So, I’ve been gone for a while. Hello! Sorry about that… Teaching really takes up a lot of my time. Don’t get me wrong, I love it, but between teaching and freelance writing, there’s not a ton of time. Despite that, I have a few novels that will be published by the end of the summer, which is exciting 🙂
In the meantime, I’ve been reading a lot. I read the poetry collections of Amanda Lovelace, and loved them, so I wrote a review of each. One can be found on The Silver Petticoat Review, and the other is here. Enjoy!
“After I read the princess saves herself in this one, I had to read Amanda Lovelace’s second collection of poetry. This collection, the witch doesn’t burn in this one, is the second in the “women are some kind of magic” series. This collection of poetry pays homage to Katniss Everdeen, the girl on fire. It follows the basic idea that women are magical and are more powerful than we think we are.
Looking at the poems in the witch doesn’t burn in this one, the majority were related to the issues that women can face in today’s world. The poetry looks at the battles fought in the princess saves herself in this one, and then asks the question, why? Why are these things that women are having to fight? How can we hold each other up and work together to fight a system that is, for some many women, broken?
Unlike the princess saves herself in this one, the witch doesn’t burn in this one deals with topics of social justice and politics, particularly as they relate to women. There are some radical ideas in here, and some that should not be as radical as they seem. One thing that struck me particularly was the idea that women should not apologize as much as we do.
The other thing that struck with me was that it’s okay to be a witch queen. These are the women who are done taking whatever life throws at them. They are fighting back, and holding each other up. I think the use of witch is because the witches in fairy tales tend to have more agency than the other female characters do.
Like the other book in the series, the witch doesn’t burn in this one does not shy away from examining the tough things in life. It is unabashedly honest in places but can be full of hope and celebration. There are also poems inspired by great artists, from Christina Rossetti to Lin-Manuel Miranda.
Like the princess saves herself in this one, the witch doesn’t burn in this one is a collection of poems that takes the ideas of fairy tales and turns them on their heads. Like in many fairy tales, the queens become the witches. But in this collection, the witches are banding together to fight against a system that is always trying to cut them down.
In a lot of ways, this is more of a celebration of women in general. It’s a way for one women to not only continue her voyage of discovery, but to encourage other women on their own journeys. Like the other things I’ve read by Amanda Lovelace, I find this beautiful.
Content Note: This collection deals frankly with a wide variety of topics including but not limited to, child abuse, partner abuse, sexual assault, self-harm, death, suicide, grief, cancer, murder, violence, and eating disorders. There are also quite a few swear words. This book also deals with more political poems than the princess saves herself in this one did.
Where to Read: the witch doesn’t burn in this one is available as a paperback book, a Kindle book, and an audiobook.
Have you read the witch doesn’t burn in this one? How did you feel about it? Let me know in the comments!
First off, I should say that I am a proud historian. I may also be a proud English teacher, a proud archaeologist, a proud editor, and a proud writer, but I am also a historian. Other than maybe “writer,” being a historian was the first professional label that I got, and one that I am still very fond of.
Of course, there are problems with being a historian. The main one, I think, is that it kind of warps how you see things. Not only are you supposed to look for cause and effect, you are supposed to analyze things.
And at some point, you find yourself knowing way too much about a certain topic.
For example, my thesis looked at the railroad during the 19th century and a little bit forward (1800-1920, though the actual dates I was looking at in-depth were 1880-1930). Now, when I watch anything about the railroad or America during that time period, I know how things actually went.
Basically, I find myself nitpicking and being annoyed about the historical inaccuracies.
Which is a problem in historical fiction, since it is, in fact, fiction. When you’re writing, you have to take certain liberties with your setting and world(personally, I write in alternative timelines or in fantasy, just because of that. Someday, I will write a Western, and it will be gloriously accurate and boring as beige). These changes are put in place to make the story stronger, and this can be done very well, appealing to even the most nitpicky of historians, or very badly.
There are some historical fiction authors and films that I love. Lauren Willig is a historian who has done mountains of research for each book and manages to capture the spirit of the people and the setting. She’s like Michael Crichton, only for history (and with some scandalous moments). To me, that is quite high praise, fyi.
Other great historical things I love include “Hell On Wheels,” which looks at the building of the transcontinental railroad. HBO also has some fairly wonderful (though violent and graphic) shows that are accurate (ish).
So there are the positive historical fiction works. However, as you may have guessed from the title, there are some historical fiction pieces that I like, in spite of myself. I think of these as guilty pleasure films or books. They’re not historically accurate and I know I should hate them on some level, but I just can’t help but love them.
Here are, in no particular order, six of my Historical Fiction Guilty Pleasures.
MY HISTORICAL FICTION GUILTY PLEASURES
1. I want to point out that I have a soft spot for Westerns, so they are all included in this list in one place. This is because some are accurate, some are not, and even though I have an in-depth knowledge of that particular time period, I have decided that Westerns are okay, regardless. I love most of them, television or movie, new or old, accurate or not, this is one genre of film or show that I’m almost always interested in watching. Westerns can be cheesy, but they are also, in my opinion, fantastic (though there are some that make me roll my eyes at times).
2.”Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”-This one is obvious, mostly because it makes no real attempt to be historically accurate. Right there in the title, it tells you everything that need to know about the movie. Abraham Lincoln becomes a vampire hunter. Also, I have to say it, slavery was not the main cause of the American Civil War. This film plays hard and loose with history, lifting the characters, costumes, and settings from history, but I’m 99.99% sure that “historical accuracy” was not something that crossed the mind of anyone involved in the making of this film. It’s ridiculous, cheesy, and quite wonderful.
