war and peace. leo tolstoy. (77)

in claire messud's "the emperor's children", one of the character's julius was a bit of a hot mess when it came to love. he was constantly pondering if he was a natasha or pierre and this pondering lead to my reading of "war and peace". also "anna karenina" sparked a interest in russian literature, so i decided to read more tolstoy.

as you may recall i had translation problems with "anna karenina" and in my search saw that tolstoy endorsed the maude one. however, i found out that was a bunch of hoopla. but thanks to read russia's great translation chart i went with dunnigan translation because academics endorsed it. (though i wish i read the ecco press version with more peace and less war because let's get serious i could have done without all the battle and retreat talk). the chart was right with its description of it being a small fat book. it was 1455 pages, well 1425, there was about 30 pages of intro, though i didn't realize how thick it was until anyone and everyone who saw me reading commented on its thickness. see below:

and with its 50 million pages it took me an eternity to read. or what felt like one, especially at the end, those last 50 pages were torture. it actually took me 3 months to read but i took breaks to read 7 other books that came in for me at the library and needed to be returned within the three weeks allotted for checking out. luckily for me, "war and peace" wasn't a popular library book because i was able to recheck it out after having it for 9 weeks. (you only get two renewals but if when you turn it in there are no request you can recheck it out.)

so where does one start for a blog entry on a book that was 1400 pages long. i will say that i believe that this work is better than "anna karenina". it had it all war, romance, scandal, philosophy, historical theory, political science, and religion. i think the reason it is not called "the greatest novel ever" is the fact that no one ever has the time to read it. though i wonder if it was split up and called it a trilogy with a prequel if it would do better? the book is already divided into four books. like i told grandma bea, it's not a lot of pages if you think about how many pages the harry potter series is. publishers should give this idea a spin, cash in on the trilogy trend.

so the novel:

"war and peace" is the story of five families in russia during the war of 1812 and the napoleonic invasion of moscow. i think a testament to tolstoy's great writing is that he creates such great characters. and just like with "anna karenina", i became invested in their lives. i admired all of the families with the exception of one, the kurágins. (btw it was so confusing to keep track of all the russian names so make sure you read a version that has some kind of family tree or listing). the kurágins are kind of like kardashians, you love to hate them. and though they are horrible people, they are a great source of drama so you look forward to their appearance in the book. plus they are stupid and vain, are wealthy but not as a result of hard work, and trick the world into worshipping them. (for kurágins its the russian elite, for the kardashains its america.) the family member i abhorred the most was hélène. she would be the kim, down to the point where they both tricked men into marrying them and both of their marriages ended up in fatty paychecks. i hated hélène because of what she did pierre. it made my blood boil how she looked down upon him when he had his bastard status but once he surprisingly received his father's inheritance, her family forced him to marry her! then she cheated on him not only once but twice! she even remarried even though he was still alive! and poor pierre risked his life for her, when he challenged one of her lovers, dolokhov (who was pierre's friend), to a duel. she died in the end, i forget from what, but that is partially because i imagine it being syphilis, the whore!

and then her father (who is definitely kris due to all of his plans to make his kids wealthy by forcing rich people to marry them) tried to have her brother anatól marry princess mayra (who i loved) because he knew his son was idiot and would have no great income of his own. but then he made a pass at this french lady that was mayra's BFF and thank god princess mayra was smart enough to know once a cheater always a cheater. and then anatol goes on to ruin natasha's engagement to prince andréi by attempting to kidnap her so he could marry her! and to top it off he was married at the time! what horrible people, but what good scandals! (seriously though someone should make a primetime drama based on these storylines!)

but aside from those black souls, everyone else is extremely lovable. due to "the emperor's children", i anticipated pierre and natasha being my favorites, but that was not the case. i did love pierre and felt bad for how his story started out and could not believe all he suffered especially during the invasion. all of the turns and twists in his story, had me on the edge of my seat. i constantly worried about him and wished he had a friend to help him out.

