books i read in 2012.

sadly i did not reach my goal of reading 100 books in 2012. i was on track in june but the second half of the year just didn't happen. any hoot, as of right now i have read 77 books this year. i am currently reading junot diaz's latest book so it might be 78, if i finished by midnight. but technically it should be like 87 books considering how long tolstoy's novels are!

here is what i learned from this year of reading:

-i was born in the wrong era. i should have been an ex-pat in paris with the lost generation (yes this is also the plot for woody allen's "midnight in paris").

-if you aren't reading a work in its original language, research about the translation! and most of the big publishers often use outdated translation. (ie the barnes and noble classics, the prices for the classics are good but you are kinda of getting what you paid for.)

-ray bradbury is a poet and not a sci-fi writer and his books are filled with great gems about life.

-don't forget children's classics. when i read "the borrower" i listed out all the childern's books rebecca makkai alluded to in the novel, so i could read them now. i am disappointed i didn't read them but i'm getting caught up. and i have to add, i should have read "the hobbit" when i was younger. why did i wait so long?

-reading the books that were assigned in high school would have my helped SAT verbal. because those vocab words everyone thinks that no one ever uses, are actually being used.

-ereaders are overhyped. i won one this year and sadly have only read 2 books on it. i need a physical book, my eyes scan too quickly on a screen. oddly enough i buy ebooks just in case the future world is more reliant on ereaders.

-i have a book addiction. i love roaming $1 bookstores and goodwills for books and can not resist a bargain. seriously the amount of books i have purchased this year is prolly equivalent to how many i have read, luckily for me they were only a dollar! lol

books of 2012
1. "dream school" blake nelson
2. "the sun also rises" ernest hemingway
3. "for whom the bell toll" ernest hemingway*
4. "save me the waltz" zelda fitzgerald
5. "tender is the night" f. scott fitzgerald*
6. "the beautiful and the damned" f. scott fitzgerald
7. "the family fang" kevin wilson*
8. "a farewell to arms" ernest hemingway
9. "the old man and the sea" ernest
hemingway
10. "three lives" gertrude stein
11. "the autobiography of alice b. toklas" gertrude stein
12. "ten thousand saints" eleanor henderson
13. "the borrower" rebecca makkai*
14. "the search for delicious" natalie babbitt*
15. "friends like us" lauren fox
16. "the day of the locust" nathanael west
17. "miss lonelyhearts" nathanael west
18. "madame bovary" gustave flaubert
19. "bossypants" tina fey
20. "james and the giant peach" rolad dahl
21. "love with tear us apart" sarah rainone
22. "guns, germs, and steel" jared diamond*
23. "the bfg" rolad dahl
24. "is everyone hanging out without me? (and other concerns)" mindy kaling*
25. "the lover's dictionary" david levithan*
26. "tuck everlasting" natalie babbitt
27. "leaving the atocha station" ben lerner
28. "to kill a mockingbird" harper lee**
29. "the fault in our stars" john green*
30. "everything is illuminated" jonathan safran foer**
31. "dash & lily's book of dares" rachel cohn & david levithan
32. "charlotte's web" e.b. white
33. "steve jobs" walter isaacson
34. "an object of beauty" steve martin
35. "stuart little" e.b. white
36. "from the mixed-up files of mrs. basil e. frankweiler" e.l. konigsburg
37. "franny and zooey" j.d. salinger
38. "we the animals" justin torres*
39. "extremely loud & incredibly close" jonathan safran foer
40. "paul's boutique" dan leroy (331/3 series)
41. "defiance" nechama tec
42. "eeeee eee eeee" tao lin
43. "no one belongs here more than you" miranda july*
44. "wonder" r.j. palacio
45. "raise high the roof beams, carpenters and seymour-an introduction" j.d. salinger
46. "fahrenheit 451" ray bradbury
47. "dandelion wine" ray bradbury*
48. "richard yates" tao lin
49. "pride and prejudice" jane austen
50. "pride and prejudice and zombies" jane austen and seth grahame-smith
51. "lord of the flies" william golding
52. "romeo and juliet" william shakespeare
53. "their eyes were watching god" zora neale hurston
54. "the martian chronicles" ray bradbury
55. "the emperor's children" claire messud
56. "you don't love me yet" jonathan lethem
57. "howl and other poems" allen ginsberg
58. "anna karenina" leo tolstoy
59. "most talkative: stories from the front lines" andy cohen
60. "to the lighthouse" virginia woolf
61. "the magicians" lev grossman
62. "eat pray love" elizabeth gilbert
63. "paris, i love you but you're bringing me down" rosecrans baldwin
64. "nw" zadie smith
65. "mr. penumbra's 24 hour bookstore" robin sloan*
66. "the witches" roald dahl
67. "something wicked this way come" ray bradbury
68. "the house on mango street" sandra cisneros**
69. "caramelo" sandra cisneros
70. "you lost me there" rosecrans baldwin
71. "have you seen marie?" sandra cisneros
72. "war and peace" leo tolstoy
73. "the secret book of frida kahlo" f.h. haghenbeck
74. "two from galilee" marjorie holmes
75. "the perks of being a wallflower" stephen chbosky**
76. "a christmas carol" by charles dickens
77. "the hobbit" j. r r tolkien*

*my favorites this year
**my favorite re-reads/i will love forever

friends please comment any books you suggest i should read in 2013 or your favorite books of 2012!

the hobbit. j.r.r. tolkien. (85)

i am starting to realize that i spent my time reading the series "baby-sitter's club", "goosebumps" and "fear street" as a kid and not enough time reading classic kid novels like "the hobbit". so now i have to make up for lost time. "the hobbit" has been on my list to read ever since i read rebecca makkai's "the borrower", i started a list of the children/young adult books she mentions and "the hobbit" is on that list. and with the movie release, it shot to the top of my reading list. (i wonder how many people are reading thanks to hollywood.)

i regret not reading "the hobbit" as a kid because i really enjoyed it as an adult. it has me excited for the movie and to read the lord of the rings trilogy (which is good because it is on my list of 30 to read before 30). i was surprised by how easy a read it was. for some odd reason i associated fantasy with complex syntax and difficult vocabulary. i think it's because when you hear "nerds" talk about this stuff it's seems like it has it's own secret vocab but really it's just imaginative words from the author. i also loved the style of the storytelling, how the narrator would clue the reader in on things, it was like listening to a grandparent read a story.

since i have never read the lord of the rings trilogy or have seen the movies, i did feel that some things were probably referenced that i missed but figured i would just reread it once i am done with the trilogy. i was shocked with how quickly gollum showed up in the book. and i would totally be eaten alive if i ever played a riddle game with him because some of those riddles were over my head. i also kept on imagining gandalf as dumbledore which is understandable right? they are both wizards and kind of look alike:

i tried not to let the movie trailer, i've seen effect how i viewed the characters. at first i saw bilbo baggins as "sam" from lord of the rings but then he became the actor that plays him in the movie.

i thought baggins was a great character and a true hero. i am glad that he gave in to his took side and went on an adventure. i, like gandalf, was proud of him when he gave up the arkenstone to bard in an attempt to make peace. i was also disappointed and frustrated with thorin for his dwarfish greed. it made sense to help out the lake people especially since bard was the one that killed smaug. (wow look at me with my nerd talk, lol) that treasure was so immense that sharing a little would still be sharing a lot.

also since i hadn't read the trilogy i was all sorts of confused by all the different types of creatures. i confused the trolls and goblins at first. i was also confused about who was good or evil. cos i know liv tyler and orlando bloom were elves but weren't they good? and these elves at first seemed kinda mean. but then again everyone was kind of distrusting of all others at the beginning.

i was also waiting for bilbo to turn crazy with greed because of the ring. didn't this happen to frodo and of course gollum? i guess i will find out more about this in the trilogy. and last but not least, gandalf is all knowing right? like how dumbledore knew everything??? finding the answers to all of these questions has me excited for the trilogy.

lol. my enthusiam for this book has me surprised. looking forward to seeing the movie and starting "the fellowship of the ring". but i mean the dwarves ride ponies, how could it be bad?!?! lol

ps but i just saw on imdb that they turned this into three movies? is that right? wow, i mean there is a lot to cover in the book, but three movies?!?! isn't the first one like super long too?!?!

harold and maude.

