TV Series Review: How I Met Your Mother *SPOILERS*

Okay, I think it's been long enough. If you haven't seen the finale of HIMYM by now and have somehow managed to avoid spoilers (and of course plan to watch it at some point), STOP NOW. This is a spoiler-riddled review.

I really like the TV series How I Met Your Mother. I think it's clever, funny, and gets better as your go rather (which is rarely the case with sitcoms whose characters using get cartoonish by the end). It took me awhile to get into it, but once I did the characters and ongoing bits really put this show on my favorites list. I was a late comer to HIMYM so my opinions may differ from someone who watched it weekly as it was coming out. The only season I actually watched live on a weekly basis was the final season. If you watch it this way...the short episodes can feel less than satisfying and almost frustrating. I've heard fans say they didn't like the show after such and such a season or hated the final season, etc. and I think this has something to do with that. When you're able to watch back to back episodes 2-3 at a time or even a whole season in a week or two---it feels completely different.

I have to say, I disagree with those who thought later seasons weren't as good. They were certainly formatted differently, but they kind of had to be to get all the lose ends tied up.

I was impressed with the writers ability to make the series cohesive. With this sort of concept (a father telling his children the story of how he met their mother) you expect that they're writing without knowing where they are really going with the story and as is therefore to be expected, the first season referenced the mother a lot, but the following seasons plots didn't seem to have much to do with the mystery mother we all want to meet. So once she makes her appearance---how on earth will she live up to the hype? It seems inevitable that the show would kind of fall apart towards the end.  Yet, in my opinion, they pulled it off.

I even liked the final season (which a lot of people apparently hated), but I absolutely hated the final episode. Or rather, inititally I hated it. I hate it less now that I did when it aired, but I'm still not sure they chose the right ending. Here's why:

- I'm not upset that the mom dies

First, I want to point out that I'm not upset that the mother dies. Disliking the ending had nothing to do with that. The sad subplot of the mom getting sick and ultimately dying, doesn't bother me in the least. If anything, it makes it feel a little more real and explains why the dad would be telling "her" story to their kids so expansively.

- They ruin Barney

My biggest complaint is that the finale ruined the character of Barney for me. The writers claimed to be keeping him more consistent with who "he is" as a character and they do give him some redemption (in the form of a daughter that he loves and grows up for), but honestly---it just pissed me off.

I had grown to really like Barney and they basically ruined that by turning him back into a shallow, womanizing, in and out of everyones life, character. From the very beginning they have implied that there's more to Barney that meets the eye. You start to wonder if he really hooks up as much as he says he does or if it's just a way to cover up the fact that he wants something real with someone and is scared about finding it. They spend the last few seasons really showing how good of a friend (and person) Barney really is. He is no longer a cliche in the show, but a multilayered and interesting character. The Robin/Barney romance was done very well to make you really root for them and think---hey, this works for them. The fact that they spent multiple seasons convincing me that Barney was ready to settle down and that he'd do anything for Robin---only to have it dismantled in one episode with no real warning, just UGH. If the writers always planned for this ending, I feel like they intentionally wasted my time. It's bad enough that you allowed a character to basically abuse and objectify women for nine seasons for the sake of humor and without consequence; but you redeem that character slowly over time and then just say "never mind" in the last episode? Seriously, I think that was the biggest slap in the face to the fans of your show and of Barney.

Yes, I do understand that it can be argued that the daughter was the culmination of Barney's transformation, but it was harder to buy that when he was allowed to revert for like a decade or more and I was only given about 10 minutes to process and accept the change in his trigger towards goodness. It came across as a quick fix by the writers to avoid the criticism that they ruined him. I'm sure they don't see it that way.  

- Ted and Robin are not Ross and Rachel

HIMYM is often compared to Friends. The primary romance in Friends was Ross and Rachel and they too end up together in the end. But Ted and Robin are not Ross and Rachel. Ross and Rachel were on again, off again the entire series. The timing was frequently never right, or even if it was, something derailed their relationship, but you basically believed they were meant to be and would end up together eventually (yes, in the final episode). It was clear that was where things were going all along. They even had a kid together along the way so there was no getting out of each others lives. Predictable? Maybe. But also inevitable and satisfying for fans. This is a sitcom after all.

Meanwhile, Ted and Robin don't even feel like a good fit. They want completely different things and would have to really change who they are to be compatible. Not to mention, the last couple seasons are a steady progression of Ted letting the idea of Robin go and really coming to terms with the fact that Robin and Barney are good together and that he's going to find someone whose a good fit for him as well (and does!).

Was everyone else really rooting for them the whole time? I felt like the finale forced them together because that's what everyone wanted. It was okay to let Ted truly end up with the mother. I really liked and was rooting for Robin and Barney. I think it helped really sure up Barney as a character and member of the group. I think Robin herself was more likable with Barney. Was it for the sake of realism? (Because what are odds all three couples would last and not get divorced?) Was it for the sake of not being predictable? (Though some might argue Ted and Robin is more predictable than Ted and Tracy). Whatever the reason, I felt a little betrayed.

- I really liked the mother

In the later seasons they start to finally integrate meeting the mother back into the plot and slowly you get glimpses of how this is all going to come together. Just the fact that they were able to do that pretty seamlessly and make it all make sense without a lot of inconsistency (back to the very beginning of the story no less)---is pretty amazing.

For awhile there, the show seemed to not really be about the mother at all. How were the writers going to convince us this was in fact a story about the mother? Well, by making all the small details and relationships Ted had relevant to meeting her (and showing how they both are better off for it taking so long to meet). They do this by developing Tracy well, even so far as to spend time on her own back story. That's no easy task. They pulled it off and that made the finale feel like a slap in the face. Yep, the writers somehow manage to make you actually like the mother and convince you that she really is perfect for Ted and this was meant to be---only to just kill her off in the final episode so that he can get back together with Robin? Um...okay.

- I don't really like Robin or think she's a Feminist role model

Robin was always pretty self-centered and annoying. She gets better and funnier as the show goes and she opens up more to her friends. Barney improves her greatly (as mentioned above), but the final episode takes me back to not liking her that much. She chooses herself, and her career, over her husband, her friends, and honestly doesn't seem better off or happier for it. The fact that she doesn't conform to gender stereotypes and is pursuing her career could be an attempt to make her a strong feminist character. But how can that be seen as positive when she's famous, but unhappy; successful, but alone. She's determined, yes, but she's also incredibly self-centered. She doesn't seem like a positive role model to me.

Basically, this ending communicates that Robin will spend the next 20 years more or less miserable and with no close friends---then she will be given a happy ending that she doesn't seem to actually deserve. I mean, I'm not saying I want Robin to be miserable. I just think allowing her to find happiness with Barney, or no one at all, would have been preferable to Ted. Either I was pandered to (Ted and Robin are meant to be! Blue horn! See!?) or the writers wanted to do something different (ha! you thought he'd end up with the mother didn't you! got ya!)---either way, it felt like they didn't trust us with the ending we deserved.

Conclusion

I should note that I did like what they did with Marshall and Lily in the final season and appreciated all the ways that they tied up lose ends. Overall, I still really like the show and found it funny to the very end.

I just felt like the show had this golden opportunity to pull off a cohesive storyline around their original idea (which is hard to do). They somehow, brilliantly and slowly introduce you to the mother and create characters you love---then pull the rug out from under you.

The writers said they had two endings to choose from: the depressing, but realistic ending where the mom dies versus the alternative where the mother lives and everyone is happy, and they picked the more complex, real ending.

