Review: Vulpi by Kate Gordon

Vulpi by Kate Gordon is the follow-up to Thyla, the story of a unique species of shapeshifters running wild in the Tasmanian bush. While Thyla centred around Tessa, a 200-year-old teenager with no memory, Vulpi shifts the focus to brand-new shapeshifter Cat, a minor (and not entirely likable) character from the first book. This was a risk on Gordon's part and, unfortunately, it didn't really pay off. I just wasn't invested in Cat's character or journey, and she didn't do anything in the first part of Vulpi to make me feel otherwise. While other characters said they found her witty, intelligent and, frankly, irresistible (at least three fell in love with her), nothing she said or did actually showed these qualities to the reader, other than the odd mention of literature. Note: referencing the classics does not a smart heroine make (I'm looking at you, Twilight/50 Shades of Grey).

The story itself was OK but, unlike Thyla, it wasn't enough to keep me compulsively turning the pages. The main conflict is around the increasing number of teens being murdered and the mysterious "Solution" the evil Diemans have been talking about. Not uninteresting, but still, this short, easy read took me three. Freaking. Weeks. As I mentioned in my DNF post, this wasn't entirely the book's fault - I've been crazy busy - but I also wasn't particularly compelled to pick it up.

What I did appreciate was the shift from second person narration in Thyla to first person in Vulpi. It just flowed more smoothly and was more consistent. The dialogue was also an improvement on Thyla, with less info dumps at inappropriate times (though there were still a few). However, the way a few characters spoke was still quite jarring to me. The worst offender was the eponymous vulpi, Archie, an English chap whose dialogue just didn't feel authentic. It pulled me out of the story rather than into it. Speaking of Archie - I also didn't really enjoy the insta-love and the, "oh god, swooooon, gasp, shudder, shiver, derrrrrrr" every time he so much as breathed in Cat's direction.

I feel bad for dissing the book because I really, really wanted to like Vulpi. I'm disappointed that I didn't. As I mentioned earlier, I really appreciate Gordon's unique take on the paranormal and the very Australian flavour she weaves into her work. But while I love the concept, I just didn't love the execution.

Rating: 2.5/5

Eye Candy
I imagined a ginger version of Claire Holt as Cat... 

As for Archie, Cat first meets him in vulpi from, and from the description all I could picture from then on was none other than the Fantastic Mr Fox himself...

 Seriously. Sexy, no? No.

Reading Icons: Orson Welles

Yesterday was Orson Welles' birthday. Here's something I learnt about him today: He was just 25 when he created Citizen Kane, the Greatest Movie of All Time. That is simultaneously inspiring and very, very depressing. What am I doing with my life?! Oh, that's right: the Internet.

Ok, he's not reading in this one, I just love this photo/scene.

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?

Bookish Fun: Lit Major Lemur

My blog (and I) need a bit of a fun injection, and what better way than with a craptastic meme? Presenting... Lit Major Lemur.

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?

Reading Icons: Christopher Walken

"I do the same things every day. Exactly the same. I eat at the same time, I get up at the same time, I do the same things in the same order. I read. I have coffee." - Christopher Walken

The Movie Was Amazeballs: To Kill A Mockingbird

I finally watched To Kill a Mockingbird. Wow. I wasn't going to post about it because, just wow. It's perfect, and I don't know if there's much more I can say about it. But I'll try.

I was surprised, to start with, at the opening credits - usually with old movies you assume they'll have those basic flash-card titles that go on forever. Not this one (I guess it's not that old, hey?) - the opening credits, showcasing what we later find out to be Jem's box of treasures from Boo, sets the nostalgic, innocent tone wonderfully and instantly pulls you in.

The story remained remarkably faithful to the book. There were a few changes, naturally, with numerous minor plots edited out. I missed Mrs Dubose's storyline in particular, but I understand why hers and others' stories were missing - what enriches the book would have bogged down the movie. As it is, we're left with a very powerful telling of the two major plots - the court case and Boo. There wasn't a lot added to the film, with the bulk of the scenes coming straight from the book, but what was added, I liked. The early introduction of Mr Cunningham, and his interaction with Scout, for example, made the later mob scene even more effective. I also appreciated the way the trial was introduced pretty quickly, and we got to see more of Atticus' perspective.

But the most outstanding thing about To Kill a Mockingbird was, of course, the cast. OK, Gregory Peck was too young to be Atticus, technically - but with his performance, it didn't really matter. He was Atticus - dignified, wise, kind, intelligent and loving. The kids were also brilliant in their roles - exactly how I pictured Jem and Scout. Robert Duvall's young apperance as Boo Radley was short but memorable, and Tom Robinson was tragically compelling. Bob Ewell was skin-crawlingly creepy; my only small gripe (and this is probably going to sound petty) was that his teeth seemed too white and straight for someone as rough and poor as Bob.

All in all, I loved this movie. I'm just sad I waited so long to watch it! But it's OK, I know I'll be rewatching it for years to come.

Rating: 5/5

Related
Review: To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Reading Icons: Elvis Presley

"When I was a boy, I always saw myself as a hero in comic books and in movies. I grew up believing this dream." - Elvis Presley

Note-Worthy: Best Australian Blogs 2012 Competition

Shameless plug alert: My blog is entered in to the Best Australian Blogs 2012 Competition. If you love me (hi, Mum!) or my blog, it would be supercalifreakinawesome if you could vote for Belle's Bookshelf in the People's Choice Award. The blogs are listed alphabetically over five pages - handily mine is on the first page. As bribery In appreciation, I give to you... Ryan Gosling gifs.