My Favorite Short Stories

Short stories are a type of literature that often get overlooked in my opinion. A reader may not remember the 15-page horror story they read as easily as a 300-page horror novel, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one medium is better than the other. Some of the best stories I've read have been short stories. With all of that said, I'd like to discuss some of my favorite short stories and ones I think everyone should read. 


A Rose For Emily by William Faulkner

Synopsis: Following the death of 74-year-old Emily Grierson, the narrator reflects on the sad and lonely life of Emily and the secrets uncovered after her death.



Bartleby: The Scrivener by Herman Melville

Synopsis: A Wall Street lawyer hires a new clerk who, after initially working very hard, soon becomes a troublesome employee simply because he "would prefer not to" do certain tasks.  



The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Synopsis: The narrator, a new mother, becomes obsessed with the pattern in the yellow wallpaper that covers the walls in the room where she's forced to spend most of her time.



The Cask of Amontillado by Edgar Allan Poe

Synopsis: A man takes brutal revenge against a friend who he believes insulted him.



The Lottery by Shirley Jackson

Synopsis: The citizens of a small town gather for their annual lottery, a rite to ensure the community's survival.



The Last Question by Isaac Asimov

Synopsis: A supercomputer is tasked with answering the one question that will determine the fate of humanity and the universe.



I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream by Harlan Ellison

Synopsis: The last five humans on Earth are left at the mercy of a malicious and sadistic supercomputer.



The City Born Great by N.K. Jemisin

Synopsis: Like all great metropolises before it, when a city gets big enough, old enough, it must be born; but there are ancient enemies who cannot tolerate new life. Thus New York will live or die by the efforts of a reluctant midwife...and how well he can learn to sing the city's mighty song.


Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads \ Instagram
Buy Me A Coffee?

When It's Time For A Book To Go

All good things must come to an end, including ownership of a book. I've reached the point in my reading journey where I have too many books and nowhere near enough shelves in my house to hold them all. Some of you may be thinking "Why don't you get books from the library? Why not try ebooks?" To answer the second question first, I do read ebooks, but I'm also a book dragon, so I feel this need to collect as many physical books as possible. I don't take full advantage of library the way that I used to because, well, I tend to forget that it's an option. Anyway, this post is not about all of the books I have.

I wanted to talk about what happens when I get rid of books. Mainly how I decide which books go, and what happens to them. Because I do occasionally sit down and go through my book collection, pulling out books that it's time to say goodbye to.

The biggest factor to deciding if I'm going to keep a book or get rid of it is if I read it. I know it sounds obvious, but there are quite a few books I bought, intending to read, and just haven't. Sometimes it's because I've outgrown the story or age group and sometimes it's because I've realized I'm not a fan of the genre. If I've owned a book for more than a year, and I haven't even attempted to read it, I doubt I ever will. The second biggest factor for me in deciding which books to get rid of is how much I enjoyed a particular book. If I disliked a book or DNF'd it, I'm unlikely to read it again. Meaning it's pretty much just taking up space on the shelf. Aside from a few books that I've kept for sentimental value or ones authors have sent to me, any book that I don't intend to reread gets put onto the chopping block. Lastly, I try to decide if there's someone I know who might enjoy the book in question. Sometimes, I'll buy a book because I want to give the genre or author a chance, and I don't like it. That doesn't mean my sister or a coworker wouldn't like it. So, if I don't like a book, I might give it away to a friend or family member who enjoys that genre. The way I see it, I'm not getting rid of that book, I'm just giving it a new home.

Now that I've explained my methods for deciding what books I get rid of, let's talk about what I do with the books I decide to get rid of. (Not including the ones I give to family/friends). First, I try to donate them to the library. If the library won't accept them, due to the number of books or having enough of that particular title, I find a used bookstore and see if they're accepting drop-offs. Whatever they don't accept, I sell on eBay or another reselling site. Is it the most original tactic? Probably not, but the book finds a new home anyway.

So, that's what happens with the books I decide to get rid of. What do you do with books you no longer want?

10 Bookish Pet Peeves

I've been thinking a lot about the tropes I do and don't like in books. Thinking about this quickly turned into me realizing that I have some literary pet peeves that I need to get off my chest. Here are my ten biggest book pet peeves that no one asked for. These aren't in any particular order.

Watered Down Tolkien

I'm not going to sit here and pretend like all high-fantasy isn't compared to Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings had huge influence on the development of the genre and authors who would go on to write high-fantasy. I won't, and can't, fault an author for taking inspiration from Tolkien. My issue is when it's clear an author is trying to be the next Tolkien. You can have all the elves, dwarves and orcs that you want, but if you don't do anything new with those races, if there isn't something unique about the story, it feels like you're just ripping off Tolkien.

Non-sensical (Or Unneeded) Plot Twists

Plot twists need to make sense. There need to be breadcrumbs spread throughout the story giving the reader a sense of foreshadowing. If a happy-go-lucky side character changes for the last three pages to suddenly be a jerk because the bad guy shapeshifted to look like him, that's a bad twist. If the same character gets separated from the rest of the group halfway through, and when he's reunited he's been acting "strange" or seems less happy, that same twist works a little better. Plot twists also need to be crucial for the story to move forward. A book can have multiple plot twists, but the story needs to justify it. Either the thriller's two POV characters are actually the same person from different points in time or the main character is suffering from dissociative identity disorder. You can't have both just for shock value. Don't have a twist just to have a twist.

Bad Allegory

I feel like people want to write an allegorical novel, or have an aspect of their story be an allegory to something else, but they aren't willing to commit to it. In a science fiction novel, the treatment of one alien population by another is meant to be an allegory for racism, but the author doesn't go deep enough into the idea by exploring or expanding upon the in-universe consequences of the idea. So, the "racism" allegory falls apart and the message becomes very surface level. That's just an example, but I think we can all name at least one book where the author meant for it to be deep and thought-provoking, but failed.

Mean Girls Who Don't Make Sense

This one might need an explanation. I don't have a problem with "mean girl" characters, if it makes sense to have them in a story. They fit YA coming-of-age stories or contemporary fiction, maybe even in romance. Mean girls in fantasy or science fiction though? That's where I have an issue. If the protagonist is already dealing with an evil wizard, why do they also have to encounter Regina George?

Everyone Ends Up Married

I'm not the only person who has problems with this one, but I thought it should feature here. I'm not saying that a book can't have romance. I just hate it when the last chapter or two of a book consists solely of giving every character a partner. Especially for books that are not primarily romances. Please don't waste my time pairing people up. I don't care that much about the romantic subplots.

Jerky Love Interests

I mentioned this in my post about my feelings about romantic subplots, but I thought I should mention it here. You can write a bad boy without needing to make him a misunderstood outcast with a heart of gold. If he's a jerk for most of the book, and then does one nice thing, that doesn't make him a viable love interest. Enemies to lovers is one thing, if done well. But if I'm actively wishing that the protagonist ends up with anyone else, the romantic tension is actually complete and utter disdain.

