Friday, September 18, 2015

Science Fiction & Fantasy class essays: Grimm's Fairy Tales

I took an online class on Coursera, Fantasy and Science Fiction: The Human Mind, Our Modern World. Each week we read a different book or some short stories and had to write a short essay. This is the one I wrote after reading Children's and Household Tales, a translation of Grimm's Fairy Tales into English by Lucy Crane with illustrations by Walter Crane. The above link isn't the online version I read but I can't find it because the class is over and I can't access any resources :(
I did okay with this one; I don't remember my classmates giving me too much criticism.


“The Three Spinsters” and “Rumpelstiltskin”
“The Three Spinsters” is a tale much like the better-known “Rumpelstiltskin”. Three women with unusually large body parts (those used most often in spinning) take the place of the eponymous gnome, and they simply spin flax quickly, rather than spinning it into gold. They save the girl twice: from having to spin three rooms’ worth of flax, and from ever having to spin again. The spinsters meet a happier end than Rumpelstiltskin; they are fĂȘted at the new princess’ table as her cherished relations. It struck me how female-centric this version of the surrogate spinner(s) is: the girl’s mother lets her go with the queen who offers her son to the girl (rather than the other way around!) as a prize for spinning the flax which the spinsters save her from. This is a marked contrast to “Rumpelstiltskin”’s sole girl being at the mercy of men--father, king, messenger, and Rumpelstiltskin. The only male in “The Three Spinsters” is the prince-prize the girl marries, who is rude and impertinent, controlled by his mother and duped by his wife and the spinsters. This female-centeredness makes sense, as the story revolves around spinning flax, traditionally a woman’s job (especially unmarried women, hence the modern definition of spinster). The “Spinsters” women are portrayed as softer and more moral than the “Rumpelstiltskin” men: the mother lies from embarrassment rather than pride, and the queen is more merciful, as she doesn’t get angry when no thread is spun after three days and doesn’t threaten the girl with death if she fails her task. The spinsters ask only to be honored as family, rather than for jewelry or the firstborn child. In the end, the mother is freed from her lazy daughter, the queen gets spun thread, the spinsters get honored, and the girl gets her prince and out of spinning forever. Might the moral of the story be that everybody wins when women run the show?

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

More flash book reviews--science fiction & fantasy class

The Island of Doctor Moreau by H.G. Wells (July 8)
A mad doctor moves to an island where he can practice turning animals as human as possible through vivisection without society's censure/interference. This was pretty bananas. I felt bad for the animals and didn't like the narrator either. 3.5/5
I also read most of The Invisible Man but didn't finish it (I've read it before). The theme of Victorian sci fi seems to be "science men are the worst".

A Princess of Mars by Edward Rice Burroughs (July 18)
A sci fi action movie adaptation was made of this a while back, John Carter, and it did not do well. I didn't watch it, but I read a review/article about it where the person (was it Roger Ebert?) said that that was because it felt too "done", too same old same old. A hero ends up in a new land, fights the natives and comes out on top, is lauded as their leader and gets the native princess. Last of the Mohicans, Dances with Wolves, Avatar, etc. But, the writer pointed out, this is because A Princess of Mars was first and influenced all these stories that came after it. It is the first story in this vein, and we are too used to it now. So I read this for my class, and it was entertaining. I can see why it was so popular; ERB knew how to spin a tale (he wrote Tarzan too). John Carter is hilariously perfect at everything, a total Gary Stu. 3.9/5

Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (July 18)
A trio of male dumdums with varying levels of sexism (benevolent, most dissuadable by reason, and Trump Status) find a country that has been populated entirely by women for centuries. The women reproduce asexually and have bred and engineered everything to be as perfect and useful as possible. The main thought I had while reading this book is I WANT TO GO TO THERE. That, and SEXISM RUINS EVERYTHING. Herland is such a utopia and I firmly believe that it reflects how a country run and populated entirely by women would be. I cannot believe I'd never heard of this book before this class! The story ends abruptly with one dude staying in Herland with his wife (benevolent sexism dude) and the others going back to America (reasonable dude with his wife and Trump Status dude because he was exiled forever for Trumping his now-ex wife). There are sequels and I must read them. 4.9/5

