The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones by Cassandra Clare

Well, with the movie and the TV show, it was bound to happen. It seems I always am behind the trends of YA, but I do end up reading some of them.

But man, Cassandra Clare is infamous. Like, Anne Rice infamous. Though, instead of declaring the Lestat series are finished and she would write exclusively Christian themed novels, Clare is rumored to be a plagiarist during her time as a fan fiction writer, as well as parts of her books to be taken from other works.

Now that I've read her books... I don't think she really hides the fact that she definitely uses folk tales, myths, legends and other public fantasy ideas in her works. I mean, come on, "All the stories are true..." is a running theme throughout the books, and she doesn't make it a secret that she uses everything from vampires, to Norse mythology, to fairy tales, even Star Wars (finding out they were siblings?! Come on.), so I don't think any authors who accuse her of stealing her work really has a leg to stand on, because even though she basically uses everything under the sun in her books, it seems it's a work completely her own.Clare creates an imaginative world where she packs everything she can, all the folklore and urban fantasy into almost an unlimited book series.

Man, again, I have to put Clare in with "people whose careers I wish I stole" because she doesn't pretend to think up all of this stuff on her own. She takes it all and her theme is, "all the stores are true." Brilliant. I would take the haters any day of the week.

I do give her mad props for her extensive world building, which led her to numerous books. How many books does she have out now with different series stemming from The Mortal Instruments? 20? She definitely put time and effort using all she can and she's made a career out of it.

The real question is... is it any good? I'm not sure if I'm qualified yet to answer that question, because I feel like I stumbled into a real Hannibal situation, where I am so saturated with the TV show and the movies, that when it came to reading the books, there was nothing new. The books were almost like the movies, and the TV show added much more to the books. The first book, the City of Bones, definitely follows the movie of finding the Mortal cup, though I'm still confused about the big round blue portal in the movie.

However, her downfall are the characters in the books. She creates a very extensive world with alternative realities and universes, and the "rules" of the universe are practically nonexistent, that she leaves barely any room to introduce any real characters. I was deeply confused when it was revealed that Valentine was also Jace's father. Just to move plot along and create conflict between Clary and Jace, Jace, who was deemed a quick thinker, smart and almost wise beyond his years, absolutely took Valentine, who was deemed a psychopath, at his word, and was immediately obedient to him.

What also didn't work for the book was the snappy dialogue between the characters. It had a very Joss Whedon flair to it, which is admirable, but... since I didn't feel a connection to any of the characters, I thought the dialogue fell flat. I also don't buy that 15 year olds talk like that at all. I taught 15 year olds... they are way dumber. Apparently her writing improves greatly, which I'm looking forward too.

Was it riveting? No. Now that I've seen the terrible movie, and I am watching the TV show on free form which leaves me feeling more confused (I still don't know what's happening and I've read the book now) everytime I watch it. Overall, it took me a bit to get through. I found it boring and I also realized that not much happened (which is an awful realization when you are holding a monster of a book). However, I'm reserving my judgement about this book series with the second book because I definitely watched the TV show and the movie before the book.

Vampire Academy by Richelle Mead (or, this was definitely written during the Twilight Craze)

What a stupid name for a novel. What a stupid name for a first book in the beginning of the series, a series that I'm excited about reading. Yes, I know the title is pretty self-explanatory, yes, it is a vampire school and yes, I know it's written for YA, but damn... does it have to be so on the nose? Even Twilight has a semi-alluring name that doesn't really give the entire book away and make you roll your eyes (you probably do anyway because of the content), but whoever thought Vampire Academy was a good title needs a slap or two.

I'm quite sure that's why the movie didn't do so well, but that's for another post.

Vampire Academy is told through the eyes of Rose, who is a dhampir (half-vampire, half-human) and is training to be a guardian for the Moroi, the "good" vampires to defend them against the Strigoi, the "bad" vampires. The story opens with Rose and Lissa on the run from the "Vampire Academy" or rather, the school's guardians. They have been on the run for 2 years, moving around and attending high school across the U.S. Now, the probability that adults, who have superpowers, are unable to find children, is quite low, but I buy into it because within the first 10 pages, they are caught by a dreamboat of a man and bought back to school and the story kicks up.

Vampire Academy is a perfect blend of showing and telling, telling the reader without preamble about the vampire culture and history in the book and Mead shows the rest, revealing the mystery why the girls ran away layer by layer, until it all comes to a head in the last 50 pages of the book. I love how Mead picks her battle, choosing instead to show characters instead of the world of Vampire Academy.

