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.

Book Review: Speak

"Speak"

Written by: Laurie Halse Anderson

I'm not sure how well known this book is---it seems to have earned some recognition and it was turned into a movie so I imagine I'm just a bit behind in the ball game here. I picked it up on a paperback table at Barnes and Noble for new editions. Strangely enough, with no prior knowledge of the book, I read the back cover and was hooked. I liked the premise and I had to see how it ended, so I bought it impulsively.

I had it finished within 24 hours. I'm not sure if it's just a quick read or if I'm just getting to be a faster reader but I really liked it and me finishing a book that quickly is unprecedented. It is an angsty teenage coming of age story nuanced with a lot of serious realities. Despite the fact that I had nothing truly in common with the character, I identified with her. It was so honest and felt so real. Her writing style was a little different and somewhat vague on descriptions which was a little distracting at times for me, but overall she was successful.

All I can say without spoiling the story for others is that I thought the story was very beautiful.

When I found out it was turned into film in 2004 I got a little excited. Then I found out the Kristen Stewart played the main character. Honestly...I can see her being this character, but I still was disappointed since I don't really respect Kristen Stewart as an actress. She's always rubbed me the wrong way. Still, outside of Twilight her attempt seems to be to do difficult roles...so...good luck Kristen. If I see the movie I'll probably review it. Until then...read the book.

---Noelle

Book Review: Mockingjay

"Mockingjay"

Written by: Suzanne Collins

Well I finished the trilogy. I've been meaning to write my review so this isn't super fresh on my mind. I liked the book, I like the series a lot. I found that this was my least favorite of the three. I've heard all sorts of different feelings about series...everyone seems to love the first one, the second and third are mixed. For me, I liked them all but progressively less as I went. I was still excited and a little addicted, and I am satisfied with how it came together. I guess I was just hoping for an ending a little more mind blowing. As I sat reading the story I tried to come up with my own ending and I really couldn't think of anything that wouldn't be nuanced. The concept for the Hunger Games was a fabulous one, but a brilliant ending that leaves you breathless and deep in thought---those are hard to come by. A writer has to be truly brilliant and rare to pull something like that off. Collins ending for the series was fine, just not mind blowing. 

But hey, you know they must be pretty good if I can get my husband to read AND finish them.

---Noelle

Book Review: Catching Fire

"Catching Fire"

Written by: Suzanne Collins

Yep, that's right. I'm going to review each book in The Hunger Games trilogy one at a time (and as I finish them for that matter). I'd probably have a better perspective if I reflected on them as a whole but I like to document my honest first impressions after reading.

I was most worried about book two since it seems to be most peoples least favorite. Was is because I had low expectations that I found it so addicting? Book one was great, no doubt, but I found book two equally as addictive---maybe more so. The entire book kept me hooked and practically shaking with excitement at Katniss's most defiant moments throughout. As is often the case with a middle story, the end was a bit ubrupt. It didn't come together quite as well as the first but helped explain the discontent with the book that I did not at all understand until the last page. I can understand why some people would be less drawn to the book as a stand alone story when it ended so quickly. Perhaps the ending was a bit weak, but it didn't bother me because I knew the third was waiting patiently to wrap the story up.

Still, so far this series has not disappointed me. Yes, it's complete "up my alley" so I may be more enthusiastic than it's due, but I absolutely love it.

As a side note, now that I'm attached to the characters, I let myself check out the cast of the upcoming film to see what I thought about them. I'm skeptical. There are a few characters that I think "Yes, that totally works" like for instance Donald Sutherland as President Snow or Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket. In fact, most all the adults seem like good choices. The only one I'm on the fence about is Haymitch being played by Woody Herrelson, but I think it could work. It'll be interesting to see his interpretation of Haymitch. While Prim seems casted well, the other kids are the casting I'm most skeptical about. After all, they carry the story. My first reaction to the casting for Katniss was "Nononono!" but after further review, I think it may be okay. I'm a little upset about the casting for Gale and Peeta...not sure I believe in the acting skills of these kids. But...at the end of the day...we'll just have to wait and see. They could completely surprise me and they do look the part. The only casting choice that I am truly upset about is Lenny Kravitz as Cinna. Cinna is one of my favorite characters and I don't think Lenny Kravitz has any business acting. For him to win me over as Cinna will take a small miracle.

