/or give a little distraction when it hits. The terrifying concept of writing a novel in 30 days and the exhilaration of finishing it.
The downsides - The site isn't always reliable and can crash at peak times (i.e. at the very beginning and very end of the month). The terrifying concept of writing a novel in 30 days.

As a side note, I've participated in NaNoWriMo three years, and 'won' two of those years ('winning' means you wrote 50,000+ words in 30 days. It does not mean you have a finished, publishable work, but it does mean you cranked out the equivalent of a novel in only one month). Whether I participate this year or use the month to perform serious edits on the two books I've previously scribed I have not yet decided, but my advice to anyone contemplating participation is this: whatever excuse or reason you think you have to NOT participate is not viable. NOTHING, save the inability to type, is an excuse to not try. You are the only blocker to not trying and only you can tell yourself to get over whatever obstacles you think exist and just do it. Whatever happens, whether you 'win' or not, you will have written something that otherwise may never have been written. You have nothing to lose, at all (except perhaps some sleep and a social life, both of which are overrated), and everything to gain.

Eventually, you do plan to have books in your bookstore, right?

Am I the only one becoming increasingly disheartened at the lack of book selection in bookstores?
Sure, my standards are a little high seeing as how I grew up in bookstores. No hyperbole in this instance -- I literally grew up spending a significant portion of my formative years in my local college bookstore, used bookstores, new bookstores, libraries, book fairs, etc. Not to mention my family's living and dining rooms are basically libraries with cushy seating, a dining table and a TV. Moving into my own places did not diminish the need to surround myself with books, either.
So it is with much dismay that the past year or so each time I walk into a bookstore, especially a big box chain, I find fewer books and more 'stuff.' Stuff ranges from e-readers to larger cafe space to expanded DVD and/or magazine sections and, even moreso, pointless tacky gift sections. I mean, I like a good one of these, but not to buy... and certainly not to buy in a bookstore.
Case in point: I entered a local big-box store on a whim during lunch the other day. It occurred to me that a new novel by Cornelia Funke came out this week, so I eagerly meandered to the children's section to find it. Alas, while there were copies of the Inkheart trilogy, and one copy of The Thief Lord, no new book could be discovered. Upon returning to a computer I investigated further, only to find Reckless out of stock at 3/4 of this bookstore's locations in the greater Los Angeles area.
This woman is one of the top current children's authors. Her books have been put onto film (where many good books go to die). She lives in California. Yet in one of the largest metropolitan cities in the country, her book is not stocked on its first week of release in 75% of stores. Granted, a search at another major retailer shows the book as in stock, but when you're talking about billion-dollar stores that can't even be bothered to stock a new release from a popular author because they have to sell more Kindlenookreaders... it makes me want to scream and cry and throw up a little all at once, and it's not entirely the fault of the retailer -- it's our fault.
Now, my own personal issues with electronic readers aside, my major complaint here is that in an industry that is already struggling not just because of advanced technology, but because of a country that is increasingly interested in getting everything instantaneously and not having to put thought into any activity or be culpable for any action, we decide to remedy this problem by feeding the masses what they think they want. We push upon them this magic box which condenses a real, physical experience into a flat tome that delivers the same words to our eyes, but not the same experience.
Yes, I admit it, as a paragon of anti-snobbery, I have just proclaimed myself a book snob. Why? Because for me, putting a book into a tiny computer does not make it more accessible. It makes it less valuable. We already put so little emphasis on the power of reading and excitement of what the right words can do to people, and now we are taking the only lasting, physical evidence of a book's power and transferring it to a tablet of plastic and metal in which the book only exists when you call upon it. Books don't work like that. They exist whether you're around or not. They whisper when you aren't there (and often when you are, if you're keen enough to listen). Their physical presence in your hands demands you attention and you must perform a physical act to stop reading, close the book and put it away -- not just tap a screen. It requires thought and energy both to read and cease reading.
All this brings me back to the simple point that without physical books in bookstores we are disengaging ourselves from the activity of experiencing a book and engaging in the passivity of just reading words scrolling across a screen. In doing that we diminish the power of the books and the publishing industry suffers... but so do our minds because reading should be a sense-memory activity like exercise. The more we plug ourselves into electronic boxes of any kind, the more our bodies and minds pay the price.
So get out there, visit your local bookstore, whether it be chain or independent, new or used... or hey, even go to a library. Ignore the shiny electronics and accessories being offered, walk past all the knick knacks, resist the urge to plop down in the cafe with your laptop or iPad or netbook and check facebook for the 200th time today, and spend some quality time communing with the books. Pick them up, feel them, flip through the pages, smell them, enjoy the sensation of caressing the leaves and the cover. Then, when you're ready (and this may take a few visits to acclimate yourself to the idea), take one home with you and read it. The book will thank you for it, and so will your mind.

