Girls Acting Catty by Leslie Margolis

At First Sight: Having gotten the hang of boys at her school, six grader Annabelle is about to face a tougher adversary: sixth-grade girls!

So far, Annabelle has been oblivious to the other girls in sixth grade, happily enclosed in her group of friends, until they land on the sights of the mean-girl clique of their grade: Taylor and the Three Terrors.

At the beginning, Annabelle doesn't want to get into it, as she doesn't know the other girls well enough to like them or dislike them; and she has her mom's wedding to worry about, not to mention the fact that she might be crushing on her soon-to-be stepbrother. 

But soon, Annabelle realizes that whether she wants it or not, she is in the middle of it all; and that dealing with girls is far more difficult than with boys.

Second Glance: I really liked the first book about Annabelle's adventures - Boys are Dogs - but I have to say that I didn't find Girls Acting Catty quite as charming, though I've totally been on Annabelle's shoes when your friends are telling you to dislike someone though you're not sure you do, sometimes they are right and somethings they aren't but it's very annoying anyway. 

And I think the book captures that very well. How even good friends can act questionably specially when you're 12 and being a girl feels so complicated, but other than that I didn't feel there was much to this book.

Bottom Line: Girls Acting Catty is a nice MG read, though I don't think it's my favorite.

1/3

At the Movies: Jane Eyre (2011)

Orphaned at a young age and left in the care of an aunt who ended up sending her to a rather harsh school; Jane Eyre didn't have a happy childhood. But as a young woman with a good education, she gets a job as a governess at Thornfield Hall.

Thornfield is a place of many secrets and mysteries, the biggest of which is it's owner, Mr. Rochester.

Meeting him by accident, Jane is intrigued by him but knows him to be out of her league. But she and Rochester do become friends; despite their differences - in age, temperament, station - but there is one thing about secrets... they are always revealed at the worst possible time.

*Sigh* I feel kind of silly writing the summary for Jane Eyre because - in the words of my father - this is the story all other love stories are based on, but it needed to be done.

As you can probably guess, I'm a bit of a Jane Eyre fan. It's one of those books to which I have a very visceral connection - I still remember the first time I read it - and I love to watch TV/movie adaptations of it; and I do take it kind of seriously, which is why I'm going to say that I didn't like this version of it.

The production values - costumes, art design, etc - are great, but I don't think the script and direction were very good. I was put off by the constant back and forth of flash backs, it didn't work for me, and gave it a very sluggish pace. And there were scenes were it was just awkward. Plus, while I found Michael Fassbender to be a terrific Rochester; I sort of confirmed my suspicion that acting isn't exactly Mia Wasikowska's forte (or at least that she's not yet a mature enough actress to carry a title role) (And no, I didn't like her Alice either).

See, for me, the whole point of Jane is this young woman who has so much passion in her but who was forced by the circumstances of her life to hide all those feelings... until she meets the man who recognizes the longing in her soul and helps her bring the feelings out. But all I got from Wasikowska was awkward at best and blank/flat at worst.

She looked the part but she didn't act the part; and you can't have Jane Eyre without Jane.

So... I'll give it a D+ because yes, Michale Fassbender is that hot, but Mia sucks that bad.

Luv, Alex.

Welcome (back) to the Darkside

So... this is the second and final part of Welcome to the Darkside (or my thoughts on YA is too dark). You can check out the first part here. Let's just jump into it, continuing from yesterday...

Oh, So Glamorous!

Another thing that was addressed in the article and in the radio talk two days ago, was whether or not these books glamorized certain behaviors, like cutting or drugs or eating disorders or even incest. If it was such a good idea to expose young people to these kind of things that might not have touched them otherwise.

That's nuts. Talking about something is not endorsing it or advertising it - these are real issues that touch many people's lives and I can't imagine  a world where not talking about something is better, it just becomes an elephant in the room and that never helps anyone.

Darkness touches people every day in many ways. Look at me: I'm a college educated 27 year old, firmly middle class, with two loving parents who still love each other after 30 years of marriage, never had to wonder where my next meal was coming from, and other that fighting with my sister, I've known no violence. On paper, it's a perfect life. And I think I'm one of the luckiest people ever, but I've had to deal with overwhelming anxieties and crippling fears and that's my reality and it had nothing to do with the books I read.

