Top Ten Tuesday | It's not you, it's me (but also you)

Top Ten Tuesday is a weekly feature hosted at That Artsy Reader Girl. Each week you compile a list of ten books which coincide with that week's theme. You can find everything you need to know about joining in here!

This week's theme is 'Books I Disliked/Hated but Am Really Glad I Read'. I thought this would be a tricky one because usually if I really didn't like a book I wish I hadn't wasted time on it, and most of the time these days I don't! If I'm really not liking something I'll DNF it. I did manage to find ten books that fit this week's theme, though!

Five I had to read for school or university, and therefore needed to finish, while others I didn't hate enough to put down while I was reading them but I definitely wouldn't say I liked them either. Anyway, on with my list!

Hamlet by William Shakespeare: I had to read this in school and then again in university, and it's probably my least favourite of Shakespeare's plays because I had to read it so much and also because I just find it boring. Hamlet's irritating and the whole story feels like it should be on an episode of Jerry Springer, which I suppose could be said for a lot of Shakespeare's plays. It is said to be the most quoted play in the world, though, so I'm at least glad I can say I've read it. I'd much rather see it performed, though.

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald: UGH I hate this book so much. I had to read it in sixth form and I despised every minute. The only reason I'm glad I've read it is so I can tell people I don't like it when they tell me I should read it.

The Were-Wolf by Clemence Housman: This one I read for my Victorian Gothic course at university and I found it really interesting! It's one of the earliest examples of werewolf literature that sparked the love for monster stories in the 19th century. I enjoyed studying it, but the story itself I didn't like; the titular character is a woman, interesting when so many werewolves in modern fiction are men, but she's also the villain and to be honest I was rooting for her. The protagonist is so boring in comparison.

Regeneration by Pat Barker: I had to read this one while studying the First World War in literature during sixth form. This is another book that I enjoyed studying more than I enjoyed actually reading, when it comes to historical fiction I'm just not all that interested in modern history, but it's stayed with me a decade later so I guess it can't be that bad!

Peter Pan by J. M. Barrie: I read this one for my Popular Victorian Fiction module at university and didn't like it at all, it's so sinister, but I'm glad I know the origins of Peter Pan!

What We Left Behind by Robin Talley: This was Talley's second novel after Lies We Tell Ourselves, which I loved, and sadly I didn't like it very much at all. You can check out my review here if you'd like to know why! That being said I do like that it included a genderqueer protagonist and I'd like to read about more non-binary protagonists, especially characters written by non-binary authors.

Angelfall by Susan Ee: There was so much hype around this one when it came out but I just found it really boring? I also wasn't a fan of the way the protagonist's mother's mental health was portrayed. This book did help me realise I'm just not into angel books, though, so I'm glad I read it.

Among Others by Jo Walton: This is my biggest disappointment on this list, because I put off reading this one for the longest time thinking it was going to become a new favourite when I got to it. I was very wrong. You can read my review here, if you like.

Every Heart a Doorway by Seanan McGuire: I love the concept of this book SO MUCH, I just didn't like the plot. Why it had to become a really obvious whodunnit I don't understand, because I think it would have been far more powerful as character study.

Breaking Dawn by Stephenie Meyer: I'm not going to sit here and pretend I wasn't swept away by the Twilight craze, because I totally was, but I remember finishing Breaking Dawn and being so disappointed that nobody important had died. What kind of finale was that? I'm glad I followed the series to the end, though, and whatever we think of it now it played a huge part in getting publishers to take YA publishing seriously.

Which books made your list this week?

Top Ten Tuesday | Books I Struggled to Finish

Top Ten Tuesday is a weekly feature created at The Broke and the Bookish. Each week you compile a list of ten books which coincide with that week's theme. You can find everything you need to know about joining in here!

This week's theme is 'Ten Books I Struggled to Get Into But Ended Up Loving or Ten Books That Were A Chore To Get Through or Ten Books I've Most Recently Put Down', so I decided to talk about some of the books I struggled to get through. Some of them I ended up enjoying, some of them I really didn't, and the first five are all books I had to read for school/university.

