book tags

Fantasy Cover Art Trends Scavenger Hunt


This was inspired by a post on Thoughts on Fantasy that examined contemporary trends in fantasy cover art. So I decided to devise a scavenger hunt of sorts to see how many of these art samples I could find on my own shelves. Enjoy – and feel free to try this out for yourself! 🙂

Boats

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C.S. Lewis – This was the first title to come to mind while hunting for a boat-themed cover. It doesn’t more nautical-themed than this!

Bows & Arrows

Fire Arrow by Edith Pattou – When I saw this category, I instantly recalled seeing this book on my shelves. It’s a perfect fit.

Castles & Citadels

Tree of Ages
by Sara C. Roethle
– This isn’t the flashiest cover but it’s pleasant to look at.

Damsels (in distress)

The Princess Bride by William Goldman – This cover is what came to mind when I saw the phrase “damsel in distress.” 😀

Damsels (no distress)

Truthwitch by Susan Dennard – I don’t think the central figure here is showing any signs of being in distress. 😀

Darkness

Three Dark Crowns
by Kendare Blake – The solid black background (which has a brushed texture in person) makes the three crowns pop.

Dragons

Secrets of the Dragon Sanctuary by Brandon Mull – This was yet another cover that instantly came to my mind for this category.

Elves/Fae

Elfhunter by C.S. Mark – Again, this cover is nothing fancy but it showcases the lead character well and it’s a classy, clean design.

Glowy Magic

A Clockwork Princess by Cassandra Clare – I had several covers that could have fit here, but this one I felt was the most glowy. 😀

Guns

Bloodrush
by Ben Galley – I was surprised to see guns among the list of common fantasy cover images, but I was equally surprised to find a book that actually fit!

Headshots

Firelight by Sophie Jordan – Again, I had several fantasy covers featuring headshots, but I think this one is the most striking thanks to the scale details on the side of the model’s face.

Hobbits/Dwarves/Ogres/Goblins

The Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks – This was the only fantasy cover I could find among my books that featured at least one of these beings. It’s clearly an oldie but it’s passable art.

Hooded Figures

The Guardian Wars by Nicole R. Pramik – Yes, this is shameless self-promotion! 🙂 But I did elect for a hooded figure as the design for my final novel in The Guardian trilogy as it ties into my main character, Alex Croft.

Horses

The Eye of the World by Robert Jordan – I never thought of horses as being common fantasy cover images, but I found several covers on my shelves that – sure enough – featured horses. So I guess it’s true. 😀

Maps

The Emerald Atlas by John Stephens – This was the last cover I tried to find as I was having a hard time finding any covers among my shelves that sported maps. Finally, I stumbled upon this one and, much to my surprise, it features a map!

Smoke/Fog/Mist

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by J.K. Rowling – This is one of my favorite covers in general, but I think it makes good use of smoke to create an aura of mystery.

Staffs/Wands

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
– When I think of wands in fantasy books, I, of course, go straight to Harry Potter.

Swords/Blades

Throne of Glass by Sarah J. Maas – This cover’s image is impressive and it certainly fits the sword/blades bill; I only wished the story had been more interesting.

Tattoos

The Hundredth Queen by Emily R. King – This was another category I struggled to find anything on my fantasy shelf that fit. Finally, I noticed the gilded henna design here on the model’s hands and felt that it counted.

Unicorns

The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle – This was the first book that came to my mind when I saw this category. A perfect fit indeed!

Wolves

The Deeds of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon – Much like horses, I never really associated wolves with fantasy book cover art. But, lo and behold, I found a book on my shelf that showcased wolves (or wolf-like creatures, at least).

Zeppelins/Dirigibles

Curtsies & Conspiracies by Gail Carriger – Technically, I think these images fit better with steampunk, a genre that sometimes crosses into or utilizes elements from fantasy. While most of my steampunk selections don’t showcase airships on their covers, I found this one that does so in a subtle, classy way.

 

 

Advertisements
Media

A Funny “Gotham” Tidbit


I have long since stopped watching Fox’s Batman origin television series “Gotham,” giving up on it way back in the first half of its second season. But I did recently see this article on Comic Book Resources that showcased some memes inspired by the show.

Turns out this meme below, which I originally created, was showcased in their piece (it’s listed at number five, entitled “Where’s the Griddle?”):

Excerpt from the article: This meme imagines a scene where Bruce and Alfred become estranged before they reunite. Bruce then admits to him that he needs his old butler back because he already forgot how to butter two pieces of bread, put cheese between them, and set it on a griddle to cook.

How cool is that? I’m famous! Well, kind of. 🙂

 

 

Books & Reading · Story & Characters

My Top Five Favorite Villains

[SPOILER ALERT: There may be unintentional spoilers though I’ve done my best to minimize discussing major plot points – but be aware nevertheless.]

mean ruthless bad villain
Heroes are what most stories are about, but one character who can make or break a story for me is the villain. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a story is only as good as its villain. When you think about it, the villain is the chief threat for the hero. If the villain is weak, then there isn’t much for the hero to do and the story suffers. But if the villain is strong and a nearly equal match for the hero, then the story will likely be rife with drama and tension. Thus, most of my favorite stories usually contain a very memorable baddie. So for this post, I’m going to explore my top five favorite villains from print fiction (but who may have since been adapted to film or television).

tenmen_charTen Men McCracken
#5 – The Ten Men (The Mysterious Benedict Society trilogy by Trenton Lee Stewart)
Appearance: These gents win the award for Best Dressed on this list. Always donning expensive suits, accessories, and cologne, the Ten Men opt for a classy look as one of their assets is the ability to pose as common businessmen. They’re almost always outfitted with a briefcase containing assorted weapons (crafted from office supplies) and don shock watches to electrocute victims. While a few of the Ten Men’s physical attributes are isolated, it’s McCracken, the head Ten Man, who gets the most attention. He’s the leader and for good reason as his size and strength are often emphasized. (After all, any guy who is described as “a huge man with shoulders like bedside tables” better be leader, right?)

Backstory: In book one, The Mysterious Benedict Society, we see the early origins of the Ten Men as Recruiters, men hired by Ledropatha Curtain to “recruit” (i.e. kidnap) children and bring them to his Institute. Hinting at their later incarnation as the Ten Men, Recruiters wear suits, shock watches, and go overboard with the cologne. Their eventual disbanding and renaming as the Ten Men comes from the fact that they have ten ways to inflict harm.

Why They’re Bad: The Ten Men are in the employ of the nefarious Mr. Curtain, who pays them handsomely. In fact, the Ten Men follow him solely for a paycheck and because they enjoy destroying things and hurting people. On that note, Mr. Curtain often brings McCracken in to help plan some of his schemes and McCracken seems willing to lend aid but delivers a good dose of sarcasm, implying he doesn’t strive for the same aims as his employer. McCracken also displays a certain ability of foresight as, on many occasions, he can predict the moves of the “enemy” before nary a move is made. Thus, these gents are clever, ruthless, and cunning though they don’t react well to the element of surprise as they’re more methodological in their approach.

Good Points: Their negative qualities double as positives: they’re intelligent; good at reading people; capable trackers; can see through ruses, misdirection, and lies; and hold their own in a fight.

Why I Like Them: The Ten Men are classic henchmen figures but they’re not stupid and approach their line of “work” with a calm, casual air combined with a polished exterior. This gives them a sinister quality that, in some respects, is more frightening than Mr. Curtain’s presence since they pose more of an overt, physical danger to the lead characters. Also, the fact they don’t use guns and knives – in favor of killer pencils and exploding calculators – softens their image to make them suitable for kids while still being formidable.

Pitch art from booksPitch from Book
 #4 – Pitch (The Guardians of Childhood by William Joyce)
Appearance:
Pitch is a shadow-covered figure who is human in form yet technically not Human. The book’s illustrations often depict Pitch as having dark, flyaway hair and donning shadowy armor and/or garments. He’s tall and lithe, much like the way a shadow exaggerates a person’s shape, and he carries himself with a noble air.

