Top Ten Tuesday : Characters that Remind Me of Myself

Visual Description: Simple, clear font writing. 'top ten' (in pink, no caps). "TUESDAY" (all caps, bolded, colors alternating between yellow, orange, and pink). "www.ThatArtsyReaderGirl.com" (smaller font, in pink, at bottom).

Anne Shirley of Green Gables

Visual Description: A fiery red head tween girl with very messy braids and a messy flower crown on her head turns around and lifts a basket to someone and smiles a enthusiastic toothy smile. She is outside and wearing a plain brown dress. (Note: this is from the Netflix Anne series)

I was reading Anne of Green Gables books since I was probably...I want to say eight. I was a fast reader and voraciously devoured the books. She was an expression of my inner self and the vast imagination that I held inside my heart. She was the version of myself that I didn't feel comfortable or accepted in being in my real life. She was and is my literary kindred spirit. 

Jane Eyre

Visual Description: Screenshot from Jane Eyre 2011. Jane is standing in a golden field, its dreary but clear out, behind her is a stone estate home. She is wearing a blue cloak with her hands holding the hood in place over her head. She is wearing a somber, modest but expensive gown.

Jane Eyre, oh Jane Eyre. She is a part of me. She really is. Here are two quotes that convinced me that I have been a Jane Eyre in a previous life: 

“’I am not an angel,’ I asserted; ‘and I will not be one till I die: I will be myself. Mr. Rochester, you must neither expect nor exact anything celestial of me–for you will not get it, any more than I shall get it of you: which I do not at all anticipate.’”

“No sight so sad as that of a naughty child," he began, "especially a naughty little girl. Do you know where the wicked go after death?"
"They go to hell," was my ready and orthodox answer.
"And what is hell? Can you tell me that?"
"A pit full of fire."
"And should you like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there for ever?"
"No, sir."
"What must you do to avoid it?"
I deliberated a moment: my answer, when it did come was objectionable: "I must keep in good health and not die.”

Emma

Visual Description: Emma (portrayed by Gwenyth Paltrow). A thin, golden haired beauty is sitting in a parlor (top half visible). She is wearing a pale sea green regency gown. She takes a sip from a teacup while turning her head to the left. It portrays a bit of sass and attitude. 

Ok so hilariously? I don't quite like Emma as much. She has always been one of least favorite of the Austen heroines. And, alas, according to the woman who gave birth to me and my very best friend - I am quite like her. Why? Because I'm a bit...bossy? Not bossy. No, never bossy. Just...I like to fix things and I express my opinions on how to accomplish the fixing of things very well. I also care a lot and I'm convinced that if my sisters just LISTENED to me then they would never have an issue. I'm also very independent and have a very close relationship with my father. 

Cath from Fangirl

Visual Description: Illustrated cartoon image. Salmon pink background. A redhead young woman in a green cardigan, red hair tied back in a bun, and glasses is typing on a laptop with the image of two cartoon men on its screen. One has long dark hair and the other has light hair. Hearts are around them. 

Cath is a introvert, a fandom lover, a fanfic writer who dreams of being published someday, and she and I have a lot in common. She can be taken out of herself but only by the best kind of people. Again, she's close to her Dad. Like I am. And she and I have very similar social anxieties. Kudos to my best friend Madie for pointing her out for this list. 

Jo March

Visual Description: Jo March (portrayed by Maya Hawke Thurman) is sitting on the floor of an attic. Dressed in a white nineteenth century gown, her messy light brown hair is pinned back at the nape of her neck, she is looking upwards and grinning at someone. 

Many times have my sister and I considered which March girl we were. I've always firmly believed she was a cross between Meg and Amy while I was a cross between Jo and Beth. However, over the years, I've become increasingly more Jo than anything else. Her feelings are my feelings, her desires are often my desires. So when I'm asked 'Which March Sister Are You?' - it's always Jo March. 

Caris Weaver from A World Without End

Visual Description: A long dark haired woman, her hair flowing down her sides, is strolling through a medieval market. She is wearing a plain off-white gown with a beige over-apron with flowers pressed into the fabric. A leather satchel is over her shoulder in a casual manner and a apple is in her hands and held in front of her. 

I love Follet's Kingsbridge Trilogy. Caris is a main character in the second one and she is so independent and driven. She is forced to become a Nun or be burned a witch and instead of giving up on her dreams she uses it to fulfill her goal to open up a hospital. Years later she defies everything and gives up the cloth to be with her one true love. Her legacy lives on the city. I might not be as fierce as she is nor as clever - I definitely am inspired by her and hope to have a small part of her tenacity inside of me. 

