Hazel Grace has more or less accepted her short life -- dying of terminal cancer at the age of sixteen, she spends her days peacefully watching America's Next Top Model and rereading her favorite book, An Imperial Affliction. She might have continued this way if not for Augustus Waters, a boy she meets at cancer support group whose life becomes irrevocably entwined with Hazel's in ways that are both wonderful and painful.
Overview:
Without spoilers I can tell you that this a masterfully written book that made me both laugh and cry. In John Green's typical style, he captures the perfect tragic comedy. Although, I'd have to warn anyone who's lost someone to cancer that this book will be both cathartic and terrible--like rubbing alcohol onto an open wound. This is not, however, the fault of the book. As the title clearly states, it's the fault of our stars that might make this book more difficult for some than others. Yet, in spite of the dark places it took me, I couldn't put it down--probably because it took me to good places too, places where even mostly unremembered, short lives matter.
I'd give this book 9 / 10 stars * * * * * * * * * Personal Experience:
I got to see John Green on tour for this book. Unfortunately, I hadn't had time to read the book, yet. But since he tries to avoid spoilers on tours, this might have been for the best. If you don't already know, John Green has an excellent YouTube channel with his brother called, the vlogbrothers. So this was really just a vlogbrothers tour in disguised as a book tour. This means there was lots of fun dancing and singing in addition to talking about literature. It's largely due to his online fan following that he's a best-selling author, so I doubt his publishers mind the strangely unrelated additions to his tour. He was always a good author, but the vlogs helped his notoriety exponentially.
Here's their awesome tour bus.
Here's me in front of the bus. I know, you can all barely contain your excitement. You know that in all your lives you'll never see another vehicle full of this much awesome. Not even the Oscar Mayer Weiner Mobile or the Red Bull Car. I've ruined vehicular excitement forever.
Behind me you see Hank Green (in the black shirt) and John Green (in the green shirt). My book was signed by John and a lovely Hanklerfish was drawn by Hank, based on one of his songs. My shirt is also a vlogbrothers shirt based on a song about people who love giraffes who love giraffes.
*
*
*
*
*
Spoilers:
I think John Green hits a very interesting theme of how it might ruin some of our heroes if we met them. There's also the point that you do not have to be a good person to create something good, and sometimes our interpretations of things are more important than the artist's.
I've met a couple of my favorite authors (John Green and Neil Gaiman), and it was excellent. However, I admit others of my favorite authors I'm actually not sure I would like to meet. Like Peter Van Houten, I think they created something beautiful, but I am not sure I would like them as people or that they would like me.
I sensed throughout the books that Hazel wasn't going to find the answers she sought from Van Houten. Still, this sense did not dull my compulsion to find out what she did find. I was less interested in Van Houten than I was in Hazel's development, and I think that's as it should have been.
John Green did an excellent job writing from the perspective of a sixteen year old girl. Augustus and Issac's characters were also very real--the type of well-crafted character you can almost see and touch. I felt there was more distance with the parents and the part where Hazel's father tells her he thinks the universe wants to be noticed sounded very literary for a man who had just proclaimed his lack of literary skills. But it didn't bother me that much because, for the most part, there's so much truth in this story. Like Hazel, I don't feel the need to be remembered. I think our lives can be important without us being important outside those who love us, and I'm glad John wrote this beautiful ode to life.
QUIZ: Why do libraries rearrange their collections?
A.) To give themselves more space
B.) Because we're preparing for book-shifting to become an Olympic sport
C.) To make old men cry
The library I currently work for has rearranged their collection. Previously, they had a mystery section, a science fiction and fantasy section, and a western section. They have interfiled all their genre sections into one adult fiction section, which is library-speak for arranging all the fiction from A-Z by the author's last name. Genre books still have stickers distinguishing them from other books.
We had an uproar, particularly from the fans of our western section. I found this interesting because I once read in Neil Gaiman's blog that he used to see western sections in bookstores all the time but hadn't seen one in years. I have to agree with him. I've never seen a western section in my lifetime outside of the library where I work. This might explain the vocal protest from already marginalized western fans, but if you find yourself in a similar situation, I promise libraries don't make these kind of changes to vex you.