As a side note, I think there are far more disturbing things happening on YA these days, such as Bad Romance. Personally, it worries me that so many books portray lust, stalker-like behavior, and obsession as True Love - I had a guy stalk me when I was 13 years old, and it's not fun, it's not romantic and to be honest it was right down terrifying. Do I think these books should be censored? Hell, no! But I think more people should talk about it.

It's Not a How To Manual

Another part of the argument is how these books can get very graphic and descriptive and how that might put ideas in people's heads. I suppose everything is possible but for me that sort of stinks of blaming the media for people's actions.

Just as I think you can't blame certain types of music or films every time some wacko goes and opens fire at a mall, you can't blame books for putting the idea of anorexia on a teen's head. Those people are sick, it's an illness as much as cancer, and blaming it on what they read and listen to it's the cowards way out, and it's a lie. 

Age-Appropriate is Not Censorship

This topic is very dear to me. I don't believe in censorship, I don't think books should be kept off the shelves on terms of subject matter. But I do believe there is such thing as age-appropriate.

There are books that I wouldn't feel comfortable giving a thirteen year old, because of they way certain things are handled, the language, whatever, but I wouldn't mind if they read it at, say, fifteen or sixteen once they were a little more mature. 

But I believe that parents have the right to make that call for their children (though not for other people's children) - it's their right and I'm all for it, but they HAVE TO do their homework and read what their kids want to/are reading. It's called parenting, people. Do it!

In general terms, I use the Meg Cabot approach: "If you are wondering if you're old enough to read it, you probably aren't old enough."

And In The End...

After all of this, I have two things to say. First: It's time adults stop condescending younger readers - they can differentiate fact from fiction, they can handle difficult topics and there is no reason to think they can't just because they are younger.

And second, that I think the discussion is good. I would love to see more parents involved on what their kids are reading; I would love to see mature and fair dialogue about the things happening in literature these days.

I think it's on everyone's best interest to discuss it - though never censor it.

And I'll like to end this all by quoting author Geoff Herbach, whom I had the pleasure of hosting on the blog a few weeks ago: "The more I write, the more I love everybody. Writing makes me see other peoples’ perspectives and follow chains of mistakes that get people into big trouble and I have empathy and I just start loving to whole freaking world for all the disaster and sadness we all have to make it through… There’s good stuff, too, of course. Thank God."

Think it over, it applies to reading too.

And, in conclusion... COOKIES!

Love, Alex.

Welcome To The Darkside (Part I) (and yes, there'll be cookies)

 Though normally I try to keep out of it, all the recent talk about Darkness in YA got me thinking and then yesterday I heard the Maureen Jonson/Megan Cox Gurdon radio interview discussing Gurdon's article (and it's follow up) that sort of sparked the whole controversy - and I want to give props to both women because they kept it together and actually had a dialogue!

Anyway, before we start, I recommend you read the articles and listen to the interview if you didn't have a chance to hear it yesterday.

Go, go. I'll wait *twiddles thumbs* *whistles*

You back? Okay! Let's start.

What does YA means?

YA is a relatively new genre in literature -and yes, I consider it a genre, though it encompasses a lot of other ones - and what it means in it's most barest terms is that the narrator is a younger person - usually ranging in age from about 13 years old to early 20's (though books focusing on people 19 and older and more rare).

That's sort of the parameter, but beyond that it can be anything: fantasy, horror, steampunk, contemporary, historical, paranormal, etc. It's a rich and evolving genre that has certainly been fulled by book phenomenons such as Harry Potter, Twilight and even the Hunger Games or The Princess Diaries.

And let me point out that just because the narrators are young or the narrative is aimed toward younger people it doesn't mean it's all sunshine, crushes and clothes, because being a Young Adult is not only about that - but more on that later.

As with any genre, in YA you'll find books that are good, books that are great, books that are Meh, and books that are seriously bad - and think of it as statistics, it just has to be that way.

I'm a Fluffist!

This whole controversy started by Gurdon pointing out that there is a current trend in YA literature toward the more dark, disturbing topics - including but not limited to things such as self mutilation, eating disorders, rape, incest, - and ask if that's such a good idea.