Hamlet by William Shakespeare: I had to read this at school and at university and I can't stand it. I know Hamlet's a masterpiece, I know it's many people's favourite Shakespeare play, but I loathe it; Hamlet's so whiny and useless and I can't believe I kept having to study it over and over again.

Regeneration by Pat Barker: I didn't completely hate this novel, set during the First World War, but I was 17 when I read it and I definitely found it pretty dull. Having said that, I do remember quite a lot about it so maybe it had more of an impact on me than I realise.

The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins: I made myself read this over the summer before my third year of university, knowing I would be studying it for my module in Victorian Popular Fiction, and I'm really glad I forced myself through it; not only was I well prepared to talk about it for my classes, but it also ended up becoming one of my favourite classics.

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald: I know this book is beloved by a lot of people, and I completely understand why, but I had to read it during sixth form and I hated it. All of the characters are pretty awful and I just didn't like it.

Persuasion by Jane Austen: This is one of the classics I had to read for school that I'd like to revisit, because it's thanks to this book that, at 18, I convinced myself I hated everything Austen. The older I get the more I understand Austen and I'd like to try reading this again because, as beloved as Pride and Prejudice is, a lot of people consider this novel to be her true masterpiece.

Vinegar Girl by Anne Tyler: This is a retelling of The Taming of the Shrew in the Hogarth Shakespeare series and I was really excited for it. I ended up hating it, but I forced my way through it because it's fairly short. Check out my review here.

Requiem by Lauren Oliver: I really, really liked Delirium, the first book in this series, but both Pandemonium and Requiem were such disappointments for me and Requiem in particular I really had to force myself through, only to be given the most disappointing ending I've ever come across in a series. I could see what Oliver was trying to do, but I think she should have wrapped the story up just a little more.

The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern: Undoubtedly this is a beautiful book, but I didn't love this one as much as I thought I would because it took me so long to get through it. Morgenstern's writing and her descriptions were beautiful, but I found Celia and Marco's relationship a bit too dull to really be invested in and, looking back, I don't think I ever really cared how the book was going to end.

Uprooted by Naomi Novik: I had a similar problem with this novel, I loved the ideas behind it but something about Novik's writing meant I didn't completely get on with it and it ended up taking me a while to finish it. I enjoyed it, but when I put it down I didn't feel compelled to pick it back up. Check out my review here.

Diving Belles by Lucy Wood: Unfortunately this one is probably my most disappointing read of this year because I so wanted to love it, but I realised fairly early on it wasn't what I was hoping it would be and that meant that, like Uprooted, I just didn't feel compelled to pick it up and read it and I ended up having to force my way through the end just to cross it off my TBR. Check out my review here if you want to know more about why I wasn't a big fan!

Which books made your list this week?

Review | Vinegar Girl by Anne Tyler

Vinegar Girl

by Anne Tyler

My Rating: 

Kate Battista is feeling stuck. How did she end up running house and home for her eccentric scientist father and uppity, pretty younger sister Bunny? Plus, she’s always in trouble at work – her pre-school charges adore her, but the adults don’t always appreciate her unusual opinions and forthright manner. 

Dr Battista has other problems. After years out in the academic wilderness, he is on the verge of a breakthrough. His research could help millions. There’s only one problem: his brilliant young lab assistant, Pyotr, is about to be deported. And without Pyotr… 

When Dr Battista cooks up an outrageous plan that will enable Pyotr to stay in the country, he’s relying – as usual – on Kate to help him. Kate is furious: this time he’s really asking too much. But will she be able to resist the two men’s touchingly ludicrous campaign to win her round?

Anne Tyler’s retelling of The Taming of the Shrew asks whether a thoroughly modern, independent woman like Kate would ever sacrifice herself for a man. The answer is as individual, off-beat and funny as Kate herself.

I received an eARC of Vinegar Girl from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

As the world celebrates 400 years of Shakespeare, it only seemed right that I check out at least one of the books in the Hogarth Shakespeare series this year, and of the ones published so far it was Vinegar Girl that most captured my attention. I was expecting a tongue-in-cheek, clever little rom-com, but what I got was a trainwreck.