Phonely... I'm so phonely

Well, it is September, thus the horridness of August should be behind me. And it (sort of) is, excepting the fact that my phone decided it does not care to work for me and so quit life. For someone who once shunned the idea of iPods and audiobooks and still cringes at the Kindle, my dependency on handheld technology for theatre and life is scary. I feel as if a part of myself has been torn from my side and I no longer remember how to converse with people outside of texts, keypad emails and social networking. I mean, speak to someone face to face? Type out a long email? Pshaw!
In less than three weeks I became a Droid Junkie and have now lost my source for a fix. It's rather terrifying how hooked I became on that adorable little scrap of plastic, metal and wires. It's almost more horrific how slow life moves without the constant stimulation... not to mention how many people are emailing me expecting me to answer questions to which I would have an answer by now if I had the ability to actually call and talk to another being. This is quickly becoming an exercise in patience for more than just myself... which I suppose is actually a good thing. The eerie speed at which I became plugged into that device and used it to rely on, well, everything extends to people I communicate with as well, and that my friends makes us all little tech junkies.
My proposal for the remainder of this Labor Day weekend: trust that you will acquire all information you need at the time you need it. The universe shall provide answers when necessary (and likely not before). And if you find yourself getting aggravated or frustrated with the lack of speed and efficiency with which ANYTHING is being accomplished or communicated, think back on the old days before cell phones, email, 3G networks, streaming Netflix, instant downloads, and all the technological advances of the last 10-15 years we now take for granted. Contemplate the days when people had to pick up a landline phone to call someone, and if no one was home, or the line was busy, they simply had to wait and call back later. Imagine a world where if you wanted to get together with friends you had to plan trips weeks, if not months, in advance and had to communicate all details via handwritten letters.
If this does not give you temporary pause and (hopefully) cause you to slow down a little and appreciate what advantages we now have at our fingertips, or worse you cannot fathom these things, maybe it's time for your iDrone or Crackberry or laptop and you to take a vacation from each other for a couple days. Go outside, take a walk, or maybe even read a book. A real one. With pages and print that are physically present and not just converted ones and zeros made to look like a book with text.
While I realize the contradiction in proclaiming this over a blog that I will selfishly promote across the interwebs, once this entry is pimped I am going to sort laundry, pick up clothes, possibly wash some dishes and yes, go read a book.

Reading/Book Meme

Since sometimes the writer's block keeps your focus on anything except what you should focus on, there will be occasional (hopefully very occasional) memes to give a little insight into my background and mask my blocks and/or current apathy.

1. Do you snack while you read? If so, favorite reading snack?
Depends where I’m reading, and what. However, I have been known to indulge, yes. Sometimes one needs biscuits or salty snacks to go with tea... or chocolate. Dark, dark chocolate.

2. What is your favorite drink while reading?
See above, re: tea.

3. Do you tend to mark your books as you read, or does the idea of writing in books horrify you?
I did in college, but it still bothers me some. I prefer to take notes either in a notebook or on my laptop.

4. How do you keep your place while reading a book? Bookmark? Dog-ear? Laying the book flat open?
Yes. Guilty of all. I tend to use random scraps of paper as bookmarks, but in lieu will dog ear or lay open... only with paperbacks though. Hardcovers require some form of non-damaging marker.

5. Fiction, Non-Fiction, or Both?
Fiction. I know I should read more non-fiction, but when I want to read most often it is because I want to escape. It’s difficult to escape in non-fiction.

6. Are you a person who tends to read to the end of a chapter, or can you stop anywhere?
I try to make it to a chapter end, but I’ll stop wherever is necessary.

7. Are you a person to throw a book across the room or on the floor if the author irritates you?
Oh. Hell. Yes. It’s rare I get that worked up. Very rare. But it has been known to happen... (Joseph Andrews, Wuthering Heights, a couple Dracula-related novels, etc.)

8. If you come across an unfamiliar word, do you stop and look it up right away?
Not typically. I usually figure it out from context, but in the rare instance I don’t I may look it up, especially if I’m near Google.

9. What are you currently reading?
Fred Saberhagen’s The Dracula Tape, the Norton Critical Dracula, Leslie Klinger’s annotated Dracula and Syrie James’ Dracula, My Love (is there a theme there?)

