Devon Trevarrow Flaherty's Blog, page 23

Image from Abebooks.com

I know I read a lot. I still get intimidated by big books. Funnily enough, Six of Crows by Leigh Bardugo is not even 500 pages (similar to the second book, Crooked Kingdom), but the book itself—perhaps because of paper type?—feels bigger than that. And, honestly, I wasn’t that into if for the first quarter of the book or so. (I found out later this is a common complaint. So first thing for you: keep reading. You’ll be hooked before mid-book. Really hooked, before too long.)

What eventually sold me on it? What made me finish the book and then immediately buy and read the second (and final of the series) book, Crooked Kingdom? I bought into the characters and I was hooked on the plot and stakes. What never quite hooked me was the world-building, mostly because it wasn’t very clear or detailed (especially up front) and I hard time visualizing what these people were wearing, what they buildings looked like, etc. The point is that it’s the people and the story that really stick with you, and while you’re reading it, you just want to stay… up… one… more… minute (or hour) to find out what is going to happen on the next page to these people that you maybe should not like as much as you clearly do. For the record, I also found the fantasy names and words a little silly, but I often think that even about my own fantasy names. And the countries being loosely based on countries/areas of our world when it has no connection to our world? Awkward, I thought. Not that that’s going to stop me from freaking out at you about this book and the next. Loved them.

By 200 pages into Crooked Kingdom, I just have to agree with the reviewer (among many similar) who said, “This book is fan-fricking-tastic.” I mean, if I dig deep, I can find some things to say bad about it. Let me think… the romances simmer forever. Couldn’t Bardugo just deliver on one of them a little early and give us a release and then some steamy stuff later on? And I did find some of the world-building elements to be cliché and cheesy, like the names. (Already mentioned that.) And the second book didn’t have a very clear roadmap for the reader for a good long while, as in you didn’t know where you were going next or how on earth the next step was going to take 500 pages. (In the first book there’s a major heist that takes up the vast majority of the novel, so it was much more traditional in that sense and relied less on short-term cliff-hangers.) This means that the second book also takes some time investment before you are good and interested. Perhaps the kids were a little too young for the story. Perhaps the ending could have been a little clearer about where these people and relationships will end up, a little more fulfilling (though I thought it was pretty clear until I realized other people thought differently. And at the end of most good books, you still want more. Don’t know if this is a bad thing.)

But what could I say good about this duology? It’s pretty amazing. I am now accustomed to these “dirty” characters and their bad selves and the second book fleshes out their motives and their soft sides a whole lot more, making them much more victims who are going to someday make good. But there is blood on everyone’s hands, which always makes me uncomfortable for heroes. The truth is, I am now completely invested in these characters because all six of them are compelling and fascinating as heck. The romances are also compelling in that way that you are like, “Please, please, please get together and live happily ever after!” I can’t imagine trying to write a book with this many twists and turns and also so much plotting, as in one clever bad guy trumping another and another undermining another and the hands keep clapping over the one before until someone’s hand is on top of the (crow-headed) cane. Was Bardugo a criminal mastermind in another life? It seems likely. I couldn’t put either of these books down and though I always balk at giant books, who the heck cares, here? This story is amazing, the characters are amazing, the writing is amazing. (Not perfect, but still wondrously clear, sometimes even beautiful.) Bardugo looks so young. Can she be that young? Is she some sort of genius? What she’s really the master of is getting you invested so that she can keep you holding your breath and on the edge of your seat. Over and over and over again. And over again. And again.

Six of Crows and Crooked Kingdom make up the complete duology that centers around a band of six teen/young adult criminals and a couple of epic heists that take place in relation to one another. It’s something like fantasy-heist, with the contemporary twist of the good guys being much more like bad guys but with some explanatory backstories. Sorta steam-punky, but not. Don’t let the word “heist” throw you off. You could argue that Kaz Brekker is the main antagonist, but all six of the main characters get a lot of play and the chapters skip around from all of their perspectives. (The first book does not include Wylan’s perspective, but the second does. Also, there are intro and closing chapters in each book from a random character’s perspective.) Six of Crows sets up the Grishaverse in Ketterdam, a neutral territory port town and the ghetto area, where all of our characters have landed by mishappenstance. A couple of them are grisha, which means they have superpowers which make them vulnerable to kidnapping and exploitation but also give them special abilities. The other characters each have some other remarkable talent that comes along with their tragic backstory and their reason to be part of the criminal element. When Kaz gets word of the heist of a lifetime, he turns to the other five to join him in crossing the world and working completely against the odds to bring home some major bacon. Relationships happen. Drama happens. Twists and turns galore. It can get pretty dark, at times, and gritty, but not really mature in some obvious ways. And it gets very, very dangerous for the six of crows.

Image from Amazon.com

Crooked Kingdom is the other half of the duology and picks up after the team has returned from the heist. Some strings were left dangling in book one and some of the characters are in renewed danger. They keep the game afoot in order to save one of their own and get what was promised them, but the new heist, and the depth of the plan, grow much bigger than they had originally anticipated. Dreams are dreamed. Romances sizzle and deepen. And bag guys get uglier and more in trouble because the six of crows—with Kaz at the helm—are gunning for them and in the process they might even save the world from the insidious threat of an extremely dangerous and world-threatening drug. There is death. There is human trafficking. There are brothels, gambling, brokenness galore. But that’s sort of the point. These kids didn’t ask for this. Can they still be great people with meaningful relationships?

There is more to the Grishaverse, which is what we call the fantasy world that Bardugo built up in which this duology takes place. There is another popular trilogy which acts as a prequel to Six of Crows, though it predates these characters, so be ready for that. I have heard it argued that the place to begin reading is still Six of Crows (which was written first) but I have also heard it argued the other way around. When I read theShadow and Bone trilogy, I will let you know my opinion on the matter. And there are two other Grishaverse books, King of Scars and Rule of Wolves, as well as The Language of Thorns book of fairytales, Demon in the Wood graphic novel, and The Lives of Saints companion book. There is also a Netflix series that is one series in and, from what I understand, twists together the Six of Crows and Shadow and Bone series (so I won’t be watching that until I read the other series). The second season is coming in 2023. Do I want to keep reading the Grishaverse? I will be reading the Shadow and Bone series because it is also on my TBR. As for the others, maybe not, but I am curious about the graphic novel (and also the fairy tales, I guess, because my Northwyth Legends loose series has a fairy tale book in it, as well). Meanwhile, Bardugo keeps adding to the Grishaverse and trying to work on other projects. She has even said that sometime in the future she might add a third book to Six of Crows.

I really see this duology as destined to be a classic, which probably means the Grishaverse and Bardugo are destined to a long run. It is YA, sure, but I imagine many adults are reading this and many would count it as a favorite of the genre. As for YA readers, if they like fantasy, this is a no-brainer. It’s modern, well-written, distinctly YA, and addictive like jurga parem.

Still calling it: a new staple of the genre, for sures.

QUOTES:

(Didn’t mark them from the first book because it didn’t belong to me. So these are from Crooked Kingdom. It’s not a super-quotable book, anyhow; it’s about the story and characters.)

“Kaz always spoke logic, but that didn’t mean he always spoke the truth” (p40).

“…her father had explained that only fools were fearless. We meet fear, he’d said. We greet the unexpected visitor and listen to what he has to tell us” (p51).

“Praying and wishing are not the same thing” (p180).

“Sometimes the trick to getting the best of the situation is to just wait” (p182).

“Zoya used to say that fear is a phoenix. You can watch it burn a thousand times and still it will return” (p188).

“What kind of mother would I be to my son if I hid away my talents? If I let fear be my guide for this life?” (p258).

“You’re not weak because you can’t read. You’re weak because you’re afraid of people seeing your weakness. You’re letting shame decide who you are” (p283).

“We can endure all kinds of pain. It’s shame that eats men whole” (p283).

“They valued the things he could do instead of punishing him for the things he couldn’t” (p322).

“Stop treating your pain like it’s something you imagined. If you see the wound is real, then you can heal it” (p339).

“He wanted to tell Nina that you could love something and still see its flaws” (p383).

“Rich men want to believe they deserve every penny they’ve got, so they forget what they owe to chance. Smart men are always looking for loopholes. They want an opportunity to game the system” (p398).

“You gave him someone to run to. No matter what he did or what went wrong. I think that’s bigger than the big mistakes” (p424).

“Innocence was a luxury, and Inej did not believe her Saints demanded it” (p458).

“When the world owed you nothing, you demanded something of it anyway” (p460).

Image from Amazon.com

I’ve run into K. M. Weiland several times on the internet and, I think, in Writer’s Digest. She has an award-winning website for writing help and I believe I have subscribed to her emails in the past. I think that some of this happened years ago when I was self-/indie-publishing, so I still associate her with that, but she has branched out. (Full discolsure: after writing this I did a search and was reminded that I wrote an article for her website a decade ago, “11 Ways Stay-at-Home Moms–and Other Busy Folks–Can Find Time to Write.” Whoops. Forgot.) On a list of books to read for writers I found Outlining Your Novel: Map Your Way to Success. Wanting to get a real handle on this outlining/plotting and structure thing as I write a trilogy and edit a fantasy novel, I picked up this book second (after Save the Cat! Writes a Novel).

I have not read any of Weiland’s fiction. See her page above to figure out if you would like to. Her fiction (fantasy, historical) seems to garner reviews just north of four out of five stars, which is pretty darn good, but it is not widely read, so the reviews are limited. If you sign up for her mailing list right now, you get one of her books free. (Probably electronic copy, but I can’t say that for sure.)

Outlining Your Novel is worth the read if you are looking to outline a novel. In fact, it’s worth the read even if you are looking to write a novel, because the case should be made to you that outlining (as opposed to following your intuition and “pantsing”) is the best option. I actually believe this and I also believe that planning is not the polar opposite of passion, creativity, or great writing, but either way, I think you should give the idea your ear if you are writing long form. Perhaps this isn’t the top book I would give you to convince you to plan/outline, but it wouldn’t be a bad one to begin with, either. (I would probably, at this point in my reading, send you to Save the Cat! Writes a Novel, which is enjoying a heyday and is longer and a bit more conversational). But Outlining Your Novel accomplishes some of the same things: Weiland makes a case for planning, she guides you through the process of planning, and gives writing tips and advice along the way. Even though I have already heard from other authors (Jessica Brody of Save the Cat! and Christopher Vogler of The Writer’s Journey), there were some aha! moments for me. Sometimes Weiland has a different opinion, but sometimes she just talks about a little something that I haven’t yet covered in my studies.

