In Which Trai Indulges Her Inner 14-Year-Old

I've started noticing something over the last couple days-- almost any series I showed the slightest interest in as a young teen is being reprinted. Either someone was watching me or I just had a good sense of what sells. ;)

When I was about 12, I was big into high fantasy-- unicorns, dragons, all that stuff. I started gravitating away from that a little when I was about 13 or 14. When I was 13, I started writing the project that was basically my baby through high school-- a project influenced by Harry Potter and X-Men, my own universe of supernaturally gifted children. In order to get a sense of the conventions of the genre, I read tons of books about gifted teens.

I had favorites, and I had ones that were okay but still a decent read. I dearly loved the two series Melinda Metz wrote, Fingerprints and Roswell High (the latter of which became Roswell, a television series I watched after reading the books and loved). Most of the series I read were out of print, and I had such a difficult time finding them (my very, very obliging mother and stepdad did so much eBaying for me...). Gradually, as I became older and entered high school, I started getting into adult fantasy. The first author I read of this type was Kelley Armstrong, as I've mentioned in recent posts. I tried others as well, like Laurell K. Hamilton, and found my absolute favorite, Carrie Vaughn, when I was 14 (eesh). However, when I finally started reading the classics at 16, I started reading more Jane Austen (classics) and Jodi Picoult (fiction), which led me away from the fantasy books and into a serious classics/fiction phase.

Anyway. I think the reason I moved into adult fantasy was because it was so, so difficult to find YA books with the type of story I wanted. I think I said in my first anti-Twilight rant that my 14-year-old self would have loved it back then. (It actually was out when I was 14, but I never heard of it until at least 2007, and by then I'd read enough adult fantasy to realize it paled in comparison.) Right now, my inner 14-year-old is raging at the amount of options teenagers like me at that stage have today! The last couple times I've walked into the YA section, I was stunned by how much of it was paranormal. Cue that inner 14-year-old crying at the unfairness of all that eBaying when kids today can just buy the omnibuses for $10! (*wanders away grumbling about having to walk uphill both ways in the snow*)

I'm sure all of this comes down to Twilight-mania-- demand probably increased tenfold for vampire and werewolf books, and I know a lot of parents are wary about even letting their children read the last book in the quartet, so I'm sure those same parents wouldn't let their kids read the books I was reading at 14. (Nothing explicit, but Armstrong's books had fairly detailed sex scenes, and even Vaughn's first book had a slightly graphic scene at the beginning. Thank you, thank you, thank you to my incredibly lenient and understanding mother...)

I'm realizing now, though, that this will give me a great opportunity to rediscover all the series I didn't read when I was younger and that I probably would have wanted to. Some of these I even had interest in, back when they were out of print and very hard to find. Since I really didn't read much fantasy besides Vaughn's books for the last few years, I dearly want to get back to my past passion for fantasy. I'm starting to do that by catching up with Armstrong, and I think I'll use YA books as little breaks for when I want fast reads that won't be as detailed and/or complicated as adult fantasy can get.

- The Night World series is one I heard about for ages when it was out of print but popular among 90s teens. It's now been reprinted into three omnibuses of three books each, and the never-released tenth book is coming out this year. I bought the first omnibus today and I'll try and read it soon. LJ Smith was a popular author who was out of print by the time I started reading this stuff. I did read one trilogy of hers, Dark Visions, in 2004 or so. (I obtained the books through eBay; the picture accompanying this post is the cover of the recent omnibus edition.) I remember thinking the books were interesting, but I was so dissatisfied with the resolution of the romantic relationships that the end of the third book was a Wall Banger. It actually reminds me of Kelley Armstrong's Darkest Powers series that I've been following, when I thought about it. Similar premises. Anyway, all of Smith's series are being reprinted into omnibuses, which probably has a lot to do with The Vampire Diaries being a hugely popular TV series (probably because of the readers of the nineties watching it in addition to the new fans from the Twilight craze.)

- Amelia Atwater-Rhodes' books have been reprinted into one book with the whole quartet of vampire novels she wrote as a young teen. I considered reading these back in the day, but never got around to it.

- Elizabeth Chandler's Dark Secrets series has been reprinted into two omnibuses. I read part of one of the books and it didn't interest me, but the omnibuses are getting great reviews on Amazon. Since I wasn't a fan of that one book, I don't think I'll try it, but I was surprised to see it being reprinted since it was an obscure series. (This one isn't paranormal, BTW; I'm just using it as an example.)

- The Silver Kiss by Annette Curtis-Klause has been reprinted with an attractive cover more like a lot of the YA fantasy covers today. I was always interested in this book and Blood and Chocolate since I heard rave reviews, and someone recommended it to me when I wrote a vampire-themed poem that got published in my high school's literary magazine.