One of the reasons a library would make this kind of shift is to save space. If you think about it, a genre section that's not growing as fast as the rest of the fiction section, westerns for instance, are taking up space that could be used by other books.
It also makes it easier to rearrange books. You have one section to shift as opposed to four different sections to negotiate.
The reasoning most cited by my own library was organization. Oftentimes, authors in a genre section could be found in the general fiction section as well, particularly in the case of mystery. There are many reasons why a library would have the same book in two different sections. If we did it on purpose, it could be because we want people in either section to find the book. If we did it on accident, it could be that the person / program, in charge of cataloging the program was unaware of its genre.
With the A-Z organization, when you go to author's name in fiction, all of their books are there as opposed to some. This makes browsing easier if you're browsing by author. You don't have to worry that you missed a book that wasn't in the section that you assumed held all of the author's books.
So, those are some of our reasons. I can see both the pros and the cons to either organization. I admit I'm an avid fantasy reader. I've been branching out more lately, but it is nice to have a designated section to search (NOTE: Fantasy is NOT the same as science-fiction, and anyone who thinks it is is dead to me). On the other hand, I can understand another of Neil Gaiman's sentiments--that libraries and bookstores should all be arranged A-Z so people would be exposed to books outside their ordinary interests. Shelving books has really shown me the worth of this. I see books when I'm shelving that I wouldn't normally ever look for, but which capture my interest.
However, if people would still prefer not to bother with books outside their genres and your library has an A-Z organization, you can always make a list of authors or ask the library staff who are there to help you find what you're looking for.
A rich and eccentric visitor comes to stay in Scarlett's family hotel for the summer, and it quickly becomes the strangest summer any of them have ever experienced. Both for the worst and the better.
Overview
Teen chick lit isn't normally the type of book that I read, but since Maureen Johnson is a friend of John Green's, and I have found her YouTube videos on writing both amusing and insightful, I thought I'd give it a try. It's still not my favorite genre, but I liked it enough to get through the whole thing and get the sequel. However, that is probably because I'm a bit of a voyeur when it comes to functional but quirky families, which is something portrayed in this book. I liked the interactions that Scarlett had with her siblings and like, just as in many families, the siblings had their favorites, those they couldn't stand, and those they just didn't understand. It wasn't a profound book, but I got the feeling it was never meant to be, and that's fine. If you're looking for light read with humor and family drama, I'd recommend this.
Book Club (Spoilers)
I kept thinking that it was going to be revealed at the end that Mrs. Amberson was actually just some crazy mental patient escaped from the institution and that she'd somehow stolen all the money she was giving Scarlett. I was a little disappointed with the actual truth.
I laughed out loud a few times while listening to this book, but one of my favorite lines was the description of Lola's "creepy underwear sandwich."
In my personal opinion this is the best Potter book to film adaptation. The third film is still my favorite, but this one captured all of the most important parts of the 7th book, as well as being pitch perfect on the tone of both the book and the characters. Fans have often lamented than Ron's best lines from the book are given to Hermione in the film. But this was Ron at his best.
Overall, the pacing, which I feel has been the biggest problem in the last two films, was perfectly executed. I never felt things were to slow or too fast. In pacing, it's actually even better than the book, as I did feel the camping dragged on too long, but in the movie it was great character building and well integrated with excitement and suspense.
There were a couple quibbles I had with things being confusing if you hadn't read the books, but I actually saw the film with someone who had never read the books and had only seen the first film. And the only thing she said she didn't understand were the horcruxes.
Finally, the part where they chose to cut it worked surprisingly well. Many fans had been speculating they might cut it at Dobby's death but that it would be really depressing. By having Vodemort stealing the wand be the very last seen they balance that bleakness with suspense. I am eagerly looking forward to part 2.