Excessive Unanswered Questions

I know that some books are meant to make you think. Some authors end books the way that they do to make the reader want more. But sometimes, there are a boatload of unanswered questions at the end of a book because there wasn't enough world-building or the author didn't show/tell the reader enough information in the text to understand. "What happens next?" is very different than "I know what I read, but I have no idea what it's supposed to mean". Even if I don't know everything about the world, I should know enough or be able to fill in the blanks enough so that the cliffhanger/set up for the sequel, is actually a cliffhanger and not result in me wondering why I should suddenly care about this new character/threat.

Inconsistent or Unrealistic Dialogue

People are inconsistent. It's a fact of life and realistic characters might have inconsistencies. However, when characters speak a certain way, whether it's an absence of slang terms or not using contractions, or sounding like they stepped out of a Shakespeare play, for most of a novel and then suddenly the dialogue pattern changes, it becomes glaringly obvious and it feels weird to the reader. Likewise, who a character is needs to be taken into account when writing dialogue. A teenager's dialogue should sound like a teenager, not a 40-year-old housewife. It's very obvious when characters in specific groups are being written by people who've haven't spoken to members of that group in a while.

Two Minute Battles

I may have mentioned this in some of my reviews, but how the antagonist is stopped is just as important as writing a compelling villain. Don't spend 290 out of 300 pages telling me how evil and powerful the bad guy is only to have him be defeated in two pages. Unless this is a fake-out, and the heroes were fighting an underling disguised as the bad guy, it's a letdown. If the conflict with the antagonist isn't the main focus of the story (say, the romance comes first), don't build the villain up to be a huge threat.

Everything-But-The-Kitchen-Sink-itis

I know that's a long name for it, but it fully encapsulates how it feels while reading something that falls into this category. There are a few books I can name where the author clearly had too many ideas and not enough pages to devote to them. Instead of cutting some ideas out, and saving them for a sequel or another story entirely, they decide to include everything. As a result, all of these ideas are thrown in and there's not enough time to do each idea justice. To use The Hunger Games as an example, there's a reason why the 74th Games and the war against the Capitol didn't happen in the same book. It allowed the author a chance to give each one the attention it deserved. By having too many "big events" happen in one book, each one suffers.

Those are my ten biggest bookish pet peeves. Or at least the ten biggest I can think of at the moment What are some of your literary pet peeves? Are there any I mentioned that you like?

Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads \ Instagram

Buy Me A Coffee?

My Professor Made Me Read It!

Back in November, I posted a discussion post called "My English Teacher Made Me Read It" where I discussed the books I had to read in middle school and high school as part of required reading. This post is a continuation of that one, discussing the books that were required reading when I was in college. As with the first post, I will be giving a brief, overall opinion of each book.

• The Great Gatsby- Yes, this book was also on the high school list. I also had to read it in college. Twice. I didn't like this book the first time. I didn't like it the second or third time. In fact, I'm pretty sure I liked it even less the second and third times. I don't understand why people think this book is so great.
• Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas- I actually really enjoyed this book. It was weird, and insane things happened. The plot was hard to follow at times (when it had a plot) but given what the story is about, that makes perfect sense. It kept me engaged because I wanted to see what else would happen.
• The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks- This book taught me more about the medical field than I ever intended to learn. It tells the story of Henrietta Lacks, as the title says, but it also tells the story of how the cell samples gathered from her body, the HeLa cells, have been used in research since they were first collected in 1951.
• Native Son- This book does a very good job of conveying the message the author is trying to send. While not the first or most well known book to discuss the topic of race and racial division in the early 20th century, it is one of the best that I've read.
• Sister Carrie- I didn't like this one at all. I reread it to see if I might've misjudged it. I didn't.
• Miss Lonelyhearts- The entire tone of this book is depressing and nihilistic, which is what the author was going for. I commend him for achieving that, but since I don't enjoy books that are flat-out depressing, I wouldn't recommend it. 
• The Glass Menagerie- This is a play by Tennessee Williams. Williams is known for plays with dysfunctional families. Reading his work is a bit like watching a trainwreck. While this doesn't have the most dysfunctional family he's ever written, the dynamics certainly are entertaining. 
• Invisible Man- This is not the H.G. Wells novel about a man who is actually invisible. This novel, written by Ralph Ellison, gets it's titled from how its main character is invisible in society. I don't remember much about this book to be honest, so I'd say it was okay.

And that's the list of books I had to read in college. I thought plenty of them were fine. There were a few duds and a few I didn't expect to like, but really enjoyed. 

Have you read any of the books mentioned above? What did you think about them?

Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads \ Instagram

How I Rate Books

So, I've gotten a few comments and messages asking me why I rate books the way that I do. To be fair, it's a fair question. Some people see a rating of 3.7 at the end of a review, as opposed to 3.5 or 4.0 and wonder what exactly that means. Maybe my rating system only makes sense to me, but I thought I might as well talk about it.

Why I Rate Books This Way

I'm not going to lie. I rate books this way for mostly selfish reasons. Let's say there are 10 books I've given five stars to on Goodreads. If I only go by whole stars, or halves-of-stars, how will I know which one is my favorite? If it's been months since I've read some of those books, there's a chance that I might have forgotten how much I liked it. So, I rate books in smaller increments so that I can go back and know exactly which book was my favorite in a given month or year. Because, by definition, in a group of books, there has to be one that was my favorite and one that was my least favorite.

As I said, the ratings are mostly for my own sanity, but the system also helps me for Goodreads if I feel so-so about a book and can't decide if I should give it, say, 2.5 stars or 3. It helps me split the difference. 

How Ratings Are Determined

My system might be more complicated than it needs to be, but I'm a big believer in doing whatever works for you. This system works for me and I like it better than other methods I've tried so I've stuck with it. I have a rubric for every genre I read, because a thriller is obviously going to have different plot elements/tropes than say a fantasy novel or science fiction. There are also elements every book has, such as pacing, writing style and characterization. Every book starts out at 5 Stars and I deduct points from there for any serious criticisms I have and based on my overall enjoyment. As long as I finish the book, it gets at least 1 Star. Books I don't finish don't get reviews or scores.

I know that might sound negative, in that I'm not giving points for what I like but taking points away for what I dislike, but that's the method that's easiest for me. I tried doing the reverse, but it just didn't work very well for me. For some reason, it's a little easier for me to explain why I took points away than why I added them. Maybe my brain just works in a weird way

Anyway, that's the basics of how I rate books. I know I'm probably putting in more effort than is strictly necessary, but I actually like doing it this way. I'm weird and like talking about metrics and statistics. I blame the fact that I majored in math.

How do you rate books? What makes a book earn a certain star rating for you?

Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads \ Instagram

Buy Me A Coffee?