This is just an overview of some of the books I have plans to obtain in the coming months. I'm really curious to see how these books, most of them from the nineties, are compared to the more recent YA fantasy, like Armstrong's Darkest Powers series (the third book of which is coming out in a few weeks, and which I'll be reviewing as soon as my copy arrives!). Plus, my inner 14-year-old is begging me to read the books I never got the chance to buy back then. I'll let you all know what she thinks. :)

- Trai

In Which Trai Realizes The Alcott Sanctum Has Been Violated

Greetings, all. I haven't done a book-related rant since the first day or so I started this blog and I feel this is in order now. Bear with me.

They're starting to touch Louisa.

By they, I mean the monster mashers. I introduced The Monster Mash in my last post, the review of Dawn of the Dreadfuls. But I don't just mean the monster mashers-- I mean the other trend that is starting to invade fiction, the taking of author's lives and making them into romantic historical fiction.

I recently learned about two books-- Little Vampire Women (yes, SERIOUSLY) and The Lost Summer of Louisa May Alcott. The first invoked mild dismay and a tiny bit of a laugh, and the second just made me wonder if Alcott is going to become the new Austen in terms of fictionalizations.

Little Vampire Women at first horrified me-- Little Women is one of my absolute favorite books. I still have the desire to one day be a tour guide at Orchard House. I still seriously consider moving to Concord because I just love it there. I wrote my college essay on my visit to Orchard House and how much Jo inspired me. I know every word to the Little Women musical and I've seen it on stage twice. So how in the name of Alcott can they add vampires to the story? (As I write this, I looked up the book on Amazon and guess what? Little Women and Werewolves is coming out on the same day. I feel a pre-order coming on...)

It brings to mind an episode of Friends-- Rachel's favorite book is Little Women and Joey's is The Shining. They decide to read each other's favorites and Joey asks Rachel, "So these little women. Are they like scary little?" I'm wondering if the motivation for these two adaptations is making boys read the book, as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies has done for Pride and Prejudice.

At first, I had that horror-filled reaction. But then I realized, Louisa probably wouldn't be as dismayed as we imagine Jane to be. Louisa wrote potboilers to bring money to the household, and it appears she really enjoyed it. One wonders if she really enjoyed writing the moral tales she is most known for-- so one also wonders if she would get a chuckle out of her work being usurped by vampires and werewolves. I guess as long as they don't sparkle, I'm fine with it. [/obligatory put-down of Twilight]

The Lost Summer book, however, I'm still trying to wrap my head around. It's recently become all the rage with Austen-- trying to surmise who could've been the "real-life Mr. Darcy." With Alcott, I'm sure people want to know the "real-life Laurie." I've been to Orchard House and I got my answer on that one by asking a tour guide-- Alcott took traits of two close male friends and combined them to make Laurie. Bam. That's it. But of course, since Alcott died unmarried, everyone wants to give her some romance in her life. It can't be that she thought up Laurie and Professor Bhaer on her own, just like Austen made up all her heroes-- no. It's always got to be that the female author just HAD to have a man in her life.

I'll admit, after I visited Orchard House, I had a grand vision of one day writing a historical fiction book about Louisa. I really connected with Jo and, by extension, with Louisa (hence the college essay). I'm sure I entertained the idea of giving Alcott a Laurie of her own, but I'm just annoyed by the idea of most historical fiction writers that there just had to be a man in the lives of authors who were brilliant without them.

I don't want to complain about things I haven't read. So yes, I'm going to pre-order the Little Women monster mashups. Later this week, I'll order The Lost Summer and offer my verdict as soon as I get a chance to read it. But until then, I'm going to be the Sole Defender of Alcott, and darned proud of it.

- Trai

In Which Trai Reviews 'Dear John: The Movie' and Rants About War Movies

** This post will contain major spoilers for the book and film Dear John. I will also have in-depth discussion and analysis of The Hurt Locker and Stop-Loss.**

"The way I see it, Steve's married to the Army." (Michelle, Steve's wife, in Stop-Loss)

"The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug." (Chris Hedges, epigraph to The Hurt Locker)

My review of the book is located here.

My viewing of Dear John was delayed by the fact that public transportation here sucks! :) I went with two girlfriends today to see the film, finally. I was the only one who had read the book, but it didn't so much matter.

As a film, I was pleasantly surprised that it was actually good--I've stated my distaste for the film adaptation of The Notebook before, as I felt it was melodramatic and poorly acted. Dear John is melodramatic, yes, but the acting was really pretty good. Channing Tatum pretty much has a certain range as the repressed angry guy, but he was a decent romantic lead. Amanda Seyfried elicited the same mixed feelings I had for Savannah in the novel. Richard Jenkins was really perfect as John's father, who has Asperger's Syndrome; I really pitied him and felt for him.

As an adaptation of the book, the film did decently well-- there isn't too much plot in the novel; it's more a study of the relationships and things like John narrating his experiences in the Army. So the film did pretty well with the core elements of the story-- John and Savannah's relationship as it develops early on, John and his father's relationship, John deciding to re-enlist after 9/11 and the tension it causes among him and Savannah, Savannah eventually getting engaged to another man, John's father dying, and then John seeing Savannah again for the first time in years.

