I usually read about 40 books a year. Last year, I managed only 34 books. (That's 24 fiction and 10 non-fiction). In 2021, however, I'm already far behind my usual numbers.
To date (and keep in mind the year is almost over!), I've read 10 fiction and 5 non-fiction books.
That's a bit sad, isn't it? I'm trying to pick up the pace in the last three months of the year and hope to at least finish ten more. (Actually I'm hoping to get to 35. But who knows.)
On the other hand, I've been writing a lot, so maybe that's taking some time out of my reading... time.
There are a few books I'd like to talk about in this blog post. They're still fresh in my mind and I have plenty of opinions on them.
1. Lost Connections by Johann Hari
if you struggle from any mental health issue, especially depression or anxiety, you need to read this. It's a story, like any other about mental health, but this is a story that made a huge impact on me. It seemed to help.
if you have read it, let me know! I'd love to hear your thoughts (comments are open and free, as always!)
2. The Anubis Gates by Tim Powers
This is a bit of an older book. 1983 – that's older than I am! But it's the best book I've read so far this year (if you don't count my re-read of The Windup Girl, and even then, it's close.). I'm aware that many readers will call this book old-fashioned, sexist, or unnecessarily complicated, but I absolutely loved it. On goodreads, you'll find plenty of reviews complaining about the language, the prose, and how it's written 'ponderously'. Plenty of readers tossed it down for that reason and never picked it back up. But I? I absolutely loved it, despite the horrible clown. I just wished it hadn't ended so soon (she says, after almost 400 pages) and that there were a sequel. That's literally the only quarrel I have with the book (or rather, Tim Powers).
Other than that (and here is the point where I wish I had a few millions to convince Mr. Powers to write more in this universe), this book has everything. It's set in the past (mostly), deals with ancient sorcerers and magic, has a plucky female character, and a male main character who's just... trying his best even though he isn't really good at it. All he knows is poetry and poets, and the book is delightful in how it uses the character's particular knowledge and genius.
It popped so many chicken-vs-egg and grandfather paradox questions into my mind while reading, giving me food for thought, but it never slowed down enough for me to get bored. There's a werewolf (an ingenius combination of the usual trope and a dead Egyptian god), there's magic that doesn't work with stupid rules (such as wands) but feels magical and mysterious rather than a science project, and there's homunculi who are basically doppelgangers of people who exist. There's also other homunculi. And I love it.
I'm gonna say: You have to read this book. There's just so much delight and fun in it without it getting silly. I absolutely loved (ok, ok, we get it) and recommend it. I'll probably re-read, soon.
3. Howl's Moving Castle
This was supposed to be its own blog post. It might become one. But let me here note down some quick thoughts about HMC.
It was fun! It was silly, but the voice didn't annoy me, like it usually does. I listened to this in audiobook format and the only section I didn't like came in the middle of it. There's a part where Howl, the titular character, goes to 'a different world', but it felt strangely out of place and Narnia-ish to me. I was glad when this was over. It didn't really have much to do with the plot either. Why does the witch/demon want to go to this 'other world'? To catch Howl? But he's mostly not there. So yeah. That part didn't make too much sense.
HMC was a lovely light read. I'd definitely recommend it. The only issue is...
4. The Problem with Howl's Moving Castle (the film)
The movie made on the basis of the book doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's Studio Ghibli, so what am I expecting in terms of plot? Not too much, but even so, HMC was a severe let-down.
Caveat: I did enjoy watching it. It was emotional. I'm a crier and so I cried. (I actually hid in the bedroom to watch it so I wouldn't get teased about this.) However... The plot made absolutely no sense.
*The main villain was just dumb- This is a witch called Sulliman. A royal witch (as in, in the service of the king). Apparently this witch started a war to get back something Howl had lost and make him realize 'the truth'. After telling the main character of the movie, Sophie, that she wanted to destroy Howl's powers and (possibly) kill him.
