Are You There, Blog? It's Me, Elizabeth

What did you read when you were eleven? I was most definitely NOT into eleven-year-old-girls doing eleven-year-old-girl things (unless they were training to be witches).

This summer, my best friend asked me if I wanted to go the see the movie Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret (based on the classic young adult book of the same name). I had never read the book, but because we are both big into banned books, I said sure. It struck me as the sort of book she would have read as a kid, and it made me feel good that she wanted to share it with me.

We sat in the dimmed theatre as the previews ended and the title screen and date - 1970 - came up.

I leaned over and whispered, "I've never read the book." There was a pause and she whispered back, "neither have I." Turns out we both assumed, because of our banned books crusades, that the other had read the book at some point.

Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret.

It is one of the long-running repeat offenders on the banned books list. It is 53 years old. FIFTY-THREE. This is one of those books like To Kill a Mockingbird and Julie of the Wolves that every time I see it on a list of challenged titles, I roll my eyes and say, "seriously? This one again?"


Ooh, check out this piece of history (original 1970 cover).

 

One of the more recent covers. I like that it lends itself to the idea of waiting for answers.

Watching the film (and, later, reading the book as my annual personal banned book challenge) it seemed pretty innocuous.

An 11-year-old girl moves from New York City to suburban New Jersey and begins her journey to fit in with other girls her age. She is self-concious that she is still flat chested. She and her new clique discuss bras, when they'll get their periods, what boys they like... y'know, eleven-year-old girl stuff.

The girls sneak a medical reference book and a playboy magazine from various parents to examine the anatomy, wondering what they'll look like when they're older; wondering what their male classmates look like under their clothes.

In addition to being flat-chested, Margaret has also yet to get her period, which causes her much angst when members of her friend group start getting theirs. She and the other girl in her group who have yet to start "men-stroo-ating" buy pads at a drug store, mortified by being rung up by a teenage boy and, in a panic, add a couple other items to their purchase because heaven forbid they should be seen ONLY buying feminine products.

Margaret has a lot of questions. Their joke of a sex ed class consists of a presentation by a representative of a feminine products company. Rumors fly about the busty girl in class and what she may or may not be doing with older boys... Margaret's questions increase when the source of these rumors turns out to have been lying about other things.

Margaret also has questions about religion. Her mother was raised Christian; her father, Jewish. Margarets maternal grandparents disowned her mother when she married outside the faith, but her Jewish paternal grandmother is a constant in her life, and usually a source of support.

The book opens with a "prayer." Despite being non-religious, Margaret often "talks" to god, treating him as a "Dear Abby" sort of figure. At first, her quandry about religion is as simple as whether she should join the YMCA or the Jewish Community Center.

Margaret's teacher, himself new and unsure, assigns the class to each choose a topic for a year-round study. Margaret, having decided that almost-twelve is old enough to choose her own religion, decides that she will spend the year studying different religions to pick one that suits her.

(Though what Margaret considers "different religions" boils down to Jewish and three Christian denominations.)

Sounds pretty innocent, right?

Well, let's keep in mind this book was released in 1970. This was a time when discussing many of these subjects in mixed company would have been taboo, or at least recently-so. Heaven forbid we discuss bras, "busts," periods, and the like. Heaven forbid girls should talk about boys they like, what it might be like to kiss them.

Margaret's parents raising her essentially agnostic and allowing her to choose her own religion as she got older would have been seen as extremely groundbreaking.

This was also a time when there was very little discussion, both in school and the home, about what a young woman could expect when her period started. The presenter at the girls' special assembly gets flustered at the mere mention of tampons. One of the girls in Margaret's circle of friends becomes hysterical when she starts her period in a restaraunt bathroom.

Margaret narrates examining herself in the mirror, looking for signs of puberty. She stuffs three cottonballs into each side of her trainer bra and is pleased with the results. (And if there's anyone reading this who didn't do something similar as a teen or pre-teen I'd be much more shocked than I was reading either scene.) Margaret worries that she's taking too long to develop.

"I just want to be normal. Please, God," she begs.

That, for me, is really the crux of why we should let our kids read these books. "Hey, this girl is worried about x - she's just like me." "This boy is struggling with Y - he's just like me."

In 1970's, kids who couldn't get these answers turned to Playboy and medical textbooks. Now they can turn to YouTube, Tik-tok, and a rabbit's warren of porn and disinformation on the internet.

When my daughter is ten, eleven, twelve, I hope she'll turn to me when she has questions. But if she doesn't I'd rather she turn to Margaret, a book about a girl her age, than pretty much anything else.

Pulled From the Shelf: "All Are Welcome"

As so often happens, I see a book that has been part of a controversy and I check it out and read it. Upon doing so, I see that either the person raising the fuss hasn't read the book at all, or is egregiously blowing something innocent out of proportion.

Take for example, the Highly Offensive *sarcasm mode* picture book "All Are Welcome" by Alexandra Penfold.

Quelle scandale…

First, we will examine the complaints, because that is the order in which I came at it.

I was first made aware of this book by a former coworker who is a librarian. She posted a short video in which a teacher reads this book. Clearly posted at the begining of the video is a screen shot of someone's complaint about the book - "Why do you all want pornographic books in the hands of children? That's bizarre."

Other complaints I found came from the Westmorland County, PA school board who cited problems with the book, including not clarifying whether the (admittedly diverse) kids in the classroom pictured in the book were here legally or illegally, and the "minority" of heterosexual parents presented in the book.

Now, let's get into the book itself:

It's cute. It's cheerful. It presents a classroom in a seemingly cosmopolitan area - some children arrive by walking, another by taxi, and there are many different skin tones and types of dress. The story rhymes and the pictures are fun and colorful. It is a quick, brief tale of learning together, eating together, playing, drawing, and singing together. It depicts three children in religious head coverings, and one in a wheel chair... but also the majority of the class is able bodied, and wearing standard western clothes. In the class of 24 students, there are four blonds and a redhead. There is a set of twins. There are three children with glasses. Your child will find themself in this colorful, welcoming group, and that is lovely. At the end of the book, there is a fold out page that depicts the class's festival, attended by all parents, showing the children's science projects, lion dancers, a buffet table, and people dancing and playing basketball. It's a beautiful depiction of what a neighborhood school can be.

Now, onto the complaints:

Oh. My. God. Becky.

1. How anyone thinks this book is "pornographic" is beyond me. I'm HOPING that this person saw it on a list of books being considered for removal and just assumed that was the case. The closest thing I can find to that kind of objectionable material is at the end of the day, after having gone home, one little girl takes a bath and puts her pajamas on. In the tub she is up to her chest in water. While dressing, she already has her shirt on, pulling her pants over her barely-seen underwear.

2. Distinguishing "between legal immigration and foreign invaders."

Excuse me? It is a picture book for 2-6 year olds. It ONLY has 240 words (yes, I counted). There is a page where it shows the children pointing to a map with the words "or if you come from far away." But come on. We don't know if the kids are pointing out where they have physically come from, or where their ancestors are from. And are we really gonna write a rhyming couplet about who has a green card and who doesn't?

Somehow, I don’t think the blonde Australian is the one they have the problem with…

3. The "minority" of heterosexual parents.

Here is one of the last pictures in the book - families arriving for the festival. There are five heterosexual couples. Yes, there is a two-woman couple and a two-man couple. There is also a child arriving with what appears to be a grandmother. But just a quick glance at all the pictures in the book (no, I'm not counting again) my eye catches a majority of "standard" mom-and-dad families.

Honestly, the biggest problem I had was believing this many full families were able to take time off work to come to this school event…

My consensus:

For goodness sake people, books like this are NOT a problem. Don't you have better things to occupy your time?

Book Review: Iron Widow by Xiran Jay Zhao

"Perks of refusing to play by the rules: you don't have to chose between the boy who'd torture a man to death with you and the boy who'd welcome you back with pastries after."

I've been looking forward to reading this since I watched Xiran's videos on historical accuracy (or lack thereof) in the various Mulan films. And now that I'm finished, I'm chomping at the bit to read the sequel, Heavenly Tyrant. I went straight to Amazon to look for it only to see the listing as "temporaily out of stock," which was annoying. Then I noticed the publication date is next April. C'mon Amazon, it's not "out of stock" if it hasn't been published yet. Still... darn.

Anyway, the actual review.

"I dream about walking on daggers every night, you know....It feels like a nightmare, but I think it's just your life."

Is this the far future, or is it so far in the past that the history has been forgotten? I love a setting that makes you question which it is. For sake of this review, we'll say it takes place in China in the distant future.

200 years ago, the alien Hunduns took over the Zhou province. They are insect-like, and their carpaces can be reworked into armor. Humans have learned how to work this material into giant battle robots called Chrysalises. Due to the need for a balance between yin and yang qi, these battle suits require two pilots - one male and one female - to control them. But... for some reason, the female pilots - called Concubine Pilots - rarely survive a battle.

Wu Zetian was born into this world: a world where boys are valued much more highly than girls, a world where girls are essentially sold - either in marriage or to the army, a world where submission and footbinding* are standard.

*Be warned, you will learn a lot about foot binding and it's not for the faint of heart.

Zetian's sister is sold to the army, in hopes her pay will help finance their brother's wedding. But when she dies before even piloting a mission, Zetian takes it upon herself to avenge her sister's death.

Things do not go according to plan - or maybe they go better than planned. She has to contend with her sister's killer, mysogeny from every corner, getting assigned to pilot with an actual convicted murderer, and the unexpected arrival of her would-be suitor from back home. "You can't shoot me! I'm rich!" Oh, Yizhi...

Layers of secrets are unraveled and Zetian finds allies in unexpected places... and betrayal from those she counted friends. She is beaten down and beaten down and beaten down, but she rises harder and stronger - a true Iron Widow.

(By the way, did I mention this is a very loose retelling of the story of the ONLY female emperor in Chinese history? Long live Wu Zetian.)

I LOVED this book. It was the best book I've read in a while - and I've read a lot of good ones recently. (In fact, this is the best of three "teenage girls fighting the evil empire" books I've read in pretty quick succession.) With that said, though, it's not for the faint of heart. There is murder, battle, trorture, near-rape (and implied offscreen rape of minor characters), cataclismic damage to a city, and mental and physical familial abuse, including society-santioned breaking and regular re-breaking of young girls' feet. Yikes. It very closely skirts the line of what would be too much for YA (in fact, the afterword states that this is a toned-down version from an earlier draft that would very much not be YA.) But that's the stuff I love. It is also full of the fantastically sarcastic and witty humor I've come to expect from Xiran Jay Zhao's YouTube videos. You should look them up - they are hilarious (and educational!)


Enjoyed this post? Want to see more content like this? Make sure to follow me on social media!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter for several small snippets each week.

Or, if you're looking for more professional content (less frequent, but more closely related to writing, publishing, or libraries), connect with me on LinkedIn. (I do ask that if you request a connection on LinkedIn that you mention this blog so that I know how you heard of me.)

Review of Grace Lin's Before the Sword

Just a quick snippet of a review here:

This book had everything I love: coming of age adventure; backstories from mythology and folklore; a misinterpreted prophesy; the hero's backstory; a villain origin story; and, of course, a kick-ass heroine.

