The Grapes of Wrath

Panda's simple thoughts on Grapes: 

I liked how (basically) every other chapter the narrator would step back from the actual story to give a big-picture narrative. In those parts it had a type of dialogue that wasn’t dialogue. It was the narrator assuming the voice/view of an outside character. It was an outside person looking in. And this let you view the main characters/the family’s situation in a wider perspective. 

All these outside “scenes” focus inwardly and connect to the main plot. 

Steinbeck paints an unlivable world. A world that reminds me very much of this one. Nothing has changed except the method of suffering. 

I liked how Steinbeck involved a lot of animals in this novel. The turtle. The cat. The dog. They were part of the picture too. 

This migration is perhaps the closest thing the U.S. had to European gypsies.  Or one of, anyway. It’s on the list. I want to call them nomads but their ties were so close to the land that they had no identity without it. They were not a “traveling people.” They were a people without a home.

Though you could compare them to the Hebrews searching for their Promised Land, I am reminded that even Israel struggles with its identity – even though it “has” Israel/its promised land. I don’t think Americans – at least white ones like the Joads – can HAVE a promised land. Even when whites take from other races we cut off our noses to spite our faces. The knife we use to cut it with is capitalism or the protestant work ethic. Same thing, really.

To show you just how twisted Captialsim/TPWE is, whites gave other whites derogatory names like “Okie.” Capitalism does not see race (unless it wants to). It finds hate even in the most familiar of places. That’s what makes it harder to get rid of. Its threads are thin but it has so many of them. 

Yes, it’s certainly woven into the bigger horrors of humanity (such as colonialism, slave trade, war, etc.) but I think the issue is that Capitalism/the Protestant Work Ethic will eventually crush those who believe in it – no matter your race.

And the white race ESPECIALLY needed to hear it. From this novel. Because we’re the ones who 

brought it into the world. We’re the ones tainting the world with this bull crap.  WHITE PEOPLE.

So, even if it’s not the official message of this novel,  I’d much rather read this book as a statement on how hopes and dreams – such as a promised land or self-madeness –are actually faults. The promise land, or the prosperity gospel, or the land of opportunity are sad illusions reinforced by capitalism.

WE (whites) ARE NOT WONDERING A DESERT. WE ARE THE DESERT. Example? Gladly:

“‘Well, we all got to make a livin’.’

‘Yeah,’ Tom said. “On’y I wisht they was some way to make her ‘thout takin’ her away from somebody else.’”

It’s passages like these that makes this novel still resonate today. To apply this to modern times: we no longer need to look for a promised land. There’s no more land to have even if we did. Humans cover it all. The only way to get your land is to literally take it from someone else. There is no middle class anymore. No in-between. It’s have or have not.

Steinbeck even acknowledges that California was once part of Mexico. Land is arbitrary. This book isn’t about land. It’s about what Capitalism has done to it. This is The Great American Novel. This captures “us” so perfectly…

When Noah decides to stay behind near the river, it reminded me of Siddhartha where, at the end, the river is all that Sid needs. Maybe if humanity was more like them (Siddhartha and Noah) humanity wouldn’t suffer as much. Live only where you can. Live on only enough.

Steinbeck’s line “the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage” reminded me of the biblical passage “our parents eat sour grapes and we’re the ones who suck and grit our teeth.” Blah, blah, blah, insert clever tie-in between the analogies here (I’m too lazy to create it b/c I’m heavy for the vintage).

Lastly: The ending of this novel I had NO FREAKING IDEA about. I guess people have only seen the movie because no one has ever told me about THIS. Oh my god. What an ending! I can see why they left it out of the movie (which I have not seen, either, but I sure as hell know it’s not in there).

Though Rose of Sharon lost a husband and a child, she was not “sucked” dry. There was always something more to give. And, because of that, always something more for others to take.

Hel speak:

I'm writing this without reading Panda's review. I don't care what you sez, fat Panda, I will not be influenced by you! Also, it's been a while since I read the book. I recent;y moved, had to wait for interwebs, then lost my computer, then was really tired, but now I'm here. Really.

The beginning and the end of Grapes really threw me off. I felt like it set Tom Joad up to be the bad guy. I immediately disliked him. I thought he was rude (although, come to find out, that's just how people talked back then. No one was afraid of stepping on toes); when he captured the turtle, I really thought that he was going to kill it. Although Tom isn't your typical protagonist (and really, he's not the main character - the main subject changes throughout the book) -, his flaws make him more human. You know all of his actions are carefully considered and are done for survival. Nobody I know has ever been in a slow, painful live-or-die situation. Who knows how any of us would act.

However, looking back, I almost feel like the Joad family is like the family in Chainsaw Massacre. Only, a little moe betta, and somehow you become sympathetic to them.

Because the Joad's, and really all the people in the book, aside from the wealthy farm owners, are rather...uneducated...you almost feel like Steinback can't write. I mean, the character stalk like they are idiots. I felt my IQ dropping while I read it, and it made the book hard to get into.

