Talking Point: On V.C. Andrews And Enjoying Problematic Things

I've got my next Garden of Shadows recap ready to go but something has been playing on my mind today which I wanted to get out there before I continue with that little project. This post is very much me trying to clear my own head and figure things out for myself, so hopefully it makes sense. I'd really like to start a discussion and get everyone's opinions on the matter.

As I get older and learn more about the world, and notably spend more time on social justice hubs like Tumblr and Twitter, I become more aware of the problematic aspects of a lot of pop culture. It can make it really hard to enjoy sometimes, but I think it' important to be sensitive to these issues.

Take Flowers in the Attic. Having loved the books as a kid, I excitedly watched the movie and live-tweeted my snark. It was a lot of fun. I didn't make any direct jokes about incest - but many did. This was triggering for some people, as author C.J. Redwine eloquently writes here. Her post really made me think and is the main reason I'm writing this post. I could completely understand her point, and that this kind of abuse is no laughing matter.

It got me wondering about Flowers in the Attic, V.C. Andrews and indeed pop culture as a whole. If jokes about incest and abuse are bad, does it make it wrong to enjoy movies and books that feature them? V.C. Andrews' bread and butter is incest and abuse. The plots are wrong on so many levels and yet I - and many others - love (or perhaps more accurately, love to hate) these stories. I wouldn't say they glorify abuse, but they perhaps sensationalise it. These are by no means serious reads - you go to them when you want something trashy and fun - and yet they are about very serious subjects. Sure, they can still be very emotionally affecting and horrifying, but the melodramatic nature in which they're written and the over-the-top characters definitely lend themselves to the snark that colours many people's reactions. Including my own.

So. As I said I loved the Flowers in the Attic movie and have really enjoyed revisiting the books and recapping them. But I in no way want to make light of the subject matter or suggest it's something to make fun of. Some truly awful things happen in these books. And they're awful to read about. In the recap I've got in my drafts at the moment (which I wrote yesterday), I talk about how horrific it is to read about Olivia being raped. But reconsidering it in the light of Redwine's post made me really question the fact that I enjoy these books nonetheless! Obviously I am far from the only one who likes them, so they must appeal to something in many of us. I'm just not sure it's necessarily the best part of human nature.

On the other hand, perhaps these stories of abuse can allow people to empathise and understand such issues in ways they wouldn't otherwise. They certainly reflect the very nasty effects of abuse, as well as things like gender inequality. I know my own reaction is always very much along the lines of "this is awful, this is wrong, these people are the worst!", and perhaps in a way such pop culture is compelling because it allows us to more clearly define and communicate what IS problematic. There is something cathartic about reading these stories, exploring what is dangerous, taboo and scary from the safety of a book. BUT I say this as someone who has been fortunate enough to have never suffered abuse of any kind. So I wonder what effect these stories have on survivors of abuse. I would hate for my catharsis or especially my entertainment to come from something that hurts others.

So basically I'm confused and unsure and questioning a lot of things and I'd really like to talk about it with all the crazily smart and sensitive people who I am lucky enough to have read my blog.

Let me know what you think.

Talking Point: Self-Sabotage And Writing

I’ve always wanted to write a book. But I’m an epic procrastinator. I keep finding excuses not to do it, like…

-I don’t have any ideas. This was my initial excuse. Then I got some ideas. I was excited about them. And promptly found everything that was wrong with them. Now I have a lot of ideas, but I’m so weighed down with my own self-doubt I don’t know what to do with them.

-I’m not good enough. Did I mention my self-doubt? Yeah, I’m as good a doubter as I am a procrastinator. It’s kind of my thing. But I don’t want it to be my thing. I want to have confidence in my abilities. I want to do what I want, which is write. I’m so frustrated with myself for not just doing it already. Which brings me to…

-If it were meant to be, I would have done it by now. I’m 27 years old. I did a writing course over a year ago. I’ve wanted to write stories for as long as I can remember. But the fact I haven’t done it yet makes me doubt myself (there’s that word again!) and think I mustn’t really want it if I keep putting it off.

-I have to wait for the right moment to do it. I’m afraid if I write when I’m not in the “right” frame of mind, it’ll be terrible and put me off writing forever. Or it will stop me from writing something I'm "meant" to write. It's ridiculous and, of course, I know I’m waiting for something that may never happen, what with my anxiety and all.

-I need to sort out other areas of my life first. My floordrobe. This blog. An ailing computer. My health. So many things I tell myself I need to work out first before I can write a book. But I procrastinate over them, too, so nothing ever gets done. It’s a vicious cycle I’m stuck in.

-Others have done it, and because I haven’t it means I can’t. There are a few women in the same industry as me, around the same age, who obviously have similar ambitions. Except they’ve actually written their books and are getting them published. Rather than thinking, “if they can do it, I can”, my mind says, “they’ve done it, there must be something wrong with you if you haven’t.” Ah, comparisons - just another tool I use to beat myself up.

-I don't have the right motivation to write. I question why I want to write (like I question everything in my life). Is it because I just want to be published? Is it because I think I should? Because others want me to? Because others have, and I'm too damn competitive? Do I actually need to write? Deep down I know it's because I want to. I want to. I love stories, and I want to tell my own. I just need to get the courage to do so.

You see, more and more time passes and the excuses get bigger and feed each other and it just gets worse. I’m so angry with myself. But mostly I’m afraid. What it all comes down to is the fact that once I’ve done it, once I’ve started writing – or, dream of dreams, actually written a book – I can’t take it back. While nothing is written, it still has potential. It could still be great. If I actually write it, it could be awful. When you haven’t tried, you haven’t failed. Except, of course, that to never try would be the greatest failure of all.

