30-Day Book Challenge: Day 28

Day 28: Least-favorite Required School Read

This really sucks because it was a case of bad book and bad timing.

     I am trying to make myself believe that I understand and respect George Orwell's intentions for this story, which I read my sophomore year of high school, but thus far I have not convinced myself of that.

    This was probably the biggest struggle for me in terms of actually reading a book from cover to cover. I just did not enjoy it at all. I couldn't for the life of me get into the story. I don't think my English teacher made it any worse, but he certainly didn't make it any better.

    The biggest reason for my loathing of this book is because I liked only one character: the horse Boxer. I could not care less what happened to the other animals; I just wanted Boxer to be okay.

    I felt so attached to Boxer because he reminded me of a dog, whom I'll call "Rover" here (although that wasn't his real name), that my family and I had at the time. "Rover" was a golden retriever. We got him when he was three or four months old. He had previously been adopted to a different home, and my family and I had reason to think he was abused. He was terrified of hardwood floors and doorways.

    Boxer reminded me so much of "Rover" because they both had the same demeanor as gentle giants. "Rover" was probably a good ninety pounds, but he was the most gentle dog I've ever known. He was sweet, warm, and very loving.

    Unfortunately, we had to put "Rover" to sleep at about the same time my English class started Animal Farm. One day he was fine. At midnight the following day, he threw up and my parents took him to the vet. At 3:30 A.M., my mom woke me up to tell me that "Rover" had widespread cancer and that they were going to euthanize him. At about 5 or 6 A.M., he was gone. It happened that quickly. It was the first time I could remember seeing my dad cry. Just writing about this is making me cry.

    I can't remember exactly when my class read the chapter in which Boxer is taken to the slaughterhouse in relation to "Rover's" euthanizing, but it was fairly soon after. I remember that as we were reviewing the chapter in class, my teacher jokingly remarked that we all probably cried when Boxer died. I, of course, thought, Yes. I actually did.

    Animal Farm is definitely my least-favorite required school reading--not because of the book itself, but because it was too painful to read about Boxer's death so soon after my dog was euthanized. I don't ever want to read that stupid book again.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 27

Day 27: Favorite Required School Read

Boy, do I feel sorry for the copy I have; I vandalized it to no end.
    But it was a good kind of vandalism! I promise! I was highlighting important passages!
    Seriously, though, I absolutely love this book. I read it during my freshman year of high school, and I loved it from the start. I liked Scout and really liked Atticus, and the whole story was so brilliantly written. It's hard to believe that this is Harper Lee's only book.
    Unlike most other books I read my freshman year, there wasn't a huge assignment we had to do in regards to the book. We did have to write a literary analysis paper, but my teacher gave us multiple options for our paper's subject, and I ended up getting a 94 on it. (I had the same English teacher my senior year, and she is probably the harshest grader I've had thus far, so a 94 is quite an achievement.)
    This book was also unique because we actually got to watch its movie adaptation. (I believe it was the only time we saw a movie that was a direct adaptation of a book.) I really with I could say I liked the movie, but I didn't. It was okay, but it wasn't a good adaptation at all. Gregory Peck, of course, was amazing, but the movie left out so much amazing stuff from the book, and it really disappointed me.
    I mainly picked To Kill a Mockingbird as my favorite required reading because it was the first time that a required book was both challenging and enjoyable to me. I think it's partly because of my teacher and partly because of Harper Lee's style. I'd recommend this book to anyone.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 26

Day 26: Favorite Book Made into a Bad Movie

O God. Do NOT get me started on James Whale's adaptation. It is tied with the animated The Return of the King (1980) for not only the worst book-to-movie adaptation I've ever seen, but the worst movie of all-time.
    James Whale's 1931 movie was atrocious at best and pure torture at worst. The movie couldn't even get the title character's name right! The character is Victor Frankenstein, not Henry Frankenstein.
    And it all goes downhill from there.
    Frankenstein created the unnamed monster on his own. There was no hunchbacked assistant named Fritz or Igor or however you want to call him. He did not utter "It's alive!" when his monster was brought to life. In fact, Victor felt no joy, excitement, or euphoria whatsoever. He felt some sadness and some fear. As I mentioned earlier, his wife is killed. In the movie, he gets married and lives happily ever after.
    Now for the worst thing, the thing that made me want to go back in time and murder James Whale: the monster himself.
    There is a night-and-day difference between the book and the movie. In the book, because Frankenstein works on his own, he actually gives his creation a good brain. The creation is extremely intelligent and philosophical; in fact, I'd say he has a better brain than his creator. He lives on his own in the wild and does what he can to avoid people, not terrorize them.
    In the movie, it's a whole other story. Fritz unintentionally gets a bad brain for the creation. Therefore the creation walks like a zombie, and his vocabulary consists of two or three grunts. He terrorizes people rather than avoiding them.
    That really angers me more than anything else. When I read the book I found myself caring more for the creation than for his cowardly creator. The creation is truly pitiful because no one wants him. Everyone, including Frankenstein himself, judges the creation because of his size, and they flee before they can realize that he is a capable, kindhearted individual. But that isn't the case at all in the movie. The creation is just your typical cookie-cutter horror creature, and that is the most unforgivable offense.
    Frankenstein is my favorite book to be made into a bad movie. James Whale's 1931 adaptation was no adaptation in my book. If you can't even get the main character's name right, something is terribly wrong here. So read the book. Don't see this atrocity of a movie.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 25

Day 25: Favorite Book Made into a Good Movie

Normally, I would not post the same book two days in a row, but I really don't think I could pick anything else. I think I said in an earlier post that this trilogy is the only time in which I have preferred the movies to the books.

    Pretty much every time I see a movie adaptation of a book, I end up disappointed, sometimes even angry. I almost think of myself as a Book Hitler; I am a tyrannical purist. Even if a tiny detail, such as a character's eye color, is different in the movie, I get a feeling of "THE DIRECTOR MUST DIE." 

    But I didn't feel that at all with the Lord of the Rings movies. I know that a lot of purists did not like the movies, and I can respect that feeling, but for once I do not agree.

    I am actually glad that the movies did not show the Tom Bombadil scene. As much as I love Tolkien's trilogy, I still find plenty of flaws in it. One thing is the Tom Bombadil scene. Call me crazy, but I do not understand the point of that chapter. There isn't any significant plot or character development from that chapter, and Bombadil doesn't appear afterwards.