Agnieska from Uprooted 

Visual Description: A cropped and expanded picture taken from the cover of the book. A brown haired young woman with her eyes closed is leaning over a golden rose with vines growing from it. She has strong but gentle features and looks at peace. On either side of her are shelves. One has two green dragons poking their heads through. One has a open book with pages flying out. One has a hawk. And another had a golden haired lady in a white medieval gown with an outstretched hand towards her. 

Agnieska! One of my favorites! Her clumsy and emotionally based way of weaving magic and finding her way through dangerous ordeals with practical determination and intuition vibes with my own. She rather be comfortable than expensively clothed. She is the one person no one thinks would be chosen by the dragon or to have magic in her. But she is and she finds that she has a unique way of magic that ends of saving her home. And, while, I don't have a special kind of magic weaving ability inside of me - I do understand the way she sees and feels things out instead of subscribing to every letter and rule in the instructions. I work best that way too. 

This isn't ten but it's super late and I'm rather tired. So I'll leave it here. I can't wait to see what other people come up with! 

Until next time, 

Jess

Another...Reading Round Up!

I'm feeling that it's time to do another reading round up! I've read several books over the past few months that I haven't blogged about. Perhaps because they're already established/well-known, I liked  them but didn't really feel like doing a blog on them, or I just was too busy.

Red Clocks by Leni Zumas

Visual Description: "Red Clocks" in a minimal white calligraphy font. Behind it is a flat, red diamond prism in various shades of red. It is a geometric symbol of the opening of a vagina. It reaches all the way up the top and bottom of the cover. Written in the same calligraphy font but in  yellow around the shape is :  "National Bestseller" across the top, Leni Zumas (Leni on one side of the top of the diamond, Zumas on the other). Bottom left 'A Novel' and on the other side a description "Strange and lovely and luminous. I loved RED CLOCKS with my whole heart - Kelly Link'. 

"Five women. One question. What is a woman for? In this ferociously imaginative novel, abortion is once again illegal in America, in-vitro fertilization is banned, and the Personhood Amendment grants rights of life, liberty, and property to every embryo. In a small Oregon fishing town, five very different women navigate these new barriers alongside age-old questions surrounding motherhood, identity, and freedom. Ro, a single high-school teacher, is trying to have a baby on her own, while also writing a biography of Eivør, a little-known 19th-century female polar explorer. Susan is a frustrated mother of two, trapped in a crumbling marriage. Mattie is the adopted daughter of doting parents and one of Ro's best students, who finds herself pregnant with nowhere to turn. And Gin is the gifted, forest-dwelling homeopath, or "mender," who brings all their fates together when she's arrested and put on trial in a frenzied modern-day witch hunt." - Nabbed from the Goodreads Blurb

I read this a few months ago - both reading it and listening to its audio-book. It was around the time that I was withdrawing from The Handmaid's Tale (the show) finale. It is a book that I would suggest to anyone who appreciates The Handmaid's Tale, for sure. But, unlike The Handmaid's Tale, the reality that is written in Red Clock's is far, far closer to our world. I find The Handmaid's Tale uncomfortable for it's closeness to our current political and social climate. Red Clock makes Handmaid's Tale feel more close to the world of The Hunger Games than ours. Scary. But, thought and feelings provoking. 

I refrained from blogging about it because I just didn't quite vibe with the writer's tone. I also had some problems with the characters. The Wife seemed extraneous to me. As for the writer's voice - I felt she was specifically taking on a masculine tone to prove something. I'm not sure. But, it didn't feel authentic. Mildly posing? I think this book would be great for a male reader and it's not surprising that The Punisher's Jon Bernthal tweeted his book love for 'Red Clocks'. It seems like JUST the book to reach through to the mind of a guy who inhabits Frank Castle so easily. 

The problems addressed in the plot are real and reaching. I thought the conclusion was satisfying and the decisions (from my fading memory of the plot) made by the characters were in-character and understandable. 

My personal opinions on writers tone and character placement wouldn't be everyone's reaction. That is why I'm starting this particular Reading Round up with it. It's a strong book and worthy of throwing out there as a book suggestion. 

A Discovery of Witches by Deborah Harkness

Visual Description: A mystical, midnight cover. The background is in shades of midnight blue and darkness. The nighttime sky with light esoteric circle symbols with lines drawn to each other etches in front of it takes up 80% of the background. The lowest bottom part is a nighttime cityscape (probably London). The title is in large white slightly older feeling font in the center of the cover. Above, in simple straight font is "DEBORAH HARKNESS", below that in a smaller yellow font : "1 New York Times Bestselling Author of Shadow of Night and The Book Of Life"

"Deep in the stacks of Oxford's Bodleian Library, young scholar Diana Bishop unwittingly calls up a bewitched alchemical manuscript in the course of her research. Descended from an old and distinguished line of witches, Diana wants nothing to do with sorcery; so after a furtive glance and a few notes, she banishes the book to the stacks. But her discovery sets a fantastical underworld stirring, and a horde of daemons, witches, and vampires soon descends upon the library. Diana has stumbled upon a coveted treasure lost for centuries-and she is the only creature who can break its spell." - Nabbed from the Goodreads Blurb.