Spoilers
Okay, so the mirror shard that Harry carries and sees what he thinks is Dumbledore's eye through, was my biggest complaint. They never explained it in any of the films and they didn't in this one either! The girl I was with who hadn't seen them probably assumed it had been explained and perhaps that's why she wasn't confused. But I knew they hadn't, so that annoyed me. But honestly I don't think it's that important. I think they could have left it out entirely. Many fans claim there's no other way to explain how Aberforth knew to send Dobby to help them. But trust me, there's always another way. But I'll reserve final judgement in the hopes they explain the mirror in part 2.
A change I loved was Hedwig saving Harry instead of simply exploding. At least she went out heroically and not trapped in a burning cage.
I also loved Dobby's speech. Only seriously maim. Golden. Some fans seem to feel it was too comedic, but I think it was just right. You can't have the entire film be dark, it would be too much. Plus, considering that we haven't seen Dobby since the second film, I think it was crucial to remind us why we love this little elf before he gets killed. Cruel, yes, but necessary to make us care.
Tangled is hands down the best film since Tarzan ended Disney's golden age. On a list of my six favorite Disney films (based solely on their stories), Tangled is my third favorite. That list is: Mulan, Lilo and Stitch, Tangled, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and The Little Mermaid.
Like these other Disney films, Tangled has a great story, fun characters, and breathtakingly beautiful animation. There's only one snag that prevents it from being utterly perfect, a disappointing bug in an otherwise tasty porridge. No, it's not the fact that they changed the name from Rapunzel to Tangled because they thought the latter would attract more boys. Really, Disney, did Snow White, Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, or Mulan do poorly just because they had prominent female leads? Still, the name change was a minor annoyance, easily overlooked since it was overall a great film. No, there was something else that bugged me far more. But first I want to go over all the reasons why I loved it and why you should go and see it. What are you doing still reading this? Go now!
Story: The story was fantastic. I know the original Rapunzel tale pretty well, so I could spot the changes. But if I was a fairytale purist, I wouldn't like any of Disney's films. Besides, the changes made, in my opinion, worked very well. They added just enough life and detail to the story to keep up the pace and emotional depth over the course of a full length movie, while still staying close enough to the plot of the original tale. I'll elaborate more in the spoilers section. I am tempted to just do so here. I mean, if you don't know how Disney movies all end by now, then there's no hope for you. But I'll hold back. I do talk about a few specifics in the character section but nothing earth-shattering. You could figure out most of it from watching the trailer.
There was also a good balance of serious emotions and and humor, even though the trailer might indicate otherwise. It might be a little more comedic than the Disney classics, but what I liked is that even the comedic characters had serious sides. Pascal worries for Rapunzel and is her only friend. Maximus may always seem funny, but if you think about it, it's because for most of the film, he's out for Flynn's blood. Humor that involves wanting to kill or maim someone is always the best kind in my book. Same goes for the Vikings they encounter. Good tone is one of the first things I look for in a cartoon and Tangled delivers.
Characters: Rapunzel manages to be a very interesting character for a girl trapped in a tower for 18 years, which also makes her the first Disney princess to reach the age of consent before falling in love! She doesn't let being bored out of her mind make her a boring character, which is a tall order. She's had nothing to do but teach herself things like astronomy, guitar, and painting. She also has the drive and determination to question the woman she thinks is her mother, even though this is the only person she's ever known. And when the chance to escape her tower comes, Rapunzel grabs it (and hits it over the head with a frying pan). I also really related to her when she escapes from the tower. There's an excellent montage of her feeling alternately elated and morbidly guiltily which is absolutely hilarious.
Flynn is a more fleshed-out character than the traditional Disney male leads, like the princes from Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella. But he didn't have quite the character depth of Aladdin, the Beast, or Tarzan. Still, it felt like he did have a good backstory, just like they couldn't fit it in the film. He mentions it a little bit, just not as much as I would have liked. Still, he's the perfect foil to the repressed Rapunzel and the chemistry between them works very well and keeps you invested in both their characters.
Pascal, Rapunzel's chameleon sidekick, is easily on my list of top five Disney animal sidekicks: Mushu, Pascal, Sebastian, Abu, and Zazu—in that order. Pascal doesn't talk, but his expressive face says it all. He's clearly the enforcer of the group.