natasha was a great character as well. in fact one of my favorite quotes was about her as a girl: "natasha skipped back and jumped up and down one spot like a goat". i can just see her young and full of joy jumping like a goat. lol. nastasha keeps the reader entertained with all of her lovers. however, at times she was such a silly girl that i couldn't handle her. but thankfully in the end she did mature.

but of all the characters, my favorites were nikolai rostov and princess mayra. i don't want to give too much away but i thought they both had such sweet spirits. their love was boundless that one can not help but love them. they both put their family first and made sacrifices for their loved ones. as i read, nikolai reminded me of levin (who i absolutely loved in "anna karenina") with his admiration of peasant life and dedication to his family. their storyline was one of my favorite but do not want to give too much away.

the "peace" storylines were great and kept me glued to the book. during those parts the pages just flew by. but the "war" part not so much. it was like pulling teeth. i enjoyed the "war" parts when it included the storylines of the characters i knew, prince andrei, and the rostovs, especially nikolai's lispy friend, denisov. however, all the talk about the generals and tsar bored me to death to be completely honest. i was tried of reading about kutuzov and people's opinion of him. i think it was because it was so repetitive, especially the discussions about the retreat. it just seemed like every chapter involving that part of history seemed to be the same thing over and over. even as a history major it became too much for me. i like a little bit of history mixed in my novels but not entire textbooks excerpts. i hate to admit it but my eyes glossed over some of the war talk because it wasn't that interesting.

i did gloss over the ending. i almost didn't finish the book. the last 50 pages are tolstoy's analysis of napoleon's invasion and legacy plus and theories on history: what is power and what is power that moves nations. again even as a history major, reading it was tedious. i was tempted to not read the last 50 pages because in all honesty who would know if i didn't. but i had to be true to myself so i read the words though nothing truly stuck.

and let me clarify, tolstoy made interesting points in the last section of the book. he did pose very thought provoking questions but lacking knowledge of the war of 1812, napoleon and tsarist russia, i couldn't contextualize his theories. and though his theories were about history in general, i was wanted to finish the book and not think. he did raise questions of where does power truly lie among the masses or within leaders. (he discusses this within the book pointing out how the people who have the least prestige in armies are ironically the ones that armies are reliant upon, the soldiers. he also discussed how the courses of the battles were not directed by those in charge but by individuals on the battlefield when they were seeking immediate solutions. soldiers directed the course based on what was occurring at the moment. and furthermore, if there is no existing deity what is will and thus the will of god in the context of history? i remember in high school, impressing my history teacher with my question of "but how do we know the king was actually chosen by god? how do we know that god gave him power?" it's true most of history is explained via fate or destiny but what is this greater force? interesting stuff but not what you would expect to see in a novel, especially after 1400 pages so hopefully my glossing can be forgiven.

religion played an important in this book. pierre became a freemason and was on a search for spiritual peace. (random note while i was reading about his freemasonry, i was shocked at that this secret society was discussed. i wonder if tolstoy got in trouble for revealing secrets? i for one am not that interested in the freemasons but liked their whole finding someone to give gloves part). princess mayra was über religion to the point of letting pilgrims stay with her. even prince andrei found god toward the end of the book. however, even with all the talk about god and christianity. my theory is that tolsoy was a buddhist. i wikipedia'd it and it looks as though he was a christian and was a big promoter of non-violence. however, from what i read, he still sounded more of a buddhist. are there christian buddhists? i googled it but it looks like there are buddhist christians.

here are some examples of tolstoy's buddhist thought:

while imprisoned in the shed pierre learned, not with his intellect but with his whole being, that man is created for happiness, that happiness lies within him, in the satisfaction of natural, human needs, and unhappiness arises not from privation but from excess . . .

(buddha realized his suffering came from excess and promoted an abandonment of worldly possessions.)

in the last he had been unable to see the great, the unfathomable, the infinite, in anything. he had only felt that it must exist somewhere and he has been seeking it. in everything near and comprehensible he had seen only what was limited, petty, commonplace, and meaningless.

