The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

I saw the trailer for this movie the other day, although I can't remember where (on TV, maybe?). My first thought was: Wow, the cinematography looks amazing, much in the style of The English Patient. My second thought was: Gee, this story sounds incredibly familiar, but the title of the book I'm thinking of has nothing to do with Benjamins or buttons. Hmm.

The Brad Pitt/Cate Blanchett film - out December 25- is about a man who's born old. Unlike everyone else, he ages backwards. According to IMDB, he starts out in 1918 as a wrinkled 80-year-old man, and no doubt goes through some very bizarre experiences as the world changes and he gets younger.

The storyline sounds very much like Martin Amis' novel Time's Arrow, published in 1991 (I think). It's been years since I've read this book, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but it's about a doctor on his deathbed, at the end of a cruel and disastrous life. Part of him is reborn, an innocent, unknowing part, and travels backwards from the present. It turns out that the doctor worked at a concentration camp, but to this new part, traveling backwards, the doctor gives life instead of taking it away. It's very weird but as I recall, I really liked it.

I'm thinking I need to read it again. But with a little Googling, I'm also realizing that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has its own source: an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story. I love Fitzgerald, I wish I had had the chance to pal around with him and Ernest Hemingway in Europe in the 20s. So I'm thinking I should read this story too and see how they compare. Then I'll blog again...

Sex and the City goes Gossip Girl

I've decided to branch out a little bit: I'm going to start blogging here about anything book related that catches my fancy. And since there's no time like the present, here we are to talk about the recently announced new Sex and the City books.

HarperCollins announced last week (what can I say, I'm behind) that they have signed SATC novelist to write two young adult novels called The Carrie Diaries, for a 2010 release. I've pasted the press release below, although it doesn't say much, except that the books will take us back to Carrie's high school years.

I'm appalled, and also shocked that I haven't heard cries of horror from any other source. Why am I shocked and appalled? Because Candace Bushnell didn't create the Sex and the City that we know; Darren Star and a team of writers, including Greg Berendt and Cindy Chupack, did. Personally, I think Bushnell is a bad writer; I tried to read both Sex and the City and 4 Blondes, and couldn't stomach either of them. I think Bushnell writes to shock (rather than, say, enlighten, or produce great work) and her style is not my cup of tea.

But personal opinions aside, Candace Bushnell DID NOT create the Sex and the City phenomenon. Her book is a collection of newspaper columns she penned about her life; she didn't really create any of the storylines that people so loved about the show. (See The Guardian link below for more on that.) For the most part, the show stuck to the present-day, but there were hints about Carrie's past - most memorably, the return of her high school boyfriend Jeremy (played by David Duchovny) who was in NYC for out-patient looney-bin treatment. So does Bushnell use that storyline that she didn't create because fans know it? For that matter, does she use Carrie-the-TV-character's characteristics, even though that's not the woman in her original book? I don't know who proposed The Carrie Diaries to whom, but I do know that Candace Bushnell was the wrong choice to pen these novels. What, was Cindy Chupack not available?

Here's The Guardian to enlighten us further:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/may/29/candacebushnellismoreimpor

Press release:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1842013,00.html

#20: Stolen Innocence, Elissa Wall

No need to beat around the bush: I HATED THIS BOOK. The use of caps should tell all. I was curious if other people felt the same way so I looked up the reviews on Amazon; I'm totally surprised to see that most people enjoyed the book, although like A Mighty Heart, I wonder if people are not separating the intriguing and heartrending subject matter from the quality and tone of the actual work.

I'm going to try to keep this short, as I could go on and on with my complaints. At first, the book captivated me - and I couldn't put it down - up until I hit the middle section, when Elissa is married off to her cousin, Allen Steed. After that, I found it intolerable; by the time I reached the last 70 pages or so, I basically raced through it, just wanting to get to the end. I've purposely waited a few days since finishing it to write this post so I wouldn't go off - and who would've thought a non-fiction book could make a girl so angry?