"harold and maude" has been on my to watch list for at least 10 years. i first heard about it from my friend leslie, it is her favorite movie. so when bill had charlie watch it in "the perks of being a wallflower", i decided i should finally watch it.

"harold and maude" is a love story but what makes it unique is that harold is in his early twenties and maude is a seventy-nine year old woman. the idea of them together grossed me out but it's only because i think of the sex involved. oddly the priest in the film shared my opinion. though i hope to be in my seventies and still getting my kicks, the idea of being a twentysomething and sleeping with some that old is gross. but i mean people love this film so i needed to get my mind out of the gutter.

due to its status as a cult classic, i wasn't sure what to expect and then seeing the drawing of harold hanging himself on the cover, i was all sorts of confused.

quick endorsement for the criterion collection edition. it comes with a booklet with interviews and the illustrations for it and the disc menu are adorable.

so harold hanging himself is actually how the movie opens. turns out harold is obsessed with suicide. he fakes his own suicides throughout the film. i find most offbeat protagonist quirks attractive however did not find this endearing at all. it was just creepy especially since his mom turned a blind eye to it. it is eventually revealed why he does it and within that context it makes sense so
he becomes less weird. but initially i was like what is wrong with this kid?

and i guess that is why i didn't enjoy this film. i didn't get the appeal of the characters, i wasn't attracted to harold or maude. if a love story is good, you will fall in love with both characters: tom/summer, celeste/jess (though both of these couples do not end up together). think of "sleepless in seattle" you love both hank and ryan's characters so you want them to be together, you root for their love. sadly, this did not happen for me, i did not fall completely in love with harold or maude.

i did think harold was cute, especially in his little 70's outfits, though the suits he wore for dates were horrid. also i dug the sound of voice. i actually found the pranks he played on his dates funny and would not have ran out screaming like the girls did. however the dealbreakers were definitely his mommy issues and his immaturity. at the dinner table he seemed more like a 12 year old than a twentysomething. i often couldn't gage his age which made him unattractive because he seemed like jailbait.

maude was a delightful character. i read the first part of the essay written by film critic, matt zoller seitz in dvd booklet and i got what she was supposed to embody, the counterculture ideals of the sixties but within the older generation versus the youth. i found her interesting with her smell machine, vagina sculpture (that was a vagina he sticks his head in right?), desire to free trees and her lust for life. i also appreciated her philosophies in life, understanding that we are a special individual and not all the same flower or part of a larger group of flowers. however, i hated the fact that she stole cars and her reckless driving. there was nothing cute or spunky about those two things. i mean i'm all for damning the man but you should still have respect for private property. i was disgusted by how she just took cars and this kinda ruined her for me. i mean steal government cars as a form of protest but not your neighbors. also cars can kill people so did not like the reckless driving. i could see how harold would fall for her but she was not my cup of tea.

and let me clairfy, i didn't support their love because of the age gap but rather because i didn't fall in love with them myself. in fact, i was disappointed with myself for being judgey earlier. people should be allowed to be with those that make them happy. it reminded me of the may-december romance in "dandelion wine" and how upset i was that others did not understand it, yet here i was being close-minded. and at the risk of like a lolita (cos that was not the case), i feel like i could have had my own "harold and maude" friendship with my high school english teacher, mr. brice. my senior year we bonded over mullets (i had an "i heart mullet" pin on my backpack and he used to have one, he showed me his id as proof), "a clockwork orange" (i tired to get him to have our class read it), and my civil disobedience (he gave me a pep talk about doing what you believe in, when i called into the office for trying to stage a student protest). he also wore vans. he was totally my maude down to the bohemian-counterculture-free spirit though i prolly wasn't his harold. lol

even with all this, i was not crazy about the film. maybe i need to give it another watch. i know it was a black comedy and i got the humor, but still no sparks. i do understand why bill had charlie watch it. maude does share some very valuable gems about life with harold:

"vice, virtue. it's best not to be too moral. you cheat yourself out of too much life. aim above morality. if you apply that to life, then you're bound to live life fully."

"harold, everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. you just can't let the world judge you too much."

"a lot of people enjoy being dead. But they are not dead, really. they're just backing away from life. reach out. take a chance. get hurt even. but play as well as you can. go team, go! give me an L. give me an I. give me a V. give me an E. L-I-V-E. LIVE! otherwise, you got nothing to talk about in the locker room."

i think these are important life lessons for everyone. but i guess i watched this too late in life. these thoughts aren't new to me though they are important. i should have watched it my first year of college when leslie first mentioned it. i mean i understand why it is great and it is, and it deserve all the praise it received and more, it just didn't blow my mind.

ps also without giving any spoilers. i did love the ending in terms of maude. she did live life to the fullest!!!

pss oh and damn you at&t for ruining the cat steven's song that harold and maude sing in the movie! and way to go cat steven's on the soundtrack!

psss the night that i watched this totally dreamt that i was dating an old man, not just older but old. lol

ruby sparks.

grandma bea and i do not have fancy cable or satellite that gives you a guide to look for tv shows. instead we have to use a tv guide or channel 2 which scrolls through a listing of shows. though it can be a pain to use channel 2 because you have to wait for the channel you want to come around, it has kept me informed on what is new on dvd. it was in one of these said segments that i learned about "ruby sparks".

"ruby sparks" is the story of a struggling novelist who writes about the girl of his dreams, only for her to come to life. the storyline caught my eye and so did the actors. it's stars paul dano who we all adored in "little miss sunshine". i also saw a movie with him and zooey deschanel called "gigantic", it was cute but not super great. i also just learned thanks to his imdb that he voiced "alexander" in "where the wild things are". but who really caught my eye was chris messina. i first fell in love with me as the sweet adoptive dad with the great syrup/love analogy in "away we go". i am also loving that i get to see him on a regular basis on "the mindy project". he is so flippin' cute! he plays calvin's (dano) older brother.

at first i thought ruby was played by erin from "the office" but it's actually zoe kazan. and after watching this movie, i have a huge girl crush on her! you may remember her as the youngest sister in "it's complicated". anyway i learned on wikipedia she wrote "ruby sparks"!!!! and she and dano have been dating for 5 years now, so cute! and way to go her for writing such a great screenplay!

so as i said before the movie is about a lonely novelist who has a lot of issues (he sees a therapist). he wrote this amazing debut novel (everyone thinks he is a genius, though he hates the word). he even has bookish groupies, aka maeby from "arrested development"(!).

random digression but i could totally see myself as a bookish groupie, but have never thought of who i would sleep with based on book alone. i will do this now. please note this is based on their writing not the picture on the book jacket.

contemporary writers, i would want to sleep with: nick hornby, chuck klosterman, kevin wilson and maybe chuck palaniuk (though he would probably be into some crazy shit though i would be open to try. lol)

olden days: hemingway (we'd get along drunkenly and i would forgive him for his cheating), f. scott fitzgerald (ditto for what i said about hemingway, lol), garcia marquez and bradbury, definitely ray bradbury!

back to the movies. so calvin's therapist has him write about a person willing to meet his dog scottie (who is named after f. scott, i'm not a dog person but would consider someone with a pet name that cute!) and that is when he begins to write about ruby, a girl he has been dreaming about. and then one day she appears and she is real! i don't want to give any spoilers but will say that calvin realizes the power he has over ruby because he did write her. i will add that not everything is perfect for them, even though he created her but his love for her is real which is kinda odd. this also provoked another question for me as i read: "do author's fall in love with their characters?" like did austen love mr. darcy, fitzgerald- daisy, kerouac- sal, or tolstoy-natasha? it would make sense also because they were probably based on people they knew in real life.

oh and if you want to know what happens check it out or look for it on netflix.

also ruby is absolutely adorable, which is in part because zoe is so cute. she was the quirky girl that every boy falls in love with. i have a love/hate relationship with these types of girls in movie (see: sam in "garden state", claire in "elizabethtown", "allison" in "yes man", summer in "(500) days of summer" [yup those last two are zooey deschanel]). because i consider myself a quirky-ish girl yet i can't find a artsy boy that looks cute in cardigans to fall for me! where is my romantic comedy?!?! soundtracked by the shins?!?!? lol. but seriously these types of film fill me false hope. but than again this movie proves you need to be in love with the person and not the idea of the person. so i'll shut up now.