Technically a middle-grade book, it's a good, solid story for any age, honestly. The youngest middle grade readers might be intimidated by the size, or slightly frightened by monsters and action, but middle grade, young adult, and YA readers will all find something to love here.

The book serves as a prequel to the 2020 live-action Mulan, and, therefore, has slightly different names and family dynamic than the 1998 animated film.

For more about the book and the author, you can visit Grace Lin’s website.


Enjoyed this post? Want to see more content like this? Make sure to follow me on social media!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter for several small snippets each week.

Or, if you're looking for more professional content (less frequent, but more closely related to writing, publishing, or libraries), connect with me on LinkedIn. (I do ask that if you request a connection on LinkedIn that you mention this blog so that I know how you heard of me.)

Banned Books Week Day 6*: Burn, Baby, Burn

*If you feel like you're missing a day, yesterday I did a Throwback Thursday with my review of Out of Darkness.

Ray Bradbury, writing Fahrenheit 451: You shouldn't ban books.

1950's parents: Let's ban this book!

That seems to be how it goes, doesn't it?

As some of you know, last year I challenged myself to read a classic banned book that I hadn't read before, and review it for banned books week. I decided to do the same this year and, due in large part to nearly unanimous response from my readers, I read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. (F-451, from here on out because I'm lazy.)

I wasn't sure what to expect going into it. I read it without looking up why it had been challenged. I had attempted to read a collection of his short stories a while ago and had not been impressed.

I was very pleasantly surprised with F-451. The language was BEAUTIFUL. The book was written by someone who obviously loved words, about someone who would come to better appreciate words. I haven't read a book with language like that since The Book Thief.

The world was also very well created - it felt very Twilight Zone-y, and I mean that in the best possible way. Of course, it didn't long pre-date the show, and Bradbury's work was used in an episode (and I think also inspired others). For me, there was a very clear atmosphere and color scheme.

What struck me the most, though, was how well a story written in 1953 captured the ennui and lack of attention span of 2022. In F-451, the main character's wife has speakers called seashells that she wears in her ears constantly - they are described as being silver and thimble-sized. She is constantly listening to radio shows, constantly watching her "parlor family," the unending broadcast of TV on the three walls of a room in their house. And that's not enough - she wants to be so immersed in the fictional television world that she asks Guy to buy her a fourth TV wall, even though it would cost about a third of his annual salary.

Honestly, the above is even just a small sample of how far gone most of society has gotten. They listen to their seashells and watch their parlor families unceasingly. The neighbor girl relates how she's constantly losing friends to car crashes - in this society people are so aching for stimulation that they speed and crash as casually as my husband might play a video game.

Of course, the one way in which the population of this world is not allowed to find stimulation is through reading. Books are illegal. Possession of even one will get you arrested. Neighbors report neighbors and the firemen come to burn not only the books but the perpetrator's home.

Guy is one of these firemen, but things take a turn for him in part because of his observant young neighbor's joie de vivre and because a woman's whose book collection they were about to burn gets the jump on Guy and his colleagues and sets both the books and herself on fire in a final desperate attempt to take at least that small act from them.

Guy finally comes to understand that he no longer believes in burning books, that he hates this world he lives in where no one sees, no one feels, no one connects. He starts saving books, but of course is found out. Long story short, he escapes the city and joins a group of "hobos" - who turn out to be "retired*" professors and a minister. They promise to teach Guy a technique they developed to remember the entirety of any book they've ever read. These men are the new library; they promise to pass down their collective knowledge until the world is ready for the books to return.

*Most are strongly hinted to have been driven out of their professions.

Not finding anything too bothersome in the book, I looked up the reasons it was challenged after I was done. Of course, profanity (as always) was at the top of the list... and yeah, maybe for the 1950's it might have been a tad strong, but it wasn't constant, and I feel like there wasn't much worse in there than "damn." Violence was also a complaint, as was a description of the Bible being burnt. (But, wasn't that the point? That Bradbury was CONDEMNING violence and book burning, not condoning them?) Other complaints included mentions of both suicide and abortion. Granted, once again, these came off as very tame to my 21st century sensibilities. The attempted suicide is accompanied by blase technicians who pump the would-be victim's stomach with less interest than a mechanic repairing a car. Abortion is mentioned in passing as Guy hurls accusations of unfeelingness at his wife's friends, one of whom who has had multiple divorces and abortions. And, let's be perfectly honest - a lot of those complaints would either go over younger teens' heads, or be completely unimpressive to older teens today.

All in all though, a really great book. Try reading it instead of burning it.


Enjoyed this post? Want to see more content like this? Make sure to follow me on social media!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter for several small snippets each week.

Or, if you're looking for more professional content (less frequent, but more closely related to writing, publishing, or libraries), connect with me on LinkedIn. (I do ask that if you request a connection on LinkedIn that you mention this blog so that I know how you heard of me.)

Dragonwings: A Superior Book

I feel like Dragonwings, by Laurence Yep is something that I should have read as a kid and for whatever reason it was never on the agenda. I feel like it's the sort of thing I would/should have read in my American Girl/Laura Ingalls Wilder/Julie of the Wolves phase. It was put back on my radar due to this article.

Dragonwings is a book about Moon Shadow, a young Chinese boy who's father, Windrider, has been working in San Francisco since just before he was born, at the beginning of the 20th century. At the age of eight, Moon Shadow is sent to join his father and several other male relatives in their laundry company. He has grown up hearing both tales about the wonders and opportunities of the land of the Golden Mountain (what the US was referred to as by the Chinese during this period), as well as the dangers and cruelties perpetuated on the Tang people (what the Chinese referred to themselves as) by the American "white demons*."

*It should be noted that "demon" in the context is not a great translation from the Mandarin. It means something like spirit or ghost. It's a supernatural being that can be evil, but can just as easily be benevolent. Like the Fae of European tradition - some will kill you as soon as look at you, but some will help you.

As I always do when I see that a book has been challenged or banned, I like to look at the reasons why in addition to reading the book for myself. Per the article, reasons for banning the boom include:

-"Use of the terms such as 'white demon,' curse words, violence, drug use and prostitution in describing the experience of an 8-year-old boy and his family in San Francisco in the early 1900s."

-“'prohibited concepts' in instruction, such as that one race or sex is inherently superior to another"

-"This book is not appropriate for any American student"

-'If a line is not drawn in the sand, 'We’re going to continue down the woke CRT agenda.'”

Let's examine these, shall we?

"Demon"

Yes, even though Moon Shadow consistently refers to all Americans as "demons," he learns over the course of the book from the age of 8 to 15, that just because a person is American doesn't make them evil... just as, sadly, he finds that not all Tang men are good (more on that later). He originally decided to "educate" his landlady, Miss Whitlaw, on the "true" nature of dragons. In Eastern mythology, they are wise and benevolent creatures of water, and he is appalled to find that she only knows tales of evil, fire-breathing Western dragons. Later, as they bond, Miss Whitlaw suggests that perhaps the true nature of dragons is somewhere in between - neither wholely good nor wholely evil.

As an adult reader, of course I understand that the dragon is a metaphor for humans. A middle school student might need guidance to come to this conclusion, but the point of the book is clear: all humans are flawed, and capable of both good and evil.

I should also point out that this broad prejudice of one culture vs. another is pretty period-accurate for both sides. I recently reread my blog post about a Victorian Arctic explorer who conistently runs up against the problem that his native crew is almost universally untrusted by his fellow Europeans. Everyone assumes that they just lie all the time. This book takes that "these other guys are all, and always, bad" mentality, looks at it through the perspective of a child, and slowly, inevitably shows this boy learning that that is not the case.


Curse words

Fifteen-year-old Moon Shadow says "bastard" and "son of a bitch." Once. After having been attacked and robbed at knifepoint. Oh, my god, Becky. Look at those curse words. They are so vile.

Violence

Yes. There is no getting around the fact that there was violence in American history. To deny that is disengenuous, and does a terrible disservice to those who suffered it. Yes, there is violence in the book. Multiple characters discuss the lynching of their fellows. Though this, happening "off screen," is so mild as to almost pass over the heads of younger readers.

Windrider tells Moon Shadow that his grandfather was hanged by his hair from a lamp post. If I had read that as a 6th grader, myself having hip-length hair, I would not have realized it was lethal and would have understood it as bad bullying, not as murder.

Moon Shadow punches a neighbor boy in the nose after months of having been tormented by him and his friends.

Much of the violence, though, revolves around Moon Shadow's cousin, Black Dog. As an opium adict, he disappears for months at a time, usually resurfacing either when he has to be pulled out of an opium den, or when he attacks someone for money to feed his addiction. In the end, Black Dog ends up being just as bad as the worst "demons."

Then of course, there's the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. While most of the destruction is handled with tact, Moon Shadow sees the building next door collapse - one minute the scared faces of his neighbors are there, the next there is just a pile of rubble. As he and his father help dig for survivors later in the day, they occasionally see an arm or a leg sticking out at an odd angle. But even then, the horrible injuries there must have been on both the dead and the survivors are never really described.


Drug use

Yes. You can't fully understand the San Francisco of the time - nor the reasons the Chinese were seeking work in America because of the Opium Wars - without touching on the drug trade... and the consequences thereof. Additionally, the drug use is absolutely not glamorized. Those who use opium are showed either in a filthy stupor, or having resorted to robbery and attempted murder to fuel their addiction. Any middle schooler reading this is going to say, "ew, opium. That'll mess you up."

Prostitution

Prostitutes are mentioned maybe twice. Barely. They are mentioned as one of many, many people who work in the Tang section of town. They are never defined as to what they actually do. They might as well be fishmongers or haberdashers for as much description as they are given and as much as young teen might understand the word.


"Prohibited concepts" in instruction, such as that one race or sex is inherently superior to another

In some cases, Moon Shadow is justified in his fear of the "demons" - they lynched his grandfather simply for refusing to cut his hair. But as time goes on, Moon Shadow discovers that there are good demons as well as bad. Yes, there are racist, antagonistic Americans who shout slurs at him, white boys who threaten to beat him up... but his father is offered a job by a wealthy white man who recongnizes Windrider's skill with repairing engines. They start renting from Miss Whitlaw, a sympathetic white woman who is interested in the Tang culture (she adores the decoration on the box of tea that the Lees give her in thanks when they first move in). Miss Whitlaw and her neice, Robin, encourange Moon Shadow's growing English and reading skills and bond over books. Moon Shadow has such an affinity with Miss Whitlaw that he is certain she was a Tang empress in a previous life.

When the 1906 San Francisco earthquake strikes, Miss Whitmore's house is the only one for blocks left standing. She and the Lees immediately jump into helping the survivors. We see Chinese immigrants helping evacuate, white people refusing to help, but other whites helping. When fire sweeps through the reckage, all the survivors - Tang and American - flee to the Golden Gate park. Moon Shadow's elderly uncle hosts Miss Whitlaw for dinner in his tent; Windrider refers to her as a superior woman, borrowing his uncle's phrase of highest praise.