Backstory: Pitch’s real name is Kozmotis Pitchiner and he was originally from the constellation Orion, so he’s otherworldly yet Human in appearance. In the past, Pitch served as a commander of celestial armies that fought against the Dream Pirates, insidious beings that brought nightmares to life. Pitch battled these nefarious foes until they got the better of him. Realizing Pitch’s family was his heart’s weakness, the Dream Pirates schemed to kill Pitch’s wife and daughter. Before their assault, Pitch’s daughter sneaks aboard a star boat and sails away to safety. In the meantime, her mother sacrifices herself by devising a ruse so the Dream Pirates believe both she and her child have died; and though Lady Pitchiner does not survive, she knows her daughter is safe. Satisfied, the Pirates brag to Pitch of their victory, resulting in their immediate execution by his hand. Pitch then vows revenge and stations himself as the sole guard of a prison where shadowy nightmare beings called Fearlings are held. In time, Pitch is deceived and, in a moment of weakness, becomes possessed by the same dark forces he hates.

Why He’s Bad: Pitch is the Nightmare King who commands a vast array of dark beings and is capable of performing magic to deceive and trick his “enemies.” While I absolutely love the film The Rise of the Guardians, its version of Pitch is decidedly less dark. In the film, he’s the Boogeyman, a powerful trickster with a playful side, bent on spreading nightmares to children and crushing their belief in the Guardians. His primary grief, as it were, is that no one believes in him. But in the books, Pitch is a dark force whose desire is to spread nightmares to children everywhere simply because he is so consumed with darkness himself.

Good Points: Pitch possesses a high level of intelligence and is no amateur at magic. He is capable of using foresight to plan his next move and is very goal-oriented. A final point in his favor is that Pitch has the ability to be redeemed as his daughter seems like the only person who can bring out any softer emotions in him. Thus, Pitch’s heart isn’t 100% black (just 99.9%).

Why I Like Him: Out of all of the villains on this list, Pitch is the only one who started off as a good, noble hero, hence why I believe he can be redeemed. Unlike most children’s stories where villains tend to be safe, cookie-cutter baddies with no how or why regarding what they do, Pitch breaks the mold by being scary (but not too scary) and has an origin that explains what drives him. Not to mention it evokes sympathy as Pitch becomes evil, not because he desired to be but because he was taken advantage of in a sense. Thus, Pitch is the only villain you can feel sorry for, which makes him a well-rounded baddie indeed.

Negan (JDM)
#3 – Negan (The Walking Dead comics, adapted for television)
Appearance:
Negan is a physically imposing man who, naturally, looks the part of a leader. In the television adaptation, Negan is played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan, a casting choice I think was spot-on. While no comic-to-screen casting is ever going to be a perfect match, I think Morgan is as close as you can get without hiring a clone to play the part (and I don’t think we want any Negan clones running around). In both versions, ever by Negan’s side is his trusty barbwire-covered baseball bat named Lucille with which (or maybe “with whom” because Negan talks to and about her like she’s a person) he can inflict death and destruction with a single swing. He’s also known for touting an extremely foul mouth and can use the f-word as every part of speech known to the English language. Much like in A Christmas Story where Ralphie’s father “worked in profanity the way other artists might work in oils or clay,” so does Negan dabble in the art of sarcastic wit, sadistic humor, and no-bounds swearing.

Backstory: Robert Kirkman, creator of The Walking Dead comics, presents Negan’s pre-zombie apocalypse occupation as a teacher/coach who wanted to be perceived as the “cool” teacher. He was also married to a cancer-stricken wife (yet this evidently didn’t stop him from cheating on her). In time, Negan becomes the fearless, fierce king-like leader of the Saviors. His band of survivors exists under a system of give and take where they do far more of the latter and far less of the former: they protect surrounding communities from Walkers (i.e. zombies) in exchange for a portion of the communities’ supplies, always taking more than what they really need. Those who refuse or fight back are punished in unreasonably cruel ways. Negan’s philosophy is that he’s actually doing these communities a service by using strong-arm tactics in exchange for offering them protection. However, Negan seems to possess some remnants of a heart as he takes a non-creepy liking to Rick Grimes’ (the chief protagonist) son, Carl; has a distaste for sexual violence; and, while he amasses a harem, doesn’t abuse his wives.

Why He’s Bad: Negan employs a sense of twisted logic where he forces people to do what he wants them to under the guise that he’s open to negotiation. In reality, the communities he bullies are put in a bind – give in to Negan’s demands or pay the consequences, often with a tragic loss of life. In truth, Negan isn’t 100% psychopathic as he will listen to a well-reasoned argument albeit he doesn’t feel compelled to agree with it and probably won’t. That being said, he has a taste for violence and shows no mercy towards anyone whom he feels has slighted him or broken his rules.

Good Points: The fact Negan wants to establish at least some sense of order amid chaos is, in and of itself, admirable. Likewise, his governing philosophy, while morally murky, is that rules keep people safe. He’s also disgusted by sexual violence, calling it “unseemly,” and one of his rules is, “We don’t rape,” and even an attempted rape is punishable by death. Lastly, his charisma enables others to follow him (though swinging a barbwire-covered baseball bat will probably have something to do with that, too).

Why I Like Him: Negan is nearly a pure psychopath as he ultimately acts out of his own self-interests, feels little remorse or guilt, displays violent behavior, and can adopt an empathetic attitude with a disarming and charismatic air. However, I say nearly because Negan assumes a quasi-paternal attitude towards Carl. Granted, it’s rife with his usual brand of profane humor, but ultimately Negan doesn’t do Carl any real harm and, later on, even agrees to help Rick Grimes fight some common enemies. Thus, there seems to be a strand of good inside of Negan that prevents him from becoming 100% evil. Still, he truly is “mad, bad, and dangerous to know.”

Lord Voldemort 1 Lord Voldemort 2
#2 – Lord Voldemort (Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling)
Appearance:
As a youth, Tom Malvolo Riddle (Voldemort’s real name) is described as handsome, but that quickly disappears when he allows his ugly inner desire for power to manifest itself. Using magic, Tom transformed himself to mimic a snake (as, being a parselmouth, he can talk to snakes). After this change, Voldemort sports serpentine facial features, including slit-like pupils and nostrils, and an overall waxy appearance. Seemingly tall, thin, but undeniably imposing, Voldemort commands respect from his followers and elicits fear from those who would dare to defy him.

Backstory: Tom was the son of Merope Gaunt, a witch from an abusive household, and Tom Riddle, a handsome Muggle. When Riddle left, abandoning his wife, Merope did her best to survive while pregnant with her son. Finally, she gave birth in an orphanage and died soon after even though she had the power to save herself. Young Tom grew up without knowledge of his heritage until Albus Dumbledore showed up at the orphanage and Tom was welcomed into Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. However, even at an early age Tom had a habit for using magical skills for ill, from stealing to being a bully. In time, he honed his dark talents, renamed himself Lord Voldemort (an anagram of his full name), and amassed followers known as Death Eaters. Thus, Voldermort became a deadly threat to the Wizarding community, committing murder and leaving mayhem in his wake.

Why He’s Bad: Lord Voldemort is the epitome of the perfect Svengali villain as he has everything you need to make a great baddie: a desire for power and control; cold, calculating logic; a frigid, unsympathetic heart; the ability to read minds and detect lies; cleverness; impressive rhetoric; sympathetic backstory; and an aim to spread death and destruction. Combine all of that with the ability to do some of the darkest magic imaginable, and you’ve got yourself one almost unbeatable foe.

Good Points: Lord Voldemort is not an idiot as his deductive reasoning abilities are incredibly high as are his foresight and ability to plan. He’s charismatic enough to gather followers yet retains them by ensuring their loyalty. Not to mention he’s a powerful wizard. These are all good things in and of themselves, but combined with the sheer badness that is Lord Voldemort, they cease to be anything positive.

Why I Like Him: Lord Voldemort is just bad. Like Pitch, his backstory is tragic but he made wrong choices as a youth to do evil and abuse others, which carried over into his adult life. Likewise, Voldemort is the type of villain you want to see defeated because there is no good left in him. While in the final book Harry asks Voldemort to “try for some remorse” and repent of his wicked ways, Voldemort refuses. So from start to finish, Lord Voldemort is a quintessential baddie – the very worst of the worst.