Why not a third ending? One that is realistic, but doesn't feel like you tricked us? Why not allow the mother to die without stomping on her memory with a forced Ted and Robin blue horn cliche? Why not allow Barney and Robin to have lots of problems but ultimately reconcile? Why not ANY other ending, really?

I thought time had given me some perspective to be okay with this ending choice, but I guess I'm still not over it.

Author Review: John Green

This post started out as a review of Looking for Alaska, but I recently finished Green's entire bibliography (for books, and he's busy making movie adaptions so I doubt he'll publish anything new any time soon) so I figured I'd just do a post of my overall thoughts about John Green's writing.

My introduction to John Green was The Fault in Our Stars which I read upon the insistence of my 12 year old niece about a month prior to the release of it's film version. I was pleasantly surprised by how much I loved that book and Green's writing so I decided to pursue his other works. I bought An Abundance of Katherines because I liked the humorous concept but it didn't grab me immediately the way TFIOS did in it's first few pages. A few months down the road Audible had a special deal on Looking for Alaska, Green's debut novel. I purchased the audio version of the book to listen to. Turns out, John Green's books translate well to spoken word. I've since listened to Paper Towns, An Abundance of Katherines and Will Grayson, Will Grayson via Audible as well. Young adult novels seem to be enjoyable in this format due to the "easy writing" style and dialogue heavy plot lines.

John Green has some what of a predictable style. All his books are plotted very similarly. Katherines, Paper Towns, and Looking for Alaska all have a teenage male protagonists who don't fit in. Each finds a place socially and secures one or two male best friends who are kind of easy going/laid back to contrast the insecurities of the main character. All of these male leads encounter strong female characters who are fascinating, mysterious, and troubled in one way or another. Much of the plot centers in some way around the pursuit of knowing and understanding (or attempting to rescue) this girl and falling in love with her along the way. Each book has a different outcome to this pursuit---one character gets the girl and is happy, one character doesn't get the girl but get's close, and one character doesn't get the girl and doesn't get closure---but they all read very similarly. His debut, Looking for Alaska, is probably the strongest of these three. It tackles difficult issues and asks hard questions. The characters in Alaska are undeniably relatable and he gives an accurate picture into boarding school life. Paper Towns comes in second with an intriguing and mysterious plot, but less than satisfying ending. An Abundance of Katherines was a disappointment. I wanted to like it, but I just didn't. Aside from a protagonist who got on my nerves, I felt like the plot never really went anywhere and the humor seemed forced. I did enjoy Will Grayson, Will Grayson, which was co-written with David Leviathan and I still love The Fault in Our Stars which I feel was strong because of his personal extreme with the subject matter and the strong female lead.

I once wrote this on Facebook about TFIOS: "It feels cliché to include this book what with all the hype and attention its gotten this year, but trust me…this is so much more than a YA romance. It’s existential, funny, full of doubt, questions, and hope. I wish it had been written just for me so I didn’t have to share or hear anyone talk about it tritely. It meant a great deal to me."

Overall I like John Green. He's a good voice to have in the YA genre because he seems to genuinely care about teenagers and wants his books to be relatable and helpful. It's good to see realistic fiction bring written for and loved by teenagers, and even better when it still can be enjoyed and meaningful for adults as well. Green is not a perfect writer, but he strikes me as being a very genuine person and that is reflected in the things he chooses to publish. (Also he's goofy, nerdy, and smart---and I like those traits as well). 

2014 Movie Recap

We all know I love movies and see a lot each year---so obviously I have to give my 2014 recap of movies that came out this year. You can see how this list compares to my most anticipated 2014 list here.

Here are the movies I saw this year:

(After writing it down it feels like a lot but this includes in theaters, on DVD, on Netflix, Red Box, at friends houses, etc. so it really comes out to about 2 or 3 movies a month and considering John Paul and I's favorite/go-to date night is watching a movie at home once a week or two and we only get to the theaters for the ones we most want to see---it's not totally unreasonable, haha).

Odd Thomas
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit
I, Frankenstein
That Awkward Moment
The Lego Movie
Vampire Academy
Winter's Tale
Pompei
Non-Stop
Anchorman 2
Divergent
Noah
Captain America: Winter Solider
Transcendence
Heaven is For Real
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Neighbors
Godzilla
Blended
X-Men Origins: Days of Future Past
Maleficient
The Fault in Our Stars
Begin Again
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
A Most Wanted Man
Edge of Tomorrow
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Giver
The Mazerunner
Interstellar
Mockingjay: Part 1
Exodus: Gods and Kings
The Hobbit
Wish I Was Here
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Lucy
Big Hero 6
Dumb and Dumber To
Into the Woods
Gone Girl
American Sniper
Big Eyes
Birdman
Whiplash

Here are the movies I have not seen yet, but intend to:

Serena
The Monuments Men
Earth to Echo
Magic in the Moonlight
The Hundred Foot Journey
The Theory of Everything
Unbroken
Blackhat

So I think the worst or most disappointing movies this year were:

Noah
A Most Wanted Man
Left Behind*
Vampire Academy

*I'm just assuming, I didn't actually see it.

Noah and A Most Wanted Man were both done really well and had some incredible acting but just failed overall as movies. Noah had some amazing visual sequences, but just really didn't deliver as far as plot, climax, and overall satisfaction (In contrast, Exodus did much better on all these fronts). A Most Wanted Man was cast perfectly and had a lot of potential but ultimately was hard to follow, a little boring, too long, and anti-climactic. Vampire Academy failed on basically every front. It was truly awful. Many YA adaptions are, but this one in particular had very little to redeem itself. Which is a shame since the books are entertaining.

My favorites are:

Intersellar
Captain America: Winter Solider (okay, all the Marvel movies)
The Lego Movie
Birdman

The Short Story

I've been reading so much lately that I haven't had much time to write about it. (And I'm always watching movies). This blog is quite neglected. I'm working through the Maze Runner series in anticipation of the film, I read all the Vampire Academy books (though it's hard to say why), finally got around to Ender's Game, reread Divergent and finished the trilogy, have been reading theology books by Keller, Stanley, and Chandler when I have the time, read the entire Selection Series, started another John Green novel and countless others that I've had to put back on the shelf for now (sorry Jesus Feminist and Cassandra Clare)

But I'm starting to get bored of YA which has dominated the past 6 months for me as I prepared for movie adaptions. I need to inject myself with some fine literature. I've decided to read some John Steinbeck novels---the funny ones---and I've gotten very into short stories as of late. I was always a fan of short stories ever since I started reading Flannery O'Connor, but I never really pursued them. Now, with less time to read, but wanting to get some high quality literature in, I'm turning to the short story.

Short stories are artful and underrated. And they can give you an appreciation for authors you may not have previously cared for.

I, for example, do not enjoy reading Hemingway. I realize he's considered a literary genius, and I understand why, but the understated and sparse writing style just isn't my cup of tea. I prefer the rich details of Faulkner. Both of these authors (both friends and rivals) represent a generation of writers that did it all. Poems, short stories, novels---nothing was out of reach. And I miss that. Modern writers are often pressured to keep to their genres and categories. It's hard to gain respect in other forms of writing once you're known for one. But back to Hemingway. I'm not a huge fan of his novels, but I'm finding that I like his short stories. They're sparse, but contained---and therefore often poignant (or infuriating).

Yes, short stories are something that we need to revive. If I was an English teacher, I might even focus on them since the provide for a quicker and easier read that is still rich enough to teach from.