Shortly after, though, all the Chinese are forcibly removed from the camp by soldiers. Miss Whitlaw protests and very nearly comes to blows with the soldiers over the removal of her neighbors. But even here, Moon Shadow notes that there are good soldiers and bad: some soldiers helped set up the surviviors - of all races - with tents and food, and warned them of the spreading fires; others are shooting anyone seen near the wreckage on sight. There are even soldiers who fall in between - outwardly polite, but who begin looting as soon as they think the survivors can't see them.

If anything, the book ultimately presents both sides as nothing more than human - some good, some bad, but most of them a mix. The book is about overcoming prejudices - from both sides. Most Tangs are distrustful of the "demons." But Moon Shadow's father has no problem writing to the Wright brothers for information on how to build his own flying machine. They write back promptly, seemingly unphased by the foreign names at the bottom of the letter, saying that there are so few aeronauts that they consider them to all be part of one small brotherhood.

As always it makes me wonder if those deciding on the ban even read the book in question. I strongly suspect they did not.


"This book is not appropriate for any American student," one member of the school board that chose to pull the book claims.

Excuse me? How? It's a good, solid middle school text. I read both To Kill a Mockingbird and Jurrasic Park as required reading in middle school and both make this one look extremely tame. Seriously, though, unless you've been so carefully monitoring your child that they're only watching Word Party on TV or online, your child has already seen and read worse - and usually not with a literature teacher to guide their reading and discuss how it makes them feel.


Coleman said if a line is not drawn in the sand, 'We’re going to continue down the woke CRT agenda.'

Wow. Just... WOW. This book was written in 1975. For those of you who, like me, perpetually feel like the year 2000 was just a few years ago, let me break down the math for you. This book is almost FIFTY years old. It is no more woke than Julie of the Wolves or To Kill a Mockingbird.

Some people like to throw "CRT" around as the new scary buzzword. Most people don't even know what it is. In all honesty, do you want your child to grow up thinking (falsely) that Ameican history was just an episode of Leave it To Beaver? Children in pre-school and kindergarten are taught to share. They aren't taught, "You can play with Janie and Jaxson - but don't share your toys with Yue Ying. He's different."

Human history, when you get down to it, is in, large part, people being nasty to each other. It isn't just "white people are mean to non-white people." The British persecuted the Scots and the Irish for various long swaths of their history. Mongols invaded China. Japan invaded Korea. We all know what's currently happening in Ukraine. There's an old joke that goes something along the line of "a billion years from now when the planet is hurtling toward the sun, there will be microbes in the Middle East who hate each other."


Another point I'd like to bring up: when I originally posted that I planned to read this book due to the banning in Tennessee, one of my readers commented "to consider a book 'banned' because a school board dropped it from the curriculum as required reading after a parent complained ... seems like a hyperbolic use of the term."

I should clarify that I use the term "banned" more loosely that the American Library Association . I used "banned" rather than "banned or challenged" simply because it's one quick easy word that gets the point across. However, per the ALA, "A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials." In this case as another article clarifies, the book was indeed taken from the students mid-reading:

"Kahla Williams said her daughter was on Chapter 10 when the school made the decision to move to the next learning module.

'The book was just taken from them. They didn't get to finish it. They're not testing on it,' she said."

In this case, my use of the term "banned" is appropriate - students who previously had access to a book no longer have access to it. That is banning.

And, yes, as an avid reader and former children's library worker, I have a different view on what's appropriate for a 6th grader than some. But to be perfectly honest, I would have no problem giving this book to Elianna YOUNGER than 6th grade.


Enjoyed this post? Want to see more content like this? Make sure to follow me on social media!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter for several small snippets each week.

Or, if you're looking for more professional content (less frequent, but more closely related to writing, publishing, or libraries), connect with me on LinkedIn. (I do ask that if you request a connection on LinkedIn that you mention this blog so that I know how you heard of me.)

Upstairs, Downstairs

Yesterday, I did something I don't normally do. I started a new book while I was still reading another one. I don't mean that I decided not to finish the book. I checked out a new book from the library and I'm reading one upstairs at bed, and the other in quick snatches downstairs. I haven't done this - have an "upstairs" book and a "downstairs" book - since Elianna was a baby (and by that I mean a "wake her up to feed her every 2.5 hours" baby).

Why did I do it? The short answer is that the book I put on hold at the library came in.

The long answer is a little more complex.

As you might have seen me post on Facebook or Twitter earlier, another book has been removed from the curriculum in another Tennessee school system.

I've never read Dragonwings, but I like historical fiction and grew up on tales of plucky immigrant homesteaders, so between that and the fact that I'm making it a point to read books I see in the news being banned or challenged in schools, this was a no-brainer. This one came in quickly (as opposed to Maus, which I'm still waiting on, though I have read Maus at least once before...) I also happened to see a book Friday evening detailing George Takei's family's experience in the Japanese-American internment camps of WWII. Having requested that one, Dragonwings coming in, and now being first in line for Maus, I figured I was going to have to shift things a little a multitask if I'm going to get these books read before they're due back. (Fortunately, the other book I'm currently reading, Fangirl, is my own copy, so there's no rush on that one...)

Another reason why I decided to read both at the same time instead of simply set Fangirl aside for a while (aside from the fact that I'm really enjoying it) is that Fangirl and Dragonwings are different enough that I'm not going to have a problem switching back and forth. (Imagine if I were reading The Mists of Avalon and Half Sick of Shadows at the same time - yikes!)

In any case, now you know what's going on if I suddenly start posting more "currently reading" posts the next few days.


Enjoyed this post? Want to see more content like this? Make sure to follow me on social media!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter for several small snippets each week.

Or, if you're looking for more professional content (less frequent, but more closely related to writing, publishing, or libraries), connect with me on LinkedIn. (I do ask that if you request a connection on LinkedIn that you mention this blog so that I know how you heard of me.)

Half Sick of Shadows, Sick of Anachronisms

Ok, first, let me say that I know that King Arthur is a legend far removed from any real historical character at best, and complete fiction at "worst." However, it's universally accepted that King Arthur is "medieval" - which, yes, I know that leaves about a 1,000 year swath in which the tales can be set. They were first written down in the 12th century (though mentions of names from the Arthurian legends can be found as early as the 800's), but most Arthurian scholars now agree that if Arthur were a real person that he likely lived around 500 AD - technically medieval, but so close to the fall of Rome that it straddles that ancient/medieval line. Personally, this is the era I think of when I think of King Arthur... but my perception is colored by the fact that I saw The Mists of Avalon (set in that early 500ish-600ish "the Saxons are invading" era) before I read any of the original (Mallory or Monmouth) Arthurian works.

Still, going on the "classic" interpretation of Arthur being high medieval (knights in armor) - such as you would expect from Mallory, Monmouth, and De Troyes - or even going on the idea of Arthur somehow being Victorian - per the works of Tennyson and the Rossettis (which of course is at odds with British history of not just the British Isles, but a good chunk of the world being united under Victoria) - that still leaves things just all over the place in terms of artifacts, costumes, architecture and other details in this book. Yes, I know it's a legend - put pick an era and stick with it.

(I recently watched a video on Youtube where the creator broke down the MuLan films by what time period the legend of MuLan is supposed to be set in. This is exactly what I'm talking about. This "legend" is supposed to take place in such-and-such century - let's try and make our film accurate to that period.)

In any case, first - how to classify the time period, as it is written in Half Sick of Shadows?

Throughout the book there is the constant reminder that "Albion" (an old word for England - not including Scotland) is not unified - placing this pre-Alfred the Great (late 9th century). Characters also comment multiple times that someone wearing a risque outfit would get stoned to death if seen like that in Camelot. While I don't know for sure that stoning people for infractions took place in medieval or ancient Britain, that definitely does seems more of an early period punishment (whereas late medieval/early renaissance, you could just as easily be labeled a witchy temptress, but that would get you hanged or burned at the stake, not stoned). But there are also knights in full plate armor (late medieval, and Renaissance era) as well as architecture described in such a way as to make me think of high Gothic (approximately 1100) or later. Glass windows and mirrors are commonplace. The clothing feels even later - corsets are prevalent in the court of Camelot, and at a coronation the courtiers are wearing powdered wigs. Between that, the teacups, the hot cocoa, and the mention of chenille - a fabric that wasn't invented until the 1830's - I want to ask the author if this book takes place inside a Rossetti painting (the Rossettis being Victorian painters that were fond of painting knights, ladies, and other Arthuriana). There was even a point where Merlin mentions that Excalibur was placed in the stone by the ancient first king of Camelot that I started to wonder that maybe this whole thing was taking place in the far future.

I know that's a big long rant. I did mostly enjoy the book. The characters were interesting, the whole premise of moving between past, present, and future as Elaine's visions unfold was fascinating. Indeed there were several nights that I was up reading later than I should have been.

There were a couple places I was disappointed, though:

Visions of the future/spoilers follow

-What happened to Mattie? At one point Elaine, a seer, is introduced to her neice Mathilde (referred to as Mattie to differentiate from another relative by the same name). Mattie has seen the same vision of Elaine's death that Elaine references at the beginning of the book. After the scene where she's introduced to Morgana and Elaine, who discover her skills as a seer, Elaine arranges for Mattie's family to come to court at Camelot so that she (Elaine) can mentor her. But after that scene Mattie is never seen nor referred to again.

-Elaine's saccrifice negated Elaine and the reader both know from the get-go that Elaine will drown, and that it will be her own choice not to fight back up to the surface. We know this, we know this, we know this. We know this, just as anyone who has read Tennyson's "The Lady of Shalot" (or heard Loreena McKenna's adaptation thereof, or listened to Emilie Autumn's "Shalot" which of course is a retelling of Tennyson's work) knows that Elaine, the Lady of Shallot, dies. It's the why and the when that we don't know.
In the end, it turns out that Elaine, having spent the last 400 pages seeing visions of the people she loves the most betray each other in ways that she is tangentially involved in, in ways that she has "set them on the path" of, she decides to take herself out of the equation and drown herself in the lake that surrounds Avalon. It seems a fitting end to a young lady who has spent her time sacrificing to protect others, to a character we know MUST have a tragic end. But wait... what's this? Elaine is... not dead? Brought back to life by the Lady of the Lake? She's now the new Lady of the Lake and... basically hides out on Avalon to watch fate unroll.
I mean... I love a happy ending. I love a book where when all seems lost the characters are somehow able to pull a happy ending out of the air. Don't get me wrong, when it's done well it's incredible. But this made it seem like there was no depth or meaning to her sacrifice, and made the fact that Arthur, Gweneviere, and Lancelot would mourne her unnecessarily seem cruel to those characters. (Though I will say that the author explains in her afterword that she started writing this in high school, rewriting, and rewriting again, and finally finishing over the course of more than a decade. So maybe the ending was something she came up with as a teenager. It is not only what I would have written in highschool but also what I would have wanted to read in high school. And as someone who has been working on 3 novels for more than 10 years now I don't exactly have room to talk...)

