Okay, I lied.

Yesterday was my two and a half year anniversary.

And I guess the whole hiatus thing is being put on hold. (Can you put a hiatus on hold?)

New Year, New Post

Wow...

I should really post more often. Or close up shop altogether.

But I won't do that, because I have so many things I want to write about. Time to write about them, on the other hand, I do not have. So I may just go on an official hiatus until May, after I graduate in late April. Because graduating from school means you have lots of time, right? Right?

(I may have been lying about the hiatus thing. But in case I don't post anything until May, just pretend I really did officially take a break. Because, man, blogging is hard work.)

Nanowrimo update 1

Fourteen days until Nanowrimo, and my pre-Nano planning is going very well. So far I've basically figured out why my character lives forever (though I need to figure out if moon soil is actually fertile, and if so, how does it compare to earth soil?) and my plot has progressed from a simple character study to a revolutionary sci-fi tale about a reluctant leader who perhaps just created utopia without meaning to. ("Revolutionary sci-fi tale" meaning a sci-fi tale about a revolution. I doubt the story will change anyone's life except mine.)
I plan on updating as things progress, and especially as Nanowrimo itself gets into full swing. Though how I'm going to manage updating a blog when I'm supposed to be writing 2,000 words a day on top of school and work and life:other, is anybody's guess.

Procrastination

...does wonders for a blog.

I am technically supposed to be working on homework while the husband is not here to distract me, but I am instead blogging, reading other people's blogs, and listening to Peter and the Wolf narrated by none other than David Bowie! Nice, eh? I'm also wondering what I'm going to do for NaNoWriMo, and if I'm really crazy enough to actually sit down November 1st having no prior idea of what I'm to write. Which is one of the options. But I'm definitely buying the t-shirt. Actually, the t-shirt I'm buying first is technically my reward for winning last year. Then I'll need to buy a t-shirt for winning this year. You know, if I do. But I might not get around to that until next year.

Girl Genius

I have always been an ardent supporter of Agatha/Gil. Tarvek is endearing, but he just doesn't bring out Agatha's best qualities, and there is always the question of his loyalty. Admittedly Gil has more to gain from betraying Agatha (you know, once he has her trust to possibly betray), but it's been made clear time and time again that he will always choose her over his own father, whereas Tarvek clearly has yet to prove himself so solidly.

And then I read today's comic, and I began to glimpse what exactly a world with Gil and Agatha at the head of it would be like. And I admit I am afraid.

Granted they mean well (mostly). And they are brave, and have strong personalities with natural leadership abilities. But they are both sparks, mad scientists, and fiddling around with the boundaries of life and death is not only fun, it's what makes life worth living. Now that they're finally working together, they're starting to feed off each other, and it's making me nervous (in a good way, naturally). What's going to happen when they finally get married and rule the world? They'll be up all night working on their latest unholy creation, and I shudder to think what sort of children they'll have. (Wouldn't Count Wulfenbach make a great grandda?) It's almost enough to make me think she'd be better off with Tarvek, who, once he proves where his loyalties lie once and for all, would probably calm her down somewhat.

But only almost.

Yay Gil and Agatha!

P.S. I promise the men in this comic keep their shirts on most of the time. She was just bandaging him up. I promise. If you don't believe me, go back to the beginning and read the whole thing. You should probably do that anyway, to even understand what I'm talking about here. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Thinking About Books: Moon Called

My husband won't take a book I've recommended until I can convince him it has enough action to keep him interested. His movies must have at least one explosion and a fight scene, the more the merrier. Needless to say, I don't share his requirements. The only action I care about in a story is the interaction between characters. All the car-chases and explosions in the world won't do it for me if there isn't some corresponding sparks between the people driving the cars or setting off the explosions. That isn't to say I mind the excitement and thrill of watching something blow up. But without human interest, I lose interest. Both combined, though, makes for a completely irresistible tale. Patricia Briggs' book Moon Called has both in abundance.

It's got all the major supernatural creatures in it, as well as a few extras for fun: Werewolves, vampires, fae, and skinwalkers, or Native American shapechangers, which is what the main character, Mercedes Thompson, is. It's also got lots of action (nothing blows up, though). I guess part of the reason I like this book so much is because of the perfect blend of suspense, the supernatural, a hint of romance, and humor enough to keep the scary parts from going overboard. I enjoy anything done well, even something I don't normally go in for, like politics (who knew werewolf packs had politics- and that they were so interesting?). But I think the reason the action was so satisfying to me is that when you get together creatures like werewolves, vampires, and a feisty girl who can turn into a coyote, (and a father whose daughter has been kidnapped), you expect a little violence.