Her advice does sometimes feel random and incomplete, which may be because she doesn’t give me what I always want in a book like this (craft, self-help, cookbooks), and that is an enormous checklist to wrap it up and put a bow on it. I have made this checklist, below, but it is not amazing because I threw it together from the notes that I made while reading; she could have done it better. (I also added my own two cents once in awhile in brackets.) In order to really walk through the process that she writes about, you’d either have to do it as you read, take your own notes, or use the companion book, Outlining Your Novel Workbook, which I’ll talk about in a sec. She also has other helpful books, like Structuring Your Novel and Creating Character Arcs and a workbook for each of those. (I wonder if and how she manages to provide information that is not redundant between these three “systems.”)

Note: the book is self-/indie-published, and I have nothing against that, but it is clearly so. In other words, the fonts, design, feel, and even the editing are not top-of-the-line. While she’s done a pretty good job, I could spot it a mile away and I am—good or bad—partial to aesthetically pleasing, even hip, books. End of note.

The book is fairly short. It is straight-forward (though without my blessed checklist). Her voice is authoritative and clear. I can’t decide if I appreciate her using her own work as examples (because she shows us her process with them) or if it felt like I was being sold her books through her teaching. She does have other authors weigh in on their outlining process and the benefits thereof, which is helpful (but I have to admit I was like, who is this author and why would I trust them?). All in all, the book was full of helpful information for outlining and could be the only book you use to come up with your own method (which is ultimately what like 99% of us do). For me, I’m more curious to sample a half-dozen as I develop my method (which I have watched really morph during my last writing residency into something that makes perfect sense for me and involves lots of notecards and walks in the woods). I also think that if you really want to try out her method, it would be worth purchasing Outlining Your Novel Workbook.

Image from Amazon.com

Speaking of, Outlining Your Novel Workbook is pretty useful, but not very, um, pretty (also self-published) or even that self-explanatory. I’m not sure it has to be, since you could just crash through it answering the questions however you want and it—at the very least—will generate many, many ideas (and therefore scenes) for your new book/project (or even one you’ve already written and needs a serious edit). But there were times when I needed to reference Outlining Your Novel to know exactly what I was supposed to be doing and how that fit into the whole process. In fact, I only really understood the process as a whole when I was going over my notes after reading Outlining Your Novel. Then I was like, “Oh, that’s the big picture.” It would have been nice for her to spell it out in both the books.

But she doesn’t want to force her process down our throats, anyway. She has some advice and plenty of suggestions, but in the end there is a lot of flexibility in “map[ping] your way to success.” Like I said, I stumbled into my own process with the notecards while reading through this book, filling out the workbook, and referring back to the Save the Cat! beats, all while organizing in Scrivener. I did find filling out the workbook helpful for coming up with ideas galore, but it wasn’t the only way I did it. In the end, I think walking through Weiland’s basic process using both the book and workbook is most helpful as a sort of checks and balances. If you can just slow down and fill out every page (making copies for more character interviews, because there aren’t enough), then you know you’ve done everything she thinks you should do. Your bases are covered. You can step up to the writing starting line with enormous confidence. And I suppose that’s part of why Outlining Your Novel is also necessary: among other things, it makes the case that you should slow down and finish an outline before beginning the first draft of a novel, even if you don’t want to or aren’t used to it, because you’re going to save yourself a lot of grief at a later date.

So, yeah, not the sleekest writing book out there, but well worth a read if you are figuring this novel-writing thing out and won’t absolutely get your knickers in a twist (or stick your nose in the air) about planning. Weiland is on creativity’s side; she just believes that outlining is on creativity’s side as well.

STEPS TO OUTLINING:

Brainstorm:Explore story possibilities with a mind map, pictorial outline, mapping, or a “perfect review.” What is the story you would like to read? [See other suggestions from me HERE.]Before You Outline:Get your tools in order like pen and paper, yWriter (or Scrivener), or a calendar. [I would like to add notecards, colored notecards, a box to put them in, sticky notes, and possibly a corkboard with pins.]Write your “What if…?” questions and “What is expected?”Write a premise sentence.Ask Weiland’s pre-outline questions (p53-54).Rough-Draft Outline [The whole time I’m doing this, I write scenes on notecards and occasionally get them in order. I leave plenty of room to add to notecards. I also insert colored notecards to mark the “beats” in the story, to make sure the structure makes sense. This time I am using the Save the Cat structure, but I have used the Hero’s Journey before. There are others. I don’t add notecards for things like character sketches, but I do for scene ideas or plot point that are generated from these things. Sometimes my card starts extremely vague.]Summarize the scenes you already know about.Mark scenes that need elaboration.Ask questions to fill in the plot holes.Spend time with the protagonist, starting with imperfection and tools, then revelation and change.Think about your stakes, looking for lags, making the conflicts huge, varying the intensity, touching every scene with frustration.Make sure the opening scene grabs the reader with conflict.Identify areas of foreshadowing.Strengthen the theme by identifying the internal conflict, how and why the character will change, how they will demonstrate their views at the beginning and end, symbolism (and repetition), and subtext.Work on the inciting incident: it’s location in the novel; what caused it; how the protagonist reacts and why (from what past experience); and what unresolved issues will continue to spiral them?Create a backstory. Hint at it and reveal at the last possible moment and quickly.Do character interviews (pp116-119) or do it freehand or with enneagramMake a settings list. Streamline them by combining or deleting and use them powerfully and descriptively.If writing speculative fiction, world build using Patricia C. Wrede’s Worldbuilding Questions [or a workbook].Revisit favorite movies and books to identify the moments that grabbed you.Identify your audience (age, gender, ethnicity, worldview)Choose your POV and POV character(s) based on who is most affected by the “news.”Hone your beginning: start w/ MC and his normal world in a characteristic moment; Begin w/ movement; give your readers a reason to be sympathetic; give the MC a desire/goal; lock in the inciting event; make that MC react to the event.Hone your middle: trap the MC in a spiral of events outside their control; move the original goal out of their reach; provide new complications and goals; force a decision that moves the MC to attack mode.Hone your ending: make that MC come to know themselves better; stretch their resolve and revive them at the last moment; have them rise to the challenge, a real hero, but in a unique way suited to their gifts; bring that protagonist-antagonist battle to an end; let the MC reach their (amended) goals.End the whole thing with a memorable line.Include humor, relationship, and action.Consider framing, foreshadowing, and outlining backwards from events.Eliminate unnecessary scenes and combine scenes.[Note where you have pre-written scenes or partials.]Abbreviated Outline.Make a short outline with bullet points and pertinent info. [This is great for writing your synopsis later.]Divide into chapter and scene breaks, keeping readers asking “what next?” (p166-167 for how to do this).Note where you will want to quicken pace and where to slow it, using sentence form, etc.Cut the transitions and other “fat.”Write the Story.Write forward.Keep the long and short outline handy. [I like to use sprints, word-count goals, and sometimes remove myself to a public location.]

QUOTES

“Our subconscious …. Feeds our brains with images, sounds, smells, tastes, and feelings, which our conscious brans translate into words” (p55).

“As much as we want readers to intellectually appreciate our writing, we need them, even more, to react with utter, unthinking emotion to the underlying pull of the story and its characters” (p66).

“Few skills are inherent to the writing life. Most are learned along the way, as they become necessary. But the one absolutely necessary trait is an unabated sense of curiosity” (p69).

“Readers want to understand this person by seeing what he does. Often, however, it’s what a character wants to do that matters even more” (pp75-76).

“…what we find at the core of a story is the main character’s desire for something” (p78).

“One of the easiest ways to raise the stakes is to create a tight timeline for your story” (p84).

“Before you can tell others your story, you have to tell yourself its prequel” (p100).

“The backstory of your novel is necessarily the composite backstory of all your characters” (p103).

“…this kind of in-depth background information provides an incredibly strong foundation. And the bits of backstory that do make an appearance will add extra sparkle…” (p107).

“Outline in the way most natural to you and your characters and your story, and even allow it to change from book to book if needed” (p124).

“Writing is way of organizing experience, or of organizing something imagined, of making something perfect and beautiful—even something as small as one sentence—in a world that can be, at times chaotic, wretched, ugly, and upsetting” (Patricia Highsmith, p137).

“…ask yourself to imagine the one story, essay, poem or book that you’d most like to read. Then write it” (Scott Edelstein, p142).

“The outline is the tool of the responsible author who understands that story is as much about structure as it is about inspiration” (p176).

“Scene breaks are do-or-die territory for novelists …. If your chapter and scene endings leave readers no reason to turn the page and find out what happens next, all your hard work on the other aspects of your story will be wasted” (p165).

Image from Amazon.com

I really just do my own thing, don’t I? Let’s be direct: I begin every single book I read desiring to enjoy it (and eventually review it favorably). I would like every book to blow my socks off. Alas, reality. For a little while it seemed I rated every book I read highly. But lately? I ripped The Silent Patient a new one despite reviews and any guilt I might have felt. And then I read The Alchemist after several years of meaning to. I’m not going to rip it a new one, I don’t think. We’ll see. But, as you can guess, it was not my thang.

This wildly popular book maintains reviews hoovering below a four. So there are haters and quite a few of them, despite how widely published it is and how much some people really, really love it. I mean, I’ve been to weddings that quoted The Alchemist in place of Scripture. (Maybe not. I may be confusing it with The Prophet.) And since this is the kind of book that people take so personally, I ask that you don’t continue with my review if it is a book that you revere. There’s just no point. You love it and find something in it. If you are considering reading it, however, here are my two cents.

For me, Paulo Coelho’s The Alchemist falls into a category with The Little Prince and The Prophet. People love to love (and live life by) those books, but they all have a similar feel and point and it’s totally not what I enjoy in a book. (If you don’t know classics, then maybe thing The Shack.) The Alchemist, in my opinion, is too simplistic (written as a fable, so no showing, only telling), obvious (from the first page), preachy, disjointed (even confused), and had some problems with its moral (which is the point of the whole book). And let’s not even go there with the women in this story, who exist solely as wives who either release their husbands to their dreams or are the antagonist. (You could say that Santiago is a stand-in for all people regardless of gender and that the women represent their partners, but that’s not what is actually on the page.)