1: -What happened to Mattie? At one point Elaine, a seer, is introduced to her neice Mathilde (referred to as Mattie to differentiate from another relative by the same name). Mattie has seen the same vision of Elaine's death that Elaine references at the beginning of the book. After the scene where she's introduced to Morgana and Elaine, who discover her skills as a seer, Elaine arranges for Mattie's family to come to court at Camelot so that she (Elaine) can mentor her. But after that scene Mattie is never seen nor referred to again. -Elaine's saccrifice negated Elaine and the reader both know from the get-go that Elaine will drown, and that it will be her own choice not to fight back up to the surface. We know this, we know this, we know this. We know this, just as anyone who has read Tennyson's The Lady of Shalot (or heard Loreena McKenna's adaptation thereof, or listened to Emilie Autumn's "Shalot" which of course is a retelling of Tennyson's work) knows that Elaine, the Lady of Shallot, dies. It's the why and the when that we don't know. In the end, it turns out that Elaine, having spent the last 400 pages seeing visions of the people she loves the most betray each other in ways that she is tangentially involved in, in ways that she has "set them on the path" of, she decides to take herself out of the equation and drown herself in the lake that surrounds Avalon. It seems a fitting end to a young lady who has spent her time sacrificing to protect others, to a character we know MUST have a tragic end. But wait... what's this? Elaine is... not dead? Brought back to life by the Lady of the Lake? She's now the new Lady of the Lake and... basically hides out on Avalon to watch fate unroll. I mean... I love a happy ending. I love a book where when all seems lost the characters are somehow able to pull a happy ending out of the air. Don't get me wrong, when it's done well it's incredible. But this made it seem like there was no depth or meaning to her sacrifice, and made the fact that Arthur, Gweneviere, and Lancelot would mourne her unnecessarily seem cruel to those characters. (Though I will say that the author explains in her afterword that she started writing this in high school, rewriting, and rewriting again, and finally finishing over the course of more than a decade. So maybe the ending was something she came up with as a teenager. It is not only what I would have written in highschool but also what I would have wanted to read in high school. And as someone who has been working on 3 novels for more than 10 years now I don't exactly have room to talk...) -Gweneviere is a warrior AND a werewolf Yes, really. Full stop. Um, excuse me, why isn't this the main storyline? That sounds funny and sarcastic, but I mean it sincerely. When you have a character whose story is explosively more interesting than the other major characters' stories, it makes me wonder why she isn't the focus. I say this as someone who is very aware that the main character in at least one of my novels-in-progress may be overshadowed by cooler characters in her story.

-Gweneviere is a warrior AND a werewolf Yes, really. Full stop. Um, excuse me, why isn't this the main storyline? That sounds funny and sarcastic, but I mean it sincerely. When you have a character whose story is explosively more interesting than the other major characters' stories, it makes me wonder why she isn't the focus. I say this as someone who is very aware that the main character in at least one of my novels-in-progress may be overshadowed by cooler characters in her story.


With all that said, though, it wasn't a bad book. Honestly, most people aren't anywhere near as picky as me about all the stuff I went off on above. So, really, this time around I will say don't let my opinion color whether or not you read the book.


Enjoyed this post? Want to see more content like this? Make sure to follow me on social media!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter for several small snippets each week.

Or, if you're looking for more professional content (less frequent, but more closely related to writing, publishing, or libraries), connect with me on LinkedIn. (I do ask that if you request a connection on LinkedIn that you mention this blog so that I know how you heard of me.)

The Toymaker's Apprentice: A Holiday Treat

So... I wanted to make this post earlier. (Heck, I wanted to finish the book on Christmas, but it ended up being the 27th.)

When I checked out Flygirl, by Sherri L. Smith, I noticed that she had a book entitled The Toymaker's Apprentice. From the seven-headed, seven-crowned mouse on the cover, I knew it was about/based on The Nutcracker. For those of you that may not know, I was in The Nutcracker four times as a kid. The full ballet is one of my very favorite pieces of music EVER. Y'all... I had to read this book.

Now, first of all, I want to say that this book is based on a 200 year old novella and a 120 year old ballet, so if I spoil the ending for you, well, that's on you ; )

The Toymaker's Apprentice is the story of Stefan Drosselmeyer, the second cousin of clockmaker Christian Drosselmeyer (who is THE Drosselmeyer from the ballet). Stefan longs for something more than his role as his father's apprentice. His father, Zacharias, is a traditionalist. Carved wooden toys - not clockwork or automatons - are what Zacharias Drosselmeyer encourages. But, reeling from the death of his mother, and the sudden appearance of his enigmatic cousin, Christian, Stefan is hit by revelation after revelation. Christian was banished from his royal appointment! Christian has been charged with curing a cursed princess! The only cure is a possibly-mythical, impossible to crack nut! Christian is being pursued by spies! The spies are mice! And they can talk! The mice kidnap Stefan's father!

Christian, Stefan, and Christian's jailer and friend, the astronomer Samir, set off for far-off Boldavia, to save a princess, rescue Zacharias, and defeat a revolution of mice.

Meanwhile, in Boldavia, the Queen of Mice has given birth to... a son? Seven sons? She refers to them in the plural but, to the shock of her subjects, her newborn has one body and seven heads. Famed rat scholar, Ernst Liszt, has been hired to tutor the... princes?... and even he is very uncertain about the queen's plans for her offspring. She names her sons for famous human conquerors, in hopes this will serve as portentous to their future, and her eventual goal of conquering the humans.

The chapters alternate between Stefan's, Ernst's, and eventually the mouse prince's points of view. Of the seven heads, the central one, Arthur, becomes the dominant personality of his brothers. Gentle Arthur, who wishes to be a scholar, but also wishes to live up to his mother's expectations that he and his brothers will be warriors, strikes up an unlikely friendship with the imprisoned Zacharias. Together, they bond over Zacharias's love for the son he misses - how Arthur wishes he had a parent who cares like this! Arthur's friendship and encouragement helps Zacharias continue the work his captors have designated for him.

Of course, I went into this story know what the ending was going to be... how it HAD to be, given the source material. And yet... I kept wondering, kept asking, how does Arthur go from sweet scholar to dreaded Mouse King, sworn enemy of the Nutcracker? How can Stefan defeat a city filled with countless mice out for revenge? And the answers... oh, the answers. I love a good tragedy. I can't tell you the last time I've read such a sympathetic and tragic villain as Sherri L. Smith's Mouse King. And the final interaction between the Mouse King and the Nutcracker, between Arthur and Stefan - two BOYS who love their parent and would do anything for them. Glorious. A real Christmas treat.

Read this book if you are a fan of: The Nutcracker; Young Adult or Middle Grade fantasy or adventure (like Terry Pratchett's YA novels? This is for you); Harry Potter; The Ranger's Apprentice series; The Colossus Rises, by Peter Lerangis; coming of age stories; steampunk (I mean... this is more clockwork punk, but I don't think that counts as a genre...; The Larklight series; retellings of classics/fairy tales; historical fiction; talking animals...seriously, y'all I could make a whole readers' advisory list.


Enjoyed this post? Want to see more content like this? Make sure to follow me on social media!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter for several small snippets each week.

Or, if you're looking for more professional content (less frequent, but more closely related to writing, publishing, or libraries), connect with me on LinkedIn. (I do ask that if you request a connection on LinkedIn that you mention this blog so that I know how you heard of me.)

Review: Flygirl by Sherri L. Smith

"Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly." Langston Hughes

Ida wants to fly. Ida yearns to fly. Flying reminds Ida of her deceased father, who taught her. But Ida is a woman. In 1941. Oh, yeah - she's also Black. The thing is... Ida's father's side of the family is mixed. She inherited his very fair skin. She has "good hair." When she dresses a certain way, walks and talks a certain way - and avoids her darker family members and friends - she can pass for white.

Honestly, if timing had been different, if the War hadn't started, if her older brother hadn't enlisted as a medic... If her younger brother hadn't found an article about how the army was putting together a group of female pilots (the Women's Army Service Pilots, or WASP), Ida would have just continued what she was doing - scrimping and rationing, cleaning houses, collecting scraps for the War Effort - indefinitely. But not only does she itch to fly, she also itches to do something, anything, to help bring her brother home sooner. So, doctoring her father's pilot license and borrowing a nice hat and fur, she joins the WASP.

I had been curious about both the WASP in general, and this book specifically, since I read Orleans by the same author several years ago. Somehow it got forgotten, pushed to the side. But after Out of Darkness, I wanted to read another historical novel about someone outside my own experience... and this one immediately resurfaced in my mind.

It was a good read, an interesting peek into both the life of a Black woman at the time, and any woman in the army during WWII. Actually, I should say, civilian women among military men. The WASP were not militarized until the Carter administration, and as such, the ladies are treated as the lowest of the low - interlopers, unworthy, given all the planes and tasks that the men don't want to deal with. Made to bunk in poorly thrown-together rooms on the base, or to stay in boarding houses off-base. Asked to show their worth by flying an experimental plane dubbed the "Widowmaker" when no man wants to touch it because of all the problems and accidents it's had so far. Some of the men don't think women should be there, don't think they should be flying. Others discount their instincts or their careful checking of equipment.

In addition, Ida has to deal with the added stress of "passing" - of hiding her true self and heritage, as not only are Black women not allowed in the WASP, but her basic training takes place deep in Texas where a Black woman caught passing will find herself in immediate danger. Though, interestingly enough, Ida isn't the only one dealing with prejudices. She immediately takes to two other bunkmates, becoming fast friends, and the three of them are referred to as a "carny," a "hick," and a Jew.

I enjoyed the book, and I enjoyed learning about the challenges these ladies faced. The pacing wasn't what I would have expected for a wartime novel about a woman hiding her identity, but it was a good read with important themes. I felt the ending just sort of... happened. It wasn't terribly climactic and became more about Ida's thoughts and which of her relationships had changed. Though, a big message of the book is about that transition of early adulthood - you grow apart from your childhood friends. You wonder if your fate lies with your family or with your dreams and skills. Should you pursue your dreams, no matter what, or should you do what others expect of you?

But don't worry, just because Flygirl didn't take off for me the way I expected doesn't mean I'm done with Sherri. I've already moved on to another book of hers, The Toymaker's Apprentice. And I'm loving it so far.

Review: Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Perez

As some of you know, this book was put on my radar because a mom at a school board meeting in Texas pitched a fit about the reference to anal sex on "page 39." The book was pulled from two middle school libraries in the district shortly after that. I don't know how many more other schools may have pulled it at this point, because the video from the school board meeting has spread like wildfire.

I had initially posted a news story about the board meeting on my Facebook page, but after Banned Books Week, I was contacted by the author's publicist to ask if I was interested in writing a blog post about Ashley's response (which you can read here).

As I often do when someone makes a stink about a book being inappropriate, I got curious and decided to read it. (That's what I do, y'all - banning a book just makes me want to read it more.)

So I checked out a copy from the library. I actually don't check out books for myself from the library that often, because I really only get a short window of time at night to read and I'm always concerned I'm going to run out of time and that someone else will be waiting for the book, so I won't be able to renew it. I was even more concerned when I picked up the copy I'd requested. I was not expecting a 400 page tome. But I shouldn't have worried - I ploughed through the book quickly, often staying up well past when I should have gone to bed, especially as I neared the end.