#1 – Grand Admiral Thrawn (Thrawn trilogy and standalone novel by Timothy Zahn; Star Wars Rebels TV show)
Appearance:
Thrawn (whose full name is actually Mitth’raw’nuruodo) is from a humanoid alien race known as the Chiss, who inhabit the galaxy’s Unknown Regions. Like his fellow Chiss, Thrawn possesses striking bright, blue skin; dark blue-black hair; and naturally glowing red eyes (which actually enable him to detect infrared light/heat more so than a Human). Naturally, and especially combined with the white uniform befitting his rank, Thrawn is a visually striking character even among his fellow officers, who sometimes find his humanoid form yet clearly alien attributes disconcerting.

Backstory: Through a series of events, Thrawn is exiled from his homeworld and eventually catches the Empire’s attention. He quickly impresses those around him with his sharp intellect and tactical insight, so the Emperor places him in Imperial navy service and intentionally elevates him quickly through the ranks, eventually awarding Thrawn with the highest honor of Grand Admiral. As Grand Admiral, Thrawn oversaw several missions to quell the Rebellion’s attempts to strike back against the Empire’s forces. Through it all, he revealed himself to be not only a valuable asset to the Empire’s naval ranks but also to his crew and even his enemies, who generally held him in the highest regard.

Why He’s Bad: Thrawn might be a villain but he’s not evil. Instead, he earns the title of baddie simply due to his choice of alliances as, being an Imperial officer, he’s in direct opposition to Star Wars‘ heroes who represent the cause of the Rebellion. Other than for that reason alone, Thrawn would actually have made for an interesting good guy as he possesses numerous traits that one would be more pressed to find in a heroic character as opposed to a villain. However, Thrawn is mindful to keep the Empire’s interests at heart, hence why he will be willing to fight Rebel forces and track down Jedi as he believes doing so advances the Empire’s cause. (That being said, Thrawn actually harbors personal reasons for joining the Empire’s service in the first place, namely the ability to gather intelligence on potential threats and the opportunity to combat said threats should they pose as dangers to his own people. While this isn’t a motivation Thrawn lets known to too many people, it’s an inherent drive that urges him to do what he does in terms of big picture decisions.)

Good Points: As stated, Thrawn has a lot of traits that are positive, such as his Sherlock-esque means of deduction, high level of intelligence, level-headedness in battle, tactical expertise, intense curiosity, and internal motivation to protect his people despite being officially labeled an exile. Thus, Thrawn’s actions are done latently for the good of his people as, being an exile, he can never benefit from any such actions as he can never return to his homeworld, thus he displays a certain degree of selflessness which is rather unlike a traditional villain. Likewise, unlike Darth Vader, the most easily recognizable Star Wars villain who commands respect out of a sense of fear, Thrawn commands respect based on a sense of loyalty. Thrawn’s crew is willing to follow orders because they trust him and respect him as an officer and a noble person who, many times, will try to avoid taking too many casualties (unless doing so cannot be helped). Similarly, Thrawn dislikes bloodletting for the sake of bloodletting and senseless brutality and even sees no problem in stepping away from a fight if pressing onward would waste resources or valuable crewmen. Lastly, Thrawn is intensely curious and pays an incredible attention to detail, and this is no better reflected than in his deep appreciation for art. To him, learning another culture’s art is like looking through a window into that culture, so he is able to glean what a particular culture deems as important or what they fear simply by studying their art. Overall, Thrawn is the only villain on this list to possess so many good points. Were it not for his alignment with the Empire, he would have made an impressive Rebel indeed!

Why I Like Him: Grand Admiral Thrawn is an outstanding character thanks to his tactical expertise, sharp intellect, careful attention to detail, unique appreciation for art, and intriguing cultural background. It almost makes you feel bad that he’s considered a villain because he possesses a lot of attributes that would have made him an awesome good guy. Not to mention that, despite his incredible smarts, Thrawn isn’t all-knowing, and I enjoy this aspect to his character as it keeps him from becoming too good to be true or too larger than life. Overall, Thrawn rightfully assumes the top spot on my favorite villains list due to his fascinating combination of positive traits that, unfortunately, are put to use for the Empire’s service, which pits him against Star Wars‘ notable heroes. That being said, he isn’t an evil or even a bad person: he’s simply chosen the wrong side in the conflict but has made this choice for, what he believes, is the good of his fellow Chiss. Regardless, Thrawn is an incredibly complex, intriguing character who fairly deserves this list’s top spot!

Book Review · Books & Reading

Book Review – “Get Married: What Women Can Do to Help it Happen”

Get Married
Overview:
(From GoodReads): Is it okay to want to be married? Is there anything a woman who has never been married can do to make marriage more likely? Candice Watters gives women permission to want Christian marriage, encourages them to believe it’s possible, and supplies the tools to get there despite our post-marriage culture. Get Married includes the author’s personal journey from singleness to marriage as well as a biblical perspective on marriage. It shows how living intentionally is the key to marrying well. Get Married is a fresh and hopeful perspective that empowers single women to pray not only for their friends, parents, and churches, but the men who are (or could be) part of their lives.

My Take: First, a disclaimer:
1. This is a very long review. I didn’t mean it to be, but there is a lot I wanted to cover so as to present a fair picture of this book’s arguments and issues.

2. All opinions are my own, and I acknowledge that opinions are subjective.

3. I’m a Christian who happens to (presently) be single, so please don’t take my comments to mean I disliked this book for its religious views; and

4. I bring up Watters’ name a lot but it’s not in a spirit of disrespect – I’m simply attributing her statements to herself as she was the source of them.

So with that out of the way, on with the review/rant! 🙂

Get Married ultimately caused me to have more distaste than love towards it as what it advocates both disturbs and angers me. Initially, Watters’ thesis is to live like you’re going to marry, starting with a Biblical view of marriage, dismissing cliches that erroneously elevate singleness to a higher spiritual state, and encouraging women to live a God-honoring life (granted most of this is not new information). She also points out that some Christian women think they can live any way they want and still expect God to bless them, which is untrue and I concur. Lastly, she indicates that our feminist society has neutered the desire for marriage in many women so a desire for a husband is seen as a mark of weakness, and with this I also agree. Thus, early on, she’s fairly on-point with her discussion and observations.

However, what this book eventually advocates is a form of legalism where getting married is all about you and what you do and who you know, and God consumes a fraction of that equation. For starters, Watters is clearly writing for twenty-something women as she makes less-than-flattering remarks towards single ladies in their 30s and beyond. Hence, her thinly-veiled opinion is that women need to marry before age 30 or their chances go nearly kaput. But her claim fails to note that women marry at all ages. Marrying and having children while you’re in your 20s doesn’t guarantee a long-lasting, God-honoring marriage and/or healthy children. (In fact, research has proven the opposite as one article in the Los Angeles Times observed, “The older couples are when they get married, the more mature and financially secure they are, two factors that translate into a lower risk of divorce” [1].)

Watters states if you’re unmarried by age 28, “learning patience should not be your goal,” which fails to recognize that sometimes it just takes longer for couples to meet. Her belief, then, is that if you’re exiting your 30s and are still unmarried, then: (a). you have been too focused on a career and/or your education, (b). you must have sinned, or (c). you haven’t exhausted all of your resources to be around marriageable men.

So let’s break down Watters’ claims.

First, I doubt being career or education-minded would cause a woman to forever lose the chance of getting married. There is simply no proof, solid paradigms, or logical reasoning to support this. Perhaps a woman wishes to establish a resume for herself or build up her bank account before she feels comfortable getting married. Perhaps she wants to finish her education rather than juggle completing a degree with raising a family. Personally, I think those are wise choices but Watters doesn’t entirely embrace them as such.

Second, I agree that God will not honor us living in sin; however, He is capable of forgiving and forgetting our transgressions and encourages us to “go and sin no more.” While this isn’t an excuse to live in a way that deliberately goes against God’s Word, it doesn’t eternally doom us if we seek His forgiveness and His help to change. Similarly, we can make bad choices that aren’t sins but are less than wise. Can this put our chances of getting married in a bind? Perhaps, but it comes down to the individual, so it’s unfair to make general assumptions like what Watters does here. Personally, I don’t believe there is a mistake so big that God cannot redeem a life, which is what the Bible shows time and again, but Watters seems to dismiss this concept when it comes to one’s chances for marriage.