[. . .] now, however, he learned to see te great, the eternal, the infinite in everything, and therefore in order to look at it, to enjoy his contemplation of it, he naturally discarded the telescope through which he till then been gazing over the wads of men, and joyfully surveyed the ever-changing, eternally great, unfathomable and infinte life around him. and the closer he looked, the happier and more serene he was. the awful question: what for? which had shattered all his intellectual edifices in the past, no longer existed for
him. to that question: what for? a simple ander was now always already in his soil: because here is a god, that god without whose will not one hair of man's head falls.

(buddhism prompts this notion of looking for god in everything.)

and lastly on his deathbed, prince andrei thought to himself:

"love? what is love?" he thought. "love hinders death. love is life. all, all that j understand i understand only because i love. everything is, everything exists only because i love. all is connected by love one. love is god, and to dies and that i, a particle of love, shall return to the universal and eternal source."

(i know that christians believe in love and returning to god, but this passage implies a spirit returning to be part of a higher being, versus being human form
in heaven.)

there is a lot more to be covered from this book but instead of going in depth just thought i would highlight some of the random thoughts i had as i read:

is bulkwinkle's boris and natasha named after tolstoy's boris and natasha?

did natasha's nursing of prince andrei's remind anyone of kitty's nursing of levin's brother?

what is with all of the female taking lovers in tsarist russia?!?!

what did the painting of the king of rome look like? (i googled and that event really did happen.)

why did pierre let himself be forced into marriage?!?!

and how clever of the russians to burn their own city. i would rather leave ashes for invaders than riches for them to loot.

i think julius from "the emperor's children" was more of a natasha. he wasn't pure of heart enough to be pierre.

(that was just some of them.)

all in all, tolstoy's "war and peace" is truly a great novel. there were so many surprise twists that i literally gasped or shook my head in amazement of how life worked out for the characters. if you have time, i highly recommend it and good luck on the war parts.

the five obstructions.

in rosecrans baldwin's "you lost me there", sara, wife of the lead character victor, believed the short film "the perfect human" was the perfect movie. of course after reading this praise, i had to see it. i googled "the perfect human" and discovered it is a real film and the library had a copy of it, so i checked it out. actually, i checked out "the five obstruction" which is a documentary about jørgen leth that made the film "the perfect human". "the perfect human" was one of the special features on the DVD.

when i was done watching "the perfect human", i felt like baldwin's character, victor. it was too abstract or high brow for me and i didn't get it.

at first i thought it was discussion on how the perfect human is an oxymoron. a human can not be perfect because in order to be human one is innately flawed. thanks to eve and adam (she gets first billing here cos she is one that first bit the forbidden fruit) all humans bear the burden of the original sin, so perfection is unattainable. we see in the film that the perfect human is not perfect nor is he special. in fact, the perfect human is normal and does ordinary things. i then started to observe the film as if i was from another planet and observing human life as an outsider. i thought of how when we humans observe animals we label and characterize the mundane things they do. furthermore, we tend to label things extraordinary when they are not. and that is how i came to view the perfect human, he was not special on his own but special because we were observing him.

one scene i found interesting was when the perfect human in a room with no boundaries and with nothing, just danced. i enjoyed his dancing and dancing does make me happy, but still not sure what the complete point of that segment was.

the film closed with the perfect human saying "today, too, i experienced something i shall hope to understand in a few days' time". and perhaps this is what made him the perfect human, the fact that he understand that life is at times incomprehension and what may be confusing in the present will make sense in our future.

even after that all those thoughts, i still agreed with victor that "the perfect human" was silly. i decided to reread the section from "you lost me there" about the film. i no longer had the library copy but thanks to google books found the excerpt i needed. sara described the film as being anti-pretentious and that "the director was putting everything on the line . . .[and] he's saying there is no one you can pin down. even the perfect one's we can not know."

watching it a second time with sara's observation in mind, it did make sense. we see the perfect human doing things and things about him are explained but we still do not really know him.

oddly enough, this was also the conclusion of the documentary. or at least what i think the point of it was. it was bit over my head too.

the documentary involved the director, lars von trier challenging the director, jørgen leth to remake his short film "the perfect human" but with restrictions. i didn't realize it but von trier directed "dancer in the dark", the only film of his i have seen it. this film had the same graininess as that film but that could just be his thing.