One of the reasons Shakespeare is so popular and his work has lasted so long is because it's so universal. His stories include themes and tropes that continue to appear in our stories, and as such his work is constantly being retold and reinterpreted in different cultures, countries and times. Of all his plays, I'd say The Taming of the Shrew is one of the more difficult stories to adapt, particularly into a modern day setting. The idea of 'taming' a woman - of selling her off to the best person you can find in the hopes of finally selling off her prettier, more amenable sister - isn't quite the kind of story modern audiences, particularly modern female audiences, are interested in reading.

So when Anne Tyler took on this challenge for Hogarth Shakespeare she certainly had her work cut out for her, and I wasn't sure how anyone could make this story work, but the idea sounded great. A scientist wants his headstrong daughter to marry his assistant before his visa expires so he can stay in the country and help her father with his research. Brilliant! That's such an imaginative twist on an outdated story.

Unfortunately, the idea turned out to be far better than the execution of it.

Firstly, Tyler's Kate just isn't Kate to me. At first she had promise. I was surprised to discover that the Kate in Tyler's retelling would be a teaching assistant but somehow it worked; she's stuck looking after other people's kids and while she might not be the best at the job the kids like her, and it's easy to see why. Tyler's Kate is a bit lost. She's a college dropout who has no idea what she wants to do and that indecisiveness has left her keeping house and home for her younger sister and her frustrating father. This would have worked so much better if Kate had a bit of gumption. Instead she lets her father walk all over her, and while she's rightly angry and upset when he broaches the subject of her marrying his assistant so he can stay in the country, the Kate I know would have had a lot more to say before she ran up to her room and wept.

Not only that, but she actually agrees to the marriage about 40% of the way through the book. Gee, that shrew sure wasn't hard to tame. I suppose that's not really fair, as Kate mainly agrees to it because, once again, her horrible, useless, selfish father guilts her into it. Her 'love interest' Pyotr isn't much better. When I first read the synopsis of Vinegar Girl I assumed that her father's assistant would also be unaware of his boss's plan, but he was all for it! It didn't seem to bother him at all that this woman was sacrificing an awful lot to help him out, not that Kate's particularly endearing either; she seemed to have a few thoughts regarding foreigners and immigrants that just made me feel a bit uncomfortable given our current political climate.

Kate doesn't have to be nice - one of the joys of her as a character is that she's past the point of niceness, she just wants to be left alone - but you have to be careful with what she isn't nice about. Kate does an awful lot of cooking in this book and appears to even be quite good at it, so why couldn't she burn the food? In fact if she's a good cook all the better, because then we know she's burned the food out of spite rather than incompetence. When the few times Kate is genuinely unpleasant have to do with immigrants it doesn't make her a sympathetic character, and considering her father is trying to get her to marry some guy she doesn't know because it'll help him out she should be a sympathetic character.

The only member of the family who seems to have any sense is Kate's younger sister, Bunny, which is ironic really considering how often Kate and her father think of her as a nitwit. In fact Bunny felt more like the original Kate than Kate did.

Once Kate's engaged she starts to think of this sham marriage as a chance for her to start afresh. Maybe she can go back to college and become a botanist - oh yeah Kate wants to be a botanist; it's mentioned, like, twice so clearly it's such a huge part of her life #not - but she only considers that after Pyotr suggests it. I know Kate's indecisive, but is she so indecisive that she needs this man she barely knows who she's being forced to marry to consider that possibility for her? That's not Kate! At one point Pyotr even says he's going to call her Katja - instead of, oh I don't know, her actual name - and Kate's response is to shrug it off and let him. That's. Not. KATE!

In fact their whole 'relationship' makes no sense. Kate has her own job, she has her own income, and she never goes anywhere - the poor woman has no friends - so she must have some money saved. Why doesn't she just leave her horrible father's house? She could take Bunny with her, report her father to the police and go back to college part time. Clearly Vinegar Girl wouldn't be a retelling if that happened, but you can't ignore massive plot holes for the sake of a retelling - you just have to write a better retelling. Besides given what Tyler's done to Kate she doesn't seem to be that bothered about writing a true retelling anyway, because the Kate I know would never let things get like this.