Ok? I'm all for the reversal- the villain did it because of loooove! But a royal advisor starting a devastating war just so she can help a single child? I mean, it can be seen as love, but it sounds borderline obsessive. The witch isn't even Howl's mother.
*Howl's firm (an admittedly cool-looking bird) is never linked to anything... but apparently he is a 'monster' because of it. I don't... buy it? I'm thinking this was set up to imply Sophie loves Howl despite him being a 'monster'... but he isn't really a monster and doesn't act like it. He'd a kind dude. Who is apparently part bird. What's wrong with that?
*Howl is perfectly friendly and very kind. He's not even vain or in any way as cruel as in the book. Despite that, the film insists he has no heart (physically), and it repeatedly hints at Howl's heart being important for... something. This something is not explained, nor is it explained what will happen to him if he doesn't regain his heart, or what will happen when/if his heart is returned. Him lacking a heart is just thrown out there without reason or rhyme, labeled as a 'bad thing' without any consequences shown or any other plot related to it. In the end, he does get his heart back, of course, but this doesn't seem to change him all that much either or has any effect on the plot.
*Unlike in the book, there is also no explanation about Howl's pact with Calcifer (who was admittedly the almost-best character in the movie and book). The movie shows us briefly how the pact was made to explain why Howl has no hear (he gave it to Calcifer) but no reason for this generosity is named and Calcifer doesn't seem to be evil (implying something baaad will happen if he keeps Howl's heart). In the book, of course, Howl saved Calcifer by giving him his heart and Sophie is able to keep them both alive when she returns Howl's heart to howl. In the movie, however, none of this is explained and Sophie doesn't even seem to have magic.
Ugh.
*The best character of the whole movie was the Witch of the Waste. As much as I love Calcifer and the fact that, while the others are animated and drawn cute-ly, he's just a flame with googly eyes, hands down, the Witch of the Waste was the better character. The Witch, unlike all the other characters, has a single purpose: She wants to have Howl's heart. She was in love with him once and he with her. She wants to have his heart again.
Her goal, her entire raison d'etre is to get back Howl's heart. This is what she does throughout the movie, the consistent goal that thrives her to do bad things, such as turning Sophie into an old woman, such as setting her goons on the hunt for Howl. In the end, she realizes, even when her memory seems to have been half-wiped by Sulliman, that Calcifer has Howl's heart. The Witch is willing to kill Calcifer to get it... and she succeeds, at least at stealing it. Then, however, as she watches Sophie's pain and grief, her fight to save Howl, she is moved. She hands Howl's heart over to Sophie.
Isn't that great character development? The Witch, a caricature of the character she is in the book, turns from 'his heart is mine' and being willing to murder for it to 'here you go, dear' when she realizes Sophie loves Howl more/differently than she ever did/could. She is willing to surrender her goal, the reason she fought so hard, because she has been moved by Sophie's kindness. She, who was, if not the villain then at least an antagonist, changes, and she is the almost only character who does. (The dog, Hine, changes too, from his loyalty to Sulliman to a loyalty to Sophie and her found family. However, I'd argue that the Witch's change is the most profound in the movie.)
Howl, Sophie, and Calcifer, on the other hand, all stay the same throughout the movie. Nothing changes in their character.
I'm not sure if it'd be silly, here, to argue that the Witch is the real heroine of the story, at least in the movie, but I definitely feel like she was more heroic than either of the other characters (safe perhaps Howl) in the end.
The other books I've read the last month and a half are a bit easier to judge:
1. House of Hollow: I read this for the Fantastic Fiction Book Club as October's read. I'd definitely say it was okay. The story wasn't super unique and nothing special (I've read better changeling literature), but the plot was decent, the characters entertaining, the narrative tightly written and always full of mystery and intrigue. I liked the book, but I wasn't super impressed by it. It seemed derivative, using a lot of common tropes, and the main character was annoyingly powerless most of the time. I kind of wanted the villain to win. He had real motivation and seemed to be the only character with a clear and realistic goal. A small spoiler: The villain is the main character's father. The main character's mother on the other hand was hysterical and... I really cannot emphasize with her at all. Her children were killed... and she forgives their killer and invites her into the family? Oh-kay? I get that grief does weird things to people. But really?