Maximus kinda reminded me of Phoebus's horse from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but I still enjoyed his stalwart and honest nature that suffers no fools, particularly not thieving ones. And you have to admire a warhorse willing to pick up a sword and fight his battles himself!
Animation: The lantern festival when all the lanterns started to light easily gave me the same chills I felt when the crowds at the Imperial City bowed to Mulan, visually stunning and emotionally moving when you think about how the lanterns represent love and longing. I also think Disney's made the right decision to do the whole movie in the style of a Rocco painting. Rocco was a reaction to being freed from the oppressive rule of Louis XIV, and this movie is all about freedom. Plus, it's just a pretty and whimsical style of painting, perfect for a cartoon. I could wish that the style of the characters had been a little more organic so it would look more like the actual Rocco style. The backgrounds did feel Rocco, particularly, Rapunzel's tower. But the characters, while charming and cute, look more like the standard plasticine doll-like versions of computer animation which would have looked right at home in Toy Story. But this would be my criticism of all computer animation. Regardless, I still thoroughly enjoyed the 3D, and it fittingly emphasized the action rather than being a gimmick. It makes the lantern scene that much more magical.
The Snag...
Okay, so after all this, you're probably wonder what I possibly couldn't like about this movie. What more is there than story, characters, and amazing visuals?
Well, from most movies, nothing. But since this is a Disney musical, there's one more element. The music. This is where this movie was a big disappointment. The songs aren't bad, but they are not anywhere close to Disney standards. They were supposed to be a musical mix of 1960s rock and medieval music, which is a great idea. I love modernized medieval music. But while the first song, When Will My Life Begin, starts well with a catchy beat, it fades away in a completely incongruously mellow way that makes it feel like two different songs sewn reluctantly together. The reprise, on the contrary, ended on a very good note but left out too much of the original bouncy nature. All in all, Out There, from the Hunchback of Notre Dame remains Disney's best song about being stuck in a tower.
Plus, other then the faintest possible Irish-like hint in the acoustic beginning, I fail to hear anything medieval about either of these songs. Rather than mixing the two genres, which could have been really fun and original, it seems Alan Menken decided to do one or the other. Although, honestly, none of the songs with lyrics had any medieval flair to them. I'm also not personally a fan of story songs, and all of them, except the love song and the one one the end credits, were tied too closely to the story to be a song that you can later turn into a radio classic.
Mother Knows Best was yet another story song and too musically repetitive, once again, with no good hook, not enough variety to the sounds or build in the middle and end of the song. The whole time she's mostly talking along to music rather than singing. Which I know is actually something they sometimes did in the 60s, but I'm not a fan of it, and the tune isn't strong enough to carry a lack of singing. Plus, it doesn't sound like a 60s song; it sounds like it's from the 50s or from a not very good theater musical.
As for the love song, after several listenings determined to like it, I've managed to appreciate it a bit more than when I first heard it, but it's still nothing special. It doesn't build enough or have a powerful enough hook to make you want to sing it, and I really don't think it challenged the singer's voices enough.
I'm usually not a fan of silly songs, but I've Got a Dream was the one that I actually liked most when I first heard it because it's got the best beat, is the most melodic, the overall tone is consistent, and it is actually sung!
Don't even get me started on the flower song. Musically, it's really pretty if a bit too short. But I can't see myself singing it. It's a song about a flower!
The instrumental score is actually quite good but not so good where I noticed it the first time around (with the exception of the excellent dance music in the town) because I was too busy being disappointed in the other songs.
Finally, the end credits song is good but sorta just stolen and not made for the film, so it doesn't really count. Though, it might have been better if they'd just stolen all the songs.
This is why, sadly, Tangled does not even make the list of my top twenty favorite animated musicals. Now, this list is strictly for the music, not the stories. I like most of their stories, but not all. Tangled doesn't even make it ahead of Lilo and Stitch (not listed), who stole all their music from Elvis. And I'm not even an Elvis fan! Yes, even a few lame Disney sequels had better music. * Note that the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, 15th, and 16th movies are NOT even Disney films. They are often mistaken for Disney, but they are NOT.