    I am also glad that the movies did not have the Scouring of the Shire scene. While I understand why Tolkien included that chapter, from a plot perspective it is unnecessary. I don't think it's fair that the Hobbits have to save their home after going through so many trials to save the world. They've already been through so much; why make them go through even more?

    I also think that the pacing in the movies is much better than the pacing in the books. While I respect and generally enjoy Tolkien's attention to so much detail, in many cases it really makes the reading tedious. The chapter "Flight to the Ford" in particular bothers me. It feels like Aragorn & Company take their sweet time getting to Rivendell. It's like they're all going for a casual stroll. There is almost no sense of urgency to get Frodo the treatment he needs. The thing about that chapter that bothers me more than anything else is ... wait for it ... Frodo talks. And it's very casual dialogue. The whole time I read the chapter I think, "No! This isn't right! You're supposed to be in utter agony and gravely ill!" Ugh. It just bothers me.

    Now that my rant's over, I'll praise the pacing of the movies. Things generally happen more quickly, and there was substantial improvement for "The Council of Elrond" and "Flight to the Ford." In the edition I have of the books, "The Council of Elrond" is nearly forty pages long. Peter Jackson managed to condense those pages into a scene that was under ten minutes long. (Well done, Jackson. Well done.) And "Flight to the Ford" might be the most-improved pacing in the trilogy. Aragorn & Company are practically sprinting to Rivendell. Urgency is practically the only mood of the whole scene. Arwen finds them within two or three days, and the best part is ... wait for it again ... Frodo is actually suffering. He does not speak. You can really feel his pitiful state. He is clearly in agony and clearly feverish. Now that's more like it!

    So the trilogy is definitely my best book to be adapted into a good movie. My all-time favorite books have become my all-time favorite movies. Life is good.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 24

I feel like a bad blogger. I haven't posted anything since last Tuesday. It's not my own will, I swear! I haven't had Internet access since last Tuesday. But it's back, and I will be diligent about the final week of the challenge.

Day 24: a Book in Which You'd Like to Be a Character

Big shocker, right?
    And when I say "be a character," I don't mean "be a character Tolkien created." No, I've created three Lord of the Rings characters for myself. Yes, three. Yes, I do have a life (I think).
    So ... these three alter egos. They are (in order of conception) a Hobbit named Laurel Brandybuck, an Elf named Galadhwen, and a human named Nidmaras.
    I will not elaborate that much on any of these characters, but I do have fairly elaborate character stories for them. I'll go in reverse order of conception.
    Nidmaras, a woman of Rohan, is the daughter of a man of Rohan and a woman of Gondor. She has an older brother who instructs her in the warrior way. When Saruman possesses Théoden, Nidmaras' father and brother are both banished, and her mother, fearing for Nidmaras' safety, sends her to go with Gandalf. Nidmaras, like my other alter egos, joins the Fellowship of the Ring. She joins Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli on their quest after the Fellowship breaks. Nidmaras has been Éowyn's lifelong best friend and has had a secret crush on Éomer for the longest time. She finally tells Éomer her feelings to learn that Éomer, too, loves her. They marry.
    Galadhwen (which is apparently the Elvish version of Laura) is the only child of two Elves of Rivendell. Her father, a skilled warrior, teaches her the warrior way. Her mother, a prominent healer, instructs her in healing. She joins Gandalf on the quest of the Lonely Mountain. During that journey, Bilbo saves her life. Because of that, Galadhwen feels a need to care for Bilbo and anyone living with him as she would a close relative. She makes frequent visits to the Shire and comes to love Frodo as a son. Galadhwen takes him to Rivendell following his wounding on Weathertop and assists Elrond as he treats the wound. She, like Nidmaras, joins Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli when the Fellowship breaks up. For a reason that I cannot explain, I have decided that she marries Elrond's son Elladan. The two later sail to the Undying Lands.
    Laurel is the twin sister of Meriadoc Brandybuck and the daughter of Saradoc Brandybuck and Esmeralda Took. Once Frodo moves in with Bilbo, she and Frodo quickly become best friends. After much coaxing from others, the two become a couple. She stays by his side throughout the quest, coming to find that she loves him even more as he suffers. They, of course, marry.
    So ... yeah, I would absolutely pick to live in Middle-Earth. No, that's not a huge shock. In fact, that is probably quite obvious, but I really don't care. I love Middle-Earth. So sue me.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 23

I will be on vacation tomorrow, and I know that I will not have Internet access until Sunday. This means, of course, that the challenge will be delayed. I am sorry, but it is unavoidable.

Day 23: a Book That People Hate, but You Love

I absolutely understand why people hate this book. I used to hate it myself.

    I first read this in English class my sophomore year of high school. It was one of those class assignments. My sophomore-year English teacher was definitely my worst English teacher. I just felt uncomfortable in his class, and he very quietly sucked away a lot of the fun of reading. So when we were reading this book, I was ready for it to be over.

    But I gave it a second chance over the following summer. After all, I knew that I liked one character, at least. Maybe the second reading would be better. And it was. I suddenly found myself really enjoying it. This was a really good book, I told myself. English class just killed it.

    Like I said earlier, though, I absolutely get it when people say they didn't like Lord of the Flies. If you don't like any of the characters, you're screwed. Also, the entirely male cast of characters, I'm sure, can be an instant turn-off for many female readers. The lack of girls still bothers me, even though I now like the book.

    Really, the big reason I like the book so much is Simon. In English class, Simon was the one reason I actually read the book. He was the only character I liked. Ralph was too arrogant. Jack was just a jerk, and Piggy was annoying. (I liked Piggy at first, but the more he talked, the whinier he seemed.) When Simon died, I was in utter disbelief. "No, William Golding. There is no way you just killed Simon." 

    But when it sunk in, I wasn't angry; I was just desperate. "Quick! I must find a new character to like!" I suddenly found myself caring about Ralph, and that was enough to finish the book.

