Saturday Snapshot: Quasimodo’s View of Paris

I’ve been reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo this week, so naturally I have the cathedral on the brain.  I already shared some photos in a previous Saturday Snapshot, though, so I had to come up with a new angle…like the view.

Notre Dame Views (2)The Seine and the Eiffel Tower, from one of Notre Dame’s towers.  I got lots of pictures of the Eiffel Tower and walked under it–I didn’t go up in it, because I was already planning to get the view from Notre Dame.

Notre Dame Views (3)This may look like a complete muddle of rooftops, but look for the gold statues near the center, with the blue dome behind them.  That’s the Opera Garnier, and what photography doesn’t manage to capture is how gloriously those statues seem to shine, even from a distance, even on a cloudy day.

Notre Dame Views (1)And this is not a view from the towers, but it is on a street a block away…  I wonder what Victor Hugo would think?

Visit West Metro Mommy for more Saturday Snapshots.  Have a great weekend!

Blog Hop: Favorite Genre(s)

book blogger hopThis week’s Book Blogger Hop question: What is your favorite genre? List two of your favorite books in that genre.

Well…I’m pretty sure you all already know the answer to that question!  So to make this more interesting, I’m going to list favorite genreS, and try to find a couple of favorite books in those genres that I may not have mentioned frequently before…

Fantasy: The Blue Girl by Charles de Lint and A Tale of Time City by Diana Wynne Jones

Science Fiction: A Fighting Man of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs and Enchantress from the Stars by Sylvia Engdahl–and also Star Trek: First Frontier by Diane Carey and Dr. James I. Kirkland and Star Wars: The Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn

Historical Fiction: Bloody Jack series by L. A. Meyer and The Mischief of the Mistletoe by Lauren Willig

Classics: Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier and Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

Whew, it’s harder than I expected to think of third and fourth favorite books–I’m so used to going to the top two for this sort of question!

Your turn: what’s your favorite genre and favorite book within it?  Don’t feel obliged to come up with your third favorite if you’d rather just share #1!

Revisiting Fairyland with September

So…we all know that I madly, madly love Catherynne Valente’s Fairyland series, right?  I mean, there was quite a bit of conversation on that subject in the comments section of my RIP launch post.  As per plan, I reread Fairyland 1 and Fairyland 2, for Readers Imbibing Peril and as preparation for the soon-to-be-released Fairyland 3…and it won’t surprise you at all that I madly, madly loved them!!

Girl Who Circumnavigated FairylandBook One, The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making, was my favorite book last year–and I read 182 books in 2012. The only serious competition was from Book Two, The Girl Who Fell Beneath Fairyland and Led the Revels There.  Both books follow the adventures of September, an ordinary girl from Omaha who is swept away to Fairyland.  She encounters wonderful and whimsical magic and makes dear friends–but this is not Baum’s terror-and-tension-free Land of Oz, and September needs courage and heart to survive very real dangers, and solve very real problems.

I already reviewed both books (here and here) the last time I read them, so I’ll try not to repeat myself too much…and I’ll try not to just gush all over the place!

It’s very possible I loved these books more the second time through–which is really pretty amazing, considering.  But I feel like I know the characters even better now, picked up on some little nuances that probably went past me before, and loved the seeds planted in Fairyland 1 to suggest Fairyland 2 and (I think!) the ones in both books suggesting Fairyland 3.

Normally I refer to a book as a “fast read” as a good thing, and a slow book as a negative…but these were slow books in a GOOD way.  Especially in the first one, I found myself stopping practically every page to think “oh, that’s a clever line,” or “what an interesting insight,” or “that’s so TRUE.”  And there are few things I love more than seeing a book express something that I KNOW and FEEL but have never seen explained in quite that way before.

I just opened Fairyland 1 at random (to pages 114 and 115, if you’re curious) and found six different bits I love.  Really.  Lines that are clever or whimsical or touching or insightful or particularly well-phrased.