What follow are, first, a basic review, and then, secondly, my thoughts on the offensive phrase that got the book pulled as compared to other content in the book.

Review, with minor spoliers

Out of Darkness is the story of Naomi and Wash. In New London, TX, in 1937, a Black boy befriends a Mexican girl who has recently moved to town with her stepfather and her half siblings. Her stepfather is white, and the twins (Beto and Cari), though mixed, pass for white, especially since their father enrolls them in school as Robbie and Carrie Smith. Naomi, however, is dark enough that Wash first mistakes her for Black and wonders how he could have missed a new girl in "Egypt Town," the Black Quarter.

Naomi has many struggles. Her stepfather, Henry, works long hours in the oil fields and is often away, leaving her to care for her younger siblings, run the household (cleaning, mending, cooking, shopping) while also attending high school full time.

Naomi is quiet and keeps to herself. The boys at school think she's exotic and alluring, despite being aloof. The girls at school have nasty things to say about her. (Well, the boys do, too, but it's a different kind of nasty.) But with Wash's genuine attention to and friendship with Cari and Beto, she begins to open up and find some enjoyment in her new life.

But, alas, no one's going to read a 400 page book about Wash and Naomi and their Happy, No-Conflict, Idyllic Life. This is Texas. In the 30's. A Black boy and a Mexican girl can't be friends. A Black boy and "white" children can't be friends. And most of the kids at the otherwise all white school look down on Naomi. Those would be enough problems to deal with without Henry's long hours, alcholholism, possesive nature and his... history with Naomi and her mother. That would be enough to deal with without the school using raw natural gas for heat rather than safer, refined gas or oil from the oil company. That would be enough to deal with without falling in love with the "wrong" person. And that would be enough without the literal powder keg of the school exploding, and the figurative powder keg that goes off when a black boy carries the body of a dead white girl out of the rubble.

The author, Ashley Hope Perez, skillfully layers in foreshadowing until you know, YOU KNOW, something terrible is about to happen. But, with that said, it was still beautiful, even the dark parts. (Even the many, many dark parts.) It is an amazingly well-written tale of love, friendship, family, hope, despair, possession, toxic relationships, abuse, racism, and disaster. It is fantastic.


There are better reasons to ban a book - warning for spoilers and potential triggers

I am so aggravated that the book has been pulled from school bookshelves because of a line where highschool boys fantasize about Naomi, and suggest "put it in her cornhole." That's worth pulling the book? Wash and Naomi are both called the "n" word. But that's OK - at least it's not "cornhole."

Another phrase that upset the mother at the school board meeting was "pussy, or the idea of pussy," again, brought to us by the fantasizing of the boys in Naomi's class. That's worth pulling the book? The book opens with an explosion - a true, historical event that still stands as one of the worst three disasters in Texas history. There are details about the rescue workers collecting small body parts and putting them in baskets, while parents had to identify their children by clothing or birthmarks because their faces weren't recognizable. But that's OK because at least those bodyparts weren't a "pussy."

As the book goes on, we learn more about Henry and Naomi's relationship. Henry started making her touch him when she was seven. He tries to force himself on her in the kitchen as a teenager when he comes home drunk and mistakes her for her (long-deceased) mother. But that's OK - it's not "cornhole."

Naomi's mother had a history of miscarriages - and young Naomi was present for at least two of them, and remembers them in great detail. But that's OK because it's not "pussy."

Henry makes Beto go hunting with him to "make a man out of him." He forces him to shoot a bird even when it becomes clear that the boy doesn't want to. Henry bullies him so badly that eight-year-old Beto wets his pants.

There are also beautiful, tender, intimate moments between Naomi and Wash, serving to offset Henry's force and lack of concern about consent.

Henry drinks. He sleeps around. He sees a man catch on fire and burn to death at an oil rig. He has a tin of condoms in his drawer (referred to exclusively by brand names like "Romeos)... but when a doctor told him his wife couldn't survive another pregnancy, he protests, "she's my wife - a man's got a right." Naomi remembers lying awake at night before the twins were born listening to the mattress squeak while her mother cried. But that's OK because no one says "pussy" or "cornhole."

Cari, Beto's twin, dies in the explosion. Her face is smashed. So many children die that Henry decides to make a coffin rather than wait for one. Meanwhile, Cari lies on the kitchen table while Beto mourns underneath.

The white men of town (it was the whites-only school that exploded) decide someone needs to be held responsible. They focus on Wash, who was nearby (because he worked on the property), mostly because he had the audacity to touch a dead white girl. His family are terrorized and beaten. Their house is burned. Henry forces Beto to throw a rock through the window of his friend's house. Henry forces his son to watch his friend be beaten by an angry mob.

I wanted so badly, SO BADLY for this book to have a happy ending. But Naomi and Beto both survive the explosion - a miracle. Wash narrowly avoids a lynching - another miracle. So when Wash and Naomi reunite and attempt to run with Beto, and Henry catches up to them, you know that three miracles was too much to hope for.

Hnery, by now very far gone, and showing his true colors, forces Beto - at gunpoint - to tie Wash to a tree so Henry can beat the already-injured teenager more. He forces both boys to watch while he rapes Naomi. He gives Beto a sadistic choice - shoot your friend, or watch me shoot your sister. Beto makes a third choice, but too late to protect Wash and Naomi. But please, by all means, protect us from the words "cornhole" and "pussy."

And yes, that all sounds horrible... but I still loved the book. It's still worth the read. Sometimes you need to read things that bother you.


I am not, of course, suggesting that the book should be banned for ANY reason. Is the book for everyone? No. Is it appropriate for middle schoolers? For most of them, no, but then again, I am not the mother of every middle schooler in Texas, so I shouldn't be the one to make that call.

High-Stakes Secrets

Psst... Can you keep a secret?

Recently I've been consuming media about secrets - what a character will do to keep a secret, what happens when a secret gets out...

Jason and I recently watched There's Someone Inside Your House. It's a horror movie about a killer making his way through high school students with secrets. At one point, one of the characters throws what he calls a "secret" party. The attendees are encouraged to share their secrets, the idea being that if your secret is out, the killer no longer has a hold over you. These being high schoolers, the secrets range from crushes to miscarriages. Though as you might expect, not everyone confesses the Real Secret, the Big Secret, the High-Stakes Secret, and people keep dying.

I also recently finished reading Speak, a book about a high schooler keeping a secret that takes such a toll on her that she pretty much stops speaking all-together. Read more about that here.

It made me start thinking about my stories. What secrets do my characters have? What secrets do they consider to be high-stakes? When I was in high school my Big Secret was who I had a crush on, which seems so stupid now. But it's a matter of perspective. Sometimes it's a matter of culture or your place in society, too. A secret that is a big deal for a character in one story, in one world, may be laughable to worry about in another story and world.

I have neglected my characters' secrets. I don't even know what secrets some of my characters have. I need to go through my stories (and especially Brinyor, now that I've decided to workshop it some) and figure out what people's secrets are.

Personal Challenge: Speak

This year, I reached out to friends and family this year for ideas for Banned Books Week posts. A friend suggested “banned books that are also classics or fantasies that might be outside your usual reading type.”

For this challenge, I considered Gone With the Wind, Lolita, and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. But all of them are decently long, and I was concerned that as close to BBW as I’d had the idea that I wouldn’t be able to finish one of them before Banned Books Week started. (Let’s be honest – I’d have had to started Gone With the Wind six months ago to finish in time…)

I had also been curious about Speak for a while, in part because I write Young Adult fiction, in part because it’s a relatively new addition to the Banned Books Lists, and also in part because I saw it a lot on the Young Adult holds list when I worked in the children’s department at a library.

I was never a big fan of the “slice of life” high school books, even when I was in high school. I almost passed on it for this challenge – for the idea of reading a “classic” you might not normally read - until I checked the publication date and saw that it was published in 1999, when I was in high school. It’s older than the high school students it’s being assigned to now. I decided that qualified. It’s also only 200 pages long, giving me a much better chance of finishing in the two weeks I had from when I decided to start the challenge to the first day of Banned Books Week.

Speak is about Melinda, a ninth grader struggling to find her way in high school. Over the summer, she called the police at a party and most of the school has not forgiven her for that. Melinda becomes more and more withdrawn, to the point that she is in danger of failing and nearly stops speaking altogether.

I’m glad I chose it. I really enjoyed it. I ploughed through it much more quickly than the much shorter H.P. Lovecraft novella that I put aside in favor of getting this one done for my blog. I can’t put my finger on what made me keep reading – it’s not suspenseful or action packed. Maybe it’s because I knew a little about the storyline and that made me curious. In any case, I loved it and, not only do I see no reason to ban or challenge it, I also do agree that it should be read and discussed in schools.

Let’s speak more about that…

Speak has appeared on the following Banned and Challenged lists, per the American Library Association:

Top 100 Banned/Challenged Books: 2000-2009 (#60) – You’ll recall it was published in 1999.

Top 100 Most Banned and Challenged Books: 2010-2019 (#25)

Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2020 (#4) – For reasons of: “it was thought to contain a political viewpoint and it was claimed to be biased against male students, and for the novel’s inclusion of rape and profanity.”

Frequently Challenged Young Adult Books

Additionally, Wikipedia notes that Speak has been challenged for "exposing children to immorality," being "classified as soft pornography," glorification of drinking, cursing, and premarital sex."

Examination of some of these reasons behind this cut due to spoilers.

“Political viewpoint” – As best I can tell, this refers to either the nearly-satirical saga of the school board continually changing the school mascot so as not to tread on the toes of any cultural groups, or to the debate started and then abruptly stopped in Melinda’s social studies class.

In said “debate,” her teacher goes off on an anti-immigration rant; half the class disagrees with him, while half agree. That seems to me to be less a political viewpoint and more, “hey, half the class is pro-immigrant and half is anti” – y’know, kind of like a real-world split. The teacher’s point of view isn’t even presented as wrong. Melinda is a very neutral narrator of the scene as far as politics goes; what she takes exception to is the teacher shutting down the discussion once it starts going against him, rather than letting the students continue to debate.

“Biased against male students” – Not at all. There are plenty of male students. Most are presented in a neutral light, aside from the fact that many of them are annoyed with Melinda for calling the police at a party over the summer. Indeed, the girls in the book are presented much more harshly than most of the boys. Melinda’s male lab partner is presented as a character of admiration – he is willing to stand up and speak his mind. The only male student presented in a negative light is a student she refers to as “IT” until she finds out his name. Melinda is right to see him in a negative light, as she finally reveals that the reason she called the police at that party is that “IT” raped her.

Profanity – There’s really not that much. I just flipped through the book looking for some bad words. I found “sucks.” After quite a bit more flipping I found “bitch” and “bastard.” Oh dear. Heavens to Betsy. I finally found “bullshit.” My, oh, my such a dirty book that I had to flip through most of the book to find that.