10. What is the last book you bought?
Dracula, My Love

11. Are you a person that reads one book at a time, or can you read more than one?
See #9

12. Do you have a favorite time/place to read?
Always? Is always an acceptable answer? I tend to read at night, in bed and recently at work during breaks, outside.

13. Do you prefer series books or stand-alones?
It just depends on the story and characters. Some stories you can tell in one book and I’ll be satisfied. Others by nature require multiple books and I only doubt my liking for them when it takes too long to get the next book in the series (*cough* Jasper Fforde and Kate Cary *cough*).

14. Is there a specific book or author you find yourself recommending over and over?
I always recommend Dracula (surprise!). I tend to ask what someone likes before offering recommendations, but I often recommend various books by Stephen King, Richard Matheson, Jasper Fforde, and my favorite books by women: The Scarlet Pimpernel and The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.

15. How do you organize your books? By genre, title, author's last name, etc?
Genre... then, depending on the genre I go by author or chronology (yes, my 18th-19th century English literature section is organized chronologically).

Quincey, Save Me...

Dracula-related materials have once again stirred a voracious appetite in me, and of all my obsessions it is the one I will least deny. I purchased Dracula, My Love and suspect I shall complete it within a week. Then, on Twitter, I discovered this: Dracula In Love. It sounds basically like the novel I just bought, only smuttier and with a more overt uber-feminist attitude. Either that or it'll turn into another Vampire Lesbian Spank Inferno interpretation, possibly minus the spanking. If the brief excerpt is any indication, smut or not, this will be another book that causes as much indignation in me as amusement.
Here's my issue with the ultra-feminist take on Dracula (I'll get around to the po-mo sexuality issues at a later date): it fails to regard the fact that for a man, writing about female characters of which -- even as a theatre guy -- he likely had little comprehension of, Stoker managed well. He certainly managed better than most men (and women) of his time in creating a female character whose intelligence, good nature, selflessness and humility stand markedly above other female characters in that age. Mina experiences more freedom as a Victorian woman than most did and yet sees herself as being quite traditional. The journal excerpts written from Mina's perspective in no way demean her own value, nor do they hint at some deep, burning desire for sexual release, equality (which she is given to an extent in the novel, again far above many female Victorian characters), or Dracula. She pities the dark creature more than the men, and as a female that is understandable -- this does not mean she harbours secret desires to go to the movies with him and make him her cuddle bear.
THAT aspect more than any other annoys me; the concept that in order for Mina to assert herself as more of an equal to the men in the book, to truly ascend as a feminist, she must embrace her sexual desires and fall in love with a Byronic vampire hottie whom she hopes will worship her forever. This is the best feminist writers can come up with to empower Mina? Have her fall in love with an arrogant, self-serving, demonic being who only goes after her as revenge on the team thwarting his progress to make London his undead playground?... genius. Is the best expression of female empowerment we can come up with to have Mina become Bella Swan, swooning over the gorgeous stalker who thirsts for her life? Already in Dracula, My Love she dreams of Dracula coming to break up her wedding with Jonathan claiming her as his own. In what way does that allow her freedom? That only transfers what some see as oppression in Mina's treatment from the hunters to Dracula -- it still makes her a victim of his and devalues (or ignores) the selflessness she naturally possesses in the original novel. Especially considering that no matter how the story is told, the simple fact remains that Dracula kills people. Plural. He's a serial killer. These authors are causing a supposedly intelligent, compassionate woman to fall in love with a murderer -- because that's so much less twisted and easier to comprehend than the same woman being in love with a book-smart, rational, caring, albeit a little vanilla guy who does actually develop and grow into a real man when his beloved (and humanity) is threatened.
It's not that there should be a rational explanation for all fiction, especially when you get into the murky waters of the supernatural, because life and love are not rational. However, when a human falls in love with an other-being there's a fair amount of 'splainin' that should accompany the human's journey to love, besides the other-being possessing the awesome powers of major hotness and having a master's in stalking. Otherwise at the end of the day all these re-imaginings do is create a fiction epidemic of Bella Swan clones. Sooner or later that will (I hope) make people wish for vampires that do nothing but kill whiny, self-involved little masochists who yearn for their dark lover's touch.