---Noelle

Book Review: The Hunger Games

"The Hunger Games"

Written by: Suzanne Collins

Okay so the short version of this review is: I LOVED THIS BOOK!

Over a year ago, my best friend Leah recommended The Hunger Games trilogy to me thinking I would like it. It was post apocolyptic/dystopian (my favorite genre) and supposedly one of those series intended for youth that ends up being better than a lot of adult literature. I went out a bought the first book a couple weeks later. And there it sat, collecting dust on my book shelf for months upon months. 

I was just too excited about other books and I kept putting it off. Then about a month or so ago, suddenly everyone was talking about these books. I still put it off but I felt I needed to make it a priority soon since I couldn't participate in any of the conversations I was walking into (which were full of praise for the books). Then, the final straw: I saw a movie trailer for The Hunger Games movie. And that was that. I absolutely cannot let that movie come out without having read the book first (sound familiar?). It was time. 

I found that it took me at least four chapters before I was hooked. I kept starting and it was interesting but not keeping my attention, but once I really committed, soon I couldn't put it down. I read it in a week without even trying (it's a pretty quick read). I was addicted and I loved it. 

The story is dark for a coming of age story, but I got so emotionally invested in it. 

So really, that's all I have to say. Maybe you won't love it is you don't like darker themes or dystopian literature, but I loved it. I'm excited to read the next two although I've heard they're not as good as the first. And I suppose there will be a movie review in the future as well.

But seriously, the hype around this book is there for a reason. Read it. 

Book Review: Warm Bodies

"Warm Bodies"

Written by: Isaac Marion

There are just some books that I hate reading in public because without fail, someone always asks me what I'm reading, and what it's about, to which I have no choice but to reply, "Warm Bodies. It's a book about zombies." My recent obsession with Science Fiction and Fantasy has really made my "guilty pleasure" reading list a lot longer than usual. Even if the book is good, it takes a certain kind of person to embrace the premise of most books in this genre and they rarely earn the respect of literature elitists.

I don't know why exactly, but I was really excited to read this book. I'm not a die hard zombie fan, but I thought the concept was interesting: a post apocalyptic story told from the perspective of a zombie. Maybe it was my doubt that this could be pulled off that created the fascination, but as a I road home from the bookstore next to my husband (who I'm pretty sure was rolling his eyes at me) I was rattling on about zombies and reading the the quotes off the back cover.

This is Isaac Marion's first book but it has gotten some significant support from some famous names. It is a very quick read. Even I, reading only here and there and at my ever slow pace, finished it in less than a week. It was most certainly entertaining. I wanted to know what was going to happen next and as always I was trying to figure out how I would fare in this particular post apocalyptic world.

In the end, I didn't love it. It was sort of hard to take seriously, perhaps a bit reaching in the philosophy department and it felt rushed. It all came together so quickly at the end that I was left feeling unsatisfied. Still, it is a pretty entertaining read and since it's so quick I'd recommend reading it for yourself. After all, it's quite possible that I just haven't embraced the zombie genre yet. Sure it makes for cool makeup in movies, but at the end of the day it's mostly just gross and impossible.

I'm pretty sure this book would come across incredibly cheesy in movie form, but I could see it happening in a couple years time.

Book/Movie Review: One Day

In the past 10 days I have both read the book One Day and seen it's movie counterpart. So this is a combination review.

"One Day"

Written by: David Nicholls

My old college roommate was coming to stay with my husband and I for a few days with the purpose of attending a mutual friend's wedding. By early August, we had both seen previews for the movie One Day and combined with my ex-roommates love of Jim Sturgess the interest was great enough that we made plans to see it when she was in town. I had heard that the book was amazing so I made a decision that I must read it before I went to see the movie. So one week prior to to scheduled outing I bought the book. I almost didn't make it. It was such an incredibly busy week and by the day before I was about 4 chapters away from being finished. It just seemed unthinkable to be that close to the end and not finish. I did finish. After I got to the climax of the book I rushed through the ending, saw the movie, and then went back at my leisure to reread the ending a couple days later.

