30-Day Book Challenge: Day 30

Finally, this challenge is over! I admit I've enjoyed this, but I'm glad that I'm finally done with this.

Day 30: the Best Book You've Read in the Past Year

I admit that I haven't been very productive in book-reading this year--at least, not productive by my standards. It could be because my English class was primarily composition and not reading.
    That said, I have read a total of four very good books (and some others that haven't been very good): The Road, Jane Eyre, A Raisin in the Sun, and Notre-Dame de Paris - 1482. The Road is my favorite of the
four.
    I have already blogged twice about this book and why I like it, but I don't think I've gone into detail about who got me introduced to the book.
    It was one of my aunts. My mom is the youngest of seven children (it happens when one is Catholic), and her oldest sister Pat suggested this book to me over the summer when she came to visit from Kenya. (Pat is a nun and spends the majority of the year, sometimes the entire year, working in Kenya.)
    I don't think Pat told me much about the book in terms of plot, but she said something to the effect of "I think you'd enjoy it." Always eager to read something new, I bought the book from Barnes & Noble and read it in about three days.
    When I made time to read The Road, I always sped through several pages at a rate that surprised even me. I just did not want to put it down because it was so wonderful and so well-written.
    The Road is the only Cormac McCarthy book I've read, but I think he has a very distinctive style. He doesn't divide the book into chapters, which can make you lose your place easily if you're not careful. He also doesn't use quotation marks in the dialogue, which I think is really interesting. I think the style really helped distinguish the book as better than the other futuristic-setting books that I've read. Props to McCarthy for that!
    Not only is The Road the best book I've read in the past year; it's also one of the best I've ever read. I know I've said this at least twice, but go get it now! You won't regret it!

30-Day Book Challenge: Day 29

Day 29: a Book That You're Reading Now

To be specific, it's a Life with God Catholic Bible. I'm not sure when it was published, but it must be a fairly recent edition since I got it in 2010.

    I received this as a Confirmation present in May 2010. I read a chapter or two here and there, but I didn't get serious about reading it until this year. I decided for Lent that I would read a chapter every day of the week and two on Sundays, and I've kept it up since Easter.

    Today's Bible chapter for me is going to be Deuteronomy 21, so I still have a loooong way to go. I have absolutely no clue when I'll be finished with it, but I am enjoying the journey. Maybe if I'm not done by the start of next year's Lent I'll up it to two Monday through Saturday and three on Sunday. I don't know, but I'm glad that I'm finally reading this book.

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.