Fairyland 1 is particularly full of splendid little nuggets of thought or phrase, but Fairyland 2 brings a little more maturity, a little more wisdom.  Nothing too mature, of course!  But September begins to grow up, just a little, and the book reflects that.  It’s a beautifully drawn portrait of a girl beginning to grow towards adulthood–this is not Neverland, where no one ever ages, and even a girl fighting monsters in Fairyland can be prey to the same worries of growing up of everyone else.  She has fears about friends changing and feels often like the only person who doesn’t know her proper path.

Girl Who FellMaybe I love September because she seems to act the way people really would if they were whisked away to Fairyland.  Much as I love the classics, I want to shake Wendy for spending her time in Neverland darning socks, and I just don’t know what to do with Dorothy who wants only to go back to gray Kansas–or the Dorothy of later books who is never the least bit worried or concerned by anything.  September thinks about home, just enough, but she wants to revel in the magic of Fairyland–and when it goes bad, when there are challenges to be faced, she does it with a real understanding of the hazards and the fierce determination necessary to go forward anyway.

The book is very self-aware of its source material in a delightful way.  Little bits of classic novels are given nods here and there, in September’s magic shoes or her visit to a rather mad tea house.  And then there’s a piece where September visits a Questing Physickist, who begins discussing Object Quests, the Laws of Heroics, the Conservation of Princesses Law and E. K. T. (Everyone Knows That) Fields.  It’s brilliant.

Another aspect of the book that I love is the way everyone and everything is a meaningful character–I say “everything” because it applies even to September’s clothing!  Everyone has complexity and history, and seems to be carrying out their own lives that September just happens to be passing through.  I love that depth of characters and of the world.  And even the villains have their secret tragedies, and believe on some level that they are, in fact, the heroes.

I could gush and ramble on some more, about how much I love September’s fierceness and Saturday’s shyness and A-Through-L…well, his whole concept is brilliant, and about the wonderfulness of getting the shadows of characters in the second book to bring a whole different layer to them, or how creepy the Autumn Lands are and how heartbreakingly sad I find Mallow’s story, and how intrigued I am by little hints here and there that I hope will be explored in later books…but perhaps this review is long enough? 🙂

Suffice to say…I love this series.  I really, really, REALLY love this series.  I have the publishing date (October 1) for Fairyland 3 in my calendar, and I cannot WAIT to read The Girl Who Soared Over Fairyland and Cut the Moon in Two.

Author’s Site: http://www.catherynnemvalente.com/

Buy them here:
The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making
The Girl Who Fell Beneath Fairyland and Led the Revels There
The Girl Who Soared Over Fairyland and Cut the Moon in Two

A Long Stretch of Rope

My second movie for “Peril on Screen” for Readers Imbibing Peril was classic Hitchcock, Rope.  The movie opens with a man being strangled.  The two murderers, Brandon and Philip, hide his body in a chest in their apartment, and proceed to host a dinner party they’ve been planning–for the victim’s friends and family.  They serve dinner from the top of the chest, and Brandon cheerfully philosophizes about murder as an art for the superior being.  It’s a bizarre, ghoulish and fascinating movie.

As I would expect from Hitchcock, the movie is carefully and brilliantly handled in so many ways.  Brandon’s psychopathic beliefs about the inferiority and unimportance of David, the victim, is juxtaposed against the clear love of David’s friends and family for him.  A character who is in the movie for about four seconds is nevertheless made incredibly central and vivid for the audience.  Similarly, the action of the movie is mostly those first four seconds.  The rest of the movie is an ordinary dinner party…except!  Hitchcock layers in so many little touches, and little lines with double-meanings and insights that are terribly clever and keep the tension going.

As I’ve said before, I love the subtlety of old movies.  There’s a tiny line where a character is talking about an actor she loves and how sinister he is.  It points up the wide divide between the idea of murder and dark deeds…and the reality.