1.)* Anastasia 2.) Mulan 3.) Tarzan 4.)* Road to El Dorado 5.)* Quest for Camelot 6.) Aladdin 7.) Beauty and the Beast 8.) The Little Mermaid 9.) The Hunchback of Notre Dame 10.) Pocahontas 11.) Hercules 12.) Lion King II13.)Toy Story II 14.)* The Prince of Egypt15.)* Thumbelina 16.)* The Swan Princess 17.) Pocahontas II18)Lion King 19.) Cinderella 20.) Sleeping Beauty
Yes, these are exactly in the order starting with my most favorite and going down from there. Yes, I am a strange person (more evident at the later ones--the first few are pretty standard). But hopefully this gives you an idea of my musical taste so you have something by which to gage my opinion.
Spoilers
Notable differences between this and the original tale:
The whole sun drop turning into a magic flower was completely Disney, but I liked it. Actually far more epic than the original lettuce that Rapunzel is named after.
They reversed Rapunzel and Flynn's social statuses. In the original story Rapunzel, is a commoner, and the man who saves her is a prince. But I was fine with Rapunzel being the lost princess. I know how Disney loves its princesses.
Mother Gothel isn't actually using Rapunzel for any magic in the original tale. She just wants a child to love. Which actually makes her evilness rather more ambiguous. Sure, kidnapping and dropping the prince from the tower was wrong, but otherwise Gothel is more the archetypical over-protecive parent than evil stepmother. I actually wished Disney had played this up more, but I realize Disney villains rarely have that kind of nuance. I didn't feel they played up her evil nature enough either. I wish there had been more hints that she didn't really love Rapunzel. I don't think her constantly making fun of her really cut it because some parents do that. It makes them bad parents, but at Gothel's level, it wasn't even really verbal abuse. It easily could have just been someone who was too selfish to know better.
The prince gets his eyes gouged out falling from the tower into a bunch of thorns, but Flynn just gets stabbed.
In the original, Gothel cuts Rapunzel's hair but here obviously she couldn't because then it would be useless to her.
Rapunzel's tears do actually heal the prince in the original, but I really wish it had been her hair in this one since it was healing hair and the whole time I thought: “This is perfect because she could use her hair to heal Flynn when his eyes get gouged.” I always thought the tear thing was cheesy in the fairytale. But at least Disney didn't have to change it for a happy ending. The prince always lived at the end of Rapunzel. Interestingly enough, the witch doesn't die in any version I've ever read. The closest she comes is getting stuck in the tower.
Rapunzel has twin babies by the prince in the original. In some it's even how Gothel figures out what's happened. Then Rapunzel wanders the desert for years with her babies until she finds the blinded prince. But I get why they didn't want to explain that to the kiddies.
Moose's life seems to be going better. His sister's finally in the school she needs, his mother spends more time with him, and his friend Scout can finally come to Alcatraz to play ball with him. But the reason Moose's sister got into school was Al Capone, and now it seems like Moose may have to pay the piper.
Overview(No spoilers)
Choldenko's gift of narration and Moose's character kept me turning the pages. I did want to know what happened next. There was everything you needed for excitement--real peril and dastardly plots. However, I didn't get as much character development in this book as I was hoping. Perhaps the author plans to write more books because it made me feel like it was a coming of age story that didn't quite come of age.
6/10 stars * * * * * *
Book Club(Spoilers)
I still hated Piper's character at the end of this book and was annoyed with Moose for being attracted to her in spite of her obnoxious behavior. I don't care if she was having a hard time because of her mother's pregnancy. Maybe if she had been nice in the first book and this marked a change in her character, but she was the same in the first book, so she's just a horrible, selfish person in good times and bad. I also didn't quite get or believe Al Capone could be involved with getting Moose's sister into school and even though there was a jail break on Alcatraz, the children's involvement seemed far-fetched.
However, in spite of these complaints, I would read another of these books because it could simply be that the story isn't finished yet, and I would still love to see how Moose's story continues.