A Sampling of Yummy Mummies

This week I've read two samples/previews of some of this wacky supernatural-historical-po-mo-fiction I've been rambling about. The first, Dracula, My Love, you can read my snarky comments on here. The second, Mansfield Park and Mummies, in the snark-free arena, appears below.
I will preface this 'preview review' by stating that from the first time I saw Pride & Prejudice & Zombies, my mind began racing with other possible titles for Supernatural Austen re-imaginings and the first title I thought of which appealed to me was: Mansfield Park and Mummies. My surprise when discovering someone else thought of this and actually went ahead with writing and publishing it caused both apprehension and excitement.
Having read the first three chapters, I can say what is most impressive this far into the novel is the loyalty to Austen's tone and style. The language is entirely reminiscent of Austen, especially in its bemused attitude toward the characters of whom we know are not ideal models for Fanny (namely Mrs. Norris and Lady Bertram). Edmund is sufficiently endearing and I eagerly await how the Crawford siblings will be portrayed. I'm also intrigued with regard to the goings on in Antigua, as I assumed (wrongly) that in dealing with Egyptian mummies, artifacts and history Egypt would become the center of the non-English sphere. Apparently this is not so, and both locales appear to have bearing over the story. I'm not sure if this makes it more or less appealing, but it certainly has my curiosity piqued.
While I'm still leaning on the half-empty view of supernatural reinterpretations, this particular novel has excited my synapses and the little taste I have gotten of it makes me desirous of more.
In short, I'll read Dracula, My Love because it's Dracula-related... and I'm a masochist. I'll read Mansfield Park and Mummies because it seems fun and so far does not take itself too seriously.

Dracula, My Love: Preview

Allusions to wanting to vomit are not exaggerated... sorry.

While I think it generous of Harper Collins to offer a free preview of this book, I can already tell it's one I will have serious issues with (not that this will stop me from reading all of it, or from throwing it across the room -- repeatedly -- once I have a hard copy). The amount of *headdesking* enacted within the first chapter, especially on page twenty-four, does not bode well for my acceptance of this book.
Granted, I have a certain appreciation for anyone who takes on the daunting task of adapting Dracula in some form. I merely have an obsessive nature surrounding this novel which renders me incapable of turning that appreciation into sympathy for the writer's struggle when they murder the themes and characters of the book.
In short: I explode with snark.

Early running commentary through the samples 80 pages available:

- Dancing with Dracula? Going on a boating date (complete with casual notice that he doesn't reflect in the water)? Dreaming of Dracula on the ship as it crashes into the harbour, hearing him lustfully call out, "My love!" and whisper, "I am coming for you!" like Edward Fairfax Heathcliff Cullen... makes me want to heave, especially since it reduces Mina to a Victorian Bella Swan.
- So Dracula is like a HOTalian... an angel marble cupcake Adonis of mysterious and dangerous European hotness. Sure, if I ever get my wish to have the perfect Dracula it will be difficult to ever take one's eyes off him. That doesn't mean the overpowering sense of foreboding and danger which curls off him like his own mist will be ignored. Beautiful and mysterious does not equal harmless. That inexplicable feeling that your lunch is being tossed around in your stomach on an vessel during a storm? Yeah, I'm feeling that without having to get out of my seat on solid ground.
- Woman, if you italicize something one more time to get a point across especially about how mesmerized Mina is by Dracula's lusciousness, I'm going to scream.
- "I must have read Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre a dozen times!" And there we have the root of Mina's problem... He's read it, too?!?! Oh, heaven help us.
- Of course... it has now been hit upon: Dracula just wants to be loved. Cue the cheesy studio audience 'awww'ing as if this were a particularly heartwarming moment on Full House. Confirmation comes a little later in the book, but it is there nonetheless. Whether this is his true motivation or not remains to be discovered, yet the simple fact that he tells Mina this causes a swelling wave of nausea to overtake me.

When I buy this book, as sadly I will, I believe I shall have to take before and after photos of the book's condition. Something tells me it may resemble Joseph Andrews* by the time I finish it.

*I actually broke the spine on my paperback copy of JA which I had to read for a college lit class. Even after following my prof's advice of reading it out loud in silly, female Monty Python voices I still had issues getting through the book.

Admiration

In the world of writing intelligently about 'fandoms' (I really hate that term sometimes), there are only a handful of people who really inspire me and make me gooey with admiration -- a good kind of respectful gooey, not a naughty gooey. These people tend to write about topics and fandoms which are... let's say 'age inappropriate.' Or perhaps a better way of saying it would be these are people who possess the intellect and reasoning capabilities to appreciate much higher forms of art and entertainment, but prefer (usually) to spend their time with what their equals and superiors in such areas of study might refer to as dreck, or utter trash.

Here is an entry on Eclipse, and Twilight in general, which exemplifies what makes me gooey for those who could obsess and write about 'high' art and choose the trash instead.