In between the story line chapters, he featured chapters that explained the broader picture of the time and showcased his actual writing ability. And while it was good writing, I have to admit I skipped those sections. Mainly because I wanted to get back to the story (and because I got enough of the broader picture in my American Environmental History class). So really that's a compliment, right? Sometimes, in between all the "fambly"'s and the "I'm a-gonna"'s, Steinbeck would throw in something incredibly profound and my appreciation for him as a writer grew.

I thought it was interesting, though, that even though the Joad family was the center point, Steinback was really rather unbiased in his writing. I mean, I expected to be lectured to about the environment and all. Instead, I was taught economics and what people do to survive.

The characters were all fairly constant in their personalities. It's like they just kept chugging a long. They were predictable, and even though their environment and situation changed, they themselves were largely the same. Some exceptions: the Preacher, who stops preaching religion and starts lecturing against capitalism instead; Tom Joad, who eventually joins him in the cause, though the book ends before we really see any of that; and Rose of Sharon, who throughout the book was a whiny, I-want-to-punch-you-in-your-pregnant-belly, ignorant, selfish little girl - she ends up doing a 180, but who knows if that lasts.

Nobody does. Nobody knows because suddenly the book is over and nothing is resolved. So, fuck you, Steinbeck.

I hope you weren't expect any more from this post because

Ever by Jessa Russo

Hel and I were given a free (yay!) copy of Ever for Jessa Russo’s blog tour. This for the tour date April 13^th.

Here is a quick synopsis, from the author:

Seventeen-year-old Ever’s love life has been on hold for the past two years. She’s secretly in love with her best friend Frankie, and he’s completely oblivious.

Of course, it doesn't help that he’s dead, and waking up to his ghost every day has made moving on nearly impossible.

Frustrated and desperate for something real, Ever finds herself falling for her hot new neighbor Toby. His relaxed confidence is irresistible, and not just Ever knows it. But falling for Toby comes with a price that throws Ever’s life into a whirlwind of chaos and drama. More than hearts are on the line, and more than Ever will suffer.

Some girls lose their hearts to love.

Some girls lose their minds.

Ever Van Ruysdael could lose her soul.

Panda: My first instinct is to put this book in perspective. I’m not sure how to start, so I’m going to compare it to something: the book starts off like a quick-paced version of the Twilight series. Think Twilight crammed in to one book. Except minus the vampires and plus the ghosts. However, the love triangle, for this book, goes: Frankie, Ever, and Toby. Frankie is the Edwardian character. Toby is the bad boy like Jacob (from Twilight).

Ghost-Frankie watches over/haunts Ever like…well, like Edward watches over Bella. Toby moves in next door and Ever basically falls in love with him at first sight.  

The book addresses its Twilight-nature on page 22 when Frankie tells Ever he’s not a teenage vampire with “boundary issues.” But this still doesn’t necessarily make up for the fact the paranormal-triangle is so similar. But hey, that’s the genre these days and I’ll only rag on it for a little while.

For me, Ever is too boy crazy and (for someone who cares a lot about her dead boy friend – not boyfriend) too eager to fall for Toby. This made me not like her. As a person/character. I don’t like girls who seem to have no life/no existence other than to obsess over boys. 

At first Frankie seems like an imaginary friend – a character that I wasn’t sure if I should treat as a real character. He doesn’t really say or do anything in the first half.

Toby is apparently about 20 yrs old. Yet we’re supposed to believe he lives with dad. Which makes him seem like a big loser. HOWEVER we have a right to be suspicious of this set up. Toby’s situation is just a cover. But I won’t give the ending away – because this is a pure review. No spoilers!

As I said before, I didn’t know how to think about Frankie. The fact that he doesn't know how Ever feels about him made it all a little hard to believe. It seemed like a forced attempt to make the plot more interesting.

At times, Russo talked too much about what the characters are wearing and that was a little dull. But that’s just personal preference.

Frankie is really manipulative when he discovers Ever is dating Toby. And that means he finally becomes a more-rounded character.

At one point he calls Ever “pathetic” and I started to like him.

In my opinion, Toby was really the pathetic one. He dates his neighbor. Who DOES that? The “boy next door” is just as (what I would call) gross as the “girl next door.” It was too stereotypical. And, in the end, it was supposed to be. Because Toby is more than he seems.

Also, Ever has this friend named Jesse. Jesse’s family/mother problems seemed like an excuse for drama. A sub-plot that could have been cut. I was quite glazed-over when reading about Jesse.

I felt the same when one of Ever’s parents die in a car accident. I wasn’t really sure of the point. Other than to make Ever freer from parental restraints, and thus let the plot have more move-around room.

When Toby breaks up with her, Ever goes on a bender. I didn’t really get WHY Toby would break up with her when he put so much “effort” into gaining her affections. It was all kind of sudden and unwarranted.

But at the end I understood why. Toward the end it actually got pretty interesting. It turned into this Bleach (manga/anime, if you didn’t know) soul-collecting thing.

I wished this plot point had been introduced sooner, rather then dragged out through the entire novel. It made everything else make sense. The whole time nothing made sense in a way that was very hard to trudge through.

There wasn’t much plot. Russo only draaaaaagged out this twist final twist. 