If you ask me, you look at people who are near the end of their lives, even on their death beds, and you find a wisdom spoken by them pretty much across the board: relationships, people, are what matters. If that’s true, then this book is wildly misleading. The whole idea of its story is that you are supposed to intuit your Life’s Purpose (because God has written it into the fabric of the universe) and follow the omens to it, sacrificing anything and everything that might get in the way. Including relationships (which you haven’t really sacrificed because if they don’t survive then they weren’t part of your Life’s Purpose, right?). While it seems appealing on some levels (I can hear the orchestral soundtrack rising with the levanter wind), I am going to posit that this ends up being a very unsatisfactory and, in the end, regret-filled way to live one’s life (not to mention selfish and difficult to measure). Not that I’m not a big dreamer myself or that I haven’t made sacrifices in a single-minded attempt to reach my big dream, but on a good day I don’t believe this is what is going to matter in the end or what I’ll turn to in the end as a measure for my life. (Ouch! The Slytherin in me just took a slap in the face.) I will live with regret if I don’t “make it” as a writer, but more face-time, hugs, and meaningful exchanges with my people is what (I’m told) will be what I either hold dear or regret for not having done, on my death bed. This is much more in line with what my religious Scriptures tell me. Which leads me to…

Like many other books like it, this modern wisdom literature tale is a little drivel-y because it tries too hard to lump all the religions into one boat (mixed metaphor much?). I’m not saying there aren’t commonalities between religions and the ancient wisdoms of various cultures, but, let’s be honest, they don’t all jive and definitely not on all points, even major ones. Instead of transcending religion, The Alchemist is some sort of fusion of a would-be preacher with whatever mysticism comes his way. On one hand I liked that, because American (and any other) Christians can get really set in their ways and blind to the variety and possibilities of their faith. But The Alchemist can fall into that old, “If I embrace them all, they’ll all embrace me” kind of thing and I’m not thinking popularity or people-pleasing is the way to truth, success, or wisdom, as it were. I can’t actually speak to Coelho’s intentions, but it’s what if felt like to me.

But theology or spirituality aside (which I actually found occasionally inspiring despite my griping), I kinda hated this book for its writing. Like the other books I mentioned above, there’s not much of a story, here. And what story we do get is A) told to us without showing us and B) constantly interrupted by moralizing. And C) not that amazing, actually. Shove it down my throat, why don’t you? (And Coelho says, “Yes, yes I will. That’s the point of the book, dummy. It’s a fable or a morality tale or even self-help wearing a loose-fitting novel form.” (He didn’t say that. I’m just saying he would.)) Loose-fitting is correct. There is a story here of Santiago, a shepherd in Andalusia, Spain (when is this story actually taking place?! So confused) who was trained as a priest but his choosing of his own adventure seems to call to the universe to go ahead and whisper to him (in dreams and then an apparition) about his purpose, which is to go to the Pyramids (you all know there are more than three pyramids in Egypt, right?) and dig up a treasure. Strangely, we never really see Santiago embrace his calling except in wild moments of waffling, and yet he is somehow the tantamount example of doing life the right way.

There are so many moments in this book when I was like, “Hold up. That’s not right” (like with the definition of love being the actual definition of either erotic love or falling-in-love but most certainly not real love which requires commitment and longevity) that I didn’t even bother to argue with Coelho in the margins. I knew right away I was going to have to just take it all lightly and hover only over those moments where I could actually appreciate it. And in the end I found it interesting that part of the moral is that you can’t teach wisdom, at all, therefore making the book, well, maybe pointless. I kinda agree, though that this book will make the most sense, be most resonant, for people who have already journeyed through much of life. The younguns can try to appreciate it and even think they do, but only snippets will sink deep. Cuz like Coelho said, you can’t teach this stuff. It has to be lived.

So then the book is trying to get me to abandon everything I know to pursue one dream? (I also found this “one thing” idea to be a little rando. In the end, the point is that this “one thing” taught Santiago some sort of deep wisdom or the meaning of the universe/life which is why it was his “one thing,” but still. Who has “one thing?” Apparently, people who believe everything can be boiled down to an engraving on the side of an emerald and if I don’t agree with that I’m just plain wrong.) I would have much preferred it if Coelho had just told me an amazing story with compelling characters, interesting settings, and big stakes and whatnot and buried the moral somewhere in there. Even God did that, for pity’s sake. (I digress to hyperbole, but there is a point there.)

I’m being a little goofy and quite a bit rabbit-trail-y. Even so, I know some people are going to just assume I don’t get it, and that’s fine. This book has that sort of if-you-don’t-like-it-then-you-don’t-get-it feel. I don’t believe that to be true at all, but there is something to—like I said earlier—it speaking to people who have already bought into the wisdom (as individual tidbits) here. And then labeling it the distilled wisdom of all time and space. Whatevs.

The Alchemist continues to be a bestseller. The story is okay. Actually, it would be better than okay (especially as it progresses) if Coelho had just let the story tell itself. Don’t bother with reading it unless you are interested in a fable/morality tale that is more telling you like it is than just about any other respected novel. Not my cup of tea. Perhaps it’s yours. Like many books that I didn’t quite jive with, I would love to see this rewritten in a different way, like as an actual novel. Maybe the movie (in the works for the past two decades) could just stick to the story. And then that ending… Sigh. Roll my eyes.

Before I go, I also forgot to mention that The Alchemist feeds into one of my pet-peeve, modern beliefs, which is “just believe” (like in yourself or positivity, your goal). This book would be laughable in many of the more trod-upon places of society. If it has inspired you even though you have had some reeeeealy crap times, sorry, but I can’t see it doing anything else but making light of real, actual problems and real, terrible situations. Just believe. To be brutally honest, the whole book felt inauthentic to me, like one might eke out a meaning or truth if they looked at it while squinting and turning their head 45 degrees. Perhaps it’s saying very little by being so forward about it all and a whole heck of a lot of people are buying into it.

QUOTES:

“‘Dreams are the language of God. When he speaks in our language, I can interpret what he has said. But if he speaks in the language of the soul, it is only you who can understand'” (p13).

“…when each day is the same as the next, it’s because people fail to recognize the good things that happen in their lives every day that the sun rises” (p27).

“‘I’m like everyone else–I see the world in terms of what I would like to see happen, not what it actually does” (p40).

“…he realized that he had to choose between thinking of himself as the poor victim of a thief and as an adventurer in quest of his treasure” (p42).

“…he was actually two hours closer to his treasure… the fact that the two hours had stretched to an entire year didn’t matter” (p64).

“…intuition is really a sudden immersion of the soul into the universal current of life, where the histories of all people are connected, and we are able to know everything, because it’s all written there” (p74).

“But this fear evaporates when we understand that our life stories and the history of the world were written by the same hand” (p76),

“The boy was becoming more and more convinced that alchemy could be learned in one’s daily life” (p81).

“I’m alive …. When I’m eating, that’s all I think about. If I’m on the march, I just concentrate on marching. If I have to fight, it will be just as good a day to die as any other” (p85)

“If you can concentrate always on the present, you’ll be a happy man …. Life will be a party for you, a grand festival, because life is the moment we’re living right now” (p85).

“Maybe God created the desert so that man could appreciate date trees, he thought” (p87).

“Because people become fascinated with pictures and words, and wind up forgetting the Language of the World” (p87).

“‘If bad things are, and you know in advance, you will suffer greatly before they even occur'” (p102).

“One is loved because one is loved. No reason is needed for loving” (p122).

“‘There is only one way to learn,’ the alchemist answered. ‘It’s through action'” (p125).

“…all you have to do is comtemplate a simple grain of sand, and you will see in it all the marvels of creation” (p127).

“…the fear of suffering is worse than the suffering itself” (p130).

“When you possess great treasures within you, and try to tell others of them, seldom are you believed” (p134).

“There is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve: the fear of failure” (p141).

“‘But don’t worry,’ the alchemist continued. ‘Usually the threat of death makes people a lot more aware of their lives'” (p142).

“‘Everything that happens once can never happen again. But everything that happens twice will surely happen a third time'” (p156, from an actual proverb).

Image from Amazon.com

Note: I don’t know why I was holding this review, exactly, but here it is. Probably I was too busy writing the great American novel (or an awesome, best-selling YA fantasy trilogy).

I knew that for this year’s National Novel Writing Month (November), I wanted to write a novel I had in my head which was brand new. I also knew, thanks to a workshop, that I wanted to formally plan it. I am already a planner, sure, but my planning was, well, ADHD-driven, meaning it was scattered, random, and often disorganized. In other words, I just dumped ideas and notes into the Word file in which I was writing (in capital letters, brackets and stars) and occasionally into a notes file meant specifically for that story. (I am not in the habit of using the actual “comments” features.) Using Scrivener this year (which I should probably blog about at some point), I had tools to organize this whole process a lot more. And I had the will. But how exactly? What questions did I need to be asking and what information did I need to try to have existing before I could begin writing? What universal structure did I want to use?

It seems to me that Save the Cat! is all the rage. There are some other story structure/story planning methods out there, like the Hero’s Journey, the Snowflake Method, and various 7- or 5- or whatever-point structures. I have actually used the Hero’s Journey to plan a novel before, though maybe not as thoroughly as I wanted to this time. The Hero’s Journey was an experiment for me, and I have been advised that it worked. We’ll see. This time, I knew I wanted to include some more basic thoughts, like stakes and faults, and I suspected that all the cool kids (or actually pretty nerdy kids but a lot of them) were getting this from Save the Cat!. Turns out that Save the Cat! is for screenwriting, but that it has been somewhat recently adapted for novels in the book, Save the Cat! Writes a Novel. Now, the way I understand it, Save the Cat! didn’t invent the wheel, it codified it. Then plenty of novel-writers, short-story writers, memoirist, etc. read the screenwriting version anyway and figured out how to use it. But then Jessica Brody (the original was written by Blake Snyder) wrote the literal book on using the Save the Cat! method for novels. (There is a YA version coming out in 2023, and I am already on the waiting list for a copy.)

Yes, this is a book about a formula. Brody goes into that concept in some depth, because formula-friendly authors are frequently defending their love of formula. Or maybe we don’t need to call it “formula,” because that does smack of plugging an idea into a lifeless rubric. The whole point of these systems, however, is simply to 1) honor the innate thing in the literary arts that rings true in the human spirit and 2) help authors connect with the fundamentals and universals—the usual suspects—of the soul-ringing story. Ideally, great writers would use these tips and even formula to ask tough questions about their latest story in order to—what?—write a better story or fix a story to make it better. To strengthen their story. Ultimately, yes, also to sell books because more people will relate to the story if it rings those truth-bells, but there is something more subtle going on here. Learning the science behind cooking would only make an intuitive chef better at what they do, not threaten their creativity. Same idea here. And, Brody promises, it will save the writer a whole lot of grief and drafts if they know what the heck it is they’re doing from the moment they have an idea as opposed to after three years of random writing.

I breezed through this highly technical (though clear and sometimes funny) book because I was on the verge of Nanowrimo and also was currently deep in the first draft obsession with my book. I just ate it up, underlining, starring, and arrowing all the way. It’s a good thing, too, because I was later going to go back over all the underlined parts to come up with my own, detailed story questionnaire to get me to my “beats,” or typical, necessary reference points in any successful story. Much of the content in this book (around 300 pages) is technical, as in examples, lists, break-downs (so, actually, you don’t have to read every single page if you know what “genre” your book will be. You can save that for later).