I’m sorry if this post is kind of self-pitying and silly. I guess I just want to get the excuses out of my system. I also want to know if anyone else goes through the same thing or has experienced it before. Any advice would be most welcome! Or a metaphorical kick up the butt - I probably need a few of those.

Talking Point: The Addictiveness of DNF

A little while ago I wrote a post about how much trouble I had not finishing books, because I felt like I had to finish what I started. At the time, I had only added two books to my DNF list. I wanted to get better at it, because life is too short to read crap books.

Well, I can report today that I did get better at DNFing books. Probably a little too good, because since the start of the year and my post-Lumatere hangover, my patience has disappeared and I find myself giving up on books ridiculously easily. In fact, there's been a few books I've had to force myself to finish, just so I had actually read something rather than collecting a bunch of half-reads. Since my last post on DNFing, I've completely given up on:

• The Sweetest Thing by Christina Mandelski, because I felt no connection to the characters
• Ever by Jessa Russo because it was incredibly bland and exactly like a zillion other paranormal romances I've come across. Yawn.
• Time Between Us by Tamara Ireland Stone, because it just seemed like a watered down version of The Time Traveler's Wife.

I've also stopped reading, with the intention to come back to them at some point:

• We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver. It was too intense for my mood at the time, and also quite slow.
• The Casual Vacancy by J.K. Rowling. I got 50 pages in and was sooooo bored. I was on summer holidays and needed something fun, so I gave up for the meantime.
• Life of Pi by Yann Martel. So many people told me this book was amazing but I found the small part I read incredibly tedious. I'm very impatient at the moment so I thought it best to try again later.

Right now I'm reading The Woman in Black by Susan Hill and even though it's a small book and I'm enjoying it enough when I do read it, I find I can only read it in small bursts and I'm not compelled to pick it up very often, so it's slow going for me. It's not a particularly hard book to read, but the other day I found myself considering DNFing it. Then I realised I have a problem. Like I said, I've gotten too good at giving up on books, and it's kind of addictive now I've started. The thing is, there are so many good books out there that I have less and less patience for the bad ones. With that said, I have pushed through two very ordinary books lately, when I was incredibly tempted to DNF:

• The Romance Diaries: Ruby by Jenna Austen.
• Splintered by A. G. Howard.

Some books you just have to persevere with, I guess, because in the end they might really be worth it. I've just got to learn when to stop and when to keep going, and find the happy medium between never giving up and being addicted to the power of the DNF.

Do you ever DNF books, or do you force yourself to read to the end, even if you're not enjoying it? How do you balance giving up too easily with not wasting time on bad books?

Talking Point: Spoilers

I know some people don't care about spoilers. Unfortunately I am not one of them. They're ony of my biggest pet peeves, and I get really annoyed with people who reveal them with no warning. I nearly disowned my own nanna when she told me the ending of The Sixth Sense five minutes into the movie. If you put spoilers in a review and don't tag them, it's the fastest way to get me to unfollow you. That may sound harsh, but IMO spoilers without warning are really inconsiderate. I don't mind spoilers if there's a warning - then I can choose whether to view them or not. After all, sometimes I do want to see spoilers. They can help me decide whether I actually want to read/watch something or if it would be a waste of time.

But the worst kinds of spoilers are those that assault my eyes when I'm just doing some casual browsing. They come out of nowhere and forever ruin my ability to experience the emotions and enjoyment of a first-time viewing for that particular book or movie. And it really pisses me off.

Spoilers have been on my mind lately because, well, I can't go on Tumblr without a Les Misérables spoiler jumping from my dash. Now, I know a lot of people believe spoilers have an expiration date. Some say if you haven't read a book/seen a movie within 50 years of its release, then it's your problem. Others give it a bit more time - a century or two at least. The thing is, while Les Misérables may have been around for 150 years, I haven't. I've only had my limited lifetime - and reading time - to become acquainted with it. So there's no reason to assume I - or anyone else - knows all the details. We aren't all born with an inherent knowledge of the classics. We have to read them and learn them.

TL;DR version: spoilers are lame.

I'm really interested in seeing if anyone has a pro-spoiler view and can persuade me otherwise. Or if other people hate them as much as I do. So tell me, dear readers, do you hate spoilers too, or are they OK in your book? Do you think there's an expiration date on spoilers? Sound off in the comments.

Talking Point: Book Hangovers

Symptoms

• You feel like crying when you finish a book, not because it was particularly sad, but because you don't want it to end.
• You find yourself unable and/or unwilling to start a new book, because you're not ready to let go of the last one.
• You go back and reread your favourite passages - or, in extreme cases, the whole thing.
• You imagine what the characters are doing now or how they'd react in certain circumstances. Serious afflictions may even lead to fanfiction.
• Everyone you know starts to look panicked whenever you come their way. You're not sure why - you only want to remind them again that they MUST read this fabulous book.
• You squee when you come across others who have a similar love for the book and instantly become their friend.
• You start to lose your ability to form coherent sentences and instead begin to express yourself in gif form (which is not particularly practical in real life).
• You can't concentrate on anything and wander around in a daze for days.
• When you finally do start a new book, it inevitably disappoints you, because it just can't live up to the last one.
• You want to take the book to bed at night and cuddle it.

Hi, my name is Belle, and I'm suffering from a book hangover. You see, ever since I finished Melina Marchetta's The Lumatere Chronicles, no book has been able to satisfy me. Granted, I've only tried three, and they could just be bad books - but I get the feeling that even if there were outstanding, I still wouldn't enjoy them as much as I normally would. My heart is still in Lumatere.

I was trying to think of previous book hangovers I've had, and the one that immediately sprang to mind was when I read Stephenie Meyer's The Twilight Saga - which of course is light-years away from The Lumatere Chronicles (and not in a flattering way). Still, despite all its faults, The Twilight Saga got under my skin. First I tried to cure my hangover with more vampire books. Then I ended up just rereading the whole saga.

