Book Review: "Divine Misfortune" by A. Lee Martinez.

Been a while since I've done a book review... but then again, it's been a while since I've really read a book. I've had issues because I'd start getting into a book and then go to the bookstore and get a couple more and stop reading that one. It was usually because I was having a hard time getting into a book; it wasn't catching me, and I was getting bored quickly. So when I saw this book and read what it was about, I snatched it up fast. It sounded perfect. And I devoured it in days.

The story takes place in an alternate timeline where mythological gods (of practically every pantheon you can think of) didn't disappear, but instead try to thrive to this day. In fact, there's a website--much like eHarmony and that ilk--where gods try to pimp themselves with profiles and videos, explaining their perks and everything you have to do in order to become a follower.

Enter Phil and Teri, a painfully average couple without a god of their own. But when people all around Phil are having noticeably better luck (getting promotions, having better lawns, etc.), he gets fed up with being stuck at mediocrity. After failing to talk his wife into getting a god, Phil decides it might have been a stupid idea to begin with... until Teri changes her mind and talks Phil back into it. After hours of searching the website, continually disagreeing on what god would best suit them, they stumble across Luka. Luka is a luck god that appears to be awfully laid back, wearing Hawaiian shirts, and unlike all the other gods... and he has a raccoon head. And his only request is to be "allowed into their home." Phil and Teri are cool with that, easily able to find a place to put a shrine for him. But then Lucky--as he prefers to be called--shows up at their doorstep, bags at his side, asking what kind of cable package they have. And that's not all. After throwing a big welcoming party for himself, Lucky invites a bunch of godly friend--one who doesn't leave. Aztec serpent-god Quetzalcoatl (Quick for short) decides to stick around and crash on their couch for a while... though he's pretty friendly--and makes a damn good breakfast--so why not?

And then there's Janet, Teri's friend, who has a thing for sleeping with gods... and makes Lucky her newest conquest. But what she doesn't expect is for Lucky to actually call the next morning when he said he would. We also have Bonnie, who sits down on a bench next to Syph, the goddess of love turned goddess of tragedy and heartbreak. Her life goes to crap, and Bonnie decides she needs to get to the bottom of Syph's depression before she kills herself from her own. Oh, and of course, there's the forgotten god of chaos, Gorgoz, who is out to kill Phil and Teri because he has a very old grudge against Lucky.

I know it seems like a lot going on, but it's pretty much all interconnected, and it's never confusing. In fact, it's usually hilarious. You like all of the characters, including Gorgoz, who is just so over-the-top ridiculous (purposefully). There's a scene where he's telling his biggest follower, Worthington, all the penance he wants all 4000+ of his followers to commit for a recent failure... and he just keeps going on and on and on, making up the stupidest crap for them to do while acting like they're the most important things in the world. The only character that takes a while to get used to is Syph. But once she turns from mopey and depressed to wrathful, she becomes quite hilarious.

What I was most impressed with was the knowledge of gods the author had in writing this book. Over half the names I didn't even recognize. But then again, my knowledge of mythology pretty much stops after Greek/Roman and Norse (and a few singular figures like Quetzalcoatl and Gilgamesh). From the names in the book, he seemed to take quite a few African gods and the like. Probably some Asian, too. Though if it's something that bothers you, there is no mention or even allusion to any "one" God (God/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah). It's purely based on polytheistic pantheons or whatever you wanna call them. So if you're super-Christian/Jewish/Muslim/whatever and can't even find entertainment in a book where people worship "fake" gods, then this book probably isn't for you. Otherwise, it's a hoot from beginning to end.

So if you're into mythology, or even just want a fun and funny book to read, I really suggest this one. I picked up another book by this same author that I'll be checking out next. I've heard he hasn't had a disappointing book yet. So I'll be letting y'all know!

Book Review: "The Maze Runner Trilogy, Book 1: The Maze Runner" by James Dashner.

After getting through the Percy Jackson books, I needed something else to grab my attention and keep me reading. It took me starting a few different books before I finally found one that kept my attention long enough to finish. And boy was it... interesting. The book is like a strange mix of the books Ender's Game and Lord of the Flies with the movie Cube. Just to note, at the time of this review, the other two books in the planned trilogy have yet to be written/published.

This first book centers around a teenage boy named Thomas. After waking up in a strange elevator, a group of other teen boys pull him out and into a type of valley called The Glade, which is right smack in the middle of an enormous stone maze. Some of the boys have been there for at least 2 years, and none of them remember anything about their previous lives. Thomas learns that in the maze are big, blubbery, machine monsters called Grievers that come out at night--though luckily the wall entrances to the maze close at that time, keeping them safe. Otherwise, the boys--and it's all boys--have created a small community in The Glade, with different jobs from janitor to Runner. The Runners travel the maze all day, only to come back right before it closes and draw out maps, as the inner walls of the maze change daily. But something is different about Thomas. He seems to feel a connection with this place, and a couple other boys seem to recognize him, as well. And then the next day, a new person shows up--a month early--and it just so happens to be a girl. And she has a message: She's the last person to arrive. Ever. And things are about to change.

The book has a great premise, despite being a bit difficult to describe. And in fact, the book itself is very suspenseful, keeping me wanting to know what happens next. But here's what makes the book so interesting: everything else about it is rather mediocre.

The beginning of the book is a bit slow, and all it is for a large chunk of the book is Thomas whining about how nobody will tell him anything and how he seems to remember certain details about his previous life but not others and how weird that is. And just other incredibly repetitive descriptions like that. And speaking of repetitive descriptions, the book happens to have a love for similes; there's quite an overabundance of them, actually. And I'd say the last half of the book gets kind of annoying in its writing. The dialogue is laughably bad. There are way too many logic holes in character actions and reactions. The descriptions are choppy and confusing. Granted, there's all of these things in the first half, too, but it starts to get more grating in the second half, I found.

And that brings up the characters themselves. Besides maybe one or two characters (Minho and Newt), I couldn't have cared less about any of them. They were incredibly boring or one dimensional. And half the characters seem to shift personalities at a moment's notice. Minho can go from being cool and collected to a blithering idiot, while Thomas can go from being whiny and ignorant to the smartest of the smart, coming up with ideas and solutions in a couple seconds that these other boys didn't even think of in 2 years of doing nothing but focusing on this stuff. Teresa, the main girl that shows up, has potential for a good character, but despite showing up early on, she doesn't really join the story until the second half. And then her appearances are limited until toward the third act. You can tell her personality is trying to break out, but it still appears bland and boring. Honestly, Newt is the only character that goes through any kind of change in the story, and it's not that major of a change.

And I didn't even mention the Grievers. They're the main threat throughout the book (there are a couple hotheaded human characters, but it's mainly the Grievers they worry about)... but despite endless descriptions, I could never picture them. The closest I came was picturing them like the Golden Army from Hellboy 2, but covered in a layer of blubber that the machine weapons could pull in and out of. They were easier to hear than picture, honestly, with constant descriptions of the scraping and metallic noises and whatnot.

So that's why this book feels like a true anomaly. With mostly bland characters and so-so writing, how did it keep me so engaged? Well, I think part of it had to do with the fact that the chapters were incredibly short and each one ended on some kind of major cliffhanger. The other part was that I was interested in the plot itself and wanted to know what the heck was really going on.

And you do get answers--for the most part. Questions are answered enough to be satisfied. It doesn't answer every question, obviously, since there are still 2 more books planned. But you do get the basics. It's kind of an open ending, leaving it for that sequel, but I didn't hate it. I guess I can leave it at that. Though once it started getting closer to that ending, it started getting predictable. I began figuring out things before even Thomas The Incredible, and I also knew which characters were going to inevitably die.

Anywho, it's not a terrible book, but it isn't the greatest thing I've ever read. I'd definitely be interested in checking out the sequels whenever they come out. The characters are bland and the writing is so-so, but the plot is suspenseful and engaging and kept me wanting more. So if you're into young adult fantasy or dystopian fiction and have nothing else to read, this isn't all that bad a choice.

Book Review: "The Lovely Bones" by Alice Sebold.

I finished reading this book a few days ago, and I kept meaning to write a review, but kept getting too busy and forgetting. After seeing the amazing trailer for Peter Jackson's upcoming film adaptation of The Lovely Bones, I decided to check out the book. Of course, I had heard of it already, and it had been surrounded by mixed reviews. Some I'd heard had been super positive. Others I'd heard were more along the lines of "ugh...". And I can see where both sides are coming from.

