If some of my favorite books were made into TV shows, I'd probably go back and reread the books before watching them. In this case? Not so much. I did re-read the Sword of Truth series last year, as I'd not read the final, concluding book, and wanted to be done with the series. A quick summary of my thoughts:
- Wizard's First Rule: Not bad at all! Neat world!
- Stone of Tears: Wow, this is really violent. Okay. Neat world.
- Blood of the Fold: What is with all the violence? The world's still kind of cool. Oh, wow! That villain from the first book is awesome now! Yay!
- Temple of the Winds: Didn't we all think this was the coolest book ever when we first read it? Why was that again? Hello, violence against women. Wait, does every woman really get threatened with rape over the course of the series? Hmm. Okay, done now...
- Soul of the Fire: In which we discover that Terry Goodkind doesn't like the Clintons. Also, yeah, I guess his female characters are just kinda doomed to sexual harassment and assault. ALL OF THEM. O_O
- Faith of the Fallen: I *ow* already *OW* own *ow* a copy of *OW OW* Atlas Shrugged! I *ow* read it *ow* in college! *OW* You don't *ow* have to *ow* beat me over the *OW OW OW* head with it! OW! STOP THAT!
- The Pillars of Creation: Who are these people and why do I care? ...ow. Hey, sneak attack from Atlas Shrugged. PUT THAT DOWN.
- Naked Empire: In which it is explained to us why we have to go fight Iraq. Wait, were we still in the Sword of Truth series? Oh, we were? Really? Okay...
- Chainfire: WHOA. Okay. Cool concept.
- Phantom: I... think we just did this in the last book?
- Confessor: JESUS CHRIST WOULD YOU STOP WITH THE RAPE THREATS AND RAPE SCENES ALREADY. NO, REALLY. I GET THE POINT. The point being "bad guys rape women" and, apparently, "really heroic women don't get raped, because the bad guys can't bear to assault their heroic virtue". I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. (When you can learn a thing or two about treating women like human beings from the Mike Harmon books by John Ringo...) Also, OMGWTFBBQpolarbear ending? Huh?
So in all fairness to the TV series, I'm approaching it with some curiosity and some pretty low expectations. Working from the source material, it can only be so good. That said, it's more a revisioning of the story than an actual word-for-word translation, and it's interesting seeing what gets changed.
The guy they've cast to play Richard is Craig Horner, a guy who's 25 and seriously doesn't look it. On one hand, I keep looking at him thinking, "Oh, he's way too young..." On the other hand, he's older than Richard is really supposed to be in the series right now. QQ! Apparently I'm the old one.
The actress cast as Kahlan (Bridget Regan) is awesome. She can act, she's lovely, and she kicks all manner of ass. \o/ I am very pleased -- now I just hope the series as a whole is good to her, because she really needs to continue that level of asskickery and takecareofmyselfitude in order to have me not throw things at the TV.
Jury's still out on Zedd. I'm predisposed to like both Chase (Jay Laga'aia) and the guy who plays Darken Rahl (Craig Parker), though it's throwing me for a loop that he's not blond. Parker looks just fine blond! Didn't you guys cast him because of Lord of the Rings?
As for the show itself, a quick, spoilery rundown:
Tags: fantasy, sword of truth, television
Most diet books are full of crap. They tend to preach the idea that dieting is a difficult-to-impossible task one can only accomplish by following weird, random eating habits that make no sense and are miserable to carry out.
The Automatic Diet by Charles Platkin is the only book I've ever run across that actually works from the idea that dieting is not that complicated. The bedrock principle he's working with is "eat less, move more", and his book gives some guidance and suggestions about how to do it. Platkin's approach is empowerment-based, not willpower-based, which I also think is a step up from most diet books. He's big on taking responsibility for actions and taking control of eating habits rather than looking for a fad diet that promises a quick fix and an easy way to lose weight. I am in total agreement with him on this point, so I pretty much think he's on the right track.