The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury (July 24)
Myth and frontier exploration/colonization wrapped up in a Martian sci fi veneer. Lovely but sad and angry-making due to the colonization of Mars by humans. Wonderful book. This was my first Bradbury (shocking, I know). 4.5/5

The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin (late July-early August)
You know how Herland was so great because it showed how good a women-only country would be where men couldn't mess things up? Well, TLHOD approaches the male problem by doing away with gender altogether. No one on the planet of Winter has a sex or gender, only during their mating seasons (they can take either male or female form). An Earth man is on Winter to try to convince the planet to join the space federation of other planets, but there's a lot of cultural barriers to overcome. It honestly made me wish we didn't have genders on this planet either, since we're so liable to exploit and mistreat them and see one as better or more worthy than the other. Lots of fascinating Tao influence as well. I have to read her other books too. Can you believe this is the first LeGuin I've read? 4.8/5

Little Brother by Cory Doctorow (August 9)
Continuing a theme, my first Doctorow. This is actually free on his website as a PDF, which I did not know when I borrowed it from my library. Supersmart hacking teens, terrorism on American soil and the subsequent national fear and stripping away of liberties, government surveillance and oppression, protests and rebellion in response. Good but hit too close to home, as someone who was old enough to remember 9/11 and the period following. 4/5

I wrote short essays for these for my classes and will share them, one by one.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Flash book reviews because I am super behind

Cruel Beauty by Rosamund Hodge (May 10)
Til We Have Faces meets Pandora's Box meets Howl's Moving Castle meets Rose Daughter. I LOVED THIS WOW. 4/5

The Distant Hours by Kate Morton (May 31-June 6)
Thrift store purchase because it had a pretty cover. Gothic novel told through flashbacks, journal entries, letters, etc. set in WWII and present day (1990s). Well-written, atmospheric mystery. Initially sucked me in but in the end I sort of hated it due to the difficult, controlling, messed up family situation and unnecessary deaths. No one in this book gets to have nice things. 3.9/5

Dracula by Bram Stoker (mid June)
I read this for the fantasy & science fiction class I enrolled in from Coursera. I know it's a classic, and upon reading it I can see why, but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. It's surprisingly religious and Mina is pretty awesome, despite how Perfect Victorian Woman she is. 4/5

Nimona by Noelle Stevenson (June 17)
I've been following Noelle Stevenson on Tumblr for years now. This was originally a webcomic, and I had read all but the last chapter or so since I got busy with school and work. It's a sort of steampunk (not Victorian or much steam, just knights who fight with mechanical lances and mad scientists researching magic) graphic novel about a "villain" and his mysterious sidekick trying to overthrow an oppressive government. This was wonderful and I enjoyed it. The feels. 4/5

Here There Be Unicorns by Jane Yolen (June)
This was such a favorite of mine growing up. I used to read it from our public library all the time. I had some credit in my Amazon account so I bought this. It's such a weird experience rereading a book you loved as a child and haven't read since then. It's always much shorter and less impactful, less substantial, in a way. You're a different person who has learned and grown a lot since then so it doesn't affect you like it used to. Still, I have a lot of love for this book. I was kind of amazed that  I loved it that much as a kid, since the stories/poems are pretty advanced and open-ended/vague rather than having happy, tidy endings, and I was a lot less used to sad, philosophical stories back than than I am now. 4/5

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (late June)
I guess I see why this is a classic, as this is the first science fiction novel (written by a teenage girl, so take that, sexist nerd bros who think SF is only for guys), but I kind of hated this. Victor is an idiot, tons of unnecessary deaths, and no one is allowed to have nice things. Just misery. Also, I downloaded a random free ebook from the Nook store because I was feeling too lazy to connect my Nook ereader to my laptop in order to download the version supplied by the instructor of my SF/F class and it had the worst formatting I'd ever seen. Whole paragraphs, pages, were jumbles of letters with symbols. Terrible. 3.5/5