Then, right at the end of the book, Kate makes a sudden speech about how modern life is hard for men because they're not allowed to be emotional. If you think this review just took a sudden turn, then you'll feel an inkling of the confusion I felt when this sudden 'theme' appeared out of nowhere. Now as far as I'm concerned feminism is just another word for equality, and feminism works in favour of men just as much as women; men shouldn't have to feel like they need to be macho all the time, they shouldn't be ashamed to cry, but there was no place for that argument here. It was tacked on the end so badly that for a moment I thought I was reading the end of another book.

I don't know how, but somehow Tyler managed to write a 21st century version of The Taming of the Shrew that's somehow less feminist than the original 16th century version. There was promise with this idea, but the execution was poor and the whole story's just a mess. If you want a good retelling of The Taming of the Shrew, just watch 10 Things I Hate About You instead.

Ye Olde Stories & Songs | #Shakespeare400

This weekend the whole world celebrates 400 years of William Shakespeare, one of the world's greatest storytellers. I thought I'd celebrate the Bard in my own small way with a new instalment of Stories & Songs, pairing songs with some of Shakespeare's most famous couples.

Which songs would you pair with Shakespeare's characters?

Romeo and Juliet

from Romeo and Juliet

"C'est la Mort"

The Civil Wars

Let's walk down the road that has no end;

Steal away where only angels tread.

Heaven or hell or somewhere in between,

Cross your heart to take me when you leave,

Don't go.

Please don't go.

Don't go without me.

Desdemona and Othello

from Othello

"What Kind of Man"

Florence + the Machine

And with one kiss

You inspired a fire of devotion

That lasted for twenty years

What kind of man loves like this?

To let me dangle at a cruel angle

Oh my feet don't touch the floor

Sometimes you're half in and then you're half out

But you never close the door

What kind of man loves like this?

What kind of man?

What kind of man loves like this?

What kind of man?

Beatrice and Benedick

from Much Ado About Nothing

"True Love"

P!nk ft. Lily Allen

At the same time, I wanna hug you

I wanna wrap my hands around your neck

You're an asshole but I love you

And you make me so mad I ask myself

Why I'm still here, or where could I go

You're the only love I've ever known

But I hate you, I really hate you,

So much, I think it must be

True love, true love

It must be true love

Nothing else can break my heart like

True love, true love,

It must be true love

No one else can break my heart like you

Sci-Fi Month | Do the Undead Breathe New Life into our Classics?

Sci-Fi Month is hosted by Rinn @ Rinn Reads, and this year I'm participating!

Retellings aren't new. We've been retelling stories for centuries - every country seems to have a different ending to some of the world's most famous fairy tales, like Little Red Cap - and it's only in recent years that retellings have taken the publishing world by storm, from Fables to The Lunar Chronicles.

Of course, fairy tales aren't the only stories to find themselves being given a fresh lick of paint; our classics keep getting retold, too, and Jane Austen's work is no stranger to these reworkings. Persuasion has been reimagined in outer space in Diana Peterfreund's For Darkness Shows the Stars, and Jo Baker has told Pride and Prejudice from the point of view of the servants in her most recent novel, Longbourn.

In 2009, Seth Grahame-Smith released his own reworking of the story in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and next year it will be hitting the big screen with Lily James of Downton Abbey and Cinderella fame in the starring role.

Grahame-Smith isn't the only author to have added one of our most gory supernatural creatures to a classic. Only a year later, in 2010, Isaac Marion's Warm Bodies was published; a zombie story heavily influenced by William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. This, too, was adapted, in 2013.

Here we have two of the most famous love stories in the history of literature, both with added zombies. But why?

I suppose the first thing we should consider is this: Are these stories actually retellings or not?

Not only does Pride and Prejudice and Zombies still have the original title in the title, but it's even credited as being written by Seth Grahame-Smith and Jane Austen. It's almost as though Grahame-Smith is using Austen's name to imply that she'd totally approve of what he's done with her characters (and hey, she might!), and perhaps that's what's most important here - has Grahame-Smith written a retelling, or has he simply borrowed Austen's characters to write a bizarre piece of fanfiction? Jane Austen Zombie AU.