The book beings with Susie Salmon (like the fish), a 14-year-old girl who is raped, murdered, and dismembered by a neighbor (I didn't mean this sentence to be basically word-for-word with wikipedia, but as I see whilst looking up some information, it is. Forgive me). So right off the bat, from chapter one, not only is it incredibly depressing, but you already know who the killer is. But the book isn't about a murder mystery. It's about how Susie's friends and family (and the police and killer) deal with the loss. And Susie narrates it all from her own Heaven, able to see all and hear all (including everybody's thoughts and emotions).

There really isn't a plot; most literary novels don't have much of one. Like I said, it's all about the characters. And sometimes that works out well. Who doesn't like a bit of character development? But sometimes... you just need a good plot, too, you know? And you really don't get it here.

All of the interesting bits--the inter-workings of Heaven, or the psychological nature of a killer--are horribly glanced over. There are bits and pieces here and there, but not nearly enough. The book is more focused on how much of a drunk the grandmother is, how annoying the mother is, how tragic the father is, how sexy Ray Singh is, or how strange Ruth is.

Ray was the almost-boyfriend, the guy Susie would have had had she not been killed. Ruth is the girl that Susie passes by as she's going to Heaven, giving her a strange connection to the "other world." Jack Salmon, the father, is a tragic character--wanting to be the hero, but just coming off as a bit deranged and depressed. The detective tries to be a hero, but gets mixed in with the worst character storyline of the book: Abigail, the mother. She's such a horrible character/person that I hated having to read any scene she was involved with. Maybe that's just a sign of good writing... that is, if that was the author's intent.

I haven't even mentioned the brother, Buckley, or the sister, Lindsey. The younger version of Buckley is better (though in no real way important). The older Buckley is angry and, honestly, annoying. Ironically, Lindsey is the opposite. When Susie first dies, the younger version of Lindsey is annoying, though as she gets older, she gets more bearable. And, amazingly, Lindsey stays with her first ever boyfriend (from the age of 13) for the rest of her life.

Honestly, the best characters, besides Jack, were Grandma Lynn, Ruth, and Ruana Singh (Ray's mother). Grandma Lynn was a wise old woman who knew how to keep things spritely and alive in an otherwise depressing setting. Ruana was just a mysterious woman (perhaps too mysterious); though she's mostly a static character, she is still interesting due to the intrigue surrounding her. And, of course, Ruth. Had this been any other genre, Ruth would have been one of if not the primary character(s). She's like the strange ghost hunter/psychic connection to the spirit realm who is out to find out what happened to Susie.

And although Susie is in everybody's head for the entire book, she barely touches on what makes her killer tick. There is only one real chapter where we learn a bit of what makes Mr. Harvey tick, but besides that, it's just little things here and there (like the dollhouses) that add to his creepiness. And while I did really appreciate the foreshadowing earlier in the book (which I of course only picked up on in 20/20 hindsight), Mr. Harvey's comeuppance at the end is less than half a page of lame summarizing, making the whole thing almost not even worth it.

Tonally, the book is strange. For the majority of the book, there's a weird mix of "depressing" and "uplifting," though leaning more toward "depressing." But then, in the last 50 pages or so, it suddenly shifts to "happily ever after" mode, which is a total shift from everything that had been happening. And like a lot of literary novels, because there is such little plot, it's one of those stories that just kind of... ends. There really isn't a "beginning-middle-end" formula to it, no "3 Acts."

I don't have completely negative things to say, however (I did, for all intents and purposes, like the book). What literary novels do is, because they have no plot, they have to make up for with pretty writing. The words must flow elegantly and make you feel swept away by the linguistics of it all (not to mention have some damn fine characters to keep your attention). And, for the most part, the novel was written very well. There are some dull stretches here and there, but it did manage to keep me reading... and as I'm not a huge fan of the literary genre (there are only a few literary books I've ever finished), this book deserves some giant socks, because that's a big feat (ba dum psh).

I know this review might seem negative, but it's not a bad book. It's just a difficult one. And on top of the subject matter, I find it really hard to get through literary novels to begin with, as they're most times overly depressing with unlikable characters going through difficult situations with almost no plot whatsoever for hundreds of pages. But I did like it (I can't say 'enjoy'... as this is one of those books that you can't really 'enjoy' as much as 'appreciate'). I do think, however, that I will like the movie a lot more. At least from the previews, it seems to focus on certain aspects from the book that will keep the audience more engaged. Not to mention I've heard it really doesn't do much of a time-jump like the book did, and you know it'll Hollywood-ize the ending to make it more dramatic (unless Jackson wants to go the 'million endings with no dramatics' route again). So if you're a fan of depressing (or literary novels), you'll probably like this one. But if you hate depressing books or books with little plot, you should probably stay away. It's a good book, but it's not for everyone.

(P.S. I didn't even mention the craziest part of the book--the possession scene followed by a bunch of sex instead of doing anything, you know, important... and maybe less creepy. But maybe that's just me).

Book Review: "Percy Jackson, Book Five - The Last Olympian" by Rick Riordan.

So I finished the Percy Jackson series. The last book does well to wrap everything up, though the last book is about equally balanced in good and not-so-good. The Last Olympian sees Kronos making his final assault toward Olympus/New York. Typhon has escaped Mt. St. Helens and is making his way across the US, so the gods of Olympus must try to defeat him before he gets there. And with Poseidon fighting his own war underwater, this leaves Olympus open for assault, as the only guard is the "last Olympian," the most minor of the Olympians, Hestia--goddess of the hearth. Of course, Percy knows Kronos is separating the Olympians away from their home purposefully, but none of them will listen and protect their thrones. So Percy, along with his friends, must make the final stand alone.

This final installment is an interesting one. The first half of the book is filled with mystery and Riordan's signature ambiguity-for-the-sake-of-ambiguity. For instance, at the end of the last book, Nico comes to Percy with an idea to help him defeat Kronos, but for almost the full first half of the book, they talk around what the plan actually is, and you don't know what it's supposed to be until Percy is literally in the action of doing it. It's really kind of annoying.

Now, if Riordan does mystery well somewhere, it's with the "spy" of Camp Half-Blood. This is actually something that nobody knows, so he isn't just having them talk around it. And it's been around since the first book (if I remember correctly). And I have to say, I really didn't see it coming. I might have had a fleeting thought at one point, but I never seriously considered this particular character as the spy. However, at the same time, that's also because there really weren't enough clues... so it really borders on an "out of nowhere" twist, which bugs me.

But there were also a few things introduced in this book that really had no major significance other than Riordan going "oh, it would be cool to include this." For instance, Pandora's "jar" or any of the "fatal flaw" stuff. None of that really ever came to fruition, and neither of those were really built up enough for me to care. In fact, because of something Percy does, his fatal flaw is supposed to be enhanced, but all that's basically ignored for the rest of the book after he's told that. As a side-note, I also found it strange that the book was called "The Last Olympian," because while Hestia was important, she wasn't title-of-the-book important. Unless I'm just completely missing some kind of obvious symbolism here.

Anyway, the whole second half of the book is non-stop action. The battle for Olympus starts halfway in and doesn't let down. I mean, there are a couple breaks here and there, but even those are filled with dreams that lead up to the next battles that are about to be fought. The action is cool, albeit predictable, though the writing did tend to get a bit confusing toward the end. And although I did (easily) predict what was going to happen during the climax with Luke/Kronos, there was still something in the way it was written that just made it feel forced and awkward. Not to mention (SPOILERS) that there's one of those endings that is so perfect and happy, it nearly feels fake; every important character with ties to the bad side gains redemption, all heroes get super rewards from the gods, and everybody lives happily ever after... though the Calypso thing made me happy. (END SPOILERS)

There was also a return of previous characters, such as Apollo, Hermes, Tyson, and Thalia. Of course, Hermes' attitude has completely changed, and he's no longer really likable, though I supposed understandably; Thalia has gone from the super-important "she'll be the best friend I've ever had" of book 3 to just some common, secondary character; Tyson, as well, becomes not much more than a character that's just kinda there; and Apollo... okay, he's still pretty cool. Gotta love Apollo. I also grew to really like Mr. D/Dionysus throughout the series, as well.