Jason wakes up not remembering who he is, where he is, or how he got there. Unfortunately, the monsters chasing him aren't very considerate of his amnesia. He and his new friends Piper and Leo are soon drawn into a world of ancient Greek gods and beasts of legend. They seek refuge at Camp Half Blood where they discover their godly parents and meet others like them. But the oldest and darkest power is rising, and even the heroes of Camp Half Blood won't be enough to fend it off. Could Jason be the key to finding the help they need, or will he be the instigator of war?
Overview (No Spoilers)
I LOVED this book! It has a slightly more serious tone than the Percy Jackson series. In some ways, I thought of it as American Gods for kids except a whole lot less depressing! This is not just because it's about gods but because it's about how gods need people. There's still plenty of humor, however, and it's just as action-packed as all of Riordan's previous books. My sister likes to say they're about to die on every page, and I'd have to agree with her. I also loved all of the characters almost instantly which is pretty rare for me with any book. For an amnesiac Jason is quite interesting. Probably helps that he has fragmentary memory and that even the reader doesn't know who he was before, so we're not shouting at him the whole time to stop being so stupid. We want to discover his past as much as him and are just as baffled by it.
I also loved both Piper and Leo, which I'll go into more in the spoiler's section. But it's not a spoiler to say that Leo reminded me a bit of Marco, my favorite character from the Animorphs (another excellent YA series). They're both, small, funny, and snarky with troubled pasts that make you just want to hug them, and they're both overshadowed a bit by their best friends, but they still transcend the average role of sidekick to be heroes in their own right. It also helps that the story is told from all three points of view. That's also probably what made it so long but hard to mind the length when it's such a page-turner. The chemistry among the three heroes as also so much fun to read! They're the perfect ensemble.
9/10 Stars* * * * * * * * *
Book Club (Spoilers)
One star deducted because he suggested a love-triangle at the end, and I am firmly team Piper. But the jury's still out on that. Riordan has written one of the few, if not only, tolerable love triangles before. He may yet do it again.
It was great that Leo was actually the only one of the three whose godly parent I guessed before they got to Camp Half Blood. In the Percy Jackson books I could pretty much always guess so he's getting better at being mysterious even if you do know the gods. Even though Jason showed he could fly early on that didn't tip me off that his father was Zeus because Thalia never showed any ability (or inclination) at flight. The lightning didn't tip me off either first because I wasn't even thinking Zeus would have another kid since he'd promised not to. Silly me. I even thought it was possible Jason didn't have a godly parent because of all the Roman stuff which baffled me pretty much until the end of the book and it's all still pretty mysterious. I thought he might be something other than a half-blood but clearly I was wrong about that.
I thought it might be Piper's dad who was the god after all because I couldn't think of anyone who fit her ability to talk people into things except for Hermes. But again I was stunned to find her mother was Aphrodite! Yet it made perfect sense even though Piper's the farthest from what one would expect of a child of Aphrodite. Even her beauty didn't tip me off since it was sch a natural beauty and you do always think about magic causing unnatural beauty (like Barbie girl beauty). I loved what he did with this fact, too, showing an entirely more formidable and admirable side to Aphrodite's powers.
I also loved that she had named her zit Bob.
Riordan's use of actual facts are very satisfying as well. I loved that when I looked up Jack London and Wolf House all the things Riordan said were actually true, or even better, were real life mysteries that are solved in his fantasy world. London, for instance, grew up thinking that a man named William Chaney was his father, but when he wrote to Chaney as an adult, the man vehemently denied the relation. Now, in the real world Chaney's accusation that London's mother slept around was either true or he was a deadbeat (or both). But it's more fun to think that London actually was the son of Mercury.
I didn't quite believe they would leave the burnt ruins of London's house on a national park but that's true too!
I liked the end of this book a lot but, of course, this is going to be a whole series so I'm not sure about the second one. On one hand I hadn't even guessed Percy might be with the Romans until the end which is another one of those impressively obvious things. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'm looking forward to an amnesiac Percy since that could get annoying. But if anyone can do it well, it would be Riordan.
