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.