von trier gave leth directions for his remakes like limiting scenes to 12 frames, setting it in cuba, setting it in the most miserable place in the world (both leth and i thought india), complete freedom and a cartoon. von trier wanted them to be crap but in fact he loved all of them. he also idolized leth so he was a bit biased. i for one did not care for any of the remakes. i will admit that i do not complete get the original so i may not be the best judge. but the remakes did not have the same spirit as the original. there is a simplicity to it that was lost in the obstructions. the only one i enjoyed was the cartoon one, which surprised both leth and von trier because they hate cartoons.

the fifth obstruction is directed by von trier and everything comes to light. in the end, it is discovered that von trier's goal in making this documentary was to help save leth. once he admitted this, i recalled how von trier always mentioned how happy leth looked or his depression (but unsure what was implied by that). but in the end, von trier discovered that he was projecting on leth and substituted leth as the perfect human. von trier thought he knew leth more than leth himself but turns out he did not know him at all. kinda like how sara viewed "the perfect human" in the novel.

in the end, i was just as confused as the beginning but i think that goes back to my not getting "the perfect human" in the first place. i did google to find out more but came up with no real analysis. i did come across talk about von trier doing another documentary with scorsese and de niro and remaking "taxi driver". this would be interesting and i look forward to that since i am actually familiar with the original.

cover girl.

in sandra cisneros' "caramelo", i learned that rita hayworth was mexican!?!?! thanks to madonna, all i knew of hayworth was that she "gave good face". so i wikipedia-ed it and sadly discovered she isn't mexican, her father was spanish and her mother was irish-english. the mexican rumors started because she worked in mexico, according to this website . so sad that her mexicanness was a bust, however, while reading her wikipedia article, discovered she starred in a number of movies with fred astaire and one with gene kelly. this inspired me to check out "you were never lovelier" and "cover girl" from the library.

growing up, i watched a lot of musicals with grandma bea, especially gene kelly and fred astaire movies, however i don't recall rita hayworth being in any of them. i know grandma bea had me watch "cover girl" when i was little but i didn't remember hayworth or even the movie. as i watched "cover girl", bits and pieces started to come back to me. i remembered gene kelly's "alter ego" dance (though it could have been featured in one of those "that's entertainment" specials). and as much as this makes me sound like a lush, i remember her drunken part . . . i also remembered the oysters tradition. but other than that it was a "new" movie to me.

rita hayworth was lovely and entertaining. i had no idea she could sing and dance! she also had the most amazing costume and outfits. that is one thing that i hate/love about old movies, the fashion! i love it all but am sad that i can't find it at the mall or in a boutique. though i will be on the lookout for a coat like this at my local goodwill:

it was also great to see how things have come back around. in the broadway number, cover girls are featured on different magazines and i was surprised there were so many flower headpieces that would have been right at home at coachella. there was also a huge brimmed hat (think samantha in "sex and the city: the movie") that i would give my left kidney for.

but back to the movie. so a quick synopsis, hayworth played a dancer named rusty that worked a club owned by (she was also his girlfriend). she entered a magazine contest to be a cover girl and won because she looked like the long-lost lover of the magazine owner (turned out he was in love with rusty's grandmother). so after the contest, rusty gets bigger and better opportunity and sadly leaves gene kelly. i would tell you what happens but you should check it out for yourself. the ending is very cute.

i will say that i for one would never leave gene kelly. maybe it's because i have grown up watching him as a leading man but he is like the ideal man (he might be the reason why i have a thing for boys with brown hair over blondes). he can sing, he can dance, and when his character is in love, gets a look on his face like there is no other girl in the world for him but her! swoon!!! he is so dreamy and i fall in love with him every time i watch one of his movies. and of course the same goes for "cover girl", i would love to spend my nights with him, shucking oysters for pearls!

the whole time i was watching, i was bothered because rita hayworth reminded me of someone. in the end i decided it was geena davis in "a league of their own."

also the whole time i was watching i couldn't help thinking to myself how much phil silvers looked like
stephen colbert:

am i right or am i right?

