Some writers (in the works) believe they don't need to read to know how to write good books of their own. Some go far as to say, "I just don't have the time."
Other people lose so many of their marbles over a certain story, their political correctness sensors going so completely haywire, that they take it upon themselves to rewrite the whole thing from scratch.
I'm seeing such a thing happen right now with the books of Roald Dahl and R.L. Stine. Since neither author has entered the public domain, these "editors" are setting themselves up for one doozy of a lawsuit.
I say all these people are full of baloney.
It should go without saying that reading and writing go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other, and while I understand some books aging better than others, we must keep our history in mind, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us, if we have any hope in the world of not repeating it.
So, I thought I'd do another critique of some of the books I'm checking out myself right now.
One book I finished just today is James and the Giant Peach, by the one and only Roald Dahl.
This one was a pretty easy read. The chapters are so short and the story moves along at an incredibly brisk pace. For me, it was a little too brisk, and in some ways, the movie was done much better.
Which is not to bash the book by any means.
I only mean to say that the characters, as fun and quirky as they are in the book, are a lot more fleshed out in the movie. There's a bit more variety to their adventures and perils, their personalities are more distinct, and we have a little more time to get to know them as individuals, whereas the book kind of lumps everybody together.
In the book, the only protagonists to really jump out at me were the Grasshopper and the Earthworm. The Earthworm is darkly funny with his perpetual gloom-and-doom mindset, finding something to whine about even when there's nothing to whine about at all. As for the Grasshopper, he has a moving paternal streak toward James, and I automatically like any character who's not only good with kids but also becomes a satisfactory parental substitute.
In this regard, the movie does a better job at answering the question, "What makes a family?"
Even the villains get more time and depth on the screen. While we never fully understand why Sponge and Spiker are such nasty people, the movie makes them less of a cardboard cutout.
So, while the book makes for a fun, fast, feel-good, slightly bizarre read, it's the movie that delivers the strongest messages.
But, of course, you wouldn't have the movie in the first place without the book.
In the book's favor, Roald Dahl is a master poet. His songs are impossibly catchy, and I'm very glad they included some of those quirky lyrics in the movie. Furthermore, the descriptions of the giant peach will always make your mouth water for an actual peach or some other peach-flavored treat.
Where both book and movie are concerned, speaking as a certified insectophobe, this is one of the very few stories involving insects that I actually like.
Which serves as a nice segue into the next story on my list: Charlotte's Web by E.B. White.
I absolutely despise spiders, and I think Charlotte A. Cavatica is the only spider, even if she is make-believe, that doesn't creep everybody out.
The way E.B. White describes her friendly and loyal (if somewhat bossy) nature sure helps. It also helps that in the movies, they got such pleasant-sounding women to provide her voice. While I am partial to the cartoon Debbie Reynolds version, Julia Roberts did a fine job in the live-action.
Besides all that, White's simple narrative weaves a certain kind of magic, for all its realism. He makes you feel what it's like to live in a barn, with all its sights, sounds, and smells. He makes a spiderweb sound like something truly ethereal on a foggy morning.
And without fail, he'll make you ravenously hungry with the elaborate descriptions of Wilbur's slops.
Anna Sewell weaves a similar spell with her one and only book, Black Beauty.
Besides mandatory reading for anyone who's nuts about horses, this book is a beautiful, heartbreaking reminder of the harsh realities of life and how far a little kindness can really go.
Not only does Anna Sewell teach us that horses are made of flesh and blood, and thus they feel things as we do even if they can't express them as well, but she also shows the practicality of good treatment. Good treatment makes horses last longer and behave so much better. In the long run, a bit of humanity can save you a lot of time, money, and sheer hassle.
Thanks to Sewell and her literary gem, people have never looked at horses the same way again.
I've read the story and heard the audio recordings enough times to have pretty much memorized the whole thing. Nevertheless, I'm always happy to give it another go, as I'm giving it this very moment.
Another story I've never grown tired of (and most likely never will) is The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle.
This one holds an extra special place in my heart, because it inspired my own unicorn story involving Terence, and Terence led to pretty much all the other characters I've got in my stockpile today.
Even if that weren't the case, this is great for anyone who likes unicorns in general. I can no longer count the number of times I've read the book or seen the movie, and I couldn't care less. These days, I often like to watch the movie after I've read the book. So, I see another full view of the movie on the horizon.
The graphic novel is awesome, too. I even bought a copy of Beagle's newest book, The Way Home, which features "Two Hearts" (which I also read and enjoyed) and the long-awaited sequel, "Sooz."
I'm forcing myself to wait until I've finished the original book and "Two Hearts" before I jump into "Sooz." But I will mention that "Two Hearts" also had a terrific impact on my current story, The Wolf at the Door. Once again, Mr. Beagle, I am very much obliged to you.
Speaking of last things, the last book I'll mention tonight is considerably more controversial.
If people think Roald Dahl is offensive, he's got nothing on Margaret Mitchell, the author of Gone With the Wind.
Yes, I'm still plowing through that book. I'll admit it's a pretty heavy read; if Dahl's story moves like a bicycle on a downward slope, Mitchell's story moves like a bicycle through a mud patch.
Mitchell practically smothers us in background info while just managing to keep the characters fascinating. Most sensible authors wouldn't do this kind of thing today, but to be fair to Mitchell, people had more time and patience for super-wordy books in her day. Authors also got paid more if they wrote more, and like I said, Mitchell's characters are still interesting and her descriptions paint a lovely picture.
So, if you have the time as well as the patience, you'll like what you read. I do, anyway.
But since this takes place in the Civil War South, readers should be forewarned of the descriptions of the black characters and how slavery is not only deemed normal, but fairly glamorized.
Again, in Mitchell's defense, this was indeed the norm in that location at that period of time. You can tell she's done her research.
If anything, what's she's giving us is a very G-rated version. For those who bother with their history homework, the actual Civil War South was much worse, so there would have been fouler language and harder-to-stomach brutality if Mitchell told it like it really was.
As awful as the life of a slave was, some slaves honestly didn't know any other way to live. Where else would they go? What else could they possibly be good for?
Therefore, liberation was easier said than done. Some slaves didn't even want to be free.
So, I think today's criticism of Abraham Lincoln is more than a little unfair. He was walking a super-fine line between wanting to keep slavery from spreading further and being prudent enough not to get rid of slavery all at once. Even when he was assassinated, plenty of Southerners felt John Wilkes Booth only made everything worse.
Anyway, as I was saying, Gone With the Wind is a nice read for history buffs, once you get over the racist undertone. Mitchell makes you feel like you're actually there.
And while the characters are far from the most likable, there's an undeniable charm about them. They feel like real people, and regardless of the author or genre, that takes real talent.
One way or another, Mitchell does a vastly better job than Stephenie Meyer does. Give me Scarlett O'Hara over Isabella Swann any day.
That's all for now, friends.
Goodnight, sweet dreams, and don't be afraid to pick up a book every once in a blue moon. It's good nourishment for your brain, and you just might like what you see!