There is also your typical highschool drama with friends, popularity and finding oneself that are recurring themes in a lot of YA novels. It was silly, but with a name of Vampire Academy, the reader should expect it. It's also kind of fun to relive from afar a time where navigating the social sphere is the bane of your existence. It also wrestles with rumors, friendships and loyalty and Mead actually turns the book from a fantasy YA novel into almost a guide for girls starting high school, which, honestly, needs to be more of.

I love the relationship between Lissa and Rose. They are fiercely devoted to each other and even though it's almost easy to slide into resentment (I mean, becoming a Guardian must absolutely blow), both Rose and Lissa shake it off, using their love and friendship for each other to conquer all. Even when they have a falling out, Rose comes to Lissa's rescue and the pair are thick as thieves again by the end of the book. Lissa isn't helpless by any means and the pair rely on each other socially and emotionally.

Finally, I also like how Mead resolves, or puts a period on the blossoming relationship between Dimitri and Rose. There is attraction between the pair, and they even get hot and heavy during one point of the book, but when it is all resolved, Dimitri actually encourages Rose to report him. There is a huge age gap between the two and it's addressed repeatedly in different ways and conclude that Rose and Dimitri will not enter in a forbidden romance, which is a relief. I wonder how it's going to play out in the rest of the books.

One last little tidbit of the book that I was unsure of, but I was glad that Mead went in the direction she did. The idea of "blood whores" or dhampir women who have affairs with Moroi men. They live in different communities, and there is an awful reputation surrounding them due to the fact that Moroi men sleep with dhampir women and then go home to their Moroi wives. When Rose brings it up while training with Dimitri, he casually tells her that he grew up in such a community and the worst part was his dad, a Moroi, coming to visit them. It opens Rose's eyes a bit more to the vampire world and suddenly, the "blood whores" stance isn't so black and white.

I have a lot of other books to read (Star Wars! The Martian! 11.22.63! The 5th Wave! Comics!), so I don't know when I'll be able to read the second book in this series. This year is already amping up to be a busy year in books, so I'm excited!

Which is Better? Hannibal by Thomas Harris

Alright, I've started, and re-started, and re-re-started the post for this blog, and I can't even begin to introduce this monstrosity of a story that managed to be published as a book, and then turned into a film adaptation. I'm just at a lost for words. They all needed a good thing to remain a good thing with Silence of the Lambs.

So, the sequel of this movie does not have the original director, original main lead or the original script writer. This bodes well. Anthony Hopkins came back as Hannibal Lector cause man gotta eat! I'm also sure that playing someone like Hannibal is really fun, even though I still think he's a Gary Stu.

They took out a few characters, like Margot and Jack Crawford. They weren't really needed in the film, as they just added flavor to the book. Jack Crawford's story in the book is pretty sad, and I loved how they interpreted his character for the show. Margot... I thought she was a poorly written character to begin with, so I was relieved that that they didn't include her in the movie, because I can only imagine how they would interpret her.

They also left alone Hannibal's surgeries... only to disguise him with big... hats. That's right. The most wanted man in the world remained uncaught because he wore big hats and sunglasses in the movie.

There are other similarities and differences between the book and the movie. The stuff in Italy is mostly the same, with the rescue of Hannibal by Starling after she is put on administrative leave. There isn't mention of Mischa, the sister that was cannibalized by Nazi deserters when he was a young child.

However, what I really want to discuss is the ending of the book, and the ending of the movie. I'm relieved, as I think everyone involved in the movie that Harris agreed to allow the movie script to be completely rewritten. The ending... absolutely blew in the book, as I reviewed. Even though I think the story is crappy, the ending of the movie was a heck of a lot better than the book. So in the movie, Hannibal rescues her after she is wounded after rescuing Hannibal from the Verger Farm.

They run off and Hannibal, a licensed medical doctor, treats Starling's wounds. At one point, she awakes to find an evening dress and invited down to dinner. She does... to find Knedler there. She watches horrified as Hannibal feeds Knedler's brain to him. She tries to attack him and he overpowers her. They kiss, and Clarice manages to put handcuffs on them so he won't get away. The police are on their way to the residence, and Hannibal wields a meat cleaver to cut off his hand.

Clarice still remains true to her character by still desiring to catch the bad guy and not completely give into Hannibal's sociopathic charms. At least Clarice didn't do a 180 character turn where she decides that Hannibal is her end all be all, and HEY, LET'S HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A CANNIBAL. Like, Clarice, he defo is on the run from the law and broke out of a mental institution. Maybe you should, idk, get away from him?