oh and before i forget, love love love loved that this movie was filmed in la. i have a soft spot for movies in which i can spot the filming locations. like where calvin gives a talk is totally the billy wilder theater at the hammer musum and the after party is in the hammer gift shop!

so yes go check out this movie!! also if you like books, you'll like this.

p.s. the book cover for the book that calvin writes at the end is totally cute. if it was a real book, i would have picked it up simply based on the cute cover.

anything goes.

seriously blogger is killing me! just right now it deleted the intro for this post. and now i have to start over! (i just looked and there is an update to fix this so got that taken care of!)

my friends and i recently saw "anything goes" at the ahmanson (we are season ticket holders) and i fell in love with it! rachel york's performance was stellar, the storyline was cute and the dialogue was witty! and of course, since cole porter wrote the music, the music was amazing!!!! i absolute love cole porter and was delightfully surprised because i did not know that "i get a kick out of you" and "de-lovely" were in this musical. i also learned that "friendship" was a cole porter song! i only knew of it because it was a song on this disney sing-a-long video i had as a kid, though they cleaned it up to make it kid-friendly. "friendship" was my favorite number of the night but all the music was so good that we were singing songs as we left the theater (my friend danny said that back in the day if the audience left singing the numbers it was an indication that the show would be successful). danny and i were singing them the next day too, so it was super successful in our eyes. also if you are reading this and are not familiar with cole
porter go google him! i love his songs because they are so well-written and clever. his little ditties are so witty and adorable.

i was so excited about the show that i decided to check out the DVD from the library so i could listen/watch the songs over again. sadly i had my hopes up too high, the movie version was horrible compared to the the stage production. even bing crosby added to its horribleness, my grandma told me she always thought he was wrongly casted and i have to agree with her. though crosby had a voice, they needed a dancer. i love donald o'connor and enjoyed his performance. however, would have liked him in the lead role from the stage than the one played. mitzi gaynor was adorable in her role. i also like jennmarie though i loved her wardrobe more! the polka dot dress she wears during "all through the night" was de-lovely and delightful!

but the actors couldn't save it. i disliked the movie because the book from the musical was not used in the movie. the stage storyline was a lot more entertaining, it had stowaways, public enemies, sex fiends, secret lovers, gamblers and ended with a wedding! the movie verison not as exciting. crosby played a broadway star putting together a new show with an upcoming television star who was also kinda rude (which broke my heart). they both head to europe and they each (without the others' knowledge) sign a girl to play the lead. they both try to convince the other to fire the girl the other signed but end up falling in love with that girl. in the end, they ended up changing their production storyline so that everyone can live happily ever after. basically they change the storyline to what happens them so it's one of those weird musical in a movie thing, though we don't see them reinact their story. but in contrast to the stage production it was boring! not even gabriel blowing his horn could have helped it. (85 actually didn't as its closing number.)

sadly they did not use all of the songs from the stage production. it broke
my heart because there was no "friendship" which as i mentioned before was my favorite. also they didn't use my favorite songs as part of the storyline (meaning they didn't break into songs randomly to express their innermost thoughts) but rather use them
as production numbers within the movie kinda like a show within a show. for example, "i get a kick out of you" was sang to a lover in the play but was a nightclub number for the french singer. and they kinda killed "you're the top" which was a cute ditty between two friends but instead in the movie was a used as a number they were practicing to prove which leading lady was the best. and i think this is what made the difference and resulted in my dislike of the movie. the musical numbers were not the words of lovers but actors playing lovers. "all through the night" and "de-lovely" were sweet because they were sang to their girls versus an audience. by making the songs productions within the movie, it resulted in the songs losing their sincerity. in this case, using the songs like this did not work, anything did not go.

though i love the songs, the storyliruined too weak especially in contrast to what i saw on the stage. so skip the movie but if you get a chance to see the stage production, go see it!

the family that reads together, stays together

today is my grandpa jimmy's birthday and while looking for photos of him to post on facebook came across this newspaper clipping in my grandma's binders. it's from the delano record and was printed on tuesday, august 13, 1968.

the description of the photo reads:

avid readers- these youngsters were among the top award winners in the summer reading club at delano branch library. shown are, from left, zack squires, who gave a talk on rock hunting at the awards programs; walter youngest "pirate" in the club; the salim youngsters, bobby, john, annette, and tracy, who represented the most members from one family; and librarian mrs. jane randolph. delano record photo.

the four kids on the right are my uncle bobby, uncle john, my mom, and auntie
tracey! plus the library they are pictured in is the very same library that i use today and used as a kid! this clipping reminded me how amazing grandma bea is, she took two generation of kids to participate in the library's summer reading programs. it's great to know that before my grandma bea took my sister and i to the library every summer, she took my uncles, aunts, and mom. i know these visits made me a lifelong reader and of the previous generation, my uncle john and auntie kathy are the most avid readers. i am trying to continue this tradition with my little brother, i signed him up this summer for the reading program. and hopefully one day i will have my future kids participate as well.

a christmas memory. truman capote. (84)

i read "a chrismas memory" before, it was one of the short stories with "breakfast at tiffany's", however when i saw it among the holiday books, i had to check it out. i am glad i did it, is a great story to read for the holidays.

"a christmas memory" is about the last christmas a young boy and his older cousin share together. it is explained that a lifetime separates them, he is seven and she is sixty-something. regardless of age, they are best friends and have a wonderful time together. they have a handful of christmas traditions which they do together: making fruitcakes (they send them out to random people including the president), chop down a tree, decorate their tree and of course, make and exchange gifts. and what makes this story so sweet is their selflessness and love for one another. they do not have much but they make the most of what they have and end up creating a wonderful christmas together.

there are so many great parts in "a christmas memory". the "museum" they created with a three legged biddy chicken so they could raise money for ingredients for the fruitcakes. or how they killed flies in the house for pennies and then were remorseful when counting their money due to thoughts of the dead flies. the cousin's superstitons, they counted $13 for fruitcake money but threw a penny away because 13 is unlucky (she stays in bed on the thirteenth). how they had to buy bootleg whiskey from mr. haha, an indian. mr. haha asked them who was drinking but when they explained it was for fruitcakes, he sold it to them, then gave them back their money and asked for a cake as payment instead. and of course, i loved when they got drunk off of the leftover whiskey (though they sadly got in trouble for it, he is seven!). and because of their poverty, how they made their own ornaments out of paper, they even saved up hershey-bar tin foil to make angels!!! so cute and sweet.

but the best part was at the end. they secretly made kites for each other for christmas and go out to fly them. and while they are flying kites, the cousin made this observation:

"i've always thought a body would have to be sick and dying before they saw the lord. and i imagined that when he came it would be like looking at the baptist window: pretty as colored glass with the sun pouring through, such a shine you don't know it's getting dark. and it's been a comfort: to think of that shine taking away all the spooky feeling. but i'll wager it never happens. i'll wager at the very end a body realizes the lord has already show himself. the things as they are"--her hand circles in a gesture that gathers clouds and kites and grass an queenie pawing earth over her bone--"just what they've always seen, was seeing him. as for me, i could leave the world with today in my eyes."

i think the cousin's observation is something that we need to remember not only on christmas but every day. we take for granted all the beauty in the world. people are always looking for some large sign from god or whatever higher being they believe in. however, in order to see god, we need to appreciate the small things in life. for those who are religious, god is love and so anywhere there is genuine love, there is god. and it's even more important to remember today that it isn't about the gifts but about the time you spend with your love ones. i love presents but it's the memories and thought behind the gift that will last forever not the material gift.

in the end, the boy moved away to military school and the cousin eventually passes away. it's sad but they will always have their christmas memory so their love is not lost.

last but not least, this book was donated to the library in memory of dianna sedor, so decided to honor her:

a christmas carol. charles dickens. (83)

i have to start off by saying that i hate blogger. i had just finished my entry for this and went to add a second picture and it somehow deleted my entry. what you are reading is a second draft and sadly prolly not as good as the first one.

charles dickens has been on my to read list every since i started my classics mission. with christmas coming up, i decided to read "a christmas carol". i started reading it on the 21st and planned on reading a stave a day so that i would be finished on christmas. (i learned on wikipedia that a stave is a stanza so it goes with theme of it being a carol!)

i, like majority of people, am familiar with the story due to childhood cartoons but have never read the story. i mean, this christmas alone, i saw bits and pieces of a smurf's version, mr. magoo's version, a looney tunes that referenced it and the disney version with jim carrey (i plan on watching this in its entirety simply because colin firth voiced fred). however as i was reading, i kept on thinking to myself, "how is this kid-friendly"?!?! i mean the ghost of christmas yet to come and the discussions on poverty at death are quite serious for a kid. then again the tales of brother grimm are quite dark yet they are staples for kids everywhere.