Third, Watters believes getting married is all up to you; therefore, if you’re single by age 30 or beyond, you must not have tried hard enough. But what constitutes as “enough” and how do you know when you’ve done “enough”? What if you’ve done “enough” and are still single? Should a woman constantly be moving, changing jobs and churches, registering for online dating sites, globetrotting, and filling up her social calendar? Does that constitute as “enough”? Or what if you do “enough,” meet someone, get married, but later divorce? In retrospect, had you not done “enough”? Seeing as Watters never defines where that line of “enough” begins and ends, it’s a hazy concept and open to interpretation by default.

But my biggest question is this – where is God in all of this? And this is where Watter’s legalism kicks in: we must be “intentional” in our search for marriage and do everything we can to meet someone. To me, this doesn’t sound like a joyful search but a torturous quest. Granted, I think most married couples would say the path to marriage was riddled with heartache, disappointment, and frustration, yet the end result was worth the wait, however long it took. What Watters is teaching, though, is that getting married is entirely in our hands and God is a disinterested bystander. But I disagree. Do singles need to venture from their homes once in a while? Yes, yet bloating your social calendar or perpetually globe-trekking is of no real help other than it will wear you down and/or speed up the onset of defeatism that Watters subtly offers to older singles as an odd means of encouragement.

Any happily married couples I know didn’t meet after a long, arduous search like that Watters proposes. They met in unexpected, unassuming ways – they didn’t travel the world, move to a new city every few years, or go on countless dates with strangers they met online. Yet other folks I’ve known have tried everything Watters suggests yet remain single. Watters at times likens the search for a spouse to a search for a job; so, in her view, just as you would exhaust all your resources into landing a job, you must do the same to land a spouse. But that’s a faulty comparison as, other than the two things being “searches,” they share nothing else in common.

As far as why some Christian ladies struggle to meet men, Watters correctly recognizes that some women behave carelessly, intentionally live in sin, or are around toxic people. But what about women who aren’t doing these things? Watters doesn’t offer much advice to that effect as there is always an undercurrent that your relationship status is somehow your fault. Case in point: she states that claiming the men at your church are not “marriage material” might mean you’re too picky. Though she fails to acknowledge that some churchgoing single men are “pew pimps,” poor stewards, or just lazy and immature and not ready for marriage now or ever. She almost entirely ignores these issues and, instead, pins blame upon women for being blind to the men around them rather than acknowledge that there can be a poor quality of men – regardless of quantity – in a body of believers.

(Oddly enough, Watters often negates her own advice. On Boundless.org, which Watters founded, she once answered a woman who asked, “Should I change churches for the sake of meeting more singles?” by encouraging her to stay at her current church, claiming God’s arm isn’t too short to bring her a spouse [2]. Yet Watters’ advice in her book is quite the opposite.)

What Watters fails to mention is that delayed marriage isn’t always the result of personal choices, sin, or a failure to “get out there.” Ironically, the point of her book is to encourage women to marry well. Yet her implied notion is to marry well while you’re in your 20s and older singles need to hurry up to “make it happen” before it’s “too late.” Thus, her thesis is that women should not rush to be wed but need to wed “soon” before they lose their physical attractiveness and/or fertility. Yet logic and common sense dictate that rushing into things is the quickest way to ensure they don’t last.

If I could sum up her views, it would be this: if you’re 18 to 27 years old, don’t rush into things. Pray, follow God, “get out there,” marry well, and have children. But if you’re 28 or older, forget this waiting on God business: you need to do as much as you can – change jobs, change churches, date online, move, travel, mingle, and hurry up(!) – but still try to marry well.

In continuation with this issue, here is an example of some of the book’s “proof” for marrying young: “God designed us to marry and start having children in our 20s. Our biology, fertility, sexuality, energy and beauty all reinforce that fact.” Yet Watters never provides specific references (from the Bible, scientific and/or sociological research, case studies, etc.) to support this rather grand claim. Granted, there is a verse in Proverbs about enjoying the wife of one’s “youth” but this is a relative statement as no specific age is given as an example of what the writer meant by the word “youth.” Rarely does the Bible focus on the specific age of a couple. (Abraham and Sarah are the only exception I can immediately think of along with the Genesis genealogies. Interestingly enough, in the Genesis 11 genealogy, the youngest age listed for one of the fathers is 29.)

Collectively, Watters’ logic is unsound because she incorporates generic observations as “facts” rather than concrete proofs to support her arguments. For starters, everyone is different. Biology and energy levels are different. Young couples are not immune to having conception or sexual problems, and dismissing the 30s as all but useless for starting a family is disrespectful. Lastly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so who says the 20s are the high point of physical attraction? Not me and probably not other people, I’d venture to guess.

Watters similarly misses the mark when it comes to failing to address other topics that come into play regarding a person’s marriageability. What about emotional, mental, and spiritual maturity? Do those things culminate in the 20s? What about economic stability? Can a 22-year-old man fresh out of college and without a stable job reasonably be able to support a family better than a 32-year-old or a 42-year-old man who has been working for a decade or longer? These are critical questions, yet Watters disregards them in favor of external/physical reasons why she thinks people should wed young. Granted, she shows no tolerance for lazy, indecisive, immature men, and rightfully so; but her primary concerns seem more wrapped up in external “youth” rather than inner maturity.

Another area of concern for me was Watters’ focus on women finding a spiritual mentor. In my opinion, a woman’s “life coach” should, first and foremost, be a female family member. Granted, not all women have their families intact and some don’t come from Christian homes or have strong family ties; hence, those women need to carefully and prayerfully seek godly female friends. Yet Watters pushes for establishing close ties with an older woman chiefly to try to meet men (she calls this “networking”). Rather than focus on the quality of people you’re around, Watters pushes for quantity (provided this quantity is comprised of quality people though).

In my opinion, this whole “life coach” idea, which is in vogue with Christian self-help literature at the moment, should be traversed carefully and cautiously. As someone who was once friends with a person 15 years older than me, I can speak from experience that close relationships with people older than you (who are not family) can become imbalanced as the relationship may turn into a parent-child dynamic or controlling/manipulative. I’m not talking about being around persons older than you in a group setting as the Bible encourages sharing wisdom and respecting your elders, but it never urges you to pal around one-on-one with someone who is 20+ years older than you.

There is a two-fold danger here that Watters doesn’t address. First, anyone you let into your innermost circle must be a mature, responsible, godly person lest you fall prey to a bad influence. Watters discusses this but not thoroughly enough in my opinion. Rather than stress that single ladies need their family as their primary moral supporters, Watters asserts every woman must land herself an older female mentor who can teach her about life and introduce her to men lest the younger woman miss her chance to get married (as if having a mentor is the the only means by which to meet eligible men). Second, these sorts of relationships can turn sour if the younger woman is emotionally blackmailed, mentally abused, or introduced to questionable lifestyles thanks to the older “mentor” leading the younger woman astray. Watters would have done well to warn of this. Instead, her belief is more along the lines of, “You don’t have a mentor? Well, go get one!” It’s as simple as picking fruit from a tree (but didn’t Adam and Eve do that and it didn’t bode so well?).

Another sticking point for me was Watters’ remarks about outer beauty (including her assumptions about how the 20s are the culmination of attractiveness). I agree with her that women need to care for their bodies in ways that honor God and to avoid obsessive eating or exercise habits. But she states that part of staying attractive means not being “overweight,” a term she never defines but tends to associate (intentionally or not) with slovenliness as she emphasizes maintaining a thin, athletic build. Furthermore, her language was off-putting, asserting that some men like a “rounder, more hugable woman.” But what did she mean by that?

Was it this?
Big Style Miss Piggy

Or more like “Baby Got Back?”
baby-got-back-o

In either case, the language needed to be revised as it seemed to contradict Watters’ previous usage of being “overweight” as unattractive and a sign of laziness. Granted, she concludes by saying men have a wide range of what they consider attractive, which is true, but her choice of words, as well as her logic, could have been vastly improved.