In sum: The novel was more like a soap opera in parts with flat characters. Drama for the sake of drama. The best part of said drama, though, was Ariadne – Toby’s b*tchy ex-girlfriend. She should have come in at the beginning. Also, I didn’t really catch on to Toby’s “dad” disliking Ever until around  page 200. If these dynamics had been clearer to begin with then maybe the story itself would have been more interesting. In sum, it took me 200 pages to actually become interested in the story. 

Would have been better if: I would have liked to see Toby and Ever’s relationship-blossoming in a flash – a sped-up version of it. Maybe they could have already been dating when the book started and then we get a quick back-story on how they met. This would have given more time to explain the whole “soul-collectors” bit. 

You never really get the sense that there are RULES dictating what a soul-collector can and cannot do. We’re just supposed to take them as they are. It would have been more interesting to read about THEM than the boy craziness Ever suffers through. The very end is a cliff hanger. It is the first of a trilogy, yes, but that doesn’t mean it couldn't have been a little more satisfying. 

I had to restrain an eye-roll when Ever does a Google search (much the same way Bella has to research Vampires in Twilight) for “Soul-collectors.” I felt like this could have been left out. 

Positive aspects: When Ariadne makes fun of Ever for reading vampire novels I wanted to laugh – but I found all the vampire-talk a bit out of context. We were never dealing with vampires. Only ghosts. Russo tries to make her story intertextual but it falls flat and actually distracts from her main story/points. I wish she had developed her over-all plot. That was her strength.

Ever flip-flops between loving Frankie and Toby to the point that it’s arbitrary. I didn’t really care who she ended up with/chooses. I liked Ariadne more than Ever (ha ha, that's funny to say). And I felt bad for Ariadne after she doesn’t get what she wants, in the way that she wants. Ariadne was a character that brought wicked freshness to the story. 

Final verdict: I would probably recommend this book to pre-teens. Not actual teens (definitely not the New Adult market, even though the characters are 17-20). Especially if they know what Twilight is and are looking for something similar. Even if Toby was a 20-something he still seemed really...immature. Ever might have been 17 but she acted more like a 13 year old. 

Twilight actually had a better love triangle going on, though Russo’s overall concept was more original. And I would rather kids read this book over Twilight.


Hel: Instead of rambling about this book, let me break it down into positive and negative aspects.

Positive:

1) The over all plot. It's quite original. I haven't read many ghost stories, but none of the ones I have read take on the angle that Ever does. So props to Russo for originality. I really was expecting just another vampire novel.

2) Russo can write smut! Talk about steamy.

3) There was definitely a sense of mystery and wanting to know what was going to happen. I had to finish the book, no matter what, because I just HAD to know what was going on with Toby.

4) They always say "write what you know" and I think Russo has done this. Since she lives in California, she was able to describe the area in detail and made you feel like you were there yourself. I always appreciate that in a novel (as I mentioned in our last review).

Negative:

1) The characters. They all fell flat. Well, most of them did. Jesse, Frankie, Ever and Toby were walking stereotypes. They were defined by a small handful of characteristics and didn't deviate from them. For example, Frankie is stuck in his rock-a-billy persona so much that even his name matches. Jesse is the perky, popular, boy crazy CONSTANTLY WEARING PINK best friend who only ever manges to say, "Oh, Ever". Nobody says that. Nobody. Ever's parents are probably the worst. They are far too understanding, trusting, kind. They have none of the characteristics of REAL parents.

I did like Ariadne, as well as Gregor. These characters were more interesting and fleshed out.

The character interaction picked up and made everyone seem more interesting around page 200. It was a long time to wait, if you ask me.

2) The pace. The book was about 300 pages long, but only about 75 pages of it were necessary. The rest seemed to be filler. Because without it, we wouldn't have a trilogy, would we? I felt like a lot happened that didn't actually HAPPEN, if that makes sense. For example, we were constantly told "Ever and Toby were out all day doing this and that' but we were only given very few actual action scenes. And by action I mean scenes in which activities other than Ever thinking about the same damn thing (the love triangle) happen. From my point of view, there was no basis for Toby and Ever's relationship went aside from their physical attractions to each other. The same could really be said for Frankie and Ever. Ever claims Frankie is her best friend and she has loved him for all these years, but the only time they ever interact is when Ever has a nightmare or Frankie wants to lecture her. We are given no reasons as to why Ever should like Frankie, what their friendship was really like before his death, or any motivation to root for him. Just like the character interaction, the pace of the novel picked up around 200, and that's when the story became really interesting. As Panda has stated, I wish the previous 200 pages could have been wrapped up a bit more succinctly, and with more excitement other than lip locking.

All in all, I very much agree with Panda that the age demographic that this book targets is not teen, but pre-teen. However, I also don't think that the book is really appropriate for pre-teens, given the steamy content. So it's hard to say who should read this book.

Disclaimer: Helena and Amanda were given a free copy of this book in exchange for a review. 

What we're reading in April!

April shower's don't bring May flowers for these characters in John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. We'll be reading and reviewing it next month. Read along with us or tell us about it if you've already read it in the comments below! 