The book is called The Automatic Diet because Platkin's goal is to get the reader to figure out what his or her eating habits are, followed by changes that make sense and are acceptable. There's no "If you're a Libra, you should eat nothing but melon," and thank God for that, because I'm a Libra and I hate melon. If I'd been starting the eat-less-move-more plan off all by myself, Platkin's book would have been really helpful, since there are all kinds of suggestions on how to save calories and a whole lot of eye-opening statistics on how many calories there are in common foods. There is never any sort of "you can never have butter again" in the book--for people who aren't willing to give up foods, or trade them in for lower-calorie versions of the same, Platkin suggests having less of them and having them less often, which is totally acceptable as far as I'm concerned.
All in all, it's the sanest diet book I've ever seen (and while I don't read many, I have checked them out at the library before), and I would definitely recommend it.
I don't have TV per se (we don't get broadcast television in the house), but we do have internet, and there's plenty of TV you can get that way. In fact, I find it a lot more convenient than just having a televisioin -- TV has schedules! With the Internet, you can get whatever you feel like watching and watch it whenever you feel like watching it.
I was tipped off to Leverage because it's Christian Kane's current show; Christian Kane was formerly a recurring character on Angel. What can I say? I'm a sucker for cute guys in the media. (You'll see a lot of that around here.) ^_^
Here's how I described it to Grant: It's about a bunch of thieves and con artists who get together with a former insurance investigator (think Rene Russo from The Thomas Crown Affair, only a guy and not hot) who end up pulling cons on bad guys and corrupt politicians/businesses in order to make lots of money for themselves and for social justice.
It's... kind of like a high-tech Robin Hood, sort of. I guess? But where is it going? I don't know how many caper episodes I can watch before I get bored. (This may have something to do with the fact that, after Prison Break, stupid capers get to me, and due to my innate fiction preferences, capers where you pull the answer out of your ass drive me nuts.)
Shamefully, I would probably be stuck to it like glue if Christian Kane weren't scraggly-haired and... no, I can handle the "shaving is a luxury I don't have when I'm so busy kicking this much ass" thing, but ugh, the man has the hairstyle Eddie Vedder did in 1992, and you know... uh... I'm not 14 anymore. I kind of like it when guys use shampoo and get regular haircuts.
So my totally shallow opinion is that, since I'm watching it for the hot, the hot needs to improve some if I'm gonna stick with it, or I need to be willing to lower my standards enough for a Guy Of The Month's primary appearance to include the '90s hairstyle that helped define the genre name "grunge". It's not awful (and it isn't Prison Break-level ridiculous), but it isn't great, either, and Christian Kane badly needs a haircut. I'll probably give it a few more episodes to see where it's going, but if it doesn't grab me, it's not one I'll miss much.
Tags: guy of the month, television
Actually, this comes from the calendar of The Joy Of Cooking, a 365-day calendar that I picked up on the clearance table at Barnes & Noble. (And it's not so much 365-day as 312-day; it's one of those page-a-day calendars where there's only one page for the weekend. Boo! Boo, I say!)
Anyway, apparently stracciatella is Italian Egg Drop Soup, made (in this case) by combining bread crumbs, parsley, Parmesan, and an egg, and putting it into chicken stock. The results were not great. Unlike Chinese Egg Drop Soup, where the egg is thick and present enough to form a really nice base for a soup, in this one it didn't add a whole lot, and the soup desperately needed something to add more flavor -- maybe sausage. However, rather than trying to add sausage, I'm going to try a different recipe and see if I can come up with something I like better.
Not every new thing I try is going to be a success! I'll chalk this one up to a learning experience and try something else next time. I have clam chowder on the menu for later this week. :)
The Joy Of Cooking is a classic, and I'm finding more and more that it's a classic for a reason. I have the 75th anniversary edition, and lately when I have a yen to cook something, I'll check to see if it's in TJOC and try that recipe if it is. No offense to the rest of my cookbooks, which I love, but I've had great results with everything I've tried from TJOC, and I look forward to trying more.