Usually, retellings add a little something to the original tale. For example, at first glance Marissa Meyer's Cinder might not have anything to do with the original fairy tale, but she's managed to do a lot with her series; she's included so much diversity, from people of colour to amputees, and she's managed to give her Cinderella a little more agency than the original. People are reading fairy tales differently all the time, and I quite like the argument that Cinderella isn't as weak as we might first think because, by going to the ball, she does go after the Prince for herself, but Cinder is so much easier for us to relate to. We can accept how Cinderella might have ended up her stepmother's servant in the original tale, but in a retelling we need a little more proof that a person could ever be treated in such a way, and by making Cinder a cyborg, and therefore a second-class citizen, Meyer does just that.

But what do zombies add to the original Pride and Prejudice tale?

In Longbourn, Jo Baker reminds us that the Bennet family had servants, and those servants had dreams and fears of their own. It's easy to forget that servants are present throughout all six of Austen's novels - Darcy's horse won't saddle itself, and we can be certain Emma never has to worry about her laundry - and by giving them a story Baker reminds us of the historical context of Austen's stories.

Director Gurinder Chadha, most famous for Bend It Like Beckham (starring a young Keira Knightley who, funnily enough, played Elizabeth Bennet in 2005), gave Pride and Prejudice a Bollywood-style makeover in her 2004 film, Bride and Prejudice. Showing the similarities between British high society in Austen's day and Indian culture helps us to fully understand and appreciate just how vital a good marriage is to the Bennet sisters, and also adds some racial diversity to Austen's white, upper class tale.

And zombies... eh?

Similarly, is Warm Bodies really a retelling? At least Pride and Prejudice and Zombies keeps the original characters (to an extent), but the characters in Warm Bodies aren't even called Romeo and Juliet - not that R and Julie are all that far away.

To me, though, Warm Bodies gives a little more life to Romeo by making him a member of the undead. Juliet is a fascinating character. In the original play she has some amazing, violent monologues - in fact Romeo's more of a romantic than she is. Even when she's thinking fondly of Romeo, Juliet thinks of cutting 'him out into little stars and he shall make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.' She's definitely much more interesting than Romeo is.

Julie in Warm Bodies is just as interesting, but R is an equally intriguing character. How often do we get zombie stories from the point of view of the zombies? Throughout the story there are little tributes to the play; there's the famous balcony scene, and Julie's best friend, Nora, wants to be a nurse. Plus the whole idea of Julie literally bringing R back to life is a clever little tip of the hat to Romeo, who is certain he's never going to get over Rosaline until he sets his eyes on Juliet.

With all that in mind, perhaps Warm Bodies is more of a homage to Romeo and Juliet than a retelling of it.

Most importantly of all, does any of this matter? Does it really matter whether or not I think these stories are retellings or not? After all, perhaps by introducing the undead to these narratives they've, ironically, been brought to life for people who might never have gone anywhere near the original stories. Of course, that still doesn't mean they are going to go anywhere near the originals - how many people, upon finishing Warm Bodies, decided to go and read Romeo and Juliet? Probably not that many. How many Austen fans enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? Again, I don't think that many Austen lovers did, whereas people who weren't already lovers of Austen's work thought it was clever.

So whose opinion is more valid? Do we rely on the feedback of the book purists, or do we ignore them in favour of this new audience because, let's face it, the new audience is one of the big reasons for retelling such a famous story in the first place?

Personally, I think Warm Bodies is quite a clever reworking of probably the most famous love story of all time. Even people who've never gone anywhere near Shakespeare can quote from Romeo and Juliet, which just goes to show how influential the text is. I've always read Romeo and Juliet as a story about what hate can do rather than a love story; this family's feud, so old they can't even remember how it started, brings about the death of several young people, including their own children.

Adding zombies to such an iconic story might sound ridiculous at first - though I'm sure plenty of people told Baz Luhrmann that setting the story in '90s America would be a mistake at first - but stories continually change depending on their context. At the start of Sci-Fi Month I mentioned how one of the things I love about sci-fi is how we can see how a society's feeling depending on the way it writes its sci-fi; over the past thirty years we've gone from writing about hoverboards to post-apocalyptic wastelands. We currently live in a time where young people are looking at the future and finding it to be bleaker than they'd like, and our sci-fi reflects that. Warm Bodies is Romeo and Juliet for today's audience. It's bleak, and yet it's also so incredibly hopeful. In some ways it does the complete opposite of the original text by starting out hopeless and working its way towards a brighter future.