In Defense of the DNF

I feel like both readers and authors take DNFs particularly hard. For those who don't know, "DNF" stands for "Did Not Finish" and if a reader DNFs a book, they started reading it and decided not to finish it. While I feel like readers and authors take DNFs hard, I can understand why. As a reader, you've chosen a book that you expected to like and it turned out not to be to your liking. It may feel like giving up. As an author, you've spent months or years working on a book only for someone to come out and say they didn't like it and didn't even finish it. Today, I'd like to share my perspective on DNFing a book and why I don't think it should necessarily be considered a bad thing.

I asked people on Twitter why they DNF'd the last book they chose not to finish. The majority said that they DNF'd the book because they simply weren't enjoying it. A few mentioned not having time, but most said they weren't enjoying the book and stopped reading to find a new selection. More often than not, that's the same reason why I've chosen not to finish a book. I love reading, I love books but not every book is going to fit every reader's tastes. It's unfair to the reader, and even more unfair to the book and the author, to be expected to finish a book the reader isn't enjoying. If I force myself to finish a book I don't enjoy and didn't want to keep reading, rather than just DNF it, when I go to rate it, as I do with every book I finish, it's not going to get higher than 2 stars, maximum. I don't think this is fair to the author when I might not be the book's intended audience. Or the novel might be one of my favorite genres, but I've decided I need a break from that genre. If I don't finish a book, I don't rate the book. Then, I continue on with my day.

Another important factor to consider, when discussing DNFing a book, is a reader's personal tastes pet peeves, and boundaries. This fits in somewhat with the above point, but I wanted to discuss separately. Some readers strongly dislike books written in the first person perspective; others love it. There are a few readers I know who started reading a specific book, realized they just really didn't like the first person POV and DNF'd it, even though they liked the story. Some readers don't enjoy novels written in vernacular language (a la Huck Finn) or with flowery language, and reach a point where they decide they have to stop. Sometimes, unfortunately, there is an issue with subject matter. Authors don't always provide information up front about a book's subject matter when it deals with heavier themes or topics, such as mental health, trauma and things of that nature. Readers may choose to DNF a book because they picked it up, not realizing it was going to be about such a heavy topic. Maybe they simply aren't in the right headspace to read it at that time. It's important to note that, in most cases, when a reader DNFs a book, they're basically saying "it's not you, it's me". The book hasn't "done" anything wrong.

There seems to be this unspoken assumption that if you DNF a book, that's the end-all, be-all for it. The reader is going to drop the book like a hot potato and never look back. That isn't necessarily the case. People change, their tastes change. If I DNF  a book today, I'm not barred from deciding to maybe give it another try in a year or two.

A book being DNF'd is an unavoidable part of that book being published. Just like how every book has at least one negative review, every book has at least one reader who elected not to finish reading it. It's just part of the process. On its surface, it's essentially a neutral thing, yet it's viewed as a negative. The stigma around DNFing books, or your book being DNF'd is undeserved in my opinion. It's unavoidable and better than the alternative: continuing to read a book you dislike and giving it a terrible, scathing and usually unwarranted review.

Do you DNF? What's your opinion about DNFing a book?

Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads \ Instagram

Buy Me A Coffee?

The YA Series No One Talks About

Since I started this blog, I've been thinking a lot about books I've read over the years. Not only have I been remembering books that changed my life on a very deep level, but also some series I remember loving that I'd forgotten about. When I was making a list of young adult series that I love for another post, I was suddenly reminded of the Shadow Children series by Margaret Peterson Haddix. So, I decided to dedicate an entire post to that series by itself.

The Shadow Children series consists of seven novels (Among the Hidden, Among the Impostors, Among the Betrayed, Among the Barons, Among the Brave, Among the Enemy and Among the Free). It takes place in a dystopian country where the government has enforced strict population control laws in order to control overpopulation after environmental conditions have severely limited resources, particularly food. As a result, it is against the law for families to have more than two children; the law is strictly enforced by the Population Police, who are said to conduct raids specifically to find and punish families who have more than two children. Due to these circumstance, the third, and any subsequent, children are denied the right to exist and must spend their lives hidden to avoid imprisonment or death.

The first book in this series, Among the Hidden, was the book that sparked my interest in dystopian novels. While I'd read some dystopian fiction before it, I either didn't understand the dysptopian elements at the time, or I didn't find the story particularly interesting. Not with this series though. They were the perfect book to get me into dystopias. From this series, I found The Hunger Games and other, more widely-discussed dystopian series.

While books such as The Hunger Games certainly deserve the attention they get, I feel like this series is being forgotten by people. I read these books in middle school, and while several other students read them, I don't think that was the case for everyone. I think they've been largely overlooked, as many people I've asked haven't heard of them. Or maybe I've been asking the wrong people. It's a good series for the middle grade and young adult audience, being on the right reading level and age-appropriate for readers at the younger end of the YA age range. It's being overlooked, and it doesn't deserve to.

In conclusion, if you enjoy dystopia fiction and you haven't read this series, I think you should check it out. If you have read this series, what did you think of it? Are there any novels or series you think aren't getting the attention they deserve?


Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads \ Instagram

Buy Me A Coffee?

Let's Talk About Romantic Subplots

So, romance, its a thing. Not only is it a genre in its own right, it's also a trait that a lot of stories share. High-fantasy can have romance. Mystery can have romance. Adventure can have romance. In any fictional genre, you can find romance. However, just because romance can fit into the story doesn't mean that it should be in the story. I'd like to discuss my thoughts on romance, more specifically romantic subplots. (If I was slightly more organized, this post might've been up right after Valentine's Day. but I wasn't, so it wasn't, so I'm talking about it now.)

First, let me just say that I don't have anything against romances in general. I'm not a huge fan of the genre, but I'm not going to tell an avid romance reader that they're wrong or have bad taste. You read what you want, and I'll read what I want. I've actually read books with great romances and relationships that I liked. And, I've also read some where the romantic subplot was boring, or felt unnecessary or took up too much of the book. Now, I think I can divide my negative opinions about romance and romantic subplots into three categories: overdone, unnecessary and just problematic.

Overdone
I know a lot of people love Romeo and Juliet but I'm not one of them. I'm tired of books being adaptations of the play. Some retellings have been done very well, but there's an over-saturation. I like star-crossed lovers just fine, but star-crossed lovers where one or both have to die in order for the story to stick with you? It's been done to death, and I hate it. If you want your romance to be broken up because there needs to be some type of sacrifice, it doesn't have to be death. Imprisonment, exile, and even plot devices like "if I ever see you again, the world will explode" make the two characters splitting up much more impactful than one or both characters dying.

Also in this category, love triangles. There doesn't need to be one in every YA series. If yo're going to write about Girl Character not being sure if she wants Boy A or Boy B, fine. But the "triangle" can't just be the fact that both boys like her and she doesn't want to choose. Show why she's torn between Boy A and Boy B and why she should and shouldn't chose each one. Also, please don't make Boy A a childhood friend and Boy B a handsome new kid, because we know what's going to happen there. The reason why I don't like love triangles is that, if the book is not categorized as strictly romance, it can rob the story of its impact. For an example, The Hunger Games is about overthrowing an oppressive regime that forces children to fight to the death, but too many people turned it into Peeta vs. Gale.