I find that I don’t have that much to say about the book, actually. I am using it. I recommend it. If you are looking to plan a novel, then this should be—if not the top book on your list then—one of the top books on your list. Yes, everybody is already doing it, but this time that’s because it’s a well-written, easy-to-follow book that introduces and then details the techniques that any author should have in their back pocket. Or tool belt. I did think there could have been more organization in the book itself: like charts, graphs, or checklists bringing all the many pages of info down into followable infographics, but I did that myself for the most part. But that might also be why I am now using a K. M. Weiland workbook on top of it. I get the ideas, here, but there has to be ways to work them out for a hard-planner. I also used Save the Cat! Writs a Novel to make an actual story board on a corkboard in my family room, which was super handy.

I guess we’ll see if following these beats leads to novel success in the next couple of years, but I think that this sort of thing is an important part of a writer’s education, whether they’re all literary and poo-poo-ing it or not. I don’t think just anyone can write or write well, but if you take your (novel- or even long short story-) writing seriously, there is much here for you to consider.

QUOTES:

“We turn to story to watch characters fix their problems, better their lives, improve upon their flaws. Great novels take deeply imperfect characters and make them a little less imperfect” (p11).

“…your hero also has to want something (badly) and be proactively trying to get it …. What does your hero think will fix those problems, or what does your hero think will better their life?” (p11).

“Your reader should be able to know if and when your hero gets what they want” (p12).

“We call the real problem the shard of glass. It’s a psychololigal wound that has been festering beneath the surface of your hero for a long time” (p14).

“…whether you’re starting something new or revising sometime old, drafting a beat sheet that lays out a clear transformative journey for your hero will save you…” (p23).

“And this is what I love about the Theme Stated. / The hero often ignores it!” (p33).

“The Catalyst should be BIG. Don’t wimp out on me” (p38).

“Pondering and weighing options and gathering more information is what we do as humans and heroes” (p39).

“You need the fun stuff too. You need the A Story” (p43).

“I call this the bouncing ball narrative. Your hero is up, your hero is down. Things are going swimmingly, things are going horribly. The hero succeeds at something, then fails at something” (p48).

“A great story is the continual raising of the stakes” (p56).

“…there is one kind of bad guy that does exist in all stories. / And that’s the internal bad guys” (p59).

“The Break Into 3 almost always includes the following realization for the hero: It was never them who had to change; it was always me” (p66).

“Whenever I get stuck on a certain part of my story, I always bust out the old Save the Cat! genre breakdowns, find novels and movies that are my chosen genre, and get studying” (p83).

(The book is 300 pages long, but after this point it is broken down by “genre,” so I didn’t really have any more quotes for you.)

I know you probably didn’t come to The Starving Artist for movie reviews and, well, my expertise is in literature and not movies. But I am a very opinionated movie-viewer, and I often tie movies to books as an experience. However, none of the movies below are related to books or to the writing life. They are, however, from lists that I have posted here about holiday books and movies.

Image from IMDB.com

SPIRITED

The big, must-watch Christmas movie this year is Spirited with Will Ferrell and Ryan Reynolds. Before I tell you that I loved this movie (oops, already did), let me brag for just one second. I totally called Sunita Mani (who plays the Ghost of Christmas Past, here). I saw her in those Progressive commercials and was like, “I really like her, she can act, and I hope to see a lot more of her, hopefully not in more Progressive commercials.” And bam! Along came Save Yourselves! and then Spirited. Granted, her character in Spirited might be my least favorite in the end, but this is not her fault. It’s the plot. She’s not winning any Oscars—yet—but still, I called it.

Anyhoo. This is a musical and, as of now, it’s available on Apple TV. My husband didn’t know it was a musical and probably felt a little hoodwinked, but all four of us liked it to really liked it. It’s a comedy (musical, as I said) based very loosely on Charles Dickens’ The Christmas Carol but also with reference to a number of holiday classic movies. It’s hard to believe that this worked, giving Ferrell the lead in another holiday movie hoping for lasting success, but I really believe they have pulled it off. I would be quite surprised if Spirited didn’t become part of the usual Christmas classics. I’ll be watching it again next year, for sure.

It’s funny. It’s lively. It’s engaging. It’s heart-warming. It’s a tale well-told. It’s nostalgic and new at the same time. I did know the mid-point twist like ten seconds into the movie because I’m ridiculous like that, but it didn’t really matter. Made me feel conspiratorial. And it doesn’t matter when it’s a movie you could re-watch many times. I walked away singing the big numbers and wishing so bad that life was—during and after—one big flash mob. (Somebody please include me in one, some day.) Chock full of big names and cameos (and Easter eggs), this is a well-acted, ultimately light but enjoyable and even thoughtful movie. Clever.

Image from IMDB.com

ONE MAGIC CHRSITMAS

Oh boy. I forgot that I had seen this movie last year, which my husband and I turned it on this year while wrapping presents. We left it on because I could only vaguely recall that I didn’t like it and it was slow and dysthymic. Still slow and dysthymic. Starring the mom from Elf (Mary Steengerben) long before Elf (and making me wonder if that’s how she got the Elf gig), this movie is considered a Christmas classic. By some, at least. But it couldn’t be more toned down, more, well, depressing, except that it ends with things being magically okay. I mean, you think things are also slow and depressing and then someone gets shot, some people disappear and are presumed dead, and all the while everyone’s sort of groping around and talking real mellow and sad. The angel likes to sit in a tree and play sad, nonmelodious songs on his harmonica and interacts with the daughter of Steenbergen in ways that freak the heck out of us pedophilia/trafficking-conscious modern viewers. (Not that he does anything, but his once-acceptable behavior reads now as creepy and naive.) It’s like the idea was outsourced to France. I mean, it’s so muted that it’s practically black and white. It’s not for me. It’s not for Kevin. I’m not sure exactly who it’s for, but someone likes it enough to include it in lists of Christmas classics. It’s like It’s a Wonderful Life meets The Good Girl, but I would definitely stick to both those other two movies, the former for your holiday season.

Image from IMDB.com

NOELLE

Another movie pulled from the list of modern, holiday classics (or sub-classics), my husband and I enjoyed this fluffy movie from 2019 starring Anna Kendrick and Bill Hader (less-so). It is one of those totally what you expect movies and it didn’t make me fall in love with it. Still, it would make a good, Christmas holiday movie night, especially if you haven’t yet seen it. I mean, you know what’s going to happen, sure, but there’s plenty of Christmas nostalgia and Christmas eye candy (not meaning the actors, but the sets, costumes, etc.). Disaster strikes the North Pole and someone has to save Christmas. Predictable, but light-hearted and just a little girl-power-y.

Image from IMBD.com

DOLLY PARTON’S CHRISTMAS ON THE SQUARE

How the heck did we end up watching this? It popped up. Probably because Dolly Parton has been trending. I have always (haha) liked Dolly Parton, anyhow, at least as a person and entertainer. (My love of her music basically begins and ends with “Jolene,” but no matter.) So we did it for Dolly. (She is some sort of Christmas angel, in the movie.) It was, like Noelle, obvious and cheesy, this one is more like a play on screen (which is where it hails from; the theater). You know, like The Muppet’s Christmas Carol. It’s not supposed to NOT feel like a staged (musical) play. Like a Hallmark movie and the concept of Scrooge (played out in like hundreds of modern, holiday movies) had a baby. Totally not amazing, but also worth it if you’re looking for a Christmas movie you haven’t yet seen. I actually would have given it much higher marks if the songwriting had been better. (All the songs fell flat and cliché.) But I laughed and I looked up who all the actors were (recognizing some B-listers). At times, corny as heck and completely confuses the concept of angels, but also kinda nice.

Images from IMDB.com

HALLMARK/LIFETIME MOVIES + FOOD NETWORK

Okay. I didn’t watch any of these (at least on purpose and in their entirety), but I wanted to mention them. There is a thing, this year, where Discovery paired Food Network and HGTV stars with what are basically Hallmark, Christmas movies. The stars play minor roles (cause they’re not actors, I presume) behind some romance taking place in smalltown America. On the cover of these movies (at least in some iterations), the famous person stands behind and above the couple in the foreground, smiling straight at the camera and us viewers. Bobby Flay is in One Delicious Christmas, Duff Goldman in A Gingerbread Christmas, Erin and Ben Napier are in A Christmas Open House, and Hillary Farr is in Designing Christmas. If you can’t tell, the movies have something to do with these people’s actual expertise and I am a fan of the first four people listed above, but there is no way I’m going to watch these. Maybe you want to? I wouldn’t expect them to be great, but who knows?

Image from IMBD.com

VIOLENT NIGHT

And finally, the Flahertys went out for a family movie night and saw this band-new Christmas movie, Violent Night. Yeah, it was violent. Really violent. Gory, actually. So why the heck did we do it? Well, I knew that my husband and son would like a Christmas action movie for a change and also because I have a thing for mash-ups (and genre benders). And, duh, it stars Hopper (David Harbour) from Stranger Things. In the previews, it looked conscious of itself, too, like it knew this was a ridiculous Christmas movie (Santa Clause as an action hero) to make but they were embracing that and doing it with a particular vengeance. Involving a kid, a Christmas Eve heist, family drama, and John Leguizamo as the quintessential bad guy with his band of Ocean’s 11-like also-bad guys (not to mention Saint Nick as a former Viking warrior), there aren’t that many post-preview surprises here except 1) the movie’s actually pretty good and 2) it’s really way too gory for most people. Especially considering that it’s a Christmas movie. I guess I was hoping that much of the violence would take place off-screen and that it would be more of a nod to violence (more in league with Die Hard), but Violent Night embraces the slasher genre within the action genre, at times so over-the top it was almost laughable (and will be for some, on purpose) if I hadn’t been squirming and covering my eyes, almost vomiting in my own mouth because, well, I value human life and find the body to be sacred. So I don’t want to recommend this movie to anyone, but the truth is that if you enjoy (or let’s say “tolerate”) that sort of thing, Violent Night is going to please because it hits so many other levels of good entertainment.

Image from Amazon.com

I have been handed books by my (now-eighteen-year-old) daughter a couple times (right after she read them), and she has handed me a couple that I loved (like We Were Liars). When I walked in her room several days ago she was balking at the final pages of The Silent Patient. When I said, “What?”, she said that she had just read a real doozy of a twist (not her words, exactly. I don’t believe she’s ever used the word “doozy” in her life). Then a fraction of an hour later, she handed the book to me to read.