As the evening progresses, Brandon maintains his superior cool, while Philip begins to unravel–especially when another party guest turns suspicious.  Brandon also invited Rupert Cadell, their former professor and the man who taught them this theory of murder for the superior.  Rupert is played by James Stewart, and if you know good ol’ Jimmy, that may already tell you that the movie won’t end with Rupert congratulating them on their art…

Hitchcock, the lead actors, and THE chest

In some ways my favorite thing about the movie is on the technical side.  The movie is, basically, all one shot.  The camera pans, but it never cuts.  It moves around the apartment and it zooms in for close-ups, but it never blinks from one shot to another.  Technology of the time was not quite up to Hitchcock’s vision–reels weren’t long enough to actually shoot the entire movie in one shot, so he does have to zoom in on backs a couple of times, the screen goes black, and then it pans on, on the next reel.  However, setting that minor point aside, it’s brilliantly done, and so different.

The single-shot style was innovative at its time, and I feel like it’s even more so now, when movies and TV have gone the opposite direction.  Typical average shot length is a few seconds, and I’ve heard it’s been declining in the last few decades (naturally I can’t find an article on the subject right now…)  When that’s what’s typical, it feels very different watching Rope, and I think it adds a lot to the atmosphere.

If you get the DVD, there’s a 30 minute “Making Of” extra feature, “Rope Unleashed.” It opens with a minute or two of quick cuts between different shots in the movie–and after an hour and a half of a steady shot, I found it positively dizzying.

Apart from the technical aspect, I mostly found Brandon’s character to be fascinating, along with the interplay between him and Philip.  From the first moment it’s clear who the power is in the relationship, and I find fascinating the concept of the psychopath and the weaker-willed friend he pulled along.  Rupert’s character is also intriguing, and I’m not sure he was fully explored.  In many ways he’s also very culpable in this murder because he gave Brandon the theory that was then put in practice.  He’s clearly revolted by the actual deed, though, and I’m not sure that tension between his theories and their result, or his weight of guilt, was really got into.  Much as I love Stewart, he may not have been the right one for this role–because he’s good old Jimmy, so he can’t really be responsible in this situation.

All the grim, ghoulish delights of the movie aside, there’s actually some humor in here too, and I would be remiss to not mention David’s aunt and her extended conversation about recent movies and movie stars.  (I kept waiting for a Jimmy Stewart reference!)  She loved Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in that recent movie, “the Something of the Something.  Oh no, that was the other one.  This was just plain Something.” (Possibly Notorious, also Hitchcock.)  Rupert picks it up and with wry seriousness starts talking about when he saw Something Something.

All in all, if you like lots of jumps and screams and blood in your horror, this is not the movie for you.  But if you’re willing to take in a slow, complex character study of a horror movie, I recommend it.

Other reviews:
Canadian Cinephile
Better Than Avatar
The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything
Anyone else?

Buy it here: Rope

What Are You Reading, Spooky September Edition

What Are You Reading SpookyI’ve begun properly plunging into spooky reads for Readers Imbibing Peril, and you can expect the reviews to start multiplying over the next few weeks!  I reread Catherynne Valente’s Fairyland books which I madly love, and collected several more dark and shadowy tales from the library.

I recently finished A Tale Dark and Grimm by Adam Gidwitz, a rather dark and, well, grim retelling of some more obscure Brothers Grimm tales.  Next, I’m midway through Doll Bones by Holly Black, which has been decidedly creepy so far!  I’m also reading a play version of The Phantom of the Opera–not the Webber one, but a different musical.  It was made into the Charles Dance miniseries, but without the songs, so I was curious to see the original script.

And then I have my big intimidating book of the month, The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo.  It’s actually relatively short, compared to Hugo’s Les Miserables…though most books are “short” relative to Les Mis!

Meanwhile on the screen, I’ve been indulging in lots of Hitchcock, continuing the spooky mood!

Have a wonderful weekend–and let me know what you’re reading.  🙂