Sorry for the space below. I canna fix it.
Also, this poll allows multiple answers at the same time, so if you are torn, vote for two.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Don't let the pigeon interrupt the blog!
I came upon Mo Willem's website and he listed a link to Wonder-Shirts where you can order your very own Pigeon Tee Shirt! (For those who ask what the hell I'm going on about, the pigeon is in reference to the very excellent book Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus which you must read.) The price is a bit steep, but it looks good. They also have other illustrator tees. I'm tempted to get the Viola Swamp one to wear when I sub.
The site also led me to Kidstamps where you can order (duh) stamps - and bookplates, etc. - by children's authors like Trina and the Dillons.
Hope you are all well and reading something right now.
The site also led me to Kidstamps where you can order (duh) stamps - and bookplates, etc. - by children's authors like Trina and the Dillons.
Hope you are all well and reading something right now.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Phoning it in
First of all, I need to out Erica, because girl, I know you want to keep your book reviews on your own site, but that cogent commentary belongs here, dammit. :-)
So. The feeling I kept having about The Gravedigger's Cottage was "Wow! I like that idea! I wonder where that's going to go?" followed soon after by "Oh -- that was pretty much it, huh." I was excited to find out how Sylvia and Walter were going to be so different, yet so alike. And then... they really weren't so much. I was excited to watch the pet deaths unfold and build, except that they didn't really build, and because they all ended with death and didn't provide any images of the aftermath of death, we never got to really see their impact. Even the mom deaths. So then what we have is this family that's supposedly dealing with some really heavy baggage, and working it out (specially old Dad) in wonderfully weird ways, with neat metaphors (spackle the house to keep the death out! kill the rat and kill the fear!) except that the baggage isn't real enough. It isn't tangible enough. And all that's really there is the wonderful weirdness, which isn't that wonderful because it has all the emotional resonance of a sitcom.
I hate it when stories that are about characters don't take the time to craft their characters. Everyone felt like a character description to me rather than a person. Chris, you know I love you and you're dead sexy, but I wish you'd worked a little harder on this one. Especially since I thought Freewill was kind of brilliant.
So. The feeling I kept having about The Gravedigger's Cottage was "Wow! I like that idea! I wonder where that's going to go?" followed soon after by "Oh -- that was pretty much it, huh." I was excited to find out how Sylvia and Walter were going to be so different, yet so alike. And then... they really weren't so much. I was excited to watch the pet deaths unfold and build, except that they didn't really build, and because they all ended with death and didn't provide any images of the aftermath of death, we never got to really see their impact. Even the mom deaths. So then what we have is this family that's supposedly dealing with some really heavy baggage, and working it out (specially old Dad) in wonderfully weird ways, with neat metaphors (spackle the house to keep the death out! kill the rat and kill the fear!) except that the baggage isn't real enough. It isn't tangible enough. And all that's really there is the wonderful weirdness, which isn't that wonderful because it has all the emotional resonance of a sitcom.
I hate it when stories that are about characters don't take the time to craft their characters. Everyone felt like a character description to me rather than a person. Chris, you know I love you and you're dead sexy, but I wish you'd worked a little harder on this one. Especially since I thought Freewill was kind of brilliant.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Save the Animals!
Was anyone else confused as to WHY Sylvia and Walter kept getting pets when they ended up getting killed, extinguished, etc? The Sierra Club must be notified about this family!
Things I Liked:
+ The wordplay - Walter's clever, lazy radiators = claziators. Hilarious. How he refers to Sylvia as his "insister." I think I could qualify as one of those.
+ The description of the animals' behavior - Lynch did his homework. Fitzy the fox terrier's "high-pitched whine-scream-laugh sound when he tried to get at something that was out of his reach but that he had to, had to, had to get at," is spot on.
+ Walter and Sylvia's relationship. Good banter, etc.
+ Carmine.
Other Things Not So Good:
+ I finished this book thinking I missed something (which made me want to read it again, slowly) but realize it is more of a quiet, internal story focussing on character development rather than plot. What plot there was rotated around the dad, even though Sylvia was the narrator. He was the one who changed, not his kids. Did anyone else see this?
+ I wanted more interaction with the townspeople, too. When Sylvia decided to join Walter at the bonfire, I was happy - all right! Now something is going to happen! Nope, not really.
+ What about the mythos of the cottage? I wanted to explore that further as well. It just seemed like a gimmick to connect the dead pets to the present narrative.
Hmm:
+ Sylvia's narrative style irked me at first, because it has touches of stream-of-consciousness with the repetition within sentences and very short statements. The structure was odd sometimes. After I got used to it, I appreciated how well it placed me in Sylvia's head to see her view of the world.
Like Meera, I was disappointed. I expected more. Was this a therapy book for Lynch?