    So if you don't like Lord of the Flies, I understand. You can keep disliking it if you want; I'm okay with that. I just happen to like the book now that I've given it a second chance.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 22

Day 22: Book That People Love, but You Hate

In this book's defense, almost no one I know has read it.
    It isn't as strong as "they love, but I hate." It's "they like, but I am disappointed."
    I really expected more from this book. It is a classic horror tale. It started the pop-culture obsession with vampires. (True vampires. Not Meyer's "vampires.") It's like, "Everything I know about vampires I learned from Dracula."
    But as I read the book, I came to a shocking realization: I was bored.
    There was no horror to this horror story. I think Bram Stoker's writing is to blame, not the plot, because Dracula had the potential to be a really good, scary read. After all, the titular vampire can do pretty much anything to make sure he gets blood.
    But it wasn't scary at all. Dracula was almost never involved in the main plot, and when he was his attacks were not terrifying or disturbing in any way. I feel like the attacks were over-described, and whatever terror could have come from reading of the attacks was sucked away. No pun intended.
    The problem with Stoker's writing is that he rambles way too easily and becomes too preoccupied with the unimportant details. My biggest issue by far was the flowery dialogue. It seemed that no character could talk to or about the main female character, Mina Myers, without spitting out a least half a dozen flowery descriptive adjectives about her. "Oh, it's lovely, clever, sweet, devoting, perfect little Mina. Let's say how lovely, clever, sweet, devoting, and perfect she is every time we talk about her."
    Okay. So that was an exaggeration. But I do know that pretty much every man talks about how clever Mina is, and I don't know why. I feel like her little revelations were not extremely clever. I feel like anyone could have thought of what she thought of.
    I do not know specifically why the people I know who like Dracula like it, but we definitely do not see eye to eye about the book. I feel like the book had potential to be a really good story, but Stoker's writing made the plot dull and uninteresting. Maybe the book's just dated. Maybe his writing style was good and appropriate for the time. Who knows?

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 21

Day 21: Book That You Used to Love but Now Hate

Error. The book you requested cannot be found.

    Seriously, this has never happened to me. 99.9 percent of the time, my initial feelings of a finished book remain the same. The remaining 0.1 percent happens when I like a book that I previously did not like.

    I have never liked a book and later disliked it. Such a concept seems so ... foreign ... to me.

    I suppose that I could put the Harry Potter series in this post, but it's not the same feeling as "I loved it, but now I hate it." It's more like "I loved it, but now I feel indifferent about it."

    Really, my decreasing fanhood of J.K. Rowling's series doesn't have anything to do with a simple change in taste. I blame the media for sucking away so much of my fanhood.

    Probably the entire period of time between Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 was spent with the media releasing nothing but Harry Potter this and Harry Potter that. It was the same case in the Facebook community. I swear I've never seen so many Potter-related statuses in such a short period of time.

    Sooner or later I just came to think Enough already! The series isn't THAT good! Because it isn't. The books are really good (in fact, among my favorites), but the movies are generally meh. David Yates, who directed the final four movies, screwed up really badly on two of them (HPAT Order of the Phoenix and HPAT Half-Blood Prince). The movies are nowhere near as good as the books, but people could not stop talking about the movies. I was sick to death of hearing about it. I still am!

    So for the above reasons, I now feel fairly indifferent about the Harry Potter books. However, I definitely do not hate them. I cannot think of any book that I once loved and now hate.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 20

Day 20: Book That You Pretended to Have Read

Confession time: I only got about halfway through this book before giving up on it.

    As something of a Charles Dickens fan, I felt obliged to read David Copperfield, which is apparently Dickens' favorite of all his works. I'm not completely sure about this, but I think David Copperfield is also the most autobiographical Dickens book.

    I gave this book more of a chance than it deserved. I read more than 400 pages of this 729-page epic. (At least, the copy I have, the Barnes & Noble Classics release, has that many.) But then I stopped.

    Why are you reading this? I told myself. You are not enjoying this stupid book at all. Stop reading it! Stop torturing yourself! So I did.

    If any of you reading this post like the book, I'm sorry, but I just felt nothing as I was attempting to read it.

    I don't necessarily think the title character is sympathetic, but I don't think he's unsympathetic either. I don't like that all the women (except Copperfield's stepfather's sister) are exactly the same, and I don't understand why Copperfield hates Uriah Heep so much.

    I think the clone-like personalities of the women bothered more than anything else. My copy of the book includes this quote from Radhika Jones: "Even Dickens's admirers admit that his female characters tend disturbingly toward either saccharine angels or poisonous shrews," and that is absolutely the case with David Copperfield. Only Copperfield's stepfather's sister is in the latter category. Every other woman I encountered fell into the former category, and it really pissed me off.

    All the women were these sweet, well-mannered, perfect little angels whom everybody loved and doted on. And I, the reader, was rolling my eyes throughout. Maybe this was appropriate for the time, but I think it isn't right at all to portray women as sweet, innocent, delicate little girls. It makes feminists everywhere beg for mercy.

    Beyond that, I felt that the book (or what I read of it) had no interesting plot developments. Everything about Copperfield's life was so mundane and flat that I lost interest almost instantly. I think the only reason I battled through so much of the book was because of a vain hope that something interesting would happen. Sadly, that never came to pass.

    I keep saying that I have read David Copperfield, but that is a lie. I read more than half the book, but I didn't finish it because I got absolutely nothing out of it. It was the dullest crap I've ever tried to read, and I am something of a Dickens fan.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 19

Day 19: "Important Book" That You Know You'll Never Read

Call me nuts, but a story about a pedophile and a twelve-year-old girl does not sound appealing.

    I swear this book has appeared on every single "books to read before you die" list I've ever seen. Why? Someone tell me why!

    I know what the book is about. I know about this freak Humbert Humbert who marries Lolita's mother just so that he can be near Lolita. To make matters worse, he decides to try and molest her, but she (who isn't even a virgin) instigates the sex herself. That's gross! That's just plain wrong!
    Maybe people who have read this Russian book (which, like every Russian book ever published, has a tragic ending) find some kind of symbolic importance or something in Lolita. I can't imagine what it is, though. It just seems like a completely immoral story about a pedophile who takes unfair advantage over a not-so-innocent girl.
    I will never read this book out of my own will. My morals just won't allow it. I would never be able to read the book with a clear conscience, whether it's for school or not. Lolita is nowhere on my Books to Read list.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 18

Day 18: an "Important" Book You'll Read Someday

I cannot believe I haven't read this book. What is wrong with me?!

    Oh yeah. I've had to read so many books for school that I haven't had the time to read Beloved. Also, there are so many books I own that I have yet to read, so it could be awhile before I read this book.

    It's not like I don't have any experience with Toni Morrison, though. I read The Bluest Eye for that AP English class that I ended up not taking. So I am a little acquainted with her writing style.

    I feel as though I read literally one or two pages of Beloved a few years ago, but I don't remember anything I read, except that I came across the f-word in the two-word sentence "F***ing cows." I do know the basic plot of the book, however. I know it's a post-Civil War setting, and the main character is a free slave who has a dead unnamed child; the child's grave is simply marked "Beloved." That's pretty much all I know of the book, but it's enough to make me interested.

