Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris

So, confession time. When I was growing up, I was terrified to watch Silence of the Lambs. I thought the poster looked terrifying, and I imagined that Hannibal Lector eating people in the most gruesome way. I had, (and still have) a very vivid imagination, especially when it comes to horror movies. Ghost movies? Haunted Houses movies? Totally out. Zombie movies? Dawn of the Dead terrified me for the longest time. The Ring? The Grudge? I can't even do it. Torture movies? SAW is seared into my brain forever.

Interestingly enough, my husband LOVES scary movies. He was a film major before switching to English (therefore, going into teaching) and took a class on scary movies. He enjoys watching them, but we never embarked on watching them together. 

Fast forward to this year. He and I both LOVE Halloween, and he has taken to call this month, "Shock-tober" (I know... you wonder how I snagged such a man). We also discussed what Halloween-y things we could do this month (that you know, don't cost a lot of money) and he suggested a few scary movies. 

And guys... I wasn't immediately, "Hell to the naw!" about it. I thought for a few seconds, and I realized that I should watch more scary movies. I'm older now, experienced more life and I'm not scared out of my mind so much anymore. So we discussed a few movies to watch, and the topic of Silence of the Lambs came up. Now, he and I watched the show together, and he stated that the movie wasn't completely scary and more of a thriller. He also suggested that I do a "Which is Better?" posts about all the movies and the books along with the show. That's what I'm going to do now! First I will review the books, and then the "Which is Better?" post will come out next for each book and each movie. 

After watching the movie, I went ahead and read the book. It's going to be really hard to not review the movie with the book, because well, the movie follows the book with a few minor absences that weren't really needed in the movie. It opens up to Clarice running through the FBI training grounds when she gets a notice to go see Jack Crawford. They begin discussing Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lector, with Jack sending Clarice to go see Hannibal because he feels like she can get something out of him. Finally, Jack warns Clarice to not give up any personal information because Hannibal likes to amuse himself. A lesson that Jack learned with Will Graham. 

Harris' style of writing is very straightforward. He's a mystery and crime novelist and his mode of writing is very direct and to the point. At some points, especially during action scenes, I felt as if I was watching the fight happen, instead of experiencing it. When intense dialogue and conversations taking place, especially with Clarice and other characters, I felt like I wasn't experiencing her discovery and realizations. I was just sort of reading about it. Finally, I thought that some of Harris' descriptive language was a bit odd. There was one part of the story where he describes a female character who puts her hand on her vagina to hide while in the well. I can't speak for other women who are scared, but I felt as if Harris was sexualizing her? Why point out that she covered her vagina? I'm not sure what the purpose of that was. 

Harris also switches between perspectives jarringly and sometimes I would have to reread in order to figure out that the inner monologue of characters switched. I don't mind experiencing a shift in perspectives, but the transition wasn't smooth. 

Finally, even though I'm not a fan of crime novels, I thought it was an enjoyable read. After watching the show, I liked reading the novel that began it all. 

My husband's favorite book, which is my next book in the series (after I take a break from Hannibal Lector), is Red Dragon. He thinks that it's the best book of the series and even better than Silence of the Lambs. 

What do you all think? Stay tuned for Which is Better? Coming out in a few weeks! 

New things coming out!!!

I've not had cable for many years. I moved out when I was 22 but even before that, I lived back and forth between college and my parent's house. My roommates and I didn't have cable and we didn't really see the need for it. Even though the internet is a daily part of life (and I know a few people who don't have internet or a TV and I wonder what they do in their spare time!), sometimes I find new releases later than the rest of the world. I'm not sure if it's because it's what websites I browse but it seems like I stumble on news later than the rest of the world.

Despite all of that said, I am so excited for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies! I recently did a review on another Pride and Prejudice adaptation, and this book was the first adaptation I read! I quite enjoyed it and I thought it was a more modern take on the classic story. I can't wait to watch the movie (and of course, do I post about it!)

I am also excited for Man in the High Castle! Say, what?! So, recently my husband and I watched Blade Runner, and when I saw the preview for The Man in the High Castle before a video on youtube, I told my husband about how excited I was to watch it. Well, he broke the news to me that it was also a book, and that Philip K. Dick (unfortunate name, however) wrote a book that was the inspiration for Blade Runner.

I DIDN'T KNOW, OK?! But when I did find this out, I hopped on Amazon to buy the book. I'm thinking of going back to get his other books so I can do a review and then a "which is better?" post, but as you all know, I have a lot of books to get through.

I'm sure there are other adaptations and sequels coming out that I am missing or I don't even know about yet. What else is premiering? What are you excited for? Comment below!

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!

Which is Better? Death Comes to Pemberley

Alright, I wanted to wait until I finished the book to do a proper comparison between the BBC miniseries and the book by P.D James. However, what I didn't anticipate was the length of time it would take me to get through the book! My review of the book is here, so if you haven't done so already, click the link to read! Please also post any comments you have about the book, and if you agree or disagree with my review!

