I'm reading a biography of Giacomo Casanova.  Here's what I came across early on in the book:

"Typical of the young [18 year old] Casanova, his predominant emotion on entering San Cipriano was to feel slighted by the institution in which he found himself. He was 'insulted' by the need to sit for an exam, insisting, correctly, that he was already a doctor [of law], and decided to act the imbecile.  He was placed in a class of nine-year-olds studying grammar, until his physics master from La Salute in Venice recognized him."

Oh Casanova...57 pages in and I'm already charmed.

Above is Louise Brooks, one of the most beautiful of the silent film starlets, who cut her career in Hollywood short because, in her own words, she was bored.  Nearly 50 years after her stint as an actress, she wrote a book called "Lulu in Hollywood," in which she discussed people she encountered during her years there, such as WC Fields, Humphrey Bogart, and Marion Davies.  Luckily, although my library didn't have it, a sister library did, and I could easily get it through interlibrary loan. Or so I thought.

( Story after the cut... )
Such is the power of the incomparable Louise Brooks.

misfitandmom.wordpress.com/my-thoughts-on-historical-accuracy-in-novels/ <--This

I really feel that way about all fiction. Yes, it's fiction, but you still have to work within the rules of the world you're in.  I read a book once where a 29 year old had her PhD in biology AND history.  Never mind the fact that history PhDs often take 10 years to get, and biology 4-7 or more. It was a fantasy book, and later through magic another character got a PhD in history and was ready to start teaching. Wait, what? So you mocked up a diploma with PhD on it? What about all the publications he should have on his CV, years of teaching experience as a grad student, collaborations on book chapters, conferences, etc? A diploma that says PhD means much less than the proess you go through to get one.  Yes yes, it's fiction, but the author made the tacit assumption that it's fiction set in our universe.  Which is a universe that doesn't give out PhDs like candy.

Sigh.

It drives me crazy when people vote my review down on Amazon simply because they disagree with it.  Yes, I often like books that others don't, and often dislike books that others do.  But the point of those buttons is to assess whether or not a review is helpful, not whether or not we like it.  I've seen a lot of helpful reviews on books where I ultimately disagreed with the opinion, and I've seen a lot of reviews whose opinions I've agreed with, but didn't think they were helpful. Spewing vitriol, calling the author an idiot, making personal attacks = not helpful.  However, deconstructing a poorly written plot = helpful.

I've had 2 books where I've noticed this in regard to my reviews: Jon Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" in which I skewered the book because it basically had ridiculously poor logic, was boring as sin, and wasn't even about what it was supposed to be about (murder? Hello?! Why did we only spend like 1/55th of the time on what the cover claims the book is about?) and Amy Chua's Battle Hymn of the Tiger mother, in which I gave it 4 stars and basically said that it was an honest memoir but that I felt her methods were extreme, but that we watched her grow to realize she was hurting one of her children and was brave enough to change her behavior.  I've had this review up for less than 24 hours, and already have 5 votes, 4 of them negative.

I noticed that these both deal with sensitive and personal topics: religion (and/or the harmfulness of religion) and parenting.  Interestingly, my review doesn't really truly go into either of those aspects of the book, but it seems that simply because these are books ABOUT those topics, any opinion that differs from yours creates rage and hatred, as if my differing opinion is some sort of personal attack on you, your religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or your parenting skills.

Sometimes a review is just a review, Freud.

Maybe I'm really obtuse because it took me so long to figure it out, but near the end of the book, when Mr. Bingley is coming back to visit Jane, it finally hit me what I found unique about Pride and Prejudice: Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy are not the stars of their own story.

What I mean by that is, if the story told Pride and Prejudice had been written from ANY perspective other than Elizabeth's, all of the attention and gossip and drama would have swirled around Jane and Mr. Bingley.  Nobody had a clue what was going on between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy except for those two, and to a small extent, Jane.  Only by seeing it through Elizabeth's eyes do we know that there was a whole other love story going on that nobody else in the town or really even in the family (again, barring Jane) knew anything about. 