"a christmas carol" is a beloved christmas classic but i didn't enjoy it. i will start by saying that it wasn't due to the writing. dickens is dickens and though at times he left me scratching my head because i had no idea what he was rambling on about, it was well written. i will say that i did enjoy some ramblings like the opening discussion on the phrase "as dead as a doornail". and even though the story is now apart of popular culture and is retold every year and there are countless adaptions, (i mean there is a matthew mcconaughey/jennifer rom com based on it) the story premise is still interesting. a man is visited by three ghosts and sees the error of his way and changes for the better. still solid stuff.

so why didn't i enjoy it?

first it's because christmas has turned into this crazy capitalistic machine. i might sound crazy and maybe it's because i am miserly and heartless but scrooge made perfect sense in the beginning. i might be jaded by the problems of the current welfare system in america and the abuse of it i see in delano, but i agreed with his argument for not giving to charity. it is true that those who receive charity are idle because they receive charity. i can speak from first hand experience, my unemployment check did not motivate me to get a job because i was getting a consistent check each month without any work. in addition to this, i do not believe in the concept of wealth = greater christmas. one does not need money to be able to celebrate christmas, all one needs is love. and in the immortal words of j.lo, "love don't cost a thing." furthermore, jesus was born in a manager, christmas is definitely a holiday grounded in humility not extravagance.

i also agreed with his words on holiday pay. it is unfair that he was expected to pay for a day of work when he did not receive any labor in exchange. i mean i am all for paid vacation time but let's be honest it is greedy of us to expect it. we want sick pay, vacation pay and holiday pay, and in essence it is pay for absolutely nothing. there is no labor so there should be no wages.

furthermore, i saw nothing wrong with scrooge not celebrating christmas or recognizing the holiday. where does it say that one has to celebrate christmas? and don't say the bible. i had never read it in its entirety but do not recall god ever saying "thou shalt celebrate the birth of my beloved son jesus by exchanging gifts, decorating a tree and drinking eggnog every 25th of december". also wasn't jesus' birth in april? if scrooge wanted to spend his day by himself than so be it. i am a very festive person but i don't judge or ostracize individuals that don't celebrate it. it's jesus' birthday and you should do as you please (well except breaking one of the ten commandments), plus his lessons were all about tolerance so he would be okay with it. jesus just wanted everyone to be included so would be okay with however someone wanted to honor them, even if it is a lack of honor, he is that humble. christmas day of all days should be the one day in which we respect others' beliefs and allow them to celebrate as they please.

so the story became kinda pointless because i didn't think scrooge needed to change. he's an old man and like they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks. he was set in his way about christmas so they should have just let him be. but then again he wasn't really harming anyone. he was greedy but he made his own money and if he wanted to keep it all for himself than that's his prerogative! and sure he cracked the whip on cratchit but i mean that is how business goes. a nice boss in england during that time would have been the exception not the rule.

in addition to being okay with how scrooge was, i wasn't completely sold on their tactics for changing scrooge. i did believe that the ghost of christmas past did a good job but not the other two. i think the memory of his sister was important for scrooge to experience because he forgotten the importance of family. it was sad that he loved his sister so much but neglected his nephew. it is an important lesson for all to set aside any differences one may have with his/her family for at least one day. family will always be drama but regardless they are your family and will always be a source of love. it is important to celebrate them on christmas.

i didn't agree with the ideas the ghost of christmas present presented. yes the cratchits were poor in terms of money but they were rich in love and happiness. the ghost was the ghost of christmas spirit so he should have understood that one does not need wealth to be happy on christmas. so it was insulting that he sprinkled their meal, they has enough love in this household do make the meal wonderful. they didn't need his pity, it seemed superfluous to give them more joy when they had so much. again, it's this idea where those who live in poverty can not understand happiness. yet all major religions promote this ideal of giving up worldly wants and desires. yet her is the ghost of christmas present helping those who don't necessarily need it just because they are poor in terms of material things.

random digression but was the ghost of christmas present supposed to be jesus or the holy ghost. when discussing business closing on the sabbath, scrooge referred to it being done in his name or the name of his family? also they traveled whenever scrooge touched his robe. this reminded me of jesus and how lepers and the blind were healed when they touched his robe.

last but not least i did not like what the ghost of christmas yet to come represented. i do agree that it was important for the ghost to show how scrooge could prevent tiny tim's death. if at any time charity can help the life of a child than it should be given. i agreed with this aspect of the vision.

i did not agree with death being the motivation for scrooge. we should not be motivated to do good works during our time here on earth because we are scared of dying, the source of our good works should be love. to do something because you are afraid of death is to do something in vain, your reason for being positive is selfish because you are actually only thinking of your own well being. this is going to sound horrible but a lot of times when christians want to help others they are doing it with their position in heaven in mind, when in fact they should simply do it out of love for what god has created. love should be the source of life and not the desire to outlast death.

furthermore, i did not understand the evasdropping on people to see if they were talking about scrooge's death. everyone dies, there is no need for an audience. yes everyone wants to leave a good legacy but still it seems silly to be upset if people aren't talking about you after you die. i would love for their to be a memorial for me but if there isn't, it's okay because guess what, i'm dead! in addition to that i would not be sad if someone stole from my deathbed cos i'm dead. as like my grandma bea says you can't take it with you. i understand that one's death spot should be sacred but i mean if you are than sad of person who wants the bed curtains of a dead person than help yourself. it is more of a demonstration of how creepy you are fore stealing than saying anything about the dead.

i also could not sympathize with the couple that were happy that scrooge died because they were in debt to him. pay your creditors people, don't wish for your creditors' death. that made him worse than him.

so that is it. i didn't think scrooge needed to charge nor did i agree with what the ghosts presented. it was all based on this idea that in order to truely have the christmas spirit, you need money. and as we all hopefully know that is not the case.

the edition that i read was illustrated by quentin blake of rolad dahl fame. i love his drawings and so was excited to find this edition. i loved the drawings in this book except the cratchits women's bows, that hair was awful.

and i hate to be such a perv but seriously this drawing for a man described as "with a pendulous excrescence on the end of his nose that shook like the gills of a turkey cock."

i know my mind is in the gutter, but so was dickens' narrator. the narrator describes the grandchildren of scrooge's ex pouncing on their mother.
the kids are touching her lips, eyelashes, and hair. to which he adds "in short, i should have liked, i do confess to have had the lightest license of a child and yet been man enough to know its value". how inappropriate!!!!

too many tamales. gary soto. (82)

my uncle boon used to share a joke that went like this:

q: why do mexicans have tamales on christmas?

a: so they could have something to unwrap!

no exactly pc but hilarious nonetheless and in that case the epitome of my uncle boon.

it's only been recently that i have equated christmas time with tamale time! i never realized this as a kid. though i didn't like tamales as a kid so that could be the reason for my ignorance. however now i am a tamale fanatic and look forward to christmas because it means an abundance of tamales, it means tamales for breakfast, lunch, and dinner! and seriously they are little bundles of joy.

since it is christmas time and i love tamales, i decided to check out "too many tamales". i hadn't read the book before but i think i saw it on reading rainbow.