Another time I remember is when I finished David Copperfield by Charles Dickens. It's quite a hefty book and took me a little while to read, but when it was done I was left wanting more. Not because the ending wasn't satisfying, because it was - rather, I had enjoyed the world of the book so much I wanted to stay there awhile longer. I read some other Dickens books to remedy the situation, and I enjoyed them, but none grabbed my heart quite so much as David Copperfield.

So now, I have this book hangover I need to cure. Do I just bite the bullet and reread the trilogy (though I would feel guilty about all the completely unread books staring at me from my shelves)? Try and find another fantasy series that I may love as well (even though I'm not a massive fantasy reader and wouldn't really know where to start)? Or just plough away through mediocre reads until the hangover lifts? Tell me, dear readers, have you ever had a book hangover? If so, what was the book, and how did you get over it?

Talking Point: Apocalypse Survival By The Books

Tomorrow is the day. The end of the world the Mayans predicted. Or just, y'know, when their calendar ends. Just in case the world does end tomorrow, I thought I'd get prepared by refreshing my knowledge of apocalypses (apocalypseii?) from the place I get all my life skills (or lake thereof): books. I hereby present the (un)Official Apocalypse Survival Guide of 2012. There's only one problem: it's limited to the books I've read. But time is running out, so here goes nothing...

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
The Apocalypse: Unspecified disaster followed by a despotic government that controls the population by forcing them to send their children into The Hunger Games, a fight-to-the-death television extravaganza.
Survival Skills Required: Archery, running, cunning, a strong stomach, knowledge of plants, hunting, skinning squirrels, charisma, style and possibly cake frosting.
My Chances: 1/10 a.k.a. Doomed

And All The Stars by Andrea K. Host
The Apocalypse: Alien invasion via purple dust that infects humans, causing them to turn weird colours and manifest powers before being taken over.
Survival Skills Required: Running, hiding, baking, eating.
My Chances: 7/10 a.k.a. Let me eat cake.

The Walking Dead by Robert Kirkman
The Apocalypse: Zombies. Lots and lots of zombies.
Survival Skills Required: Running, being quiet, shooting, hacking, hitting, stabbing, decapitating, foraging, raiding, a strong stomach.
My Chances: 2/10 a.k.a. I'm hiding upstairs.

The Children of Men by P.D. James
The Apocalypse: The human race is suddenly infertile.
Survival Skills Required: Strong mental health and resilience.
My Chances: 6/10 a.k.a. Depressed, much?

Legend by Marie Lu
The Apocalypse: This is never really clear, to be honest.
Survival Skills Required: All-round perfection, money.
My Chances: 4/10 a.k.a. I'm too confused to give up all hope.

The Host by Stephanie Meyer
The Apocalypse: Invasion of the alien body snatchers.
Survival Skills Required: Running, hiding, being really strong-willed.
My Chances: 5/10 a.k.a. Nobody messes with my brain but me.

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Apocalypse: Terrorist attacks + low fertility = Biblical-inspired misogynistic, extremist society where women are reduced to the archetypes of the pure (and barren) wife and the objectified (and fertile) whore.
Survival Skills Required: A fertile womb and subservience.
My Chances: 3/10 a.k.a. I don't know about my fertility, but I do know I probably wouldn't want to survive in this world.

That's about as far as my apocalyptic reading has gone to date. Here's hoping the world doesn't end tomorrow and I can add to the list! In the meantime, feel free to share your book-inspired survival tips in the comments.

Talking Point: Let's Hear It For The Bloggers

Warning: This post is totally sappy, but I don't care. It needs to be said.

I've always loved reading, but when I left uni, moved out of home and started working full time, I struggled to find time for it. I went from studying English Literature and reading multiple books a week - and analysing them in depth - to reading one or two a month at the most. I missed reading, and I missed talking about books with people who were as passionate about them as I was. So I started my blog, hoping to make reading a priority again and connect with some like-minded people. Little did I know...

The community I discovered as a result of book blogging was (and is) amazing. A whole online world opened up to me that I hadn't realised was there. I was welcomed by many and quickly made a bunch of friends - not because I'm awesome, but because the community is. Not only was I thrilled to find lovely people who shared my passion for books, I was excited to read their posts and reviews. Because of them, I became interested in authors I would never have taken any notice of before, and discovered new books to read on a daily basis.

This is kind of embarrassing, but before I started blogging, I had one bookshelf in my apartment - and half of it was filled with dvds. Within a couple of months of blogging, I had acquired so many new books thanks to reviews and recommendations from online friends, I had to find a new spot for the dvds. Within a year, I had to get another whole bookshelf. Both shelves are now bulging and floor space in my apartment is shrinking as books stack up all over the place.

Before blogging, I could probably have named a couple of dozen books off the top of my head that I knew I wanted to read. Now, my TBR pile - books I own but haven't read yet - is 210 books high, while my wishlist currently sits at 171 and grows on a daily basis.

This is all because of bloggers and Goodreads reviewers. They inspire me every day with their passion, their humour, their wit and their warmth. They are some of the smartest, funniest and most supportive people I've ever known - and I've never even met them.

So I wanted to post this incredibly cheesy post and say thank you. To anyone who follows this blog, is friends with me on Goodreads or chats with me on Twitter - thank you. Thank you for making me smile and laugh and think every single day. Thank you for loving books and championing authors and sharing that passion with the world. Thank you for being a friend. You're awesome.

Talking Point: Reviewing Books Vs Authors

I haven't really commented on the Site That Shall Not Be Named here on my blog. Mostly because other people have spoken out about it far better than I could. But there's one point that's really been bothering me (I mean, aside from all the stalking and creepiness, which is far more serious), so I wanted to post about it and get my thoughts out.