The book's subtitle explains the plot in a nutshell: "My Story of Growing Up in a Polygamous Sect, Becoming a Teenage Bride, and Breaking Free of Warren Jeffs." Elissa grows up outside of Salt Lake City in a polygamous household; her father has 24 kids with three wives. But there are problems within the family and her father is stripped of wives at various times as punishment. Eventually, Elissa's mother, Sharon, is married off to another man in Hildale, where the church is essentially headquartered. Throughout it all, Elissa's siblings question the faith and the kids are labeled as troublemakers. Then one day, her new father tells the family (he has 15 wives living there!) that the prophet has had a revelation from God that 14-year-old Elissa is to be married. She freaks, and then freaks out even more when she finds out it's to her first cousin Allen, whom she despises. After the wedding, which happens in the middle of the book, Elissa tries to fight off her husband's sexual advances, suffers several miscarriages, takes breaking church rules to a whole new level, meets someone else, gets pregnant, and flees the church once Warren implies that she's going to be sacrificed to pay for her sins. The book ends with Warren Jeffs' trial and conviction.

POOR ME, THE VICTIM
The title should have been the first clue, but I found Elissa's willing victimization of herself infuriating. She presents herself as a complete, 100% victim - that is, until she starts presenting herself as a martyred hero. Yes, Warren Jeffs is the devil, but that doesn't automatically make Elissa a saint; life does not happen in black and white. The book uses the passive tense constantly (everything happens to Elissa and her family) but the unfolding of events contradicts her own argument that she was totally helpless. As a result, it makes her an unreliable narrator; once I realized she was twisting the story, I had a hard time believing what she had to say. She definitely, purposefully broke the rules of the church, over and over again, from little things like watching banned movies to big things like having an affair when she's already married. And while, from the outside, her actions seem justified (or, at least, she justified them) because the church's dictates are absolutely ridiculous, she was a willing member of that church. She saw siblings and friends leave, and while it would have been a difficult choice, she could have made it; she chose to stay. And she stays until the end, until she's about to get booted out or sacrificed. It reminds me of that scene in Cold Mountain, when Renee Zellweger's character says, "They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say, 'Shit, it's raining.'" I could go on, but I won't, so I'll just say this in closing the point: Elissa chooses to remain a part of the FLDS. She keeps breaking the rules (and disobeying her husband and the prophet's orders on that subject), and then can't understand why she's being punished. I am certainly NOT, NOT, NOT justifying Warren Jeffs' actions - rather, it's that Elissa courts trouble and then gets upset when she gets in trouble. If she wants to break the repressive rules, fine. If she wants to run away, fine. I applaud both those courses of action; she's grown up in a brain-washing cult. What bugs me is that she wants it both ways: She wants to stay in a church that says the prophet dictates all, but when she doesn't like what the prophet has to say, she tries to circumvent the "revelation"...and never recognizes her own responsibiliy in the situation. It's this lack of awareness that I found completely infuriating.

POOR ALLEN
He's a tough one to talk about, but I still couldn't shake the feeling that the book unfairly crucified him. So basically, Elissa hates him because she feels he bullied her when they were younger, and is hysterical from the moment she finds out he's her intended. Although it's never explicitly stated, the book implies that the prophet is marrying Elissa off to keep her in check. Allen's duty is basically to make her fall in line - and he's supposed to do this is by impregnating her. (The FLDS controls women by keeping them uneducated and pregnant, and telling them that they can't get to heaven without their husbands.) Since Elissa hates him and knows absolutely zero about sex, she freaks on their wedding night. He ends up forcing her time and time again and she comes to abhor him. It's tough to talk about him because he's raping her; automatically, you're supposed to feel like he's evil (and in the book, he's equated with Warren Jeffs). But I think that's an easy label from the outside: After the book spends hundreds of pages on how the prophet controls the flock, I think you also start to see how Allen too is being forced. He's 19 years old when they get married; he's emotionally immature and pretty uneducated, having been raised in this isolated community. His entire life, he's been taught and experience has shown him that he's responsible for what the wives do, and he can be stripped of his home and family at any time on the prophet's word. And the thing is, Armageddon isn't some vague future event; no, Warren Jeffs starts telling them that it's coming, and like, tomorrow. It just seems like Allen was under an enormous amount of pressure. Elissa gives many examples where Allen would bring her flowers or write her a love note; in every instance, she says it was an insincere gesture, a lie, but when you take away her editorializing, you see a guy who really tried to make an effort in his arranged marriage. Elissa, on the other hand, NEVER makes an effort even though she lies to the prophet (and herself) when she says she does...which leads right back up to the lack of awareness. I could add some quotes but I'm going to stop now as I'm getting riled up thinking about it.