(It occurs to me that this is one of the reasons Twilight and its sequels were so unsatisfying. {Among many, many others.} You get a human girl who's torn between loving a werewolf and a vampire, and they never actually fight? What a rip-off. Even two human guys both interested in a girl come to blows a lot of the time. And don't even get me started on the lack of violence in the last book. Just don't.)

It's really satisfying to see so much world building, too. And I don't just mean fitting werewolves etc. into the human world. Even really good fantasy writers sometimes look a little too much like they're showing off how much work went into creating a world. (See The Rule of Cool for why this doesn't always bother me.) Here the world building looks more like character building. Every character has a rich, detailed history which also adds to the plot. It's not like those pitiful novels where you go the whole book thinking you know everything and then suddenly the main character knows exactly how to disable the bomb and then the credits roll, and you never even make it to the refrigerator. Instead, the author will teasingly mention that the main character was raised by werewolves, which explains why she knows so much about them, but then not say anything more about it for a whole chapter. Then she'll say something that explains a little more, but that brings up its own set of questions. By the end of the book the momentum you gained by wanting to know not just what happens next, but what happened fifteen years ago, launches you straight into the next book, which is what happened to me. My husband finished Moon Called, set it down, and gave me puppy dog eyes so pitiful we drove to Barnes and Nobles right then to buy Blood Bound and Iron Kissed.

Thinking About Books: Beastly

My favorite fairy tale is Beauty and the Beast. I've loved almost every version I've ever read, even the kiddy one with bad illustrations and the creepy ending where the stepsisters get turned into statues in Beauty's garden. (It helps that Beauty is often portrayed as bookish, which I very much identify with.) So of course when Beastly by Alex Flinn showed up on my desk, I read it. And loved it. But it reminded me of the most troubling aspect of the whole story, in any version, and that is the fact that Beauty and the Beast is a glorified case study in Stockholm syndrome.

Even in the best of versions, even in the Disney version, even in my most favorite version (Rose Daughter by Robin McKinley), the fact remains that Beauty falls in love with the one who kidnapped her. True he was lonely, true he lets her go see her father, true there was no other way to get her to love him without making her stay, but the fact is, he did make her stay, in some stories, for years. He may let her see her father towards the end of the story, but usually with the restriction that she must return or he'll die. That sounds like pretty manipulative behavior to me.

The reason I bring this up is that Beastly is a modern-day version, set in New York City. The beast is the spoiled son of a famous news-caster, and his castle is a five-story brownstone where his father locks him away with full use of a credit card as well as a maid, but no fatherly love (of course). The beauty-figure, having been brought there against her will, is at first afraid of what any sensible New York City girl would be afraid of- what, exactly, does he want her for? With a little earnestness and a change of heart, the beast convinces her that he is not looking for a sex-slave, but a friend, a companion: true love.

Alex Flinn makes the story work, but as someone who has read many, many different versions of the tale, saying this stuff out in the open made me wonder: how is it that a perfectly sensible girl (the Beauty figure almost always has Brains, too, and in most modern versions isn't even that Beautiful) can ever, and I mean ever, fall in love with, or even trust, the very one who is holding her captive, denying her her freedom, and not even telling her why?

I often tell people that my own personal love story with my husband reminds me a lot of Beauty and the Beast, but I can assure you that captivity had no part in it. (He's not ugly, either.) It involved my favorite aspect of the story: getting to know someone's inner self, without being swayed by a pretty face or false flattery. The central characters in the story get to know each other on the deepest level, as individuals separate and distinct from their appearance or status. But why can this not happen without making Beauty a prisoner, if only at first? Think about it: any story that claimed to be a re-telling of the fairy tale, but that did not include the captivity aspect, would be seen as being a radical departure from the original.

Perhaps even the insightful and un-shallow Beauty cannot see beyond the Beast's appearance without having a compelling reason to do so, and time to do it in. He is pretty scary-looking, after all, and usually emotionally unstable as well. In my own romance it took quite a few chance encounters from which there was no easy, socially acceptable escape, before I began to see my husband for who he really is. Perhaps sometimes even good people must be compelled in order to do good, but hard, things.