It's not a book you want to rush through.

I really loved the book for a couple reasons. The first was just the honesty. The book didn't gloss over anything but really captured the nuances of growing up. There were dozens of times that I related so much to the characters, their questioning and their journey. They were so flawed and being able to get inside their head and see why they made the decisions they did...well, even the bad ones made more sense. It reminded me that everyone makes mistakes and justifies them because we're all human and it's part of life. We have no room to judge, and I learned this even as I experienced disgust with the characters at points. The second thing I really liked was the dialogue. It was rich and witty, the kind of dialogue I day dream about being able to use in real life.

In case you aren't aware of the general premise, the book has two main characters: Dexter and Emma. Each chapter looks into each of their lives on the same day every year for twenty years. Some years they are together and others they are apart. It can be a little hard to keep up with while you are reading because you have to try and catch up on the year you missed in every chapter (figure out what happened over the past year). But it was creative and it worked.

It's very raw in a lot of places. There are some misguided decisions, emphasis put on the wrong values, doubt, reality, selfishness, sexual encounters...    I felt like it was very real and relatable even if I didn't always see eye to eye with the characters.

"One Day"

Released August 2011

Directed by: Lone Scherfig

The general fear with this movie was that the film just would not be able to capture the beauty of the book. It was certainly a challenge. My personal fear was the casting. Who would be able to capture these characters? I groaned a little when I heard Anne Hathaway was going to play Emma. Hathaway is a decent actress but I've just never liked her, and I like Emma, so wasn't sure how I'd remedy that conflict. Additionally, actors trying to master the very distinct accents of other countries rarely work for me. There are obviously exceptions, but American to British seems to be one of the hardest to pull off and I was less than excited about hearing Hathaway's attempt at it. 

The two things this movie had going for it though was that Nicholls was adapting the screenplay himself and it was the perfect sort of movie for Lone Scherfig to direct. She is known for great characterization (An Education for instance) so if anyone was going to pull it off, it was her.

However, in my opinion, the book just didn't translate well to screen. 

I'm not the sort of person who gets upset when they change things about a book for a movie. They are two completely different mediums and to make a movie a good film, you just cannot follow the book exactly. If you can successfully capture the spirit of the book and make a great movie that stands on it's own...I consider that a success. But I just don't think that happened here.

The 20 year span of one day a year just didn't work very well on screen. There was a lot to get in and a lot of time to cover. The movie moved too quickly. It was hard to get to know the characters when they seemed to be changing drastically every few minutes. You didn't get the nuances of their personalities and decisions or ever really feel the pain they experienced. In some cases their flaws were glossed over (Emma's character specifically is far more complex in the book) while in other instances the flaws were two black and white (I found myself hating Dexter in a movie, where I often sympathized with him in the book). Anne Hathaway ended up doing better than Jim Sturgess, and maybe her accent wasn't distractingly terrible (I suppose my own awareness that it wasn't real was more distracting). But at the end of the day, it just didn't work.

I find myself wondering what I would have thought about the movie if I had watched it before reading the book. Am I judging it too harshly? Would I have followed it and liked the characters with no context?

Still, I don't regret reading the book first because the book is absolutely better and would not have been as enjoyable had I known how the story ended. Though there is a general trajectory that you can see unfolding, there are still a lot of surprises along the way that would not have been felt as deeply had I known they were coming.

---Noelle

Book Review: The Host

"The Host"

Written by: Stephenie Meyer

Lets talk about Stephenie Meyer. She's become one of the most famous and polarizing authors of the past decade. You either love her or you hate her. Or you're like me and the relationship is slightly more complicated.

Twilight has become a franchise that incites some of the most extreme responses. There is obviously a huge following of Twilight fans who adore these books and movies. Then there are those who hate Stephenie Meyer, who bash the ever-living day lights out of her and think she is one of the most terrible writers of all time. I find each camp somewhat annoying, but hey at least they have conviction.