Overall, the book was enjoyable. There was an abundance of purposeful ambiguity, which, as I said before, is irritating. The action is fun, and the book moves very fast once the battle stuff starts up halfway in. I like that things were finally wrapped up or explained (I'd hope so, considering it was the last book). And there were even some things explained that I never thought about before, mostly things involving Annabeth, Luke, and Thalia when they were on their own. So I guess it was an adequate ending for the series. Will I ever revisit the series? Possibly. It has some good characters. And I'd like to read it from the start knowing everything I do at the end, to see if I catch some stuff early on. But until then, I'm satisfied enough.

Book Review: "Percy Jackson, Book Four - The Battle Of The Labyrinth" by Rick Riordan.

Warning: Again, beware spoilers if you haven't read the previous three books.

In the spectrum of the series, this fourth installment (in my opinion) isn't as fun as the third, but it's still pretty good. As the previous book took place during the winter, this one picks up the following summer, going back to the formula that the first two books used (and the third mostly skipped over). Percy is about to start high school, and his mom's new boyfriend pulls some strings to get him enrolled in his school. Though during orientation, Percy stumbles into another new student, somebody he met the previous winter--Rachel Elizabeth Dare--a mortal girl with the ability to see through the Mist. Needless to say, havoc ensues, and Percy is forced to flee with a visiting Annabeth, and they make their way to camp. 

Once at camp, they see Dionysus is busy doing godly things, and a swordsman named Quintus is there to help out Chiron for the summer. Grover is in trouble with his elders, as he can't back up having sensed Pan last winter. Nico di Angelo is still missing, and Percy keeps receiving disturbing Iris-messages that show what Nico is up to. But then Percy stumbles upon a secret entrance within the camp boundaries... an entrance to the massive, underground Labyrinth. And this brings up many new issues--they realize that Luke can bring forth his armies into camp this way, getting around its defenses. But they know it can also help find Pan somehow. So now a new quest begins, led this time by Annabeth, into the Labyrinth to find its creator--Daedalus--before Luke does, to persuade him not to help Luke find his way through the Labyrinth.

If you've noticed, there are really two plots to this one, the "stop Luke" plot and the "Pan" plot, though the Pan plot is more secondary here. Important, but secondary. To cut right to the negative, what I didn't like the most about the book was how it was a bit all over the place. Like the Labyrinth itself, the book was, at times, chaotic. But I don't fault it for that. My issue lies in how that chaos comes off as too organized. Half the book feels forced, and the other half feels rushed. It's like there were a bunch of ideas the author wanted to put into the book, but (with most of them) he wouldn't give them the amount of time they deserved. And then, as I said, some of the things just felt forced in there, just there to go "hey, I'm important to the plot later, but I just needed to be introduced now so it makes sense when the time comes. kthxbai." I don't know. I just think there was a good chunk of the book that was handled too sloppily.

That being said, the book has a strong first few chapters and a strong last half (or thereabouts). There are a couple really good twists toward the end. And I knew way ahead of time that these characters would be involved in twists, I just didn't know how. And no, I'm not talking about Rachel Elizabeth Dare, though I did love her involvement. Right about the time I started going "okay, what the heck was her point?," the book brings her back into the equation. Though the lead-up to the reveal brought back bad flashbacks to the first book, where Riordan took an unbelievably long time to reveal the completely obvious.

On a related note, I did really enjoy how the book started to focus more on the romantic relationships between some of the characters. Though Percy is completely daft about it all. But still, I can't wait to see it all resolved in the last book.

One thing I loved about the second and third books were the involvement of some really fun gods and goddesses. Unfortunately, the two central ones this time around aren't nearly as interesting as the others have been. Hephaestus is interesting, but his personality is dull. And Hera is barely in the book for me to really care. I wanted to see Hermes or Apollo again. Though there is a great, though much too short, section with Calypso (not a goddess, but immortal) that is utterly heartbreaking. I hope she comes back into the story in the last book, because I really liked her character, and you can't help but feel horribly for her.

Also taking a larger role is Nico di Angelo. The character is annoyingly stubborn and dangerously naive, but I still can't help but like him for how cool his powers and whatnot are. I think the ending of the book bodes well for the last book. Hopefully Nico is a little less annoying and a lot cooler, because he is a character with a lot of potential.

I know I said some negative things here, but I did enjoy the book. In my current list from favorite on down, it'd probably come in second (after Titan's Curse). I should start reading the fifth soon. But as for this one, maybe my expectations were too high after the third. Who knows? It's still a good read.

Book Review: "Percy Jackson, Book Three - The Titan's Curse" by Rick Riordan.

I really zipped through this book. I read a few chapters yesterday, then read the rest--over half the book--today. I couldn't put it down. In my opinion, this third installment is better than the first two combined. Before I get into the review, let me just warn now: if you haven't read the first two, there might be some spoilers in this review. It is about the third of a series, after all. So if you haven't... I'd stop reading this review now. There also might be one or two hints of spoilers (as in, if you think about it, I'm sure you could figure it out, but I won't say it directly) for this third book.

The book starts off differently than the other two. Whereas the previous books begin at the start of summer and are heavy in exposition, this one starts in the heart of winter and gives exposition the finger. At first it's a bit disorienting, seeing the end of the previous book ends introducing the human form of Thalia. This one picks up with Percy, Thalia, and Annabeth going to meet Grover at a military school, as he had found a couple more half-bloods. There's no immediate explanation of why Grover is searching for half-bloods again, or how they all got so buddy-buddy with Thalia. It does explain, but briefly, and not right away. Don't get me wrong, this isn't really a complaint. It was actually somewhat refreshing, not having to have things I should already know beaten over my head.

Anyway, there's a scuffle, and Annabeth ends up kidnapped, while Percy, Thalia, Grover, and the two half-bloods he found--Bianca and Nico di Angelo--are saved by The Hunters (or Huntresses, rather), the elite group of warriors led by the goddess Artemis. Artemis goes off to hunt a powerful monster that the bad guys are after, leaving her followers, including the tough Zoe Nightshade, to go back to Camp Half-Blood. They hitch a ride with Artemis' twin brother Apollo and make it back to camp. One thing leads to another, and there's another prophecy and another quest. A team of five must search for the now-kidnapped Artemis, though with the knowledge that two will die and one will hold the burden of the Titan's curse. And then there's the whole issue of rescuing Annabeth, which Percy takes to heart, especially when it's declared that he's not one of the five going on the quest.

Almost right away, the book seems darker than its predecessors. There's still a lot of fun action. I particularly liked the brief fight between Percy and Thalia early on. And speaking of Thalia, if there's one thing that I would have liked to see done just slightly differently, it would be her relationship with Percy. Or rather, how Percy perceives her. The first half of the book sets it up as if Percy is going to have this on-going rivalry with her, where everybody follows Thalia and she gets all the glory, leaving Percy behind as just some other, average hero. But the latter half of the book drops this. I thought it would have really played better if he would have gotten more angsty with her and her sudden spotlight... kind of like how Ron got with Harry in Goblet of Fire, I suppose.

And speaking of Harry Potter, there were still a few parallels, but they're getting further and further away, much harder to just point out and go "that's totally Harry Potter." There really wasn't anything major or blatant, at least not that I can remember. So that's a good sign.

My favorite thing about the previous book was Hermes, so it's not that much of a surprise that some of my favorite bits for this book involved other gods and goddesses, namely Artemis and Apollo. We also see Aphrodite and Athena up close and personal for the first time, too. Though what I really liked was the reveal of the General. Strangely, I picked up on a certain myth going on earlier, but I didn't make the connection until right before it was revealed. Similarly, I had a hunch of who Nico and Bianca's immortal parent was for most of the book, but I think only because I've been hoping to see a child of this particular deity since the first book. I also think Rick Riordan handled the clues much more subtly for them than he did Percy, which he bashed repeatedly over our heads for over 100 pages of the first book.

One interesting note that I'd like to bring up that I haven't yet in any of these reviews is something I noticed that is rather prevalent in these books. Mr. Riordan quite often likes to make sure that the characters, usually Percy, grabs anything important from wherever, because he/they have a feeling that he/they "won't be returning to/won't be seeing this place again and/or for a long time." It just seems too coincidental that Percy or the group just know, for no reason, that they're about to be forced from wherever they're at and so they better take their things, because they'll need them for the rest of the plot. I've seen this happen in each book so far, sometimes more than once (I think it happened at least 2-3 times or so in the second book).

