book: "Princess of Wands" by John Ringo, unspoilery

I'm 2/3rds of the way through, about when the main characters are trolling a sci-fi fantasy literary con, and I am... ambivalent. My mom got it for me for Christmas, and I read the back and thought it sounded neat, too.

Princess of Wands seems to divided into two, possibly three, small novellas, with individual but successive plots, involving the same main characters but a changing cast of minor characters. I wasn't impressed with the first one, which I can summarize with a headline: "Tentacle monster raping prostitutes defeated by ninja supermom." Sounds like a great parody, right? Too bad the book is taking it seriously.

The main characters feels very Mary Sue-ish to me; she's an interesting idea but her skills are taken past the point of cool to the point of annoying. The one thing I like about her-- her devoted religious faith-- is the most interesting thing about her character but the most annoying thing about the author's style. There's something in the writing that is... not quite proselytizing, but not quite not. The author makes a great of show for including other religions and other faiths, and indeed has made the heroine's acceptance of other faiths as part of the subplots, but I don't always like how he characterizes other faiths. There's something vaguely patronizing about it.

I'm also not thrilled with his characterization of women. ( More on this, only vague plot spoilers, less than what you'd get from a book jacket )

HOWEVER, that's not to say that I hate the book. There are a couple of minor things I like about it. The reason I'm kind of enjoying the last 70 pages is that the characters are currently infiltrating a fandom convention, and the author seems to be very familiar with fen culture. I suspect that's why the whole story sounds like something written by a fanboy... it probably was written by a fanboy. (and there's a reason the term is fan"boy" instead of "man".) Still, stupid assumptions and cliches aside, reading about a bunch of people infiltrating a convention is amusing, as you can imagine. For anyone who's ever been to a con (Fanime Con 3 times, myself) there's a certain verve and energy about it that comes across in the writing from even a mediocre writer. I kind of wish the whole book had been set in this wacky environment; I've been in fandom enough to know that there are pretty hilarious and original characters in fandom culture, and a murder-mystery set at a SF con would be entertaining, if it were well-written and done in a way that was respectful, not didactic (as it is here, a bit.) Something akin to the way the film Dogma treats Catholicism, I think. Something like that, I would love to read.

This book? I'll finish it. But I doubt I'll read another by the author. His narrative is decent and balanced, but lacks any real thrill, beauty, or imagination. And a mediocre narrative with characters I'm not impressed by and a plot that's so far a bad dream of Tomb Raider meets X Files... nah.

Oh, and the reviewer on the back cover who compared this to Buffy? I could kick you. I could kick you IN THE BALLS. [I know you have them.] This is not what Buffy is about, and Joss Whedon, for all his flaws, can still write women in ways that are worlds more interesting and complicated than this.

Movie: "Sweeny Todd"

Well that was splishy-splashy.

Was it good? In its own way, as a piece of cinematic art, it was wonderful. But you have to be really into that kind of thing to have said it was enjoyable.

I knew what I was getting into. I knew it was a stage play and would be almost entirely performed in song. I'd read numerous reviews talking about how bloody it was. I figured there would be a high body count.

The problem is that I went with my mother. And my mother, bless her glorious heart, is a lot like my father in her view of movies (it's no wonder they're married): both like to go to the movies to escape and to be entertained in a happy, uplifting way. They appreciate dramatic and gory cinema like The Departed if it has redeeming entertainment values: high levels of excitement, intellectual involvement on the part of the audience. They do not tend to like niche movies that are dark, gory, and ghoulish in the name of high art. Artistic blood splashes don't differ much from regular blood splashes, when it comes to my parent's movie-going tastes.

In that vein, Sweeney Todd is comparable in my mind to two films in recent years that also had very splashy artistic design: 300, and Kill Bill. In order to watch all of these and enjoy them you have to be able to look past all the blood and see the artistic set design and cinematic framing being put in front of you. The difference is that with two of these films it's worth it, and with one it's painfully not. The disappointing one, is of course, 300. I won't belabor you all with what I think of that movie.

Should you see it? Yes and no. If you're a musical theater fan or a cinema fan, if you like bloody movies or if you like dark cult movies, if you want to see Anthony Stewart Head (Giles!) for three seconds in period costume... then yeah, you will enjoy it. But if you're like my family, and you want to go to the movies for a good time and two hours of people getting their throat cuts sounds a little too much work, then you shouldn't go. Because while it may be funny, it may be arty, it may be exceedingly well-made and well-written, in the end this movie is about murder, murder, and murder, and if you find that tiresome or uncomfortable then you won't enjoy this story.


p.s. my favorite scenes were Mrs. Lovitt's flights of fance. Helena Bonham Carter is a treasure box of fine performances.