In the middle of this rut, I have decided there's no better time to address some issues I've found with my own reviews. The thing with writing about my opinions on books is that over time I tend to reconsider what I've said and whether I even agree with myself anymore. Overall, my opinions on the books are the same, but I've said some problematic things that need to be amended. Here goes.
 |
| Introducing Athena's younger siblings, Hermes and Thalia! |
Twilight:
I still hate Twilight and I stand by my reasoning. However, 3 years ago when I wrote that review and my emotions about it were still running high, I ran off on a couple of tangents that were beside the point. In the process, I made some problematic statements regarding physical attraction and dating Bad Boys vs. Nice Guys.
It appeared that I was slamming on physical desire and male protectiveness altogether, and I wholeheartedly agree that vilifying both of those is unfair. Physical desire is a crucial part in a romantic relationship. There is no debate from me there--it is. My problem is Bella's affection for Edward hinges entirely on her attraction to him. We never hear her shut up about how beautiful he is. Good romantic relationships involve physical desire, but they are also so much more than that.
Men's protectiveness of their female partners is completely normal and I respect men who exercise it. My problem is that Edward is NOT protective. He shows controlling and abusive tendencies and this is passed off as protectiveness and affection for her--something all too often done in real-life abusive situations--or excused because he is a vampire with a hard-to-resist appetite for Bella's blood.
My side rant about girls seeking male affection to build their own sense of self-worth was off topic. While it is something that needs to be discussed, it didn't truly relate to my reasons for hating Twilight and I apologize for bringing it up.
My other mistake was going off on girls for picking attractive Bad Boys (often with the intent to change them) when they should be picking Nice Guys. For starters, the assumption that women are actively seeking bad guys is not even accurate. In some cases, perhaps, but in most cases this is a highly accusatory complaint made by bitter Nice Guys who have been "friend-zoned" one too many times. Once again, it's not even the issue in Twilight. Another issue that needs to be discussed at some point later, but not why I hate this book. Again, I apologize for the hostility displayed here.
Twilight condones--no--presents this abusive relationship as the ultimate romance, the love story we should all want. I don't have to read the rest of the series to understand that. Other reviewers like me have said that it only gets more abusive and more idealized. That is more monstrous than the vampires themselves. Bottom line, that is why I hate Twilight, I always will, and I will never pick up a book from that so-called saga again.
Closing this book--done ranting about it. No more sparkly vampires.
Dragons in Our Midst:
Wow, I really should've revisited this one 2 years ago when a couple of my issues were addressed by the author, Bryan Davis. It still blows my mind that he took the time to read what some random girl on the Internet had to say, much less talk to me about it. He is one of my absolute favorite writers and I have a lot of respect for him. (I PROMISE I'm not just saying that because he gave me attention!)
That doesn't mean that I don't poke fun at his work now and then, or never find fault in any of it.
One of the things I poked at was the reference to Merlin as Noah's descendant, when, in fact, we all get the honor of that title. Never fathoming that Davis would ever see it, much less comment on it, I somewhat facetiously requested that he reread Genesis. Imagine the embarrassment (mixed with the fangirling) I felt when he went along with my facetiousness and pointed out that I was actually referencing the second series, Oracles of Fire. (This is what happens when I don't keep the book in front of me as I review it. A mistake I'll never make again!)
Anyway, it was my silly mistake to poke at a book I wasn't even reviewing and to top it off, I missed the metaphor. Merlin is intended to inherit Noah's position as prophet and was never set apart as a physical heir of Noah. I apologize once again, Mr. Davis, and thank you for being such a good sport about the whole thing.
We did end up discussing my problem with the dragon messiah, and I think it makes a lot more sense to me in that the messiah is meant to save the dragons from their predicament, not their sin. (This is my brief paraphrase of the explanation. Since it was a conversation through e-mail, I will respectfully refrain from posting the whole thing on a blog.)
I think, even if this concept remained theologically shaky, it by no means puts Davis in dangerous territory, though I said that in the original review. From my own experience (or struggle) with my novels so far, writing Christian fantasy can be frustrating to say the least. I really want any messages about God to be biblically sound, but in a fantasy world, it's hard to predict what his will would be. At the end of the day, I think we as readers need to keep in mind that Christian fantasy writers are trying their best to apply biblical principles to a realm that doesn't follow the same rules as ours does--one with, perhaps, very human characters that aren't technically human. While fantasy is fun and can reveal truth, it is not gospel and shouldn't be taken as such.
The Dragons in Our Midst series is an excellent blend of God, science, and magic. To this day I am still honored that Bryan Davis took at least five minutes of his time to talk about it with me.
The Hunger Games:
Ah, violence in the media. I revisit you once again. I suppose since I ended the last one with a question, the odds were definitely in favor of me talking about this again.
In my Hunger Games review, I questioned whether it really matters how violence is portrayed considering humans tend to revel in the gore either way. Ironically, the release of the film version and the public's reaction to it, as I've observed anyway, has helped me come to my conclusion.
First, however, the Saddam Hussein comment, or rather, the one about the child's death. My memory is sketchy about the whole thing. I remember this child hung himself and it seemed oddly coincidental that this happened so close to Hussein's televised execution, but any connection between the two is speculative at best. I didn't know the facts, I still don't, and I should know better than to talk about these things when I just don't know. Again, my mistake, my apology--I'm learning and hopefully getting better as I go.
On a lighter note, I reread the book a few days ago and repent of the grammar costing it an A. Yes, it contains several run-on sentences, but in retrospect they're only confusing enough to merit an A-, not a B.
Now, The Hunger Games and its two sequels were already very popular, hence the movie adaptation, but the movie has sparked most of the talk--and controversy--I've seen about it. I'm very, very tempted to talk about the movie here but I won't until I've watched it again at least once. I will say that I was pleasantly surprised, and likewise I'm very impressed at how many people, young adults really understand this book and the topics it brings to light. These books--and the movie--expect their target audience to be smart, and they are.
Is everyone eating this stuff up also being smart about it? No, of course not. Of course we have people who are here for the blood. Are there people, adults in particular, up in arms against this book? You bet there are. I've seen and heard comments about how this book/movie is horrible because "it's about kids killing kids."
I find myself defending this book when I hear that, and that's how I know I've found the answer I didn't have when I originally reviewed it.
Since people who say that usually haven't even bothered to read it, I cannot urge them enough--read the book. If you don't want to read it because it's about kids killing kids...Read it. I have 2 reasons for this:
One: You will get nowhere criticizing a book you have not read. If you want to state your opinion about a book, you have to read it first. I'm sorry, but that's how this works. Two: if kids killing kids, especially for a country's entertainment, disgusts you, The Hunger Games is right there with you. Arguing with something you agree with is generally a waste of time.
The Hunger Games does not condone--no, it condemns violence as entertainment. It absolutely matters how violence is portrayed. If nothing else, this little book and its movie have provoked our thoughts and gotten us talking. And we need to talk about this.
I'm very excited for the future of literature.
These books all belong to their respectful owners; names and concepts used only for reviewing purposes.
"Doctor Who" belongs to BBC, not me!
Athena, Hermes, and Thalia do happen to belong to me. :)