Tonight I had an urge for Tuna Noodle Casserole, and I looked through all my cookbooks for the different recipes. Mostly they differed in how much butter, milk, and cheese to use, though one of them suggested adding green beans. Ultimately, I followed the recipe out of TJOC with two minor and one major change: I used green and red bell pepper instead of just one or the other (and I added a little more than the recipe called for), I used Colby Jack instead of cheddar because it was what we had on hand, and for the major change, I added those green beans!
Well, Grant thought the green beans were overpowering, and in retrospect, I agree with him. (I guess I should've followed TJOC more strictly!) However, they were still good, and I really enjoyed the way this recipe turned out! What we didn't eat has been saved for leftovers (two small and four large pieces), and I'm definitely looking forward to the next recipe out of TJOC. :)
I also have a goal to try out 24 new recipes this year -- despite my great love of trying new things, I'll all too often end up sticking with the same six tried-and-true things I always make -- and this is the first out of that 24! Go me! :)
This is one I picked up for a class that I ended up being unable to take due to scheduling. It's short and sweet, and full of information about Deaf culture (note the capital D).
Books about Deaf culture are often very defensive in tone. To hearing people, Deaf people are "disabled", "disadvantaged", missing an integral part of a hearing person's life. To Deaf people, they're just people--people who have their own distinct language and culture. And both the language and the culture have been downplayed, belittled, and criticized, for as long as they've been around.
This would be a great place to start for anyone who hasn't read a bunch of books on Deaf culture; you'll get to find out a number of things that might surprise you about the Deaf community. But for someone who's read several books on Deaf culture already, it seems like it doesn't have a lot of depth to it, it's preaching to the choir, and it leaves out a lot of really interesting details. It seems like it was written for hearing people, as a way of getting a Deaf foot in the door, so to speak. I'd only recommend it to people who need to get started reading about Deaf culture.
Tags: deaf culture, reading
Well, here we are at the fourth and final book in the Velvet series. Was it any better than the first three?
Aughn. No.
In fanfiction, there's this style of writing that comes from a bunch of fen being really invested in a particular couple in the fandom--say, John and Rodney from Stargate: Atlantis--and instead of the author working to set up their relationship when they get together for the first time, one character will just swoop in and start doing sexual/physical/whatever things to the other.
Most people in fandom will just swoon and say, "Oh, how awesome, John knew that Rodney always wanted to be with him, they were MEANT to be together," etc., etc., and they don't mind that jumping-the-gun sense at all.
It doesn't work for me.
I like John and Rodney as much as the next person, but if I'm reading a story that purports to be about how two people fall in love and start a relationship, I want to hear about the falling-in-love process and the relationship process, not "and then the next day, after lunch, John spontaneously planted a hot one on Rodney while everyone cheered in the background." Written like that, it makes it sound more like the pouncing person is stalking the pounce-ee, or like the pounce-ee doesn't have any choice in the matter. It's not what I'd call good writing, though it has its share of devotees. (My guess is these are mostly people who haven't yet given up on the myth of mindreading, that someday their partner, or dream partner, will simply swoop in and give them everything they want without them even having to know they want it in the first place.)
Well, apparently that trope exists in romance novels, too, because this book is basically that trope in spades. Elizabeth Chatworth (we all saw that one coming) is kidnapped, stripped naked, rolled up in a carpet, and delivered to Miles Montgomery, the Montgomery brother who has the reputation for being a rake (the common rumor is that he made a deal with the devil and can now seduce any woman he wants, and that he has a hundred bastards to prove it).
Miles's reputation is slightly undeserved, but what does he do? He doesn't give Elizabeth clothes and send her home. No! Of course not. Instead, he keeps her with him, repeatedly lies to her and manipulates her, and eventually seduces her and convinces her "not to be afraid of men anymore".
ARE YOU KIDDING ME.