A Discovery of Witches quickly falls into the category of "It's already so well known and has been for a long while, I felt redundant and late in the game in blogging about it". However, the love I have for this book and the two books that come after it in the All Soul's Trilogy is VERY real and I can't help but share it here. 

Vampire romance is not a ground-breaking genre. It's not even a genre that has ever really gone out of style. It's been around and will always be around. Even when you go through the inevitable post-Twilight detox and can't imagine ever reading another vampire fiction again - you still find yourself intrigued by the premise. But, alas, some (a lot) of vamp fics out there are...horrible, lazy, trope-ish, and wrought with mary-sues. A Discovery of Witches does not at all fall into that category. 

It is so intelligent, emotional, and refreshing. Marrying science and copious amounts of luxurious history and the metaphysical into a tale with it's own original lore that resides in our own normal, mundane world so easily that it's curious to imagine it's legitimate. Diana is a convincing, refreshing heroine and while I had some annoyances with the male lead - he was swoon worthy and original. Diana has a history, interests, passions, and personality traits. So does Matthew (male vampire lead). 

A Discovery of Witches reminds me a great deal of Outlander. Mostly because the author is a historian who actually found a long lost alchelmical manuscript in the Bodleian Library in Oxford - just like her main character. She draws on her vast education and experiences and passions to weave the tale. The story is mature, deeply intelligent, intense and sexual (but doesn't stray too far into Anne Rice territory). Very Gaboldon-esque of her, right? 

The next two novels in the trilogy hold up and I loved everything about it. Also - it was adapted into a TV show and can be found on Sundance or Shudder. Season 1 covered A Discovery of Witches, Season 2 looks like it will jump right into the second novel. While the show was great and I'm tempted to do a book-to-screen post about it, I must insist that you read the books first. 

Because they are awesome. Super, duper awesome. And I just typed 'super, duper'..and you know what? I'm going to leave it there. 

A Strange, Scottish Shore by Juliana Gray

Visual Description: This is a illustrated cover with the artwork heavily featured and explanatory of the premise. A dark haired woman in a gray, plain Victorian-esque travelling attire and a gray hat with a ribbon ta the back is standing on a grassy rise with her back turned to the viewer, two suitcases in her hand, and the wind pulling back her neat hairdo and hat ribbons. She is looking towards a castle on a cliff on the sea, the ocean shore calm in front of her, a small boat moored on the beach. Clouds build in the background but the day is clear and the sun is setting. The title in simple, old-tymey print features at the top "A Strange Scottish Shore'. At the bottom is the author's details in large and small white fonts "Juliana Gray", "Author of A Most Extraordinary Pursuit". And a small quote clip in black font where the shore is detailing "A heroine worth rooting for. - Deanna Raybourn, New York Times bestselling author." 

"Scotland, 1906. A mysterious object discovered inside an ancient castle calls Maximilian Haywood, the new Duke of Olympia, and his fellow researcher Emmeline Truelove, north to the remote Orkney Islands. No stranger to the study of anachronisms in archeological digs, Haywood is nevertheless puzzled by the artifact: a suit of clothing, which, according to family legend, once belonged to a selkie who rose from the sea in ancient times and married the castle’s first laird. But Haywood and Truelove soon discover they’re not the only ones interested in the selkie’s strange hide, and when their mutual friend Lord Silverton vanishes in the night from an Edinburgh street, the mystery takes a dangerous turn through time, which only Haywood’s skills and Truelove’s bravery can solve…" - Nabbed from the Goodreads Blurb

OK SO THIS BOOK WAS SO GOOD I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS THE SECOND IN A SERIES UNTIL I WAS HALF WAY THROUGH IT. And I have, alas, been unable to procure the first one without purchasing it and I have too many books on my TBR list to justify buying it. 

This came up for me when I looked up 'selkies' in my library's app search. I love selkies. I think they are a deeply under-rated fantasy/supernatural/magical creature. They deserve so much more than what they get. I love history (as I think I've made clear in this post and previous posts) and so I picked it up and started reading it. Within the first chapter I realize that this chick is literally talking to the ghost of THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND in a train car. Like, what?! I was hooked.

Emmeline Truelove is a lovely main character and her voice is realistic for the times but earthy and understandable. Sometimes, in the era that she lives in, the narration can be a bit pompous or distant. Like, the author is trying too hard to emulate the times or doing an impression of someone in that era? But, she's a prim and proper heroine that you root for! 