I am going to say two things before I begin the review of The Silent Patient by Alex Michaelides. First, the relatively new book is extremely popular and its ratings are consistently high, making it likely that you would enjoy reading it. Second, it is billed as a psychological thriller, but I don’t think that is accurate. There is plenty of therapy and therapists involved in this story, but it is actually more of a murder mystery. If you persist in wanting it to be a psychological thriller, you might have a more interesting ride (while you create all sorts of possible scenarios and endings in your mind as you read) but you might—like me and some others—find the ending lacking. Because it’s not, ultimately, about the psychology or even about the patient’s silence. It’s about the murder (or whatever happened to Gabriel Berenson). All those Shutter Island and Fight Club scenarios you’re wondering about as you read are not going to pan out. Wonder, instead, what happened to land Alicia Berenson in the prison psych hospital (or whatever that’s called). Just assume she’s silent so that we can’t get the story straight from her.

Alex Michaelides has exploded onto the scene in the past few years, after a dream-ascension from Greece to Cambridge to an LA film institute followed by a failed film-making career that led him to write his first book in middle age. (He now lives in London.) Since The Silent Patient was published to much acclaim in 2019, he has also written another best-seller, The Maidens (which I am told (by the internet) is similar in many ways to The Silent Patient). There’s not too much more to say about him. He’s the new guy enjoying a lot of popularity.

As for the book, it has two protagonists, basically. The primary narrator is Theo Faber, a psychotherapist who desires to become the therapist to a notorious domestic murderess, Alicia Berenson. Alicia is a famous painter and the former wife of the murdered fashion photographer, Gabriel Berenson. Alicia was found at the scene of the crime with the gun, the blood, the body, and her wrists slit. Since then, she’s been in a women’s, criminal, psychiatric ward and hasn’t spoken a single word, not even at her trial something like seven years before this story begins. She is the other protagonist in the story, the epistolary narrator, and we hear from her from a series of journal entries that begin mere weeks before the murder. The two narratives weave back and forth as Theo gets his dream job working with Alicia and Theo’s own life fills a good fifty-per cent of the story, both his work life and his home life with a wife he adores.

Here’s the thing. I am not one of the five star or even four-star reviews, here. I am a three. The enjoyment of reading this book along the way gives it some redemption, but the ending just cast a shadow back across the whole thing, such that I am more in line with the one- and two-star reviewers, in spirit. Let’s start with the good. The writing is acceptable, I thought, especially for the genre. It was not distracting. I understood what was happening, followed easily, and remained on the edge of my seat wanting to know what was really going on behind all those adequate words. I was also pulled into the characters, though this was more of a mixed bag because I ended up hating all the characters (except two or three minor ones), including Theo and Alicia. If this gradual despising (from initial sympathy, which almost all books need to get the reader engaged) had played out in the end, I would have actually thought it was brilliant, in its way. But it kinda didn’t. (I don’t want to say too much. I try not to write spoilers without fair warning.) Let’s put it this way: many of the characters that we were supposed to sympathize with in the end, I just plain didn’t.

But here’s the other things, in no particular order:

Once we get to the end, we see that there are a number of plot holes (see spoiler reviews on Goodreads for more details) and even more dropped plots. In a mystery, red herrings are normal and even necessary, but to drop most of the plots at the end of the book without a backward glance is extremely unsatisfying for the reader. I could see a reader thinking “Bam!” at the end of The Silent Patient, but then their smile turning to a frown over the next couple hours or days as they consider the finer points. What happened to ___? Wait, why did ___ do ___? Etc. The vast majority of the plot lines in The Silent Patient are red herrings. I suppose that gives something away, but I’m just trying to warn you not to get too attached to these subplots: they won’t be tidied up, at all. In fact, there is one main thing that weaves through almost the whole book that is just like, Why the heck did he even do that? Let alone that many times?The female characters (including Alicia) are complete duds. They’re cliché and despicable and they tend to either blindly worship or relentlessly attack the men around them. I believe men can write great female characters, but Michaelides has done no such thing (here).There is little to no reality about psychology, psychiatry, therapists, or mental illness. Some of it I went along with because I know some things about this field but I’m no expert. I did become increasingly suspicious, however, and was confirmed in my suspicious reading reviews by actual experts. They have issues with medication, policy, and malpractice, etc. I have issue with being misled as a reader when I don’t know any better. It’s not like it’s supposed to be fantastical. And many of the issues here could lead to furthering harmful fallacies and stereotypes, keeping actual people from seeking the help they actually need.As I already mentioned but less specifically, I ended up hating almost every character in this book. I know that some high-fallutin’ reviewers are all about enjoying books built with despicable characters, but that’s not me. I almost always need at least one main character to remain sympathetic and likable, which doesn’t mean they can’t also be complex. The Silent Patient was riddled with small-minded, cruel, manipulative people with not a speck of an authentic or warm relationship between them, and I just wanted to forget about all of them by the end. Michaelides gave us broken pasts, but he failed to use that to create real people who we might relate to or even pity.For a lot of people, the ending does become obvious before the big reveal, at least in the chapters leading up to it. I’m sure this disappoints some people.The only way this book works (as it is. It notoriously makes its critics want to re-write it) is to trick the reader. I have always demanded of a piece of fiction that the ending feel inevitable. I want to be able to look back and see that this is the ending that was always meant to happen, that had to happen given the words and scenes I was given. This is the big fail for me in The Silent Patient. Not only had I dreamt up much more satisfactory endings along the way, but Michaelides had to trick me in order to even make the ending work. Like, if you had a clear understanding of the timeline (and it does seem he deliberately keeps you from it), things would be more obvious. It wouldn’t have to be this way, though. He could have written it without sleight-of-hand and I resent him for (mixed metaphor warning) not putting all the cards on the table.I trusted Michaelides. With the glowing reviews and my daughter’s reaction, I placed myself into his writerly hands thinking that he had everything under control. I feel a little betrayed.Also, what was up with the Greek tragedy thing? Sure, Michaelides is Greek and Greek mythology is trending (when is it not?), but it didn’t pan out in The Silent Patient though it really, really wanted to. The book would have been better as a re-write of Alcestis (does it even exist? Yes, it does) with the original twists kept from us until the end. But in that case, we would have needed to explore in great depth Alicia, her psyche, and her love of her husband, which you may think happens in The Silent Patient, but truly doesn’t. For that sort of thing, see Till We Have Faces or even Circe and Song of Achilles. Or Shakespeare.Also, London. Not just London, but we are faced with a cast of characters in a particular place and time. These things do not come to life in The Silent Patient. Particularly London and the areas of London where the story takes place: they just stay an unimportant backdrop and, if you are unfamiliar with them, a blurry one where significance (like the wealth and privilege of some of the characters) is lost on you. Even old Victorian writers (Dickens, Conan Doyle) do a much better job of this.Also, we are asked, in the end, to take everyone and the interactions at face value. I dunno. I thought this book was ripe with unreliable people, including the narrator, but in the end, no one had really lied directly to us or misled us or Theo. Everybody was pretty up front, no matter how shifty they seemed, and I reeeeaaaly thought there was going to be a real hard psychological bent to who was the most unreliable and why (like a character who was a manifestation of another or something like that). I wanted a big snap at the end to shift our perspective of truth and who was the most far gone (psychologically speaking) in the end. After all, a number of these characters are not only certifiable, but certified. Including both narrators. I found every word of Alicia’s journal to be suspicious, as well as much of how Theo read the other characters and reacted to them, so… Nothin’.Finally, given the selling points of this book (Alicia doesn’t speak! Read it! It’s called The Silent Patient! Read it!), I thought there HAD to be a solid, psychological reason for Alicia’s silence. I am not alone here with saying that there isn’t, at least not one that passed muster. I didn’t think the explanation worked with her personality, her journaling (which is, of course communication), with the plot, and with real psychology and Alicia’s psychological diagnoses from the past. Again, not an expert, but I didn’t find this bit (and what an important bit) to be believable or honest.

That all sounds horrible. But it’s not. And yet, every word I just said is true to my reading of The Silent Patient. Perhaps, if you just want a nice little read and you promise not to think too much afterward, just sit in your enjoyment until you move on to something else, I could recommend this book to you. I mean, everyone else is reading it, right? And I enjoyed the journey until the destination deflated the whole balloon for me. It was like watching a high rise being constructed day by day and then on the final day arriving to find a bungalow in its place. What could have been! I am not alone, but you wouldn’t be alone either, if you read this on a beach this coming summer and gave it four or five stars.

MOVIE

There is a movie in the works (not much news since 2019), though we should all know by now that is no guarantee of a movie. But we’ll see.

Image from Amazon.com

I was so busy Nanowrimo-ing and having holidays, that I never read the Thanksgiving book that I had slotted for this year. Yes, there are some Thanksgiving books, though so far (the past two years) I have found them to be a stretch. This year, however, the book is clearly a Thanksgiving book while also being a murder mystery and, ahem, being Canadian.

Now, normally, reading a Canadian book doesn’t mean a whole lot of difference from an American book. However, this being a Thanksgiving book, you should be fore-warned: not only are the traditions going to be different so that you won’t find all the usual American Thanksgiving trappings, but you won’t even find quite the same season. (Aha! I had forgotten.) Thanksgiving in Canada is on the second Monday in October, and while the weather in Canada may be chillier and the winters longer, you might be surprised to find Thanksgiving in Still Life by Louise Penny to be an early-harvest holiday and the weather to be milder than expected. But now that you are warned, here is the real review. After this:

Disclaimer: This is Still Life by Louise Penny, not the new, breakaway novel of the same name by Sarah Winman. Likewise, the movie reviewed below is Still Life: A Three Pines Mystery, and not Still Life, the 2013, theater movie about life and the afterlife.

Louise Penny is a popular murder mystery author and her famous detective is the Quebecoise Armand Gamache. Still Life is the first of her novels and the first we see of Gamache, so if you are interested in detective novels, Thanksgiving would be a good place to start reading these. They do have a small amount of French in them (taking place in and around Montreal) and are steeped in Canadian (specifically Quebec) terminology and culture, but that just makes it more interesting. Otherwise, her stories are supposed to be very standard murder mysteries (as this one is) and I kept seeing characters from all over the place appear with new, Canadian names (like Cameron Tucker from Modern Family as Gabri). In some ways, then, Still Life is not surprising, but a familiar book that has been quite successful since 2005.

I give it a middling rating. To be specific, I kept leaping back and forth between really enjoying the book and really not being sure. At times I thought it was almost terrible and then it would be redeemed by some great scene or even paragraph. I guess what I’m saying is that I found Still Life to be ultimately uneven. I could list the things I like about it (Gamache, a couple of the other characters, the setting, the insight about life) and also the things I thought kinda sucked (most of the other characters, telling and not showing, not really giving us enough real clues, the uneven writing style). The worst of it, though, were the three (all female) characters who were just despicable (which we were told, repeatedly). One was a little redeemable, but the other two were so bad they were cartoons and I’m not sure at all why one of them was even there. I was given a character I thought was important and that I was supposed to have sympathy for and then everyone around her was always gasping at her seemingly benign actions and giving her speeches about what a horrible person she was. I didn’t get it. And I don’t understand why she was even there. I’m pretty sure that her plotline is what brought this book down to a three-star rating for me.