One of the main "arguments" the Site That Shall Not Be Named makes is that certain reviewers are bullies because they criticise ("attack") the author, and not the book. By their logic (and I use the term loosely), any review that mentions the author is inappropriate; and if the comments are negative then it's a "bully" review. Unfortunately, they're using the recent kerfuffle with hidden reviews to validate their argument, especially Patrick Brown's reference to how reviews should "review the book and not the author."

Now, I agree that book reviews should be about the book itself, and not the author. But to use that idea to claim that book reviews should never mention the author is preposterous; if we hid every one that did this, there wouldn't be many left on Goodreads or in the blogosphere. Does that mean they're all "bully" reviews? Hell no. It just means that in many cases, mentioning the author is relevant to the book in some way. Because book reviews tend to discuss things like language, characterisation, story structure, plotting, grammar... you know, things the author created. Discussing the way the author did these things is an integral part of many reviews, and does not equate to a "review of the author" or a "bully" review.

Of course, an author's personal life should never be discussed in a book review. Unless - and oh god I'm scared to say this but dammit it's my opinion - it's relevant to the book. I studied English Literature at uni, and we always learnt about not just the texts, but the authors themselves. Their lives, personal experiences and beliefs were studied to give context for and insight into their work. As Victoria Foyt, a "victim" according to the Site That Shall Not Be Named, says herself, "Writers pluck bits and pieces from their lives and weave them [into their work], often unconsciously, only hoping the seams between reality and fiction do not show." 

I'm not saying that we should know or mention all the gory details of an author's private life. That's creepy (I'm looking at you, You-Know-Who). But if they, say, make public statements about their doubt that African Americans read or talk about their personal horror at being called a racial slur one time (when it was something "usually targeted at blacks"), and their book is about race - then yes, what the author says or does in such situations is entirely relevant to a critique of their work. Especially if those statements have been made in relation the book.

I don't think it's right to rate or review a book that you haven't attempted to read. Note I say attempted - if you do give it a go, and it's a DNF - then I think it's completely valid to explain why that's the case in a review space. It's also valid to boycott a book based on an author's behaviour. This is not bullying. This is exercising your rights as a consumer. It's the same as boycotting Chris Brown's music because he is violent, avoiding a food chain because of their views on sexuality or refusing to shop at a certain store because of their crap customer service. Creating personal shelves on Goodreads - which, by the way, is one of the main purposes of the site - so you can keep track of which books you're boycotting (in addition to reading or coveting, natch) is a legitimate use of the site. Naming those shelves whatever the hell you want is not only OK, it's encouraged - note Goodreads lists "overrated-drivel" as one of their favourite shelves - and it shows you have imagination and a flair for words (unlike certain people who Shall Not Be Named). Seeing additions to your friend's shelves pop up on your home page and investigating why they've shelved books that way, before deciding for yourself where you stand on a book and shelving it accordingly, is also a valid use of the site. It's social networking! That's the whole point. It's. Not. Bullying.

You know what is bullying? Verbally abusing, spitting on and holding down a co-worker; belittling, harassing and physically assaulting a fellow student; telling a teen girl she should kill herself; or even falsely accusing someone of being an alcoholic and a negligent parent. All of those things are examples of bullying. Writing negative reviews, creating snarky shelves on Goodreads, discussing books and authors with friends on the internet, and criticising a public figure on a social network? None of those things are examples of bullying.

If all else fails...

Talking Point: Beach (Honeymoon) Reads

ZOMG, I'm getting married in Two. Sleeps. SQUEEP! I finally sorted out which readings we're having (I'll post them here at a later date) but now I have another dilemma... what do I read on the honeymoon? We'll be in Fiji for two weeks (yay!), so there'll be lots of relaxing beach/pool time in which to read.

It's tricky to decide what to take, though. I don't want anything too heavy (metaphorically or literally), so I'm leaning towards something light and fluffy, which will probably end up being a YA romance... but, uh, would that be weird for a honeymoon? Awk-ward.

Anyway, here are some of the books I have in my TBR pile, would love to hear your thoughts...

Talking Point: Non-Cheesy Wedding Readings

Photo by Sara Alfred

So. I'm getting married in eight sleeps. Squeep! [That's a squee combined with an eep, for those playing at home]. Being my procrastinating, overthinking self, I've left a few things to the last minute. One of these is picking the readings for our ceremony. I've been searching sporadically for months but haven't made a final decision on the one (or two) we want to use. I've trawled books, movies and the whole of the internet, but am finding it difficult because SO many readings are super cheesy and just not right for us as a couple. Throw into the mix the anxiety I've had recently and it's just not happening. But I'm not going to let that hiccup stop me from having a beautiful ceremony that represents me, and my fiance, and our relationship. So it's decidion time. Here are some of the finalists...

From Anne's House of Dreams by L.M. Montgomery

"It was a happy and beautiful bride who came down the old, homespun-carpeted stairs that September noon - the first bride of Green Gables, slender and shining-eyed, in the mist of her maiden veil, with her arms full of roses. Gilbert, waiting for her in the hall below, looked up at her with adoring eyes. She was his at last, this evasive, long-sought Anne, won after years of patient waiting. It was to him she was coming in the sweet surrender of the bride. Was he worthy of her? Could he make her as happy as he hoped? If he failed her - if he could not measure up to her standard of manhood - then, as she held out her hand, their eyes met and all doubt was swept away in a glad certainty. They belonged to each other; and, no matter what life might hold for them, it could never alter that. Their happiness was in each other's keeping and both were unafraid."

Love: The representation of Gilbert's doubts/worries, and the way they disappear when he sees Anne. The last couple of lines are lovely. Plus it's from one of my all-time favourite stories about one of my all-time favourite couples.