Yes, Allen Steed does some awful things. But so do a lot of other people in that book, in the name of religion and salvation. Her mother leaves one of her sons on the side of the road after he gets kicked out due to bad behavior; Elissa's current husband, Lamont, signs an affidavit that helps an FLDS man regain custody of his children after his wife takes them and flees, as Lamont thinks it will help him get back in Warren's good graces (it doesn't). And for God's sake, no woman in that church is married to a man of her choice, including her mother. Elissa never seems to recognize that her situation is no different than any other woman's; she's "raped" and the others "submit" and it's semantics. (I believe that it's wrong, ABSOLUTELY, but I have also never agreed and would never agree to be a member of that church and uphold that belief system.) Elissa never recognizes that these practices have been happening since the church was founded; Warren may have tightened the prophet's grip but he certainly didn't invent the basic tenets. So why does every ordinary person get a free pass except Allen? I guess I feel like if you're going to write a book, you need to try and be objective about the situation. And even with a ghostwriter (and an editor, for that matter), Stolen Innocence doesn't make an effort -- it's like one big Burn Book.

Alright, I'm seriously going to stop now. I will say, though, books like this are why I started this blog. I really wanted to talk about works that I loved or hated. Out of school, people read different books at different times (or no books at all), so it's so hard to have a conversation. I decided that if I have to be content with talking with myself, then so be it.

#19: The Zoo on the Road to Nablus, Amelia Thomas

I was so excited to get this book - my city library didn't have it, and I had to request it through another route - but unfortunately, The Zoo on the Road to Nablus didn't live up to my expectations. I'd seen it in a publisher's catalogue some months ago and become intrigued with it mostly because of the title. The logic, however, is random: I loved, loved, loved Anita Diamant's The Red Tent and the city where Dinah is "stolen" (to be kind) is Shechem, or Nablus today. I tend to be pretty fascinated with how towns change through the eras, and this one has always stuck with me. Since it's not often that you see Nablus mentioned, I became intrigued.

So, back on topic...The Zoo on the Road to Nablus garnered generally good reviews, but I thought the book really lacked narrative tension. Reading a book is like riding a wave: You paddle out and pick the one you're going to ride, then you get carried along as it builds, builds, builds until the wave finally breaks in one glorious, crazy moment. Not this book, though: Thomas just kept paddling and never picked her wave.

The book is about the Qalqilya Zoo in the West Bank, the only public zoo in Palestinian territory. The zoo's dedicated veterinarian, Dr. Sami Khader, dreams of turning it into an international zoo - and while it's a noble cause, the idea doesn't seem feasible and makes Khader immediately appear naive. But that's okay, the region is in for some rough times; the problem is, the goal never gets replaced with a more realistic path and as a result, there's no trail laid out for the reader. Multiple times I wondered where the book was heading, as the situation became more dire. And what happens in the end? I would say that things are worse at the end than at the beginning: The sheep and remaining giraffe have been poisoned, the camel's been shot, and Khader doesn't get his promotion or pay increase. And while a happy ending isn't essential (and can't be forced), I never felt like she offered any great lesson that emerged from the bad times, either.

So my advice? Read Babylon's Ark instead.