But there were other reasons, which I’ve mostly said. Sometimes I was confused. Sometimes I was pleasantly surprised. Sometimes I was engaged. Sometimes I was appalled by the writing. Sometimes I was underlining. Sometimes I was wondering where the author of the previous page had gone. Maybe it’s because it was Penny’s first book and maybe things get better, because Gamache himself was one of the characters I actually did like (except for where he interacted with that weird character I mentioned earlier) and I love floating into scenes in this bucolic, artsy, town-with-a-green. I wanted to know who dunnit. I wanted to know why. But I found one plotline (a red herring, but still) to be dropped unsatisfactorily and one to be oblique almost to confusion/missing it. And while Penny actually had me mostly clear on who was who in a large cast, there was some definite confusion about POV/perspective as it suddenly jumped now and again to random characters. Still, there were other things that worked fine, and moments of joyful reading with Gamache and Jean Guy. The story is ultimately thoughtful and people-centric, but also a little fluffy. And so, so uneven. (Also, people don’t talk in quotations, anymore. And if they did, other people wouldn’t recognize those quotes and join in reciting. Not since at least the 1800s. I like this touch, but it’s strangely unrealistic.)

So you know how I feel. Still Life had good and bad points, the good not overcoming the bad in the end of this uneven read. But if you are a murder mystery fan, you might want to check out Gamache and Louise Penny. Or if you really want some thematic reading during Thanksgiving. It fills a hole, either way.

QUOTES

“’That’s the necessary first step,’ said Myrna. ‘They dehumanize their victim. You put it well’” (p18).

“As Gabri said, people don’t see it coming, because the murderer is a master at image, at the false front, at presenting a reasonable, even placid exterior. But it masked a horror underneath. And that’s why the expression he saw most on the faces of victims wasn’t fear, wasn’t anger. It was surprise” (p71).

“Life is choice. All day, everyday …. And our lives become defined by our choices. It’s as simple and as complex as that. And as powerful” (p81).

“They are four sentences we learn to say, and mean.’ Gamach held up his hand as a fist and raised a finger with each point. ‘ I don’t know. I need help. I’m sorry. And one other’” (p82). [Later, we find out, it’s “I was wrong” (p162).]

“But no more. / Lucy knew her God was dead. And she now knew that the miracle wasn’t the banana, it was the hand that offered the banana” (p82).”

“The people who don’t insist on their sorrow can often be the ones who feel it most strongly. But he also knew there was no hard and fast rule” (p96).

“Clara noticed most things, Myrna realized, and had the wit to mostly mention just the good” (p100).

“…because he knew every parent of a teenage boy fears they’re housing a stranger” (p123).

“Many of us are great with change, as long as it was our idea. But change imposed from the outside can send some people into a tailspin” (p139).

“The fault is here, but so is the solution. That’s the grace” (p140).

“Murder is often like that. It starts way off” (p141).

“Gain, or trying to protect something you’re afraid of losing…” (p171).

“Loss. It wasn’t the shriek it had been, more a moan in her marrow” (p176).

“I think she’s desperate to prove herself and wants your approval. At the same time she sees any advice as criticism as catastrophic” (p180).

“People who were angry were almost always fearful. Cockiness, tears, apparent calm but nervous hands and eyes. Something almost always betrayed the fear” (p188).

“But Gamache knew the human psyche was complex. Sometimes people reacted to things without knowing why. And often that reaction was violent, physically or emotionally” (p256).

“We artistic typed never take a straight line” (p265).

Image from Rotten Tomatoes

MOVIE: STILL LIFE: A THREE PINES MYSTERY (2013)

Yeah, so the movie was fine. It has middling reviews, but I bet people who like cozies mashed with murder mysteries would find this a nice afternoon with a cup of hot tea and a fuzzy blanket. I think it was probably made for TV, and has that kind of feel. A few things. First, most people looked too pretty for the way they were described in the book. Also, one of the “main” characters stood in the background and literally didn’t say a single word. Also, two of the subplots were dropped, making some of the things not make sense. Then again, they left in the one subplot that was seriously bizarre, which I mentioned above. After watching the movie, I still don’t understand what the whole Agent Nichol thing is even about. So bizarre. But a fine, simple, TV movie for those of you who devour that sort of thing.

Image from Amazon.com

THE TAILOR OF GLOUCESTER

I have tried to read and review a children’s picture book each Christmas along with a novel and a nonfiction book. This year I chose The Tailor of Gloucester by Beatrix Potter. I have never been a big Beatrix Potter fan (I can’t say I’m not a Potter fan because, well, that would be misleading), but I grow to appreciate her art as I get older and, I hope, more mature. Perhaps some of that appreciation comes from the movie Miss Potter, which I reviewed way back in 2015. (Goodness! It does not feel like that long ago. In the immortal words of one of Zadie Smith’s narrators, “She had been eight for a hundred years. She was thirty-four for seven minutes.”)

If you know Beatrix Potter, then you won’t be surprised by The Tailor of Gloucester. The title is a cute play on her other titles, which are all “The Tale of…”. It is definitely a Christmas story set in a familiar 1700s European setting with lead glass in the windows and snow piled on the horse-trod roads. Because it is Potter, the story is gentle and calm and animals behave like humans out of the blue. The animals in this particular story do not speak human except for the night of Christmas Eve, but they do other strangely human things, like wearing clothes and shopping.

The story is remarkably similar to the Cobbler’s Elves fairy tale, though the original idea was from a true story. Potter had a cousin in the town where a much younger tailor got sick while making the mayor’s elaborate, Christmas frock and he recovered to return to the shop with the coat completed (by his assistants) with only one button hole unsewed and a note attached reading, “No more twist” (aka thread). When the locals started saying it was fairies, the tailor encouraged it. Potter wrote the story with her characteristic animal personification and careful attention to illustrative detail as a gift for her friend’s child. According to Wikipedia, it was Potter’s favorite of her books, for years.

It is a charming, simple little book and the real beauty is in the watercolor illustrations. It would be a nice addition to any holiday picture-book collection for either a child or a bibliophile grown-up like me. It stands the test of time, though the story can feel a little repetitive at this point. Still, a child might like hearing it and the moral is kindness and respect for others, as well as caring for those who need help.

There are two movie/show versions, a 1989 live-action movie with Ian Holm and Jude Law and a 1992, animated episode in The World of Peter Rabbit and Friends. I watched the Peter Rabbit version first. It was twenty minutes, being made for a TV episode slot. It is as expected. The animation is out of date, but being based on Potter’s illustrations, it still has a certain, soft charm to it. The story is embellished a little to make it last twenty minutes, but much of the narration and lines are lifted straight from the book. If you want something short and nostalgic and Christmassy for some reason, then this is a fine example of the type of thing you might find in 1989, complete with chamber music and a prolonged scene with rats rollicking and singing with wine flowing in the sewers.

Both are difficult to find unless you go to Youtube, where they’re probably not meant to be posted. The second is a forty-minute, also made for TV movie, but with live action. It has that British, set-movie feel because that’s what it is, but it is more theater than masterpiece, and the narrator even talks directly to the camera. It’s cheesily acted, seemingly on purpose, but it is replete with Christmas-ness: children’s choirs, wassail for sale out of a cart on the street, etc. Of course, it is extended and changed to fit the time with much more story, and there is—like the other version—more music and singing than I imagined. Though it looks (mostly) like a Potter story. The strange thing is that the animals are people dressed up in furry costumes, nodding at one another and placed on sets to make them look small, except for Simkin the cat, who is a man dressed in a more Cats-esque human-cat-hybrid costume. Perhaps some of it isn’t very Potter-y. The reviews on IMDB are actually quite good (perhaps due to British people and nostalgia), and if an older, British retelling of a Potter fairytale is what you want, then go ahead and search this one out.

Image from Amazon.com

RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER

Last year I bought a picture book to read and review and then I didn’t. So this year you get two.

It is a little difficult to find a copy of the 1939 Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer by Robert L. May. I think it’s the older version with illustrations by Denver Gillan that you’ll want, but I accidentally ended up with a David Wentzel. The illustrations in my edition are fine, but I would have much preferred the old duochrome prints from the Gillan, even the 75th anniversary edition.

This is, by the way, the origin of Rudolph. May wanted to write the great American novel (don’t we all?) but ended up a catalogue writer for Montgomery Ward. At Christmastime, Montgomery Ward would give out an original Christmas book to children, and May—with a five-year-old daughter at home and a history of childhood rejection like Rudolph—wrote the poem that is now the book and the famous tale. Montgomery Ward sold the rights to May later, and he worked with a musician to create the song which took words from the book. It was picked up by Gene Autry (1949) and then made into the classic Christmas film (1964) that I watched every year growing up, on TV. The whole thing made May enough money to live comfortably until he died.

Knowing all that, I respect this book a bit more than I did when reading it. To be brutally honest, the poem is second-rate. The story is ehn. But I’m glad we have the concept so that we could have that goofy Christmas movie that I still love and that has helped Americans on their journey to embrace “misfits.” I am not a huge fan of the Wentzel version that I own and would much rather have a copy of the 1964 movie around. But if I had a Gillan copy, I would keep it around to put out with my Christmas decorations every year (which is, strangely or not, what I do with my Christmas books).

Image from IMDB.com

A CHRISTMAS STORY 2

While decorating the house this year, I turned on A Christmas Story (1983). It is a Christmas classic that I re-watch many years (and if anyone wants to buy me a leg lamp for the front window, I would gleefully accept), but it is not a family favorite around here so I figured having it on in the background was fine, this time. When the movie finished, I still had things to do, so I followed the Roku to A Christmas Story 2 (2012). I don’t think I’ve seen it before. I paid a little more attention to it, for this reason. And, um, it’s okay. I wonder if the story in it isn’t based on the short memoir stories that Jean Shephard wrote that inspired (and Shephard narrated) the original A Christmas Story. (I looked it up and it is only mildly related to a story he published about getting jobs with friends and being fired. Also, I found out that this sequel doesn’t work with an earlier sequel, My Summer Story, which was a 1994 flop). The sequel takes place six years after the events of the first movie, even though it was made like thirty years later. It is, really, a silly little thing and I didn’t think that the characters or feel were kept very consistent. It seemed like a holiday movie that is cranked out flippantly with pieces and references meant to please the masses but not make movie history or win any awards. So, it’s fine. Ralphie’s a teenager. He wants a car for Christmas. He actually crashes said car before he’s even close to owning it and has to figure out how to make enough money to pay pack the dealer before Christmas. His buddies get involved. There’s a girl, too. Harmless, I guess (though some have actually labeled it the worst Christmas movie), but not consistent with the original or anything too special.