Pride and Prejudice, on the other hand, doesn't need that reworking. At least not in my opinion. What bothers me about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies - as much as I think it's a fun idea, and, ultimately, I do think it's only meant to be a bit of fun - is that it's trying to give us a 'kick-ass' Elizabeth Bennet. The only problem? Elizabeth Bennet's already kick-ass. I fear that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is going to fall into the trap of suggesting women can only be brilliant heroines when they're also capable of punching your lights out.

Now for all I know this isn't the case at all. I haven't read the book and the film isn't out yet - and I must admit, I do love that brief scene in the trailer of the Bennet sisters hiding daggers beneath their skirts - but it does feel as though Grahame-Smith has tried to update Pride and Prejudice when it doesn't really need updating. Elizabeth and her sisters - and Charlotte Lucas, too - are still perfectly relatable characters. Do we wish Elizabeth would give George Wickham a huge wedgie? Yes, of course, but just because she doesn't do that doesn't make her a character in need of updating.

Warm Bodies works because Romeo's a bit of a sap, he seems to exist just so Juliet can fall in love with him; Juliet's journey is less about true love and more about escaping from a home she hates, with a mother she's not particularly close to and a father who's willing to marry her off to a man she hasn't chosen herself. Romeo could have been anyone, but if you're going to run away from home and elope so that no man of your father's choosing will ever want you, you might as well make it to a man who thinks the sun shines out of your backside. But we don't need to add zombies to Austen to make her sexual and marital politics interesting, because they already are; by the end of the novel (I'm not going to class this as a spoiler because, well, Pride and Prejudice has been around for, like, 200 years) Elizabeth, Jane, Charlotte and Lydia are all married, and all under completely different circumstances. With each marriage Austen tells us something different, and I'm really struggling to see what zombies can do for it.

I do think Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is fun and I'm looking forward to seeing it - I know I probably come across as such a grumpy old lady in this post - but as an English graduate I just can't help thinking critically about reworkings like these.

What do you think?

Top Ten Tuesday | Adaptations

Top Ten Tuesday is a weekly feature created at The Broke and the Bookish. Each week you compile a list of ten books which coincide with that week's theme. You can find everything you need to know about joining in here!

This week's theme is 'Top Ten Book To Movie Adaptations I'm Looking Forward To or Ten Book To Movie Adaptations I Still Need To Watch', so today I decided to do a bit of both - I've got six adaptations I'm looking forward to, and four existing adaptations I still need to watch!

Adaptations I'm Looking Forward To

Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins: The final instalment in The Hunger Games franchise is coming out this month and I can't wait to see it, even though it's going to be heartbreaking; I think Francis Lawrence has done fantastic things with these adaptations.

The BFG by Roald Dahl: I grew up with the 1989 animated adaptation of this film, starring David Jason, and the evil giants scared the crap out of me. 2016 marks Roald Dahl's centenary, and Steven Spielberg is directing a live action adaptation of The BFG. I'm really looking forward to this one.

The Little Stranger by Sarah Waters: One of my favourite books of this year is being adapted into a film - woohoo! Apparently Lucinda Coxon, who wrote The Danish Girl, has adapted the book into a screenplay, and Lenny Abrahamson, who is the director of the adaptation of Emma Donoghue's Room, will be directing it. Apparently Domhnall Gleeson will being in the film, but I'm hoping he's not playing the main character because personally I think he's far too young for the part. We'll see!

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies by Seth Grahame-Smith: I haven't read the book, and I don't really have any intention of reading the book, but I can't deny that I think the trailer looks pretty awesome. I just love the idea of historical ladies kicking zombie butt, so I'll be going to see this one!

American Gods by Neil Gaiman: Bryan Fuller, the genius behind Hannibal, is adapting Neil Gaiman's masterpiece into a TV series. I am excite.

Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda by Becky Albertalli: So it was recently announced that this book is going to be getting a film adaptation, which I am very excited for. I'm hoping it'll have an Easy A film to it, because I love that movie and I'd hate to see this book get a bad adaptation.