Don't love: The reference to "maiden veil" and "sweet surrender". Also, fiance's father's name is Gilbert. Awk-ward.

From Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

"I have for the first time found what I can truly love - I have found you. You are my sympathy - my better self - my good angel; I am bound to you with a strong attachment. I think you good, gifted, lovely: a fervent, a solemn passion is conceived in my heart; it leans to you, draws you to my center and spring of life, wraps my existence about you - and, kindling in pure, powerful flame, fuses you and me in one."

Love: The list-like aspect, and the fact that it comes from another one of my favourite books and one of my favourite literary couples.

Don't love: "Fuses you and me in one." It's romantic, but it doesn't speak to the individuality and independence which I think are important in a relationship.

Blessing for a Marriage by James Dillet Freeman

"May your marriage bring you all the exquisite excitements a marriage should bring, and may life grant you also patience, tolerance, and understanding.

May you always need one another - not so much to fill your emptiness as to help you to know your fullness. A mountain needs a valley to be complete; the valley does not make the mountain less, but more; and the valley is more a valley because it has a mountain towering over it. So let it be with you and you.

May you need one another, but not out of weakness. May you want one another, but not out of lack. May you entice one another, but not compel one another. May you embrace one another, but not out encircle one another. May you succeed in all important ways with one another, and not fail in the little graces. May you look for things to praise, often say, "I love you!" and take no notice of small faults.

If you have quarrels that push you apart, may both of you hope to have good sense enough to take the first step back.

May you enter into the mystery which is the awareness of one another's presence - no more physical than spiritual, warm and near when you are side by side, and warm and near when you are in separate rooms or even distant cities. May you have happiness, and may you find it making one another happy. May you have love, and may you find it loving one another."

Love: That it's focused on well wishes of what a marriage should/could be and is filled with hope as well as realism.

Don't love: The length.  

The Art of Marriage by Wilferd Peterson
"Happiness in marriage is not something that just happens.

A good marriage must be created.
In the art of marriage the little things are the big things...
It is never being too old to hold hands.
It is remembering to say "I love you" at least once a day.
It is never going to sleep angry.
It is at no time taking the other for granted;
the courtship should not end with the honeymoon,
it should continue through all the years.
It is having a mutual sense of values and common objectives.
It is standing together facing the world.
It is forming a circle of love that gathers in the whole family.
It is doing things for each other, not in the attitude
of duty or sacrifice, but in the spirit of joy.
It is speaking words of appreciation
and demonstrating gratitude in thoughtful ways.
It is not looking for perfection in each other.
It is cultivating flexibility, patience,
understanding and a sense of humour.
It is having the capacity to forgive and forget.
It is giving each other an atmosphere in which each can grow.
It is finding room for the things of the spirit.
It is a common search for the good and the beautiful.
It is establishing a relationship in which the independence is equal,
dependence is mutual and the obligation is reciprocal.
It is not only marrying the right partner, it is being the right partner.
It is discovering what marriage can be, at its best."
Love: It represents exactly what I (we) think marriage is about and is a lovely reminder of what's important.
Don't love: I don't feel a personal/sentimental attachment to it as I do to some others - though obviously that would change if it was in our ceremony! 


Why Marriage, by Dena Acolatse

"Because to the depths of me, I long to love one person with all my heart, my soul, my mind, my body... Because I need a forever friend to trust with the intimacies of me, Who won't hold them against me, Who loves me when I'm unlikable, Who sees the small child in me, and Who looks for the divine potential of me... Because I need to cuddle in the warmth of the night with someone who thanks God for me; with someone I feel blessed to hold... Because marriage means opportunity to grow in love in friendship... Because marriage is a discipline to be added to a list of achievements... Because marriages do not fail, people fail when they enter into marriage expecting another to make them whole... Because, knowing this, I promise myself to take full responsibility for my spiritual, mental and physical wholeness. I create me. I take half of the responsibility for my marriage. Together we create our marriage... Because with this understanding, the possibilities are limitless."
Love: Again, this represents really powerfully what I believe about marriages and relationships. I like the emphasis on individuality, and the way marriage is created, and how it's still hopeful and optimistic whilst being realistic. I also love the term "forever friend."
Don't love: The reference to God/the divine - we're just not religious at all and it doesn't feel right in that sense. 


I wanna Grow Old With You from The Wedding Singer

"I wanna make you smile
Whenever you’re sad
Carry you around when your arthritis is bad
All I wanna do, is grow old with you

I’ll get you medicine when your tummy aches
Build you a fire if the furnace breaks
So, it could be so nice growing old with you,….
I’ll miss you
Kiss you
Give you my coat when you are cold
Need you
Feed you
Even let you hold the remote control.
So let me do the dishes in our kitchen sink
Put you to bed when you’ve had too much to drink
Oh I could be the man that grows old with you
I wanna grow old with you."
Love: It's funny, and sweet, and from a movie we both adore. It highlights the beauty in the mundane.
Don't love: The connection with Adam Sandler. I can't stand him (although I love this movie). 


Better Together by Jack Johnson
"There's no combination of words
I could put on the back of a postcard
No song that I could sing
But I can try for your heart
Our dreams, they are made out of real things
Like a, shoebox of photographs
With sepiatone loving
Love is the answer,
At least for most of the questions in my heart
Like why are we here? And where do we go?
And how come it's so hard?
It's not always easy and sometimes life can be deceiving
I'll tell you one thing it's always better when we're together
With only two, Just me and you
Not so many things we got to do
Or places we got to be
We'll sit beneath the mango tree now
I believe in memories
They look so pretty when I sleep
Hey now, and when I wake up,
You look so pretty sleeping next to me
But there is not enough time,
And there is no, no song I could sing
And there is no, combination of words I could say
But I will still tell you one thing
We're better together."
Love: The idea that things are better together. That love is the answer. That "you look so pretty sleeping next to me." Plus we're both Jack Johnson fans.
Don't love: OK, I do kind of love the reference to questions like "why are we here" etc and the way love is the answer, especially because those lyrics spoke to me at a time when I was in a pretty bad place, but at the same time I worry that it will trigger my anxiety when I'll already be in an emotional state.