Now, onto the Which is Better? So, like I said before, I stumbled onto the miniseries when I was looking for something to watch on Netflixs. BAE wasn't home and "Death Comes to Pemberley" seems to be a "Just Jordan" viewing instead of an "US" viewing. We like much of the same things and we get upset when the other starts something that one of us had an interest in seeing. SO! "Death Comes to Pemberley" was definitely a Jordan only viewing. It also caught my attention because Matthew Rhys's face, one of the stars of The Americans, was plastered across the wallpaper of Netflix when I was browsing. I just got more excited as I watched because a lot of people were in this series!

I will come out and say it: the miniseries is way better than the book. Now let's all pack up and go home! Just kidding, but I am very glad that I saw the miniseries first before reading the book because I was given context on characters and was able to visualize them more when I was reading P.D James' book. I feel like the director and the screenwriters for the show did a great job of bringing beloved characters to life and correctly characterizing them based off of Austen's book (for the most part). I also thought they did a great job of showing the relationship between characters, which I think was lacking in James' book.

What I also liked about the miniseries was that they filled in some of the blanks with how characters interacted with each other. It's strange to say that because usually the book has the details that the movie or show chose to emit because there isn't enough time. Strangely the miniseries added color and context on the characters, such as Georgiana and Colonel Fitzwilliams. In the book, Colonel Fitzwilliams just kind of appears with the backstory that his elder brother passed and now he is the heir to the... Hartlep castle (right? Is that the family name?) and Darcy is sizing him up to marry Georgiana. Elizabeth mentions maybe that Georgiana may like Alastar, but Darcy just shrugs her off and before the reader's know it, they are knee deep in the woods trying to find Denny and Wickam.

In the show, however, the actor does a good job of showing motive underneath his decisive actions and the show also does a good job of showing disagreement between Darcy, Elizabeth, Wickham and Georgiana. In the book, there is nothing to show Georgiana's feelings (other than wanting to help and desire to not be seen as a child) or Darcy's desire to ensure that Georgiana is taken care of. The miniseries has a few scenes between Colonel Fitzwilliams and Darcy, Elizabeth and Darcy, Elizabeth, Darcy and Georgiana and Colonel Fitzwilliams to show the conflict and the resolution.

Also! The miniseries clarifies who Mrs. Young is! Or at least, assumes? I'm not sure, but the book, other than the fact that Mrs. Young shows the art of scamming to a young George Wickham and then later is willing to help him, Mrs. Young has no connection to Wickham! Or was there, and I misread the book? Anyway, the miniseries clearly draw a line from Wickham to Young and makes the connection that they are family. The book? Not so much.

Overall, if you have the time or the inclination, watch the miniseries. It's only 3 episodes and if you like the Edwardian era or historical era movies or shows, you would enjoy it. If you are an Austen purist, you may not want to watch it, but if you don't mind sequels, by all means, take a few hours! I would pass on the book though unless you are like me, and you are interested in comparing the two, but the show adds much more depth than the book, which is strange because usually it's the opposite.

Oh! One final thing. In the book there is this long monologue by Darcy. It's campy and so out of character that I found myself rolling my eyes. Thankfully in the series there is a conclusion, but both Darcy and Elizabeth are standing there (instead of Elizabeth sitting there like a dullard in the book listening to Darcy drone on) and the series actually changed a bit of the ending, which personally, I like more.

Death Comes to Pemberley by P.D James

I first stumbled across the TV mini-series of "Death Comes to Pemberley" first before I read the book. I was excited because I recognized some of the actors from various shows (shout out to Matthew Rhys from The Americans and Matthew Goode from The Good Wife) and I wanted to see them in other things. I watched 1 episode and asked my British friends if they had seen it.

Man, oh man. Sequels to books written by other authors is a hot button topic, and I had NO idea. My one friend flat out told me that she refused to acknowledge the sequel and all sequels to Jane Austen books. Her reasoning, which I understand, is that if there was meant to be a sequel, then a sequel would have been written. She compared it to fanfiction, which I can see why she did. My other British friend read the book, hated the book and didn't watch the show. However, she stated that maybe she should watch the miniseries because it would have been better than the book. My final friend loved the show, but didn't read the book. A lot of strong opinions, and so I decided to finish the TV series, read the book, and do a couple posts about it! 

Now, here is my stance on sequels written by other authors. I don't really care. I acquired a book titled, "Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife" by Linda Berdoll and I thought it was a great read. Maybe they don't bother me because of my experience with the first sequel I read! I think Pride and Prejudice is iconic because people want to know what happened to those characters. It's such a romantic story and we want to read after they get married. 

Now let's get to the book. I'm going to do a "which is better?" post between the book and the TV series, but I will say this: I am glad that I watched the series first even though I am a bit curious to see if I would have reacted the same way if I didn't watch the series first. 

It took me a couple of weeks to get through. Those who follows my blog know that it does not take me long to get through books, but this one... took me a bit. It's... disappointing. There is a mystery surrounding whether Mr. Wickham killed Captain Denny, and there is this trial and conclusion to the trial... and that's it. There is a conclusion to what happens to the Wickhams and then Darcy goes back to Pemberley. There is this bit about Darcy's ancestors and relationship issues with the Wickhams and... it just putters out. There really isn't any life within the book and the characters just fall flat. I'm disappointed in P.D James because I read some of her other books, and I enjoyed them! I think part of the fun of sequels reimagining characters and putting them in new situations or crazy situations... and this wasn't it. 