I can't reveal too much about the story without giving major spoilers away and I don't want to do that. But, I can say it was a great ride of a read and the surprises were amazing. I encourage you to read the first book in the series, though. It's always better. And I feel confident from my experience with A Strange and Scottish Shore that the first novel will be excellently written and worth recommendation. Furthermore, I am confident that there will be more books coming because there are some answers we need answering and that they too shall be excellently written. 

A Study in Scarlet Women by Sherry Thomas

Visual Description: Another cover where the illustration is heavily featured and explanatory of the premise! A young woman with dark hair pinned up and in a elegant, scarlet gown with a large, hooped, ruched skirt is on a doorstep lit by two old fashioned gas lamps. The night is misty and it feels like she's in the city. She is in mid-action of entering the door. It is cracked and golden light glows from inside. Gold fillagree emblems are in each corner of the cover. The author's name and details are in mid-large and small font above the doorway at the top of the cover. "USA Times Bestselling Author of My Beautiful Enemy", "SHERRY THOMAS". Below, the title in white and large font "A Study in Scarlet Women" and in smaller golden letters describing "First in the Lady Sherlock Series" at the bottom of the cover. A small quote clip in white is placed to the left beside her scarlet skirt detailing "Sherry Thomas has done the impossible and crafted a fresh, exciting new version of Sherlock Holmes." Deanna Raybourn, New York Times bestselling author."

"With her inquisitive mind, Charlotte Holmes has never felt comfortable with the demureness expected of the fairer sex in upper class society. But even she never thought that she would become a social pariah, an outcast fending for herself on the mean streets of London. When the city is struck by a trio of unexpected deaths and suspicion falls on her sister and her father, Charlotte is desperate to find the true culprits and clear the family name. She’ll have help from friends new and old—a kind-hearted widow, a police inspector, and a man who has long loved her. But in the end, it will be up to Charlotte, under the assumed name Sherlock Holmes, to challenge society’s expectations and match wits against an unseen mastermind" - Nabbed from the Goodreads Blurb.

Gender-swapped Sherlock Holmes for the win. Much like A Discovery of Witches - the premise has been done before. It's been done in TV. It's been done in books. It's been done in the past. And it has been set in the present. So, when I picked this up (after finally doing so after my library app kept throwing it me in suggestions for eons) to try it out  I was very surprised how original it was. 

I recently read somewhere that Sherry Thomas has said she enjoys writing the type of books she enjoys reading and it totally clicked with me. Because, A Study In Scarlet Women, she effortlessly slides into the role of narrator of a intelligent, Victorian who-dun-it with little hiccup. The whole book sets up the whole series. The twist upon the twist? Charlotte Holmes is the scarlet woman and she does so by pure genius choice. She is exactly what you would think a female Holmes would be but also not at all what you think. She's better. And her supporting characters are better. And the world she lives in and solves mysteries is better. 

It's a slow burn read and mystery, alternates point of views deliciously, and does not stray from spending time on mundane day-to-day things and societal expectations and rules. While male Sherlock Holmes didn't have to worry about conventions or societal pressures - Charlotte Holmes is highly pressured to do so. Her dream is to find an occupation where she does not have to marry and one that gives her enough income to support her two unmarried sisters. One of them mentally challenged and hidden away by their lacking, disappointing parents and the other older and very much a wallflower with a great big heart but not much backbone. Oh, and! - MRS. Watson is a retired actress of means! A Victorian-era ACTRESS. While Thomas definitely resides within the realm of the original Sherlock Holmes series, she gender swaps where necessary and adds her characters (mostly of the female kind) to flesh out the feminine world that was often overlooked in the original source material. 

And it works. Big time. 

Again - like A Discovery of Witches...I have read the other books in the series and each get a thumbs up from me and the series is well known and so I felt redundant in blogging about them on their own. However they absolutely needed to be mentioned.

And that, dear reader, concludes this Reading Round Up. 

We went from Red Clocks, to A Discovery of Witches, to A Strange and Scottish Shore, and finally to A Study in Scarlet Women. I feel like I've run a blogging marathon with all the links and covers and typing I've been doing the past day! I'm going to go listen to my most recent audiobook library loan and chill. 

Happy reading!

Until next time, 

Jess

Book to Movie : Brooklyn

I'd like to say that I am the kind of reader that always finds and reads the book before they watch the movie. However, goals are meant to be a work in progress and that is definitely a goal. The best that usually goes down is me finding out a interesting upcoming movie is based on a book then putting said book on my endless TBR List and never getting to it until after I watch the movie because my goals are noble but I've got a patience problem. lol. This is basically what happened with Brooklyn. However, this is a weird once-in-a-rare-moon thing, in which...I like the movie better the book? As in...LOVE THE MOVIE...could barely finish the book.