I think what's particularly awful about it is that Elizabeth doesn't start out the book behaving like someone suffering from PTSD and anxiety, as she does later in the book. At first, when she's dropped into a tent knowing full well she's naked and in the lair of her family's sworn enemy, she grabs a blanket and throws it over herself as best she can, and then she defends herself with an axe, which I think is completely justifiable and in no way symptomatic of mental trauma. Naturally, Miles doesn't see it that way, and so he begins Elizabeth's "retraining".
Cue the stalker-y, icky feeling. Miles turns out to be right, but there's no earthly reason he should have had any suspicion that Elizabeth's behavior is indicative of a fear of men--hell, one of the most vicious people in the feud is female! But because he does turn out to be right in the long run, I don't think we're supposed to feel that he's being a scary control freak. He's just trying to take care of her, even though she doesn't know, at first, that she needs it.
The whole book is like that, and all of Miles's tricks and schemes to get Elizabeth over her "fear of men" are manipulative, weasely, horrible things that read like nothing so much as brainwashing and Stockholm Syndrome to me. There are only three things that make this book better than the others:
1.) Elizabeth never goes through the Deveraux Moment Of Realization. She doesn't have one moment of realizing that Miles has been right about everything and she's been wrong about everything. She decides for herself that she wants to take Miles up on his offer to help her start to recover from her PTSD.
2.) There's been a definite trend in these four books toward women having more power in terms of initiating the sexual relationship. In book 1, we had a '70s-cliché "hero has to rape the heroine to prove his virility" scene. In book 2, the marriage was arranged, and the heroine, realistically, had no choice--but she did choose to have sex with the hero. In book 3, the heroine was interested before the hero came on to her, and she responded enthusiastically when he did. Now, in book 4, she actually initiates the sexual phase of their relationship. It's a neat progression, and you almost have to wonder if she was easing her publisher into the idea that women could make those decisions instead of men.
3.) At the end of the book, when the feud between the Montgomerys and Chatworths is solved once and for all, we get a fabulous section of the book devoted to all four of the Montgomery women working together and saving their collective husbands' asses. We finally get to see the women being powerful, competent, and confident in their abilities, and they all work through their issues and fears in order to do it. That is pretty fabulous.
And that rounds out the Deveraux books for now! I'm not sure how long it'll be before I get back to them, but I'm sure I'll get to some of them eventually. (Next on the list, I'm really curious about The Taming and The Conquest. I'm mostly intrigued by The Conquest, which is about a girl who's been disguised as a boy to keep her safe for the past several years, and if I remember right, the guy who falls in love with her is a sworn enemy or something. However, I would like to read The Taming first, so we'll see how that goes.)
Tags: historical, jude deveraux, reading, romance
At some point I'll be finished with the Deveraux reviews and I'll be able to talk to you about other stuff I'm reading, but that time hasn't come yet.
So! Velvet Song, by Jude Deveraux. It's the third in the Velvet series, and it stars Raine Montgomery (yes, the man's name is Raine. This starts to seem normal after you've read enough Deveraux) and a singer, Alyx, who manages to convince us that she may be the most talented musician in history, despite the fact that it's a book and we can't hear her. (I wonder what the audio edition is like -- they probably don't do anything cool with it.) Deveraux, one gets the impression, is quite the opera buff, and you can tell how much she enjoyed doing the research for this one.
In terms of the overall plot, this one continues the feud with the Chatworths and the Montgomerys, but when you get right down to it, the story is about excessive pride (as in, not just justifiable pride from being awesome, but being too proud to accept help or talk to people you consider "beneath" you) and how it gets in the way of relationships. There's only one Deveraux-standard moment of Heroine Realizes She's Wrong And Hero Is Right, and it's not so much that kind of moment as Hero Is Frustrated And Gives Heroine A Spanking (which I think is much better done in Outlander, but hey).
I actually didn't like this one as much as I remembered, though I liked it a bit better than the first two. It frustrates me now to see how powerless and non-impressive most of the women are in these romance novels--even most chick lit is better--and I hope to find more interesting female characters as time goes on.
Tags: historical, jude deveraux, reading, romance