Her article, in fact, starts by mentioning the story of a mom who went to a bookstore to buy a book for her 13 year old daughter and was discouraged by the 'darkness' she saw on the titles offered ("It was all vampires and suicide and self mutilation" - the mom is quoted as saying). 

This part really bothered me because I am a fluffist - my reading of choice revolves around the cute and the fluffy (and by that I DON'T mean superficial or banal) - and though I admit Paranormal is big right now, and there is a marked surplus of dystopian novels; I'm not hurting for things to read.

I rarely read books about vampires - though I'm not against paranormal as a genre, some of my favorite books are paranormal, just not vampire oriented - and I only read a dystopian a year because I have a very fragile psyche prone to freak outs and the whole dystopian thing gets to me (though I understand it, the way the world is going I think we are all a little afraid, deep down, of the future, and I love that there are books addressing that, even if they are not my reading of choice). Having said all that, I'm also going to say that I have a TBR pile over 50 books long.

Just because there is a trend, and there is an audience for those books, it doesn't mean that's all there is in the offering.

If You Don't Like It...

Now, lets talk about what it's considered dark: incest, self mutilation, eating disorders, rape, assault, etc. I agree that those subjects are not a walk in the part. But beeing a young adult is not a walk in the park either.

So long as you can't take out the dark out of the growing up experience, I don't think you can take it out of the books about people growing up. Even if you are not writing about such heavy topics, there are a lot of traumatic moments you have to go through as you go through life - it comes with the territory, and I just don't believe addressing such topics is bad.

More over, the books are there if you want to read them, no one is forcing anyone to read them. I have passed on wildly popular books -and disliked some too - just because they aren't the kind of books I read. I never finished Twilight, I only read the Hunger Games and I never went back for more. It's not my cup of tea, so I don't drink it.

There is a choice, and it's every reader's - and his or her parents - to make it.

We Are All A Little Bit Morbid

I think that a natural question to ask now is, why are dark books so popular?

There is a part, and it has been addressed (just look up the hash tag #YASaves on twitter), about how having books about these topics can help teens not to feel alone if they are dealing with similar issues, how to help a friend if they are the ones with the issue -that has been said and done, and I don't think I have much more to contribute to that discussion.

But there is also another part that I need to address: some people JUST LIKE IT. It's true, you can't tell me that it's not. That's why I sometimes call these books Trauma Porn - and I mean it descriptively, not derogatorily.

Just like there is people like me who love reading books with wedding/wedding planning on them (Wedding Porn) or who, also like me, will buy any book with a cupcake on the cover because they love to read about food (Food Porn), there are people who actively seek out stories about the darker side of human nature - and that it's their right.

Some people slow down to watch a car wreck, some people like their books 'dark', it doesn't make them bad people, it doesn't mean they go about life wishing for someone to crash their car or for bad things to happen to other people for their entrainment. But we all are a little bit morbid, it's part of being human. Deal with it.

...

And that's it for part one! 

More later.

Let me know what you guys think!

Love, Alex.

Book Review: The Orphan Sister by Gwendolen Gross

At First Sight: Clementine Lord has always felt a little like the odd one out in her family. She's one of a set of triplets, only that her other two sisters are identical while she's only a fraternal twin; and though she has a strong connection to her sisters Odette and Olivia, that connection is not as strong as the one they have with each other. 

Odette and Olivia both followed in their father's footsteps and became doctors - and winners of the parental approval - while Clementine is just now trying to get into Veterinarian school.

But one day, their father goes missing, which forces the family dynamics to change, as they uncover a big secret of their father's past.

Second Glance: I wasn't sure what to expect from this book but it seemed like an interesting premise. And in some ways it was an interesting book. We get a glimpse at the comings and goings of the Lord family. Mom is distant and absent, Dad is a controling freak; and the girls, while close, have their own problems. 

I liked the connection between the three sisters, over all. Some parts rang true to me and some didn't - I have a large, mostly female family, so I get sisterhood. But I'm sad to say that I found Clementine a bit boring. Not to mention that the there are a series of flashbacks through out the book, and at times it was confusing to follow who was talking and if it was the present or the past.

And I didn't care at all for the Mom or the Dad, they were both kind of cartoonish.

Bottom Line: Sadly, The Orphan Sister was not a book for me. I felt like Clementine thought a lot but did very little most of the time, and I had a hard time liking her.

1/2