Unnecessary
As mentioned above, not every story requires a romantic subplot. And, even if there is romance in the story, it doesn't need to be a huge focus. My favorite book on Earth is The Hobbit. There is no romance in The Hobbit because the story doesn't need it. The Harry Potter series has romantic elements sprinkled throughout, but you could cut out, or skip past those scenes, and it doesn't effect the story.

I've read so many books where 2/3 of the way through, I was enjoying the book, and then all of the tension turned from "stop the bad guy", "solve the crime" etc to whether or not two characters would get together and the main plot was shunted to the back. That ruined those books for me. I would also put last minute coupling in this category. If the main conflict has been resolved, and the rest of the book is just Character A and Character B admitting their feelings, I don't really need it. Especially if, prior to the conversation where they admit their feelings, there's been no indication that either character felt anything stronger than friendship for the other.

Problematic
I know a lot of people cringe at the term problematic, but romances that fit in this category make me cringe, which is why I'm using it. Some of these tropes are fine, just not my taste, while others I find very troubling.

First, the "not my taste" ones. I hate the trope of male characters that are jerks to their own love interests. I don't mean ones where they butt heads at first, or don't like each other at the beginning but slowly get closer and dislike turns into friendship and then love, by the way. I mean ones where the guy is a huge jerk, he stays a huge jerk, but his love interest still wants to be with him. Or thinks she can change him. Or knows that he's actually just damaged and that makes him act this way. Not a good romance, actually really toxic and I don't like it. To a lesser extent, this includes the "I was mean to you as a kid because I had a crush on you" plot, because again, that doesn't excuse the behavior.  Insta-love is another one that I'm just not a fan of. If I'm going to be invested in a couple, I want to actually see their relationship develop, not just read "he saw her and knew she was the one. The end".

Now, to the romances that I think are very troubling. One: killing off one or both members of the only gay, lesbian or bisexual relationship in the story. If you do that, you brag about how representative your story is, because its not. In a similar vein, if you write a bisexual character and they end up with someone of the opposite gender, that doesn't make them straight, so don't treat it like it does. (Basically, write happy, healthy non-straight relationships, okay?) Two: romanticizing abuse. I shouldn't have to explain this but there are still people who think the Joker and Harley Quinn dynamic is "goals". Emotional abuse, physical abuse, manipulation, its not cute and it's not romantic. Lastly, relationships involving one adult and one character who is not an adult. We have a word for that, and it's not romantic. Some might argue this one saying that "Character A is 15 and Character B is 18-21, its not that bad". No, it is. Because the author chose to make the characters those ages. They could've both been in their 20s, or both been teenagers, but they chose to have one be an adult and one be underage. Maybe it wasn't intended to be predatory, but it easily comes across that way.


Romance when written well adds a layer to the story being told. Sometimes, that simply raises the stakes. In other scenarios, it brings about a form of character growth. The problems arise when romance isn't handle well. If it's shoehorned it, or it distracts from the main story being told, then I take issue with it. As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with romance in general, just it being misused.

Five Worst Book to Film Adaptations

Last week, I discussed some of my favorite film adaptations. Today, I'm going to discuss the five worst adaptations I've seen. Some of these are bad altogether in my opinion, while others are good movies but bad adaptations of the books they're based on. In order to be fair, I'm limiting the list to books I've actually read and the subsequent film that was made adapting it that I've seen. 

I asked people on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook for their feedback, and there were a few honorable mentions: The Shining, the 1984 adaptation of Dune, The Magicians and assorted Harry Potter films after Prisoner of Azkaban.

With the honorable mentions out of the way, here's my list of the five worst book-to-film adaptations:



5)The Hobbit

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love the book The Hobbit and I love the The Hobbit films. However, as an adaptation of The Hobbit, the films aren’t great. The book itself is a very short story and there is no reason why a book that’s under 300 pages needed to be adapted into three 3-hour-long films. A trilogy made sense for Lord of the Rings, it didn’t make sense here. Padding the runtime led to introducing unnecessary subplots and dragging things out longer than they needed to be.



4) The Giver

I really can’t explain why happened here. I think this movie was only made because YA dystopias were so popular. Now, The Giver is a classic book and an adaptation done right could’ve been great, but that wasn’t allowed to happen here. instead of focusing on the Community and its dystopian elements, the film shuffled those ideas off to the side and instead went for set pieces and action sequences. A lot of the “magic” of the story was lost in translation and the film is worse for it. This is a story with a conflicted protagonist and a layered issue at its core, but none of that appears in the film.



3)My Sister’s Keeper

My Sister’s Keeper makes this list for one reason and one reason alone: they changed the ending. Unlike some films where the book ending doesn’t make sense for the way the film is telling the story (i.e. The Shining), it wasn’t a case of the book ending being a problem. One of the major themes of the novel is how fragile life is and the ending cements that. In the film’s case, changing the ending makes it much less poignant and reduces it to just another chick flick, made to make you cry.



2) Percy Jackson and the Olympians

A lot of the magic of this story was lost in adapting it. Some of it was due to unnecessary changes, like ages and the way the rules in this world work. Some might be due to having not enough runtime or some form of studio interference. The story has no depth. The characters aren’t 1/5 as interesting as they are in the books and after rewatching the film, it feels like no one seemed to care very much. It feels hollow, like the studio using the popularity of the series as an easy cash grab and not caring about how well they managed to adapt the story.



1) Eragon

This is the best (worst?) example of why studios shouldn’t adapt novels if they aren’t going to put the effort in to do it properly. This movie could’ve been Lord of the Rings, but for a younger audience. It could’ve spawned a franchise in the same way that Harry Potter and The Hunger Games did, but in order to do that, the film would need to actually be good. The film has the basic plot outline of the novel- a boy finds a dragon egg and goes on an adventure- but strips away everything else that made the story unique or even slightly interesting. There’s no emotion, no wonder and no depth. I loved this series, so I was excited when this film came out. This movie was a huge disappointment and to date, Eragon is the only film where I walked out of the movie theater halfway through. (I watched it on TV months later, just to be sure I didn’t miss some significant tonal shift or improvement. I didn’t.)

I don't blame the actors or the authors here. Some stories are naturally easier to adapt than others. The problem is that most of the movies I've listed failed to capture the magic and depth of the books they were based on. Or they created the right world, but missed the theme or purpose of the story. The book is always better, but if a film makes me stop liking the series its based on, because of how badly the adaptation was handled, I get really upset.

Those were my least favorite book-to-film adaptations. What are some of yours?

Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads \ Instagram

Buy Me A Coffee?