"too many tamales" is the story of a girl maria who loses her mom's diamond ring in the mass while tamale making. she discovered the lost after the tamales were made so she and her cousins than eat the tamales trying to find it. does maria find the ring? if you want to know than you should check this book out!

so the story premise is cute but the storyline is kinda weak. first of all, the title, its blasphemous! there is no such thing as too many tamales. second, there is no way that any family would not notice that the kids were eating all of the tamales. if this happened in my house, i would have been called out for being a porker and scolded for being greedy. third, the kids ate like 6 tamales a piece and complained that it was too much. again, maybe i had a big appetite but 6 tamales would be nothing for the kid version of me. it's definitely nothing for the adult version of me.

this aside, it is a great story and especially great because it captures an important christmas tradition, tamale making. and well of course, tamale eating!

ps its things like this that make me grateful i grew up in delano.

the three little tamales. eric a. kimmel. (81)

when looking for "the chanukkah guest", i came across this book written by the author. with my love of tamales, there was no way to i could pass this up.

"the three little tamales" is a updated (and in my opinion, cuter) version of the three little pigs. the story starts off with the three little tamales running away from a taqueria after seeing a tortilla roll away. they move into three different homes and as it goes in the fairy tale world, a big bad lobo shows up waiting to eat them! luckily the third tamale is super smart (she also happens to wear glasses, which i guess makes her the dorky tamale. and yes i loved her frames) and made a cactus her house. all three tamales seek shelter there. hungry for tamales (i get him on that), the lobo decides to go down the chimney just like in the original story, but this time the tamales threaten to turn him into tamales. wolf tamales sounded very sinister to me but at the same time kind of delicious. the wolf than runs away and is never seen from again. in the end, the tamales throw a fiesta to celebrate and invite their tortilla friends.

so cute, right? this book was seriously too cute and only enhanced my love of tamales. so cute, i plan on buying a copy for my personal library. this will also be a staple in my kid's library, if i ever have kids. check in out and read it with your kids and if you don't have any, you can enjoy it by yourself! warning: have tamales on hand because you will be craving them!

also valeria docampo did a great job on the illustrations. check out how cute had tamales are:

shut up and play the hits.

dear james murphy,

james murphy, i love you but you're bringing me down. my heart is broken because lcd soundsystem no longer exist. i know that i will always have the music but with the ending of lcd, i realized i will never again be able to dance myself clean at an lcd soundsystem concert. and let's be honest, i would not have done those drugs at the hollywood bowl if i knew that was going to be my only lcd soundsystem concert. it was amazing and the drugs made it insanely amazing but i don't have any real memories of show, and i wish i did.

i remember where i was when i found out about your final show. i read it on laist's twitter at the chinatown gold line stop waiting for a friend. i freaked out about the news and was hopeful it was a rumor. but that was not the case. i was tempted to buy a ticket but with coachella in the same month, could not afford both (i was on unemployment at the time.) plus with all those damn scalpers i probably would have ended up ticketless. by the way, very cool how you guys did those terminal 5 shows to make up for those basterd scalpers.

but luckily for me, you made a documentary and concert dvd, which my middle-of-nowhere town had in their library system. so i checked it out (also thanks to my friend justin for posting about on fb which inspired me to look for it in the library's catalog). so not only did i get to try to come to terms (somewhat) with your decision, i was able to experience the concert even though i wasn't there. i also was able to buy some merch from the final show. i noticed your panda tote on your visit to keith and looked online and ordered one for myself!

so let's start with the documentary. first of all, kudos to dylan southen and will lovelace and probably the director of photography, reed morano, visually it was stunning. and wow what a clean apartment you have. and though i am not a pet person would consider getting a french bulldog cos yours is so cute!

i loved that chuck klosterman interviewed you. i love all of his books. but seriously man, reasons for the band ending are bullshit. because your getting old?!?! so your body is falling apart, that is not because of the touring, it's because that what happens with age. it sucks, i'm getting old too and it sad how quickly your body turns on you. i used to not be this fat but it doesn't mean i am going to stop living. and so a few gray hairs shouldn't stop you from being a band. also don't you realize that retirement is never healthy for older people? the healthiest old people are the ones that stay active via work.

and i get wanting to start a family but again no need to end the band. look at gwen stefani she had kids and toured. it is possible to have a family and make music. you can create music in a home studio which would allow you to still play dad. plus who says you have to constantly be on the road, you can find a nice balance between touring and home life. plus i just googled your wife a fashion designer? i've watched rachel zoe and her busy is just as chaotic? is she quitting too? it is possible to find a balance between life and work, people do it everyday, rockstarness is not different, in fact it's probably easier cos your night limited to the such a strict work schedule. i see the amount of leisure time industry people have in la, so your family reason is not legit enough.

i know you want to lead a normal life but you are no longer normal, sorry. and no offense but will lcd really ever reach that level where you will not be able to ride the subway? i'm sure you get recognized in brooklyn but let's be honest, your fans are way to hip to ever bother you. move to la, we ignore or celebrities because we see so many of them.

and just as the doc and klosterman framed it, you are jumping ship because you are afraid of failing. its like barry's sub question in "high fidelity": "is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins, is it better to burn out or fade away?" actually it's not cos you are choosing to neither burn out or fade away, you are quitting. you think you're burnt out but you are just scared. and it's okay to be scared but don't be a coward. see what happens next instead of going out when you are on top. this might not even be your peak but we will never know. but just like you tried to avoid saying it in the documentary, it was already written in your face, this quitting will be your biggest failure. this will be what you are known for not the great dance music you created. and i mean this is the nicest way possible but i hope you hit rock bottom so i can attend your reunion set at coachella 2015.

i'll stop being so harsh but my final thought on your quitting is "you fucked up."

okay so now for some praise:

your extra features were great! i loved the story you shared about the reading festival. i love in la, so i know all about that type of horrible crowd but there are those among us who truly love the music so don't short change us. btw i've seen you listed at hard and s.s. coachella for dj sets, how is this different for touring as LCD soundsystem?

also your segment with keith was great! loved you two in the mower.

and the concert. amazing!!! wish i was there. i watched it with my little brother who is 9, and i made him have a dance party with me. i even busted out some light up toys. he had a lot of fun. and it's sad to think, i'll never be able to take him to one of your shows.

i am also going to try to get my friend danny to throw a dinner party/dance party featuring this DVD.

and i hate to be such a poser but only really know "this is happening" and off course "daft punk" and "tribulations". but that little robot rockopera song/set/experience was amazing. thank you. and if you are wondering "home" is my favorite.

so i guess thank you for allowing this moment in your history to be captured. it was nice to be apart of it somewhat. last but not least please reconsider this whole quitting business, you have to be bored by normal life by now. didn't all of those fans crying at the end get to you?!?!?

sincerely,
krisha mendoza

p.s. can you please let aziz ansari, i am a huge fan (read: what to make half indian babies with him)? he's funny, a foodie and has great taste in music!

the perks of being a wallflower. stephen chobsky. (81)

"the perks of being a wallflower" has been on my to reread list ever since i saw the movie. i have been hunting for my copy from high school (well not too seriously, i think it's in storage) so that i could read it for nostalgic reasons. however, i recommended allison (one of my adventure day kids, i take a couple of kids from the dance studio to the library on tuesdays) check it out. and since she is in a middle of a book, i borrowed it so i could reread it. right now i am in the middle of "les miserables" but took a break to read this. it took me 6 hours to read.

like i gushed in the blog post about the movie, i absolutely love love love love love this book. for proof check out that post.

even though i read it a handful of times in high school, i forgot a lot of things. i forgot about charlie's friend michael's suicide, sam's molestation as a child, his sister's pregnancy, and charlie and sam's talk on her last night. furthermore, i realized that the movie really did do the book justice. paul rudd made an excellent bill, i seriously have a huge book crush on bill. i also plan on reading the books and watching the movies bill gave charlie.* (maybe i should look for a nice high school english teacher to date?) i have to add that my rereading was greatly askew by the movie because i saw all the characters as their actor counterparts. sadly i can not remember how i imagined them before. however, all of the actors did fit, so it was fine. overall, i realized that i may have been a little harsh on the movie version, it was not as horrible or disappointing as i said. it was true to the essence of the book. however, i have to reiterate my disappointment in the christmas poem not being recited in the film.