Brooklyn

Both the book and the movie share the same plot. 

Blurb from the Book (Goodreads)

"Eilis Lacey has come of age in small-town Ireland in the hard years following World War Two. When an Irish priest from Brooklyn offers to sponsor Eilis in America -- to live and work in a Brooklyn neighborhood "just like Ireland" -- she decides she must go, leaving her fragile mother and her charismatic sister behind. Eilis finds work in a department store on Fulton Street, and when she least expects it, finds love. Tony, who loves the Dodgers and his big Italian family, slowly wins her over with patient charm. But just as Eilis begins to fall in love with Tony, devastating news from Ireland threatens the promise of her future" 

Blurb from the Movie (IMBD)

"An Irish immigrant lands in 1950s Brooklyn, where she quickly falls into a romance with a local. When her past catches up with her, however, she must choose between two countries and the lives that exist within." 

The movie blurb is decidedly less explanative than the book blurb but both plots are basically identical. There's the usual merging of common characters, blending of plot points, creative choices to accurately translate the written novel scenes to film that naturally happens when you go book to movie. But, the basic plot is identical. So why, on earth can I love the movie and not the book? 

The Book

I keep wondering why it received such RAVING reviews. If the movie hadn't happened, if Goodreads didn't have a bunch of 5-star ratings, if the critics weren't like - 'Yea, this one!!"...I would have probably chosen it but then put it back down. Novel Eilis blends into the background of her own story. She's the star yet..I don't really connect with her. It took me a while to figure it out but then it came to me...she has no personality. She's categorically a Mary Sue. Why, why, why did the author get such kudos for writing this? 

You could completely tell that it was written by a man. If he wrote under a gender neutral pen name I would still guess...written by a dude. There is little to no effort to get into the female perspective. His descriptions are one a man would make. Her emotions are flat, barely expressive, and when they are...they're meh. I wanted to ride along this ride with her...but I couldn't. 

This was just worsened by the ridiculously dull dialogue. I get it was the fifties and life was simpler. Talk was more formal and polite...but this was just weird. There was very little variation between the way the character's spoke. He had a huge list of possible dialects, attitudes, mannerisms to have fun with but failed to deliver at all. I mean, it's about Brooklyn...New York City. Her boyfriend was Italian American, her fellow boarders were young, independent women, she was Irish...and yet....nada.

I'm sorry but I have to go back to the written by the man thing. I've read lots of books where you get the masculine vibe from the narration but it didn't bother me. I think the reason it bothered me so much in Brooklyn was because the story could have, would have been something extraordinary.  Courage and resilience, homesickness slowly blending into finding-your-self, dealing with the double-standards and rigid confines of womanhood in the 1950's are common sense elements to write. Not just common sense - necessary to write a accurate portrayal of character's plot line. Her story was very real - as in...single, immigrant women coming to America on their own because home had no future to offer. It's a real, tangible story to write. He just completely failed. I haven't read any other of his books but it would disturb me if this is his perception of women. 

Eilis was SO PASSIVE. I don't feel like she genuinely felt attracted to Tony (her love interest). I don't think she really felt her choice at the end was THE CHOICE but more like the lesser of two evils. She is coddled and patronized (which I do understand is part of the way women were treated in the 1950s however...there is no depth to it), people always make her decisions for her, she is supposed to have all these emotions but does nothing substantial or moving with them. It's disturbing and patriarchal and completely out of sync to the beating, realness of a female main character.

Yea, I don't like the book. 

And I could go on and on about it. But, guess what? I LOVED THE MOVIE. And I much rather spend my brain energy writing about why I loved it and how it rocked my world than how much the novel sucked the soul out of my body through my completely appalled eyeballs. 

Please just throw out everything I just ranted about above and refresh your brain because it does not apply to the movie. At all. 

The Movie

First off, the most important aspect about the film is...Saoirse Ronan. 

She brought Eilis to life. Where in the book there is passivity - there is quiet watching, where there is no emotion - there are a thousand subtle emotions, where there is a cardboard personality - there's a statuesque, intelligent young woman with a heart of a girl next door. She is such a delight to watch in any film but this one has got to be my favorite of hers. She brings a subtle beauty and a stoic graceful charm to the plot. The story being told is a very simple, to the point story. It's rooted in a reality lived by many, many young woman through out recent history.

I think we like to imagine that immigrants, especially those who came alone, were scrappy and adventurous and chose to come to America because of the lore of the streets paved with gold. We neglect to remember that many of them came out of sheer need for a future in a desperate move at survival. Our movie Eilis lives in a small village where she has little to no prospects. No opportunity for a skilled job, no potential husband, a life destined to take care of her mother. Her sister, knowing that she's sick, wants Eilis to have a better future. So she does what big sisters do. She took charge and made things happen. Eilis is not a passive character but she does go along with things. Mostly because....who could turn down such an opportunity?