From The Bridge Across Forever by Richard Bach

"A soul mate is someone who has locks that fit our keys, and keys to fit our locks. When we feel safe enough to open the locks, our truest selves step out and we can be completely and honestly who we are; we can be loved for who we are and not for who we're pretending to be. Each unveils the best part of the other. No matter what else goes wrong around us, with that one person we're safe in our own paradise. Our soul mate is someone who shares our deepest longings, our sense of direction. When we're two balloons, and together our direction is up, chances are we've found the right person. Our soul mate is the one who makes life come to life."

Love: The reference to the way you can be completely yourself - and loved for yourself - with the right person. The idea that you move forward - up - together.
Don't love: It's terribly unromantic, but I'm not sure I believe in "soul mates" - however the definition of soul mate here is one that I can get behind.


I will be here by Steven Curtis Chapman
"If in the morning when you wake,
If the sun does not appear,
I will be here.
If in the dark we lose sight of love,
Hold my hand and have no fear,
I will be here.
I will be here,
When you feel like being quiet,
When you need to speak your mind I will listen.
Through the winning, losing, and trying we'll be together,
And I will be here.
If in the morning when you wake,
If the future is unclear,
I will be here.
As sure as seasons were made for change,
Our lifetimes were made for years,
I will be here.
I will be here,
And you can cry on my shoulder,
When the mirror tells us we're older.
I will hold you, to watch you grow in beauty,
And tell you all the things you are to me.
We'll be together and I will be here.
I will be true to the promises I've made,
To you and to the one who gave you to me.
I will be here."
Love: It's a beautiful sentiment and represents a lot of what's been going on in my life/relationship in the past couple of years, while containing hope for the future.
Don't love: It's reference to darker times is part of what draws me to it - but again, I'm afraid of triggering my anxiety during the ceremony.


So! There you have it. Just a bit indecisive. I might be a bit nit-picky, but hey, it's my one and only wedding ceremony - I want to get it right! It doesn't help that I've searched wedding readings so many times and I've seen the same ones over and over again so they all start to seem boring and repetitive. So, believe it or not, I'm still open to suggestions - hit me with them, if you've got any!

Talking Point: Why Do You Love Stories?

 
If you've spent more than five seconds on my blog, you'll know that I love stories. It kind of goes without saying. Books are one of my favourite things in the entire world - and I also adore movies, TV shows, muscials, plays... you name it, if it's got a narrative, chances are I'll enjoy it. I have always been this way. I think it's what draws me to writing; the idea of creating my own stories is so incredibly exciting (if slightly daunting).

Aside from a love of stories, there's another thing about me that has always been true: I'm a worrier. I get anxious a lot. But over the past couple of years, for various reasons, that anxiety has transformed from a little yapping dog that's kind of annoying, but easily dismissed, into a ginormous, three-headed beast with fangs as big as a football player and a bite that's most definitely worse than its bark. Why am I telling you this? Well, the thing about this beast is that it makes me question a lot things. Things I love. Things that make me who I am.

Since yesterday, that thing has been stories. Out of nowhere, the thought popped into my mind: "Why do you love stories so much? It must mean there's something wrong with you or something is missing from your life if you have to spend so much time in fictional worlds."

I immediately dismissed this thought as irrational and completely untrue. But while that would have shut up that little yapping dog, the beast is all...

I know, logically, that my affinity for fiction in no way limits my ability to live a full life. I have wonderful relationships, a great job, I travel... I live. And I know I have always loved stories and have never really used them as an escape because I couldn't bear real life - instead, I saw them as gateways to magical worlds. A bit of entertainment. A way to learn and understand more. Mostly, pure fun. It's not like I'm walking around thinking fiction is better than real life or caring more about fictional characters than real people (much)(jokes!)(kinda)(no really). I've never used stories as a substitute for real life. They have always been just stories. Stories that I love, hate, laugh at, cry about... but at the end of the day, I close the book or switch the TV off and get on with, y'know, living.

All of what I've just written makes complete sense to me. But the anxious part of me? It doesn't like logic. It doesn't like rationalising. It just likes to tell me I'm pathetic. The worst part is now I don't want to pick up a book, I don't want to watch TV or a movie... and I don't know what to do with myself. I'm doubting my long-held dream to write my own book. The anxious part of me says, "see, you're so inadequate that you feel the need to create new worlds and new people because you're not enough." Now, once again, I know this isn't true (how insulting to all the amazing authors out there if I thought it was!) but that doesn't stop me from doubting myself.

It hurts. Because I love stories, whether I'm reading them, watching them, or writing them. But right now I can't enjoy them as I usually do -  a feeling which just reinforces the negative cycle that I somehow can't live in the real world. That I'm somehow not enough.

The truth is, I guess I do need stories. Not to survive, but, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis, to make survival worth it. Because stories? They bring joy, and hope, and beauty, and inspiration, and perspective, and empathy, and connection, and understanding, and knowledge, and a thousand other things that are good and wonderful and help give meaning to life.

Now if I can only get that through my own thick head, I might be get somewhere.

Do you think stories are important?

Talking Point: The Did Not Finish

I like to finish what I start, especially when it comes to reading. I'm one of those crazy people who feels like have to see a book through to the end, even if I'm not enjoying it. I contemplate stopping, but I always thing "What if it gets better? What if I miss something amazing by stopping? At least I can say I've read it. At least I'll get some closure... "

I think I can count the number of books I haven't finished on one hand. Or with one short list:

• Possession by A.S. Byatt.
• Elliot Allagash by Simon Rich.