I also thought the chapter on prayer was far too brief. In fact, a major component missing from her overall discussion is trusting God. That was my ultimate issue with this book. So much of the focus is on a legalistic approach where you do 100% of the work (hence the subtitle What Women Can Do to Help it Happen, I suppose). So when you stand at the altar, you can claim in the sight of God and others how you worked so hard and exhausted all of your options to land a husband, how you met your husband through your means, how you orchestrated your circumstances, and how you made all of this possible – but remember to thank God because, you know, you’re supposed to (cue “Oh Lord, it’s Hard to Be Humble When You’re as Great as Me”).

This isn’t a labor of love but a labor for love, and such an approach lacks a focus on God’s role, relegating Him to the backseat of our love lives. Watters drops a ton of Bible verses but uses them to support her points rather than the other way around. For instance, one chapter examines the book of Ruth, but rather than analyze the actual Biblical text, Watters prooftexts it, using it to fit her ideas of how women need to show more aggression in landing a husband. The segments on prayer and trusting God are sparse at best and should have served as the book’s core as opposed to being given a barely-there chapter just because.

Thus, what Watters offers is a legalistic approach where the end result of marriage rests entirely on our shoulders, our past and present circumstances cement our fate, our age is our enemy, and God is a mildly interested bystander whose sovereignty the reader is left to question. Granted, she never openly says any of these things, but that’s the book’s undercurrent and it’s the most discouraging and damaging message she sells.

Overall, when you break it down, Get Married is yet another product of the Christian self-help market as it has its share of Bible, prayer, and Jesus references so it moves copies. While Watters’ advice to women in their 20s is full of hope and encouragement, her advice to women in their 30s and beyond is more along the lines of “encouraging” you to grit your teeth and accept a state of unwanted lifelong singleness. That’s not helpful; instead, it’s discouraging, dismissive, and disrespectful.

In closing, I want to add that Candice Watters’ story is exactly that – her story. She married before age 30, so naturally she assumes that should be the norm. But her story doesn’t dictate everyone else’s life. Thus, this book isn’t a road map of how your personal love story will unfold – it’s a pitfall that will only condemn you for not doing “enough.”

Inaudible rage critic angry upset frustrated
Okay, book review rant over! 🙂

Notes:
1. goo.gl/er6TiA
2. goo.gl/u41YNk

Books & Reading · Commentary

My Top 10 Favorite Poets

I feel like poetry is an easily shelved art these days, pushed aside in favor of flashy, fad-driven novels. But as much as I love to read books (as there’s certainly nothing wrong with prose!), I still love to sit down with a good book of poetry every now and then. So for this post, I’m going to highlight my top ten favorite poets.


10. Phyllis McGinley (Bio)
Favorite Poem: “Lament of the Normal Child” (1935) – This was the first poem of hers I ever read and I immediately fell in love with it because it rings so true of the modern American education system (which is funny considering this was published in the 1930s – I guess some things never change):

I was strolling past a schoolhouse when I spied a sobbing lad.
His little face was sorrowful and pale.
“Come, tell me why you weep,” I said, “and why you seem so sad.”
And thus the urchin lisped his tragic tale:

The school where I go is a modern school
With numerous modern graces.
And there they cling to the modern rule
Of “Cherish the Problem Cases!”
From nine to three I develop Me.
I dance when I’m feeling dancy,
Or everywhere lay on With creaking crayon
The colors that suit my fancy.
But when the commoner tasks are done,
Desereted, ignored, I stand.
For the rest have complexes, everyone;
Or a hyperactive gland.
Oh, how can I ever be reconciled
To my hatefully normal station?
Why couldn’t I be a Problem Child
Endowed with a small fixation?
Why wasn’t I trained for a Problem Child
With an Interesting Fixation?

I dread the sound of the morning bell.
The iron has entered my soul.
I’m a square little peg who fits too well
In a square little normal hole.
For seven years In Mortimer Sears
Has the Oedipus angle flourished;
And Jessamine Gray, she cheats at play
Because she is undernourished.
The teachers beam on Frederick Knipe
With scientific gratitude,
For Fred, they claim, is a perfect type
Of the Antisocial Attitude.
And Cuthbert Jones has his temper riled
In a way professors mention.
But I am a Perfectly Normal Child,
So I don’t get any attention.
I’m nothing at all but a Normal Child,
So I don’t get the least attention.

The others jeer as they pass me by.
They titter without forbearance.
“He’s Perfectly Normal,” they shrilly cry,
“With Perfectly Normal parents.”
For I learn to read with a normal speed.
I answer when I’m commanded.
Infected antrums don’t give me tantrums.
I don’t even write left-handed.
I build with blocks when they give me blocks.
When it’s busy hour, I labor.
And seldom delight in landing socks
On the ear of my little neighbor.

So here, by luckier lads reviled,
I sit on the steps alone.
Why couldn’t I be a Problem Child
With a case to call my own?
Why wasn’t I born a Problem Child
With a Complex of my own?


9. William Carlos Williams (Bio)
Favorite Poem: “By the Road to the Contagious Hospital” (1923) – I took an American Poetry course back in college and Williams became an easy favorite of mine. I love his attention to detail, especially in the natural world, which makes the scenery in his poems come to life.

By the road to the contagious hospital
under the surge of the blue
mottled clouds driven from the
northeast-a cold wind. Beyond, the
waste of broad, muddy fields
brown with dried weeds, standing and fallen

patches of standing water
the scattering of tall trees

All along the road the reddish
purplish, forked, upstanding, twiggy
stuff of bushes and small trees
with dead, brown leaves under them
leafless vines-

Lifeless in appearance, sluggish
dazed spring approaches-

They enter the new world naked,
cold, uncertain of all
save that they enter. All about them
the cold, familiar wind-

Now the grass, tomorrow
the stiff curl of wildcarrot leaf
One by one objects are defined-
It quickens: clarity, outline of leaf

But now the stark dignity of
entrance-Still, the profound change
has come upon them: rooted, they
grip down and begin to awaken.


8. e. e. cummings (Bio)
Favorite Poem: “when serpents bargain for the right to squirm”   (1944) – No, these aren’t typos – this is how cummings spelled his name and penned his works. As you can probably guess, he was rather avant-garde, something I typically don’t care for but I think he does it well. This poem was the first work of cummings I read and I thought the concept of aspects of nature riling against “unfair” treatment was very funny:

when serpents bargain for the right to squirm
and the sun strikes to gain a living wage –
when thorns regard their roses with alarm
and rainbows are insured against old age

when every thrush may sing no new moon in
if all screech-owls have not okayed his voice
– and any wave signs on the dotted line
or else an ocean is compelled to close

when the oak begs permission of the birch
to make an acorn-valleys accuse their
mountains of having altitude-and march
denounces april as a saboteur

then we’ll believe in that incredible
unanimal mankind (and not until)


7. Marianne Moore
(Bio)
Favorite Poem: “The Fish” (1921) – I was introduced to Marianne Moore in a college creative writing course and this was one of the poems in an anthology we were assigned to read. I was immediately struck by the poem’s use of imagery, color, and flow as, when read on paper, the poem’s physical form looks like it’s darting back and forth like a fish.

The Fish

wade
through black jade.
Of the crow-blue mussel-shells, one keeps
adjusting the ash-heaps;
opening and shutting itself like

an
injured fan.
The barnacles which encrust the side
of the wave, cannot hide
there for the submerged shafts of the

sun,
split like spun
glass, move themselves with spotlight swiftness
into the crevices—
in and out, illuminating

the
turquoise sea
of bodies. The water drives a wedge
of iron through the iron edge
of the cliff; whereupon the stars,

pink
rice-grains, ink-
bespattered jelly fish, crabs like green
lilies, and submarine
toadstools, slide each on the other.

All
external
marks of abuse are present on this
defiant edifice—
all the physical features of

ac-
cident—lack
of cornice, dynamite grooves, burns, and
hatchet strokes, these things stand
out on it; the chasm-side is

dead.
Repeated
evidence has proved that it can live
on what can not revive
its youth. The sea grows old in it.