Adaptations I Still Need to Watch

Tipping the Velvet (2002): The simple reason I haven't watched this yet is because I haven't read the book yet, but I'm planning to read it soon and then I'm really looking forward to watching this!

Carrie (1976): Last month I read Carrie for the first time, and then on Halloween my dad and I watched the 2013 adaptation. Given that the original adaptation is such a staple horror movie, though, I'd love to give it a watch some time. Plus, other than Alien, I don't think I've watched many movies from the '70s.

Macbeth (2015): I was so desperate to go and see this in October - Macbeth is my favourite Shakespeare play - but unfortunately it wasn't showing in my local cinema. Oh well, hopefully I'll get a chance to see it soon!

Jane Eyre (2006): I love the 2011 adaptation of Jane Eyre starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, but I've never seen the BBC miniseries which I know is a very popular adaptation. I like Ruth Wilson a lot, though, so I'd like to check it out!

Which adaptations made your list this week?

Top Ten Tuesday | Inspiring Quotes

Top Ten Tuesday is a weekly feature created at The Broke and the Bookish. Each week you compile a list of ten books which coincide with that week's theme. You can find everything you need to know about joining in here!

This week's theme is 'Top Ten Inspiring Quotes From Books'. I had a lot of fun putting this list together, so without ado, here it is!

This is one of my favourite ever quotes from one of my favourite classics. If I ever got a tattoo, I'd get this quote tattooed somewhere on my body because I just love it.

There are plenty of quotes from Harry Potter to choose from, but I've always loved this one; it's such a good message for children, because when we're younger we'll often do a lot of things we don't want to to impress people. It took me a long time before I learned it was okay to tell my friends 'no', at which point I decided to go and make some better friends.

I'm not even the biggest fan of Wuthering Heights, but even I can't deny that this quote - and so many others - is just gorgeous. Cathy and Heathcliff's obsession with each other is so twisted, but it's fascinating.

I've always loved this quote. There's something so adventurous about it that makes me want to go and explore.

I don't think this is a quote from a book, but it's about books so that counts, right? I've always loved this one. That stunning piece of dragon art can be found here.

I'm going to be surprised if I don't see this on several lists today. Jane Eyre is just such a quotable classic, and this quote in particular is wonderful.

Macbeth is my favourite of Shakespeare's plays, and Lady Macbeth has some fantastic lines. This one has always been my favourite.

I've never actually read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I love this quote.

I couldn't leave out Anne if I was going to mention Charlotte and Emily! Agnes Grey is full of lovely quotes. This one's one of my favourites.

I love this quote so much that I actually opened my MA reflective essay with it. I'm not the biggest fan of Woolf's fiction, sadly, but she's just so fantastically quotable.

What are some of your favourite quotes?

Classics & Contemporaries | Romance (Non-Austen Edition)

On Friday I started my new series, "Classics & Contemporaries", with the first Romance installment centered around the works of Jane Austen. You can find that post here! 

Today I'm back with the second installment, which is Austen free, and finishing off the Romance section of this little series.

On Friday we began with one of the most famous love stories in existence and its 21st century retelling, and today we're going to do that again!

I have to admit for a little while I couldn't decide if I wanted to include Romeo and Juliet in this series at all, because I could write an entire post about how it isn't a love story (and perhaps one day I will!), but there's no denying that this play has inspired hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of stories.

In fact I'm so certain of this play's impact on the history of the story that I don't think I really need to tell you what it's about, do I? We all know the story of the two warring families and the star-crossed lovers caught in the middle of them - in fact the names 'Romeo' and 'Juliet' are often names we use to describe people who are in love.

Romeo and Juliet isn't my favourite of Shakespeare's plays - Macbeth has always been my favourite - but it's still worth reading. Sadly though, too many people end up hating Shakespeare because they're introduced to him in the wrong way. Usually in school.

I've always lived in Britain so while I can't speak for people elsewhere in the world, most of us who live in Britain are introduced to Shakespeare in primary school; in fact I first read Macbeth when I was 10 years old! If you have a teacher who can't make Shakespeare fun, however, you're bound to be baffled by him, and so many teachers fail to tell their pupils about all the dick jokes in his plays...