The only characters I thought were imagined well was Lydia and Jane, who, are supporting characters, at best. I thought the rest of the characters were 1 dimensional and I felt like it was the Darcy show, instead of the Darcys show. I liked Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice, but it was mostly about Elizabeth Bennet's journey, not his. There is a weak twist that I saw coming because I watched the series before I read the book, and the series embellished certain story points, which is a good thing because there wasn't a connection between certain characters in the book. 

So, I think the danger of reading different sequels of Pride and Prejudice is the depiction of side characters. I was always curious about Colonel Fitzwilliam and how he fit into the whole Pride and Prejudice world. I really liked what happened with him and Georgiana in "Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife" but in this book.. he just falls flat. He's there, supporting Darcy and the whole shebang, and then just... leaves. There is never a confrontation between him and Darcy over Georgiana nor is there a serious discussion about Georgiana's future between Darcy and Elizabeth. 

Finally, the conclusion to the trial and the epilogue of the book ties up in a nice, neat bow without ever addressing any issues of who Wickham is and his ability to provide for Lydia. 

The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven by Sherman Alexie

Some of you may have read my review on Alexie's other book, Reservation Blues, but this book, The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, a collection of short stories, was his debut to the literary world.

It was a unique sensation, reading short stories about very familiar characters in Reservation Blues, but it was like seeing old friends again. It's probably why I like series so much. You become invested in characters and you wonder how they are doing and you wonder what is going to happen to them next. As a reader, I'm curious to understand their character development and how other characters react to them.

With this edition, he wrote an introduction. Normally I don't read introductions to books. They are usually by other people, and I never know what the heck they are talking about. Believe me, I know the importance of an introduction (kinda, sorta) but for some reason... I read a few paragraphs and then I skip to the start of the book. Maybe I'm impatient?

Anyway, I read the introduction to the book. I really like Alexie's voice and I'm envious to how well he conveys it. He writes about his break out in the literary world with his first publication, The Business of Fancydancing and the rollercoaster ride that came with it. He tells the story about an agent who told him that his stories needed work, which he didn't like, and eventually went with another agent, who published his stories quickly. I'm not sure why he decided to divulge that information? Is it to stick it to the agent that told him he should rewrite some of his work?

Here is a hot take, I liked Reservation Blues much more. Reservation Blues is much more polished than Tonto, but I'm not sure if I feel that way because Reservation Blues is a novel and Tonto is a collection of short stories, so it's meant to feel a bit disjointed, but I also noticed that Alexie was trying out his writing style. What did he like? What didn't he like? What was he good at?

I don't blame the agent for wanting to take it slow, but I do understand Alexie's gut instinct to jump when he needed too.

Now onto the book.

My favorite character in both Reservation Blues and The Lone Ranger is Thomas Builds-the-Fire. I loved his stories, and it was very interesting to me to read the dynamic between him and the rest of the tribe. He told stories about the present, about the past and about the future, and there is this theme of deep regret, anger and shame on the Spokane Indian Reservation about exactly that. Many try their best to deny and forget.

Thomas doesn't do that. He has been beaten up by Victor, a childhood acquaintance and the other members of the community refuse to listen to Thomas anymore. However, he doesn't become bitter or angry, or change the way he is. He still tells stories (not out loud) and in one short story, even accompanies Victor to pick up his deceased father.

I'm always fascinated with stories about people who, despite being good, still have bad things happen to them. Thomas is misunderstood by the whites, and is sent to prison after telling a story about a massacre in the 1800s. It's obviously a story set in the past, but he tells it under oath, and eager to send him away, they convict him. Though the whites destroyed Indian tribes across the nation without repercussions, but as soon as a white person was killed, though 100 years ago, the Indian is put away and titled a savage.

There is a deep seated sadness with these stories that undoubtedly have to do with oppression of a people but is lost in the telling of American History. When a student sits through history class, they of course, get the spiel about Native Americans and Manifest Destiny. Most likely there is a lesson on the trail of tears. However, there is seldom mention of the now defunct residential schools, planned to wipe out native culture and the poor land that most of the tribe is on today, along with the lack of opportunity in almost everything. Alcohol is rampagant in the community and poverty is a strong bedfellow.

Alexie does a good job of showing both the beautiful and ugly sides of life of the Spokane Indian reservation and the differences between different groups of people. I suspect it would be easy to demonize whites (and rightly so) for all that they have done, but Alexie presents it as a fact, and then moves on (and rightly so). Even though white people have essentially destroyed their past way of life, it's a moot point. There are other issues to combat (or just react too). He shows the difference between the elders and the new generation, the differences between men and women, the differences between families and the differences between city Indians and reservation Indians. But he also shows just how similar they all are in their reactions and their dreams to become something more, or to go back to the way it used to be.

I'm interested in watching Smoke Signals (maybe a Which is Better? post) and reading more of his books.

Goodreads account!

I have a goodreads account! Finally!

I'm not sure why I resisted for so long.

Find me!

Friend me!

I'll friend you!