but all in all, a very sweet film and if you have't seen it, you should!

ps this DVD was available thanks to measure b!

you were never lovelier.

as i discussed in my "cover girl" post, i checked out rita hayworth movies after i discovered that she was mexican in sandra cisneros' "caramelo". though it turns out she is not, i did discover that rita hayworth is an amazing actress.

before i discuss the movie, i have to express my thoughts on fred astaire as a leading man. maybe because i was so young when i started watching his movies but in my eyes he is really elderly looking. like way-too-old-to-pursue-the-women-in-his-movies-old (don't get me started on "daddy long legs" that one always kinda grossed me out.) even in my favorite movie "funny face", i'm always like really audrey?!?! sadly "you were never lovelier" was not an exception. hayworth is so beautiful and all i can think of is why is astaire so old? and i googled it. he was about 42 and she was 26 when they made this film. and no offense, but he wasn't a hot 40 like brad pitt or george clooney or even colin firth. maybe he's not my type but never drooled over him like i did/do over gene kelly. there is no denying it the man can dance but even that doesn't help his case or should i say face.

so "you were never lovelier" is set in buenos aires and astaire has travelled there looking for work. (which is very similar to his first film with ginger rogers' "flying down to rio"). in his quest for work, he ended up landing a job when he pretends to be the secret admirer of a club owner's daughter who is played by hayworth. the club owner wanted his daughters to marry in order and hayworth was next. her younger sisters also wanted her to marry because they couldn't until she did kinda like "the taming of the shrew" (or "10 things i hate about you" for generation x-ers). but of course, with all of this secretiveness, confusion and drama ensued.

hopefully without ruining it for you, astaire and hayworth do end up together. and the ending was very pretty woman-esque or "pretty woman" has a very you were never lovelier-eque ending. hayworth is upset that she was lied to so astaire had to woo her again. as a last resort, he donned a suit of armor and rode into hayworth's home to sweep her off her feet like a poem she loved. and yes it did work. it was what gere should have done in pretty woman. also i would like to add that i love musicals because before they kissed at the end, astaire and hayworth did a dance! so cute! if only life was like that!

and of course the fashion was amazing!!! just look at these dresses!!!

that sequin ones is to die right?!?!?

after watching two of her films, i am now a fan of hayworth. though i am sad she is not mexican. but ethnicity aside, she really is beautiful. i foundjust lovelier in this film versus "cover girl" (could be the black and white). i do want to see more of films so will start checking them out from the library. (also thanks to measure b for this one too! for my LA readers, not measure b the porn one but measure b in fresno that was to give libraries funding!)

p.s. the dad used an anthology of love letters to help him write love letters as the secret admirer and this reminded me of big from "sex and the city: the movie". also because the receptionist brought the dad love letters from napoleon as well, didn't carrie read one of his in the movies? anyway, right now i am at the end of "war and peace" and reading about napoleon's war "genius". but i plan on checking out a book of napoleon's love letters so i can see his softer side!

breaking down part 2. movie version.

WARNING: THIS BLOG CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!! (you have been warned so save your bitching.)

(yes, hell did freeze over and i saw a twilight movie at a movie theater!)

i debated about blogging about this movie but figured:

a) it is based on a book and i did blog about "the perks of being a wallflower"
b) with the movie versions of "life of pi", "les miserables", "anna karenina" and "on the road" coming out, i should start the trend of blogging about movies based on books
c) it was a PDC dance moms book club event (though we didn't read the book)

i have never been interested in the "twilight" series, books or movies. my grandma said it was a bunch of teenage fluff and no offense but not interested in reading about a love triangle consisting of a girl, a vampire and a werewolf and their teen angst and sexual frustration. so never read the books. i did see part of the first movie, but had no desire to watch the movies. the movie franchise got too out of control for me to get on the bandwagon. i can admit that robert pattinson is hot, pasty and tall, swoon. i think taylor looks prepubescent so feel like a pervert when i look at him. yes, abs are hot but not on a 12 year old. and seriously kristen stewart???! ever since i saw her first vmas appearance, i can not stomach her. she is not an actress, girl is not acting. she is that weird and awkward in real life and luckily finds roles in which she has to be the weird and awkward girl. (for the record, yes i am sad that she is "on the road".)