    However, I guess I am a little hesitant to read the book because I didn't really enjoy The Bluest Eye. I think Morrison is a very gifted writer, and she told the story beautifully. However, I thought the book was just too sad. There is also a very disturbing scene involving a dog, and I think Morrison described that scene a little too vividly; I felt the same way in another scene involving a cat. I think I can respect the story, but I really don't want to read The Bluest Eye again. For that reason, I'm a little apprehensive about reading Beloved.

    I have my reasons for wanting to wait a bit before reading Beloved, but the book is definitely on my To Read list. I like to think I'd enjoy it, but I'm not so sure. If the story is anything like that of The Bluest Eye, I don't think I would like Beloved.

Something to Keep in Mind

Welcome to the longest blog post you will ever read.
    With the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 fewer than twenty-four hours away, I suppose that I, like everyone else, should say something about the series.
    Unfortunately for you die-hard fans, this post will not be in favor of Harry Potter. There will be no sentimental schmaltz.
    While I am still a fan of the series, I am extremely indifferent to the release of the final Harry Potter movie. I just don't care anymore because I'm sick and tired of Harry Potter this and Harry Potter that.
    No, this will be about the great Lord of the Rings trilogy, which is clearly superior to the Harry Potter series in almost every aspect.
    I have thus far conceived fifty-seven reasons why the trilogy directed by Peter Jackson is superior to the series directed by four different people. No, I will not give all fifty-seven reasons. I will condense it as much as I can.

Part I: Frodo Baggins vs. Harry Potter

There is no contest here. Frodo is a much better hero.

    For starters, Frodo is more humble and, unlike Harry, does not attempt to seek attention. He does not talk about his accomplishments, let alone boast and brag about them (although in Harry's defense, neither does he ... that often). Also, Frodo never speaks about his sufferings. When he returns to the Shire, he does not say what he experienced, and no one asks him what he experienced. In fact, I'd say that it is probably too painful for Frodo to recall everything that happened to him.

    Because there is not a lot of damning evidence, I hesitate to call Harry arrogant. That said, I feel like Harry sometimes enjoys that he is the Chosen One. He seems to enjoy the attention he gets from women. He doesn't love being the Chosen One all the time, but his occasional indulgences make him a lot less humble than Frodo. Also, I feel like Harry adores calling attention to himself. "Hey guys! I saw Voldemort return! Listen to me as I tell you my tale of woe for the dozenth time!" It's really annoying. It's like he's trying to be a prophet, but he's failing miserably at it.

    Frodo and Harry are similar in that once they make up their mind, they usually don't change their decision. However, Frodo is definitely open-minded whereas Harry is single-minded. This is because Frodo actually listens to people when they give him advice. You can tell that he values others' input, and sometimes he will change his mind.

    Harry, though, is stubborn. He is very impulsive, and many of his decisions are illogical. If one of his friends (usually Hermione) gives him very good logical advice, Harry almost never follows such advice. In fact, I wonder whether he even hears it. I don't even know how many times I have wanted to slap Harry in the face for his single-mindedness.

    Then there's the relationship between Frodo and Sam compared to the relationship between Harry and Ron. Frodo would never take Sam for granted and would never deliberately hurt Sam's feelings. Frodo does occasionally become angry with Sam, but Frodo very quickly regrets his words and gives a warm, sincere apology.

    It's a different story with Harry and Ron. Harry blows up at Ron all the time, and I don't think Harry ever regrets his words, let alone apologizes. Harry even blows up at Ron after Ron comes to his defense! In one scene in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Ron defends Harry after Seamus Finnigan doubts Harry's woeful tale about Voldemort. Afterwards, Ron asks Harry if he's all right; Harry says he's fine. Ron then starts talking about what an idiot Seamus is. Then out of nowhere, Harry shouts, "I said I'm fine, Ron!" Geez, Harry. Where's the "thank you"? And you later complain that no one believes you? Hmm...

    Finally, Frodo undoubtedly has a stronger will than Harry. Something tells me that if Harry were entrusted to bear the Ring to Mordor, Harry would succumb to its power in seconds. After all, he bears the locket Horcrux for only a few days, but he is in a fowl mood the whole time. It's almost like something is possessing him. Hmm...

    Then there are the dreams. I suppose the human mind is more vulnerable to possession when one is asleep, as both Frodo and Harry are tortured in their sleep. (In the book The Return of the King, Tolkien mentions that once in Mordor Frodo has terrible dreams every night.) Whereas Harry practically becomes evil after one dream (although that corruption does not happen most of the time), Frodo awakens no closer to corruption than he was when he fell asleep.

    Now to talk about Frodo's will. Whether people want to believe it or not, Frodo has an iron will. For example, there's the wounding at Weathertop. Any man would succumb to the evil of a Morgul-knife in moments, but Frodo fights it for seventeen days. And here's something more impressive: Frodo is unconscious for two and one-half of those days. Also, while any man (except Aragorn) is instantly tempted to claim the Ring for himself, Frodo bears the Ring for months before he finally succumbs to its power. And he succumbs in the place that would have the most evil power: the Cracks of Doom, where the Ring was forged. Plus, Frodo fights constant torment during those months. The Ring literally grows heavier with every step. In Mordor Frodo can no longer recall any happy aspect of his old life. By the time he and Sam reach Mount Doom, the Ring is so heavy that the chain is drawing blood, and it takes all of Frodo's strength to crawl a few yards. But still he fights the Ring's power. Still he remains on the good side.

    Who would you rather have as your hero?

Part II: Samwise Gamgee vs. Ronald Weasley

Oh my goodness. Sam. Sam all the way.

    Where, oh where, should I start? Sam is optimistic, loyal, and encouraging. Ron is ... well, Ron is none of the above.

    Call me nuts, but I think Ron is a complete ass. I feel like more often than not, Ron has no interest in helping Harry and that Ron is only claiming to be Harry's friend for name value.

    Let me compare Sam's loyalty with Ron's "loyalty."

    Frodo suffers every conceivable torment. He suffers a terrible shoulder wound that cannot fully heal. After Frodo receives treatment for the wound, the wound causes him to suffer excruciating agony twice; the wound pains him on the anniversary of the attack as well. Then he suffers a spider sting that leaves him comatose for hours and that also cannot fully heal. (Look in the appendixes. Frodo is ill on the anniversary of that attack as well.) Then his finger is bitten off. And in the intervals between those wounds, Frodo suffers the relentless torment of Sauron. Yet Sam is with him the whole time. They are separated for a period of time, but it is not because of Sam's will, and they are only separated for about a day.