Yep. A sum total of two. There are a couple of other books that I've started reading and couldn't get into, but I intend to go back to them at some stage so I don't count them as official DNFs. They're books that I can see the value in but for whatever reason they weren't working for me at the time. Those two up there? I can safely say I'll never pick them up again.

As you can probably tell from the limited list, it takes a lot for me to abandon a book. I have to really, really hate it. Otherwise, I struggle through. But with an ever-increasing TBR pile, this seems like more and more of a waste of time. So I've decided that I'm going to *try* to be more brutal and DNF books that really aren't worth it. There are two main factors that would make me DNF, judging from the (two) books I've given up in the past:

-Time. If a book takes too long to read, I start to resent it. Even if it's not particularly bad (it's just not particularly good), I start to dislike it, just because I want it to be over already. There are so many books that I want to read, it feels like I'm wasting valuable time if I spend too much on one book that may not be worth it. It's the main reason I gave up on Possession. It was taking waaaay too long and I just didn't care where the story went. It was tedious and felt like a chore - not how reading should feel. So I gave up, and felt relieved (and just a bit guilty). The book I'm reading at the moment, Vulpi by Kate Gordon, is also taking me forever - though the current hectic state of my life means it's not completely the book's fault. Still, Vulpi hasn't really grabbed me enough to make me find the time to read it, if you know what I mean. OK, OK, I'll finish it, because I am interested in how the story turns out, but I can't help but be slightly frustrated with it - as well as myself!

-Characters. I don't believe that all characters need to be likable, but I do think there should be something about them that you can connect with - in the main character, at the very least. If there is not one likable character in the whole story and you can't empathise with any of them, it's just no fun. Especially if there's no indication that they're going to grow or change. This is why I gave up on Elliot Allagash.

So, do you ever DNF a book? What makes you stop reading?

Talking Point: Twisty Faster Hates You

So it seems I'm all ragey this week. I promise I'll get back to regular bookish blogging soon. I've never really done a post like this before because, well, this is a book blog - but then, it's also my blog. And I just had to express my thoughts on Twisty Faster's brand of feminism, as exhibited on her blog I Blame the Patriarchy. I apologise in advance for all the caps.

Twisty's view is that all women are being oppressed by THE PATRIARCHY. Patriarchy is oppressive to women - and, dare I say, men - but the thing is, the closest I’ve ever felt to really being oppressed is when I started applying her values to my life and was subsequently made to feel inadequate as both a feminist and a women. Twisty claims that all men hate women, and yet some of her rigid statements are more misogynistic than anything I've ever heard from a man. She actually oppresses women, by:

-Claiming femininity is bad. She says that to perform femininity by using makeup, shaving your legs and so on, is placing patriarchal restrictions and conventions on yourself, reinforcing THE PATRIARCHY that rapes and murders women. The only solution is to reject all forms of traditional femininity. Oh, and if you actually like makeup and dresses? Clearly you’ve been brainwashed by THE PATRIARCHY! Because as a woman you can’t possibly have the ability to think for yourself and make your own choices. You’re just a victim of THE PATRIARCHY!

Because telling women there’s only one valid way to be a woman is totally feminist and not something THE PATRIARCHY would do at all.

 

-Saying that women should not have the legal right to consent. I’m not kidding. She claims that if women have no right to consent, then technically all intercourse is rape, unless the woman says otherwise. Apparently this gives a woman more power. I totally see how taking away a woman’s right to consensual sex is empowering her.

Heaven forbid a woman should actually enjoy sex with a man. Coz men are EVIL and only out to RAPE you. They all hate you and could not possibly love you. Sex could never be a loving connection between two equal, consenting adults. If you’re a woman, you only want to be penetrated because THE PATRIARCHY has indoctrinated you. It couldn't ever be because you enjoy it or, y’know, it’s part of your biology or anything crazy like that. Didn't you know? Sex is all about the man’s enjoyment, not the woman’s.

Because making women feel like they should be ashamed of wanting or enjoying sex is totally feminist and not something THE PATRIARCHY would do at all.

-Saying that women should never, ever enter into a relationship with a man because men are EVIL and they hate all women and they just want to RAPE you. Also, you lose your personal autonomy as soon as you enter into a heterosexual relationship, because you couldn’t possibly stay independent as that relationship must become your whole life and, by the way, the man secretly hates you and just wants to DOMINATE you and you, being a helpless victim of THE PATRIARCHY, are incabable of resisting or having any kind of agency. In fact, you’ll also stay in your relationship for way too long because your brain has been so destroyed by THE PATRIARCHY and such close contact with a man that you no longer have the ability to think or feel for yourself. You especially can’t love a man. Love was invented by THE PATRIARCHY to keep women subordinated. Love can only exist between two women, because women are awesome (as long as they're not feminine) and men are all evil and dumb.

Because claiming someone’s sexuality is invalid is totally feminist and not something THE PATRIARCHY would do at all.

I could go on, but frankly I’ve already given way too much time and energy into stewing over this batshit crazy woman. I refuse to let her make me feel inadequate as a woman or as a feminist. Isn’t feminism all about women having the freedom to make choices about their own lives and their own bodies? About men and women being treated equally? Respecting everyone as a human being, regardless of gender (or class or race or sexuality, for that matter)?

Well, call me crazy, but that's always what I thought feminism was. If I’m wrong then I guess I’m not a feminist. I always hate it when women say “I’m not feminist, but I believe in equal rights”, because, hello, that is feminism; but with women like Twisty around I don’t blame people for wanting to avoid the title.