Slay Me, Please

Whilst delving into my newest read (Jane Slayre), I find it appropriate to discuss the recent influx of paranormal-centered re-imaginings, rewrites, 'sequels' and such of both 'classic' literature and historical figures.
Sure, everyone's heard of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and (like its Austen counterpart) the not-quite-as-popular Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. P&P&Z author Seth Grahame-Smith has metaphorical tentacles (I hope they're metaphorical, I haven't actually seen the man in person, so who knows?) stretching into the historical zone as well with Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. However, are you aware of Mansfield Park and Mummies? How about Queen Victoria Demon Hunter? Or the dueling Alcotts, Little Women and Werewolves vs. Little Vampire Women? Lest I forget, there's also the Austen-centered vampire mania of Jane Bites Back and Mr. Darcy, Vampyre.
Obviously I have more than a passing interest in these books or I wouldn't be writing about them. Yes, I've read several. Several others stir in me conflicting emotions of being equal parts morbidly curious and more-than-slightly nauseated at the (to an English major) blasphemous nature of these stories. What probably would offend purists and English major snobs most is that eventually my morbid curiosity will overtake the appalled nausea and I'll end up reading the ones I haven't already.
So why this new-found obsession/fascination/fanaticism with the supernatural and classics? Sure, it's a post-modern hallmark to reinvent and retell past stories in a new way. Sure, the young adult section of your local bookstore has turned into the paranormal-pseudo-bodice-ripper section thanks to Stephenie Meyer. Sure, it's easier in some respects to bastardize adapt someone else's work than create your own. Yet the influx of this style hints more at a cultural shift than a bunch of copycats trying to make a quick buck (though there's plenty of that, too -- and I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that, either).
For one, in my non-snob-ish opinion, while I'm all about people reading as much as possible to further the general idea that reading = essential to life, I also think some of this writing is popular because it's like the supernatural cliff-notes to books 'normal' people don't want to read in the first place (read: people who hear the term 'classic literature' and flinch while running off to find the latest trendy bestseller) . However, now that it has become acceptable in our culture to enjoy the more, shall we say 'macabre,' forms of entertainment (and boy is that a rant for another day), toss a few zombies or vampires or werewolves... or a robot into Anna Karenina, and suddenly it's more accessible to the masses. (Seriously a rant for another day: how/why/when vampires, zombies, and other assorted night-creature miscreants rose to the height of popular entertainment.)
In the case of Austen, re-writing and expanding her work is nothing new, in the relative sense that people have been doing it for decades. I suppose it's only natural that she really be the first to have her works re-vamped to fit present trends (pun intended). One could draw a comparison between Austen's work and the many interpretations, sequels and the like, and those of Shakespeare -- who himself is no longer above joining the ranks of the undead. Though in the Austen re-imaginings her characters and tone are more or less honored in a way that Shakespeare's frequently are not.
While I'm only at the beginning of Jane Slayre, I'm already intrigued by the concept of what possibilities lie ahead for young Jane as she discovers her slaying capabilities while still dealing with the tumultuous emotional fires stirred by Rochester. Granted, I'm not much of a fan of the original novel, or its author (Anne got all the sense in that family), though I have developed a respect for it over the years. From my personal perspective this particular book could use a little spicing up.
However, I think that's the inherent problem in the cavalcade of this type of writing: the assumption that a work, or figure, which has been worthy of accolade for decades, perhaps centuries, can be 'improved upon' or 'made more interesting' by adding some supernatural beings, violence and, in some cases, steamy scenes. I'm not saying we don't sometimes like a little more pepper or garlic in our classic dishes, but if a person's initial introduction to such culinary delights indulges some spices to the point where the flavor of the original dish is tempered and lost, they may never be able to truly relish the first bite of the 'real' meal...
Granted, I have just spent several paragraphs repeatedly saying I don't take much issue with the existence of these kind of books. I take issue more with the idea that people are reading these before and instead of their source material, and fear that in doing so when (or if) they eventually read the original it will seem 'too boring' or 'bland' or 'too hard to follow' or any number of a dozen excuses many of these books already get without the hack-and-slash treatment current popular fiction is giving them.

To sum up a long-winded rant, when someone who is as voracious about reading as I am sees each of these books, I get both exhilarated and queasy. Sea Monsters don't really interest me, so I won't be going down that road, but mummies invading Mansfield Park sounds fun. My biggest hope is that someone unfamiliar with the original stories and lives now presented in glorious alternate universe gore will be able to one day return to the zombie-less Pride and Prejudice and enjoy it on its own far more considerable merits.*



(*I spent the better part of this entry praising the talents and longevity of Jane Austen. A certain former English professor of mine would be so proud...)