    Harry's sufferings are nothing compared to Frodo's. He is enchanted with the Cruciatus curse once. His scar bothers him regularly, and that's about it. Yet Ron leaves him for weeks. Why? Because Ron is frustrated that he, Harry, and Hermione are not finding and Horcruxes. Can anyone say "ridiculous"? Oh, never mind. I just did.

    In addition, Sam would rather die than say a bad word about Frodo. In fact, he comes to Frodo's defense on a regular basis. He gives Faramir what-for twice; both times Faramir is intent on getting the Ring from Frodo and Frodo is in a state of terrible distress. (Faramir is the reason the first time, but not the second.) Also, Sam gives Gollum what-for plenty of times, and it is a delight to watch. It is just classic Samwise Gamgee.

    Ron? Well, there's the instant I mentioned in the Frodo vs. Harry section, but that's pretty much the only time he comes to Harry's defense. And Ron says plenty of mean things to Harry. When Harry's name is drawn from the Goblet of Fire, Ron is absolutely convinced that Harry, desperate for "eternal glory," got an older student to put his name into the goblet. Harry and Ron then do not speak to each other for months, and for once I am on Harry's side.

    Who would you rather have as a friend?

Part III: Gandalf vs. Albus Dumbledore

I am not going to rip Dumbledore apart because I actually like him, but I still prefer Gandalf.

    I think that Gandalf has a little more dimension to his personality than Dumbledore does. To be specific, Gandalf has a fiery warrior temperament that you don't really see in Dumbledore. Also, I feel like Dumbledore doesn't really get frustrated, but Gandalf does, which makes Gandalf seem a lot more human.

    I also feel like Gandalf is a better advice-giver than Dumbledore. Dumbledore gives very good, very insightful advice, but I think he can be too cryptic at times. I understand his reasons for speaking in riddles, but I think that such a habit can be a huge barrier. Gandalf, on the other hand, is not as cryptic, and his advice is every bit as good as Dumbledore's, if not better.

    Now for the fun stuff: magic. The great thing about Gandalf is that he does not need magic to kick butt. In fact, Gandalf rarely uses magic. Something tells me that Dumbledore would be virtually powerless without his wand.

    Speaking of which, let's compare Gandalf's staff to Dumbledore's wand. Gandalf's staff is superior because it can be used as a weapon without using magic. Hello? He beats a man unconscious with his staff! How epic is that?!

    I will end this argument with a story from MyLifeIsAverage.com: "Today, I asked my friend who would win in a fight between Gandalf and Dumbledore. Being a massive Harry Potter fan, I told her I thought Dumbledore would win and was therefore confused when she didn't agree and said Gandalf instead. When I asked her why she merely replied, 'Who survived the fall?' Touché."

Part IV: Sauron vs. Voldemort

Sorry. Sauron is superior.

    I say this because he never regains physical form, yet he can inflict so much chaos and destruction.

    Sauron is an eye. An EYE. Yet he knows what every enemy nation on Middle-Earth is doing. He holds dominion over much of the world. He tells Saruman what his next course of action should be. Then there's the Ring (which I'll get to later), which corrupts any man except Aragorn.

    Please don't accuse me of calling Voldemort a pathetic excuse for a villain. I'm not saying that at all. Once he returns to human form, he is extremely strong and formidable. Once he's in human form. Before that, he has practically no power whatsoever. Until he rises again in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Voldemort is just a fragile ghost of a body who holds dominion over virtually no one. He cannot even control his Death Eaters until he regains human form.

    Voldemort, however, does have Sauron beaten in one area outside the story: Twitter. I'm not sure whether there's a Twitter account for Sauron, but there is for Voldemort. Whoever created that account posts brilliant sarcastic one-liners on a regular basis. So congrats, Voldy. You actually can beat Sauron in one area.

    Sauron still beats Voldemort because he can cause all kinds of problems as an eye.

Part V: The Ring vs. Horcruxes

Yep. The Ring is definitely superior.

    Before you get all huffy and say "BUT THERE ARE SEVEN HORCRUXES AND ONLY ONE RING!!" let me defend myself.

    First, there is only one way to destroy the Ring, but there are numerous options for getting rid of Horcruxes. Two examples are basilisk venom and Fiendfyre. The Killing Curse probably works, too.

    Second, I believe Harry only destroys one Horcrux, unless one count Voldemort separately. Harry destroys the diary. Dumbledore destroys the ring of Gaunt. Ron destroys the locket. Crabbe destroys the tiara. Neville kills Nagini. Hermione destroys the cup, and Voldemort gets rid of Harry's scar.

    Third, the Ring is a lot more powerful. This is because the Ring holds Sauron's entire soul, not just a fragment of it. This also means that the Ring is more desperate to not get destroyed, so the Ring will resort to much stronger measures to ensure that it is not destroyed.

    The Ring is much more dangerous than the Horcruxes. There is only one way to get rid of it, and it is much more likely to corrupt. Also, the Ring causes much more torment to those who do not fall under its power.

Part VI: Battle of the Casts

I'll take the men and women of Middle-Earth, please.

    There is no contest: The cast of The Lord of the Rings is clearly superior.

    Ian McKellen was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring. The Screen Actors Guild nominated the cast for Outstanding Performance by the Cast of a Theatrical Motion Picture for all three films, and the cast one that award for The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King. In short, the award companies loved the cast.

    The cast of Harry Potter has no such honors.

    Now for personal opinion. I love every single actor and actress of The Lord of the Rings. They all turned in the performances of a lifetime, especially Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, and Sean Astin. They were all amazing. Ian McKellen was robbed of that Oscar win, as was Elijah Wood. Come on, Oscars people. Where's your common sense?

    The cast of Harry Potter, on the other hand? Eh. Of the three leads, Emma Watson is the only one who is really good. I think many supporting actors are very good, but Emma Watson definitely gave the best performance. Daniel Radcliffe is mediocre at best. His emotions feel scripted to me, not real. There's also no chemistry at all between him and Bonnie Wright. Rupert Grint is just bad. There is nothing there at all.

    The Middle-Earth cast clearly dominates over the Hogwarts cast in every way. No exceptions.

Part VII: the Battle of the Academy Awards

Clearly, the trilogy dominates!

    The three films won a total of seventeen Academy Awards. The Fellowship of the Ring won four. The Two Towers won two, and The Return of the King is in a three-way tie for the most Oscars ever won by a movie: eleven.