Image from IMDB.com

A CHRISTMAS STORY CHRISTMAS

And then I kept going with a new-this-year (2022) A Christmas Story Christmas (and its similar title to last year’s Home Sweet Home Alone). Set 33 years after the events of the original but released more like 40 years later, this sequel used many of the actors from the original (which is especially notable because many of them have not had successful acting careers). I think this is a huge draw for fans of the classic. I thought it was kinda fun. But I did think it had—like 2—issues with character consistency, especially with the dad and maybe the mom. While it has better reviews than 2 (which I have read is quite a hated movie), I found it similar in its cashing-in on holiday themes and nostalgia to not really create anything special. It’s not new. It’s not like the old one. And what I found especially unforgiveable about it was the writing theme. Ralphie wants to be a writer. Of course, in the end, he wins (at least in some way). But did the writers of Christmas not bother to find out how writing and publishing even work!? It’s stupid stuff, really, but nothing about Ralphie’s journey or his idiotic attempts ring true. He hasn’t even finished one book and has severely limited funds, but he has a manager who calls him regularly? And a manager? What even is that? Not an agent. Not a publisher. A manager. He bribes publishers? Shows up at their offices?! Only queries locally?!? And it goes on and on throughout the movie. It makes no frickin’ sense.

While I wouldn’t totally tell you not to give both these sequels a one-time try, I don’t think you’re going to love them. You could join the many people watching A Christmas Story Christmas this year and scrutinizing it for its repeat actors and searching for a resemblance to the classic, but it’s the classic you’ll want to return to next year and for many years to come.

Image from IMDB.com

ANNA AND THE APOCALYPSE

I can’t even. My teen son and I stumbled upon Anna and the Apocalypse (2017) on a list on the internet last year and watched this together. We have been threatening our friends and family members all year about how they must see this movie. Full disclosure: It is not for everyone, or maybe even most people. It is not, for example, for children. (Besides gore, there is some very heavy-handed innuendo). Or people who are especially squeamish. But even though I don’t like horror movies or much violence, I do make exception now and again. For this exceptional movie, I will continue to do just that.

Apocalypse immediately rose to the top of my favorite holiday movies list and after a re-watch this year (with husband and teen daughter with me and my son), it will stay right there. First of all, it is unbelievable that this movie was ever even made. A British (Scottish), teen, musical, zombie apocalypse, Christmas movie?!?! Horror-comedy-tragedy?! I could barely believe my eyes reading the description, and then Eamon and I sat there (last year), jaws agape, incredulous looks on our faces, for at least the first quarter of the movie. (I saw those same looks on Kevin’s and Windsor’s faces this year.) It takes time to warm up to the movie and also to accept this mash-up of genre and theme. And there is a side of this movie that is satirizing film by playing to the cliches, for sure. But in the effort, something truly unique and wonderful was made. I am not joking: I laughed (hysterically at one scene), legit cried, covered my eyes (a couple times), jumped with surprise… all the things. Because, actually, you think this is going to be a fun ride and it totally is, but it is also a tragedy as well as comedy. So you might want to know that ahead of time.

I am afraid I am talking this movie up too much, but I can’t imagine why it shouldn’t become a cult classic and in a decade Hot Topic will have holiday merch with Anna and her spiked candy cane on ugly sweaters. True, some of the reviews are not great (and others are). Personally, I think that those critics and viewers just don’t get it. All four people of my family think this movie is brilliant (despite two of us being a little put off by the campy violence). And you might feel a little played by feeling like it’s a total coming-of-age High School Musical until stuff actually gets real (because this is the end of the world, so…). But I am not going to back down here. I love Anna and I totally think the world should embrace it in all its crazy glory, especially actual teenagers.

Image from IMDB.com

LAST CHRISTMAS

I hadn’t managed to see this newer (2019) Christmas movie yet, but I remember seeing the previews for Last Christmas a few years ago and intending to. Besides being an Anglophile, I am drawn to great, Christmas romances, and this promised to be one. Though, strangely, it wasn’t really much of a romance. It was more a late-coming-of-age, meaning that 25-year old Kate-Katarina has had struggles since fleeing Czechoslovakia with her family in her teen years and even more with a mysterious “illness” that almost killed her last Christmas. Something about that fateful night left her a stranger to herself, and instead of embracing life and staying healthy, she’s drinking herself to an early death and sleeping with whomever comes across her bar-hopping, app-swiping path. She’s also a real jerk and has become completely selfish. Then she meets Tom, who is goofy and optimistic and a perpetual do-gooder. She can’t help but be drawn to him and he, in turn, sees something buried in her. Written by Emma Thompson and Bryony Kimmings and directed by Paul Fieg, the movie is star-studded with Emilia Clark, Henry Golding, Emma Thompson, and Michelle Yeoh. It was much-anticipated but bombed with critics then went on to be a moderate box-office success. Even now, the reviews are almost comical. Either you hate it and give it a one can call the Hollywood elite names for their crap attempts at social commentary or you give it a seven to ten and like or love it. There are few who fall in between, but the vast majority of reviews are in the upper range. People just can’t come to a consensus about whether it completely sucks (the acting, the message, the romance) or is brilliant (the acting, the message, the romance).

I fall somewhere in between, but definitely more like a 7. I did find that some of the movie magic is missing and I was kinda paused over some of the acting—jury is still deliberating. And the surprise twist is quite a surprise (though left me feeling like it was pretty darn close to another, great movie which I will not share the title with here because it will give everything away), as in it totally changes the tone of the movie and fails to deliver on the “Hollywood ending” (song from Anna and the Apocalypse). But on purpose. It’s meant to be a different movie, a little feminist. Quirky. Young. Modern. Light-hearted and yet real. The last of those seems to be the tension that really bothers some people: many think that you can’t handle things like Brexit, immigrants, war, illness, depression, anger, homelessness, sexuality, etc. in a movie this light and, at times, almost goofy and that much of this falls flat (and false). Perhaps if the writers had narrowed the issues so that it was more like a Life Is Beautiful but less for the masses and more for the edgy, hip crowd? It is a lot for one, little, Christmas movie to take on, but I think the real deal here is that one girl is struggling with the world and her own place in it, and that’s why the issues mount. I enjoyed the strangeness, the acting, the sets and costumes (the fits!), as well as the way the George Michael/Wham music weaved through it (the movie being based on one line from the song, “Last Christmas”). I was interested in the story, but was thrown a little off by the twist; I think we could have been a little better-prepared not for the thing itself but for the mood of the twist. All in all, I liked it and would recommend it, but I would also understand if you didn’t like it. I think it deserves its place on a best-of Christmas movies list, come 1-ratings or 10.  

CHRISTMAS RE-WATCH FAVES AND RECOMMENDS

I also re-watched a number of Christmas faves, which I keep not reviewing because they are a staple of my holiday life: Home Alone, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, Elf, Bridget Jones’ Diary, Love Actually, Christmas with the Kranks, Charlie Brown’s Christmas, Arthur Christmas, It’s a Wonderful Life, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, and The Grinch (original). Perhaps we’ll rewatch Klaus as well.  Maybe one day I’ll review them, but they are all going to get five stars (or really close). I also received personal recommendations for Olive the Other Reindeer, Daddy’s Home 2, Love the Coopers, Prancer (with Sam Elliott), and Spirited. We’ll see how many I get to in the next week.

VIOLENT NIGHT

So, we have not seen this one yet. I will add a review next week, which is when we plan to see it as a family (with older teens).

For National Novel Writing Month (November) this year, I was working on a YA fantasy adventure trilogy. It was a new project to me, and I admit to not being as versed in YA or speculative fiction as in some other genres. In the past, I have made playlists to get in the writing mood for a particular project, but this year I went all out. I immersed myself in the genre and the world of that genre by playing my playlist, reading related fiction and nonfiction, and watching movies that would both educate me and get me in the vibes. I have already reviewed Circe and The Perks of Being a Wallflower (The books didn’t have to be YA adventure fantasy, but either YA or fantasy or dark or having to do with death or mythology or a combo thereof… I felt it out a bit.) I have not reviewed the first two books of the Percy Jackson series, The Raven Cycle, or Six of Crows because I am going to finish those series before reviewing them. But I am going to take a moment and review the movies that I managed to watch in November to keep me vibing and thinking along the lines of The Edge (my trilogy-in-the-making).

I am also going to give you my The Edge playlist, at least as it stands today. If you have a project that is YA adventure fantasy (or maybe magic realism and kinda dark with a murder mystery vein and some supernatural/myth leanings) then you might enjoy plugging this into your Spotify or whatever thing you use to make playlists. There are some very inspiring moments on it.

FIRST, THE “THE EDGE” PLAYLIST

Angsty Teen, Deathproof Inc.Paper Thin, IlleniumGreek Tragedy, The WombatsGreek God, Conan GrayComing Out of the Rain, Greek FireIndie Teen Movie, ElectricoolBlack Butterflies and Déjà vu, The MainePull It from My Teeth, Galaxy FamilySongs I Can’t Listen To, Neon TreesCemetery, CoinAmerican Money, BornsMillie, Christophe BeckFantasy, BazziUnderworld, Vampsdeath bed, Powfu and beadadoobee#1 Crush, GarbageLocal God, EverclearAngel, Gavin FridayI Found, Amber RunMad World, Michael AndrewsNo Time to Die, Billie EilishI Want to Feel Alive, The Lighthouse and the Whalerilomilo, Billie EilishThe Night We Met, Amber RunJuly Bones, Richard WaltersDoppleglanger, LissomThe Other Woman, Lana Del Ray

In hindsight, I would add some music from the 90s, too (Alanis, Smashing Pumpkins, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc.). While the trilogy is supposed to be vaguely modern times, I think it has ended up being the 90s in my head. And yes, there is a mini-section pulled from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet soundtrack. You noticed that, huh? And now for the movie reviews.