however, i decided to break my no-twilight-rule when the PDC dance moms book club decided to see "breaking drawn part 2". i could be a team player plus i owed robert pattinson one for drunkenly harassing him at an adele concert, for this photo:

as much as it pains me to admit this, it wasn't that bad. it was actually entertaining. i enjoyed how they gathered up the different vampires from all over the world. i found it interesting how some of the vampires had special powers, even the evil ones. and that british vampire was dreamy and eye candy always makes everything better.

but here is my laundry list of what i did not enjoy:

-the "war" being a premonition. what a cop out! i got caught up in the battle, i was sad when carlisle died, and cheered when the bad guys died (btw, loved dakota fanning as a villain). and instead of rejoicing when it turned out that it didn't happen, i was disappointed. it was like meyer didn't have the balls to have a real battle. in harry potter, we (yes, we, i loved this series) lost so many amazing people in the battle against evil: sirius, remus, tonks, dumbledore, dobby!!! because guess what, life is unpredictable and unfair and sometimes we lose the ones we love so that good can prevails over evil. furthermore, the kid seemed to be okay with dying. they should have given her up. i mean harry potter sacrificed himself and that aspect is what made that story so powerful. i think the just-kidding-it-was-all-a-dream-ending prevented "breaking dawn" from being great. it lost its heart. instead it was a lame hollywood ending where everyone lives happily ever after.

-in regards to this happily ever after ending, everything cleaned up waaaaay too nicely. seriously jacob and their kid ending up together?!?!? that was gross and the story should not have gone there. in what universe would this be okay?!?! what about an ending showing jacob okay with being single the rest of his life and hooking up with chicks for all of eternity? wouldn't that be more realistic for a werewolf in a vampire movie? lol

-the sex scene 30 minutes into he movie?!?!? i could have lived without watching them christian their house. and the talk about, "wow you were holding back" and "how will we stop ourselves from going at it all the time". seriously, spoken like someone who has been sexually repressed their entire life. (see: meyer is mormon. this sounds harsh but i was raised mormon, i know). people having sex when they want and for as long as they want?!?! these concepts are neither ground-breaking or revolutionary, in real life or the vampire genre. i think twilight's original message of abstinence is important for teens but it does send the wrong message that once married, the lead character turns into a sex fiend. bella was first the virgin temptress and then the horny sex addict. women should not be restricted to only two sexualities the virgin or the whore. we can have healthy sexual appetities without feigning innocent or craziness. we should try to break the virgin/slut whore versus reinforce it!

-instead of abstinence, safe sex needed to be discussed. if half-breeds could potentially pose danger to the world, shouldn't they have been more careful in terms of birth control?!?! edward should have wrapped it up or bella should have been on the pill. just because you are married doesn't mean you are ready to have kids or that you should have them, so you should still take precautions. again another indication of their sexual immaturity.

-lastly, how did the writers let that loch ness monster line remain in the movie?!?!??

so those are my complaints and oddly enough i might read the series but that is just so i can have proof for my avoidance of this series instead of just my snobbiness.

have you seen marie? sandra cisneros. (75)

i discovered that cisneros had written a new book at her talk but was waiting to finish "war & peace" before i put in a request. the other day while picking up tickets to see barry manilow at the rabobank arena. i convinced my mom, that we should check out the beale library. and since i stumbled upon "have you seen marie?", i decided to check it out.

i didn't know much about it. but it was not as i expected. it is short book and has illustrations. (i would find out later that cisneros intended on the book being an children's book for adults, which explains the illustrations). the book opened with marie running away. this scared me because i imagined marie as a young girl, but it turned out marie was a cat. if you know me and pets, i would not worry about a missing cat.

in fact, i didn't enjoy this book at all. it read like a bad parody of the p.d. eastman classic, "are you my mother?". i understood what cisneros was trying to do, her story was about loss and how everyone suffers from some sort of loss. the narrator's mother had just passed away and the story demonstrated how even though she is suffering from it, others are suffering too from loss of family members or sight or memories. however, the book did not remind me of the children books of my youth nor did it arouse in me a sentiment of love or sadness. it felt too forced, the book was trying too hard to be something it was not.