A few final notes... the book was not only better written and more intricate than its predecessors, but it was also funnier. I loved the Hoover Dam chapter; it actually made me laugh out loud. Also, for the first time, the book didn't feel self-contained. There were some things left hanging, such as Clarisse's quest, the di Angelo "lawyer," or anything about the mortal girl from the Hoover Dam (I know she has to be important later... too big of a deal was made of her). And speaking of things important for later, the Lotus Hotel came back into play, though it still really wasn't explained. Its magical properties were used (rather cleverly, might I add) for plot purposes, but I'd still like some kind of explanation of its existence. I need to go out and buy the last two books (I only got the first three), because I really want to start up the fourth. There's so much I left out of this review that I liked (from Bessie to Blackjack, and even Dionysus... who, though I had a small quibble about regarding his interesting though almost completely out of nowhere explanation of why he hates heroes, has a good moment toward the end of the book). So again, I loved this third installment. To me, it was clearly the best thus far, and I can only hope the next two are even better.

Book Review: "Percy Jackson, Book Two - The Sea of Monsters" by Rick Riordan.

So I finished the second Percy Jackson book, The Sea of Monsters. I have to say, I enjoyed it more than the first. It still has some obvious Harry Potter parallels (Gray Sisters Taxi/Knight Bus, Chariot Racing/Quidditch, The "mentor" being forced to leave as to be replaced by somebody who goes out of his/her way to torture and humiliate the hero and others). But unlike the previous book, this one has very few HP connections, so it really isn't distracting.

Instead, this book pulls a lot from The Odyssey, which is ironic considering I recently found out that I'm gonna be teaching that this year. Anyway, the book starts off as Percy finally having lasted nearly a full year at a single school (which is kind of an HP parallel, too... instead of DADA teachers not lasting a year, Percy can't stay in a school for more than a year). He's also befriended Tyson, a rather large and unpopular guy, who was brought in as an educating the homeless project of some sort. He's a bit slow, though nice and misunderstood, unlike the rest of his kind... but I'm getting ahead of myself. In other words, he's like a mentally handicapped version of Hagrid (I know Tyson is supposed to be just a "little kid," but he seemed more "special" to me, if you know what I mean). Anywho, Annabeth shows up and drags Percy (and Tyson by extension) to Camp Half-Blood, where Thalia's tree-o-protection has been poisoned and monsters are attacking. Not long after, Percy realizes he must save Grover, who has been captured by Polyphemus, the cyclops defeated by Odysseus, and who is also guarding the Golden Fleece. And, imagine that, they also realize that the Golden Fleece could be the only thing to heal Thalia-Tree and save the camp. So off on adventure they go... even if they were told not to.

I really didn't have any major issues with this one. It strongly followed the same outline as The Odyssey, but that didn't bother me. Some of the previous characters get bigger roles, such as Clarisse, who I'm actually enjoying as a character (she's kinda like Draco-lite: she doesn't come off as completely threatening, and is at times likable). It introduces some fun new characters, too. Tyson is a great character, mostly due to how innocent he is (I loved the whole "Rainbow the Hippocampus" bit). I also really liked the god Hermes, introduced in this book. His bits, though there are only two, are really funny.

And that's another thing. This book had more humor than the previous. Well, I mean that the humor didn't seem as forced as the first, or was at least witty enough for me to appreciate. But there was an overall good mix of humor and action.

This book also wasn't nearly as predictable as the first, despite following the Odyssey outline. I knew how it was going to end merely because I had it accidentally spoiled for me beforehand (some stupid person on imdb brought it up in a topic for the first movie). Though, and you'll know what I'm talking about if you've read the book, I liked the reasoning behind why the ending bit happened. I didn't see that coming, honestly. And although the baddie is ripping off Voldemort more by the second, he's actually beginning to become more threatening by showing his cunning and deceitful ways.

If there was anything about the ending that I didn't like, it was the end of the penultimate chapter (at the end of the chariot race). It was so cheesy. Like, the ending of the movie version of Chamber of Secrets cheesy (which is an ironic comparison as I've already made the Hagrid/Tyson comparison). It just felt... forced and fake and incredibly cheesy. But maybe that's just me.

Maybe I can get through the next three books without spoilers or easy predictability. I've been told that, like Harry Potter, these books do get darker and more intricate as the go, which makes me happy. If it keeps going on this path, the next few books will be great and fun. Though the series thus far has been fun already. And this second installment was no different. If you enjoyed the first one, you'll really enjoy the second.

Book Review: "Percy Jackson, Book One - The Lightning Thief" by Rick Riordan.

I've recently discovered the Percy Jackson series. I mean, I've known about it for ages, but I recently decided to read it. I just finished the first book, and I've decided that I will do a review for each one as I go along. As a Harry Potter fan, I heard this was the series to go to for some good reading along the same path.

And I can totally see why. This book has so many similarities to Harry Potter, it's bordering between freakish and idea-stealing. Granted, I'm no dummy. I know of Joseph Campbell's monomyth and how basically all fantasy stories follow the same rules--from Beowulf to Lord of the Rings to Star Wars, Eragon, and Harry Potter. I can't hold monomythic structure against it (a regular boy discovers he's more than average and becomes a hero... there's possibly a prophecy... and there are specific characters, such as the helpers or the mentor, not to mention the specific paths he must follow).

And these aren't the things I'm talking about with this comparison. Although, some of these I also cannot fault, due to them being steeped in mythology (and since Percy Jackson follows Greek Mythology, well...). But let me give a list of some of the similarities I found between just this first book and the Harry Potter series (there may be some mild spoilers for The Lightning Thief, so be warned):

- The importance of the lightning bolt in general (Harry's scar/Zeus' master bolt).

- An object that, when worn, causes invisibility (cloak/hat).

- A mother 'sacrifices' herself (or at least attempts to) to protect her son.

- The hero is saved by a centaur.

- Hero pulls a jewel-encrusted sword that belonged to an ancient figure from a seemingly everyday object (hat/pen).

- One friend is a brainiac girl with all the answers and who is rarely without a book.

- The other friend is half the time nervous and enjoys eating often.

- The term "Half-blood" in general (I'd say this could go to "mythology," but I'm more aware of the term demigod).

- Being in a school-like place where "students" are sorted into houses (which are named after important ancient figures).

- One of these aforementioned houses is entirely against the hero.

- One person from said "mean" house is specifically antagonistic with the hero, as is (eventually) the character's father.

- There is a "teacher" who hates the hero for his status and his father, but is willing to protect him anyway.

- The line given by said teacher regarding his celebrity status.

  *Note: This one really got to me. Mr. D and Snape are so similar in personality, it's insane... and the line Mr. D says to Percy after Percy discovers who his father is is almost syllable for syllable a line Snape gives when he first meets Harry. Snape's line: "Mr. Potter... our new celebrity."  And Mr. D's line: "Well, well... our little celebrity."

- The hero is forced to live with a despicable person because said person helps to keep the hero protected.

- Characters are afraid to say the names of their enemies and give them other names to call them by instead.

- The hero, at one point, talks to a caged animal right before freeing it.

- The "trio" (which is actually called a "trio" in Lightning Thief, which could be considered another connection in and of itself) must pass by a giant three-headed dog in order to get to their ultimate destination (this one I'll let pass as having the mythology ties to begin with).

- Not really book related, but just for a fun fact... Chris Columbus, who directed the first two Harry Potter films, is directing the film version of The Lightning Thief.

And there are numerous others I didn't even bother to list, but are incredibly easy to pick up on. But all that being said, I can continue with my actual review. The Lightning Thief introduces us to the world of Percy Jackson, a 12-year-old boy with dyslexia and ADHD, who has been kicked out of every private school he's attended. Long story short, he ends up discovering he's a half-blood--his mother is mortal and his father is one of the gods of Olympus from Greek mythology. And not just any god, either, but one of the big three: Poseidon (this is not a spoiler. Granted, he doesn't officially find out until after a 100 pages in, but if you can't figure it out on your own far before that, you probably have no prior interest in or miniscule knowledge of Greek mythology, and this book probably wouldn't be for you anyway). But this is a major issue, as after World War II, Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades (the big three) made an agreement not to have any more kids, as they were too powerful. Zeus broke the treaty first, and then Poseidon, and Hades didn't like either of them for it. But now, Zeus' master lightning bolt has been stolen--which cannot be done by another god--and Zeus blames Percy, recently outed as Poseidon's son. So Percy must go on a quest with his newest friends to find the lightning bolt in 10 days or else World War III will begin.