Rape, immorality, softcore pornography, and glorifying premarital sex: Rape. Yes, OK, you got me there. That’s the whole point. Melinda goes to a party over the summer between 8th and 9th grade. Yes, there is alcohol. Yes, she drinks some. Yes, she gets drunk. And, yes, she is raped. We don’t find this out (though it's hinted at) until halfway through the book. She is THIRTEEN when it happens: a handsome older boy compliments her, kisses her. She thinks she’s going to start high school with a boyfriend. She is A CHILD. She doesn’t understand what is happening to her until it’s too late. Even then, she barely describes it. He pushes her shirt down and her shorts up. “I’m not really here,” she thinks desperately before declaring “he hurts me he hurts me he hurts me and gets up.” That’s it. He could just as well be punching her in the face. Immorality. Are we calling the rapist immoral? Then hell yeah, I’m all about that. Are we calling a 13-year-old immoral for a bad decision? If so, that’s stupid. What I find more immoral is the lack of support and understanding this girl gets from her parents and guidance counselor. Softcore pornography. You gotta be kidding me. Was the passage I just quoted sexy or titillating? Reading it as an adult you barely understand what happened to her. The “hurts me” line just happened to be the last line of the page in my edition. I read it. Turned the page. Turned it back to double check. Yeah, that just happened. But it is most definitely not explicit and in no way pornographic. Glorifying premarital sex. Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? Did we just read the same book? I am certain that the people claiming this have most definitely not read the book. Glorifying getting raped at a party and not even really understanding what happened to you? Glorifying being so traumatized by your first sexual experience that you tank your grades and stop speaking? This book glorifies nothing – except maybe the need for approachable adults who might have been able to help this poor girl.

In fact, Melinda’s biology class highlights the very fact that premarital sex is NOT glorified… or even mentioned. Bored, Melinda flips through the textbook – “Nothing about sex. We aren’t scheduled to learn about that until eleventh grade.” Maybe if someone had bothered teaching these kids about sex earlier Melinda would have had a better understanding of what was happening to her.

.....


This is the story of a girl – a CHILD – who wants to be mature and wants to fit in, and wants to understand who she is, and what has happened to her.  This is a story of high school: the story of being forced to go to pep rallies you don’t care about, deal with the minutiae of what each social clique wants from you, of dealing with the whole school demonizing you for doing what was right in a bad situation.  It’s about dealing with unobservant parents, unhelpful guidance counselors, and unevenly enforced school rules (Melinda frequently bemoans her need for hall passes while popular senior jock Andy waltzes off and back onto campus with fast food takeout).  And that’s on top of classes, homework, and, in Melinda’s case, trauma.

And as much as I disliked most of high school, I loved it.

One-Star Nudity

(Since this is a very long post, I’ve done some cutaways below. Click on the bold wording to open or close.)

My mom (who is 72, twice a mother, and twice a grandmother) came over the day that I checked out It’s Not the Stork from the library.  It’s a large, colorful picture book. 

“Oh, another book for Elianna?” she asked.  (Elianna* is my two-year-old daughter.)

“No, not yet,” I responded.  I told her about this project – that I was working on a blog about “inappropriate” potty training and kids’ sex education books.  I flipped through the book and pointed out a cartoon drawing of a boy and a girl standing side by side, naked, various parts of their anatomy pointed out and labeled. 

“This is why it’s banned,” I said.  She rolled her eyes.

(*Addendum, while potty training, my husband and I decided to show Elianna a couple illustrations from the book to show her the difference between what naked boys and naked girls look like.)

A few weeks prior, as I prepared my afore-mentioned two-year-old to begin potty training, we had checked out a book called “Once Upon a Potty.”  The little girl in the book stands naked at one point while her mother points out that the little girl has “a pee-pee for making wee-wee.”  My mom didn’t bat an eye when she came over and read the book to Elianna.

I’ve said it in posts before, usually in the context of bare butts for comedic purposes – nudity (no matter how minor or silly) is a really quick way to land your book on the Banned Books List.

My husband listens to a podcast called Is We Dumb?  In one consistently amusing segment of the show, they go through and read one-star reviews on Amazon.  This inspired me to do this with a few banned books.

I honestly expected “Once Upon a Potty” to be on a banned list somewhere, due to the nudity, and was surprised to find that it’s not.  Still, for sake of comparison across age ranges, I thought I would do a one-star review survey of it, as well as It’s Not the Stork! and It’s Perfectly Normal!

(Also, I will be quoting the reviews without correcting for grammar or spelling, which makes me cringe, but sometimes that makes the review funnier.)

Once Upon a Potty – Boy

Vital Statistics:

  • For potty-training-aged children (so, approximately two-three year olds)

  • 5% 1-star reviews

"Caution shows a cartoon bum hole.” Title of a Four-Star Review

“The drawings are antomically correct and uses baby words to describe male genitals. They also felt the need to show a details drawing of the boys bottom when he bends over. There is no way I'm reading thia book to me kid, it feels just plan wrong.”

“This book is WAY too graphic for a child's book! I had to draw underwear w a sharpie on the little boy on several pages.”

“The illustrations are at best unattractive and at worst completely crass. I initiated a refund after getting to page two where little Joshua is bent over, staring at you between his legs with three "eyes".

Admittedly, some one-star reviews were for the cutesie names rather anatomically proper ones, which brings us to…

.....


Once Upon a Potty - Girl

Vital statistics:

  • Also for potty-training aged children

  • 3% one-star reviews

For the girl’s version of the book, there was a lower percentage of 1-star reviews and they were less vehement.  Most of them were complaining about the terms being cute rather than anatomical, but there were a couple who said things like:

“I found this book to be inappropriate. Just be warned that there are pictures of little girl parts. Does there really need to be a pic of her showing us her poo hole?”


It’s Not the Stork!

Vital Statistics:

  • For 4 and up

  • 2% one-star reviews

Interestingly enough, most of the one-star reviews don’t go into as much detail as either of the other books mentioned here.  Some were bothered by the amount of detail and thought it was inappropriate for four-year-olds; others were bothered that there was not more LGBTQ+ inclusion. Myself, I would argue that a book for late preschool and early elementary children specifically meant to be about pregnancy doesn’t need in-depth info on the spectrum of sexualities.  There is a brief mention at the end of the book that there are all kind of families, including families with two dads or two moms.

Really, this one is the only negative review worth quoting:

“Not for children under 10-12 Very inappropriate for small children. Showed the difference between an uncircumcised penis and circumcised, with photos. I thought I saw this was rated 4 and up.” Not photos. Cartoony drawings. It aggravates me when people’s reviews are either inaccurate to the product, such as this one, or in the case of “Once Upon a Potty – Girl” where people, annoyed at the euphemisms for body parts, said that the word “vagina” and “urine” should be used instead of “pee-pee” and “wee-wee” – except that the vagina is NOT where urine comes out. (Hmm, maybe that’s why we shouldn’t be banning books on anatomy…?)

Oddly enough, there was a glowing one-star review by a self-described “conservative Christian” sexual abuse prevention specialist. She praised the book for being just enough, and rated it one-star because “more people read the one star reviews.” Good job, ma’am – way to be genre savvy.

Additionally, while I don’t know if I would say that this passage is appropriate for the youngest kids, I think it was a great way of explaining how babies are made without going into a lot of detail: “When grownups want to make a baby, most often a woman and a man have a special kind of loving called ‘making love’—‘having sex’—or ‘sex.’ This kind of loving happens when the woman and the man get so close to each other that the man’s penis goes inside the woman’s vagina.

Children are much too young to do the special kind of loving—called ‘sex’—that grownups do.”

This passage is accompanied by two pictures: -a man and a woman in a bed, covered by a blanket except for faces, arms, and feet, smiling at each other while little hearts float around their heads. -the bird and bee cartoon characters that provide commentary on most pages making faces and stating “Whew! I’m glad I’m too young for that!”

.....


It’s Perfectly Normal!

Vital Statistics:

  • Rated 10 and up

  • 28% One-star reviews

“It’s Perfectly Normal has been a trusted resource on sexuality for more than twenty-five years.” – From Amazon description

"Porn total porn and grooming of child for sexual assult. Engire book groom tool for pedifiles. No one should be exposed to this book.” Posted, ironically, by a user calling themselves “Sassy”

"Teachers teach your kid to whack off."

“When it’s time for the “talk”, give your kid an experience like “Passport to Purity” rather than this disgusting book bent on grooming your child into a suicidal victim of today’s degenerate culture.”

“This book is nothing more than a way to groom your children. I can’t believe some schools are teaching from this book for sex Ed! Time to Homeschool! If I could I would have given zero stars!! 🤬Absolutely sucking!” More ironic word choice.

“ Call the cops if this is given to your kids ….make sure your child's school doesn't have this in their library.”
This one – the call to make sure it’s not at the library – is advocating the banning of a book, for those of you keeping track at home.

A lot of these reviews talk about leftist agenda, a “confused generation,” and CRT (critical race theory – I have no idea what that has to do with late elementary, middle or high school sex ed). One review quoted three different Bible passages, in addition to suggesting the audience read the entirety of the Book of Romans.

I totally get it if you think your 10 year old is not ready for this book – or, not for the whole thing, as might be the case for a young child and It’s Not the Stork. But that doesn’t mean that 1. It’s a terrible book that deserves a 1-star review and 2. That NO ONE should read it.

Also, having checked out and perused the book myself, I personally see no issues with it. My husband and I discussed whether it was appropriate for a 10-year-old. Myself, I erred on the side of “maybe not,” but I also allowed that if a child is asking about how sex works, what “gay” means, what any number of slang terms for sex or masturbation are, that they deserve an age-appropriate answer.

I am most certainly not saying that you should chuck this book at your kid (especially a younger kid) without explanation or discussion. But, honestly, how would you rather your child find out about sex? Look through a child-geared illustrated book with you or a teacher or other trusted adult guiding them, or to rely on locker room jokes and internet porn to find out about sex and sexuality?

And, as with It’s Not the Stork, It’s Perfectly Normal doesn’t suggest you just jump in bed willy-nilly. It has a page with a line of illustrations of new or expectant parents each saying why they thought they wouldn’t or couldn’t get pregnant, but did anyway. It encourages safe sex and discusses pregnancy and STD’s. I’d rather have my daughter know about these things a little earlier than I might think is appropriate than have her stumble into a situation where she doesn’t understand what’s happening and get hurt, get an STD, get pregnant, get raped, etc. (More on that idea when I discuss Speak in a day or two.)

.....


I totally get it if you think your 10 year old is not ready for this book – or, not for the whole thing, as might be the case for a young child and It’s Not the Stork. But that doesn’t mean that 1. It’s a terrible book that deserves a 1-star review and 2. That NO ONE should read it.

Also, having checked out and perused the book myself, I personally see no issues with it. My husband and I discussed whether it was appropriate for a 10-year-old. Myself, I erred on the side of “maybe not,” but I also allowed that if a child is asking about how sex works, what “gay” means, what any number of slang terms for sex or masturbation are, that they deserve an age-appropriate answer.

