Chillin' with the Norse Gods

I haven't done a book review in a while.

(OK, so this isn't going to be an actual full-on review, partly because I haven't finished the book yet...)

I'm currently reading Norse Mythology by Neil Gaiman.  A couple things to know here:
-I really like Neil Gaiman.
-Neil Gaiman really likes Norse mythology.

I was really excited when I heard the book was coming out - I love his style.  Plus, since a lot of his books feature Norse mythological characters, and since Jason and I are interested in both the Norse/Vikings specifically, and mythology in general, I thought this would be really interesting to read.  I haven't been disappointed, though it's also not quite what I expected.

I also follow Neil Gaiman on Facebook.  A month or two ago (before I got the book), he made a post announcing that Norse Mythology had been nominated for a fantasy award (I don't remember which one now) and while he was honored to have been nominated, he was also somewhat amused, as he had marketed this book as non-fiction.

(Side note on non-fiction:  For several years, I worked in a library system that used the Dewey Decimal system, meaning that fiction and non-fiction are kept separate, as opposed to the Library of congress where you will find fictional pieces by an author next to reviews and criticism about that author's work.  It was always interesting to me to see what was housed in non-fiction that kind of hovered on the fiction/non-fiction line.  Many pieces of older literature - poetry, the Greek epics, Shakespeare - were housed in non-fiction, as were books of myths and fairy tales.) 

I recall having read in a book about the defining characteristics of different genres that fantasy is arguably the oldest genre - mythologies and fairy tales are the very oldest stories.  So to me, hearing that a non-fiction book about mythology had been nominated for a fantasy award didn't strike me as all that odd.

But then I started reading the book and it made even more sense why it was nominated for a fiction genre award rather than non-fiction.  Gaiman comes right out in his introduction and says that a lot of this book is based on his fond remembrances of reading Norse mythology as a kid (after having become interested due to the Thor comic books).  He states that he did some research but that a lot of this is revisiting tales he remembers; the book is not an in-depth anthropological examination.

Really the great thing (one of the great things) about this book is that it comes off as Personal Recollections of Hanging Out with the Norse Gods by Neil Gaiman.  As opposed to a lot of mythology books, that can actually be quite dry, because the author is either taking a heightened style, respectful approach, or because the author is merely presenting "this is the direct translation of these old rune and I myself have no interest or opinion on the story itself," Gaiman's retelling of these myths comes off as personal.  He's not afraid to be casual with the gods, giving us such gems as "'Shut up, Thor,' said Loki."

Part of why I picked up this book when I did (you, know, selecting it out of the massive tower of books that I got for Christmas) is that I just finished reading Gaiman's Odd and the Frost Giants.  It's a story about a kid who doesn't quite fit in with the rest of his Viking village.  He runs away and encounters 3 of the gods, who have been cursed into different shapes and need his help getting back to Asgard.  I was curious to see more tales about the characters I'd just read about, so I started in on Norse Mythology (even though I generally do not read the same author back-to-back unless I'm reading a series).

The gods in Mythology are given the same casual, familiar feel as they are in Odd.  It comes across less as "here is what the ancient peoples of Norway believed" and more, "So did I ever tell you about that time that Thor was just chilling and Loki played this really mean trick on him?"  Some stories feel almost like these are the antics of Neil's college buddies.  And I'm loving it.

The Book that Keeps on Giving

Teen dystopia is the big thing right now:  The Hunger Games, Divergent, The Maze Runner, and probably a dozen more than I'm missing now that I'm not doing Readers' Advisory for middle schoolers anymore.

When did this get so big?  Young Adult was an emerging genre when I was in middle school - there wasn't a lot outside of Chronicles of Narnia and the Alice series (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone wasn't published 'til I was a freshman in high school and, as previously mentioned this week, I didn't jump on that bandwagon for a few years).  If you weren't into slice-of-life stuff (like I wasn't), there wasn't a whole lot out there.  [Edit: Since I wrote this post 2 years ago, I discovered that Young Adult has been a "thing" for a few decades now.  But with that said, most of it was still that "slice of life" stuff that I don't care for, which is probably why I wasn't aware of it in middle school and high school.]

In 1993 a small, quick-to-read book was published that subsequently received the Newberry and may have been the seed of the teen dystopia trend.  That book was The Giver by Lois Lowry.  In lieu of reiterating the plot, I will post the review I wrote for our genre study at my previous library.
 

Literary Fiction Book Review - The Giver

Please describe the book you’ve just read by answering the following questions:

Title: The Giver

Author: Lois Lowry

Pacing: Starts slow, but builds.

Frame/setting: A community in an unspecified place, presumably in the future

Story line: Jonas lives in a perfect world – because it is designed that way. Family units consist of 1 mother, 1 father, and 2 children – one of each gender. At the age of twelve, when Jonas and all his friends receive their career assignments, Jonas is assigned as the new Receiver of Memories. As he trains with a man called the Giver, he discovers all the things his community lacks – pain, joy, weather, color, individuality, and choice.

Characterize the main protagonist: Jonas is almost 12 at the start of the story and is intelligent and caring.

Tone/mood: quietly thought-provoking

Style/language: Precise – almost to the point of being spare – while still conveying great depth.