Image from IMDB

BLINDED BY THE LIGHT (2019)

Whoops. I rented this movie before I realized I’ve already seen it. I think that says that it was oddly unmemorable for me. Either that, or the description doesn’t match with how I recall movies. It’s not that I don’t watch movies multiple times, sometimes, but I didn’t mean to watch this one as a rental, again. It’s a little strange because the movie—though made by the same peep as Bend It Like Beckham—just doesn’t hit me the way that Beckham does. I love British movies, coming-of-age, a little quirky, involving music. It should have been right up my alley. But there is something of magic in some movies and it is hard to quantify or even speak about. But I’ll try to say how it wasn’t as strong in this one: one of my main complaints is that it only does unique things now and again, which I always find awkward in a movie (like Enola Holmes or Tolkein). I like the full-commit to quirk or fantasy elements (which can still include magic realism). I would have liked more of the same quirk, here. But that can’t be all of it, and I can’t say exactly what is not memorable about this movie. It feels more memorable now so maybe I was in a distracted mood when I watched it the first time. If you asked me during or right after watching this movie (both times) I would have said I liked it. It is, as a British, eighties-and-nineties, coming-of-age movie, music-forward—right up my alley. And there’s nothing really wrong with it, just that it isn’t that magical thing you get when a movie goes right. I liked it. I would recommend it, especially if you have anything like my taste in movies. It’s about a second gen Pakistani-British kid coming-of-age in the eighties and nineties in a factory town in England. He is really looking for a place to fit in when he makes a new acquaintance who tells him the music of Bruce Springsteen will change his life, a girl who is super in to activism, and a teacher who encourages his gift for writing. (Yes, it is a movie about a blooming writer, which is probably why I saw it the first time and definitely why I should have reviewed it before. Whoops.) Struggles and antics ensue. It is based on a memoir, Greetings from Bury Park. It is fun, cute, affecting, surprising, and at times, artistic.

Image from IMDB

THE CRAFT (1996)

This movie was too dark for me. I was reluctant to even watch it, because I don’t mess around with serious witchcraft/the occult, but I went ahead because this is a classic and maybe it wouldn’t be that dark. At first, though some of the messing-with-witchcraft stuff made me squirm, it was a little more on the teen-rebellion, almost-innocent side. However, there is a point in this movie where things go south, hard, and real fast, like a switch is thrown. Actually, whether or not you can deal with dark, violence, and the occult, the pacing of the movie is pretty bad because of it. The film is basically divided in half, and I found the characters and plot of the second half to come out of nowhere (meaning that they were technically the same characters, but they had wildly different character than in the first half). You don’t just go from struggling with coming-of-age and normal rebellion to murder, from BFFs to mortal enemies, the way this movie wants us to believe. When the gears shifted, for me, the motor stalled and I felt broke down at the side of the road. I can see how this would be a cult classic (with Neve Campbell and some other actresses that might have been pretty cool at the time); there are things about it to draw you in to the nostalgia and charms (ha ha), but it’s a not for me. It’s too violent, dark, and unbelievable.

Image from IMDB

ENOLA HOLMES 2 (2022)

I watched this because it popped up on my Roku ads and I just went, fine, okay, path of least resistance. I thought Enola Holmes was only an okay movie which shouldn’t have bothered trying to be related to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes because it doesn’t ring true in that way. See previous review HERE. So I gave it a shot with low/adequate expectations and they were met. It is a repeat of the first movie, which actually means that as a sequel it is not half bad. You care about the love interest. You root for the heroine. You are wowed by the costumes, clarity, and general direction. However, it’s cheesy and predictable, not very Sherlockian, and the plot is ehn. We get it. Girl power studded with crowd-drawing names (like Millie Bobby Brown, Louis Partridge, and Helena Bonham Carter). If you want a nice family movie (it’s pretty darn innocent) to watch and you enjoyed the first one, go for it.

Image from IMDB

LOVE, SIMON (2018)

This was probably my favorite of all the (at least new-to-me) movies I watched for Nano. Perhaps this is surprising because it is really meant for a more modern, teen audience (especially a generation more LGBTQ+-friendly than the decades preceding), but I thought it was sweet, effecting, and full of likeable characters and a compelling plotline. I also liked this thing the director/writer does where there’s a mystery, a who-is-it, and we see this mystery person as whoever Simon thinks it is at the time. I thought this was innovative and interesting. About a boy who is still in the closet figuring out how to live with his secrets and his burdens, how to make and keep friends, how to be part of a family—Simon finds himself writing anonymously back to a guy from his school who outs himself while still staying a secret. As the two boys write back and forth, a relationship develops, but there are about 6,000 reasons one and then the other don’t want to go public with their feelings and their sexuality. In the end, I suppose, the story is predictable, and the teens might be given more maturity than it is usually their fate to have (which is something I find in many, many movies and books, see review on The Perks of Being a Wallflower), but it made me cry like a handful of times and the adults/parents in the movie don’t suck. I was a little conflicted about how Simon’s gayness was more assumed than developed, partly because this movie is a place to explore these things, but it also made some fascinating points, like a scene where straight kids come out to their parents, which maybe means his assumed homosexuality is a point in itself. So, I enjoyed it, maybe more than I should have as an adult and not a teen, but still. I would totally enjoy watching it again.

Image from IMDB

SAY ANYTHING (1989)

Now this is a classic. If you like retro cinema and rom-coms, then you should see this (if you haven’t already). I’m not going to say it’s my favorite movie. It’s not. But it was worth the watch. The whole thing is a little softer than most recent movies (like in story-telling, explicitness, conventionality, etc.), but it translates, I think. It does have this issue, like The Craft, where the gears switch suddenly and you’re not sure you were set up to believe what then happens, but it’s not nearly as big of a problem as in The Craft. Mild. Classic. Worth a watch, once. It’s a kinda’ quirky, old-fashioned romance that was super big in its day and still beloved and referenced by many. John Cusack (and his sister is in it, too). Epitomizes the genre at the time. I don’t even really need to tell you what it’s about. Quirky nobody wants to get the valedictorian but they have just graduated and are supposed to be going their own ways. There is money laundering involved, but only after the gears switch. Lili Taylor is the quintessential platonic friend.

DONNIE DARKO (2001)

I have seen this movie before, several times. It is one of my husband’s favorites and I always find it intriguing, maybe despite myself. It’s a little dysthymic for me, but still I watch. And every time I figure a different thing out about the plot. This time, I figured out that the time travel element is not all that important and I shouldn’t place too much brain power on figuring it out, because it’s metaphorical. Some fans of this cult classic have said that it always ends up being nonsensical or that it doesn’t hold up to too much scrutiny, while others parse it all out and have theories and whatever. People tend to do that sort of thing. The real fun is in the cultural allusions and, dare I say, cliches. It’s a fun (though ultimately sad) movie with many memorable moments. It made the Gyllenhalls, though, actually, I don’t love the way Jake acted the titular role. Just sayin’. If you want to know what it is about or if you might want to see it, it is a cross between psychological drama, horror story, and coming of age with a little science fiction thrown in. It is a cult classic and also considered by some to be one of the best movies of all time. It is interesting, well-written and well-done and explores both mental illness and time travel as well as the teen years and suburban America. It’s a mash up of black comedy and YA-level seriousness that ultimately brews on the dark side (with touches on everything from banning books to pedophilia), but most people love how it eventually surprises you with its twists and then leaves you scratching your head.

THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER (2012) I have already reviewed this separately and I actually re-reviewed it (sorta) when I just read the book (also for Nanowrimo). I loved the book. I like the movie. See the movie review HERE and the book review HERE. The gist is it’s a coming-of-age modern classic that is probably more college age but is still a great piece of writing and a cinema favorite for the young’uns.

I thought I had won Nanowrimo before. Officially, according to their website, I haven’t even won Camp Nanowrimo (during which you set your own word goal in the summer), but I had come ridiculously close (less than 2000 words) to winning Nano the year I started The Journey of Clement Fancywater (in 2014). Well then, you are now witnessing my first Nanowrimo win. (!!!) Technically it happened twelve days ago, but I forgot to blog about it in the moment and then I got busy. It was exciting.

All month long I kept pretty close to the word count graph—ahead for most of the month and then took Thanksgiving off and zoomed forward meeting my daily goals until the end. But that means that on Nano End Eve I was writing those final words. Around nine o’clock I went to check what was happening on my local Nano chapter’s Discord when I caught the tail end of a couple, random sprints (when as a group you write for fifteen or twenty minutes straight, trying to get lots of words down). I average a little more than 500 words per sprint. I jumped in to participate, and on their last one I was 400-something away from 50,000 words, which I mentioned in the comments. One of the local leaders (MILs) volunteered to run one more sprint to get me over the finish line. I don’t know how it happened, but I actually wrote more than 800 words in that sprint, with everyone (like six people) watching and the pressure of expectation. 50,399! Then they all celebrated with me with memes and gifs and kind words.

Then I went to the Nano site to make sure that my word count was correct and that I had confetti floating down my screen. Then I went to bed, a Nanowrimo winner.

I wrote 50,000 words, which is a “novel,” but not a novel. I actually ended up using my first 12,000 words to finish the novel that I was almost done with (and kept draaaaaging on and on). Therefore, I have about 38,000 words of a new novel, The Edge. I have figured out that, based on story-telling cues and arch, I am probably a third of the way done with a 90-100,000-word novel. Which means that if I kept up Nano pace, I would be done in one month. This will not happen. I have weekends and holidays to account for. But I do think that 2,000 words per workday—for me—is not beyond my grasp. Basically, if I do four sprints in the morning hours of a workday, I am sitting at 2,000 words-plus. Minus Sundays and most Saturdays plus an occasional holiday, and I could be done with The Edge’s first draft in around seven weeks.

I’ll have to accept that. I would like it to go faster, but life.

Photo by me. I took it.

I will then have to set the book aside and do a second draft for The Journey of Clement Fancywater (which might take a month) and then a final-final draft of The Family Elephant’s Jewels (because I’ve learned enough this year to realize it needs a re-work, which might take me another month) and then I can return to The Edge for a second draft. After first readers, a final draft, and bouncing back and forth between novels, then, I could see a final of Family Elephant in February, Clement in April or May, and The Edge Book 1 in the summer. Arg. That seems too far away, especially when it is easily my most marketable book to date. But I can’t rush the process more than moving fast through moving-fast parts. Every book needs breathing room, and needs other eyes, and needs drafts for macro and then fine-tuning. This is the way it works. I best just do my best and stop complaining.

So here’s to winning Nanowrimo, 2022! I have 50,000 more words on the page and both memories tucked away and lessons learned. Quite a lot of lessons, actually. Some I learned in the process and some from talking to other Nanowrimers. Many of the lessons were learned in the Nano-prepping books that I read (like Save the Cat! Writes a Novel, which I will review for you soon). I don’t even want to admit it, but the countdown on my fulltime writing clock has already begun and the alarms will go off next summer if I don’t pull something amazing off. I actually feel like the new trilogy is that amazing thing, but it needs hard work and time. Time. Maybe I need a Nano every month between now and the summer. I have one residency already lined up (which means one week of intensive). I’ll just have to find it in myself to be super-focused for a few hours every day and then be the mom and wife and whatever the rest of the time. Maybe short stories are sacrificed in this season. I don’t know. It takes time to crank out 100 submissions in a year. Seriously.

But now I’m rambling. I won Nano. End of story. Hardly.