I am most certainly not saying that you should chuck this book at your kid (especially a younger kid) without explanation or discussion. But, honestly, how would you rather your child find out about sex? Look through a child-geared illustrated book with you or a teacher or other trusted adult guiding them, or to rely on locker room jokes and internet porn to find out about sex and sexuality?

And, as with It’s Not the Stork, It’s Perfectly Normal doesn’t suggest you just jump in bed willy-nilly. It has a page with a line of illustrations of new or expectant parents each saying why they thought they wouldn’t or couldn’t get pregnant, but did anyway. It encourages safe sex and discusses pregnancy and STD’s. I’d rather have my daughter know about these things a little earlier than I might think is appropriate than have her stumble into a situation where she doesn’t understand what’s happening and get hurt, get an STD, get pregnant, get raped, etc. (More on that idea when I discuss Speak in a day or two.)

Back to discussing all of these books as a whole: many reviews, especially for It’s Perfectly Normal included statements such as, “I heard about this, so I bought it.”  Why?  There’s a thing called a library. 

Seriously, though.  If you are concerned about a book your child’s school is using or you’re hearing about a book that other parents think is inappropriate, check it out.  Read it for yourself.  If you don’t like it, don’t give it to your child.  If it’s assigned reading, talk to your child’s teacher.  Calmly.  Ask if your child can read an alternate text – and have a pertinent alternative in mind.  Or, if that isn’t possible, talk to your child about BOTH your thoughts and their thoughts on the book.  I’ve read an AWFUL lot of books as a kid that I then re-read as an adult and realize I REALLY didn’t catch on to some things.  You may be reading and understanding an implied thought at an adult level that goes completely over your child’s head.

Delved too Deeply

"The Dwarves dug too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of Khazad-dum... shadow and flame." Saruman, The Fellowship of the Ring

Recently, I've been thinking about this line. It comes from fantasy, but your more often find this theme - digging too deep, climbing too high, exploring places man wasn't meant to be and finding things man wasn't meant to know - in horror, and sometimes Sci-Fi. (There can be a healthy crossover between horror and sci-fi, but that's a topic for another blog...)

Jason was watching a movie the other night about a Russian crew that discovered a fungal parasite in the Kola Superdeep Borehole. (I've seen at least two X-files episodes with similar themes to this film.) There's The Thing, where the "digging too deep" or "climbing too high" is more metaphorical - the the high southern latitudes of Antarctica, a scientific expedition discovers an inexplicable creature.

Digging too deep/flying too high can apply to outer space - how many films are there about encountering malevolent entities out in the far reaches of space, a place where man was not meant to go? There are stories and films about being too deep in caves, too deep under the ocean... the list goes on and on.

I think there are so many types of this story, so many takes on this mini-genre because there is a very thin line between fear and fascination. We are curious creatures. We want to know what's out there in the dark, beyond the safety of the campfire. We want to know what goes bump in the night... but we're also afraid of the dark. We're afraid of the things that go bump in the night.

Everyone's Busy

"How do you get it all done?" my sister, a full-time teacher and the first-time mother of a one-year-old, asked me recently.

"I don't," I, the stay-at-home mom of a two-year old, answered.

"Really?" she asked, sounding relieved. I offered to send her pictures of my absurd piles of laundry. I DID send her a picture of my outrageously-long to-do list.

This morning, my husband asked me what the significance of three stars in front of an item on my to-do list was... seeing as about 3/4 of the list were three star items.

I'm busy. My sister is busy. I don't have time to do things I want to do. I don't have time to do things I need to do. My sister is the same way. Most moms I know are the same way. My husband feels the same way about both his work days, where he spends so much time on zoom meetings that he can't get any actual work done, and also about his weekend projects he's had on his to-do list for years. (Such as installing the doggy door we bought before Baldur died.)

Everyone's busy. Our neighbor is constantly ferrying her teenagers to various sportsball games. My diet program addresses the issue of planning ahead and taking healthy snacks and meals with you so that you don't have to stop and get takeout, in a tone that implies that most people are doing so most days of the week.

Everyone's busy.

I recall a Loony Toons cartoon from 1954 wherein a housewife spent all day running errands, arriving home just before her husband. He asks her if she picked up something for him, and she apologizes that she forgot. He is annoyed, asking what she did all day. We're treated to a rerun of her day, going to the bank and various other outings, in each of which she is delayed or something goes wrong. She cleans the house with a vacuum - "there were ATTACHMENTS to do the work," she narrates, as her past self dumps dozens of tubes on the floor. The vacuum breaks down and she ends up sweeping.

Everyone's busy. Now we have Roombas and better cars and higher speed limits (and I believe the cartoon housewife may actually have been doing errands on foot). We have dishwashers and washing machines, cell phones and voice-activated TV's. We should have more time, right?

It feels like we've always been busy. That 1950's housewife had a vacuum and a dry cleaner and an oven and various electric kitchen appliances. She should have had more time, right?

When I was a kid, I was a big fan of the Little House on the Prairie books. The Ingalls and Wilder families got up before dawn to milk the cows and do other farm chores. The children walked miles to school. Ma was constantly cooking, cleaning, sewing... Pa was often plowing. Laura's first job was a in a tailor's shop. She basted men's shirts. She sewed from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. She had a break for lunch (which she ate with the tailor and his family). She did this all week - I want to say Saturday, too. She was fourteen.

But those plucky homesteaders had farm tools and kitchen implements. They had needles, thread, scissors, and woven fabric. They had domestic animals and crops. You would think they would have had more time...

I'm currently reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, a book about how societies evolved, but more-so, how societies evolved differently - which societies had easily domesticable animals and plants, and which were hunter gatherers. The author states that you would think the farmers would have it easier, had more food, and more time... but that actually early farmers needed even more time and effort to produce the food they needed than did hunter-gatherers.

We're all busy. We've always been busy. How we define busy changes. The things I've learned from the above books will be helpful to me when writing period pieces... if I can even find the time in my busy life.

How has "busy" changed for you over the course of your life? If you're a fellow writer, how does a character you're currently working on define "busy?"

(By the way, I wrote this while Elianna was taking a rare second nap...)

Book Review: The Terror by Dan Simmons

A couple years ago, AMC produced a TV series based on this book. Jason and I really enjoyed it, and I decided I wanted to read it. I had kind of forgotten about it until reading Fatal Passage by Ken McGoogan, about John Rae, the explorer who discovered what happened to the Terror and Erebus.

It was a long read (over 700 pages), but very enjoyable. Even knowing what happens, I found myself wanting to keep reading each night, wanting to keep pushing past when I should have lain down and gone to bed.

Brief overview:

In 1845, an expedition lead by Sir John Franklin sets out from England to discover the long-searched-for Northwest Passage - a water route between the Northern Atlantic and Northern Pacific oceans. The Franklin expedition - 129 men and two ships, the Erebus and the Terror - never returns and there are no confirmed survivors. This is an imagining of the horrors the crew encountered while marooned in the Arctic, including extreme winter weather, scurvy, tainted food stores, impossibly difficult physical labor, the hubris of their captain, rats, fire, and, last but not least, a monster resembling a huge polar bear that stalks the mission.

The first part of the book is told in flashbacks. It opens with now-Captain Crozier on deck, in the bone-shattering cold, giving kind of a "how we got here" overview in his head. The chapters then go back and forth for a while between a few characters - Captain Sir John Franklin, Dr. Goodsir, and others - give background on events leading up to Crozier's current situation.

Goodsir serves as kind of an everyman - an audience avatar - when he volunteers to go on an exploratory mission and fails miserably at keeping up with the hard work the other sailors endure, as well as expressing shock at Captain Franklin's callous disregard for the life of the native man his men shot by accident.

Franklin immediately establishes himself as the one who carries the blame for various failures. At a dinner party, a seasoned explorer expresses concerns that Sir John doesn't have enough supplies - of food or coal. Franklin has no clue how much he's actually bringing with him; he feels like this is someone else's job to figure out. He just smiles and nods while the other explorer grows obviously more concerned about this voyage. Franklin comes off as a hubristic idiot. Actually, calling him an idiot isn't fair - he seems to be doing it on purpose. He repeatedly ignores sound advice from Crozier - his second in command - other explorers, and various officers on his mission. There are so many things that just would not have gone wrong if he had just listened to other people... but, no, determined to rid himself of his reputation as "the man who ate his shoes" on his previous Arctic mission, he plows ahead, so certain of his own infallibility.

As mentioned above, Sir John often expresses the thought that the natives are somehow less - not worthy of saving from death, not worthy of a proper burial... In the book, many other characters also express this period-accurate disdain for the Arctic peoples they encounter. (In the show, this is toned down, with some of the characters seeming to be pro-native, and even speaking some of the Inuit language.) As was also par for the period, there's a decent amount of disdain for women, Irish characters, characters of non-noble birth, and homosexuals (exclusively referred to as "sodomites").

While the setting is bleak, and often gory, and even the most likeable characters flawed, you do find yourself rooting for most of them, hoping that at least SOME of them make it.

I've read some other reviews and opinions that the last few chapters and the fates of a couple of characters comes out of nowhere, but I didn't think so. I thought it was the sort of thing where everything these two had experienced, everything they had endured together came together to form only one possible, inevitable scenario. Want to know more?

Here be spoilers...

In the show, Captain Crozier and Lady Silence - the native woman who's father was accidentally shot by the crew - end up being the only survivors. He's taken in by her people, but their connection ends there (or at least is no more special than them both being part of a very small, close-knit community). In the book, she rescues him when he's shot multiple times by mutineers, and nurses him back to health over a period of several months. She teaches him to live like a native. They share dreams - as they began to do when Crozier suffered from severe alcohol withdrawal earlier in the book. Eventually, she takes him to be her husband. I do mean that - Lady Silence/Silna is the one who initiates a physical relationship with Crozier, though by that point he understands that they also have an intertwined fate. Their interractions in the last couple chapters seem less to me "out of nowhere" and more what happens when two people have been through so much trauma together that they come to realize that each of them is the only person who could understand the other. It's not romantic, per se, but it's fitting.

And, yes, people have complained about the age difference. Crozier is in his early 50's by the end of the book, whereas when the expedition encountered Lady Silence two years earlier, the doctor determined she was between 15 and 20 (much younger than in the TV adaptation). Yes, this is a shocking age difference by today's standards... but in the 1840's it was not. Indeed, Crozier had proposed about five years earlier to a woman in her early 20's who turned him down not for his age, but for his station (she claimed she couldn't be a mere captain's wife). Girls in their teens were married to men old enough to be their grandfathers all the time back then. For me, what sells it is that Silna knows exactly what she is doing and it is Crozier who seems surprised at first, as well as their ironclad devotion to each other through the remainder of the book. Each is willing to give up their world and follow their spouse; Crozier is the one who gives up his old life to be with Silna.

Really the only thing I found to be problematic in the book is the outdoor New Year's carnivale. For so much of the book, the author has been hammering into us what the extreme cold is like for the crew. The (heated) intterior of the boat is only just barely above freezing on the warmest decks. The crew are wearing layers upon layers. They are constantly losing toes. The men on watch on the deck have to constantly move, constantly stomp to keep from freezing. More than once someone accidentally touches metal and loses skin for their carelessness. And yet at the Carnivale, where we are told it is a whopping -100 degrees, men stay out wandering around, eating outside, hanging out in a tent labyrinth, wearing costumes either over or under their cold weather gear... for hours! It just seemed glaringly out of place to me.