Literary Fiction sub-genre: Elements of fantasy, science-fiction, suspense, and philosophy.

Awards: Newberry Medal, Regina Medal, William Allen White Award, School Library Journal Best Book of the Year, among others.

Other Observations: This book is at the same time both simple and incredibly profound. Lowry’s use of subtle foreshadowing is beautiful. The reader and Jonas come to realizations together. From the first page, there is a sense of mild foreboding underlying the seeming perfection of Jonas’s world, and the author builds on this beautifully.

While there are deep philosophical concepts, like that of freewill and choice, euthanasia, and a milder version of the Orwellian dystopia, I would say that any student who has read Number the Stars, The Diary of a Young Girl, or other deeper Newberry winners is ready for this book.

On a personal note, this is the book that turned my sister from a reluctant reader to an avid one.

Appropriate for teens? For mature middle-schoolers
Reviewer’s initials: EI Date:2-22-13

How many stars would you give this book? 4.5 out of 5

What I say about my sister in that review is true.  I was the kid who would get caught reading a book under the desk in math.  I was the one who had to be told to put the book away and go to bed.  My sister was never that way as a kid.  She never enjoyed reading - getting her to read was harder and more painful than getting a cat to walk on a leash (having tried that, I know).  Then one day, when she was in 7th grade, a very observant and out-of-the-box thinking English teacher took her aside, handed her this small, unassuming-looking paperback and said, "Try this, I think you'll like it."

And that was it - my sister discovered that she enjoyed reading.  But not just the act of reading - immersing herself in a well-crafted and thought provoking story.  Fast forward many years.  She writes.  She majored in philosophy at a prestigious liberal arts university.  She teaches (her favorite age group being those difficult 11-year-olds she once was).  She's working on getting her Master's degree in education.  This from the girl who for many years would. Not. Read.

And yes, there's controversial stuff in it - this spoils a bit of the plot if you haven't read it - but in the book Jonas discovers that government-initiated euthanasia (though it's never called that) is being practiced regularly.  Anyone above the age of about 11 is medicated to prevent emotions and urges.  Again, some of these are not really elaborated on.  An adult understands exactly what this medication is meant to suppress.  A child of Jonas's age reading it just picks up that they're preventing you from feeling something.  But is the controversy worth it if it gets a child thinking about important topics like rights and free will?  Is it worth if it gets a reluctant reader to pick up a book and read?  Is it maybe better to ease a child into that Orwellian place that they'll have to learn about eventually without throwing them straight into the deep end that is 1984?  (And as someone who read 1984 last minute the night before the first day of school for 9th grade and had the bejesus scared out me, my answer to the last is "Yes!")

The Gorgeous Losers of Wrestling

(The below contains mild spoilers for the first episode of GLOW, but those spoilers really shouldn't do anything but convince you to watch the show : )

I've read somewhere, probably multiple places, that the most compelling characters are the ones who have lost everything, the ones who have hit rock bottom.

Jason and I have been watching GLOW on Netflix.  It's a show about... well, it's a show about losers, when you get down to it.  In the 1980's, a washed-up director is attempting to get a women's wrestling TV show off the ground, and all he has is the dregs, the losers, the people who have hit rock bottom and have literally nothing else.  And it is glorious.

Each episode, we learn a little bit more about these "losers," about what rock bottom is for each of them.  I'm not sure what I expected going into the show - maybe more silliness.  And there is humor, don't get me wrong, but there is also drama and struggle, and characters that you identify with.  These characters, these losers, they're the ones that you watch claw their way back up from nothing, and you root for them.

It's also doubly impactful for me watching it, as a former actress.  Ruth, one of the major characters, is an unsuccessful actress.  She goes to auditions and never gets called back.  She's taking acting classes, but has no money for food or utilities.  I've been there.  She accepts a casting call for the wrestling show mainly because she has nothing else and she has been assured that it's not porn.  And she's the worst!  She complains.  She can't take direction.  She doesn't want to play the bad guy.  For someone who has been in enough acting classes that one would assume she'd have at least some physical (dance, stage combat, etc.) training, she has no physical prowess.  And I sit there thinking, "god, she is the WORST actress!"  And then it dawns on me that yes, she IS the worst actress - that's the point.  Her story arch is going to be that she grows as an actress once she starts taking this seriously.

And - spoiler alert - she does.  She gets kicked out of the show for not being able to take or follow directions.  She completely loses it in her acting class when the teacher falls asleep in the middle of her Tennessee Williams monologue.  Then she pulls herself together.  She starts watching wrestling on TV - she researches the characters and the moves.  She shows up at practice for the show, striding in the door in costume and makeup like she owns the ring, and proceeds to deliver a verbal throw-down of the Maggie the Cat as portrayed by Hulk Hogan.  And then she gets her ass kicked by her (ex)best friend.  And it is one of the best pilot episodes I have ever seen.

Even if it were just Ruth, it would be a good show.  But it's not just Ruth.  We're slowly seeing characters being torn down, their vulnerabilities revealed.  And now, about 6 episodes in, we're starting to see them make their comebacks.  We're seeing them transform into something new and better.  We're seeing them start to glow.