The thing is, the reason I got so fired up is because her and people like her attempt to - and sometimes succeed - in invalidating my life choices. I know I shouldn’t give someone else that much power, and I guess I’m trying to take it back with this post. Because even though my gut reaction is that this woman is totally irrational, and hey, I LIKE lipstick and pink floral dresses and painting my nails and marriage and romance and family and MEN (and still, believe it or not, consider myself a strong, intelligent woman, and a feminist to boot), I began to question whether I actually like those things or – *gasp* - have just internalised the misogynistic views of THE PATRIARCHY. I started to worry that maybe being feminine is bad – maybe by putting on makeup, I’m reinforcing a stereotype that is damaging to woman. Then I realised that maybe I’m actually breaking the stereotype by showing that caring about “girlie” things doesn’t make you vapid or submissive, and that being with a man doesn't negate your independent identity or your equality.

To me, feminism should be about broadening women’s options, not replacing one limited set with another. It should not be about eschewing femininity, but rather expanding its definition and reinforcing the notion that there's more than one way to be a woman – or a man, for that matter.

Talking Point: Say No To Drama

Is anybody else exhausted by all the drama up in here lately? It was kinda amusing at first, in the way that, say, Toddlers and Tiaras is. You know, the trainwreck factor. But it feels like it never ends and it puts a serious downer on blogging. Because I just. Don't. Get. It. Aren't we all here to have fun and share our love of books? I know that's why I started my blog. Receiving ARCs never even entered my mind. I just wanted to keep a record of the books I'd be reading anyway.

Maybe that's the problem. When a blog becomes more about page views, relationships with publishers and getting free stuff, then there's pressure to perform above and beyond. Trouble is, if you don't have the originality or talent to do that, what do you do? Well, apparently, some plagiarise. Which is not OK on so many levels. It astounds me that some people would defend it as an "accident" or a "mistake", as thought it's harmless. It's not harmless. Taking somebody's ideas and passing them off as your own is fraudulent.

I've had posts plagiarised in the past. I confronted the blogger in question, and she admitted that she had taken my ideas but said she didn't realise she was doing anything wrong. She did seem truly sorry so I only asked that she give me credit if she were to use my ideas in future. In hindsight I wish I'd been a bit more forceful. Because it seems absurd that she didn't know that it was wrong to steal somebody's posts. Plus I think I received credit on maybe one post. The previous posts that she had plagiarised remained up, with no indication that they had not only been my ideas, but much had been my content. She changed the titles of the posts so they sounded different to mine, but the content remained. I tried not to let it bother me and continued to do my own thing, but I have to admit I did feel angry whenever I would see someone commenting on a post of hers that had started as one of mine saying how awesome or original it was. These days I mostly try to ignore that blog.

But what really gets me about plagiarism is, what's the point? Why bother having your own blog if you don't have anything original that you want to say? If you have to steal somebody else's ideas or content to create posts, then what are you getting out of it? Is it page views? Free books? Again, I just don't get it.

I love my blog because it's a platform to express my own views and feelings about books and bookish things. It's been an amazing way to connect with other like-minded, awesome people. That's what I'm here for. How about you?

Talking Point: Books You Read For School

Alison Can Read and Rebecca Books both recently posted about the books they were forced to read for school, and I thought I'd join in on the fun! I've started with Year 7 because, frankly, that's about as far back as I can remember (also, do you even have assigned reading in primary school? I remember "quiet reading" time where we could read our own books but that's about it). This is definitely not a complete list, but I guess these are the texts that made a dent.

Year 7

Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare: This was the year after Baz Luhrmann's movie came out and I was still totally obsessed with it - and Leonardo Dicaprio - so I was thrilled to be studying it. I even brought in my own copy of the play (which I had because it was attached to the screenplay, which I had because I was THAT obsessed with the movie - and with Leo). I was subsequently yelled at by the English teacher for not reading the same copy everyone else in the class was reading. And that's about all I remember from those lessons.

A Fortunate Life by Albert Facey: I remember being mildly fascinated but mostly bored. I should probably reread it as an adult.

Year 8

Lockie Leonard, Scumbuster by Tim Winton: Now this was a book I could get behind. I loved the Lockie books back in the day - especially all the young romance, pashing and even the odd bit of petting. So scandalous!


Year 9 

Macbeth by William Shakespeare: I actually enjoyed this play. I didn't enjoy the craptastic audio version we had to listen to for weeks - the experience has put me off trying audio books to this day.

The Silver Sword by Ian Serraillier: I wouldn't say I enjoyed this book, but I certainly valued it. It opened my eyes to the Holocaust for the first time and provided a chilling but insightful account of life for a group of Jewish kids during World War II.


Year 10

Brother in the Land by Robert Swindells: This book gave me nightmares for a long, long time. I found it so disturbing - I still shudder to think about the plot. It didn't help that we were reading it around the same time that the September 11 terrorist attacks happened, and I was petrified terrorists were going to attack us with nucleur bombs. Fun times. 

Year 11

As You Like It by William Shakespeare: The only one of Shakespeare's comedies I've ever read. Judged purely on this, I prefer his tragedy.

Year 12

King Lear by William Shakespeare: This was probably my favourite Shakespeare in high school. It's such a twisted, awesome tale. It was also the one I studied in the most depth, seeing as it was a whole unit for the HSC.

Emma by Jane Austen: Studying Emma was my gateway into reading Austen. I absolutely adored it - and the fact that we also got to study Clueless because it was based on the book. Definitely my favourite English unit from school! I enjoyed it so much I immediately read Pride and Prejudice. I told my English teacher, thinking he'd be impressed, but he just scolded me for not reading widely enough. Note: this was the same teacher who yelled at me in Year 7 for bringing in my own edition of Romeo and Juliet. What a guy.

What were your favourite (or least favourite) "forced" reads from school?