Book Review: The Selection

"The Selection"

Written by: Kiera Cass

Look y'all, I like YA literature. I also have a soft spot for dystopian themes. One of my favorite adolescent books is The Giver. The Giver was somewhat innovative back in 1993 (over 20 years ago) when Lois Lowry published it. It was one of the first modern dystopian books targeted towards children and probably helped pave the way for books like The Hunger Games. The biggest challenge The Selection series faces is that YA dystopian is extremely overdone these days. What with Divergent, The Hunger Games, Ender's Game, and a slew of others---the genre is over saturated and no longer considered creative.

To it's credit, the concept for the Selection series is intriguing. It's a blend of dystopian, reality TV, and fairy tale. What girl doesn't love a good fairytale? It's like Cinderella meets the Bachelor in Panem. It was fun to read and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it. Still, it feels like a guilty pleasure. There is so much to critique. The writing, while not distractingly bad, is nothing special. The plot is extremely predictable. The characters feel a bit simplistic. A feminist critique would probably tear this book to shreds. The main character (America Singer) is arguably a strong female lead (in a predictable she challenges the prince and doesn't change who she is sort of way) but at the end of the day this a Princess book that probably makes young girls dream about wearing tiaras and fancy dresses more than leading a country. It also has quite a bit of blatant social commentary. I feel like the best social commentary or critique is the one that remains ambiguous. When you just come right out and say it the story starts to feel like the author's personal soap box, a tool to get their opinion heard, rather than a nuanced story that raises questions about the world we live in. To make matters worse, the authors acknowledgements at the end of the book sound as if they were written by a middle school girl. Perhaps a middle school girl with a gift for writing, but writing that is only considered good because she is 13.

I know that children and adolescent literature can be done well even when it's genre specific. Harry Potter is possibly the best example of a long fantasy series that is well-written, supremely plotted, and accessible to both girls and boys, adults and children, highly educated and average readers. From an purely objective position this series just isn't going to go down in history as one of the best. I predict this book will be optioned for a really terrible movie franchise (following in the footsteps of Beautiful Creatures, I am Number Four, Vampire Academy, and all the other horrid YA adaptions trying to hitch a ride on the success of Twilight and The Hunger Games) that won't make it past the first movie---but we'll see.

Is it possible to recognize that a book is not very good and still like it? Apparently so because despite all the obvious reasons to hate this book---I rather enjoyed it and plan to read the other installments.

Book Review: Shadow & Bone

"Shadow and Bone"

Written by: Leigh Bardugo

This is a pretty unique contribution to the YA/Fantasy genre. I wouldn't say the writing is amazing, but it's certainly not terrible. I enjoyed reading it. The world created by Bardugo is pretty complex (complete with LOTR style maps and categories of beings that are new and hard to keep up with at first). It seems to have very heavy Russian influences---geography, clothing style, language, etc. It's almost like an alternate history for Russia/Eastern Europe---one that takes place in a time that must have been long ago, yet has an added magical element that takes it into the fantasy realm. 

I'm interested to see where the trilogy goes from here. The story of book one was interesting and I can see what the overarching conflict of the series will be, but as a stand alone it was a bit anti-climactic and obvious to me. I am also wondering if it will get optioned for a movie and become the next big thing in YA entertainment. 

Book Review: The Fault In Our Stars

"The Fault In Our Stars"

Written by: John Green

Honestly, this review sums up my thoughts perfectly so there's no need to even write my own. The book has been on my radar basically since it was published. I heard they were turning it into a movie and thought maybe I should read it before then. A couple weeks ago my 12 year old niece finished it and insisted I read it immediately so that we could discuss it. So I picked it up and found that it caught my attention in the first couple of pages. Many good books take awhile to warm up, but it's a pleasant surprise and experience when you find one that you get sucked into right away. It's a quick read. Even just reading in my spare time it took under a week to finish. YA literature appeals to me and I often wonder if what I enjoy reading is actually any good. I think this one is. It's thoughtful and funny. It asks all the existential questions that I struggle with daily, had a witty humor and that was just my taste, and though often described as sad---I found it surprisingly hopeful.

It's possibly one of my all time favorites and I plan to read it again. I am looking forward to the movie adaption in June and have picked up a few other John Green titles to see if his other books are just as good. I hope so!

Movie Review: Noah

"Noah"

Released: March 2014

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky

Since this ended up being a controversial film I will give my conclusion upfront: As a Christian, I'm not personally offended by the movie. However, for other reasons unrelated to my faith, I did not enjoy the film and cannot give it a wholly positive review.

I will start by addressing the controversies from the perspective of someone who is both Christian and an Aronofsky fan (and a fan of film in general).

If you're a Christian then it's worth asking the question, "Can an Atheist make a movie based on a story from the Bible." The short answer is yes. Of course he can. He did. Unless Christians are proposing that they cannot make art or film based on or including any elements that aren't pulled straight from the Bible then you must allow for people of other faiths or non-faiths to enter the conversation about Christian faith. I personally find the urge to separate art into sacred and secular categories very troubling---but even if you disagree (and I understand the concern about misrepresentation) it would be impossible to achieve that separation.

There was a lot of discussion over Mr. Aronofsky being quoted to saying it was the "most unbiblical movie ever made" which a little research will tell you was taken out of context and only meant to mean that Bible stories rarely hit the big screen in such a big way. In fact, it was incredibly thoughtful and spiritual for someone who claims be be an unbeliever.

There were certainly some mystical/magical elements that would make Christians uncomfortable but for an unbeliever magical and miraculous are hard to differentiate so that should not be surprising. The articles claiming we've all been fooled and that this was a ghostic or kaballah based film I think are a reach, but seeing as it's a short story I could see Aronofsky visiting all of the creation/noah accounts that exist among a variety of religious traditions. Still, at best it would be subtly eluding to, not outright proclaiming any of those views.

I also saw a lot of commentary about biblical accuracy issues and I agree with that. It's not biblically accurate. As someone who read the biblical account prior to going to the theatre as a refresher...a lot of liberty was taken. And not just the speculative stuff (how the sons met their wives, what it was like being in the ark, etc) but the story was actually changed from what is found in the Bible. In some areas it was subtle and understandable, in others it was unnecessary and even baffling (seriously rock creatures?), and in a few areas it was drastic. The most drastic change, I felt, was the actual character of Noah. Don't get me wrong, Aronofsky's Noah was a very interesting character. He gave him a lot of layers and I think that was probably something that had to be done. However, just to be clear---the murderous, harsh Noah portrayed in this film is actually the opposite of the biblical Noah. The biblical Noah was the last "good man" on earth. There is no indication that he was violent. He was trying desperately to save people, not fighting them off. He was mocked for building the arc, which everyone knew about and thought was foolish, not trying to keep it a secret. In fact, it took him 120 years to build the arc, and when the flood came he had all of his full grown sons and their wives with him. He was certainly following what he felt God asked him to do, but he was not taking the destruction of humanity into his own hands. 

I am not angry at Aronofsky's Noah. He's exploring an idea about sin and humanity that I think is worth talking about. According to the Bible, sin is something in the heart of every man---including Noah. By saving humanity through Noah, a good man, God is also allowing sin and evil to persist. It will be back. Evil will grow, men will murder, there will be bad things in the world again. So why let man live at all? Why not just wipe man and evil out altogether? It's a great question! The answer that Christianity gives is a story of God's love and plan for the redemption of humanity. Aronofsky's answer, or non answer, has something to do with God's love for his creation as well though it's perhaps incomplete.