my rereading not only made me realize how harsh i was on the film but also why i didn't love it like i loved the book. the reason being that as a reader you really get to know charlie, as a viewer your relationship is superficial. charlie is a great character and the best way to get to know him is through his letters. the ramblings in his letters paint a better picture of who charlie is versus the tales of his high school years. yes the stories were great but the true beauty is his musing and thoughts on life.

here are some examples:

his thoughts on old photos and how people happier people look in them:

"i just hope i remember to tell my kids TJs they are as happy as i look my old photographs. and i hope that they believe me."

when he discovered his grandfather once beat his mom when she was a child and received bad grades:

"i don't know if that's good or bad. i don't know if it's better to have your kids be happy and not go to college. i don't know if it's better to be close with your daughter or make sure that has a better life than you do."

on mixed tapes:

"i has an amazing feeling when i finally held the tape in my hand. i just thought to myself that in the palm of my hand, there was this one tape that had all these memories and feelings and great joy and sadness. right in the palm of my hand. and i thought about how many people loved those songs. and how many people got through a lot of bad times because of those songs. and how many odious enjoyed good times with those songs. and how much songs really mean. i junk it would be great to have written one of these songs. i bet if i wrote one of them, i would be very proud. i hope the people who wrote those songs are happy. i hope that they feel it's enough. i really do because they've made me happy. and i'm
only one person."

i just realized that i will end up quoting the whole book so will stop. but the point is that what makes charlie so great is his selflessness, his ability to think beyond himself. i try sometimes to think about the lives of strangers, wondering what they have experienced and when i do, it humanizes them and then it easier to understand and then eventually love thy neighbor. charlie was just as described, a wallflower and an observer but what made him different was his empathy. as i read about charlie, i thought of another boy who felt too much, douglas from "dandelion wine". i didn't discuss it in that blog but at the end of "dandelion wine" douglas became ill because he takes on the suffering and feelings of others. it's kinda jesus-y but not in a cheesy way. but both saw the world in a ego-less way which resulted in novels with great life lessons.

the ramblings of charlie get one thinking about their life and that is what make this book so great. charlie's inner thoughts were lost in the movie. it's probably because these thoughts would have been too random in the movie but make sense in the book. like when charlie's mother told his brother to watch his language in front of charlie. his brother used the words "faggot" and "high" and charlie realized that he is the only one in the car that has a gay friend or has done drugs. he also realized that maybe everyone is in family has been high and they just don't say anything. and he's so right. i bet a lot of people who know have toked up but we just don't realize it. its random thoughts like this that make you love charlie.

as i was reading, i wondered what it was that made the younger me fall in love with this book. i know for one it was the music. i actually made a mixed cd version of the tape charlie gave patrick as his secret santa gift (i listened to it as i wrote this blog). and to this day i am hopeful that a boy will gift me a copy of the beatles' "something" because it reminds him of me. i also love the idea that certain moments soundtracked with the right song can makenone feel infinite.

so quick digression. in the movie, the infinte song was "heroes" by bowie. but in the book it's simply a song about a boy. i thought maybe pearl jam's "jeremy" but that song came out in '92 and that moment took place in '91. i tried googling songs about a boy in 91 and no luck. even looked through list of top songs of 91 and found nothing. curious about others theories on what song it is. though i did discover that the love song they heard while searching for music that had the word "baby" had to be amy grant's "baby, baby" that came out in 91.

the poem that charlie gave patrick for christmas had a profound effect on the high school verison of me. i thought it was really deep. i had the same reaction as the rest of the group at the christmas party. i was in awe of it. now as an adult, the poem is sad but less profound, i guess the difference is that i have lost my naiveté about the world. when i read it as a teen, i was starting to question my world as i knew it. i was realizing that not everything is black and white and that though i may have strong morals, it doesn't mean the world does. i always mentioned my religious upbringing but i remember the priest part because i was starting to realize maybe religion wasn't capital t-truth. and that maybe things done in the name of god where not always the right thing. the ending of the poem never seemed a solution to any problems i had as a teen, it wasn't profound because i had thoughts of sucide. though it did make me sad for kids that did. i lived in a bubble, i never suffered any kind of abuse, and lead a straight-edge life. so did not connect with the story because it was a shared experience.

reading the perks was a voyeuristic experience for me. i never did drugs or had sex in high school, i was such a good mormon. so "the perks" was how my high school years could have been if i released my inner party-er at a teen. i would have done everything except the lsd. and no coincidence that one of the first things i did in college was attend a midnight "rocky horror" showing. i loved reading about their performances. (i always say myself playing columbia versus dammit janet. i would get down in those tap shoes!). so maybe i was charliesque in that sense, i didn't "participate" in that crazy lifestyle but enjoyed reading about it.

"the perks of being a wallflower" will always be one of my favorite books. these characters have always felt like my friends and even as i grow older, i won't lose my connection. they are like high school friends, you may outgrow each other but you will always be friends because of the experiences you had together.

last random note: the lowercase-ness of the title is why i stopped using capital letters.

*charlie's reading and watching list:
to kill a mockingbird
this side of paradise
peter pan
the great gatsby
a separate piece
catcher in the rye
walden
on the road
naked lunch
the stranger
halmet
the fountainhead

the graduate
harold and maude
my life as a dog
dead poets' society
the unbelievable truth

war and peace. movie version.

after finishing, "war and peace" i decided to see if there was a mini-series to check out. didn't find one but found the 1956 movie starring audrey hepburn.

i will say that once i saw the cover i knew that audrey would do well as natasha. she did make a lovely natasha. she had the beauty and the spunk of tolstoy's character. she was everything i imagined natasha to be. another great casting was mel ferrer as prince andrei. he was handsome, noble, loving and at times oddly cold. all of the casting was great, helene was beautiful, mayra was not as pretty, kutuzov was fat and old, and all of the men were handsome!!

but i didn't agree with all of the casting. i envisioned old prince bolkonsky fatter. napoleon was way too tall, he needed to be shorter. sadly, i did not like henry fonda as pierre. he just didn't seem like pierre to me, there is vulnerability and uncertainty to pierre that fonda did not project. i have no idea who would do better as pierre, i just didn't see fonda as pierre.

so when i first saw the cover, i assumed that hollywood probably condensed tolstoy's epic into a two hour romance, focusing on the pierre, natasha, prince andrei love triangle. however they didn't! it was actually 208 minutes and the whole novel was covered. some things were cut out or edited but for the most part the whole book was covered. all of the major story lines were there. i will admit that toward the end i started to get bored but that was because it was the war part.

there were some parts that i wished would have stayed true to the book.

-countess rostov's disapproval of nikolai and sonya's romance. they sure did a lot of kissing in front of his family.

-dolokhov's storyline needed to include the fact that he was living with pierre and pierre's close friend when he had his affair with helene.

-pierre's uncertainty about his love for helene. it seemed as if pierre was in love with helene. also it needed to be shown that her family forced him to marry her.

-natasha needed to be more sickly and grief-stricken after her incident with anatol.

-prince andrei's kid was way too young.

-natasha and pierre's ending was way too hollywood.