6. Emily Dickinson
(Bio)
Favorite Poem: “Because I Could Not Stop for Death” (published posthumously 1890) – It’s hard for me to pick just one Dickinson poem because I love so many of her works. But this one touched me for its gentle view of Death, depicting it more like life’s final companion as opposed to a dreadful entity.

Because I could not stop for Death –
He kindly stopped for me –
The Carriage held but just Ourselves –
And Immortality.

We slowly drove – He knew no haste
And I had put away
My labor and my leisure too,
For His Civility –

We passed the School, where Children strove
At Recess – in the Ring –
We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain –
We passed the Setting Sun –

Or rather – He passed us –
The Dews drew quivering and chill –
For only Gossamer, my Gown –
My Tippet – only Tulle –

We paused before a House that seemed
A Swelling of the Ground –
The Roof was scarcely visible –
The Cornice – in the Ground –

Since then – ‘tis Centuries – and yet
Feels shorter than the Day
I first surmised the Horses’ Heads
Were toward Eternity –


5. Robert Frost
(Bio)
Favorite Poem: “Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening” (1922) – Much like Dickinson, there are many of Frost’s poems that I love, but this is the one I adore the most. Being a winter lover, I’m drawn to writings that utilize snowy or arctic imagery. Not to mention I can easily imagine the scene described here as I live near a woods and it’s a delight to literally sit and watch it “fill up with snow.”

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound’s the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.


4. Sara Teasdale
(Bio)
Favorite Poem: “Winter Stars” (1920) – Shadow and Flame contains so many wonderful poems, but this is among my favorites. Again, it’s a winter-themed poem but I also love how Teasdale compares the unevenness of life to the faithful trajectory of the stars.

I went out at night alone;
 The young blood flowing beyond the sea
Seemed to have drenched my spirit’s wings—
 I bore my sorrow heavily.
But when I lifted up my head
 From shadows shaken on the snow,
I saw Orion in the east
 Burn steadily as long ago.
From windows in my father’s house,
 Dreaming my dreams on winter nights,
I watched Orion as a girl
 Above another city’s lights.
Years go, dreams go, and youth goes too,
 The world’s heart breaks beneath its wars,
All things are changed, save in the east
 The faithful beauty of the stars.


3. Edgar Allan Poe
(Bio)
Favorite Poem: “The Bells” (1850) – Poe is another poet from whom I could mention several favorites as I think he finds beauty in dark places. This particular poem is my all-time favorite of Poe’s for its expert use of onomatopoeia. You can almost hear the bells, all unique and intended to convey different emotions. I also love the transitions here, from scenes of merriment and innocence to dire images of war and death.

I
Hear the sledges with the bells-
Silver bells!
What a world of merriment their melody foretells!
How they tinkle, tinkle, tinkle,
In the icy air of night!
While the stars that oversprinkle
All the heavens, seem to twinkle
With a crystalline delight;
Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the tintinnabulation that so musically wells
From the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells-
From the jingling and the tinkling of the bells.

II
Hear the mellow wedding bells,
Golden bells!
What a world of happiness their harmony foretells!
Through the balmy air of night
How they ring out their delight!
From the molten-golden notes,
And an in tune,
What a liquid ditty floats
To the turtle-dove that listens, while she gloats
On the moon!
Oh, from out the sounding cells,
What a gush of euphony voluminously wells!
How it swells!
How it dwells
On the Future! how it tells
Of the rapture that impels
To the swinging and the ringing
Of the bells, bells, bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells,bells,
Bells, bells, bells-
To the rhyming and the chiming of the bells!

III
Hear the loud alarum bells-
Brazen bells!
What a tale of terror, now, their turbulency tells!
In the startled ear of night
How they scream out their affright!
Too much horrified to speak,
They can only shriek, shriek,
Out of tune,
In a clamorous appealing to the mercy of the fire,
In a mad expostulation with the deaf and frantic fire,
Leaping higher, higher, higher,
With a desperate desire,
And a resolute endeavor,
Now- now to sit or never,
By the side of the pale-faced moon.
Oh, the bells, bells, bells!
What a tale their terror tells
Of Despair!
How they clang, and clash, and roar!
What a horror they outpour
On the bosom of the palpitating air!
Yet the ear it fully knows,
By the twanging,
And the clanging,
How the danger ebbs and flows:
Yet the ear distinctly tells,
In the jangling,
And the wrangling,
How the danger sinks and swells,
By the sinking or the swelling in the anger of the bells-
Of the bells-
Of the bells, bells, bells,bells,
Bells, bells, bells-
In the clamor and the clangor of the bells!

IV
Hear the tolling of the bells-
Iron Bells!
What a world of solemn thought their monody compels!
In the silence of the night,
How we shiver with affright
At the melancholy menace of their tone!
For every sound that floats
From the rust within their throats
Is a groan.
And the people- ah, the people-
They that dwell up in the steeple,
All Alone
And who, tolling, tolling, tolling,
In that muffled monotone,
Feel a glory in so rolling
On the human heart a stone-
They are neither man nor woman-
They are neither brute nor human-
They are Ghouls:
And their king it is who tolls;
And he rolls, rolls, rolls,
Rolls
A paean from the bells!
And his merry bosom swells
With the paean of the bells!
And he dances, and he yells;
Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the paean of the bells-
Of the bells:
Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the throbbing of the bells-
Of the bells, bells, bells-
To the sobbing of the bells;
Keeping time, time, time,
As he knells, knells, knells,
In a happy Runic rhyme,
To the rolling of the bells-
Of the bells, bells, bells:
To the tolling of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells, bells-
Bells, bells, bells-
To the moaning and the groaning of the bells.


2. John Haines
(Bio)
Favorite Poem: “Fairbanks Under the Solstice” (1993) – In the same college creative writing class, I remember our professor assigned each of us a poet to do a miniature study of his or her work. The professor gave me John Haines, whom, at the time, I had never heard of. But I’ve always loved checking out new writers, so I found a copy of Winter News in the campus library and I fell in love! Haines – Poet Laureate of Alaska – focused a lot on wintry scenes, so his works were the perfect reading cup of tea for me!

Slowly, without sun, the day sinks
toward the close of December.
It is minus sixty degrees.

Over the sleeping houses a dense
fog rises—smoke from banked fires,
and the snowy breath of an abyss
through which the cold town
is perceptibly falling.

As if Death were a voice made visible,
with the power of illumination…

Now, in the white shadow
of those streets, ghostly newsboys
make their rounds, delivering
to the homes of those
who have died of the frost
word of the resurrection of Silence.


1. T.S. Eliot (Bio)
Favorite Poem: “The Hollow Men” (1925) – Eliot was yet another poet I discovered in high school and this poem  happened to be the one featured in my American Literature anthology. I loved it upon my first reading and it encouraged me to peruse Eliot’s work. I love his poetry for its richness and depth, and I think this piece expertly represents that. Not to mention that, interestingly enough, Eliot became a Christian later in life, so nihilistic poems such as “The Hollow Men” assumed a new meaning after his conversion as, rather than revising his work, such poems stand as depictions of the state of sinful man without the hope of Christ.

Mistah Kurtz—he dead.
A penny for the Old Guy

I
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us—if at all—not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

II
Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death’s dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind’s singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.

Let me be no nearer
In death’s dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat’s coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer—

Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom

III
This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man’s hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.

Is it like this
In death’s other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.

IV
The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms

In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death’s twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.

V
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o’clock in the morning.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Books & Reading · Commentary · Story & Characters

Reading Pet Penchants


In my last post, I highlighted my top six reading pet peeves. So for this post, I’m going to share my top six reading pet penchants – story elements that I enjoy! These are things that, for me, can take a good story and make it great and, hence, make it worth reading over and over again.


6. Hero with a Change of Heart

While all heroes should be flawed (though not outrageously flawed), I tend to enjoy heroes who start off with some less than desirable traits yet evolve and mature, eventually smoothing out these rough edges. One of the best examples for me is from Jane Eyre. When the novel begins, Jane is a cold, hard-hearted young girl and she can be a little difficult to relate to. However, over time, she allows her heart to soften and adopts a mature outlook on life, even finding it within herself to forgive someone who wronged her years before. Jane is clearly a flawed heroine to start but she doesn’t stay that way. Overall, a hero with a change of heart makes for a great redemption story, and there’s nothing better than watching a hero strive for positive personal change.