Things I Liked:
+ The wordplay - Walter's clever, lazy radiators = claziators. Hilarious. How he refers to Sylvia as his "insister." I think I could qualify as one of those.
+ The description of the animals' behavior - Lynch did his homework. Fitzy the fox terrier's "high-pitched whine-scream-laugh sound when he tried to get at something that was out of his reach but that he had to, had to, had to get at," is spot on.
+ Walter and Sylvia's relationship. Good banter, etc.
+ Carmine.
Other Things Not So Good:
+ I finished this book thinking I missed something (which made me want to read it again, slowly) but realize it is more of a quiet, internal story focussing on character development rather than plot. What plot there was rotated around the dad, even though Sylvia was the narrator. He was the one who changed, not his kids. Did anyone else see this?
+ I wanted more interaction with the townspeople, too. When Sylvia decided to join Walter at the bonfire, I was happy - all right! Now something is going to happen! Nope, not really.
+ What about the mythos of the cottage? I wanted to explore that further as well. It just seemed like a gimmick to connect the dead pets to the present narrative.
Hmm:
+ Sylvia's narrative style irked me at first, because it has touches of stream-of-consciousness with the repetition within sentences and very short statements. The structure was odd sometimes. After I got used to it, I appreciated how well it placed me in Sylvia's head to see her view of the world.
Like Meera, I was disappointed. I expected more. Was this a therapy book for Lynch?
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Premature articulations
No, I haven't finished the book yet. But it IS the 15th (I'm right this time!) and there must be some discussion. So I throw the following bone:
Ohmygod doesn't Sylvia remind you of Sarah? She totally reminds me of Sarah. Actually, the way Chris Lynch uses language for Sylvia - not her speaking but her narrating - reminds me of how Sarah uses language for writing. I'm thinking of the passages where she describes her surroundings and the cozy knowledge of her family's quirks. It's both cozy and springy language, if that makes sense.
I'd look for an example but I'm
a) lazy, and
b) not getting graded on this
I am, however, procrastinating, and will now resume my proposal-writing. Hope to have the book finished to REALLY talk about it tomorrow!
Ohmygod doesn't Sylvia remind you of Sarah? She totally reminds me of Sarah. Actually, the way Chris Lynch uses language for Sylvia - not her speaking but her narrating - reminds me of how Sarah uses language for writing. I'm thinking of the passages where she describes her surroundings and the cozy knowledge of her family's quirks. It's both cozy and springy language, if that makes sense.
I'd look for an example but I'm
a) lazy, and
b) not getting graded on this
I am, however, procrastinating, and will now resume my proposal-writing. Hope to have the book finished to REALLY talk about it tomorrow!
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Gorey Tats
q is for quentin who sank in a mire//r is for rhoda consumed by a fire
Originally uploaded by irregulargirl.
She also has one of Max as King of the Wild Things, two Wild Things, a bunch of Shel Silverstein, the Little Prince, and Babar.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Meera and Susan's Boyfriend
A bio & interview of Chris Lynch at Teenreads.com.
I started the book and although I think I like the main character, it is moving rather slow.
I started the book and although I think I like the main character, it is moving rather slow.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Wait! Before we close...
Okay, okay, I finally finished the book. Only two weeks late! I agree with most of the other posts, but as a form of punishment since I am oh so delinquent with deadlines, I won’t comment specifically.
But here’s one thing I’m mulling over: As much as I view Lola and Peter as heroes, and I applaud them for resisting the machine, did they really win? With Lola’s “undeniable urge to live” and Peter’s wanting to take care of Lola, does that mean that the experiment really did work for all five of the orphans? And wouldn’t the doctor and observers know that L&P were getting up to surrender, meaning the conditioning finally broke them? Or were they considered “failures” because they were only doing it for physical reasons, and they lasted that long, and they still hadn’t bought into the control of the machine? I want L&P to be successful, and I want them to be set apart from the other three, but technically speaking, they gave in.
Not that I expect us to discuss this, since we are moving rapidly on to my [shared] boyfriend’s book, but I just wanted to throw it out there for digestion.
Oh, and they must have REALLY stunk when they got out.
But here’s one thing I’m mulling over: As much as I view Lola and Peter as heroes, and I applaud them for resisting the machine, did they really win? With Lola’s “undeniable urge to live” and Peter’s wanting to take care of Lola, does that mean that the experiment really did work for all five of the orphans? And wouldn’t the doctor and observers know that L&P were getting up to surrender, meaning the conditioning finally broke them? Or were they considered “failures” because they were only doing it for physical reasons, and they lasted that long, and they still hadn’t bought into the control of the machine? I want L&P to be successful, and I want them to be set apart from the other three, but technically speaking, they gave in.
Not that I expect us to discuss this, since we are moving rapidly on to my [shared] boyfriend’s book, but I just wanted to throw it out there for digestion.
Oh, and they must have REALLY stunk when they got out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