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Jane by April Lindner

Read in early May. *Heavy spoilers*
This book is a modern-day retelling of Jane Eyre, which is one of my favorite books. I'd read about it on some YA blog a while back and made a mental note of it, but I didn't actually get this book until I came across it almost by accident in my favorite thrift store. While it is updated, it stays really close to the book. Recently orphaned Jane drops out of college to work as the nanny for a rock star's daughter. She's hired because she doesn't care about celebrities, but of course she falls in love with Nico the rock star blah blah wife in the attic, you know how it goes. The setting is the US East coast, and everyone who was English is now American, while the 'foreigners' are still p. much the same nationalities. The author said that she was struggling to figure out how to update the class differences (huge in the 19th century, not so much now) until she hit on the fame/celebrity thing.
I initially thought it was weird that this Jane was recently orphaned and had siblings she was estranged from (so she couldn't rely on them when her parents died), but Lindner actually combined Jane's dead parents with her abusive aunt's family, which really makes sense. Jane's brother is the abusive boy cousin, and her sister steps in for the prettier and cossetted yet selfish girl cousins. Her cold and neglectful mother who definitely favors her older two siblings over her and lets her know it all the time is basically the same person as the aunt (like if Lucille Bluth weren't funny at all), while her kind but emotionally distant and always steamrolled by his wife father is the dead uncle. It makes sense to combine the two families in this way, and it kind of makes it more heartrending since it is her own immediate family and not some semi-distant relatives who are obsessed with class and look down on her for living on their charity like in the original. It's worse, and her parents dying kind of keep Jane from being able to resolve these issues with them. The part of the book where Jane goes back to nurse her dying aunt and forgives her is turned into Jane going to visit her sister since her brother's crashing at her place after his ex-girlfriend (whom he also abused) kicks him out, and the sister wants him gone. Jane is able to get some closure re: his being a total psychopathic abuser, but it's not this touching "I forgive you!" stuff, but it makes sense that it wouldn't be. I wish he'd died in a bar brawl or whatever like the cousin in the original too; I didn't really feel like he got a comeuppance or what he deserved. We just saw that he's a pathetic awful mess and will always be that way since all his problems are his own fault and he refuses to see that.
Helen Burns is sidelined as her college roommate and former best friend that moves to Idaho or some such and doesn't really talk to her anymore, which kinda makes sense since pretty much everyone sees the meat of the story being in the Jane x Rochester dynamic, which it is, but her relationship with Helen is one of the most important in her life because it's pretty much the first person to show her real, unconditional love she didn't have to earn. No mention of the favorite teacher, either, from what I remembered. Adele is p. much the same as well. Her mom was a French pop star who took her toddler daughter to nightclubs all the time. Poor thing. I wish they'd let Adele keep her French; as a bilingual kid, keeping my native tongue is so important to me. There's like no French in this book.
The Rivers siblings become the St. John siblings (heh), and they are all pretty much the same. The boy is written like he might have like Aspergers or at least be intensely focused on things like Sherlock from the BBC show, and the sibling dynamic between them all is the same as well ("our brother's a genius with a heart for the poor!!" stop enabling him, sisters). The thing where St. John is attracted to a rich nice girl but refuses to consider dating her because mission work is there too; the only twist is that he doesn't want to get together with her and go with him not because she's so frail she'll probably die of tropical diseases, but because her dad owns some pharmaceutical company and he distrusts where her real loyalties lie. The ridiculously illogical pragmatism is the same. The mission field is in Haiti instead of India, which makes sense, and Jane practices French with him. The "Jane study Hindi with me instead of German" thing is replaced by volunteering at a soup kitchen. The creepy "Jane come be a missionary with me but we have to get married" thing is still there too but it makes even less sense than in the original since no one raises an eyebrow at girls and boys traveling together anymore; St. John's just like "we may as well be a couple since we have the same passions and we'll be working together all the time so it will probably happen anyway, who cares about attraction or chemistry" and it's somehow creepier in modernity.