I really don't believe Aronofsky is trying to undermine Christianity or be blasphemous with this film. I think it's thoughtful and interesting. I enjoyed seeing an Atheist's take on the Noah story and the character of God. While he doesn't get it completely right, I am not afraid of his mistakes and have enjoyed the meaningful conversations they have raised. 

So as far as positive aspects, there were many great questions raised by the film including questions about God's nature and sin itself. Christians having to face the perception of a more wrathful OT God, God's grief over destroying his creation, and our sinful nature is a good thing I think. Also, Bible stories are rarely told on this scale. Visually there were some pretty incredible scenes. My personal favorite  was the creation/fall narrative scene which was visually stunning. And the acting is pretty good. I am a fan of Logan Lerman, Anthony Hopkins, and Emma Watson so I always enjoy their performances.

Yet, despite the positives I have to say that I did not think this was a great film overall. All controversy and inaccuracies aside, the film that was presented was itself fell short. It was mostly the story and a few of the artistic choices that killed it. The story presented was very disjointed, at times even inexplicably bizarre, and at other times just plain boring. When I saw it, I knew immediately that I didn't like it. As I've let it settle I've grown to like aspects of it more than I did at the time, but I was pretty disappointed with the film as a whole and I can't see it being a film I want to see again.

Basically, I like Aronofsky as a director and I was disappointed because I expected more. I did think it had some great elements, I'm okay with the concept of taking artistic liberties and I feel he was very thoughtful and most of the Christian backlash is unwarranted. However, despite all of that I still feel it was not a very good film. I can't seem to shake that feeling.

But to end on a positive, I stumbled upon a poem written by Aronofsky as a child about Noah that I thought was really excellent so I will conclude my review by sharing it.

Evil was in the world

The laughing crowd

Left the foolish man at his ark

Filled with animals

When the rain began to fall

It was hopeless

The man could not take the evil crowd with him

But he was allowed to bring his good family.

The rain continued through the night

And the cries of screaming men filled the air

The ark was afloat

Until the dove returned with the leaf

Evil still existed.

When the rainbows reached throughout the sky

The humble man and his family knew what it meant

The animals ran and flew freely with their newborn

The fog rose and the sun shone

Peace was in the air

And it soon appeared in all of man’s heart

He knew evil would not be kept away

For evil and war could not be destroyed

But neither was it possible to destroy peace

Evil is hard to end and peace is hard to begin

But the rainbow and the dove will always live

Within every man’s heart

Oscar Highlights 2014

I get tweet-happy once a year. I know the Oscars are not everyone's cup of tea and that any big trending event gets overwhelming and annoying on social media if it's not your thing---but we all have our indulgences. For some it's sports, for me it's movies. I love the medium of film and I genuinely enjoy when it's celebrated and recognized. The Academy Awards are one of my favorite nights of the year.

This was a year of firsts for me when it comes to the Oscars. It was the first year I had people over for an Oscar party (albiet a small low-key gathering), the first year I hosted an online twitter-party (which was a bit overwhelming but super fun), and the first year that my predictions were almost 100% correct---nothing really surprised me. That never happens.

Maybe it was the difference of watching in a group, or the fact that it was one of the most hilarious host years, or the fact that I'd seen more of the films than ever in the past---but this goes down in my mind as my favorite oscar experience to date.

Here were the highlights for me:

- Ellen 

In my opinion, Ellen is by far the best Oscar host. She is hilarious. We were all dying at everything she said the entire night. She really kept it from getting boring.

- The speeches were shorter

With a few exceptions (of course) most of the speeches were brief this year. I'm not sure anyone got played off? (Which always happens). Do they always have the countdown for speeches? If not, that really helped.

- The celebrities felt like real people

Photo-bombing, selfies, tons of prompter mistakes, tripping, ordering pizza, audience interaction, etc. The event felt a little less pretentious this year than usual. It felt less rehearsed, flawed, and refreshing. Sometimes we forget that celebrities are actually people. (Who knew?)

- Benedict Cumberbatch

- In memoriam

This is one of my favorite segments each year because it's a little history of film lesson. Major highlights for me this year were Peter O'Toole and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

- The music

The music is usually pretty good for an awards show that isn't really about music, but not many years give the mix we got this year---from iconic rock band (U2), to stage legend (Bette), tony-winner (Idina), and top 40 favorites (Pink, Pharrell)---it was an eventful year. No big musicals this year, but a fun mix none the less.

- Twitter

Ellen broke twitter and the RT record. Since twitter is just for FUN I have to say this was a funny/fun thing to happen and will be ignoring the obligatory backlash of criticism about our current culture/celebrity worship, etc. It was a pretty cool picture.

- Speaking of Twitter, along with the expected Oscar trending #slaverystillexists was also trending.

I know that trending can be more a reflection of slacktivism than true progress (it is called "trending" after all) but awareness IS the first step to progress and this is the first time (that I can remember) that someone used a movie about civil-war era slavery as a platform to talk about modern day slavery. It always bothers me when slavery is talked about in past tense and the current issues are ignored so this was a surprise and high point for me.

Alright, those were the highlights for me. That's a wrap.

P.s. I didn't expect Leo to win but I'm still disappointed that he's an oscar shut out. He gets nominated so often and his acting is so great---I really want to see him get some recognition someday.

Philip Seymour Hoffman

Reposted from my Facebook page:

"Celebrity Deaths: Thoughts on Fandom, Social Media, and Philip Seymour Hoffman"

Philip Seymour Hoffman died yesterday. 

I know, I know. When a celebrity or famous person dies the question arises as to whether or not those of us who do not know him have any right to mourn the or even talk about it. Today there will likely be many memorializing and others pointing out the absurdity of celebrity culture and fandom. Facebook will be riddled with people talking about it, people annoyed that people are talking about it, people trying to point others to the "big picture", people acting the mans character, many many quotations and complaints, and probably a few jokes or memes. Honestly, I find the whole predictable and repeated spectacle exhausting and wish that people could simply react or not react without the obligatory social media circus. 

Personally, I don't mind if people want to use social media to cope or react to something like the passing of a celebrity. It's okay if a stranger had an impact on you. I understand the annoyance that comes with misinformation, idolizing strangers, bickering, and the need to share every thought on every event or issue...I really really do. But I feel there has to be at least some level of tolerance for all of that if we are choosing to stay on social media. 

There are more cases than not when I feel no need to react. Any sort of commentary on a man's character whether praise or criticism is a little reaching when you don't know the person. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to have an emotional reaction. Our reactions just differ depending on the things we value or the people whose words/art/work impacted us individually. 

Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of my all time favorite actors. I was honestly very shocked and saddened by the news. As I get older anytime I hear about ANY death of someone who is much to young to be dying, it makes me feel sad in that moment. In this case it lingers because I love the art of film and I feel the medium experienced a significant loss. Not for the person (because I did not know him personally) but for the art of the person. He was an excellent actor. One of the best I believe. I often told John Paul that I expected a movie to be good simply because he was in it. He had the extremely rare gift of being able to play most any roll well and could play a variety of villains, heros, and ordinary men without ever making me cast him as one type of character in my mind. He appeared in both artistic and commercial films. Everything from oscar-winning Capote to crowd pleasing Mission Impossible III. I feel that there were many roles yet to be played that we are now deprived of and I think about the roles that were half-complete that will now have to be recast (Mockingjay?!?) and yes, I feel a loss. Admittedly not for the man, but for the actor certainly. 