There isn't much else to say about this, except Silence of the Lambs is my favorite book and movie out of the entire series. I wished, like I think everyone else wished, that the book was better and that the movie had better material to go off of.

Which is Better? The Red Dragon

Whereas Silence of the Lambs was a masterpiece and a movie that was so unexpected that it won a few Oscars, the movie Red Dragon unfortunately, a prequel shot 10 or so years after Silence of the Lambs, falls flat. Now, I am unsure if my opinion on the movie Red Dragon is the result of over saturation of all things Hannibal Lector or if I really was just underwhelmed with the movie in general, but I digress.

There are a few major problems with the movie.The first problem was the casting of Will Graham. In the book, Harris takes you through the downfall into madness of Graham and his relationship with Hannibal Lector. Lector isn't very involved in the book, but Graham, in looking at Francis, starts to lose his sense of self. In order to catch a serial killer, he has to think like one, and in the book, it just tears him apart. In the movie, Norton is just walking around like he owns the place and that he is not phased by what he has to do.  In the movie, Edwards Norton is a badass. He isn't overpowered by Francis at the end and he sort of regains his life after Francis is shot by Molly. His relationship with his wife and stepson falls apart in the book and alludes to a divorce.

The second major problem with the movie is that the book, is set before Silence of the Lambs, but the movie is made over 10 years later. Anthony Hopkins is noticeably older and my husband pointed out that Hopkins wore a girdle to keep himself trim. They recasted Crawford... and I get why they brought Hopkins back, but I think it would have been well served if they got a younger Hopkins look alike to play his younger self. In the movie, after watching Silence of the Lambs, he just looks ridiculous.

I really liked the backstory of Freddy Louds in the book. I was able to see his inner workings and how he was shafted for most of his life and just decided to take control of it. He was really valued at The Tattler, but everyone hated him in the journalists world. Throughout the book, he was a guy that knew that no one would look out for him but him, and he did what it took to be successful. All he wanted was to be a serious journalist with lots of money and it was very sad when The Dragon took him. In the movie, I didn't really didn't feel any sort of way for him. He was played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who does sarmy very well. There was never any sort of backstory to him other than skeevy gossip journalist.

In the movie, they alluded to his backstory and showed the time with his grandmother when he wet the bed when he was a child. What is lost in the movie is the time frame. This whole serial killer case was done in the 1970s, which makes Francis' low self-esteem and self loathing due to his cleft palate much more probable if the audience knew that he grew up in the 40s and 50s.

Reba's interpretation in the movie is mostly spot on. She's white with golden pageboy hair and she's blind. I liked her inner monologue in the book, but in the movie, you lose that. You feel for her because she genuinely likes Francis and he can't get past his own abuse (or really, into therapy) to be available for her. He is so far gone by the time he meets Reba. It's sad because The Dragon helps him be more confident and strong but also drives him to kill people and encourage him to kill Reba.

All in all, Red Dragon is better as a book than a movie. You get more material and the motives of characters which is lacking in the movie. It would have been better served to recast Lector just for the simple fact that Hopkins is noticeably older in a movie that was supposed to take place before Silence of the Lambs. The movie is entertaining, however, so if you want to just settle for watching something thrilling, then it's a good way to spend a few hours.

Which is Better? Girl with a Pearl Earring

Like the book, the beginning of the movie is cumbersome. At first I was really excited. The first scene shows Griet cutting vegetables and I thought they were going to shoot the firs scene right out of the beginning of the book. But then, she stops cutting vegetables, goes to her Dad, takes a tile that he made and then packs to leave her home. Her mother mentions something about staying away from the dirty Catholics, and then she's off to work as a maid for a richer family.

There is no explanation to why she had to go work for them unless you knew Dutch family structure and culture of the 1600s. The dad's blind, so there was no money coming in. Mom has to take care of Dad, so it's up to Griet to provide for her family.

You see Griet trying to get used to her new life but the viewer is waiting for the other foot to drop. The appearance of the master, Mr. Vermeer. ScarJo plays Griet as if she is already lusting after Vermeer, but they had not met yet. However, Colin Firth... did not disappoint.

And so... like the book, I didn't care about the characters until I actually did. It sort of snuck up me, how I suddenly was invested in the characters, waiting for the moment when Griet is actually painted.