Before I get to my review of The Host, I want to start by saying that I think people are generally too hard on Stephenie Meyer. I've been in classrooms where English majors just snickered at the thought that anyone could like the Twilight series. I imagine that they might actually endorse a book burning (which goes against everything they stand for! *insert shock here*). I think deeming Meyer as 'worst ever' is unfair. There are much much worse writers out there and clearly she has some storytelling skills otherwise the books wouldn't have become so popular (on their own, before the movie). She was recognized for her writing in young adult circles prior to her fame.

I think the actual issue is that people just don't think she deserves her fame when there are better writers out there, and that may be true. But there are some good things about the Twilight series. The main positive quality I find is that it is a book that can get non-readers to read. You can be elitist all you want about good literature, but less and less people are reading. If a book is entertaining enough to get people reading who wouldn't read otherwise---I think that is a good thing. Most people aren't going to go from magazines to Wuthering Heights or Faulkner.

When I was younger, I liked the idea of reading but I rarely was able to finish a book. It was when I finally stopped trying to read "the good stuff" and just started reading for fun that I started to see progress. By reading books intended for young adults or kids like Harry Potter, The Giver and yes even Twilight, I finally started finishing books, reading faster, reading more and eventually reading better books. I realize some authors are better than others but I think popular literature has its place. The Nicholas Sparks, the John Grishams, they are good writers despite the fact that they will never win a Pulitzer prize.

I do have some issues with the Twilight series. For instance, I don't like that she changed traditional lore about vampires. I also think that the stories got progressively weaker as the series progressed and started to fall apart as far as continuity. The other things I have issues with are about her writing in general so let me get to The Host.

What I liked about the book:

I had no interest in reading this book at first. It's suppose to be "science fiction" after all (not a genre I tend to read often) but I was pleasantly surprised. I found it addictive and I liked the characters. I also liked the concept for the story which was post apocalyptic (probably my favorite genre). It was a quick and easy read.

What I didn't like about the book (and Meyer's writing style in general):

Stephenie Meyer does three things that drive me absolutely bonkers.

First, she goes out of her way to keep it clean. Okay, I know she is Mormon (or was?) and I actually like that the books are clean, but the way she emphasizes this is so distracting. You could easily just not write sex into your story. No explanation is needed. Instead, Meyer includes unnecessary, awkward scenes to explain the absence.

Second, I hate how Meyer finds a good vocabulary word and over uses it. It comes across like she's trying to sound like a better writer than she is. It makes me yell at my book "Can't you think of any other words to describe what's going on?!" In Twilight the word was irrevocable. In The Host it was altruism.

Third, I hate how Stephenie Meyer yields to her fans. Good authors do not do that. They write what they want to write---it's their world, their story. They also generally have reasons for the trajectory that the story is taking. If fans have a problem with something, who cares? You cannot compromise the integrity of the story for a fan. If fans find something ambiguous, maybe it's suppose to be! Example---the ending of Twilight was a cliff hanger. That's fine. It makes sense, and I feel like it was a perfect ending for a movie. But her fans kept asking "What happens?" and instead of giving a coy smile she actually apologizes and clarifies. Who does that? And to make matters worse, they changed the movie ending from the natural cliff hanger to an explanation that didn't even exist in the story until her fans demanded it. I feel like this is the byproduct of liking fame and having fans more than you like the art of writing itself.

I believe in honesty and I never want to be the kind of person who changes my opinion based on popular opinion. So when I like something, I stick to my guns, even if it later becomes unpopular to do so. (Being counterculture is just as trendy as not). So in general, I have to say that I enjoyed both Twilight and The Host. They were easy to read and entertaining. However, I clearly have a conflicted relationship with Stephenie Meyer's writing---it can be entertaining and addictive (especially for non-readers) and it has it's flaws.

Meyer is not the best writer, but she is also not the worst. The Host is an excellent example of this.

Book Review: A Discovery of Witches

"A Discovery of Witches"
Written by: Deborah Harkness

I just finished the book A Discovery of Witches by Deborah Harkness. If you like the fantasy genre, then you will probably enjoy this book. It is her debut novel and the first in a planned trilogy.