This kind of loss is the sort that feels unreal...like a joke...like you'll see them again in a movie next year... because there's no closure when you know the artist and not the man.

This was a great article about Hoffman and talks a bit about the tragedy of drug addiction as well (I really hope I don't see too many comments about this being his own fault, selfish, etc) and I particularly enjoyed this quote which sums up this rather long post:

"His death feels a touch more personal, because he was a deeply personal actor. True, he was technically a celebrity, but he hardly fit the mold. No, Philip Seymour Hoffman was the best of what Hollywood had to offer: a man who saw acting as a calling, who studied it as a craft, and who delivered it as an artist."

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/recommends/2014-02-03

2014: Anticipated Movies

A ridiculous amount of movies get made each year nowadays.

You may or not know this about me, but I LOVE the art of film. I often stay on top of upcoming projects by the directors and actors I like, follow book adaptions from authors I enjoy, and have fun predicting what movie we're watching a preview for before they get to the title in the theatre. They make so many movies these days that I never get around to seeing more than a handful of what is released each year. Even movies on my "to see" list can go unseen for years. Nevertheless, here is a list of movies I'm anticipating in 2014:

Serena
Divergent
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Captain America: The Winter Solider
The Hobbit: There and Back Again
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Exodus
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
The Fault in Our Stars
Noah
Into the Woods
Dumb and Dumber To
The Giver
Resident Evil 6

These are all contenders for my movie-going allotment for 2014. Many of these will be seen in the theatre and some will not be seen until much later.

There are several other films I know I probably see in the theatre (save a few my family insists on seeing) but may watch later on like The Grand Budapest Hotel, Godzilla, Hercules, RoboCop, Vampire Academy, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, I, Frankenstein, How to Train your Dragon 2, Maleficent, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Pompeii, Winter's Tale, Sin City 2, Gone Girl, and Annie.

And this just scratches the surface...there are tons of movies other people are probably really looking forward to that I have no desire to see (ranging from Left Behind to 22 Jump Street).

Movie/Book Review: The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

"The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones"

Released August 2013

Directed by: Harald Zwart

It's always hard to know whether to read the book first or watch the movie first when a movie comes out based on a book you'd planned to read eventually. The reader in me knows the book is going to be better and loves judging how the movie succeeded or failed at capturing the characters and story. Typically that's the order I go with. Books are just better if you don't know how they end. However, it's hard to really judge whether or not a movie succeeded on it's own accord when you already know the story. You can much more honestly of assess a movie when you don't have any background going into it.

In the case of  The Mortal Instruments, the series was barely on my radar. I enjoy young adult literature but this is an oversaturated genre, especially the paranormal romance branch. However, I follow Veronica Roth on twitter and she mentioned seeing the movie in August. A little research on the concept peaked my interest and I decided I wanted to see it but waited until it was at Redbox to rent since my expectations were pretty low. (I bought the book weeks before I rented the movie but it sat in my "to read" pile until after I viewed the movie).

Overall the movie was...okay. It wasn't terrible (which is what I expected going in). The acting was alright (nothing mind blowing but also not so bad that it was a huge distraction). It was produced well and interesting enough to cause me to immediately start reading the book and to be glad they're already working on the second movie. Still, it failed in some pretty important areas.

The Story---On it's own, without any background on the story, I found the movie to be a bit confusing and ambiguous (as did my husband who watched it with me). The background stories that were meant to add clarity just left you scratching your head. Now that I'm into the second book I can see that they were just trying to foreshadow some later revelations but I felt it just muddied the waters. There was more than enough ground to cover in the first movie without trying to set yourself up for a a second by eluding to everything that is to come. The action was disjointed and the characters were not developed very well. I felt all of the characters were underdeveloped and rushed. The romance and subsequent "twist" were both extremely abrupt. Other things would be thrown into the story seemingly just to "get them in there" (because they are in the book) even though they didn't really work up to it (Alec being gay, the similarity in Jocelyn and Luke's relationship to Clary and Simons), etc. It was frustrating even before I read the book. I actually started reading the book right away because I wanted to fill in holes that were really blatant in the movie. I've seen enough adaptions that get it right to know that this movie failed to present the cohesive dynamic story that they could have presented.

The Changes---After reading the book, I realized that they actually kept most of the book intact (at least until the end). They even kept a lot of dialogue the same. The story follows the book pretty closely and doesn't leave out any major events or characters. They changed the right things (having Simon stay human rather than turn into a rat was the right call, combining some of the early events that were spread out over days into a single day was a good move for film) but a few changes were unnecessary or rushed when they were important enough to slow down for. And again, often they rushed into telling you things that happen later in the trilogy and it just isn't necessary to do that. It's okay to hint at things, but I felt like this movie just skipped over some of the best drama of the books and told you what was coming. Spoiler alert, geez.

Directing/Acting---I don't know a ton about Zwart other than the fact that he seems to specialize in movies for a younger demographic. Lily Collins performance was acceptable, but not remarkable. I think her look is perfect for Clary but I'm still on the fence on her as an actress overall. She is hit and miss for me (see The Blind Side, Mirror Mirror, Abduction). I often misidentify her as Vanessa Hudgens (who is a terrible actress) but in reality she's Phil Collins daughter (which is kind of cool). Jaime Campbell Bower you may know from Twilight. He has kind of a creepy unconventional look but it worked for me. I think the British accent helped. He seemed to get Jase. Jase wasn't developed well in the movie, but that was the writer's fault, not Bowers. He did the best he could with what he had. The casting that just really didn't work for me was Valentine (Jonathan Rhys Meyers)---who I don't remember ever thinking was a bad actor previously so maybe it was the script, and Alec (Kevin Zegers) who was particularly bad. The casting for Jocelyn and Magnus Bane were the best overall I think even though they were smaller roles. Clary/Jase/Hodge worked, and the rest were simply not memorable one way or the other.

Conclusion---I can't say it was a good movie, but it was a enough to get me interested in the book which has been much better than its counterpart so far. I plan to read the series and see the next installment when it's released.

"The Mortal Instruments"

Written by: Cassandra Clare

The ending to the book was so much better than the movie. Though the end result was basically the same, it played out quite differently. The biggest difference is that the big twist is implied to be a farce in the film and it certainly is believable in the book. The first book mentions nothing about it being untrue. In fact, it's a huge revelation for everyone in the story that just makes sense. It's completely believable and if I hadn't seen the movie I may have bought into it (though of course it's somewhat obvious that the author can't allow it to stand. It's much to risque for a teen fantasy series). I can only assume that the movie skipping ahead to the big reveal was done to keep the audience invested in the romance. 

Obviously the biggest advantage to the written word is character development. Jase has a lot more depth in the book (torrid dark backstory) and is more fun in general (more jokes, more sarcasm). Simon is much more of a contender for Clary's affection in the book as well which makes for a bit of a love triangle that is present in the movie but not emphasized nearly as much. The book certainly filled in the gaps that the movie failed to present. The story makes so much more sense. The world, the background stories---they are much more cohesive. That isn't to say that the books are brilliant, important additions to literature. They're aren't. They are pure entertainment and not much else. They're quick and easy to read. They're addictive in the same way that a WB TV show might compare to an HBO show. Clare is no Hemingway. Clare is definitely marketing to teens. But the concept is unique enough, the story is dynamic enough, the characters are layered enough, to make the books addictive and fun. Anything that gets teens reading has my vote and I am enjoying the series immensely. 