    In addition, there were 13 nominations that were not awarded: nine for The Fellowship of the Ring and four for The Two Towers. Two of those thirteen were for Best Picture, and frankly, those two should have been awarded.

    What about Harry Potter, you ask? Not even close. The films thus far have not won any Academy Awards, and there have been only nine nominations. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone had three. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban had two. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire had one. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince had one. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 had two. So the seven films so far have fewer overall nominations than awards for The Return of the King alone.

    The Academy has spoken. The trilogy is superior.

This concludes my session. I know I have a lot of haters now, but this is how I feel. Yes, I wrote this all in one sitting. That is how dedicated I am.

The Lord of the Rings > Harry Potter. End of story.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 17

Day 17: "Important" Book That You Have Read

Boy, did I have a fun time picking this one.

    Because of all my high-school English classes, I feel like I have read many "important" books: The Great Gatsby, Brave New World, Animal Farm, and so on. I decided to pick The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because it is an "important" book that I actually enjoyed.

    I suppose I should be bothered by the generous use of the n-word; after all, it seems that pretty much every parent in the United States is against this book for that very reason. However, I am not joining that bandwagon. I own the Barnes & Noble Classics edition of Huckleberry Finn, and I do not remember who wrote the introduction, but whoever wrote it believes that the n-word was meant to be affectionate, not derogatory. I think I agree with that sentiment.

    Also, Jim's dialect was not confusing to me, as it would likely be to many high-school students. Not most, but many. I think it helps that my copy of the book includes footnotes, and while most of Jim's words do not have footnotes, the most bizarre words do have them. (Eg. "gwayne" = "going.") The dialect actually excited me. It was the first time I ever read something with such out-there-different dialect, and the challenge was very stimulating.

    I actually read this book two years before my classmates did. It was required reading for junior-year English, which was American literature. However, I decided to read the book early in my freshman year for an English project. (I definitely got more out of the book for the junior-year reading.)

    If you're wondering why I decided to read the book as a freshman, I can answer that question. It's my Elijah Wood fanhood again. I learned when I was probably in middle school that Elijah Wood had the titular role in Disney's The Adventures of Huck Finn when he was twelve. 

    My junior-year English class ended up watching that same movie. I'm still not sure what to think of it. It was a fairly unfaithful Disney-fied adaptation that got rid of any racist dialogue, and Jim's dialect was not the Minstrel-show type written by Mark Twain; Jim talked normally. On the other hand, twelve-year-old Elijah Wood was an absolute delight to watch. His eyes were every bit as astounding then, and his acting was still very impressive.

    I like to think I have read a fair number of "important" books, but The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of my favorite "important" ones, so I opted to showcase my interest in that book today. So there.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 16

Day 16: Best Book Cover

Sorry that this image is so small. This is the closest I could come to finding the cover of the copy I have.

    Notre-Dame de Paris is another of my favorite books. It took me a good while to gain interest, but once I did I could not put the book down.

    This book is probably one of the most popular for movie makers. I feel like pretty much every studio, including Disney, has adapted it. While I have not seen any adaptations, I feel like no movie can match the book in power.

    I mainly like this cover image because the image is very powerful. This is a visual interpretation of the scene in which Quasimodo truly meets La Esmeralda for the first time. He is being punished for a crime (although I do not remember the accusation) by being tied to a revolving platform. I do not remember all the specifics of the scene, but Quasimodo is in effect being publicly tortured. After awhile he cries out for water, and when no one makes a move La Esmeralda comes up to the platform and gives him water.

    I will not give away any spoilers this time. I do not want anyone reading the book to feel the same pain as I did. One day I was browsing the site Failbook.com, and out of nowhere I saw a post that revealed the ending of Notre-Dame de Paris. I was in denial for a while, but then I got really upset. So if you're reading this book, I will not make you feel the same shock as I felt. Enjoy the book.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 15

Day 15: Book That You Wish More People Would Read

Seriously. If you have not read this book, you HAVE to. Now. Go to the nearest bookstore and buy it. Don't even bother reading the rest of this post. Go out there and get this book!

    I posted this book earlier under the "book that made you cry" category. While it did not actually make me cry (no book has), I felt constant sadness and worry throughout.

*CAUTION: DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU PLAN TO READ THIS BOOK. THIS POST WILL CONTAIN MANY SPOILERS.*

    This book is set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Most of civilization as we know it has been completely obliterated in what appears to have been some kind of explosion. Almost all remaining land is a barren wasteland covered in ash and grime.

    In the middle of all this darkness, a father and son struggle for survival, relying on their love for each other as their will to live another day.

    If any of you have not read this book are still reading this post, I will warn you now: The Road is not for all tastes. It is one of the darkest books I have ever read, and there are some genuinely disturbing scenes. If you are a sensitive reader, I would not recommend this book to you.

    The father and son, whose names are not given, are not the only survivors. In their quest for a safe place to live, they come across a few survivors who are also fighting for their lives. Only problem is that most of these survivors are people whom the father considers "the bad guys." These are people who would not hesitate to kill or steal others' food. In some cases, they eat the people they kill. (I do not believe any cannibalistic scenes are described in the book, but I am not completely sure.)

    The true power of The Road comes from the relationship between the father and the son. The father's chief concern is his son's welfare, and he grows frustrated with himself if he feels that he cannot meet his son's needs. The father is also very slow to trust and quick to despair. That is when the son comes in. The son reminds his father all the time that they are the good guys, that they will never be the bad guys. The father's and son's different perspectives balance out very nicely, and you can tell that neither one thinks they would be able to survive without the other. The father would certainly lose all the will to live if his son were to die.

*CAUTION: THERE IS A MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD. DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY READING THIS BOOK OR INTEND TO READ IT.*

    As I read The Road, I was sure that one of our two heroes was going to die, although I really did not want either one to die. It would break my heart if the father died, but it would break my heart even more if the son died.

    The father seems to have some kind of illness, although it is unclear what his illness is. It could very well be that he is reacting to all the smoke and ash in the air around him. He has a terrible cough throughout the book; some nights towards the end he stays awake for hours, coughing up blood. In the book's final dozen or so pages, he tells his son that he will not be alive much longer. The son begs his father to stay alive, but the father just knows that he will die soon. The two go to sleep for the night, and when the son wakes up, his father is dead.

    Nothing bad happens to the son, though. A few hours after his father dies, he runs into another family. If I remember, it is a mother, a father, and one or two children. The new father convinces the son that they are good guys, and the son joins them.