The book has a fun story, especially for me, who loved all sorts of mythologies growing up--but Greek was, as with most people, my first. I loved a lot of the little allusions and whatnot. The writing isn't very difficult. It's not as deep or detailed as Harry Potter, but it isn't as simplistic as, say, Skulduggery Pleasant.

Though it isn't without its issues. My first issue with the book was how long it took to reveal certain information. Things were needlessly dragged out. Seriously, by the time they actually revealed Percy's father, I thought all the other characters had to be the biggest idiots on Earth. His mother met his father by the sea. They both always felt the most comfortable at the beach. Percy becomes incredibly rejuvenated with water. He actually controls water and attacks people with it. And a whole slew of other clues. But no... none of the characters, some of which are immortal or gods themselves, can't figure it out until Poseidon's symbol appears over the boy's head. And not just with this particular reveal, but with information about the world in general. It took the book way too long to start divulging information about the new, mystical world. For almost no reason, they refused to tell Percy anything about his new life. And it drove me crazy.

Another issue comes at the latter part of the book. I was having no problem with the quest they were on until they came to Vegas. You know when you watch a movie based on a book, and something happens that totally confuses you because it's not really detailed or explained? It's just kind of random, but is necessary to move the plot forward, but you just know that it had to have been given more details in the source material? That's what I felt of the Lotus Hotel/Arcade scene. The scene is an allusion to the Lotus-Eaters part of The Odyssey, but it's never explained or even mentioned again once they escape. It just seemed almost like, and forgive this pun, a deus ex machina or something for the author to pull him out of an issue he'd written himself into and needed to add more suspense or whatever.

The last issue I can't really fault the book. At least, I probably shouldn't. The book was way too predictable. I figured out everything way before I probably should have. Granted, the book is written for middle grade, I assume, so they might not find it as predictable as I did. But there was something about the writing, too. Instead of constantly barraging the reader with clues and "hey, look at this! Make sure to remember this!" moments, it could have been much more subtle so that the big reveals were actually surprising.

Overall, though, the book was very entertaining. It's easy to read and, despite its predictability, fun. The characters were good, the writing was decent, the use of mythology was great, and its moments of action were actually really cool. So I must join the ranks of the others and say, if you enjoy Harry Potter, you'll most likely enjoy Percy Jackson. Don't go in expecting the depth or layers of the aforementioned series (that I can see so far, having just read the first book), but if you're a mythology buff, it's all good. Just don't get hung up (I know, it's hard) on the Harry Potter parallels, because you'll see them on practically every page of the book. If you try to look past that, you'll enjoy it.

Page-To-Film: The Princess Bride.

The Princess Bride is one of my favorite movies. It has some great dry wit, humor, memorable characters and lines. So for a long time I was wary of reading the book it was based on, simply by the almost always true rule that the book is better than the movie. I didn't want the movie to be ruined by reading the book. But now I've read the book... and I don't think I had all that much to worry about.

As usual, let me start off by discussing the book. Like the movie, the book presents itself with two narratives (though the book's first narrative is a bit different). In the book, William Goldman sets up a gimmick. As a boy, William Goldman loved sports, had ADHD, and had no use for books. But then he came down with Pneumonia, and his father decided to read him a book called The Princess Bride, an epic Florinese novel by a man named S. Morgenstern. The book changed his life. He becomes an avid reader and, later, an author himself. He has his own wife and son now (who he's constantly degrading, but we'll get to that later), and he wants his son to experience The Princess Bride like he did. But his son couldn't even get through chapter two. And when Mr. Goldman sits down to read the book, he discovers why: this isn't much at all like he remembered it as a boy. There are endless pages of Florinese history and pointless passages of description that the scholars see as classic satire, but which he sees as dull. So Goldman sets out to write an abridged version of the book, the "good parts" version, cutting out all that pointless or dull stuff. And this is the book's gimmick. Every now and then within the book, there are short interruptions (in italics) where Goldman explains something has been cut and why, or he'll give a story of why his father had skipped these passages in reading to him in the first place and the conversations they had at these points in time.

But we also have the "main" story, which is that of true love, adventure, etc. I'm not really going to bother explaining it because, well, if you don't know the story of The Princess Bride, shame on you.

So how is the book? It's pretty good. The first 30 or so pages, though, is pure ADHD setup of the gimmick, bouncing back and forth between stories of Goldman's life--childhood and adult--and how he both learned to love reading and how he got to this current point in his life. But then it picks up and the real story begins.

The writing style is something you'll either love or hate. There are a lot of fun "statistics" (much like the movie's "there have been 5 great kisses...", which actually is in the book, though around the middle instead of the end). He also uses an incredibly amount of polysyndeton (where he connects many things with 'and' and it seems like a run-on sentence, when it fact it's just a really long one. It's a stylistic thing that most authors don't use anymore. You mainly see it in older works anymore. Hemingway did it frequently, as well). And there are a lot of parentheticals where it'll say something like (this was before THIS but long after THAT), some of which weren't historically accurate, some of which were, but that was the point (at least according to the abridged notes). And then there are the abridged notes themselves, which I didn't find nearly as annoying or tiring as I've read in other reviews. In fact, the majority of them end up in the movie in some form or fashion (with the sick grandson/grandfather bits).

There was really only one thing that surprised me about the book: it was mean. From either characters or Goldman himself, there was a surprising amount of misogyny, superficiality (primarily with women), racism, anti-Semitism, cynicism, and just all around insult-tossing. Honestly, the mix of the "true love" stuff, "perfect beauty" talk, and mistreating of women, there were numerous times I kept flashing back to Twilight, which was really rather painful to even think about making that comparison. Though, thankfully, the difference is that William Goldman can actually write, and write very well. And his characters are actually likeable--when they aren't being uncharacteristically angry for, sometimes, no reason. And that was another strange thing. There were few times in the movie where the characters seemed angry or upset. In the book, they got angry quite a bit, yelling, insulting, etc. Though some of the "angry" lines went to the screen and were acted with wit instead of anger, which is much better, in my opinion.

And to top it all off, the book has a horrible ending... if you can really call it an ending. The "Princess Bride" story just kind of ends (and the "unabridged" ending that's shown is also terrible and such a downer), but it ends with more abridged notes after that... which ends with such a cynicism that it nearly destroys the feel good "true love conquers all" mood of the rest of it.

But then we have the movie. If the book is the abridged "good parts" version of the S. Morgenstern work, then the movie is the "good parts" version of the abridged work. And ironically, the movie was also written by William Goldman. But besides even the writing, the casting is perfect. Cary Elwes, Robin Wright, Mandy Patinkin, Andre the Giant, Wallace Shawn, Christopher Guest, Chris Sarandon, Billy Crystal (et al)... perfect.

Now, don't get me wrong, in retrospect, there are some things better about the book, and some things better about the movie. But for the most part, this is an incredibly close adaptation. Some lines were altered from the book for the movie just slightly (mostly when things had to be condensed), and for the better. But there were also entire lines and scenes that were a bit different from the book that I actually prefer in the film (most specifically, how Westley presents the story of the Dread Pirate Roberts to Buttercup both before and during the Fire Swamp... in the book, it's not even brought up until after Buttercup realizes the man in black is Westley and they're in the Fire Swamp).

So what did the book do better? Character backgrounds. The movie, of course, briefly touches on Inigo's history in terms of his father and his revenge. But there's so much more in the book. Not to mention Fezzik's story is almost all but removed entirely (there are certain points where you can get bits and pieces, such as Fezzik's nearly indiscernible speech to Westley about fighting one person versus groups, or Vizzini threatening to send him back to Greenland). And because Fezzik's character is played down a bit, there's a line at the end that doesn't make too much sense and seems out of place, where Inigo says "You've done something right." Also, I was surprised how how much more rhyming there was in the book than the movie. But I'm rambling now.

Buttercup, Vizzini, Humperdinck, and Count Rugen also have more details to them than the movie grants. Actually, the movie takes what has to be the first 100 or so pages of the book and condenses it down into about 7 minutes. And what else to these characters have in common? They're actually less likable (including Buttercup) in the book. For Buttercup, that's a bad thing, but for the latter three, it's good... for the book, anyway. Primarily Humperdinck and Rugen, they seem much more villainous and dastardly in the book. Rugen is more calmly psychotic (he's really a great and disturbing character, and Christopher Guest played him brilliantly for what he was given). And Humperdinck's hunting skills are hugely downplayed in the movie.