The movie does a great job of building the tension between everyone in the household, not just between the master and Griet. I also loved how they showed the power deferential between Griet and Vermeer, and also between the wife and Vermeer.

I also loved how they showed Griet torn between the butcher's son and her love for the master as well. I also loved the different spin ScarJo put on Griet's situation. As if she knows that the Butcher's son is her only viable option, but she wants to fly close to the sun.

A noticeable difference between the book and the movie is the omission of characters. I felt like the other family members added to her backstory, and her drive to become a maid and work for her family. It also adds an element to why she begins a courtship with the butcher's son. He'll provide for her family, much more so than her wages as a maid.

I also thought it was very funny that the meeting with Griet and Vermeer didn't occur until 20 minutes into the movie. I felt like it didn't really have a beginning until they meet, and it should have been done immediately. It was the same deal with Cordelia, the devil daughter of Vermeer. However, they used her in the background in an interesting way for the rest of the movie. I thought that illustrated just how devious she was.

At first, I wasn't into the casting of the wife but she leaned into her role halfway through the movie and conveyed the petty but pretty wife written in the book. I wish they had done more with Tanneke and their complicated relationship. How they went from friends, to enemies, to acquaintances again.

The ending was off, with the giving of the pearl earrings. She is supposed to be several years older and she goes back to the master's house. The mistress gives her the pearls and Griet sells them but does nothing with the money. One of the points of the book that is drove home is her class and status, which is missed by the brief ending.

I think the movie, overall, is a great adaptation. Scarjo and Colin Firth are phenomenal as the main characters, and the other actors contribute a lot to the movie. I do feel like movies are limited on character development, and Pearl Earring definitely falls victim to that. Nevertheless, the movie is shot well and the sets were properly made, instead of CGI.

Which is Better? I feel like it's a draw. The book and the movie are great for different reasons. Read the book and watch the movie!

Do you have a different opinion? Respond below!

Little Altars Everywhere by Rebecca Wells

Like many other books I picked up this summer, I found this book in the classroom of the teacher who was retiring. I watched the Ya Ya Sisterhood movie, but never read the book, so I was interested. I didn't realize that Little Altars Everywhere was a prequel. 

So... it's a collection of short stories about this family living in the south. It's about the children of 1 friend who is apart of a group of 4 friends. In the beginning of the book, the stories just seem to be stories that all children grow up with such as loss, friendship, loyalties, etc. For example, Siddalee is jealous of her cousin and her ballet teacher who end up getting together. She is pushed out and though she is getting older, she feels like a child. 

In the next chapter, Sidalee recounts her summers and how much fun they were at a Lake. It made me think of my own summers and it made me want to have children, go out with my best friends who also would have children and spend the summer in a big cabin in a small town by the lake. Though my husband and I were talking about children and our plan to have them, for the first time, it made it seem like it was fun to have kids...

However, the stories turned from typical childhood memories into something much darker. Gradually it's revealed that Vivienne and her friends are alcoholics who make very reckless decisions with their kids. Viv's marriage is in shambles and eventually Viv moves into the children's playroom to get away from her husband, Shep.

Then the stories got even darker. Viv found Jesus but used it to her advantage. She used religion to

manipulate her children.

Then the stories got even darker. The short stories are set in the deep south in the 60s, which is a backdrop for rampant classism and racism. Letty and Chase, who are an African American couple who live on the land and work for the Walkers, are familiar with the family, but never really family. Letty recounts when Viv comes home from Jesus retreat, she sends Letty home early. Letty has a feeling that something is going to happen and she goes outside to look across the property to the Walker house. Vivienne has the kids outside and they are naked. Vivi is whipping the kids unmercifully. Though they are scared of overstepping their bounds (the Walkers made it abundantly clear of what they see the Letty and Chase to be), they save the children. They call Buggy, Vivi's Mother but never even get Letty's clothes back.

The back of the book advertises that it is a mixture of sad and funny stories. The book, to me, was never really funny. I thought it was interesting and the writing is superb. I couldn't put it down. It was an easy read, and when the stories became darker, it was a like a car crash; you couldn't look away. I couldn't put it down.

Though I largely mention Siddalee, I like the rotating perspective of the people in different stories. I am always interested when characters look at each other: it's much harder for the writer, but if they pull it off, it's very rewarding. Rebecca Wells does this very well.

I'm glad I lucked into reading the prequel. I would like to read Ya Ya Sisterhood and watch the movie again to do another "Which is Better?" post.