Parts of it were done really well-- I especially liked how nicely the scenes with John and his father were handled. The opening monologue, which turns out to be John's letter to his dying father, was very sweet and touching. I was crying when John comes home and learns of his father's condition and when he reads his father the letter. (To a person who will never read this: nice older lady who handed me a tissue after the letter scene was done, thank you again!)

The parts that were changed, I wasn't quite sure why they had to be-- the ending is a big one, which I'll explain below. Two things felt unnecessary: John getting shot, an incident that doesn't happen in the book, and Tim being changed from close Savannah's age and Alan's brother to older than Savannah and Alan's father. John getting shot, I can sort of understand-- it is the impetus behind the letter he writes to his father years later. Changing Tim to Alan's father and older than Savannah was really unnecessary; I think it was just to further the agenda of the filmmaker, which I'll also try to explain my interpretation of below.

The movie did what I feared would happen-- Hollywoodized the ending. Changing the ending changes the entire point of the story, and it frustrated me to have an otherwise good movie severely marred by missing the point of the story simply to give the characters a Happily Ever After.

To explain my feelings about why the book's ending was necessary, I'll have to rehash the book's ending here. It is mostly intact in the movie, but with some important differences.

John goes to see Savannah after his father's funeral and learns that she has married Tim, a friend of hers who has an autistic brother he has taken care of in the wake of their parents' deaths (I believe). He learns that Tim is ill with cancer and doesn't have much time. Savannah wants to get Tim into a clinical trial, but doesn't have the money. Tim, when John visits, tells John that he wants him to make Savannah happy in the event of his death. Moved by Tim's love for Savannah, John calls his attorney to sell his father's extensive coin collection and asks the money to be donated anonymously to Savannah. After the donation is made, Tim receives the treatment and survives. Some time later, John watches her from afar and sees her looking at the moon, which they did on one of their first meetings-- he knows part of her is still in love with him. He is a lifer in the Army and Savannah continues her life with Tim.

The movie retains everything through John selling his father's coin collection, though it does not keep the scene where Tim asks John to be with Savannah after he dies. The movie's ending is different in some important details: John's donation allows Tim to get the treatment... which only gives Tim two more months to live. He dies, and some unspecified time later, John sees Savannah in a restaurant. She runs out to him and they hug, which ends the movie.

Okay. I have had to explain my feelings about the book's ending to many a misguided fangirl. Here goes: Dear John is a tragic love story. John and Savannah are not meant to be together. John's relationship with Savannah is a teaching point in his life: Tim is the one who gets him to realize what true love really is. This is exemplified when Tim puts Savannah's happiness above his own by essentially giving John permission to be with Savannah after his death. John is somewhat shocked that Tim cares enough about Savannah to value her happiness above his own priorities, because he has never done that. When the time came to choose between going home to Savannah and re-enlisting with the Army, he chose the Army. The Army is John's first priority, not Savannah, and for Tim, Savannah comes first. Seeing that Tim truly loves Savannah is what motivates John to do what he does. He decides Tim should live because Tim loves Savannah in a way John never can. His priority is the safety of his country and this is why he is a lifer in the end.

I understand the moviemakers felt the need to provide a happy ending, but I really feel as though the entire point of the story and its message about true love has been undermined. I would have much preferred the original ending, but I'm sure that would have led to many complaining fangirls ranting about how John and Savannah just have to be together, even though they aren't meant to be. I was also distressed that the movie changed Tim's character into a single father-- it seemed to give the impression that Savannah marrying him was an obligation. She states that she married him because he was sick and needed her help. In the book, she marries him out of love because he has always been there for her. I was annoyed that the filmmakers made the marriage into one of convenience just to make John/Savannah look better.

I said in my last review that I have had issues understanding the typical hero in a war movie. This applies to the heroes of The Hurt Locker and Stop-Loss, and to the ending of the book of Dear John: I'd like to see a war movie, just once, where the hero does not go back in the end. The Hurt Locker upset me because, in the end, James decides that the adrenaline rush from defusing bombs is something that he loves, even more than his love for his family. The movie ends with James returning for another year-long rotation with the bomb defusing unit. Stop-Loss upset me because a man who had already done all he could for his country was forced to give it all again-- though he considers leaving the country, he goes back on tour in the end.

I suppose I jinxed myself-- I said I wanted a movie where the hero didn't go back in the end and BAM, the ending for Dear John was changed, much to my chagrin. There's something interesting about the attitude of the lifer hero, but I wish war movies would offer a more hopeful ending once in a while. I get tired of seeing these films have the same downer ending. As much as I love this genre, I'd like to see a happy ending once in a while-- just not one that compromises the entire story, as the movie's ending did to Dear John.

I really did like Dear John as a film-- it was a good adaptation of the book, besides some unnecessary changes. For anyone that wants to see other war movies that are profoundly affecting, I very much recommend The Hurt Locker and Stop-Loss.