The movie follows the book closely from her rocky passage to her job and relationship with the Priest who helped sponsor her. But, with SO MUCH MORE. The true and honest truth that she just went along with what other people decided catches up to her and she gets brutally homesick. You can feel it in a visceral way that it is lacking in the depthless novel.

What I really appreciated about her journey was her independent sense of self. She receives a great deal of help from other people and she finds herself thriving. The help that she receives does not negate her. We all get a helping hand, we can get chances - it doesn't mean what we accomplish is anything diminished. Our movie Eilis is Captain of her Own Ship. Whether or not she initiated her voyage or was sent on it by others doesn't matter. Sometimes (this case in particular) a loved one needs to push you away from the dock before you can determine where you're going to go.

It's easy for stories to fall into the trap of "The Hero-Man comes, they fall in love, her happy ending tastes a little like settling but it's cool because you know..Prince Charming...right?" Considering the source material and the time period and the main characters gender it's mildly and perhaps completely miraculous that that ISN"T how the focused love story feels like as it unfolds.

Thus it would be completely remiss if I didn't acknowledge #TONYANDEILIS. #COUPLEGOALS.

I'll be damn if Tony isn't exactly what I would like from a suitor. He knows what he wants, affectionate, adorable, respectful - runs blocks in sewer-dirtied work clothes just to get you in time so you don't think that he blowing you off. Asks his little smart-ass brother for help in writing letters to you. Genuinely admires the kind of woman you are and wants to partner up with it - not squash it or take advantage of it. Yes, I know -- SPOILERS. They don't make 'em like Tony anymore. They really don't.

It's another testament to the strength and character of Soairse Ronan's acting capabilities. I don't think it's entirely contingent on her. You can't cover up a fake out happy ending with one strong woman's brilliant performance. However - she packs a hell of a punch. The entire spirit of the film felt authentic and real and realistic. It was a brilliant snapshot of a women's life in a time where women didn't have a lot of choices. Yet she was given many, yet she took them, and yet she found herself in a life that was aligned with who she was and what she wanted but in a place she had never imagined herself capable of being. It's a tangible fairy tale.

"And one day the sun will come out - you might not even notice straight away, it'll be that faint. And then you'll catch yourself thinking about something or someone who has no connection with the past. Someone who's only yours. And you'll realize...that this is where your life is." 

The most poignant and memorable and resounding quote from the end of the movie. It sums up Eilis and her journey. Because ultimately - the movie (and the attempt that was made in the novel, I believe) was about a young woman who didn't really want to go on a journey but she did and it was right and she flourished and sometimes..well...most times - you have to make that leap. You never know what's coming around the corner. You just never do. 

All in all? Don't waste your brain on the book. Rent the movie. Watch it a few times. And then go Tumblr the hell out of Eiris's gorgeous facial expressions and #EilisandTony.

Until next time!

Jess

Book to Screen - Outlander!

It's time for Outlander, darlings!

Since the television show has completed it's second season and it seemed like a good time to talk Outlander. That and when I tweeted my dilemma on what to post about next (Orphan Train, Outlander, or more love for L.M. Montgomery) - a little book slayer supported Outlander! I am doing a semi read-a-long with the show. I've read the first two books, they've completed the first two seasons, and by the time season 3 premieres I aim to have read the third book (but not beyond) so I can be properly book-prepped to appreciate (or not?) how they adapt it for the screen.

If you happen to be new to Outlander, considering watching the tv series, haven't picked up the books and wonder if you should - I shall give one disclaimer - it's like the historical fiction time travel Game of Thrones minus the incest, dragons, and looming ice-zombie apocalypse. I'll go ahead and say that I love both the book series and the screen adaption. I don't see this as a negative post in anyway and I would hope it encourages people to try out Outlander if they haven't already. I put in the disclaimer for two reasons - my sister (who lives in a tight, cramped apartment with young, impressionable children) had to stop watching Outlander because she was afraid her kids would catch inappropriate glimpses and be scarred for life. She's started back up but has to be careful when she watches or be well-warned for possible..."Mama, what are they doing??" And the second reason - my best friend doesn't have a stomach for graphic sex and violence. She likes to be warned about things so she may use her discretion. I think, for some of us (ahem, me), we're so used to the images and exposure on our screens that we forget that it isn't appropriate for some audiences for a variety of reasons. If you're squeamish or have other (possibly tiny, question-asking) reasons for being wary of graphic content - go for the books instead! As much as we all love our screen adaptions - books are better. 