If the thought of reading Shakespeare makes you break out into a nervous sweat, I have just the story for you!

At first sight, you might think a story about flesh-eating zombies would have nothing to do with the most famous love story in the world, but Warm Bodies is nothing if not a retelling.

R (Romeo) falls in love with Julie (Juliet) as soon as he sees her. He murders her boyfriend Perry (Paris), has a best friend called M/Marcus (Mercutio) while Julie's best friend is Nora (the Nurse).

On top of all that, R is a zombie and Julie is not, which is a big problem considering all zombies and the living want to do is kill each other. Then again, all the Montagues and the Capulets want to do is kill each other, so not much has changed in 500 years!

Obviously there's a big difference between the way Warm Bodies is written and the way Romeo and Juliet is written, but at the core they're both the same story - one of them just has zombies! 

If you enjoy Warm Bodies there's no reason why you wouldn't enjoy Romeo and Juliet, but if you still feel a little intimidated by the Old English language why not try watching one of the many adaptations of Romeo and Juliet first? Baz Luhrmann's adaptation, originally released in 1996, is particularly useful, as it's set in the 21st century but still uses the Old English language.

Now we're going to travel forward 300 years, to the Victorian era, where another famous classic awaits us...

Charlotte Brontë's most famous work, Jane Eyre, was first published in 1847 under the pseudonym "Currer Bell". Upon its original release The Quarterly Review claimed it was "an anti-Christian composition", and it is a commonly held belief that Brontë wrote the novel as a protest against the Victorian lifestyle.

Gothic and atmospheric, Jane Eyre tells the story of the titular character who suffers neglect and abuse as a child, is sent away to boarding school and then eventually leaves to pursue a position as a governess at Thornfield Hall. Thornfield belongs to the mysterious Mr Rochester, whose ward, Adèle, is Jane's charge.

Coarse and gruff, Mr Rochester is the typical Byronic hero, but Jane gives as good as she gets and in doing so, enchants him, but Mr Rochester is hiding a dark secret that could ruin everything.

I love Jane Eyre, but I know plenty of people who have never been able to get through it because of the novel's slow pace and the density of the text. The truth is that most Victorian novels are very dense - it's rather unusual to come across a short one - as many novels started out serialised in newspapers (such as Wilkie Collins' The Moonstone and Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist) and in the 19th century there were no televisions or cinemas; entire families would enjoy a large novel together, over the course of a couple of weeks!

So if you have a fondness for dark 19th century tales of love that crosses the boundaries of class, I have a piece of historical fiction you just might love.

Sarah Waters' Fingersmith tells the story of orphan Sue Trinder who, under the care of Mrs Sucksby, is raised as a petty thief. One day Gentleman, a beloved thief and con man, comes to Sue with an enticing proposition. If she can win a position as the maid to Maud Lily, a young and naive gentlewoman, and help Gentleman to seduce her, the two of them can make off with her vast inheritance and condemn Maud to a lunatic asylum.

Sue wishes to pay back the kindness of those who raised her and agrees to the plan, but when she meets Maud she begins to care for her in unexpected ways...

Perhaps one of the biggest differences between Fingersmith and Jane Eyre is that while the latter tells the story of a love between a man and a woman, the romance in Fingersmith is between two women. In fact Waters is well known for writing historical fiction featuring LGBT characters.

Other than that difference - and really is it that much of a difference? Love is love is love - there are quite a few similarities between the two stories. Both take place in the 19th century, both feature an orphaned heroine who rises from obscurity into a position at a wealthy home, both feature romances which cross the boundaries of class and both feature madness and deception in some form or another.

Fingersmith may not be the shortest read, for historical fiction also has the capacity to be dense, but as it was written in the 21st century its language is much easier to read, especially for readers who don't read an awful lot of 19th century literature - Fingersmith is a brilliant stepping stone towards a classic like Jane Eyre.

So that wraps up Romance! I hope this has been useful for anyone intimidated by classics, or that it's at least been an enjoyable read - I'll be back next month with an installment centered around Science Fiction!

J.