I know this may not seem that interesting, but most main characters of a story are also the stars of their own lives, if you see what I mean.  They are our focus primarily because they are the focus of everyone's attention within the story as well.  But Jane Austen subverted that with this story, and although WE know all the details between Elizabeth and Darcy, when they announce their engagement to the family, everyone but everyone is like "BUH-WAHHH?" and most of them even think she hates Darcy and can't figure out when (or how) the switch between hate and love occurred.  So not only did Austen subvert the typical way of creating a main character, she actually made the plot thrive and more interesting BECAUSE nobody was focused on Elizabeth.

I'm trying to think of another story that does this and I'm having a hard time. Can anyone else think of one?

Here's an interesting bit of Tudor history for those of you with knowledge of the Spanish language.  After Henry had gotten rid of Katherine of Aragon (or rather, as a part of him getting rid of her), he declared himself the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church in England.  That means, he overrode the Pope when making religious decisions for his country.  For good, old-school Catholics like Katherine and her servants, this was pretty much blasphemy.  And yet, the King was requiring that many of his subjects take the oath proclaiming this.

So here's what Katherine got her servants to do.  Somehow, they convinced the King's messengers that they needed to take the oath in Spanish, that for whatever reason they did not speak English well enough.  So then, when taking the oath, instead of saying that the King "sea hecho cabeza de Iglesia" (the King may be made head of the Church) they said, "se ha hecho cabeza de Iglesia" (the king has made himself -- or has appointed himself -- head of the Church).

So they got out of saying that the King had the RIGHT to be head of the church, and instead of said the truth of the matter -- that the King had made himself head of the Anglican church.  None of the king's messengers were well versed enough in Spanish to pick up on the subtle difference.

Which takes some serious balls.

You can find this story both in Antonia Fraser's and in Alison Weir's Six Wives of Henry VIII.

Ya'll have to read the summary for this book I just saw on a the Goodreads Giveaway...Understanding the Global Warming Hoax.

And I quote:
"IS GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX? Isn't it time you read the facts? The propaganda of man-made global warming has been promoted by those with a political agenda by suppressing the truth and spreading fear. In this effort they have recruited academics, media, environmental groups, governments, the United Nations, even religions. Scientific evidence supporting man-made global warming has now been investigated by scientists and found to be baseless. Examination of the data has revealed the theory of climate change for the propaganda it is, derived from erroneous data, junk science, even scientific fraud. Now, for the first time, the American people have available to them an honest discussion of man-made global warming and climate change that is easily understood by those without a scientific background. The Layman's Guide describes in easily understood language the science refuting claims of climatic catastrophe resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Using well-documented scientific facts, the Layman's Guide exposes the global warming hoax as an authoritarian assault on individual freedom."

WTF?  My favorite sentence ever is the "They [?] have recruited academics, media, environmental groups, governments, the United Nations, even religions [!!]."

As Kevin, a coworker and fellow grad student (yeah we weren't really doing what we were supposed to at work today) put it, "I thought all those things were the 'they'."

So who is the they...behind all the other theys? Who are those people?  How did THEY so brilliantly recruit (what, is it a global warming cult? Am I a member? Do I have to pay dues?) so many different people, and why would anybody bother recruiting the supremely useless UN in the first place?

And for good measure, since this book touts its accessibility to "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE," a Daily Show clip.


(It takes about 3 minutes to get to the American People bit)

PS: That's right, I'm tagging this book as fiction, biatches. Whatcha gonna do about it?

I have something else that bugs me about literary traditions (gee, that's a shock), but it's kind of TMI, so I'll put it under the cut.

( Aren't you dying to know? )

Well, I bought the book. I bought The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.  Square Books was able to get priority on a new shipment, because the author is speaking on Thacker Mountain Radio (local NPR station) soon.

In my defense, this is the first book I've bought this year.  All 9 other books I've read have either been libary books, ILLed books, or books that were already in my or my parents' collection.  (I'm really getting to enjoy raiding my parents' attic for old but good books. There are some advantages to having pack rat parents. Now if only I went to visit them more than twice a year....hmmm...)