The Book Series

Published: June 1sth, 1991

Publisher: Dell Publishing

Word Count: 896

Genre: Historical Fiction, Fantasy, Romance

Find the Author: Website

"The year is 1945. Claire Randall, a former combat nurse, is just back from the war and reunited with her husband on a second honeymoon when she walks through a standing stone in one of the ancient circles that dot the British Isles. Suddenly she is a Sassenach—an “outlander”—in a Scotland torn by war and raiding border clans in the year of Our Lord...1743. Hurled back in time by forces she cannot understand, Claire is catapulted into the intrigues of lairds and spies that may threaten her life, and shatter her heart. For here James Fraser, a gallant young Scots warrior, shows her a love so absolute that Claire becomes a woman torn between fidelity and desire—and between two vastly different men in two irreconcilable lives." 

- Nabbed from the Goodreads blurb. 

The next book in the series - Dragonfly in Amber - included, of course. 

The Screen

Outlander (2014- )

Cast: Caitriona Balfe, Sam Heughan.

Channel: Starz

IMBD

 "Follows the story of Claire Randall, a married combat nurse from 1945 who is mysteriously swept back in time to 1743, where she is immediately thrown into an unknown world where her life is threatened. When she is forced to marry Jamie Fraser, a chivalrous and romantic young Scottish warrior, a passionate relationship is ignited that tears Claire's heart between two vastly different men in two irreconcilable lives." -Nabbed from the IMBD blurb. 

Let's Talk Outlander

Outlander has been around for decades as a book series. The Outlander fanbase has been waiting FOREVER for their favorite series to be ushered onto the screen. Anyone with the balls to tackle the beloved series had to come in knowing that they better do a damn good job. You don't mess with romance time-travelling historical fiction fan-ladies. That being communicated - Outlander has some tricky stuff to pull off. Time-travel, in itself, is tricky. And Outlander doesn't just time-travel once - it time travels in the plural sense, time-jumps, and flashbacks (and flash forwards? Is that the right word for it?). It all makes sense with the author's meticulous, expressive writing. But, how do you translate all that in a form that makes sense on a screen? 

If you think about it logically - the authenticity and accuracies of the time-periods, the cast, the way the book is converted to screen - are all incredibly important to pulling the adaption off. Mess with one and the rest don't hold up as shiny. I don't care how many times Heughan takes his shirt off and gets all sexy with Balfe - if he's not dressed period-appropriate...it's just ruins the whole deal. You can have the greatest cast, work your ass off on set and costume design - but if you omit a event from the books held sacred by the fans - that built in fandom that supported you so much?...will be pissed. There are lots of lines to tow (toe?), elements to balance, and greatness to achieve to satisfy the masses. 

Thankfully, there are a ton of resources for historical accuracy in regards to costuming and set design. And as for the time-line and historical environment? The book series is a resource unto itself because Gabaldon did an amazing job keeping up with the historical times she was writing in. Starz and all the minds and bodies behind Outlander (TV) use what's available to them well. They bring to life an authentic world that enhances the well-loved story. 

As with all fandoms - casting loved characters is...unbelievably crucial. One wrong casting and it throws it all off. There will be twitter-rioting - possibly petitions, and you will never ever have another day in your life when it is not at least unintentionally mentioned.

In the books, Claire is described to have lighter hair (think more dirty blonde, mousey brown, mildly tawny) and her eyes golden. She is average height (but above average height for the time period she travels to). Jamie has thick, wavy red hair, blue cat-shaped eyes, and a figure like a basketball player. She is older than he is. And within the book series there is a twenty year jump. They go from being in their twenties to being in their mid/late forties. That alone was probably why it took so long for Outlander to find its way to the screen.

Credit Fan Art - Huang Nguyen (Claire) & Alex Oliver (Jamie)

Balfe doesn't quite match her character's literary description and Hueghan doesn't pull off 23 very well. (I'm not sure that above illustration does him justice. It actually might be a illustration of him aged a little. But, I'm not sure). Both are acting twenties when they are both in their mid-thirties. Considering that they had to choose talent that can act and somehow pull off a twenty year time jump if the show goes well...they give it their all. There's only so much hair and make-up can do, you know? Balfe embodies Claire's spirit, her legendary pale skin, and brings to life the narrative woven into the episodes with Claire's exact voice. She was meant to be play someone defying the test of time.

Hueghan doesn't quite pull off early twenties, especially at the end. But - he's going to have to be nearing around fifty in Season 3 (time jump!) - there was no way he was going to effectively look 23 and then 47-ish (bad at exact ages, sorry!). On a amusing note - Hueghan has said he thought about getting a bit out of shape for The Great Time Jump. I AM SURE HE'S KIDDING. I hope... And he is Jamie. He pulls off that rogue-ish, traditional, time-traveling believing kilt-wearing Higherlander Charming we have all come to daydream about.