Best ____ Lists

In 2011 I compiled a list of actors that, in my opinion, were the "7 Worst Actors in Hollywood." Worst actors ever probably isn't fair. I'm sure there are worse actors and some of these guys even appear in some good movies. But when it comes to actors who are really successful despite having really poor acting skills (which you think would be essential to their careers)---these were the men who made my list.

That list included Paul Walker. I know that he recently died and I don't want to seem crass by mentioning him...he was a person and death is always serious and tragic for those closest to the deceased. This is not a comment on his character or person, but seeing friends on my FB feed mourning the loss of this stranger on the grounds that the was an amazing actor was hard to swallow. Literally a day or two before his death I watched the movie Timeline for the first time and was just blown away at how bad his acting was. I don't think its disrespectful to continue to hold an opinion I've always held.

All of that to say, I've decided to highlight some actors that I feel are very talented. I'm also feeling inspired by the numerous top movies list that are circulating lately so I'm going to do some best/top lists. These lists will just be for fun and completely one woman's opinion, but I think most will agree that these actors at least good at their craft, if not among the best.

Book Review: After Dead

"After Dead"

Written by: Charlaine Harris

Charlaine Harris fans are the worst.

Okay there are probably worse fans out there, but honestly, Harris fans drive me completely bonkers. Fan-culture and the internet are kind of ruining certain sects of literature (an impacting them all). Fans should never dictate the art in my opinion. For that matter, boycotts of art based on the creators personal views is especially ridiculous. Judging whether or not something is "good" based on feelings about the character of the author is kind of crazy to me and if historically famous works were held to that standard then we would lose many of the greats. An authors background can inform the text but should never be used against it when it comes to making a fair assessment of the writing quality. A plot should never be changed to suit the whims of readers. Characters and stories belong to the imagination of the author and it would be nothing but intellectually dishonest to not write them any other way.

Harris fans have been whining for years, mostly over the love interests and who should end up with Sookie. Now it seems that Harris can do nothing to please when it comes to Sookie. Maybe an argument could be made that her story/writing can't be considered successful because she was unable to round it out in a way that left most any reader saying "of course." But honestly, I just feel sorry for her. I think she's found herself at a point in her career where success is threatening her creativity. 

I had mixed feelings about the last Sookie installment, but I still ordered After Dead. As a fan of the series, I think this was one of the nicest things Charlaine ever did for fans. She definitely didn't have to do it. It was a very short, quick read. Most could probably finish it in about 15-30 minutes easy. Personally, I liked it. It was nice to have one more Sookie addition to look forward to and I found myself smiling and laughing at many of the character notes. I also felt some closure in getting to take a peek into the future and see where everyone ended up. I genuinely enjoyed After Dead.

Alas, my positive review is apparently abnormal. After reading several pages of customer reviews I found that (naturally) Sookie fans were appalled by this book and basically feel that Harris is horrible human being for publishing it. Here is what I take to be the general fan consensus (at least on the site I was on): After Dead is a waste of money because it's so short. An 11 year old could have written it (this one seems mostly based on the fact that some characters only had a line or two). It included too many small characters we barely remember. It's overpriced. 

After reading the negative reviews, I honestly just felt exasperated. I feel like the reviews were written by people who just didn't "get" what the book was suppose to be doing. In light of that I have a few responses.

Here is what I would suggest that fans keep in mind with this book:

- This is an index, not another novel or even a short story.

Complaints about there not being enough plot or descriptions being too short are laughable to me. THIS IS NOT ANOTHER SOOKIE NOVEL. This is the equivalent of a reference book. It's an alphabetical listing of almost all characters that appears in the Sookie novels (even if only briefly) for anyone who has any interest in that character and seeing what happened to them. To only put major characters or to write short stories rather than afterthoughts would change it into something else entirely. I feel it's completely unfair to criticize Harris's writing skills just because some characters only had a line or two. The characters with only a line or two are generally not major characters and their fates are fitting. They didn't deserve more than a line and quite frankly those were some of the most humorous moments of the book for me.

- If you didn't like the ending to the series, there is probably no chance you will be pleased since there are no big revelations that change the way things went. 

I honestly think most fans were upset simply because they were hoping Harris would "change her mind" about how the series would end. She didn't. If that's what you're looking for, you will be disappointed. 

- If you think it's too expensive, then don't buy it. 

Yes, it's a quick read. If you feel $10 is too much, that's fine---there are libraries, audiobooks, and e-reader versions that are less expensive or free. You could probably sit in Barnes and Noble and read it start to finish on your lunch break. If you are a friend of mine, I'll let you borrow my copy. Or you could always wait for the inevitable paperback release. This was one of the silliest critiques to me because it had nothing to do with the content of the book. It seemed like people were offended and assumed Harris was just trying to make another buck off of Sookie. I don't buy that. If Harris just wanted to make money she could continue writing Sookie novels forever and rake in loads of cash. Publisher's set book prices, not authors. A publisher is going to sell a book at the highest price they know they can for it without hurting overall sales. It's selling so they obviously got it right. This is a hardcover book in a very popular series. I'd be shocked if it cost any less. I wanted to complete my collection with the first addition so this was a non-issue for me. If it it is for you: borrow it, rent it, or don't read it. 

I realize that this is sort of a defensive post and it may be a little heavy handed. Harris is not my favorite author, but I have enjoyed her Sookie books and feel the need to rant just a little at the unfair (at times irrational) standard fans hold her too. 

Upcoming: World War Z

This is a rare "before" post. My thoughts about an upcoming movie before I see it.

I remember seeing a trailer for World War Z months ago. My initial feelings were mixed. The zombie genre has gotten trendy. Much like with the vampire craze spurred by the Twilight films, I've felt like the zombie craze has ruined zombies a bit. Anytime something becomes popular you tend to lose quality. And there are a lot of zombie films and books floating around that are pretty awful. With any of these genres the popularity often leads to a "falling out." No matter how interesting or creative, new movies and films with imaginary and fantasy characters tend to be met with groans and "not another one" comments. That was basically my first thought:  Oh, no. Another zombie film. But I did pause at the fact that it stared Brad Pitt and looked kind of different (super speedy aggressive zombies?) I didn't give it much thought after that though.

I love the fantastical and I love the post apocalypic/dystopian genre. The latter has inevitably led me to zombies. Especially the more realistic vein that is full of social commentary and themes about human nature and survival.

Now that the movie is just one week away I've realized that I'm excited.

Here are some of the things that have gotten me excited over the last few months:

- Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt's production companies had a bidding war over the screen rights to the novel

I'm a firm believer that Leo knows good scripts. He almost universally chooses really good movies to be apart of. Brad Pitt's choices have also gotten better and better as he's matured as an actor. I've become a big fan of them both and I generally trust their judgement when it comes to project selection. So when these two actors are fighting over something, you know there's probably something unique or special about it.

- It's being directed by Marc Forster (Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Quantum of Solace, etc.) I find this to be a promising choice.

- The Book

The book is so much more than I expected. I haven't finished it yet, but I'm part way through and loving it. It's written like an oral history made up of individual accounts. So far it's unique, well-researched, well-written, and interesting. It's not campy or over the top...it feels completely plausible. If society collapsed and this was one of the only books to survive I'm pretty sure people would believe there had been an actual zombie war and probably be on their guard for the walking dead.