P.S. Hel and I are (pretty much) Oklahomans. So this is probably going to be a cultural staple for us. 

Daughter of Smoke and Bone by Laini Taylor

Before I let Panda go on her rant, I would like to provide a small summary to explain a few things:

The book is basically about demons and angels warring. Karou, its main character, is a 16 or 17 years old (I forget) who was adopted by a demon (called chimera) named Brimstone. Having no knowledge of her heritage, how Brimstone came to adopt her, or anything else - because he refuses to tell - she lives in the human world by herself, but also works for Brimstone. Brimstone deals in TEETH and WISHES. Karou doesn't really know what he does; but she collects teeth for Brimstone and accepts wishes from him whenever he is willing to give them out.

Boldface-Panda sez: 

I was really into this book. Was. As in I stopped. Because it didn’t work out between us. I will explain why.

This book started off weird and abrupt – kinda like a cheesy pickup line. But I kept on reading. I flirted with it. I was excited to read it. It made me all giggly and warm inside. [Insert the stomach-butterflies reference from the book here]. It’s rare I ever get so excited about a book. I wanted more. But in the end it was shallow and not spousal material. Though, it was a nice little fling: 

Though the subject was cliché, I’d never actually read about an art student before – always another bookworm (bookworms write about bookworms, you see. It’s only easy). Despite that the main character, Karou, had the stereotypical artist tattoos and blue hair – all toooooo cliché (but then again what art student isn’t?) – I was willing to give her a chance. 

Too many “magical” elements were foreshadowed in first chapter. It was information overload. Yay for jumping right into the story, but I was overwhelmed by what the reader’s supposed to pick up on. For example: the chimerical BEINGS and their NAMES and VOCATIONS, the strange TATOOS and the African bead-WISHES, the normal human FRIENDSHIPS Karou's involved in.

I had to refer back to the first part later on because it got confusing. But, I was able to look past that because the story was fun and, all things considered, undemanding. It was so freaking entertaining!

By chapter four I was rolling my eyes at the VERBOSE and SMARTY-PANTS knowledge of Prague art/architecture/setting the author not only knew about but called upon. She uses “Rococo,” “Baroque,” and “Gothic” all in one paragraph. There were probably no vocab words left in the humanities dictionary. This (to me) was the equivalent of a New Yorker rambling on about Soho or coffee or the subway. I wanted to barf all over like I do Lena Dunham’s nepotism (but not Lena Dunham herself – love you gurl! ...Wow. What a passive-aggressive thing I just did. You make me hate myself). That’s what Taylor's “world-building” was to me. 

However (despite all of these pretentious faults), I was willing to overlook it. And I kept on reading. See, Taylor’s faults aren’t egregious. They weren't something I couldn’t swallow...Even though they had an aftertaste.

For example, I had never HEARD of Taylor before this book. I thought this was her first novel. I was willing to be nicer because I thought she was a cute pink-haired baby that needed love and support. When I later discovered that this WASN’T her first, I was a little embarrassed for her. BUT I kept on reading. Shamefully. 

Around page 100, however, Taylor introduces ideas about the Christian mythos and it’s around this point that the story starts to lose some of its magic – just a lil bit. IMO, she didn’t have to get into any of “that.” She didn’t HAVE to explain herself. I already believed. And I already had my mythos created that made sense of her world. She was kind of shoving her religion (or lack thereof) down my throat. It’d be like J.K. Rowling saying that witches and wizards are actually mortal descendants of some god and that’s where they get their magic from. Because then I’d have to believe in gods and not what I already believe. Writers shouldn't create such a narrow view because it not only limits my imagination but it limits their story’s affect. If it doesn’t need to be explained, then don’t. 

The angels in the story are built up and up and up and then, when demystified, were less fun. The main angel in the story falls for Karou too quickly. It was gross. It was too simple and too easy for Taylor to “do” it as she did. At this point, I was expecting more from her. Taylor’s novel ended up being like the rabbit in the RABBIT VS. TURTLE RACE - the one that made good progress at the beginning but lost to Mr. T who kept its natural pace. 

On page about 151 the story [small spoilers] says that Karou’s demon-chimera adoptive father left her a BUNCH of inheritance. So, she’s rich. But Taylor never really says how Karou found out that she was rich. Yes, I guess it’s possible she could have figured it out on her own but…If Brimstone had been hiding it from her and then Brimstone died (as well as her entire connection to the chimera world)… How would she ever find out?  DOES NOT COMPUTE.

I also didn’t like how the angels made it into mainstream news. I don’t like it when my fantasy doesn’t make sense with reality. I want there to be no proof that this book didn’t happen. And it didn’t. Because angels were never in the news or all over the internet. This makes the book illogical and therefore less likable. 

It was also around the angels-in-the-news part that I noticed the editing of the book became…less. I noticed not only typos but no content editing. It was like her editor(s) read the first half and saw that it was so good that they were like “Why bother with the rest of it? This half is good – the last half must be great too! Let’s just shove this onto shelves because we’re more interested in making money than promoting good stories. Nap time for us!”

Seriously, I would have been a better beta reader than what you got, girl. I’m offering my services. Fo free. 