Five Best Book to Film Adaptations

Film adaptations of books have been around ever since the medium of film has been around. Prior to film adaptations, there were stage plays based off of books. In fact, there seems to be a belief that an author has only truly "made it" when one of their works is adapted into a film. In the last few decades, the number of film adaptations has increased exponentially, but just because more books have been made into films doesn't mean those films are entertaining or good adaptations of their source material.

Today, I'm going to discuss the five best adaptations I've seen. In order to be fair, I'm limiting the list to books I've actually read and the subsequent film that was made adapting it that I've seen. For example, I haven't read the series that The Golden Compass is based on, so I can't really talk about how bad of an adaptation the 2007 film is, but I've heard its not great.

I asked people on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook for their feedback, and there were a few honorable mentions: The Martian, Moby Dick, Fight Club, Get Shorty and No Country for Old Men

With the honorable mentions out of the way, here's my list of the five best book-to-film adaptations:




5) Sense and Sensibility

I know this might seem like a random first choice, but this movie got right what many other period pieces, especially adaptations of period novels, get wrong. The characterization, especially of Eleanor and Marianne Dashwood, is consistent. The relationship between the two sisters is captured and translated beautifully. The film works because it translates the story into a different medium without losing the atmosphere.

4)  To Kill A Mockingbird

This film is kind of the perfect storm of amazing screenwriting and phenomenal casting choices. Gregory Peck seemed to be almost born to play Atticus Finch. The key thing that makes this film so effective, and such a good adaptation, is that it doesn’t try to shy away from the subject matter. It doesn’t try to minimize the injustice and, given the period when the film was made, that very easily could have happened.



3) Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

I don’t really have a ton to say about this one. the book is an exciting spy thriller and the film is as well. There were some changes, but those changes were minimal and are more for clarity than anything else.



2) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

While later films caught flack for omitting characters and storylines, or changes in characterization, the book reads almost identical to the screenplay. Very little is changed between book and screen, very little is omitted. The production encompasses the wonder of the world of Harry Potter in a way that later films seemed to waver on.

1) Lord of the Rings

They said it couldn’t be done. For years, people believed Tolkien’s opus was unadaptable due to the sheer size and scale of the story. It wasn’t possible to do in one film, but three films were a much different story. Peter Jackson also managed to do this without making too many changes to the source material either. Some characters feature more in the films than in the book, simply to avoid introducing a character only to have them drop out of the story after doing one or two things. Yes, Tom Bombadil is absent from the story entirely and yes, the Scouring of the Shire is only seen as a vision, but for the most part, the story is exactly as Tolkien wrote it. Additionally, there’s a level of sincerity that other films, which were released after Lord of the Rings was so successful, lack. The people making these movies loved the source material and wanted to give it the best possible treatment for the silver screen.

This is my list for the best book-to-film adaptations. My list of the worst ones will be coming soon, but I wanted to start out positively. What are some of your favorite adaptations?

Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads \ Instagram

Buy Me A Coffee?

The February Short List

Photo by Ed Robertson on Unsplash

The Short List is the list of books that I read in a given month, but for one reason or another, I didn't write a full review for. I still wanted to be able to talk about these books, and I've found that this format is the easiest way to do so.

The Devil In the White City by Erik Larson

Blurb: Two men, each handsome and unusually adept at his chosen work, embodied an element of the great dynamic that characterized America’s rush toward the twentieth century. The architect was Daniel Hudson Burnham, the fair’s brilliant director of works and the builder of many of the country’s most important structures, including the Flatiron Building in New York and Union Station in Washington, D.C. The murderer was Henry H. Holmes, a young doctor who, in a malign parody of the White City, built his “World’s Fair Hotel” just west of the fairgrounds—a torture palace complete with dissection table, gas chamber, and 3,000-degree crematorium. Burnham overcame tremendous obstacles and tragedies as he organized the talents of Frederick Law Olmsted, Charles McKim, Louis Sullivan, and others to transform swampy Jackson Park into the White City, while Holmes used the attraction of the great fair and his own satanic charms to lure scores of young women to their deaths. What makes the story all the more chilling is that Holmes really lived, walking the grounds of that dream city by the lake.

My Thoughts: This was a re-read for me, so the story wasn't able to surprise me. That being said, this feels like it's two separate books. One accounting the story behind the World's Fair in Chicago, and another about H.H. Holmes crimes as one of America's first serial killers. It's understandable why both stories could be told together, but they do feel a bit disconnected. The writing itself is good and Larson did an extensive amount of research, but this wasn't my favorite read. It's an interesting read, even if the two plots feel disjointed at times.

Gheist by Richard Mosses

Blurb: After losing a card game to Las Vegas gangster Danton, Kat McKay is kidnapped, her heart removed from her chest. Bizarrely, Kat wakes up with a newfound power: she can see the dead. Together with a motley crew of criminal ghosts, including mobster Clint, stage magician Melchior and hitman Jack The Knife, she sets on a quest to restore their freedom - and her heart. But who is worthy of her trust, and can she regain what was taken from her?

My Thoughts: This book has a great premise but not a good execution. From the description, I thought it would be more interesting than it was. The story was slow to start off, and even after the inciting incident, things moved slower than I would've liked. There was a great deal of focus on side character's backstories that I didn't feel were that important. I was expecting Ocean's Eleven, but with ghosts and instead, the story was a normal heist story with very little supernatural elements thrown in.

  

Crisis on Infinite Earths Giant #1 and Crisis on Infinite Earths Giant #2

Summary: Between December of 2019 and January of 2020, the CW's Arrowverse had its big crossover event, Crisis on Infinite Earth, which they've been building towards for six years. These two comics are a tie-in for that event, with two all new stories, and are also a reprint of some issues from the original Crisis on Infinite Earths event.

My Thoughts: I'm a big comic book fan. I'm also a big fan of Arrow. While I have some strong opinions about the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" television event, I did enjoy these two comics.



E=MC2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation by David Bodanis

Summary: This book outlines the history of Einstein's famous formulation, which was overlooked when he released it in 1905, and delves into how groundbreaking such a simple equation has been, the discoveries made as a result of its application and what it means to our understanding of the universe and the future of said universe.

My Thoughts: This was a re-read for me. I first read this book in high school and remember thinking how cool it was that E=mc² led to such a diverse range of discoveries. Reading it now as a college graduate with a degree in math and having taken higher-level physics courses, I can fully both understand and enjoy the content of this book. It's an interesting read, especially for anyone with an interest in physics, and poses some thought-provoking questions towards the end.

Those were all of the books I completed in February but did not write a full review for. What are some books that you read this months? Any recommendations?

Five Endings I Hate (and Five I Love)

I think about endings a lot. While the beginning of a story needs to be intriguing to get the audience interested, a bad ending can ruin a story. I’ve been thinking about endings a lot recently, due to a few factors. One is reading some books with less-than-thrilling endings. Another is that, as of writing this post, two shows that I’ve watched for years have ended in the last week. While this is a book blog, and I mostly talk about book endings, some of the ideas listed below also apply to shows.