    The Road is one of the best books I have ever read. Although I know a few adults who have read it, I am sure that most of my peers have never read The Road or even heard of it. I really think more people should read this book; it is extremely powerful: dark and hopeful at the same time.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 14

Day 14: Non-textbook from Which You Learned the Most

This should not be a huge surprise.

    It's impossible to read this book and say you didn't learn anything.

    You learn to live life to the fullest with whatever time you have. You learn to tell everyone you love them. You learn to never judge and to listen fully when people talk to you.

    I think I have learned more about life from the late Morrie Schwartz than I have from most of my elders. He had reason to be angry, having been diagnosed with such a terrible illness as Lou Gehrig's disease. But he was not angry. He was not bitter. He was loving and doing what he could to make the most of his limited time left on Earth.

     He does say that a little bitterness is okay from time to time: "Grieve and mourn for yourself not once or twice, but again and again." At the same time, he does not believe in living all of one's life consumed with self-pity: "After you have wept and grieved for your physical losses, cherish the functions and the life you have left."

    I have learned more about Tuesdays with Morrie than I have from any other textbook. Sure, I didn't learn anything academic, but I did learn about life, about family, and about love.

    There are plenty of invaluable sayings from Morrie Schwartz, but if I typed them all, it could be the longest post I've ever done. So I will end this post with this quote: "It's not to late to . . . ask yourself if you really are the person, you want to be, and if not, who you want to be."

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 13

I am going on vacation tomorrow. I do not know whether or not I'll have Internet access. Because of this, I may be forced to adjourn this challenge for a few days. I apologize for any inconvenience.

Day 13: Book That You Wish Had a Sequel

Look! It's another book from a British author!
    I thought of posting Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, but I haven't read that book in about four years, so I don't remember much about it. I picked Jane Eyre because I read that book less than a year ago, and I actually like it.
    While Jane Eyre isn't quite in my Favorites list, I like the book because I like the titular character. She is not the typical sweet, subservient, angelic woman that you find in 1800s literature (*cough* Charles Dickens *cough*). She is strong and independent. While I think she made some very questionable decisions, I think Jane is a refreshing break from your stereotypical literary woman.
    The main reason this book isn't in my Favorites list is Mr. Rochester, whom Jane marries. I find nothing appealing about Mr. Rochester. He is manipulative, self-serving, and childish. Oh, and he is neglectful. He had an arranged marriage with a Caribbean woman who was mentally ill, although he was not aware of her illness until he met her. His solution? He keeps her locked away in a small attic room, and he does not tell anyone that he is married. In short, Mr. Rochester is a complete a**hole, and I just don't get what Jane sees in him.
    Jane and Mr. Rochester do not marry until the book's final chapter. Jane had not seen him in months, and he lost his vision in a house fire that his wife started. (His wife died in the fire.) They meet again and find that they are madly in love with each other, so they marry.
    Mainly, I wish Jane Eyre had a sequel so I could know how Jane's marriage to Mr. Rochester works out. Part of me is very cynical and thinks it will never last because of Rochester's personality, but more than anything else I am just curious. Do they have a family? Do they move to a different house? Does one of them have an affair? I just want to know what happens next.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 12

Day 12: Book You'd Like to Read Again for the First Time

O, to discover that magic again...

    I could not have been older than seven or eight when my parents read this book to my sister and me. It must have made some good impression on me because I remember telling one of the riddles around a bonfire when I was a rising fourth-grader.

    Which riddle was it? No-legs lay on one-leg, two-legs sat near on three-legs, four-legs got some. No, I will not reveal the solution to those of you who have not read the book. Unfortunately, though, I do not recall whether those who heard the riddle around the bonfire were able to solve it.

    This book will always be high on my favorites list. It is very near to my heart. After all, The Hobbit, published in 1937, is the one that started it all. 1937. Seventy-four years ago. Seventy-four years later, it remains a beloved classic that parents everywhere want to read to their children.

    I would love to read this book again for the first time. I would love to rediscover the magic. To meet Gandalf again. To become reacquainted with Gollum. To be reintroduced to Tolkien's poetic writing.

    I especially want to re-read this book for the first time because I was so young when I was introduced. I really do not remember anything about The Hobbit being read to me, and I wish I did. I wish I knew what seven-or-eight-year-old me was thinking as she heard the writing of one of the greatest all-time novelists.

    Man. I must be feeling sentimental or something today. Sorry if you gagged from all the schmaltzy writing, but I would just love to read The Hobbit again for the first time.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 11

Day 11: Favorite Book from a Foreign Country

Well, looky here. We have another obvious selection!

    I'm just going to say it here: I love British authors. Almost all of my favorite books come from British authors. J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Dickens, Mary Shelley ... the list goes on and on.

    A lot of my favorite musicians are British as well, and some British schools are legendary (Oxford, Cambridge and the like). This leads me to conclude that there must be something magical about Great Britain.

    I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about why I love this trilogy. I already elaborated on Day 1 of this challenge.

    In fairness, I probably should have selected something different. But I would have felt terrible if I had picked something different. These are my favorite books of all time; they just happen to not be from my native country. If I was British, I would pick something American - To Kill a Mockingbird, maybe, or something by Mark Twain. But I am American, so I am picking something British. So sue me.

    I will end this by saying something related to J.R.R. Tolkien. A trip to Oxford is on my bucket list. For one thing, I'd just love to go to the Oxford University campus and maybe see a classroom in which Tolkien taught. I have also heard that Tolkien and C.S. Lewis used to go a pub in Oxford on a regular basis, although I do not remember the pub's name. I'd go to that pub just to be there. And, of course, I would visit Tolkien's grave, which is also in Oxford.

    I will REALLY end this by giving you your fun fact of the day. Tolkien, who died in 1973, was buried with his wife Edith, who died in 1971. Their graves are marked Beren and Lúthien, who are both characters of Tolkien's work.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 10

Day 10: "Guilty Pleasure" Book

Yes, I like these books.

    I'm a fantasy snob. I am addicted to The Lord of the Rings. I like Harry Potter, but not nearly as much as I used to. I love The Hobbit. I am also a sci-fi fan, having seen all six Star Wars movies. (The original trilogy is clearly superior to the most recent one.) 

    I, of all people, should be screaming "COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!" on this saga. Christopher Paolini should be my Public Enemy #2 (below Stephanie Meyer). I should take one look at these books and feel like burning them. (And I am opposed to any book burning.)

    But none of the above sentiments are true.