2. This is How you Lose the Time War: What complete bull-shit. I've heard tons of good opinions on this one and was curious what the hype was about. People seemed to praise it left right and center. Then I got into it.
And what absolute crap it was!
I get it, I get it, it has so much purple prose the plot almost drowned, which some readers might find beautiful. It has imaginative imagery and imaginative settings (although most of that is literally just taken from historical moments) and it just oozes... something. I'm not even sure what. It just oozes.
It's supposed to be a love story (I guess?) but despite the characters playing with each other and circling each other for millennia (through space and time, nonetheless), none of this is ever shown. I don't understand why Red likes Blue and vice versa. I didn't see them play, didn't see them circle one another, didn't see the challenges that placed them together and took them apart. It's a kind of Romeo and Juliet- The two main characters are from different 'factions'- but written in a way that absolutely doesn't work. I'm not sure what readers are drunk on these days. The whole 'exchange of letters' the book is based on is absolutely garbage and definitely not emotional enough to be considered a love story.
It reads more like something where the concept became more important than the story. The concept, a huge war between factions across space and time, whose outcome is never explained so hard to care about, and changing history to suit one faction over another, sounds like fun. It's a very complex and interesting concept. But except for a few scenes in which the main characters hide a note to each other, we're not shown the time war, not explained how it works, what the end goal is (beyond one side winning over the other, as in every war), and there seem to be no stakes for the outcome that make the love story 'tragic' (as the writers intended).
The characters, too, are bland, and if the names hadn't been evident in their correspondence with one another I'd not have been able to distinguish who sent which letter. They're this similar, and this bland. Their alleged character traits (Red being bold and very direct in her approach to battle whereas Blue is more mellow, smart, the poisoner rather than the warrior) don't come through in any of the scenes. The hiding places of their messages have no distinct qualities to them that make you instantly know who hid which message.
The ending was wrapped up neatly- I could believe that Red might save Blue the way she did- and set up meticulously. However, the other ending, the one where they communicate again with one another, was just as stupid as the rest.
Am I supposed to believe that two people who never touched and barely caught any glimpses of one another across time and space can actually feel enough love toward one another to sacrifice themselves entirely? That screams teenage LDR fantasy to me. (And that's coming from someone who's met almost all of her friends and previous partners in online settings and games.)
In short, I don't buy it. The prose was too purple, the story unnecessarily convoluted, the setting much too whimsical to allow for any real feelings to grow.
3. Dune (Movie):
I know the movie isn't out yet in the US- so proceed with caution if you don't want to be spoilered. I'm going to keep plot spoilers to myself despite the age of the book but there will be some general rants about Chosen Ones, visions, and prophecy.
First of all, it's clear from the beginning of the movie that a few things will happen:
Paul is the Chosen One (TM).
Paul will master 'the Voice'. (Is this a Star Wars rip off?)
The girl in his vision won't kill him- even though it looks like it where conveniently the vision cuts off!
They will kiss (confirmed in later scenes by another vision).
Paul will kill/incapacitate/overthrow the emperor.
The villains are all Star Wars villains- old men in hoods and robes- but fat.
I cannot take the Baron seriously. He
literally floats like a fucking balloon! He even bounces.
All that out of the way, the movie was enjoyable, the graphics and CGI super neat. I love the desert atmosphere, the great spaceships coming down, the battle scenes. I love all of that for its visual aspect. It's just so fun to watch! The space ships are designed absolutely wonderfully (I love the square black ship hovering over the desert city in one scene), as is the desert city, as are the enormous sandworms (although sandworms have looked the same for ages) and the tech they wear/use.
The one problem I had with the movie was... women. There are none. Almost none. All the warriors of Paul's family are men, the army is male-only, and women feature very lightly in any battle scene. I remember one female warrior, a spear-woman, but she's shown for a fraction of a second and then disappears (dies).