During college I read a lot of literature and loved it. However, I got the impression that there was this elitism among English majors and professors that excluded popular genres like science fiction or fantasy. Oh sure, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings among a few others grace the classrooms, but the bulk of writing in this genre is completely ignored. The attitude seems to be that if the book is not award winning then it is not good. Generally, I believe that awards are given to progressive and innovative works that are too beautiful to deny. From the ones I have read, I think that the books winning the awards deserve the awards. But when I graduated college, I discovered a whole new world: reading for pleasure and pleasure alone. Suddenly, I could read whatever I wanted and I soon realized that fantasy is one of my favorite genres when it is done well.

Terry Pratchett, Charlaine Harris, Christopher Moore...and on the list goes of famous and talented writers (with cult followings) that are best sellers but usually unrecognized academically.

That being said, it seems like post the Twilight phenomenon there has been an overwhelming amount of fantasy writers emerging. And to be honest, the bulk of these books are just not good. Walking into Barnes and Noble and seeing an entire section entitled "Teen Paranormal Romance" makes me cringe a little (but not nearly as much as seeing any book published that was written by a cast member of The Jersey Shore).

When I started reading for fun, and not for school, I discovered this whole new world of writers---good writers who don't win awards because they write popular romance, fantasy, or mystery. I also discovered that there is an intricate network in these genres and the good authors all seem to know each other. So I guess the challenge now is to sift through the bulk of trendy teen literature to find the gems.

I was reading the blog of one of my favorite fantasy authors and she mentioned Deborah's debut novel. She was full of praise for the book claiming it was a brilliant first novel. This particular author is very well read in fantasy and I thought I'd give the book a shot.

I have no idea what to do with Deborah Harkness. She baffles me. Mostly because she is a historian. This novel is her first and (so far) only work of fiction. The rest of her work includes non fiction books and historical research, all published by major universities. For the past nearly 30 years she has been a scholar and historian. As I was reading the book I found myself shocked that a historian could write fiction so well. I cannot think of any history professor I have had that would cross over into creative writing so seamlessly.

Yet, her background is exactly why I enjoyed the book.

I hate it when authors just "make stuff up" as they go along. When I read fantasy I need it to be believable. I realize that fantasy is by definition impossible, but I believe that good fantasy makes you doubt what you know even if only for a moment. Good fantasy makes you think of what things would be like if magic really did exist. When authors just change traditional folklore and make things up as they go along, I tend to get annoyed. But when they can make their books fit into the longer tradition of folklore and fantasy...that's when they hook me.

J. K. Rowling is the perfect example of this. She has a degree in Mythology...and it is obvious. Everything that happens in the Harry Potter series makes sense. She includes pretty much every mythological creature and legend and she stays true to traditional lore. Everything fits together so intricately and doesn't make you stop and think "what do you mean he sparkles?"

A Discovery of Witches fits into the historical timeline neatly. This is not an alternate reality or world, it is our world with mythological creatures residing in it unbeknownst to their human counterparts. You can tell that she's been to the places she describes which include Oxford and Syracuse. (I have another pleasure in reading about places I've actually been too so the Syracuse bit was exciting for me). The vampires in her story have lived through major historical events and were affected by them or effected them in ways that fit into history flawlessly. The witches in her story are from family lines dating back to the Salem witch trials. Oh and there are daemons.

Much of the book focuses on alchemy (which I have always found fascinating) and early science. This is Harkness' historical area of expertise and it shows. Famous early scientists that dabbled in alchemy, magical possibilities...I was hooked early on.

That being said, it's hard to say whether or not I felt like the book was good as a whole. As the first in a planned trilogy the ending was  a cliff hanger of sorts. The story did not come together or tie up any loose ends. Readers will be left to wait for the next in the series without any answers or closure.

I tend to like series' where each book can stand on its own even as it fits into the bigger picture---and this is not one of those books. However, Ms. Harkness satisfied my inner historian and I was entertained. I'm anxious to finish the series and see if she can pull it off and become a new favorite of mine.

---Noelle

P.S. I suppose I should add a disclaimer that if you are uncomfortable with homosexuality, vampires, magic or witchcraft this is not the book for you. These are all fairly common elements in the fantasy genre, but this is much more of an adult book than say, Harry Potter.