5. Immersive Worlds

As a reader of fantasy and science fiction, I’m accustomed to in-depth, detailed worldbuilding. But for me there’s worldbuilding and then there’s worldbuilding. I love being made to feel like a story’s world really could exist, as if you could visit it by some invisible portal. Story worlds that possess their own history, important figures, cultures, environments, rules, and even terminology make the space the characters populate come alive. Two story worlds that, for me, epitomize worldbuilding are Tolkien’s Middle-earth and Rowling’s Wizarding world. Both feel like they could be real places as they possess not only realistic, functioning settings but also workable cultures and histories that add a sense of depth and realism to the story. While a story’s setting shouldn’t trump its characters, it’s important for me to have a world I can immerse myself in so that each time I read the book, it’s like I’m paying it a long, welcomed visit.


4.
Unlikely Heroes
Some of my favorite heroic characters are usually the least likely persons you’d peg with saving the day. There’s something deeply touching about seeing a character rise from obscurity or overcome obstacles to become a brave but humble savior. Without a doubt, one of my favorite unlikely heroes is Frodo Baggins from The Lord of the Rings and, for me, Frodo is a paragon for this character type. First, he’s a Hobbit, a race of little notoriety in Middle-earth. Not to mention that being a Hobbit also means he’s not exactly from the tallest or strongest of races – quite the contrary. Likewise, Frodo is more suited to a quiet, simple life, not for grand quests; therefore, he lacks the powerful presence of, say, Gandalf, Aragorn, and Elrond. However, in the end, it is little Frodo who willingly and humbly accepts the task of seeing the One Ring to its doom. Probably the number one reason why I love unlikely heroes is that they’re easy to relate to as well as root for: they’re good people who are worthy of being called heroes yet they’re not born heroic – they are made heroic by their choices.


3. Meaningful Messages
Sermonizing in a story is one of my reading pet peeves, but that doesn’t mean I automatically dislike all stories that have a message. Every story has a moral to share because no story is separate from its author’s worldview, which inherently permeates whatever that writer composes. However, the difference is that well-crafted stories don’t sport this on their proverbial sleeves. I appreciate stories that display the importance of virtue over vice, the rewards of perseverance, the elevation of the underdog, and the triumph of true love (not mere infatuation or superficial sexual attraction). All of my favorite books contain subtle messages that move me and ultimately exalt virtuous actions. However, most of these “messages” don’t come across using direct tactics but, instead, employ implied strategies. A direct tactic is a means by which to openly convey a message. For instance, if Bob says, “Stealing is wrong,” to a thief named Tom, that’s a direct tactic because the message is obvious and clear (i.e. “stealing is wrong”).

In contrast, implied strategies use character actions and the operation of cause and effect to convey messages. To revisit the previous example, if Tom gets arrested for stealing, then character actions and the sequence of cause and effect indirectly communicate the message that stealing is wrong (i.e. Tom was arrested for stealing, hence he was punished for his actions, ergo the message is that stealing is wrong). Granted, most books utilize both techniques, but for me, implied strategies show readers a greater respect by allowing them to determine a moral for themselves and apply it personally however they wish. By means of comparison, I love the moral in Vera Brosgol’s Anya’s Ghost as the message of being mindful of the influences you allow into your life is delivered chiefly through character action and cause and effect, not open exposition. In contrast, In Real Life by Cory Doctorow and Jen Wang openly touts a protest-laden social justice message in a very direct way that leaves nothing for readers to uncover or personally apply. I believe poet Emily Dickinson said it best: “The Truth must dazzle gradually/Or every man be blind,” meaning sometimes the most potent truths are those that aren’t directly in your face.


2. Not-100%-Evil Villains

I love a good, compelling villain, someone who is on equal footing with and makes for a suitable challenge to the hero. A stupid or lazy villain provides little to no challenge, and a villain who is too smart or too powerful ensures no victory for the hero. So a happy medium is best. However, as much as I love rotten to the core, 100% pure villainy bad guys (like Harry Potter‘s Lord Voldemort), nothing beats a baddie who isn’t all bad and who might redeem himself in some fashion, even if he doesn’t make a full transition from villain to hero. Two such villains whom I place among my all-time favorite baddies would be Negan (from The Walking Dead comics) and Grand Admiral Thrawn (from Timothy Zahn’s sundry Star Wars novels).

While both of these figures are undoubtedly villains, they’re not utterly evil or always doing bad deeds. In fact, both of these characters possess traits and skills that, under different circumstances or utilized differently, would actually make them good guys! Negan is more than capable of holding his own in a fight as well as acting as a rallying point for his followers. Likewise, he has an established social structure in place that, despite its ethical standards being sorely askew, still reflects a system where “rules keep [people] safe,” and – oddly enough – Negan later aligns himself with the story’s protagonists. Concerning Thrawn, his key traits would certainly elevate him to heroic status were it not for the fact he’s an Imperial officer. He displays a high level of intelligence, incredible foresight, astute military tactics and strategies, a distaste of brutality for brutality’s sake, an ability to command respect, and a curious mind that appreciates and analyzes art. Thus, were it not for his alignment with the Empire, Thrawn would undoubtedly have been a hero; but even as a villain, Thrawn still isn’t actually evil. Thus, I enjoy villains who aren’t entirely or always bad; however, it’s their choices that decide on which side of the hero-villain fence they reside.


1. Happy Endings

It may seem cliche in a postmodern age, but I gravitate to, relate to, and obtain the most enjoyment out of stories with good payoffs for both their characters and readers. That isn’t to say nothing bad should happen in a story, that characters can’t make mistakes, or that everything is wrapped up neat and tidy. It’s in dire, dramatic moments where characters flourish and test their mettle. After all, if characters don’t experience and endure trying events then the ultimate payoff isn’t as sweet. I agree with Tolkien that the most meaningful stories don’t end with catastrophe but eucatastrophe. Rather than focus on the bad, eucatastrophe emphasizes the hope of a good future – the hero triumphs over the villain, maybe even some of the minor baddies are redeemed, the star-crossed couple is reunited at last, and the wayward child comes home. Happy endings don’t undermine everything a character goes through; instead, they function as a reward, a payoff where everything a heroic character endured was worth it and, by proxy, was worth it for the reader in terms of a cathartic experience.

The best example of this for me is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which marks the conclusion of the Harry Potter series. While each book ends on a relatively happy note, it’s the final novel’s ending that rings the sweetest. It’s an understatement to say that Harry goes through a lot throughout the course of seven books as he endures so much grief and anger that readers hope the ending is worth the pain. Rest assured, it is! Harry and many of his comrades are given happy endings, not the sort that make you gag on their sweetness but the authentic type that allows you to put a smile on your face.

Overall, happy endings are my number one reading pet penchant because they reflect what I think most of us, deep down, inherently believe: that everything we go through will be worth it in the end and that evil and darkness don’t triumph forever.

Books & Reading · Commentary

Reading Pet Peeves


Reading pet peeves – gotta (not) love ’em!

These are the little – or big – things that get under your skin and ruin, or nearly ruin, the reading experience. While I trust must of us bookworms have our own reading pet peeves, in this post I’m going to share my top six. (Just to note, these are all my opinions based on my personal reading preferences and aren’t intended to criticize readers who do enjoy these elements.)


6. Love Triangles

I don’t immediately hate love triangles provided they’re not the plot’s principle support structure. (By way of example, I think the love triangle in The Hunger Games works because the books don’t hinge on it.) However, what I don’t like is when a love triangle is employed as a lazy way of inserting tension into a story and for no other reason. I sort of blame Twilight for reviving love triangle-based plots as love triangles in and of themselves aren’t contemporary inventions. While romantic drama can be compelling, there are other methods of generating tension and raising characters’ stakes. However, I sense the love triangle is the most convenient to use and the most popular to market. But that doesn’t mean I’m always in love with it.