    I already feel guilty enough liking these books (although I have yet to read Brisingr), and I do not want to feel guiltier still by describing the plot. So I won't. But I will say that there is one similarity after another between this series (called the Inheritance cycle) and The Lord of the Rings. Other Star Wars fans also detect similarities between Star Wars and Inheritance. I can spot a few, but the resemblance isn't quite as obvious.

    Yes, there are a lot of similarities. Too many, almost everyone argues. You have your warrior Elves. You have your Orc-like Urgals. You have your warrior Dwarves. You even have your Nazgûl-like Ra'zac! No wonder everyone is crying foul on Paolini!

    Yet I like the books! I, a true Ringer who almost knows more about The Lord of the Rings than about American history, like the books! Something's not right here. I don't know what it is, but something definitely isn't right.

    Eragon and Eldest, the two Inheritance books I have read in their entirety, are my guilty pleasures. I almost feel like I'm reading something illegal when I read them because there are so many parallels between those books and The Lord of the Rings.  But I like the books, and I am (somewhat) ashamed to say so.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 9

To any Americans reading this: Happy Independence Day! Our great country is now 235 years old! To any Brits reading this ... well, this is awkward. But I'm glad we are now on good terms with each other.
    Now back to the challenge.

Day 09: Scariest Book You've Read

I'll admit I've only read two horror books, and they're both from the 1800s. Dracula is the other. I thought Frankenstein was a lot better, both for narrative purposes and horror purposes.
    You should absolutely read this book if you haven't. It is one of my favorites! It really takes advantage of mankind's fascination with death, and Frankenstein's unnamed creation is more sympathetic than monstrous.

*CAUTION: IF YOU PLAN ON READING THIS BOOK, DO NOT READ FURTHER. THERE ARE SPOILERS AHEAD.*

    Frankenstein is the real monster here. He believes that by creating his monster, he can triumph over God and death. Also, he is absolutely terrible to his creation. The creation, who is very pacifistic, asks Frankenstein to make his wife, promising that he and his wife will go into hiding and never cause trouble again. Frankenstein promises to do so, but he never does.
    Character development aside, the book is still very chilling. There was one scene in particular that genuinely disturbed me.
    Upon learning that Frankenstein has no intention of building a wife, the creation approaches Frankenstein and warns him that he (the creation) will be present on Frankenstein's wedding-night. Frankenstein marries but does not see the creation during the ceremony. He and his wife Elizabeth go together to a hotel, and while Frankenstein is in a separate room, he hears a scream. He comes back to the bedroom to find Elizabeth dead. The creation is nowhere to be seen.
    Frankenstein is the scariest book I've ever read--not that I have a lot of horror-book experience. The subject matter is very dark, and there are some well-written, genuinely disturbing scenes.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 8

Day 08: Book That Made You Laugh

I wasn't sure whether I could use this one and get away with it. But then I realized that Bill Watterson's commentary made this book more than just your typical collection of comics.

    Bill Watterson, I believe, retired in 1994, so I would not have been old enough to read when Calvin and Hobbes was removed from the newspaper. My parents introduced me to the strip when I was older, and while I haven't read every strip ever published, Calvin and Hobbes has easily become my all-time favorite comic strip.

    I love this comic so much because the strips are consistently laugh-out-loud funny, but Watterson also has an amazing ability to work serious issues into his work. You see Watterson's both funny and serious side in his commentary to The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book, as well as the occasional edge of brilliant sarcasm.

    I prefer Hobbes' personality over Calvin's, but I really like and care about both titular characters. I love that Calvin is for the most part an adult's mind in a child's body, but Calvin also acts very childish at times. I love Hobbes' unique, very realistic animal perspective, as well as his semi-enthused feelings about some of Calvin's ideas for new antics.

    Calvin and Hobbes is such a great comic strip because of its broad spectrum of humor and seriousness, and Watterson's own commentary and perspective in The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book make the strip all the more enjoyable. I laughed out loud at virtually every page in this book that Calvin and Hobbes enthusiasts should all read.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 7

Starting tomorrow, I will no longer have introductory paragraphs for this challenge unless I am posting on a holiday.

Day 07: Book That Made You Cry

I've gotta be honest; I don't think I have ever cried while reading a book. I just don't get emotional that easily. But some books have made me feel sadness and/or heartache throughout, and The Road is one of said books.

    If you haven't read The Road, you should. Now.

    If you have read this book, you will probably understand why I picked it. You might even understand why if you've seen the 2009 movie adaptation starring Viggo Mortensen. (However, I have not seen the movie and have no idea how faithful it is to the book.)

    I probably read this book in less than a week. I was hooked from the beginning, and I really did not want to put it down, although I had to because some parts were just so sad. It was too much to take in all at once sometimes, but I think that really speaks well of the author, Cormac McCarthy. I knew almost instantly that I liked both of the main characters, and my heart ached terribly for them and their situation. (I will describe the plot in a later post.)

    The Road is probably the second-saddest book I've ever read, The Grapes of Wrath being the saddest. While I did not cry while reading The Road, I felt a knot in my chest pretty much the whole time. It is so tragic, but the emotion is so real, and I definitely had tears in my eyes during a very tragic event towards the end. (If you've read the book, you'll know the event.) I'm really fond of this book, even with all the sadness.

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 6

Happy July, my readers! I hope your summer/winter is going nicely.

Day 06: Book You've Read More Than Once

This is a REALLY good book.

    I first became acquainted with this book when I was in fourth or fifth grade. My school's librarian would introduce us students to new books by reading them to us. We'd only meet once a week, and she did not get very far into this book, but I was very interested in it.

    Crispin: the Cross of Lead, for those of you who may not have heard of it, is set in medieval times. The book begins during the burial of the titular character's mother. Crispin, a thirteen-year-old peasant boy who is known as "Asta's son," is then accused of a crime that he didn't commit. Before he fleas the village, the village's priest informs Crispin of his name and gives Crispin his mother's lead cross. While trying to find food, Crispin meets a traveling performer. The two end up traveling together, and Crispin learns the truth of his past.

    I probably read the book in its entirety when I was in sixth grade. I pretty much devoured it because it was so good. I later learned that the book's author, Avi, had written a sequel entitled Crispin: at the Edge of the World. I'm sorry to report that the sequel wasn't nearly as good, and the sequel's ending really angered me.

    I have read Crispin: the Cross of Lead multiple times, and even though I am now an adult, I still enjoy reading it. I recommend it to anyone ten and older; it is an interesting, well-told story.