…The whole “war” concept between the chimeras and angels got a little hard to believe/pity/not laugh at. Maybe if it hadn’t been a full-fledged war, I would have liked it. Maybe if chimeras and angels didn’t have their own WORLDS, I would have accepted it. But what started out as an urban fantasy became an epic fantasy – an epic fantasy that came close to needing a MOTHER-EFFING map. And me no gusta maps. 

The chimera-angel conflict could/should have been more like… “This small group of creatures over here can just hate this other small group of creatures that also live in our world alongside us but that we never notice.” THAT SORT OF UNCOMPLICATED THING.

I had already invested myself so much into one concept-setting (Prague) that I was a little pissed I had to leave it for the angel-chimera world(s) – WAS there more than one world even? I found it hard to tell. I was bored. And pissed. 

And then when Karou falls in love with Mr. Prettyfacewithwings I was growing grumpier. They haven’t spent more than 72 hours together and already want to BANG LIKE MONKIES. Or, excuse me, they just want to touch each other. A lot. 

But they never actually a-make-a the sexy sex. They only make goo-goo eyes at each other. It was little better then what I call Twilight…Which is abstinence porn. I mean, WHY THE HELL NOT make them have sex? The rest of the book has nudity and cursing and adult content (ME GUSTA) but SEX? No. No sex. If you’re going to be so instantaneously lustful WHY NOT? What’s the point of NOT doing it?!? It wouldn’t be any LESS likeable than how their love life actually plays out.

If you’re going to have all this mushy stuff in there then at LEAST let them have some fun. Only Karou’s [SPOILER] past self (Madrigal) and Akiva (the Angel) had some real romance. And THAT was just some dull flashback you already knew had happened.  

And can I just say that “reincarnation” was a cop-out? It was. I mean, fine. I’ll take it. But I saw it coming. (My backup guess was that Karou was actually Madrigal’s daughter and so that was how they weren’t going to “end up” together. Which they [SPOILER] don’t). 

Other than this, another negative thing is that there are no major plot twists. You see all of them coming. You see them building up. It’s not a shock when they happen. All the plotting leads exactly where you thought it would. The ending was just as average as the rest of it. And I had really realy REALLY  hoped this book was using its mediocrity as a clever disguise all along. But it wasn’t. That was its face. It was wearing no mask. 

Sad face. 

A COOL thing about this book, however, was that it was written in English but basically the characters are always speaking another language. Which is AWESOME. More books like this, please. (Books without the English entitlement, but without all the work of learning a new lang-lang). 

And, the dialogue is done SO well – I could hear the characters speaking in my head. They sounded so real. I think that's Taylor's strength. 

Also, as someone who has had 2 rounds of braces and retainers (for baby teeth AND grown-up teeth (I had some major sh*t going on)) I don’t think the premise of tooth-pulling is silly at all -- if you even thought that. Tooth pain is the worst pain. I’d rather be shot in the foot than go through that hell again. Breaking my arm was more fun. And easier to fix. 

Also, I saw Brimstone as a Mr. Carson (from Downton Abbey) character. Humph and stuff. 

Do I recommend this book? Heck yes I do. Read it. It’s been the most entertaining so far (ALL THANKS TO ME IT WAS ON MY LIST I’M A GOOD BOOK PICKER AHAHAHA!!!!). 

Will I read the next in the series? Nah. BUT, if the whole series was crammed into one volume like Karou’s and Akiva’s relationship was crammed then yeah. I would have kept on reading. 

Now, I leave you with three other things that bothered me but I would have excused *IF* the story had been better: 

1. Having a masquerade in the same book where a setting is PRAGUE. Of course you would.

2. Having names I cannot pronounce – Like “Karou” (And yet Brimstone is “Brimstone”).

3. Making angels and demons battle it out. If you ain’t going to go all Christian on us, it didn’t have to come to that.


So, this is a YA book. We all know what is expected of YA books these days: not much. Its point is to be entertaining, marginally witty, and to inspire a cult following.

In my opinion, Daughter of Smoke and Bone goes beyond that, because it is actually well written. Most authors these days simply can't write.Taylor CAN, and it lends strength to her work.

I for one love love LOVE angel vs demon plots - I've written a book with this plot myself, and if Panda had remembered this, she may not have ragged on the plot so much. Ouch. You cut me deep, Panda, real deep.

The things is, these angels aren't your typical angels, and the demons aren't your typical demons. The demons remind me of Ancient Egyptian gods - their bodies are pieced together out of animal and human parts. In and of itself this is pretty cool, but there is (to me) a major flaw in the design. We all know (hopefully) that a dog could never speak English, because it doesn't have the same vocal cords as we do. It is designed to bark, not speak. So how are all these different species of chimera supposed to speak the same language? A bird and jackal? Not likely. The angels are typical in the sense that they are beautiful, but different also because they are in no way angelic. The angels are warriors, fear inspiring, made of FIRE. Not the kind of angels you hope are standing watch over you at night. Please, no. (Except for the sexiness).