In fact, that brings us to the biggest cut/change from book to film. The book's Zoo of Death becomes the film's Pit of Despair (not to mention The Albino's personality shifts completely for the little screen time he has, though I think for the better). The Zoo of Death is a 5-level containment area, where each level gets more and more dangerous. Humperdinck keeps the world's most dangerous animals there, and depending on what he feels like hunting at the time, he'll have The Albino go and get it for him, and he'll hunt it then and there. The only empty level is the fifth level, saved for the most dangerous animal, which he hasn't discovered yet. Turns out, this is where Westley is held later, what the movie turns into the Pit of Despair. Though the only real reason to have kept it in the movie would be the scene where Inigo and Fezzik have to travel through it to get to Westley, though those descriptions in the book were rather confusing and not nearly as exciting as it could have been (there were hippos and lions, and they end up fighting a giant snake and some bats).

All in all, the book is a good companion piece to the film, filling in some blanks to help things make more sense (though they made sense to me until I read the book, then I realized that there were just some things that were only touching the surface of what was really there). Of course, there are more things than I've mentioned, but nothing drastically important.

I suppose when looking at the two, I must say that the movie is better than the book. The movie does have some great things in it, primarily the more extensive character details, but the best parts of the book come in the humor and dialogue, most of which comes off word-for-word in the movie (seriously, as I said, this was a close adaptation). I did like the statistics in the book, though. If you like/love the movie, I'd suggest reading the book at least once. It really is a really good book. I just happen to prefer the movie.

Book Review: "Cell" by Stephen King.

I haven't done a book review in a while, and I felt this one would be a good one to review, seeing as I have quite a few feelings on it.

-----------

Cell is my first Stephen King novel (second attempted... I tried reading the first book of his Dark Tower series and was so bored to tears that I eventually just gave up). I've heard different opinions of this book. Some call it superb and anybody, King fan or not, will love it. Some call it a hack job and just a mishmash of previous works (particularly The Stand). As I've said, I've never read a previous King work (I've seen movie versions), but even I could tell this was piecemeal.

Let's start with the story. Clay Riddell is in Boston selling his first graphic novel, Dark Wanderer. But suddenly, everybody on their cellphones, or even people listening in on cell conversations, just start going crazy. They become somewhat reminiscent of 28 Days/Weeks Later's Infected. They're fast. They're dangerous. They're angry. They're insane. They'll do anything to cause destruction. During the madness, Clay meets Tom, who didn't have his cell because his cat had accidentally knocked it off the counter and broken it that morning. And not long after, they meet a teen girl named Alice, whose mother just attacked her after turning into one of the "phone-crazies." Eventually, the group heads off to Maine, where Clay is from, to find his son and ex-wife (but moreso his son). They meet others along the way, and they all realize that things might not be that easy (...or is it?), as the phone-crazies begin to evolve.

First, let's start with the most important aspect of the story: the "phone-crazies," "phoners," whatever you wanna call them. Just don't call them zombies, because they aren't. How can people call this a zombie story? Hell, in comparison, I'd be more likely to call 28 Days Later... a zombie story faster than I'd call this one, and if you know me, that's saying a lot. First, they aren't dead, undead, or anywhere close to not being alive. Second, they're not cannibals. They don't yearn for human flesh or any other part of the human body. They eat twinkies and vegetables and who knows what other common foods. Third, they attack anything (human or animal) and anybody (including their own kind, which zombies really don't do... but I can let this one slide a bit). And not to mention their psionic tendencies (telepathy, telekinesis, etc.). Yeah, you heard me right.

The story starts off great. It's suspenseful. The characters have, well, character and personality. But once they leave Boston, and once the phoners begin to evolve, the story begins to devolve. The characters are hardly ever in any danger, and they do more watching than anything else. And once they realize when and how to travel, the danger zone all but disappears, as the threat basically becomes nonexistent. In other words, outside the first quarter or so of the book, there is almost no "horror" or "suspense" in this "horror/suspense" novel.

And then we have the characters. After the Boston scenes, Tom loses all personality and he and Clay are damn near interchangeable. And outside of being (sometimes irrationally) focused on getting to his son, he's a boring lead character. He doesn't really do anything. Alice starts off as an interesting character, and then she gets that little sneaker. It wouldn't be annoying if the book didn't go out of its way to explain how annoyed your POV character gets at her obsession with it. And then she, too, starts devolving from a teenage girl into just another cutout of the rest of the characters. She doesn't act or speak (which I'll get to momentarily) like any normal teenage girl, or much like she did at the beginning of the book (which is what happened with Tom, too). And then we have other characters, like Jordan, Ray, Dan, and Denise, the latter 3 feeling so random and out of place and so underdeveloped, it was crazy. Jordan  (a 12-year-old boy computer whiz) wasn't really developed, either, but he did have grown men (gay and straight) fawning over him and wanting to cover him in kisses... which is just awkward. In other words, everybody just acted strange, like Stephen King forgot how people act around each other.

And then we have the dialogue, which even in the Boston scenes feels awkward and poor. None of the dialogue felt realistic for any character, and by the end, everybody sounded exactly the same--trying to see who could drop the f-bomb more (from the once-meek Tom to the 12-year-old Jordan). I have absolutely zero problem with language, but some of it in this book was just plain gratuitous and out of place with the rest of the scene or whatnot. Or there will be times when somebody will make a (really bad) joke (sometimes I wasn't even aware it was supposed to be a joke), and all the present characters will start laughing so hard they have tears coming out of their eyes. Not to mention some of the dialogue is just weird or doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I wouldn't necessarily say the book is off-the-charts boring as some reviews I've read have proclaimed, but there is a whole lot of nothing going on. And almost nothing is explained. What caused the "Pulse" in the first place? Who was behind it? Why was "this" or "that" mentioned (sometimes repetitively) though never brought back up again in any significant way, if at all? Why are the main characters labeled as "insane"? What's with the whole "virtual stage" thing? And then you have more logic-driven questions: Are the phoners actually evil, or are all these characters just idiots? If there's even a glimmer of hope that the phoners could be cured, why isn't it brought up sooner and why do the characters keep going out of their way to attack them and make them angry? Why bring up the main characters' importance to everybody if what you want is to not bring any unwanted attention their way? Why do their actions in the climax not make any rational sense, especially compared to their reasonings earlier on in the book? And, most importantly, why the hell did the book end the way it did? The entire last section of the book was completely unnecessary and an incredibly boring waste of time.

Seriously, I don't usually mind open endings, but this one is just ridiculous. On top of unanswered questions, logic problems, bad dialogue, little suspense, and flat characters, you won't even give resolution? Lame. There were many obvious segments in the book that were clearly put in because King had some writer's block and didn't know how to get the characters where he wanted them to go (for instance, the "shoes on the porch" thing felt like an excuse to keep them walking until they reached Gaiten Academy, especially since it was never bothered with after that moment).

Another random issue that I found was... how is it that every "normie" calls the phoners by the exact same thing? I find it a bit farfetched that complete strangers will meet up and both call these attackers "phone-crazies" or that the groups of them are "flocks." It's way too coincidental.

Overall, the book has a good premise. But it's marketed as a horror/suspense/zombie novel, and it really has none of these things. It's full of holes, logic problems, unnecessary descriptions, awful dialogue, unrealistic actions, undeveloped and unrealistic characters, unanswered questions, and almost no suspense. Though it's in the process of being made into a TV mini-series, and I'll probably give that a watch, assuming at least half of these issues are changed in the process of transferring it from page to screen.

Otherwise, I probably won't read it again. Was it the worst book I've ever read? Not even close. I did finish it, after all. But it was mainly a good premise that wasn't handled well after the beginning. After they leave Boston, it goes from good to decent and stays that way for about half the book (with a few dips here and there, usually involving character). And then it just starts to go downhill fast. Maybe if you're a hardcore King fan, you might enjoy it. But let's just say it didn't win me over to King.

Book Review: "The Tales of Beedle the Bard" by J.K. Rowling.

Yesterday (12/4/08), J.K. Rowling's newest 'book' was released: The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Now, for those of you who haven't read the Harry Potter books, this probably won't make any sense to you. The Tales of Beedle the Bard played a huge role in the final installment of the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, specifically the story "The Tale of the Three Brothers." The book is supposedly a translation from ancient runes by Hermione Granger and includes an introduction and specific footnotes by J.K. Rowling, with special notes on the stories (along with his own personal footnotes) by Albus Dumbledore.