Nico/Rochester's nonsense is unsurprisingly way creepier and controlling than in the original; what kind of grown-ass fortysomething man playing all these games to manipulate an inexperienced nineteen year old girl, as I kept yelling throughout the book. The playful banter/we're arguing because\but we're in love thing where Jane really just has him in the palm of her hand (I think Mallory referred to this as "topping from the bottom" [sorry, direct quote] but she may have been talking about Pamela instead) is really sadly lost. Apart from her quietly but firmly not letting herself be showered with gifts and jetsetted around the world like a typical rockstar's girlfriend, there's none of that dynamic that makes their relationship be swoony or aspirational at all (not that you should aspire to this kind of relationship omfg please don't). You know what I mean? She has like 1/4th the power she has in the original, so it loses a lot of the fun. The awed gratitude is still there, but the exultation "finally somebody loves me" is not. The "we are mental and spiritual equals, solemates" thing is mostly gone.
The Blanche Ingram character is the same, except she is an Annie Leibovitz type. I don't have much to say about her. That weird racist brownface g*psy thing that Rochester does just turns into a girlfriend of Nico's bandmate's reading Jane's tarot cards, which is less exciting and it's not like Nico had her rig their results. Nico's bandmates (he's a rock star, remember) all have girlfriends who are like models and stuff, and they are nice to and befriend Jane, which I liked.
Bertha is like a Brazilian socialite/model/Nico's wife that Nico got hooked on drugs and he feels guilty since it triggered her schizophrenia which keeps her murderous and violent and she refuses/will only pretend to take her medication and that's why he keeps her locked up in the attic. Nico's "DO YOU KNOW HOW AWFUL THOSE PLACES ARE, JANE???" when she reasonably asks him why he doesn't put Bertha in a mental institution where they actually have the facilities and teams of trained mental health professionals to deal with murderous schizophrenics instead of a perpetually drunk caregiver since this is unnecessarily endangering him, his staff, and HIS FIVE-YEAR OLD DAUGHTER, SERIOUSLY, loses a ton of weight since they don't chain crazies to the wall in damp, rat-infested basements or see mental illness as paramount to being a criminal (much) anymore. The mental illness thing isn't treated much better in the modern version than it is in the nineteenth century version; it's just updated with drugs and modern names.
Jane leaves Nico because he constantly lied to her when she gave him ample chances to tell her the truth, not because she's afraid she'll throw away her morals and live with him in sin as his mistress. This change makes sense since that's not the immoral, life-ruining thing it used to be seen as. I would have been interested to see how Jane's faith was updated and handled. I've always found it interesting that Jane, despite being religiously bullied by fundamentalist extremists at a girls' home, still developed a spiritual life that was important to her, in large part due to the important relationships she built up with her best friend and favorite teacher, both spiritual, loving people. Since both of those relationships were excised from the modern retelling, it makes sense that Jane's spirituality was too.
Here is the thing that bothered me most: you know after Thornfield Hall being set on fire and Rochester being maimed/blinded trying to save Bertha who jumps off the building and dies, then when Jane learns about this she immediately goes back to him? Well, instead of being penitent and repenting of his asshattish behavior, Nico is all "YOU LEFT ME JANE!!! HOW COULD YOU!!! I WAS IN AGONY WORRYING ABOUT YOU!!!" and Jane is all ":((( that was so wrong of me I'm so sorry my love!" PUKE. F that S. SHE LEFT HIM BECAUSE HE LIED TO AND MANIPULATED HER! THAT'S ON HIM! As Peggy says in Agent Carter, "You don't get to use my reaction to your behaviour as an excuse for your behaviour!" Nico/Rochester does not see the error of his ways or realize that what happened was because of him and his behavior and repent. He does not become humbled, only embittered. He doesn't go through this mental and behavioral change and develop a character and becomes the kind of man Jane deserves. This is the book/relationship's main redeeming quality. I am disappointed in this book because it's the most important part and it did not happen.
OH, ALSO, some mysterious relative does not die and leave Jane with a fortune of her own, which is the most important thing, relationships aside, that happens to Jane in the book. This is undoubtedly because then she'd have to share it with her awful siblings, but at the very least the worthless stocks her parents left her could have suddenly started increasing in value. I mean in the modern retelling Jane sleeps with Nico/Rochester, but she doesn't become rich and she doesn't discover she has nice family relations and no one gets the comeuppance/character change they deserve/need, so what's the point?