i wasn't a fan of the illustrations either, there were only two drawings i enjoyed.

in this part of the story, the river explained to the narrator how it would take her tears and carry them along all the rivers in the world and that everything mix together.

i also loved his drawing.

in this passage, her mother's spirit whispers to the narrator via the wind, the clouds and that stars her mother is with her.

these examples are the best part of the actual story. the heart and soul of this book and what makes it great is the afterword.

in the afterword, cisneros shares with the reader the backstory for this book and after reading that i had a deeper respect for the book. it should be a foreword instead of an afterward because it helps contextualize the story. the story, the reader discovers, is a true story. the cat did go missing and the story is about their search. the neighbors are really her neighbors, which i found cool, imagine being immortalized in a cisneros book. and knowing that it was based on life made the story more interesting.

in the afterward, the reader also learns that cisneros lost her mother and wrote this to deal with the grieving.

she wrote:

"in the spring after my mother died, a doctor wanted to prescribe pills for depression. "but if i don't feel," i said, "how will i be able to write?" i need to be able to feel things deeply, good or bad, and wade through an emotion to the other shore, toward my rebirth. i knew if i put off moving through the grief, the wandering between worlds would only take longer. even sadness has its place in the universe.

i wish someone has told me that death allows you the chance to experience the world soulfully, that the heart is open like the aperture of a camera, taking in everything, painful as well as joyous, sensitive as the skin of water.

[ . . . ]

i wish somebody had told me love does not die, that we can continue to receive and give love after death. this news is so astonishing to me even now, i wonder why it isn't flashed across the bottom of the television screen on CNN."

i appreciated how cisneros discussed how it is okay to be sad. i enjoy being sad because it makes me feel human. i think it's healthy to be sad, we should not feel this constant pressure to be happy. sadness is as valid an emotion as any of them.

i also loved the last paragraph i quoted. it is true, we do need to talk more about how love does not die and that it continues on. and it's true, when i talk about my grandma jimmy, my heart does fill with joy because his love still exist in the world even though he may not.

so how with that passage can i say that story was bad. because cisneros was unable to capture the beauty of her afterword in the story. i would almost recommend to those that pic up to not even bother with the story and just read the afterword. or make the afterword a foreword.

i believe that the way cisneros discusses death in the afterword is what makes a worthy book. it is sweet and thoughtful and i can imagine it providing comfort to anyone who has lost a parent or loved one.

the casual vacancy. j.k. rowling. audiobook

before j.k. rowlings' "the casual vacancy" came out, i thought i would be super smart and put in an early request for it at the library. i was so excited because i was number 13. i was also excited when it came in. but talk about a letdown when it turns out i requested the audiobook version. (i really feel that this was the error of the library, i don't remember audiobook being on the page i requested. though i have to admit that i have done this before for books for grandma bea.)

i don't drive, so audiobooks have never appealed to me. i can't imagine sitting in a room just listening to words, my mind would wander too much. (how may you asked did i survive lectures in college? well i had to take notes so that stop my mind from wandering). the only way i would be able to listen to an audiobook would be if i had a physical book in front of me so i could follow along.

but since i accidentally checked this version out, i decided to give it a try. the book was narrated by tom hollander, and my what a dreamy voice he has. (i googled and turns out he played mr. collins in recent movie version of "pride and prejudice".) so listening aside it was quite enjoyable.

the story started off interesting. however, i couldn't focus, i kept on thinking about harry potter and even checked my phone a handful of times so i gave up. i really do need the visual word in front of me in order to process it. it's how my brain works. in college my studying consisted of me copying passages from textbooks to help me remember material (and often times could give direct quotes and figures in my essays thanks to it!)

i have not given up completely on audiobooks and will give them another go. my friend lawrence told me that tina fey's audiobook is hilarious. i also want to give mindy kaling's audiobook a try too. but i will check out the physical book along with the audio versions to help me pay attention.