But this book wasn't always going to be up for sale. At first, Mrs. Rowling only made about 7 bejeweled copies that she was giving to those close to her, and the final one up for charity auction. But due to a giant fan uproar that nobody who wasn't filthy rich would ever be able to read it, J.K. Rowling decided to mass produce it, though give all proceeds to charity (as she has always done with her other companion books, Quidditch Through The Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them). There were two versions available for buy: the regular hardcover copy, or the leather-bound, bejeweled version for $100+. Needless to say, I went for the regular.

The book is a quick and easy read, at only a little over 100 pages (and huge font). There are only five little fairy tales, and all of them include notes afterward by Dumbledore. Let me first discuss each story.

"The Wizard and the Hopping Pot" comes first and is an interesting and highly moralistic story. In fact, it's probably the most straight-forward and obvious with its moral. It's about a bad-tempered wizard who inherets a magical cauldron from his father, though refuses to use it to help the people of his village.

"The Fountain of Fair Fortune" is second and probably the most lighthearted of the five. And as it is the most lighthearted, it is almost the most uninteresting and predictable (with one exception... I really didn't see the last line coming). It's about three witches and a knight who journey through the trials and tribulations before them in order to get to a fountain that is supposed to cure all their ills, even though only one of them can be selected to be cured.

"The Warlock's Hairy Heart" is the third and easily the most demented and dark of the five. There are some descriptions in there that I really didn't expect to find, especially after following a story like "The Fountain of Fair Fortune." It's about a man who finds love trifle and silly, so he performs a specific dark magic to make himself invulnerable to it... but then decides that he wants to attempt marriage after all.

"Babbity Rabbity and Her Cackling Stump" is fourth and, despite the oddest named of the fairy tales, is one of the more entertaining ones. It made me wonder what was going to happen next. It's about a foolish king who threatens death to all who use magic, but wants to be the only (and therefore most powerful) wizard in the land, so he hires an apparent sorcerer to teach him, though he's nothing more than a con man.

"The Tale of the Three Brothers" is the final story and the one that each Harry Potter fan should know if they've read the seventh book. The story is much like something one would find by reading the Canterbury Tales, I've always thought. It's about three brothers who cheat Death and, as a reward, each choose an item to better themselves: the Elder Wand (the most powerful wand ever created), the Resurrection Stone (a stone that could supposedly 'bring back' the dead), and Death's own Invisibility Cloak (which would never wear out).

All five stories are unique and entertaining in their own way, but I found the true entertainment of the book came from Dumbledore's notes. These extended my knowledge into the magical world and its vast and expansive history. It was always interesting to read about the different 'people' that lived in the past of the magical world and how they helped to establish how things came about in the modern day. There's really not much more to say about this. The stories were entertaining, but it was all the extra notes that made this read very much worth it. I can't wait to see if they're going to model the look of The Tales of Beedle the Bard in the seventh/eighth movie(s) after the $100+ version of the book. I think that'd be pretty cool.

Overall, if you're a fan of the books, you know you'll have to get this. If you follow the movies instead of the books, I'd stick away from this for now, as it is slightly spoilerous to some of the future events that have yet to occur in the films. But if you prefer the movies over the books to begin with, there's no point in addressing you, as you wouldn't go out to buy this anyway. But for those who are book fans... check it out. It's worth it.

(Note: Just keep in mind, even in the realm of Harry Potter, these were stories (fairy tales) for little kids, so don't go in expecting HP-level depth or anything. The most you'll find is discussions of morals and slight racism/equality in Dumbledore's notes).

Page-To-Film: Battle Royale.

Well, I haven’t done one of these in a while (technically this will be the second one, even though the review for Blindness was similarly written). The last time I did this, I reviewed the short story and film versions of Rashomon. This time, I’m taking yet another Japanese story and film: Battle Royale. The book, which came out in 1999, was at first highly controversial, though it quickly became a huge hit, making all the best-seller lists. The very next year, it began being translated into a series of graphic novels/mangas, and, within that same year, became a movie. From what I’ve read, all three are different from each other, but I have yet to experience the mangas, so I couldn’t tell you for those. However, just by experiencing the book and the film, I can agree that they do have some pretty big differences.

But let me first start off by discussing what the story is about (first the book). The story is an allegory for the transition of teenage school life into the cut-throat world of Japanese business. In an alternative future where America is a third-world country and Japan has become a massively strict dictatorship, the government has set up a program in which one class of fifteen-year-old students is chosen to participate in The Program, which sets them in a deserted area and forces them to kill each other off until there is only one left. Shiroiwa Junior High School Class B has just been selected to be the next class to participate. They are put on a small island that has been evacuated from all inhabitants. Each of them (all 42, with 21 males and 21 females) has a metal collar around his or her neck wherein it can be detonated if they start to do something against the rules and/or government, if they try to escape, or if they get caught in a Forbidden Zone—areas of the island that are announced with the newly dead every 6 hours that are forbidden to be in after that point in time. Along for the ‘game’ is Shuya Nanahara, a young boy who lost both his parents and just wants to get out alive with all of his friends; Noriko Nakagawa, a young girl who gets injured early on and struggles to stay alive and innocent with her secret crush; Shogo Kawada, a mysterious new transfer student with a scarred-up face and an interest in both Shuya and Noriko; Hiroki Sugimura, a sweet boy who just wants to find two different girls; and Shinji Mimura, a friend of Shuya’s that is incredibly popular and incredibly smart. And then there are the more sinister of the bunch, including troubled female Mitsuko Soma and insane psychopath Kazuo Kiriyama. The rules state there can only be one survivor, but Shogo insists he can help get him, Shuya, and Noriko off the island alive. The only issue is that they have to wait until they’re the only ones left… if they can survive that long.

The book was absolutely amazing. It’s now one of my favorite books. A lot of people, as I’ve read, have some issues with the English translation, but outside of a few typos or missing words here and there, I found no real huge issues. It’s not incredibly descriptive in the scenery or action/violence, but I think the point was more in that it was actually happening instead of every minute detail of the occurrences. Though it did get confusing in the action at times, especially toward the end when there’s a big car chase. I had a very difficult time trying to picture what the heck was going on. And unfortunately, all of that is cut from the movie, so I have no visual reference there, either.

The only other thing of note from the narrative would be the narration itself. It’s interesting in the way that the book switches from third person to first person interchangeably, allowing for the reader to see inside a specific character’s mind at that moment. So at one point you have a third person narrator, then out of nowhere it’ll start in with ‘I’ with first person. Though it never got confusing, at least for me, because each section really focused on one main person at a time. And that’s another great thing about the book; it had an incredible character focus. Each and every one of the 42 students had a background and a story to go with them. Most of them were interconnected either as friends or enemies or even secret crushes (and there were numerous).

And unfortunately, this is where the movie brings its first major issue. Obviously, it can’t focus on 42 different characters like the book can, but it didn’t even keep the same kind of feel for some of the characters. Shogo, who was my favorite character in the book, was much less mysterious and much less cool in the movie than he was in the book. Hiroki, who was another one of my favorites, had much less of an importance in the movie than the book, and he also lost his best character quality because of his lack of screen time—his unstoppable devotion. And the mystery of why he was hunting down the second of the two girls was played out much more in the book, though I do think the eventual scene that occurs was done quite well in the film. Shinji’s character was reduced to almost non-existent, Shuya became incredibly whiny, and any and all background or explanation for Kazuo was just left out. Mitsuko, however, was done rather decently, and a scene that’s in the director’s cut (the version I watched) that helps explain to those who haven’t read the book a bit about her past (though it is altered quite a bit) isn’t in the normal version, which would be disappointing to those who don’t watch the director’s cut. On the upside, although they changed the teacher/director character completely from the book to the film (it is not a former teacher or any of that in the book), I like how they added more humanity and even some pity to his character in the film. There was more depth to that character in the film than in the book.