Five Endings I Hate

5) It was all a dream: This category also includes the story being a simulation or the final thoughts of a dying character. This is pretty much the epitome of lazy storytelling, because it was all a dream, like using time travel, means you don’t have to write an actual ending. It means the story, and the stakes, weren’t real and that I shouldn’t have cared. The only time this has worked is in The Wizard of Oz, and that only worked because Dorothy knew she was dreaming the whole time, so it wasn’t some last-minute subversion.

4) The rushed conclusion: If you spend hundreds of pages building up the villain/main conflict and it gets resolved in less than five pages (ten if the book is longer than 400 pages), you didn’t plan your story well. Or you didn’t balance other elements as well as you could’ve.

3) Back to the Start: In most cases, the story/plot is a journey. If the characters don’t change in some way, or they change but end up in the same position as at the start of the story, its not emotionally satisfying. One of the biggest complaints I heard about the Game of Thrones ending was that characters, mainly Jon Snow, started and ended in the exact same place, because it rendered their character arcs pointless. This doesn’t just apply to characters either. If the village/country/world is being ruled by a tyrant, don’t end the story with a different, but just as tyrannical, guy in charge.

2) Tonal Dissonance: Call me crazy, but an ending depends very heavily on the story that precedes it. If the novel has been gritty and dark the whole time, it shouldn’t have a bright, clean “everything’s all better now and everyone’s happy” ending. Similarly, if a book deals with some pretty light topics, or it’s a general coming-of-age story, having everyone die or something horrible happen at the end doesn’t make sense. Don’t have a general fiction novel turn into a spy thriller in the last 20%.

1) Death. All of the DEATH: I’m going to say this, and then get off my soapbox. (This applies more to shows than books, but whatever). I’m a fan of redemption arcs, when done well. I know that sometimes, characters need to die. However, just because a series is ending doesn’t mean you have to kill the main character. “Hero sacrifices his/her life to save the world” is good sometimes, but not others. It’s not the only type of sacrifice that can take place. And, in stories that are about a character finding redemption, killing them off cheapens that redemption.

Five Endings I Love

5) Foreshadowed: I love endings that are foreshadowed enough to give me a hint at what’s going to happen, but not so much that I can guess at the start what’s going to happen. The right amount of foreshadowing makes it look like the author planned and outlined the story really well, and upon editing, refined some of those ideas/plotpoints.

4) Clear Intent: Every book has a theme, or a message the author is trying to put across. The trick is for the author to make it clear what he or she is trying to say. Even if I didn’t like the way the book’s main conflict is resolved, if it’s clear that the author had a specific intent and the ending drives that intent home, I view it as a good ending. I don’t like Animal Farm all that much, but Orwell’s closing sentences did exactly what they were supposed to do and left the reader with the exact message as he was trying to send.

3) Emotionally satisfying: Some stories have happy endings. Some are more bittersweet. And some have dark endings. Which one works and which one doesn’t depends on the story. A lot of series have these, a lot do not. if a book has a central mystery, the mystery needs to be solved. If it’s about overthrowing a dystopian government, government need to get overthrown. As I mentioned above, you can’t give a dark story a happy, shiny ending. And if at the end, I’m wondering why I wasted my time reading/watching this, it wasn’t satisfying. As example of a conclusion that wasn't emotionally satisfying was the White Walker storyline in Game of Thrones. While seeing Arya kill the Night King was cool, it wasn’t emotionally satisfying because the Night King had been a major part of Jon’s story, not Arya’s.

2) Can’t Go Back: Would you like to know what one of my favorite film moments of all time is? It’s in Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, when Frodo explains to Sam why he’s sailing to the Undying Lands. He says “We set out to save the Shire, Sam. And it has been saved, but not for me.” I love this scene because its one of the few scenes where a character acknowledges how much their journey has changed them. Frodo saved the Shire, saved all of Middle Earth, and he returns home to find that he doesn’t belong there anymore. Endings that acknowledge this, whether its to this extent or a lesser one, will always outrank one’s where the hero accomplishes their goal and goes home.

1) Not Really An End: I like stories that don’t wrap every single thing up. This isn’t the same thing as an ambiguous ending, though, where you either don’t know what the ending means or the major conflict felt unfinished. I like being able to close the book, knowing how the main conflict was resolved, but still wondering what happened next. It speaks to the idea that nothing every really ends.

Those were some book (and TV) endings that I hated and some that I loved. What are your opinions on endings? Which ones do you dislike? What ending is your favorite? 

Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads

The January Short List

Photo by Ed Robertson on Unsplash

I know some of you might be reading this and thinking “the short list, what does that mean?”. Well, its pretty simple. I read a lot of books, but I don’t necessarily review all of them. This is for a variety of reasons. Sometimes there are books that I don’t feel strongly enough about to review, and for some it just doesn’t work. Sometimes, the book in question discusses a very niche topic or it’s one of those books that isn’t meant to be taken too seriously or analyzed. I’ve been thinking quite a bit about books like this, so I’ve decided to create The Short List, which gives me a chance to talk about these books without writing a full review. In order to preserve my own sanity, I will be posting these towards the end of every month.

With my explanation out of the way, let’s get into January’s Short List.

Is God a Mathematiician by Mario Livio

This is a non-fiction book written by an astrophysicist. The book examines the connection between mathematics, which is a collection of abstract concepts, and the physical world. It tried to answer the questions of how, if math is an entirely intangible concepts that humans invented, can it be used to so easily explain things in physical reality? For example, the work of  British mathematician who was well-known for his contribution to number theory (the study the properties of whole, positive numbers), was used decades later to make breakthroughs in cryptography. There’s also the matter of earlier individuals such as Pythagoras, Archimedes and Isaac Newton, whose discoveries in their time have wide applicability today. The book attempts to answers a simple question: did we discover math when learning about the world around us or did we invent math and it just so happens to explain so much about the world around us?

This book is on the Short List, because not many people I know personally would be interested in a book like this. I have a math degree. If I had the money, I’d probably be working on earning a Master’s degree in math right now. I found this book interesting, but not everyone will.

I Could Pee on This (And Other Poems by Cats) by Francesco Marciuliano

Yes, this is a book of poems. Yes, these poems are written from a cat’s perspective. It’s a little weird, but it’s a fun book with a creative premise. I bought it on a whim because the title made me laugh. It’s a short, cute, fun read and anyone that has or had cats should read it. There are lots of cute cats pictures inside as well.

What Will I Be? STEM Edition By Katie Greiner

I know you might be thinking, this is a kid’s book. Why did you read a kids book? Well, two reasons. One, I have somewhat of a connection to the author. While I’ve never met her, she and I are both alumnae of the same sorority, from different colleges, for women studying in technical fields. I wanted to support one of my sisters. Second I liked the message it was sending. 

There’s a stigma around women studying math, science and technology and I, for one, am tired of it. This book tells kids, especially girls, that they can be a doctor or an astronaut or a computer scientist and I like that message.