5. Aimless Narratives

Most fiction can be divided into two basic categories regarding plot focus – action-driven narratives and character-driven narratives. As long as characters are given something to strive for or accomplish by the story’s end, then however an author elects to get there – by either focusing on physical action or character life events – is fine. But what irks me is when a story has characters do random stuff that ultimately leads nowhere. Aimless stories, for me, are the literary equivalent of A Tribe Called Quest’s song, “I Left My Wallet in El Segundo” where a bunch of friends go on a road trip, come back, only for one of them to discover he’s lost his wallet…and that’s it. One of the most damning lines in the song is “We had no destination/we was on a quest,” but to quote the Rap Critic, “If you don’t have a destination, you’re not on a quest.” In other words, if you don’t know where you’re going or where you want to end up, then you can’t be on a search for an elusive something or someplace. In the same way, characters in a story need to have an end goal to accomplish or reach, but they can’t do that if they’re given nothing to do that leads up to it. And if a story ultimately has no point, then I see no point in reading it.


4. Flawless Hero/Too Flawed Hero

This pet peeve is two-sided. A flawless hero is akin to the “special snowflake” trope, a character in whom there are no discernible flaws. It’s hard to emotionally or mentally connect with a character who makes no mistakes or who is always right as that doesn’t generate a cathartic reading experience; so, I cringe when I encounter characters who are too good to be true. On the flip side, a too flawed hero is one who commits atrocities more befitting a villain. A hero should be flawed but not so flawed that he or she becomes despicable. For instance, in Jane Eyre, the titular protagonist starts off as a cold-hearted young girl, but in time she matures and forgives those who wronged her. Jane is flawed but her growth as a character and change of heart make her relatable, and her flaws aren’t so grievous that they transform her into a monster. In stark contrast, Thomas Covenant of The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant series is a flawed hero, but his biggest flaw (and it’s a BIG one!) is that he rapes a female character, skirts justice, and only feels a little remorse later on. Again, some flaws are forgivable and cause readers to be sympathetic to the character, but other flaws are just too deplorable to be forgiven.


3. Clueless Characters
Stupidity for the sake of comedy is fine, so I’m not against goofball characters in general. But what gets under my skin are characters who are stupid, not for the sake of making readers laugh, but because they genuinely are dumb and quite possibly TSTL (“too stupid to live”). These types of characters are more frustrating than funny as, while it’s okay for characters to make mistakes, readers still expect them to use some common sense.

Two characters I despise for their lack of brains are Bella Swan from the Twilight series and Nick from Gone Girl. Bella makes rash decisions devoid of any ounce of common sense, even for a teenager. From intentionally putting herself in harm’s way to establish a telepathic connection with her beloved Edward, to insisting on being turned into a vampire on a commercial jetliner, Bella is not the sharpest crayon in the box. Nick, on the other hand, is a despicable soul who engages in behaviors that to everyone else (including the reader) make no sense yet he’s supposedly smart. While sometimes he feels guilty for doing dunderheadish things, more often than not he’s not the one who reaches this conclusion. It’s usually someone else who has to wise him up to the fact that maybe some of his actions aren’t good ideas (such as having an affair after his wife is presumed to be missing and he’s the number one suspect). Clueless characters such as these are a wet blanket on any story and can quickly turn even a mediocre read into a definite DNF.


2. Sermon Disguised as a Story

Stories are stories and sermons are sermons, and it’s best not to mix the two as sermonizing always sacrifices story. In my view, writers should seek to tell a story first and foremost, and a message (if any) will implant itself naturally as the story inherently reflects the writer’s worldview. I’ve noticed that the two biggest sermons writers try to preach are either some type of social justice message or a “religion is evil” rant. Concerning the former, the most effective stories for me are those that don’t wear their intentions on their sleeves. Rather than preach about injustices, writers should pen a good, compelling story that pits characters against said injustices and gives them an admirable goal to reach. Focusing more on the characters and less on trying to preach a sermon makes for a more meaningful story.

Concerning the castigation of religion, it seems to me that any time religion is utilized in a story and it’s intended to be the “villain,” it’s almost always a form of Christianity. But that’s a horrible way to define an entire belief system. This is my biggest problem with the His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman. I give The Golden Compass a pass because if you ignore the religion-bashing that comes later on, it’s honestly a fun adventure story. But The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass are nothing shy of anti-Christian propaganda. In contrast, Devoted by Jennifer Mathieu shows both sides of the religion coin as it paints a patriarchal Christian sect as flawed in terms of doctrine but contrasts it with Christian characters who live out correct Biblical teachings and a Christian church that correctly interprets and teaches Scripture. However, this is demonstrated through characters’ actions and interactions with others, not through long passages of exposition (read: sermonizing). When writers opt not to to preach a sermon or seek to demonize religion, they’re showing readers respect as their characters’ actions speak for themselves and, thus, readers exercise the right to draw their own conclusions rather than being spoon-fed a takeaway “moral.”


1. Dumped-in Diversity

Diversity is all the rage these days it seems, but I immediately go on high alert when an author touts how “diverse” his or her book is, slathering #WeNeedDiverseBooks or #OwnVoices all over the marketing because, for me, there’s a difference between a genuinely diverse book and a book of tokens. A diverse book puts another culture or ethnic group at the forefront and examines that group’s culture as inherently part of the story and, thus, doesn’t call attention to it. But when an author sprinkles “diverse” characters into a story – essentially employing token characters – that’s what I call dumped-in diversity as it’s inserted solely for the sake of appeasing a particular reading audience. In the end, usually the element making these characters “diverse” has no real bearing on the plot, so it feels like it’s there just because.

By way of example, Sue Monk Kidd’s The Secret Life of Bees is set in the segregated South and features a White child being raised by three Black sisters. This novel doesn’t club readers over the head by touting how diverse it is; instead, the story showcases characters who just happen to be Black and White – no fanfare needed. What makes this a genuinely diverse book for me is that the characters’ backgrounds and cultures tie in with each other, their lives, their interactions with other characters, and the story as a whole. The Black (and White) characters aren’t tokens and no social justice message is preached as the characters take center stage and any messages about racism and the like are left to unfold organically in the background, respecting readers’ right to read as much, or as little, as they want into the story.

In contrast, Lady Midnight by Cassandra Clare inserts a plethora of “diverse” characters but their “diversity” never comes into play in terms of the actual story. One character, by way of example, is a Hispanic female Shadowhunter working among non-Hispanic Shadowhunters in a predominantly non-Hispanic cultural backdrop. But her background and culture are never relied upon to show how she approaches her line of Shadowhunter work as opposed to her non-Hispanic counterparts or even how she engages other people aside from occasional smatterings of Spanish to cement the fact she’s an ethnicity other than White. In the end, she becomes a smart-mouthed Latina stereotype and nothing is done in terms of trying to explore why her background is even remotely important to her interactions with others or her environment.

Other times, “diversity” is so blindly inserted that one would be hard-pressed to even determine what’s unique or different about the “diverse” characters in question. For instance, the lead female character in Fate of Flames by Sarah Raughley is supposed to be Black, but until reviewers pointed it out, I honestly couldn’t tell as nothing in the way this character conducts herself, talks, relates to others, etc. makes her “diverse” other than her skin color isn’t white. That’s not true diversity: that’s just “diversity” dumped in to appease certain readers who would be up in arms if the lead character was White. Similarly, I Am Princess X by Cherie Priest randomly inserts a gay character for no decipherable reason other than to assert the book is now “diverse” because it features a token gay (though I, personally, don’t consider the inclusion of gay or similarly classified characters as qualifying as “diverse”).

Therefore, dumped-in diversity is my number one pet peeve because, much like trying to use a story to preach a sermon, these narratives try to appeal to readers by touting that they’re hip to the whole social justice/”diversity” scene when really all it’s a cover for is a thinly veiled lecture about inclusion, tolerance, acceptance, etc.

I, personally, don’t feel we need “diverse” books. What we, as readers of all ages, need are stories with heroic characters who display, not so much “diversity,” but classic virtues such as integrity, compassion, courage, hope, and selflessness that cross cultural lines. These, more so than having social justice sermons crammed down our throats, will have a far more lasting impact on personal character and make for far more meaningful, edifying reads.