But I think the biggest issue with all of these character changes came from trying to turn a 600+ page book into a two-hour movie. And while those two hours moved by incredibly fast (didn’t even feel like two hours), the whole movie felt like how the first fifteen-to-twenty minutes of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire went (200 pages of book crammed into that tiny period). It had a lot of tiny bits of information of characters and scenarios here and there, and those were always fun to catch as a reader of the book, but it still left out or altered too much. For instance, the huge explosion and the scene that leads up to it at the end of the movie occurs around the two-thirds mark of the book… not the climax. And the final showdown with Kazuo was incredibly lame in the movie in comparison to the book… not to mention because of its incredible alteration, one of my favorite (and one of the most powerful, I think) lines in the book wasn’t in the movie. I don’t want to list all the alterations and discrepancies between the two works, but I will list one more major one that was left out: the anti-government and rock-n-roll stuff. That all played such an enormous part of the book, and besides one scene where you see Shuya playing guitar in a flashback, there’s no mention of it whatsoever, and that also took away from the power of the ending, making it more cheesy because it didn’t rely back on a major theme.

Now, I didn’t hate the movie. I just felt that while the book had a more powerful feeling behind it, the movie was reduced to almost nothing more than a common action movie. But looking at the movie as a movie instead of an adaptation, it was pretty entertaining. It wasn’t super gory or anything, and the blood was more along the lines of Quentin Tarantino (you can tell it’s fake, and it’s in excess at certain moments to make a point). The action was pretty good, though the character development (even looking at it from a non-adaptation standpoint) could have used some work. As I said, at least in the director’s cut, the teacher and Mitsuko’s characters were handled pretty well. Noriko was similar to how she was in the book (she’s more of a symbol than anything), though the danger level of her survival is much more suspenseful in the book (the book plays up on her initial wound and possible infection from it much more than the movie, which takes roughly one minute to tackle that whole issue). Shogo could have been done a lot better. He’s not shown enough to where you can get a good sense of his character before the big end reveal. And Shuya… he seemed to be more of a prop in the movie than anything. The other major characters, such as Hiroki and Shinji, were dwindled down to mere plot devices. And I think with a lot of the stuff the writer of the film tried to put into the movie version might confuse some of the people who hadn’t read the book version, because there were some things that were brought up or shown but never explained.

One last thing to bring up is the music (and the cinematography). I figured, from the book, the music would be some old school rock songs, but as that whole theme was removed from the film, they used a lot of classical music or orchestral music. And I have to say, for the most part, I really enjoyed that choice. Though some of the time it was too much and took me out of the scene, but overall, I really liked how the music was done for this film. That just really struck me as something to mention, as I don’t bring up music often enough in film reviews. And to touch on the cinematography briefly… nothing special, though the scene toward the end with the fire after the explosion was pretty cool looking.

So I suppose a final verdict should be called for. For the book, I’d highly recommend it. It really is an amazing read. Therefore, to use my movie rating scores, I'd give the book the following (rating title - no pun intended):

Royale With Cheese

As an adaptation, I give it the following score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

As a film, ignoring the original source, I give it the following score:

I Am McLovin!

The Dan Brown Formula: “Angels & Demons” and “The Da Vinci Code.”

Warning: Major Spoilers For Both Books.

------------------------

So, I just finished reading Angels & Demons (AD), and I’m quite perplexed. I read Da Vinci Code (DVC) first, a couple years ago, even though it’s technically the sequel. Let me just say this, as it really establishes everything I could say about the books: I couldn’t remember too much about DVC, as it’s been a while since I last read it; however, everything about AD was so similar that by the end of the book, I remembered basically every detail of DVC. Both books are so amazingly similar in both plot and characters that it’s ridiculous. I call this the Dan Brown Formula, and an interesting formula I thought it was. At least, until a wild variable slightly broke the formula, but I’ll get to that later. Instead, I want to use this space to discuss both books and review them.

The basic concept of both books is thus: A man is murdered while some kind of strange symbol is embedded into his skin. Robert Langdon is called in the middle of the night to supposedly examine this symbol further. While there, he meets the daughter of the murdered man (who is always native to whatever country he’s in, and can also speak fluent English). They are then caught up in an event that has time counting down to a zero hour in which they must discover something that should never be discovered before it’s too late. Along the way, a bunch of religious things are discussed, bringing in symbology talk, history, and sometimes science. That is the formula in its most basic form. To extend it further, in order to specify the controversy of each book, AD is about the Illuminati supposedly trying to destroy the Vatican, while DVC is about the Holy Grail (the fact the Jesus and Mary Magdalene hooked up and had kids).

To extend this formula further, let us look at the prime archetypes of the characters in each book:

The Symbologist: Robert Langdon in both books.

The Murdered: Museum Curator, Jacques Sauniere in DVC; Scientist, Leonardo Vetra in AD.

The Daughter: Sophie Neveu in DVC; Vittoria Vetra in AD.

The Killer: The albino monk, Silas in DVC; The unnamed Hassassin in AD.

Animal Nicknamed Tough Cop: Bezu “The Bull” Fache in DVC; Commander “The Viper” Olivetti and Rocher (I forgot the animal name) in AD.

The Cripple: Sir Leigh Teabing in DVC; Maximilian Kohler in AD.

Good Yet Dedicated Underling Cop: Collet in DVC; Chartrand in AD.

Ambiguous Religious Figure Who Controls The Killer: Aringarosa in DVC; The Camerlengo in AD.

Every character is highly similar to their counterpart with two (and a half) major differences. First I’ll discuss the lesser of the two: The Killer. In AD, the Hassassin was an incredibly boring villain. Sure, he was dastardly and evil, but he had no depth. He was what he was, and that’s all that he was. Silas, on the other hand, had a lot more depth and history, and the way he was written actually made the reader sympathize with him to a degree. Silas was one of the many improvements that DVC had over AD, in my opinion.

The bigger differentiation is The Cripple. In DVC, Sir Leigh Teabing is actually the bad guy all along. In AD, the book makes you believe, even up until the last 50 pages, that Kohler is also the bad guy (I even thought I had it pegged from about page 30). However, the book threw me for a loop when it announced that the Camerlengo was the bad guy all along. Kohler was actually good! He was an asshole, but he was still good.

This brings me to one of the points I have wherein I believe AD did something better than DVC: the twist ending. Even reading DVC, I remember seeing Leigh as the bad guy from far off. With the Camerlengo, on the other hand, I was caught completely by surprise. When he jumped out of the helicopter without Langdon and the only parachute, at first I was like “what a jackass.” Then it slowly hit me what was really going on. From that moment, I had everything figured out. But not until that moment. However, in the same vein, there’s a plot hole I still can’t figure out. When the Hassassin is talking to Langdon, he says that his boss, Janus, is currently flying in to Rome. But that couldn’t be true, as he was already there. Kohler was flying in. So either this was a major mistake that nobody seemed to catch, or one stupid, illogical attempt at throwing off the reader to the identity of the real bad guy.

On the subject of the end of the book, though, I felt that AD was ultimately weaker than DVC. AD just felt like it dragged on and on as if it were never going to end. And while DVC did something similar, it didn’t feel as tedious, because there were still important plot twists being revealed up through the very last pages. In AD, by the time there’s 50 pages left, there’s nothing left to reveal. It just drags and continues to give pointless flashbacks and such.

And speaking of dragging, I am brought to my next point of discussion. When I first read DVC, I was sucked into it almost immediately. It had me from page one and I never wanted to put the book down. AD, on the other hand, took me about a week to finish. I didn’t get interested until about page 30; I didn’t get hooked until about page 300; and I didn’t get to the point where I didn’t want to put the book down until about page 450. In a book that’s only 669 pages, that’s really bad. I think a lot could have been easily trimmed back to shorten the book’s overall length and pacing. A lot of it had to do with the fact that Langdon was way out of his element for the first 100+ pages of the book, constantly confused and having no idea what was going on as everybody constantly discussed scientific stuff.

With a couple exceptions (such as Silas), the characters in both books are relatively flat and static. The plots are linear and highly similar, though intriguing. The historical interconnectedness is fun, even though a lot of history or science buffs tend to complain about the inaccuracies. But I don’t really care about that. I read the books for entertainment, not to learn lessons in art or history or science. And were they entertaining? Yes. I often hear people arguing over which book is the better one. In my opinion, DVC is the more entertaining of the two, though AD did have its merits (such as the twist).

So what does this all really mean? Since both Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code follow The Dan Brown Formula so similarly, and because The Da Vinci Code movie, for all intents and purposes, sucked… it will be almost certain to say that the Angels & Demons movie will suck, as well… as it’s pretty much the same thing, different location and character names (except Langdon… who is still being played by Tom Hanks. Why?).