- The screen play was written by J. Michael Straczynski

Nerds rejoice? Straczynski is the writer of many comic books and Babylon 5. I'm not extremely familiar with his work but if you're going to do a movie about zombies it should be written by someone nerdy. who knows science fiction and fantasy so I feel pretty good about this choice.

- Brad Pitt

Have you seen him lately? He's getting better looking with age. The long hair/scruff combo in this movie just does it for me. And John Paul. And anyone with a pulse. *swoon*

Movie Review: Beautiful Creatures

"Beautiful Creatures"

Released February 2013

Directed by: Richard LaGravenese

I had only a vague interest in seeing this in the theater. I'd never heard of it before and it seemed like white noise in the overdone romantic fantasy genre. Finding out it was based on a popular YA novel didn't really help its cause. 

However, with a supporting cast that boasts names like Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson, Viola Davis and Emmy Rossum I thought this might be one of those "secretly good" movies. 

I was wrong. 

LaGravenese is predominantly a writer who seems to be trying to branch out into directing. Production wise, this movie is pretty standard. The effects aren't fake looking, the movie doesn't feel low budget at all. I can only assume that it's the story that is lacking. 

The concept had potential but it never really developed. The character development was rushed and unsatisfying. The mythology was a poorly explained. As usual, the romance evolved so fast that it was impossible to buy into. Add to all of this distractingly terrible southern accents from the main characters and southern stereotypes galore...

Thumbs down.

Book Review: The Sookie Stackhouse/Southern Vampires Series

**SPOILER ALERT**

I'm going to be talking about the SPECIFIC details of how this series ends and if you haven't read the final book yet or plan to read the series in the future this post will utterly ruin everything...so stop reading immediately.

"Dead Ever After"

(and the entire Sookie series)

By: Charlaine Harris

My original plan was to review the final book in the Sookie series, Dead Ever After. But then I realized that really what I wanted to talk about was the series as a whole now that it's over. I just finished the final installment so these thoughts fall squarely into the "initial feelings" category and may develop more fully over time.

I want to start by saying that I like Charlaine Harris. I enjoy her books. She lands solidly in the mystery genre but has added urban fantasy into her most recent stories (I'd still call them mysteries though). She is a commercial author and a very decent writer. If I was giving an honest review of her talents and the books place in the overall history of literature this review might be more negative, but I find a lot of value in books that are accessible to the masses and written for sheer enjoyment (satisfying, exciting, yet not dumbed down). With Ms. Harris you aren't distracted by poor writing, which is more than I can say about many urban fantasy writers that are currently popular. Compared to younger writers in her genre, I'd point out that her writing is more mature. And it should be after over four successful series, tons of work (editing, collaborating) in the field, and several decades of writing (her first commercially successful book was published in 1990). I actually think the success of the Sookie series (probably due to True Blood) has been more of curse for her than a blessing in a lot of ways (this article articulates this thought better than I can). She has lost a lot of control over her own writing due to publisher and fan expectations. The popularity of the HBO adaption trickled over into the books and that has made Sookie her most successful series to date. It's popular and I'm sure financially she's doing just fine. People reading your books is really all an author can hope for. At any rate. these books are incredibly entertaining and the characters are engaging. I am a fan of the series. I enjoyed Sookie's world and I will miss her. 

Now on to the specifics...

Although there are aspects of the series and story that I wasn't necessarily a fan of, in general the books were addictive and fun. I read the first ten installments in a three month period. Waiting for the final three books year by year was torture.

Here's a break down of what I enjoyed about this series (as a whole):

- Setting

I'm a Southern girl born and raised. These days I live in the Northeast and love it, but I often miss the unique culture of the South. These stories take me home. Harris is really great at pulling you into the "every day" and showing what small town Southern life is actually like. You even get a glimpse into how that upbringing effects your whole being since this story puts you inside Sookie's head. I really can't get into writers that leave out the details, and yet it takes a good writer to include details in a way that's not distracting or forced. I never felt that way about Sookie.

- Protagonist

Sookie is a likeable heroine. I didn't always agree with her, she wasn't always good, but you had to admit that she felt very real. She was flawed, but caring. She was strong and independent. She was a size 10, not a size 2. She was relatable but other. The details Harris includes were nostalgic and felt natural. I enjoyed the way Harris included Sookie's daily life: every day chores, southern cooking, shopping on a budget, reading etc. It added to the story and who she was (for me) without seeming unnecessary or distracting. Being in Sookie's head is different than most first person stories because Sookie is a telepath. You not only knew what was going on in Sookies head but you also knew a lot of other characters thoughts because of her special talent. Sookie is a great protagonist. That's precisely why she is so loved.

- The "Sookie-verse"

Honestly, these books were some of the first I'd read in the urban fantasy genre that really stuck (more than not) to traditional folklore (at least then it came to vampires). When you can get mythical creatures integrated into this century and it be "believable"---then you're getting somewhere. When authors off-handly change folklore to suit their needs, it annoys me. This is one of the reasons I appreciate authors like Tolkien and Rowling so much. Rowling was a mythology major so the Harry Potter universe can hold dozens, maybe hundreds, of different creatures in a believable way. Tolkien's world was so expansive that even if it differed it hardly mattered because he was so consistent. While authors are certainly allowed to create all new creatures and rules for their stories, when it comes to vampires I appreciate the effort to keep them apart of a bigger history.

I can't say that Harris succeeded one hundred percent at creating a consistent universe or that she stuck to folklore with all her characters. The non-vampire characters strike me as more "make it up as you go". Most of them seem to fit okay, with the exception of the Fae. This is one mythological creature that her version of distracted me a bit. By the time she started introducing them, however, I was already hooked on the series. Still, the story ultimately revolves around vampires.

What vampires can and can't do is really specific to the author and their version of vampires. Authors like Stephenie Meyer have gotten a lot of flack for creating vampires that don't fit tradition. Some authors I can forgive for this. Deborah Harkness, for example, has a very non-traditional day walking vampire in her trilogy but the books are so seamlessly integrated into a pretty "accurate" historical narrative that it's hard not to be impressed. The bottom line is that there's been a lot of vampire variations in the last decade or two. From two lines in the book explaining away the known facts about vampires as rumors to books that try to fit their vampires into hundreds of years of tradition. Harris is, more or less, the latter. Her vampires are burned by the sun and only come out at night for example. This is what initially appealed to me most about her stories. It was refreshing to see vampires who acted like vampires. Beyond that...the way they fit into our world, the politics, etc are really up to the author.

The universe that Harris created for her character Sookie is pretty elaborate and all the characters individual stories are interconnected. The continuity of her books is not as good as say, the Harry Potter series, but Harris has admitted that as the world grew it kind of got away from her. Not everything ties together perfectly from Book 1 to Book 13. However, she knew pretty early on how she intended to end the series and I think she starts foreshadowing the ending early on in the series. As I read Book 13  I could see where she was going with it. It just made sense. (That isn't to say that I knew how the whole "who-dun-it" mystery would end, but just how Sookie's story itself would "end."

Overall I think the books progressively get weaker, but that doesn't mean that Harris is a bad writer or that they are bad books. It's just part of a series going on for so long. It all get's a little bit out of hand over time.