Though I agree with Panda that the beginning was rather weak, written in a different tone than the rest of the book, I did like that Taylor threw all the magic in our face all at once. She talked about it as if we already knew what it was, instead of spoon feeding us, and it hooked me. I wanted to know who the Wishmonger was, how the African trade beads function as low-grade wishes, why Karou's hair was BLUE... I didn't care so much that Karou (yes, the name sucks, like all the names in this book, because they are all over the place and lack a certain cohesiveness) seemed to be your typical YA fantasy hero, because like I said, Taylor - for better or for worse - meets the requirements for what a good YA book is. It's what the people want.

Much of this book is familiar and we have seen it in other works (or maybe I just FEEL like I have, because it reads so much like a modern fairy tale - a la Tythe by Holly Black ) but it feels fresh and intriguing because Taylor throws new, original elements into the mix. For example, the Wishmonger deals in teeth. It's his currency. I don't mind teeth that are contained in ones mouth, but teeth outside of a mouth are nasty. The tooth fairy is scary, and probably works for Brimstone herself. So the fact that Brimstone, whose gruff nature we learn to love through Karou, deals in something that strikes us as so unappetizing was really fascinating to me. I want to believe that Brimstone is a good guy, but his trade makes him feel corrupt, and it's refreshing that he isn't a one dimensional character like we often see in YA novels.

Prague is a city I hope to visit one day, so I was excited to see that the book was set there. I really appreciate when authors know a lot about the city they are writing about, so I for one liked the in-depth references to the architecture. No other book does it better than The Historian, but Daughter of Smoke and Bone can be the redheaded step child.

Taylor has a nack for writing conversation that can make you blush, laugh, or gasp, but she is also good at giving descriptions that make you feel as though you are watching a movie, and that is the best kind of book. One of my favorite scenes that had me laughing out loud is this one:

'She came straight to the table and stood facing Akiva. She was fierce, ready to scold, but when she saw him, really saw him, she faltered. her expression warred with itself - ferocity with awe - and awe won out. She cast a sidelong glance at Karou and said, in helpless amazement, "Oh, hell. Must. Mate. Immediately."' (page 236).

Still chuckling at that one... haha.

I understand why Panda would be put-off by Karou and Akiva's immediate attraction and their lack of...fulfillment. But I also understand its purpose, and I for one think it's a powerful tool. {SPOILER} Since Karou is really Akiva's former lover reborn, it would make sense that they have this instant, chemical, non-sensical reaction to each other. It's not just their smoking hot bodies that are dying to be together, it's their SOULS. But, Akiva and Karou are also mortal enemies by default, and logically they try to fight that attraction. Then, when it seems they can no longer fight it, truths are revealed, and now the two are enemies for more than inbred, default reasons. It becomes personal. So of course they aren't going to do the dirty. Read the sequel for that one! (And yes I will be reading it! Ahem.)

One major thing that I disliked was the moments following the return of Karou's memories of her past life. The writing changes to a dream like state, and you expect things to be revealed to you in a page or two, but no. It rambles on and on for what seems to be an eternity, and while the meat of it is interesting, the way it is presented is not.

The ending to this book is not a happy one, which is great. I hate happy endings. Of course it is a clever ploy to make you want to buy the next book, and it worked on me. Especially because I got all 418 pages of this book for a mere $9.99.

So, read the book. It's entertaining, it's sexy, it's well written. The flaws are forgivable.

All the Pretty Horses by McCarthy

About All the Pretty Horses, Panda sez:

With movies like Django Unchained critiquing the Spaghetti Western and winning Best Original Screenplay, it's fitting we should read All the Pretty Horses this Oscar month - especially since ATPH has something to say about the American Foundation Myth as well. 

Hel and I are likely the only two females IN THIS UNIVERSE  who have read this book. And so our perspective on this novel is probably rare in and of itself.

I loved this novel – but for strange reasons I can’t put into words. Maybe it’s ‘cause I’m from Texas and understand that there dialect McCarthy captured (God I hope not)…

But I *can* put into words things you’ll need to know for class because we KNOW you only watched the movie and didn’t read the novel, you lazy butt. You’ll still pass Old West 101. (Though I don’t promise an A).

No quotation marks are used in the dialogue. But I liked it. It was (in some way) experimental and modern. Or maybe McCarthy’s more postmodern. I don’t know. But the lack of said marks (and sometimes other grammatical marks like apostrophes) force you, the reader, to pay attention to what is going on. It also leaves a bit of room for interpretation because the dialogue is part of the narrative – part of the story itself. Not separate from the narrator’s words.

There are a lot of (what I would call) run-on sentences. But it sets a tone – a monotone tone. It’s like the steady thud of hooves. Horse hooves. Because this book’s about horses. Pretty ones.

But I’ll stop BSing.

Now, John Grady Cole loves horses. He also (essentially) loves the Cowboy myth – the Old West myth. So much so that he’s willing to run away (though not from anything that will miss him) and pursue it when he can no longer pursue his version of it at ‘home.’ When the ranch he grew up on is sold, he and his best bud Rawlins go to Mexico to be Cowboys. Along the way they run into a younger boy who calls himself Blevins. Blevins tags along despite their best efforts to shoo him away. At one point Blevins loses his horse (just watch the movie to learn how that hilarious bit of hell happened) and he attempts to steal it back from the locals. At long last, they are free from Blevins because he has to run to save his “skinny ass” (as they call it) from being caught. Rawlins and John Grady (minus the Blevins) start working at another ranch in Mexico. John Grady falls in love with the Boss’s fancy daughter.