The other females are this:
1. Paul's mother: I have to admit she's great. There is femininity and vulnerability to her, she's the member of some ancient secret nun clan, and she's immensely powerful. Her control of the force Voice is great (and absolutely awesomely portrayed in the movie) and she is a physical fighter as well. She can hold her own, and she does, when threatened. She's also vulnerable and able to cry when bad things happen to her. Solid 10/10 character with the one caveat that she's still very attached to her not-even-husband and it feels a bit cringey in some moments.
2. Dr. Kynes. This character is supposed to be 'cool'. Very aloof and 'hands-off'. Roguish with a heart of gold. Yada yada. You get the stereotype. Mystical woman saves Paul and his mother and is generally 'badass'. There isn't much more to her than that. I suppose she'll become a mentor to Paul or something in the future.
That's in terms of the main characters of the first movie. And before you jump down my throat there these two more: love interest mysterious desert girl and old woman cult leader nun. They're... just your standard token woman character fare. Paul needs a love interest, of course, and of course she has to be the mysterious desert girl of his visions! The cult leader nun doesn't have much of a role or anything else (I don't get the box test in the beginning- what was this even for?) so I'm not going to elaborate on her. There's really nothing to elaborate about.
In summary, then, there's only really one female character with impact: Paul's mother Jessica.
The rest of the characters are male. The advisors to the house are male: The army-leader-general (?) dude as well as the fat spymaster dude. Also the dude (Duncan Idahoe) who is some sort of fighter person and used to be Paul's teacher (I'm gonna need to call him Obi Wan even though he looks more like Quigon Jin).
The villains are of course all male too. There isn't a single woman (except the extras with their shaven heads- but I'd call those androgynous rather than female.) in the opposing house or anywhere else in the empire's ranks.
That being said, you can throw at me the usual 'but it's an old book' or 'but we must stick to be book'... but really, we mustn't. Dune, the movie, could have chosen a more progressive path while keeping all the tropes intact. Duncan Idahoe is the character that instantly comes to mind who could have been a woman. As could have both of the advisors. As could, actually, have Paul's father. Or, the villains. Rabban could have been a woman. The emperor could be an empress. There is no reason that we had to watch this dick-fest for two hours and the women had marginal roles only.
Listen, Paul's father at some says to Jessica, the cool mother, 'I should have married you' and all I could think was: What in the ever-loving hell? I get it, he's the one who makes the decisions, but really? This felt so denigrating to hear that it turned my stomach.
I'm finding it difficult to put into words why. I get that they love one another, and there's nothing wrong with that, and there would have been nothing wrong with them being husband and wife either (in fact, the mention that they're not is jarring, as it has no bearing on the plot and no one cares whether they're married or just together because.). However, the fact that he tells her HE should have married HER, as opposed to 'We should have married' or 'I would have liked to be married' or something that doesn't make it seem like he is the only one who gets to make that decision would have been... just great. This is why Jessica is a 10/10 with a caveat. How can this powerful woman let herself be treated like that?
Anyway, again, a lot of people will probably have some sort of argument along the lines of 'But that's how it was in the book'. And I ask you back: So what? The book is old. The book was written when stuff like that was... not acceptable, but still widely practised. These days, it's all about equality, about eradicating sexism, and the film had such a great chance to do that.
So why didn't they? Why isn't Duncan a cool warrior woman? Why isn't Rabban an angry, evil niece? Why is Paul's father a sexist asshole?
These issues really didn't have to exist. The book might have been out of date in social regards, but the film didn't need to be. And still it is.
So, isn't Hollywood trying to become more diverse? Isn't sexism an issue, everywhere? As a woman, the film disappoints me, and it's not because of the hundreds of tropes and the tired old stereotypes it is full of. It's because there's almost no representation of an actual woman in a cast of around 20 actors. There's one. 1/20. As a society, is that the rate of inclusion we're going for?
I've social anxiety and problems with society enough not to want to be part of it in many regards, but this just makes me want to not be part of it at all.
End Rant.
No comments:
Post a Comment