Thoughts on Dead Ever After:

Honestly, I am left feeling somewhat unsatisfied with this last installment. Since I started to see the ending unfold early in the book, by the end I was okay with it. Initially I was somewhat satisfied and okay with the direction Harris took. It was logical. The book is written to give Sookie closure. When I started it I wondered how Sookie could ever live post-vampires. I wondered if Harris would kill off Sookie's character in some kind of dramatic conclusion. I'm glad she didn't, but it made for a less exciting book. There was a serious lack of vampires and vampire related drama. There was a serious lack of Bill and Eric. While there was suspense and mystery surrounding the arrest of Sookie (this books major plot line) and the return of many past characters, everything was designed to give closure, to tie up all the loose ends neatly. And that's fine.

I'm not upset with Charlaine Harris. All the harassment she's gotten over the series from fans is ridiculous. Call me a traditional, but I don't think authors should ever bend to their fans. I prefer my authors recluse and obsessed with their art over this new breed of celebrity author (that does talk shows and runs fan sites complete with playlists and contests). Sookie is Harris's character and the series is her story. She shouldn't have to change her story to appease fans. Her books shouldn't end up on a "worst of" list simply because her fans who preferred a different ending or plot direction.

"The Ending" and "The One"

The on-going debate has always been who should Sookie end up with (romantically). There are a variety of camps and they all feel very strongly about their choice. The main romantic interest debate is  Bill vs. Eric. But Alcide, Quinn, Sam and even Calvin also have their supporters.

As far as the books go, personally I was always a fan of Bill. I was a bit upset when Harris started demonizing him and shifting gears to Eric. I always wanted Sookie to come back to Bill in the end because I felt like his love was the most pure. The reason I love Bill is because I always root for the "original" love interest. Bill was first, things got messy, but I always wanted them to find their way back to each other. This isn't very realistic. I didn't marry my first love after all, and I'm glad I didn't. But there is just something about literature that makes you not want to let go of that first love. I was rooting for Bill.

I read somewhere that Harris had originally planned to kill Bill off mid series. Her publisher made her change the story. This was a smart move on the publisher's part, but I think ultimately the wrong one. While at the time I'm sure I would have been devastated and angry at her for killing Bill, in retrospect I wish she had. Killing Bill would have accomplished several things. 1.) I'd have been able to move on to a different love interest. Instead, I always held out for Bill (to the very end). Since she doesn't end up with Bill, it would have been nice to grow attached to someone else. 2.) Bill could have died with dignity. I think I'd have felt more closure about Bill's character if Sookie had forgiven him, even loved him again, and then lost him. 3.) Lastly, and this is tied to point 2, Bill's character needed that closure. Bill's character popped up every so often in the latter books and he was in the final book. However, it wasn't Bill. It was new Bill. It was friend-Bill. And it felt odd. He seemed weaker. He seemed more conventional. He went from being a main character and epic love interest---this huge part of Sookie's life to being...a neighbor. You barely see Bill in Dead Ever After and he just loses his Bill-ness.

I never hated Eric. In fact, on the show True Blood I preferred him. (Probably because I find Alex Scarsgard more attractive than Stephen Moyer). I liked that Sookie seemed to tame Eric and he was so much more mysterious than Bill. If Bill had died, I think I could have gotten on board with Eric whole heartedly. The entire time I read the book I was waiting for some kind of grand gesture or explanation for Eric's actions. Some way they could end up together or for either Eric or Sookie to die in some kind of heroic act/expression of their love. That didn't happen. Again, Eric was barely in the book at all. It was disappointing and it just felt odd that the relationship (again, epic) fell away so quickly without a much of a fight.

Both romances were these big constants and to see them both barely featured in the last book just felt wrong. Readers have been so invested in both Bill and Eric and their relationships with Sookie. The decision to basically write them out of the story left me with the feeling the story wasn't really over...like I'll be waiting purpetually for something else to happen...

Quinn was my least favorite of the love interests but I did like him and I liked Alcide for that matter. It was kind of crazy how many love interests entered Sookie's life in so short a time---it was almost hard to keep up. Any one of them could have easily ended up being "the one". But Harris chose Sam. It was the logical choice. Sookie and Sam had been as close as family for the entire series. There were hints of attraction here and there but he wasn't the exciting choice. The reason it's the best choice is because it's the only way Sookie can live on and live normally. Sookie was human and wanted to stay human. In order for Sookie to retain her family, community, and have a family of her own---she needs normalcy. She's never had that with a vampire. All of the vampire drama and politics had to sort itself out in this book in order for her to be capable of having that separate life (in order for her to "live-on" at all). Bill and Eric had to be out of the picture. Sookie had to be in a position of not being used by vampires anymore and in a place where she wouldn't be bothered in their absence. Harris pulled that off. It was the only ending that gave Sookie that closure.

And that's probably why I don't feel all that satisfied. The whole Sookie series was about vampires and the drama of it all. You half expect a dramatic ending or for the story to go on forever. After all we'd been through with Sookie...I guess it was anti-climatic. After all the tension between Bill and Eric...neither get the girl.

I'm okay with it.

The fact is...I can't think of a better ending. Even though I feel less than satisfied with this ending (and miss the feeling the older books gave me), it was probably the right one. Probably.

Closing Thoughts / Now What?

Overall, I will always be a fan of Sookie. And I don't have to let go of her just yet. I still haven't finished all the short stories that fall into the Sookie-verse and After Dead is releasing this fall with conclusions ("what happened next") for nearly all the other characters in the book. I'm looking forward to that.

I heard a rumor that Charlaine Harris's next series will have fantasy elements as well so perhaps there will be a "new Sookie" to love.

Thanks for writing, Charlaine.

TV Show Review: The Black Donnellys

I really wish Networks would stop cancelling good shows based on a poor rating or low viewer numbers during the first couple of episodes. Shows need time to warm up. Anyone who has ever watched the first season or two of Friends knows this. Friends was one of the most successful shows of all time and yet the first two seasons are kitschy and loaded with sitcom cliches. It took a few seasons to develop the characters and gain momentum but it became extremely successful and pretty hilarious.

Fox is notorious for canceling shows. I mean any network that cancels an Emmy winning comedy with a cult-like following (Arrested Development) is insane. Fox has cancelled dozens upon dozens of shows. My only inclination as to why is that if the show is not immediately a SMASH, then it's not worth keeping (I'm thinking of Glee and Family Guy, although even the wildly popular Family Guy was cancelled and brought back). It's strange to me that this would seem logical since usually, I don't start watching a show until I hear it's good from other people (often 1-2 seasons in). I'm still trying to forgive them for canceling Firefly and Tera Nova (okay, the acting in Tera Nova wasn't great, but it had potential) and any time a new show that is good comes along, I cringe if it's on Fox. I'm pretty nervous about the fate of New Girl even with the initial success.

While Fox is the most notorious, all networks are guilty. It was NBC that cancelled The Black Donnelly's after only airing two episodes. This was a genuinely good show that I'm confident would have gained popularity if given time. In fact, I have a teeny bit of data to back that up. When NBC cancelled the show they decided to stream the rest of the season online. It did well. It was second only to their already popular Heroes.

I didn't discover the show until this past year (thanks to Netflix and my husband who remembered loving the first couple of episodes when they aired). It's a great show. Just read the Wikipedia article and you get the sense that it was a great concept. The show was inspired by real world families and locations that give it a credible and true to life feeling. While the mob and organized crime have always been a popular subject matter, it's the Donnelly family that really keeps you invested in this show. I loved (and hated) the characters on this show and while the show is certainly dark, there is the comedic relief found in an unreliable narrator and the relationship between brothers. In the midst of all the violence and drama you find yourself hopeful and invested.

Luckily, the first season stands alone pretty well but I'm still disappointed there's not more.