And as for the plot and how they translated the novel to the television series...I feel, so far, that they've done a pretty bang up job. Of course, and maybe I should have mentioned this above, I don't consider myself a Outlander super-fan. I love Outlander but I only picked up the books after I learned about the TV show coming out. I might not be as picky as some in regards to the differences between book and screen. Over-all - the big points (especially in the first season) and the favored, moments and...the traumatic, horrible events - were kept and the plot remained true to it's novel origins.

The differences usually are chalked to the limits of television and perhaps - creative license on the characters. In the finale of Season 2 a death that is caused by one person is caused by teamwork with two people. It wasn't about production cost, limitations, or the like - it was because it felt right to have the two characters unite and kill this character. As a fan of both book and show - I didn't mind this deviation. I really didn't. However...I can totally see another fan - more long-time than I - being upset.

At the end of this road, when I compare the novel and the tv series, I see the best outcome for a book to screen adaption. There's very little way an in-depth book series can be translated to the screen with absolutely everything intact. Adapting (and I can so go on and on about this topic) book to screen is about enhancing the world and viewpoint of the story that is loved by its readers. Expanding the Fandom. Finding actors that can carry the characters, creating the world people have imagined in their heads, bringing to life the events. It's trying to communicate and express through the language of film what's been (literally) described in detail with words.

I'm leaving out a lot! Maybe, in the future, I'll do a Outlander Pt. 2 post. I want to talk about the amazing cast of characters, the actors that bring them to life (THEY CAST BRIANNA SO WELL. I LOVE HER), the scenery, the sets, the historical context. My main focus was to hit up the main elements of a book to screen adaptation.

Outlander TV embraced it's origins, keeping close to the beloved plots and the integrity of the main characters, and enhanced the fandom with it's adaptation of the book series. They listened to the author of the book, did their research, cast it well, and (how could I forget this part?) made sure to have an epic soundtrack to bring the scenes to life. Bear McCreary anyone? Balfe and Heughan go all in for their characters. I admire their acting skills to no end. They clinched my love for Claire and Jamie. And all the minds and bodies behind the adaption - did their work well. I'm hopeful for the future seasons. I know a little about whats going to happen and I'm curious on how they'll adapt it. I mean, I'm pretty sure Claire and Jamie are in their sixties now (in the book series). How they are going to pull that off? Will they deviate from the timeline? Will they invest in the best actor-aging costume/make-up (whatever they call it) that Hollywood could offer?

Only time can tell, 

Jess

P.S. Get it? Only time will tell? ;)

Mini Book to Screen - Anne of Green Gables!

This week (and weekend) has been busy and I haven't had the time to write up the many blog posts I have planned. Labour Day Weekend! However, I do have some great news to spread.

Ahem. 

Anne of Green Gables is being adapted by Netflix.

I'm just going to assume that you know what Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery is. (It's only one of the best piece of children's literature ever written). Back in the eighties Sullivan adapted the books into a trilogy (and a couple of spin-off shows not featuring Anne but in her home Island). I had a copy of the first on VHS back in the day and borrowed the rest from the library. (Remember borrowing VHS's from the library?) However, now that I'm an adult and spend too much money on books - I've never gotten around to investing in the trilogy. I have the entire book series and in my opinion they're better than the trilogy. Because. Well. Books. 

Sullivan keeps the series under lock and key. As in - it's not available anywhere to stream. I've looked. My sister has looked. We've come up with nothing. It always made me sad that something that I loved so much was held back from the current generation. Ya know, kids nowadays, all about those tv shows and movies. ;) I'm a big believer in a good book-to-screen adaption. Anne is a comfort, a beautiful and unique expression. She's all of us in some way. 

So, the news that Anne is being adopted by Netflix makes my day. I really enjoy their original television shows and I have such high hopes for the potential gorgeousness of what they'll do with Anne. L.M. Montgomery is an eloquent, descriptive writer and Anne is such a romantic, eternal dreamer - both could translate so well for a film adaption of modern abilities. The news goes that the eight-episode series written by Moira Walley-Beckett who has previously gotten acclaim for writing...Breaking Bad. 

Some are kind of panicking about that because Breaking Bad is dark and Ann with an E is not. And if you're in the same boat - let me throw down some good old fashion logic. Breaking Bad was probably a emotional draining project to be a part of. Writing such dark content was probably costing to a degree. After such a project, it makes sense for someone to want to switch to a lighter tone. What's more emotionally nurturing than living in Anne's world? She's a good writer and I'm hopeful for what she's done with our Ann with an E. 

Here's a link to a more informative article courtesy of the NY Times : Oh, Gilbert! 'Anne of Green 

Gables' is coming to Netflix.

Until next time loves, 

Jess