Much like in the movie, the fancy daughter (Alejandra) is kind of a dead fish that only serves as the love interest. However, I liked her a lot more in the book than in the movie.

John Grady himself is a mythic figure. He’s so “good” and “rare.” So much so he fits the cowboy stereotype perfectly. He is also “lawless” in all the right ways – he runs away from home (though he has no real home – his mother’s more interested in her guyfriend and his father seems like a flake), he often takes the law into his own hands, and he has honorable morals.

John Grady exists when the cowboy is dying out. He becomes a new, modern embodiment of the Final Frontier. He refuses to be conquered even when his dream life is ruined. At the end he is a lone wanderer. [Spoiler]

Now, I’m not going to compare the book to the movie (much) but I did see it first. And the book is better. In fact, I thought the movie kinda sucked. I’m sure there’s a summary somewhere that will tell what the movie left out. But if you REALLY want to know how to make your BS in class stand out, just note the following:

They (Rawlins and Grady) know something bad is going to happen to them when they meet Blevins. It’s obvious the little turd is bad news and isn’t going to bring rainbows and sunshine (They cain’t quit him – har har). McCarthy uses foreshadowing in a brilliant way – just as John Grady knows the ‘place’ for the Cowboy his growing smaller/shifting, John Grady (and Rawlins) know(s) Blevins will shift everything for them personally. It’s almost as if McCarthy is saying we all know how our fates will end – we just don’t know how it’s going to play out to that end.

Another metaphor/analogy/theme I saw in the book was horses = women. A quote to back me up? Sure:

“A goodlookin horse is like a goodlookin woman, he said. They’re always more trouble than what they’re worth. What a man needs is just one that will get the job done.”

And that’s exactly what John Grady’s love interest is. A horse. She gets him into trouble – trouble that is tied into Blevins's horse trouble.

McCarthy’s (possible) message hits close to home. Horses (sadly) REALLY HAVE become more trouble than they’re worth. Now we’re using them for meat because farmers can’t afford to feed them. Not only has the West died out but also our symbols for it. This is what we’ve become.

I also think this book speaks ‘against’ the U.S. – not only about our foundation myth (the cowboy). If we no longer have this grand idea of ourselves then what do we have? At one point, when John Grady is in prison and talking to Pérez (someone who can give him information about Rawlins who was injured and taken away), Pérez schools John Grady on why Americans (U.S. Citizens) are godless – why our values are illogical (even now). This conversation he has with John Grady (on pages 199-200 of my Picador edition) really hit me. John Grady left Texas because there was no place for the Cowboy. And now Mexico has rejected him as well. John Grady himself will have to become the Wild Frontier, though I don’t think he realizes this until later. He might not really realize it at all – but he lives it out. When, at the very end, John Grady says his goodbyes to Rawlins, this is proven when Rawlins says:

“This is still good country.

Yeah. I know it is. But it aint my country.”

The West isn’t West enough. He’s all that’s left of it.

An example of the fact he’s an embodiment? Here it is. After John Grady takes back the horses from the captain, the captain tells John Grady “You are not the officer of the law you dont have no authority.” Yet, somehow John Grady does have authority. He becomes the law (as many a wondering cowboy has before). He gets away with it. And is justified in doing so.

Where John Grady is the cowboy stoic and Alejandra the anthropomorphic horse, her great aunt is the main female lead (in my opinion). She’s a well-rounded character I loved to read (where in the movie I can barely remember her). She is self-sufficient and actually controls Alejandra as if the girl’s an extension of her – as if Alejandra is her horse she rides/lives through (SEE WHAT I DID THERE?).  I liked her a lot, even if she was a little mean.

The price for Rawlins and John Grady living out their myth/dream is (in some ways) giving it up as a dream. It becomes too real. They are arrested and treated as criminals. Blevins is executed even though he didn’t really deserve it (though he probably deserved some sort of punishment). But perhaps I’m still too hard on him. Even at the end we don’t know his real name or why he was running away with a horse. We don’t know his whole story – so how can we judge him?

This book hit me like no other book has in this reading list (except Deerskin in parts). I got lost in the ‘world’ and found myself invested.

In my opinion, there were three endings to this novel. 1) When John Grady goes to see the Blevinses, 2) when he says his goodbye to Rawlins, 3) and when he’s (essentially) ‘riding into the sunset.’

I recommend this book. I really want to read No Country for Old Men now.

“Smoke em if you got em, said John Grady.”

Hel here! I agree with Panda that we are probably the only two females in the world that have read this book. Except for another friend of mine, who was reading it at the same time as us (not sure if she finished). 