The Prose Edda

This is, no doubt, the oldest book I’ve ever read that’s not about the Trojan War. It was written in the 13^th century in Iceland. It’s one of the most well-known pieces of Scandinavian literature and our biggest source of information about Norse Mythology. Unlike its older relative, The Poetic Edda, it gives more detail into the myths it tells and it’s a little easier to understand, since The Poetic Edda is, as one might guess, a collection of poems. Given that The Prose Edda takes inspiration from The Poetic Edda, they’re sometimes referred to as the Younger Edda and the Elder Edda respectively.

As someone who, up until reading this, had only read Greek myths, the differences are quite fascinating. Every mythology has a creation myth, but very few have a detailed, soon-to-come destruction myth. I would advise anyone thinking of reading this, or anything derived from this book, to leave anything you learned from Marvel comics at the door, since they changed quite a bit.


Those were all of the books I completed in January but did not review. I know that this is a very varied list, but variety is the spice of life as they say. What are some books that you read this months? Any recommendations?

2019 in Review

Hello Everyone and Happy (almost) New Year! 2019 is pretty much over and its been quite the year. As I look back on the last 12 months, I've been thinking a lot about the books I've read. So, let's talk about all of the books I read in 2019 and what my thoughts were.

First, what are the books that I read?

Anomaly by Jessica Gilliland

Behind Closed Doors by B.A. Paris

The Body in Question by Jill Ciment

Bone Quarry by K.D. McNiven

Catch and Kill by Ronan Farrow

Dark Places by Gillian Flynn

Days of Rock & Roll by Kelly Holm

Dune by Frank Herbert

Dune Messiah by Frank Herbert

Feathers and Fae by Crystal L. Kirkham

In A Dark, Dark Wood by Ruth Ware

The Mechanoid Cries Within by Brock T.I. Penner

Nightmare Escapade by Waylon Piercy

Nothing to See Here by Kevin Wilson

One of Us is Lying by Karen M. McManus

The Power by Naomi Alderman

The Scarred God by Neil Beynon

The Wife Between Us by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen

Where the Crawdads Sing by Delia Owens

The Woman in Cabin 10 by Ruth Ware

Facts and Figures:

In 2019, I read and reviewed 20 books and one short story. My breakdown of how I rated them is below:

Overall, 2019 was  a pretty good year. (I did round scores for this chart, since in a lot of my reviews, I give decimal scores and not whole numbers.)   I somewhat enjoyed the majority of books that I read and thoroughly enjoyed more than I expected to.

I read a number of different genres as well. 8 thrillers, 2 horror, 3 fantasy, 3 literary/general fiction, four science fiction and one non-fiction. While my experience shows that I'm not the biggest fan of thrillers, reading so many did help me figure that out and I'm willing to, one day, give the genre another chance possibly.

Best and Worst

The best book I read in 2019 overall was Catch and Kill by Ronan Farrow. This was also the only non-fiction book I read. The best fiction book I read was Nothing to See Here by Kevin Wilson. The two runner-ups for fiction were Where the Crawdads Sing by Delia Owens and Dune by Frank Herbert. The worst book I read was The Body In Question by Jill Ciment.

Overall, 2019 wasn't a bad year for me reading-wise. Bring on 2020.

Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads

My English Teacher Made Me Read It!

Hello and happy Monday. This week, I decided not to post a review, because the book I’m currently reading in order to write a review is taking a little bit longer to finish than I planned. Instead, I’ve decided to do something new. I made a list of all of the books I was forced to read in middle/high school, and I’m going to quickly give just my general opinion of said books. I may do another version of this for college, but I haven’t decided yet.

• The Outsiders- When I read it in 7^th grade, I loved this book. I recently reread this one and I found it to be fairly average. It’s not bad, per se, but boring. There’s action, then a lot of nothing, then a little more action, and then the book ends.
• To Kill A Mockingbird- A fantastic book that covers a difficult topic. Everyone should read it at one point in their lives. The attempts to ban this book are ridiculous.
• Adventures of Huckleberry Finn- Like To Kill A Mockingbird, there have been attempts to ban this book for its use of the N-word, or to in the very least censor it to remove the word. Which is a big mistake. It’s a book that should be read, regardless of how uncomfortable the story may make some readers.  
• The Catcher in the Rye- Over-hyped in my opinion. I don’t know anyone older than 17 that seriously connects with this book. It does a great job hitting the pressure points of teen angst, but that’s about it.
• The Scarlet Letter- Hester Prynne deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for not snapping one day and killing everyone in that village for being an asshole.
• King Lear- My favorite of Shakespeare’s tragedies, although that’s not saying much.
• A Thousand Acres- A modernized retelling of King Lear where instead of being an actual king, the father is a farmer who owns a large tract of land. For the most part, it does a good job of translating the premise of King Lear but its even more boring than the play. There’s also an added plot element, to explain some of the rifts in the family, that isn’t handled very well and seems contrived.
• The Great Gatsby- I hate this book so much. It’s boring, I don’t understand why it’s considered one of the “great American novels”, and all of the characters are terrible people. Also, anything you have to say about symbolism usually begins and ends with talking about the stupid billboard with the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleberg.
• The Odyssey- For a book of this length, and as old as the story is, it’s not half bad. It drags in places and gets formulaic, but it at least kept me mostly entertained.
• Beowulf- I really don’t know how I feel about this one. The story itself is pretty simple, and who doesn’t enjoy a story about killing random monsters.
• The Canterbury Tales- I only read parts of this book, but I’m including it. Shakespeare’s hard enough to understand as a high schooler. Chaucer is pretty much impossible. Also, most of the stories are pretty boring.
• Oedipus Rex- Given how Oedipus in known today mostly because of Freud’s nonsense about the Oedipus complex (and I could write an entire novel explaining how screwed up his reasoning there is), I was surprised that I actually felt bad for Oedipus. His story is tragic and for once, the ending of a tragedy makes sense to me. Also, this just goes to show that no one should ever trust an oracle.
• The Poisonwood Bible- This is the most boring book I’ve ever read. Every time I read it, I started to fall asleep. It takes forever for the story to get started, and once it does, I quickly became apathetic. I don’t care about missionaries being sad that they can’t convert people to their religion. Maybe showing up and telling people their belief system is wrong isn’t a smart move.
• Romeo and Juliet- I feel like I don’t have anything to say here that hasn’t already been said. It’s a tragedy because they’re young and dumb and their families both suck. I wish people would stop seeing their relationship as romantic, because that’s just…yikes.

So, there you have it. All of the book I remember being forced to read in English class. I’m sure there are some I’ve just forgotten (or repressed). I can see why these books are required reading in some cases. They’re useful for teaching certain literary concepts and studying things such as themes and figurative language. Just because they’re easy to teach, that doesn’t mean they’re good books, or interesting. As you could plainly see, I thought most of them were boring. Of all of the books I’ve mentioned, I don’t think there are any I would’ve chosen to read on my own.