Pros/things I liked about this book, Jane the modern Jane Eyre
faithful adaptation that dealt with the different factors in interesting ways
Jane is befriended by Nico's bandmates' model/actress girlfriends, which is nice
Jane and Nico sleep together, if you're into that. I guess it is realistic for our time but I was just like meh

Cons/things I did not like about this adaptation
lol everything outlined above
no comeuppance for those who deserved it
Jane didn't feel as Jane-ish as she should have
relationship dynamic not the same
Jane's spiritual life/outlook, which is an important part of her and the way she sees things, is excised from the book
3.5 out of 5 stars

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Book Reviews

Yes Please by Amy Poehler (early March)
Loved this. Loved that she put old pictures in this. Love her. 4/5

Texts From Jane Eyre by Mallory Ortberg (late March)
Mallory is a genius and her website is one of my favorites on all the Internet. These are hilarious. 5/5

Hark! A Vagrant by Kate Beaton (early April)
I'd seen most of the comics since I follow her blog religiously. Love them and her. 5/5

Lunatics by Dave Barry and Alan Zweibel (mid April)
I grew up reading Dave Barry and he shaped my sense of humor. This book (definitely for adults) was pretty funny but not the most memorable or recommended. If you like either of those authors and stories where every mistake and happenstance builds and intersects and the stakes keep getting higher and higher, then you will enjoy this. I found this at the dollar store and don't regret buying it, but I'm going to give it away since I just have so many books and limited shelf space. 3/5

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Book reviews: mostly fantasy

I have so many books, you guys. I'm not keeping any of the books below (except for the ebook obvs).

The Secret of Platform 13, by Eva Ibbotson (late February)
This was a cute fantasy story in the vein of Roald Dahl etc. If you've read other books by her then you'd know what to expect (I don't think I have, but the name is familiar to me). The title doesn't have much to do with the story, but I liked it and the characters. I gave it to my dad to give to our local thrift store, but I'm not sure that he has yet. 4 out of 5 stars

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood (March 1. Yes, it took me less than one day to read)
AAAAAAAUUUGHGHHGHGHHHHHHHH
They need to teach this book in schools, alongside Brave New World and 1984. Are they??? Why aren't they??? This is like if the Quiverfull movement took over the US. Everything I'd read about it was like "It's still relevant for our times" but I WASN'T PREPARED FOR HOW RELEVANT IT IS. READ THIS BOOK. ATWOOD IS A GENIUS. 4/5 stars simply because it kind of f*cked me up

Briar Rose by Jane Yolen (March 1) *SOME SPOILERS*
This book is a fairytale retelling (my favorite genre) of Sleeping Beauty obviously, but in the Holocaust. The protagonist realizes that her late beloved grandmother's version of the Sleeping Beauty tale she told her growing up was actually a clue to her mysterious past. Lots of promise since I kind of like mysteries. JY is a giant in the fairytale retelling/fantasy genre so I knew it would be good as well as sad due to the setting, but in the end I didn't really like this. The protagonist is college-aged (19-21, I don't remember) but the way she and the book is written, she feels much younger. And there's a shoehorned romance kind of thing with her boss who is like 35? Nope. Plus, while we established that her grandma was Briar Rose in a concentration camp, we never found out who she really was (amnesia due to the gas from the chambers). 3/5 stars

Warriors #1: Into the Wild by Erin Hunter (first half of March)
This is the first in one of those multibook multiseries for elementary/middle school kids that are basically the only way to write/publish books nowadays. It was a free ebook and I didn't expect to like it as much as I did. It's your basic "everyman kid joins a new clan/army/order/fightclub/whatever and while there's suspicion about this outsider, he's accepted, both grudgingly and not. Then he discovers a political plot or The Truth about what they've been told all their lives or w/e and has to save his new home/people and he's The One" but with cats who live in clans in the forest. The political intrigue was actually pretty great, as was the worldbuilding (I can't believe I'm writing this about a book about wild cats). The made-up vocabulary (these books always have new words and dialects etc.) wasn't that corny at all, from what I remember. I actually want to read the rest of them to find out what happens. They're both familiar and refreshing. Recommended for yo' kids (and you obvs if you roll like me). 4/5 stars

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Duolingo errors, part one

I use the Duolingo app for iPad and I love it a lot. In the video I made using the Educreations iPad app, I use some errors in quiz questions as a springboard for discussing Spanish and English, linguistics, grammar, definitions, dialects, vocabulary, and more.

The volume is a bit soft and gets muffled by rustling noises in parts, but this is the first time I've used Educreations and the first time recording a whiteboard video with it. Also, where it sounds like I said "betting" or "bet", I'm actually saying "vetting" or "vet". (Ironically, Mexican Spanish confuses/interchanges the B and V sounds. I've lost my accent decades ago but I have a very soft voice.) My next video will be better.