I have to say, before I delve into my review, that this is my favorite book we have read so far, and easily among my favorite top 15. It's not that the story is so remarkable. There's nothing special really to it. We've seen it all in any Western. But, my God, McCarthy can write. Lying in bed at night, my husband reading his Tom Clancy novels and I All The Pretty Horses, I kept reciting parts of the text to him that I thought were particularly beautiful. This one was from the last day I read the book, the last night we spent together, har har:

"He thought the world's heart beat at some terrible cost and that the world's pain and its beauty moved in a relationship of divergent equity and that in this headlong deficit the blood of multitudes might ultimately be exacted for the vision of a single flower" (282). 

My husband's reply was something a long the lines of, "How do you write such bulls**t?" (Excuse him, he's a sailor.) 

I, on the other hand, was blown away by its grace. You don't expect lines like this from a Western. But I digress. Let me be back up, to the beginning.

The beginning of this novel had me squirming in misery. How could I have picked this book?? How would I ever get through it?? As Panda mentioned, McCarthy doesn't use quotation marks. He also doesn't often indicate who is doing what (everyone is simply "he" or "she" most of the time, which can get really confusing). Not to mention - this is the kicker - half the book is in Spanish. And it doesn't get translated. Luckily I read Spanish better than I speak it, so I had very little problem with it, but do yourself a favor and take a couple college level Spanish courses before you try to read this book.

ATPH instantly reminded me of Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. It made me just as furious (pun intended). The Sound and the Fury took me five years to read, and I never would have finished it if it hadn't been required reading for an English class my junior year of college (the very same English class that, ironically, made me change my major from English to Zoology). As you can see, I had a lot of anxiety about reading ATPH.

I couldn't tell what the heck was going on. Everything would probably be clearer - now that I am used to McCarthy's style - if I went back and re-read the beginning, but for the longest time I felt like I was drowning. I couldn't tell who Rawlins was in relation to John; sometimes he referred to himself as John's father, but John was clearly the leader of the two. I wanted to cry with confusion.  

However, once I finally got the hang of McCarthy's language, I ate it up. McCarthy's writing style changes frequently within the book. Its main ingredient is definitely the run-on. The book often times reads like a script. But McCarthy also writes prose, as evident from my quote above. He infuses humor. And very minute details that really paint a complete picture. One page 277, he writes, "The first bars of sunlight broke past the rock buttes of the mountains to the east and fell fifty miles across the plain. Nothing moved. On the facing slope of the valley a mile away seven deer stood watching him". He makes you feel as though you were there with John Grady, living it as it occurs. I loved (most) everything about it.  

First thing I loved was John Grady Cole. He is a cowboy. I have a thing for cowboys. Need I elaborate? I don't think so. John Grady is a true man's man. He reminds me of the Robert Redford's character in The Horse Whisperer: the quintessential cowboy, he is calm, brave, strong, smart, clever, empathetic, a born leader - the kind that other men love to follow, - trustworthy, and possesses sound judgement. True, some of the decisions he makes get him into a lot of trouble - like deciding to pursue Alejandra - but the decision was made with the knowledge that, to him, anything would be worth enduring to be with her. 

As Panda pointed out, Alejandra herself is a bit of a...non person. Her character feels like a ghost. She is vague. In a way this is good, because you can really project anything you want onto her. But in the end I think Alejandra only exists to soften John Grady up a bit, give him a purpose and drive other than horses.

Like Alejandra, all the characters in this book serve a purpose. Aside from maids and bartenders, every person in ATPH was useful and very well defined. Rawlins plays the perfect side kick. A little rougher around the edges, a little more reckless and not as good at pulling it off as John Grady, rash in his decision making, quick to anger, but also very emotional (like when his nemesis, Blevins, gets into trouble, he always panics and wants to help him - and the desire to help him makes him feel even angrier, because he knows Blevins is no good for them). Alejandra's great aunt, the matriarch, is regal, calculating, well postured (I imagine) and the necessary link between john Grady and Alejandra. Her voice is entirely different from that of the men in the novel. McCarthy gives life to a woman as easily and effortlessly as he does men.

John Grady and Rawlins, by the way, are very young men, only sixteen and seventeen years old, respectively - and note that even though  John Grady is the younger of the two, he is still the leader! How is it that two such young boy-men can set out on horseback and go to another country and fight for their survival as they did? Can you picture Gus and Hazel, the main characters from last months read, doing the same? NO (and that's not just because they were dying). Times is changed. 

Times were also changing for John Grady and Rawlins. At the beginning of the novel, as they set out across Texas on horseback, they have to stop to clip fence wire. Rawlins seems offended by the notion of a fence and asks, "How the hell do they expect a man to ride a horse in this country?" "They don't", answers John Grady.

That quote excellently backs up what Panda so cleverly noticed in the book: the frontier is ending, the cowboy is a dying breed. Personally, I didn't pick up on this at all. I am a face value type of gal. But now that Panda pointed it out, I can definitely see her point. How many men do you know who, after being shot, can still ride a horse bare back, and use the barrel of a hot pistol to sterilize the wound? Matter of fact, how many men do you know who can ride bare back, period? 

That's what I thought.

Men, you should read this book, and strive to be a cowboy. Please. 

Next month's book is Daughter of Smoke and Bone. I got my copy today, and it seems promising. Read a long with us!

~Hel