What were some books you were forced to read and hated? Do you have any opinions on the books mentioned above?

Top 5 High Fantasy Series

Despite the fact that, at time of writing, most of my reviews are for some form of thriller, thriller actually is not my favorite literary genre. Fantasy, more specifically high-fantasy, is my favorite genre to read. Given that I needed a bit of a break from reviews for a little bit, I’ve decided to write about my five favorite high fantasy series.

By definition, high fantasy is defined as fantasy fiction set primarily in an alternative, entirely fictional world, rather than the real world. The fictional world is usually internally consistent but its rules differ in some way from those of the real world. Low fantasy, by contrast, takes place in the real world but has the inclusion of magical elements. The Mortal Instruments series is low fantasy; The Hobbit is high fantasy.

5) Earthsea by Ursula K. Le Guin

The novels, beginning with A Wizard of Earthsea, take place in a world that is mostly ocean with humanity living on small islands. The world is inhabited by humans and dragons, with some humans being wizards or sorcerers. Unlike the other series on this list, humans and dragons are the only notable species that live in this world.

The first novel begins with a young boy, known as Duny but later named Ged, learning he has innate magical power. His aunt teaches him the little magic she knows, and one exhibition of his power gains the attention of a powerful mage. Unfortunately, Ged inadvertently releases a shadow creature. The rest of the novel follows Ged as he attempts to get ride of the creature plaguing him.

Earthsea is unique from two standpoints. One is the shifting of perspectives. There isn’t one protagonist across the series, unlike most book series. Characters from later books interact and meet characters from earlier novels, but the story isn’t focused on Ged and Ged alone. The second aspect that I feel makes Earthsea unique is its central theme about balance. Wizards in this world are meant to keep balance between the magical forces. Bad things don’t necessarily happen because someone evil causes it, they happen because they go against the balance that needs to be maintained. When I read this series, I found the concept of good and evil being more about choice than innate nature intriguing.

4) The Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini

I wasn’t aware of this series existence until the first two books, Eragon and Eldest had already been released. I read those two very quickly and eagerly awaiting the third novel Brisingr and later the fourth and final book Inheritance.

Taking place in the fictional world of Alagaesia, it chronicles the tale of a farmboy Eragon, who finds a dragon egg while hunting and becomes the first Dragon Rider since the evil king Galbatorix killed all the others one hundred years earlier. Eragon is then swept up a journey to end the evil king’s reign and restore the order of Dragon Riders.

The Inheritance Cycle has a lot of similarities with, and clearly the author was inspired by, older works, most notably J.R.R. Tolkien’s works. Alagaesia and many of its inhabitants are similar to Middle Earth and the different races of beings that live there. While the worlds may be the same, the plots differ quite bit. Eragon’s journey isn’t about defeating an ultimate evil, its about overthrowing a corrupt leader. The conflicts between the protagonists and antagonists in Eragon and the other novels in the series, begin on a more personal level than most fantasy novels.

3) The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis

Some of you may believe this entry is cheating, since each book in the series starts with the main characters in the real world. However, given that the entirety of each book’s action and plot take place in the fictional land of Narnia, I’ve decided to include it.

The Chronicles of Narnia was actually the first high-fantasy series I read. A great deal of my love for it is no doubt a result of nostalgia from my childhood. These books will always hold a special place in my heart for being my introduction to fantasy as a genre. The allegories between events in Narnia and Christian theology are a lot more obvious as an adult, and Lewis has been criticized for some harmful stereotypes others have noticed in the novels, but this piece is neither the time nor the place to discuss that.

The world is expansive. There are different creatures throughout the world. There are humans, talking animals, minotaurs, sprites, and dozens of others. Magic exists in Narnia and the rules within the world are easy to understand and they stay consistent throughout There is the essential battle between Good and Evil, in various forms, throughout the series.

2) A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin

I think we all knew this one was going to be on here. No discussion about fantasy is complete anymore without mentioning A Song of Ice and Fire due to the popularity of Game of Thrones. (Just as an aside, I will only be discussing Martin’s novels here, and not any events from the television series). I’m not sure what I can say about Westeros that hasn’t already been said, but here we go.

Martin gives the reader a rich, expansive world with hundreds of unique characters. Of all of the fantasy worlds mentioned in this piece, Martin’s uses magic the least often. Magic does exist, but it only seems to come up in certain situations and can only be performed by certain characters. A Song of Ice and Fire first gained popularity due to how shockingly events played out. No characters are safe, anyone can be killed, which went against the common trope in fantasy that the protagonist wouldn’t and couldn’t get killed, regardless of how dangerous of a situation they found themselves in. The series popularity stems from the world, but mostly in Martin’s ability to shock readers and avoid tropes of the fantasy genre.

Another thing worth noting is that, outside of the threat of the Others/White Walkers, there isn’t a main villain or some greater evil that needs to be defeated. There are plenty of “bad guys” but outside of the Others, they’re all ordinary people. While a lot of the world is clearly inspired by Tolkien’s work, including some character archetypes, the themes of the novels center around human conflict as opposed to the battle between good and evil.

1)The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

I really don’t think there was ever another option for my favorite fantasy series. While I have read all of these series more than once, The Lord of the Rings is the one I read the most often. Tolkien is the father of modern fantasy. Many of the tropes, themes and aspects of other fantasy worlds are based on, or at least inspired by, Tolkien’s works. Any discussion about lore and world-building would be incomplete without mentioning how much time, effort and thought went into creating the world of The Lord of the Rings. He created multiple constructed languages, and created multiple dialects each language. Middle Earth doesn’t just have a very long history going back thousands of years, it has its own creation myth.

But enough about how in-depth the lore goes, or how much effort and detail Tolkien put into his works. Let’s talk about the works themselves. The Lord of the Rings isn’t just my favorite fantasy story, its my favorite story period. The central conflict is a battle between good and evil, the quintessential need to defeat evil. Sauron is a pure evil force that can’t be reasoned with, can’t be talked down and the Fellowship needs to succeed because if they fail, the world falls into darkness. There isn’t a Chosen One, just a group of people banding together because they must and because defeating Sauron is what’s right. Even as the world gets darker, and evil gains a little more of a foothold, there’s never a point where there’s no hope. Even after members of the Fellowship get separated, they remain part of the same story, and impact the journey the others are having. They are one part of an ongoing story.

Tolkien changed the way fantasy was written, and unfortunately, that meant a number of the themes in his writing were ignored or swept under the rug in other works. When a work is compared to Tolkien, it usually refers to the worldbuilding, but not the core themes. The Lord of the Rings is about more than just elves, dwarves, talking trees and defeating evil. It’s about having hope, despite seemingly insurmountable odds. It’s about power, and how absolute power corrupts absolutely, and a little power corrupts a little. Mostly, its about how the smallest person can change the course of the future.

Those are my favorite high fantasy series. What are yours?