-and since i loved it so, the nikolai and marya meeting and story.

all in all, i think it is a good adaptation and individuals who don't read or don't want to read the book should check it out.

two from galilee. marjorie holmes. (80)

after his death, i checked out a collection of essays by gore vidal. i didn't have time to read it (i was bombarded by requests from the library). but i did read part of an article, "the top ten bestsellers according to the sunday new york times of january 7, 1973". for the article, vidal read all ten and wrote about them. this is how i discovered marjorie holmes' "two from galilee"

vidal was a witty, no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is kinda writer. he must have been the perfect sitting at a bar and shooting the shit partner. i loved his wit and feel guilty for not reading his essays but will redeem myself in the future. anyway, this is what he wrote about "two from galilee":

…what about a love story starring the mother and step-father of our lord? A super idea. and marjorie has written it.

seriously, how could i not be interested?!? we all know that i'm not religious but i love jesus-y things (unless they are forced upon me by christians to save my soul, i don't like that).

the novel is just as it is subtitled, "a love story of mary and joseph". it's like christian fan fiction though they think jesus is real so i guess more like christian historical fiction. however you label it, i had to read it, it's like a prequel to the christmas story. and yes i did save it until now to read right before christmas.

according to her bio on the back flap, marjorie holmes isn't a certified jesus expert, no mention of a theology degree nor religious studies, all we get is that she graduated from cornell college of iowa and she taught a writing class at catholic university in maryland. however, her other works include "i've got to talk to someone, god" and "who am i, god?" so she is some type of god expert? i mean she did get me to pick up a bible for the first time in about 5 years (to see what exactly was written about mary and joseph, surprisingly not much) so she has to be some sort of vessel for the work of god.

but in all honesty, i think it's a clever premise for a book. i mean if someone were to claim what mary was claiming today, we would think she was bat shit crazy. we can only assume that it would have been the same back then. and that is something we don't see in the bible. seriously it's bare bones in the bible, angels appear to bring messages from god and she gives birth. no real insight on the whole being pregnant and a virgin or the whole giving birth in a manager. just like men to gloss over that when they are recording the life of jesus, way to go matthew, mark and luke.

so "two from galilee" let's us know about mary and joseph, b.c. before christ. according to holmes, mary was this great beauty that everyone wanted to marry. but she was in love with joseph who was six years her senior. by the way, their ages: mary 13 and joseph 18, which in modern times ewwww, but back than, prolly like whatever, but holmes paints it as something odd. however, her mother (who vidal described as the epitome of an overbearing jewish mother) did not approve of joseph because he was poor and his father was an alcoholic. (good thing jesus wasn't joseph's kid cos we can't have the son of christ with those genetics).

however when mary becomes a women aka gets her period, she than takes fate into her own hands and manipulated her parents into letting her marry joseph. this part felt far fetch to me.

all is well in the world until an angel appeared to inform mary, she was the chosen virgin to birth the christ child. i am disappointed with god on this one, given the gravity of the matter, god should have appeared before mary himself to tell her know what was going on. furthermore, i find it interesting how god and jesus found the time to appear before joseph smith, of mormon fame, but not the mother of jesus.

then she had this weird body experience, which seemed like the ulitimate orgasm the way holmes described it (there was sweat, ultimate bliss and screams of "oh god"), when god impregnates her. again this seemed weird to me, no need for mary to feel anything physically, you're god, just fertilize that egg. in this regard, i find zeus the better god, he had the decency to take on forms like swans to impreganate women.

so mary told her mom, who thought she was bat shit crazy, which i think is a reasonable reaction. her father who always knew mary was special, believed mary but then mom convinced him otherwise. and joseph was just confused because he loved her. anyway, like all premarital pregnant girls, mary was sent away to a cousin. and that cousin was elizabeth who the angel told mary would be pregnant as well. i didn't undertstand why mary didn't tell her parents about elizabeth as proof of her immaculate conception. holmes had mary keep silent for fear of sounding really crazy, unmm too late. also for some odd reason, the part about the john the baptist jumping in elizabeth when mary arrived stayed has stuck in my brain all these years. no idea why. also all of these art pieces with john and jesus playing as babies, are they a sham? they never hung out as toddlers, right?

with mary away, galilee became a buzzed with gossip about what was going on with her and joseph's marriafe and she brought shame to everyone. the rumors were that a) joseph couldn't keep his penis in check or b) mary commited adultry. joseph had to decide what to do, everyone wants him to divorce her but than an angel appeared and he decided to marry her. mary returned because elizabeth gave birth and it's not good for pregnant women to be near. then ceasar put out his tax rules and mary and joseph travel to bethelem. and everyone knows the rest, well christians do.

i did appreciate how holmes did give details about the birth. because no one thinks of mary sweaty, bloody and near death as she gives birth. we just think of her in this cute little manager with sweet animals around her and a glowing christ child. in the story, holmes used the birth as a metaphor for the suffering that jesus would eventually take upon himself. which got me to thinking, if he was the christ child, shouldn't he have taken on the most pain during his birth? shouldn't marry have felt nothing? and once again, where was god? couldn't he have helped with the easing of pain? i get that he don't help jesus on the cross but jesus is god while mary is human, he could have cut her a break. maybe teleport out the baby like i hope will happen in the near future before i give birth.

so on to my critiques. my first is the view of female and male sexuality in this book. i understand it was an indication of the times but there was a double standard because male sexuality was accepted even if it was taboo back then. the only form of acceptable sex for women is one that comes from true love, which i guess mary and joseph would eventually have one day. other than that sex was scary and unenjoyable for women. helene, mary's mother, was scared of sex when she was first married and kept on warning mary of its pain. and then after the wedding of her cousin, mary wonders to herself

"and the bride and the groom. were they growing eager for their hour? how soon would deborah be led to her couch, stripped of her finery and made to lie down to await her husband in the still throbbing music of the darkness? and the groom, slightly drunken, flush and persirpring garland askew, his pudgy hands outstretched."

what nice imagery a woman stripped and waiting for drunken husband to have his way with her. this sounds like rape's first cousin. (thank god i live in modern times where i can be just as drunk as my husband.) and to top it all of mary's cousin was a little risqué wanting to kiss and thinking she should have done more before marriage. yet on her wedding night forced to be the virgin.

and as the double standard goes, men get to spread their seed like no other. no one bats an eye at cleophas who is rumored to have many lovers at ports but everyone wanted to shame mary for possibly committing adultery. furthermore, mary's
father actually felt bad for joseph for having to wait to have sex until their marriage especially after their betrothal. after a discussion with his wife he though to myself:

"hannah had no idea what it was like to be a man--this waiting. no women could comprehend physically passion. . . [mary] but was a child; she did not have the faintest concept of the demon-god that entered a youth's loins at puberty and gave him no peace after. that drove him, a whip goading, lashing him sometimes beyond all reason and honor . . . six months could be an eternity to when you were enflamed by a woman and already bound to her."

disgusting, according to this, it would have made sense if joseph knocked her up before he should have. and once gain the virginal woman not knowing anything about passion.

another critique i had was the talk about marriage for love. it was silly how fortunate mary and joseph felt because they were actually in love and how they talked about how in the future more people would marry for love. it was as if jesus would show people the folly of their ways. no offense but jesus had more important issues than marriage like maybe the whole love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, repent of your sins, and stop with the temple sacrifices, to take on marriage. plus we all know the christian right aren't for love in marriages, they don't believe in love because if they did, they would let gays marry.

there was also a lot of period talk in this book. and if you follow my twitter i like to talk about periods. as i reading about mary explaining to her mom that she was pregnant because she missed her period, i realized i was a naive preteen and my mom failed on the period talk. i didn't get the correlation between period and pregnancy until i had been bleeding for a good three years or so. if i was 12 and the chosen virgin, i would not have gotten the whole, hey i have no period something must be up. i wouldn't know i was pregant until i started showing.

and last but not least, i have to critque how holmes christianized the story especially since jesus was not born yet so the whole christian spin on the world didn't make sense. for example, in the end, when joseph realized all the suffering that his child would endure being the christ child, he discussed how jesus would have the ultimate cross to bear. joseph was right, but this idea of a cross to bear seems to me more of a christian idea than a jewish one.b plus i am pretty sure it's popularity came with jesus' crucifixion, though i know jesus is not the only person to ever be crucified. i also thought it was odd how they discussed the men studying scriptures at home. i am not an expert on this but if in the story joseph couldn't afford to send a reed letter to mary, how could he afford torah scrolls for the home. furthermore, weren't most people illiterate? the novel had both mary's father and joseph not going to school yet they both study scriptures at home? and this isn't saying that jews don't study at home, i just think back than they probably did it at temple. also maybe it's just cos i was raised mormon, this whole study your scriptures at home was a daily task. and last but not least there was talk about mary seeing joseph at the synagogue. i thought the sexes would have been segregated but turn out after googling there is no indication architecturally that there was a divide between the sexes. so holmes got it right.

all in all, a wonderful spin on the christmas story. and if i was a christian i would probably love it. i did love it for purely blasphemous reasons and will probably go to hell due to my life, but that is only if this tale of a virgin giving birth to the christ child turns out to be true.

oh and seriously this was the best part of the whole book:

[deborah, mary's cousin, said,]"his lips--they're like kissing a sausage."

mary gasped, shocked if amused. a sausage was heathen food.

the chanukkah guest. eric a. kimmel. (79)

due to the holiday season, i have added two christmas books to my reading list. however, this morning i realized that hanukkah started today and decided to check out what books the delano library had. i found two online but only found one at the library. i found "the chanukkah guest" by eric a. kimmel. (note: you can spell hanukkah with or without the c, not sure why that is. however, i prefer the non-c.)

i read "the chanukkah guest" with brother bear at sunset (when hanukkah officially starts) and taught him about the cultural hanukkah things like dridels and latkes. also informed him that jesus was a jew and also nephi from the book of mormon.

the story was adorable and of course includes a great grandmother, bubba brayna. bubba brayna made the best latkes and always hosted the first night of hanukkah. however, this time she had a surprise. old bear came out of hibernation and the first thing he smelled were latkes. following the smell, he ended up knocking on bubba brayna's door. since she didn't see or hear that well, she let the bear in, thinking he was the rabbi. they had a lovely evening, they lit the menorah (the bear "said" the prayer, so i guess growling sounds like hebrew?), they played dreidel and the bear ate all of the latkes with jam. (brother bear and i agreed we would eat our latkes with sour cream). bubba brayna even gave old bear a scarf as a gift and the bear licked her face which she mistook for a kiss.

after old bear left, everyone showed up. bubba brayna explained that the rabbi ate all the latkes but her grandchildren discovered the paw prints and that it was a bear not the rabbi! but as sweet as bubba brayna is, she just laughed and said "that was a very clever bear . . . or a foolish bubba brayna". then everyone pitched in and made latkes and a wonderful hanukkah!

it was a very cute story and had brother bear and i laughing. it also made me extremely hungry for latkes. but being in delano, not sure where i will find them. when i told my friend larry that i might just eat hash browns and applesauce, he suggested mcdonald's hash browns. i was impressed by his innovation because micky d's hash browns are very latkes-esque. so hopefully will get my fill over these next few days of hanukkah!

the secret book of frida kahlo. f.g. haghenbeck (78)

this book is another example of library kismet. while amazoning for a frida kahlo doll, i came across this book and made a mental note. later that day i went to the rabobank arena in bakersfield to buy tickets to barry manilow. since we were by the beale library, i decided to visit it. and i kid you not, this book was waiting on a shelf right where i walked it. it seemed too perfect. so i checked it out.

though i dressed up as frida kahlo for halloween:

and i have seen her art at the lacma. both from their permanent collection and their recent exhibit on women surrealists, "in wonderland". i would not call myself a frida expert. in all honesty, most of what i know about her i learned from her biopic starring salma hayek. i didn't even know about her accident until the movie. i am a bit of a whimp when it comes to blood/injuries so i skipped that part of the book because it made me nauseous. the idea of her accident made me so squeamish that had to be down the book when i started reading about it. also after reading this book and the bits of her real life, i now want to read a proper biography or autobiography (i requested her diaries from the library.)

so in addition to this being a novel, it is also a cookbook. each chapter contains frida's "favorite" recipes which related to the story that was told in the chapter. we all know i can't cook but i plan on trying some of the recipes like horchata and pumpkin tamales. (so look for a post about that in the future).

and it doesn't stop there! the book also
had book club questions at the end! i think it would be cute to read this as a book club and have each person make a recipe for the meeting, maybe i can convince the PDC dance moms! we'll see.

since there are book club questions i thought i would utilize them for this blog. there are 13 but i chose my top 3. so here we go:

1. the novel begins when frida is close to the end of her life. why do you think haghenbeck chose to order the narrative this way? how does beginning the story with death affect the rest of the novel?

when i first started the novel, i thought that haghenbeck decided to start off with frida's death because it was more theatrical than starting with her birth. however, when her death did arrived at the end, i saw that he did it to give some "it's a wonderful life" flair actually more like "click" flair (yes the adam sandler movie). because you realize what you had read did not actually happen but was a peek into the future, a session with the ghost of christmases to come. and though it is very cliche (see: twilight breaking dawn part 2) in this novel it worked. i thought it was very clever, i was not expecting it. it reinforced the idea of life as suffering.

2. after the accident frida must convince her godmother to allow her to continue living. what is frida's deal with death? what would you do if you were offered a similar deal? discuss what you think about the warning frida's godmother gives before she wakes up: "you will always wish you'd died today. and i will remind you of this every day for your life." (61). at the end of her life, does frida regret living past this first death?

frida's deal with death is that she will paint a self-portrait (which explains her painting of self-portraits in real life), that will hold her place in the afterworld so she can return to life. however, death can still take her, she is not immortal. i would strike the same deal. i don't believe in an afterlife so once i die i will be worm food. since i think death is the ultimate end, i would make the same deal with death. better to be alive and suffering than dead. frida's godmother's warning just demonstrated that no one can truly cheat death because you will always be haunted by the fact that you could have died. in my opinion, death did not make frida suffer more, what magnified her suffering was that it was now filtered through a "if i died this would have never happened to me" lens. also wishing for death is not something limited to just frida (we see in this in the story with the section about dorothy hale). when times get tough most people probably do wish for death to end their suffering. death as a relief is nothing new, suicidal tendancies is more than just a band. and euthanasia does exist. frida did not regret living past this first death. if she did, she would have committed suicide earlier in the story.

9. frida is in a constant struggle to continue living her painful life. why does she choose this painful life over an easy death? think about the words "have the courage to life, because anyone can die." (7, 95, 129) how do you interept this maxim?

i think this is kind of a dumb question. why does anyone choose a painful life over death? because death is forever and life is short, so thus more valuable. she didn't chose to have a painful life, she simplt chose life. no one is exempted from pain in life, jesus, buddha, krishna, mohammad, all founded religions as a means to escape pain and suffering of their lives. why should we mere mortals be any different? and isn't that the goal of all religions, to stop the pain of life? i do believe in the maxim, anyone can die but not everyone can live. in the novel, death explains to frida that it is a true communist because regardless of class, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, and age, death will take you, it is blind to your status. also death is easy it takes much more effort to life that it does to seize being.

sorry, just realized all of my questions were about death but those questions were the most interesting one.

one last enhance activity:

1. look up one of your favorite frida kahlo paintings and find a passage in the novel that you feel relates to the painting. discuss how the aesthetic of the painting aligns with haghenbeck's reimagining of frida's life.

one of favorite kahlo painting is "two fridas":

i saw it this summer at the lacma. and i
originally wanted to dress up as the frida in white for the halloween (bleeding heart included) but it didn't happen. what i love about this painting is the heart. it reminds me of the glowing crowned heart that is in jesus paintings. also as a gemini, i get the whole twin thing. i do feel like i have two personas, so i enjoyed seeing frida pay homage to hers.

to be honest, as i read about the godmother and frida, i had a feeling that "two fridas" would be referenced. and i was right! in the end, the veil of the godmother is removed and the painting of "two fridas" is described:

"the women removed her veil. frida the tehuana took the hand of her godmother, who was frida the death and connected the atery to her heart so that it would beat again."

i think the later half of this question is not well thought out. all and every kahlo's paintings are capable of being described as aligning with haghenbeck's reimagining, because they are art and opened to intereptation. however, i do believe that this painting does align well. since this is a favorite of mine, i was ecstatic when it received a shout out. it was interesting how he interepted one of the fridas as death especially since she did have that early brush with death. i am not sure of the actual motivation behind the painting. and though i think of the two fridas more as a discussion on how we as
individuals some contain binary options within ourselves i.e. lover/hater, virgin/whore or just different titles i.e. sister, daughter, one's occupation, etc. we are all so complex, it's like the Fiona apple song, "i'll make the most of it, i'm extraordinary machine".

there were other paintings that were alluded to and i had to google because i did not know them. though i have seen the dorthy hale painting in person it was interesting to learn the history of it via the book (wikipedia backed up the story though there was some embellishment).

the book was very enjoyable and i look forward to learning about her life in her diaries than reading it again. i feel that there are probably a bunch of inside jokes that went over my head because i am not as familiar with frida's life.