I did think it was interesting that at one point a crew member references the wreck of the Essex, an American whaling ship sunk during an encounter with an enraged whale, marooning its crew in life boats in the tropical Pacific. It reminded me that I had also read a book about that incident a few years ago. I'll have to do a compare/contrast of the two.

It occurred to me recently that I should include Readers' Advisory at the end of reviews. This is a book for both fans of history, and fans of horror. In particular, if you like setting-based suspense and horror - something like Sphere, where you're trapped by the elements with a dangerous and unknowable presence. For the history fans, if you like The Terror, you might also enjoy In the Heart of the Sea, by Nathaniel Philbrick, and Fatal Passage by Ken McGoogan.

Throwback Thursday - In the Heart of the Sea

So, I'm doing something a little different for Throwback Thursday this week.

The blog post I want to revisit is from my former website. I had planned to eventually set up an archive page here, but as you can guess, I have not yet gotten around to it. That post will be under the second markdown, below. The first markdown is a little snippet I posted on my Facebook page five years ago (five years ago, Oh my god...) about watching the film that was based on the book I review below. Now I'll have all of this in one spot!

Mid-July 2016, Jason and I watched the film In the Heart of the Sea, and really enjoyed it. My response to it is here:

From Facebook post, July 17, 2016

As a librarian and a writer, there are some classics out there that I am kind of embarrassed to admit that I haven't read. One of these is Moby Dick. I recently watched In the Heart of the Sea. It's a movie based on a book of the same name about Herman Melville speaking to one of the few survivors of a whaling ship that was attacked by a huge whale (and served as his inspriation for Moby Dick). It's a very good movie, which makes me sad that it didn't do better. Plus, as an actor, I also now have a TON of respect for the actors portraying the stranded whalers who lost tons of weight to look like they had been lost at sea for months; Chris Hemsworth lost 35 pounds, and Cillian Murphy looks like he was mummified.

After we finished the movie, I turned to my boyfriend and said, "Huh, that was really good - I'd like to read it." He responded, "yeah, I never read it either." I then clarfied that I was NOT talking about Moby Dick, but rather the book the film was based on.

For some reason, Melville is one of those authors people kind of cringe away from. No one picks up Melville for fun, just like no one picks up Dickens for fun. It's sad to say, but I'm just as guilty of this as the general population. As much as I love a rich vocabulary, some of those Victorian authors intimidate me.

But I guess that's ok, because Melville himself (at least according to the movie) is intimidated by Hawthorne. Which makes one of the closing screens, a quote by Hawthorne about how Moby Dick is the Great American Epic, all the more touching.

I liked it so much that I turned around and checked out the book from the library. I apparently finished it quite fast (oh, those pre-baby days!) as I posted the below review two weeks later:

Adapting from Page to Screen

Sometimes when having watched a movie and then read a book, I can say to myself, "Ok, I see why they changed that."

Sometimes it's a case of condensing a timeline or characters so as to make something easier to follow. Sometimes it's making characters older, younger, or changing something about their looks or personality to make them either more believable or more accessible to a broader audience. Sometimes it's adding "drama" (a problem that wasn't there in the original version to up the tension) or changing or leaving out something that the characters did to make them more relatable or sympathetic.

You may remember from my Ivey Ink Facebook post of July 17 that I recently watched In the Heart of the Sea. This is a movie based off a book that was written about a historical whaling ship disaster. The book was based on the accounts of several survivors of the Essex (a whaling ship); their stories also were a big influence on Herman Melville writing Moby Dick.

I enjoyed the film, and I found the book fascinating as well. However, upon reading the book, there were several very obvious, "wow, I see why they changed this for the movie" details. First of all, without some changes just for sake of narrative and the flow of plot structure, it would simply be a documentary that no one would watch unless they were interested in 19th century whaling and shipwrecks.

One of the major changes was the dynamic between First Mate Chase and Captain Pollard. In the film, Chase and Pollard do not get along, as Chase feels he was passed over for the position of captain simply because Pollard's father is a captain and one of the owners of the whaling company. In real life, Chase was several years younger than Pollard and they had been working their way up the ranks together for the last four years; Pollard had been First Mate previously and prior to that had been Second Mate, while Chase had previously been Second Mate and prior to that Harpooner. But which movie would you rather see:

"An orphaned farm boy* (played by the studly Chris Hemsworth) has worked hard to prove himself to The Man as capable sailor and has been promised a captaincy. However, at the last minute, he is passed over for promotion in favor of the boss's son (played by the brooding Benjamin Walker). Now they must struggle to scratch out a living from the violent sea with the forces of nature stacked against them." or "A tall 22-year-old and his pudgy@@ 28-year-old coworker of four years receive promotions and head out to hunt whales."

*And by the way Chase's father was still alive, and living in an expensive house in town, at the time of the voyage. @@Yes, Pollard is almost consistanly referred to as "portly" in the book. (Maybe this is repeatedly pointed out to help explain why he was one of the few who survived. He had more excess weight that could be lost without major inconvenience.)

However, like I said, injecting some drama for sake of narrative is understandable. Another major change (or, rather, omission) is even more understandable.

I don't know what you know about whaling. I didn't know a lot before I read this book. The movie shows a whale being hunted and killed (and only one hunt is shown to completion in the film, when there would have been HUNDREDS during the actual voyage of the Essex). It shows a couple brief scenes to get the point accross - a whale being harpooned, a spray of blood landing on the faces of the whalers as the whale dies (we do NOT see the blood actually spraying out of the whale itself), and a few short shots of the whale being butchered. We are also treated to a scene of the cabin boy being lowered into a hole in the whale's head to scoop out the last of the oil. He serves as something of a bridge between the characters and the audience, as his obvious horror and disgust at this task is more along the lines of what people who grew up learning about environmentalism and animal rights would feel.

These scenes in the movie really gloss over the realities of whaling that are gone into in more depth in the book.

As I mentioned above, a whaling voyage that lasted two years (as most of them did) and returned to port with 1,500-3,000 casks of whale oil would have had to kill hundreds of whales to fill their quota. I had been under the impression that, like the plucky homesteader of a slightly later period, the whalers used all of the animal - sell the bones and teeth for furniture and jewelry, eat and/or salt down the meat to sell, do...I dunno, something with the skin. No. The oil and blubber are the only parts of the whale used and the rest is DUMPED INTO THE OCEAN. The book describes the Pacific as being just a slick of oil, blood, and decomposing whale during a large part of the 19th century.

From a contemporary perspective, it's disturbing. What makes it even more jarring is that in the book the scene of the full hunt and butchery of the whale comes either immediately before or immediately after a scene in which the sailors complain to the captain about their small portions of rationed salt beef and salt pork. You people are throwing away dozens of tons of meat every few days and you don't think to keep any of this to augment your rations?

What makes it even worse than that, though, is that on their way to the whaling grounds of the Pacific the ship stops at the Galapagos islands so that they can hunt tortoises to bring on the voyage as food. The tortoises were preferred to any other live source of meat because their metabolisms were so slow that the crew didn't have to feed them. The ship takes on dozens, possibly hundreds, of tortoises, fully intending to just leave them in the hold and not give them food or water. Ever. Until it's time to kill and eat them. The cabin boy's memoir reflects his misgivings about the assumption that just just because the tortoises didn't NEED to eat didn't mean that they SHOULDN'T, as he claims that every time he went down into the hold he saw them licking things.

If these weren't bad enough crimes against nature, one of the crew members set one of the Galapagos islands on fire. As a prank.

It's scenes like these that make it extremely difficult to think anything other than "I'm glad most of you died miserable deaths of starvation adrfit at sea - you're horrible people!" As I said, sometimes you have to change things in a story to make the characters relatable on screen. Even without these scenes shown in the movie, it's hard not to root for the whale when he attacks the Essex after the whalers harpoon another whale in his pod.

But, as my sister is fond of saying, "why ruin a perfectly good story with something like facts?"

Are You a Good Witch or a Bad Witch?

"Confess. Unburden your soul."

Alright, I confess. I'm a theatre major and I've never seen Wicked. Go ahead, lock me up.

Up until recently, I hadn't read Wicked, either. A friend of mine, fascinated by the world-building in my writing, loaned it to me and I just finished.

First, I would like to say that, while I appreciate that she finds my writing to be good, my world-building is not on par with Gregory Maguire. (Though, admittedly, I am not very familiar with the original L. Frank Baum Oz books, so I don't know how much Maguire is inventing, and how much he's expanding upon.)

Interestingly, the day before I finished reading Wicked, Jason and I watched a film called The Reckoning, which was about a woman in 1665 who is accused of being a witch and the torture she endures as the authorities try to get her to confess.

How things change! In 1939, in a film based on a book published in 1900, Glinda famously (even cutely) asks Dorothy, "Are you a good witch or a bad witch?" Dorothy, aghast, responds, "I'm not a witch at all," more in line with what we'd expect from someone accused of witchcraft in the 17th century. "I am innocent to a witch - I know not what a witch is," proclaims a character in The Crucible, based on events from the Salem Witch Trials of 1692-93.

This was supposed to be a review of Wicked. It seems to be turning into a review of accusations of witchcraft.

It doesn't spoil anything to say that Elphaba in Wicked chooses to become a witch. Or rather, she chooses to pose as one and things kind of fall together for that persona. She and her sister don't balk when people start - jokingly, at first - to refer to them as the Wicked Witch of the East and the Wicked Witch of the West (based on where each of them lives).

In the film I referred to, Grace obviously does not chose to pose as a witch, and the amount of torture she endures is in hopes to save her infant daughter.

Interestingly enough, we watch both women slide along the slippery edge of insanity. The scale is different, to be sure: Elphaba's story spans approximately 40 years, Grace's merely a few days.

Elphaba slowly endures parental neglect, hardships, friendlessness, sudden personal loss, and denial of the forgiveness she desperately seeks. When her sister, Nessarose, is unexpectedly killed by the falling house, and her old school friend Glinda gives away Nessa's shoes - shoes that her father made for the favored sister, shoes that Nessa had promised would be Elphaba's some day - Elphaba finally allows the cloak of "Wicked Witch" to slip around her and goes off the rails trying to get the shoes back from her sister's unwitting killer. (And I mean, really, if my old college roommate gave a prized family heirloom to the person who killed my sister, I'd be pissed, too.)

Grace, on the other hand, has physical hardships and, arguably, more psychological hardships thrust upon her within a very short period (we aren't given a timeline of events prior to her arrest, but from arrest to the end of the film is four days). She maintains her innocence, refuses to give in even as she sees visions of both her dead husband and Lucifer himself.

In drastically different endings, Grace is saved by water, while Elphaba, famously, is destroyed by it. Though, reading Wicked while having seen The Wizard of Oz, Maguire handles Dorothy's (and Elphaba's) motive differently than the source material. Both Grace and Elphaba have a moment of peace as their trials finally end.