3. The History Channel’s mini-series, “The Sons of Liberty”-This one should really offend me. It was produced by the History Channel, and that gives it a certain air of respectability that other productions on this list might not have. It gets the basic timeline correct, and Boston was the powderkeg that started the American Revolution, but Sam Adams was not as attractive as Ben Barnes. Sorry, man. There are quite a few historical details that got mucked up. The team justifies their changes to history in the “Making Of” special, but still, these changes are kind of a big deal. Really, this mini-series should be really annoying-Sam Adams is a ninja? What?-but it’s really just cotton candy for the brain. Just, if you study the American Revolution, be prepared to be annoyed.
4. The Books of Lori Wick-Specifically, I want to mention her “Kensington Chronicles” series and her “The Californians” series. Lori Wick’s biggest problem seems to be that she writes these gorgeous settings and costumes that are historically accurate, but then drops modern characters into the novels. Basically, you have these locations that prove that she did her research, but the characters. Oh, the characters. In “The Kensington Chronicles,” set in Victorian England, the characters act and talk in ways that is much more modern than Victorians. It kind of drives me nuts at times. All of her books are still delightful and the characters are still engaging, but they are not historically accurate, putting them on this list.
5. “A Knight’s Tale”-Look, I know. This one really shouldn’t even count, since it seems to be pretty self-aware. But, as a Medievalist (I wear many historical hats), I’m aware of the flaws here. I have heard enough people tell me how awful this movie is. Actually, there were quite a few liberties taken with the story, and most of the costumes were also not accurate. That’s why it’s on this list, really, because it falls into the trap of using historical settings and then not quite following through on the whole accuracy thing. There are things that, in any other movie, would cause me to hate it. In this movie, it doesn’t work like that. I love it anyway, I just remember that it’s not supposed to be taken seriously.
6. The Books of Gilbert Morris-Specifically, I’m talking about his “House of Winslow” series, forty books that follow a family from their arrival to America on the Mayflower to the end of World War Two. Like Ms. Wick, Morris seems to be more interested in the settings. Although he sometimes manages it, this series has a tendency to feel like modern characters have been put into different historical contexts and left to deal with things in the past. Some of his characters act like people in that time would, but most of them don’t and it can be very frustrating at times. It’s Christian fiction that is clearly more interested in the setting than in being historically accurate.
And there you have it, my Top Six Historical Fiction Guilty Pleasures. These are mostly things that are set in the eras that I like most, so now I’m curious, do you have a historical fiction guilty pleasure?
There are a few things that I very nerdy about. King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes, history (particularly the West), trains, tall-ships, the works of Tolkien, animation, Robin Hood, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, and the works of CS Lewis.
Obviously, there are more things I nerd out about, but this is the core group. Sad, right? This post, however, is devoted to one particular facet of my nerdy core- The Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis. As an aside, I’m very curious and intrigued by the reboot that will be done soon, with a lot of input from the Lewis Estate.
I decided the other day (well, it’s been a few weeks now, these things take time), because I am a nerd like that, that I was going to watch the versions of the Narnia Chronicles that came out in the 2000’s, but also watch the older BBC versions, to see how they compare. Because I’ve read the series so often, I feel like I can compare them to the book as well.
Basically, I love to watch movies based on beloved books, and compare them to each other and to the book. It’s my idea of fun.
So, without further ado, The Narnia Chronicles!
First of all, if you’re going to base this on sheer accuracy, the BBC versions would win any contest, hands down. In many places, the dialogue is ripped right out of the book.
If you ask any bookworm, we will tell you that this is how we prefer our film adaptations.
The only way that the new Narnia movies might possibly win any contest is when you compare the Lucys and Edmunds. Don’t get me wrong, I love both characters in both adaptations, and they are my favorite characters in the series, and both for different reasons (but that’s another post). Even in the last two movies (ugh, so bad), they made it bearable.
I loved Georgie Henley’s wide-eyed innocence and the wonder she was able to convey; she just seemed like Lucy to me (also, I loved that the kids were all different ages. In the BBC one, I kept thinking Susan was the oldest and Peter and Edmund were twins).
I also really loved the way Skandar Keynes played Edmund. I can’t think of any other way to say it other than that it seemed like he stepped off of the pages of the book. His early, bratty behavior, his redeemed self, the undercurrent of snarkiness…all of these are things were present and great.
Even when things were different than the books, he was still the character. Same with Georgie Henley as Lucy. I felt like they got it, and that was neat.
In the BBC versions, the actors were great too, but they didn’t quite match up with what was in my head, and I do like the actors in the new version as well. In the BBC version, Peter and Susan more on point, but the Lucy and Edmund fell a little flat for me.
The first movie, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, looks pretty good on both sides. I mean, the story feels better adapted in places in the BBC one, but the new one isn’t bad, and it gets points because of the new Lucy and Edmund, as well as the special effects.
Prince Caspian and Dawn Treader, however, are a different story. The new ones, I watch and find myself annoyed. There are parts I like, of course. I was disappointed to not have the “Sorcery and Sudden Vengeance” chapter in there, but I liked what they did with it, particularly in relation to the character of Edmund. He has the best lines.
My problems with the new ones were as follows: I wish that Caspian had been younger, I hated the love story (the Star’s Daughter! Plus, book Caspian would have fallen for Lucy. Nothing against Susan, that’s just what I think), and that stupid fight in the castle was out of place. Susan fighting didn’t bother me too much (any irritation was due to the fact that in the books, it was Lucy who would fight with the archers, not Susan, but I’ll give them that one).
However, Peter Dinklage is wonderful as Trumpkin, and the BBC Trumpkin is also wonderful. Basically, that’s another character that I love equally in both films. Both men are able to convey the correct level of skepticism that makes Trumpkin such a wonderful character.
When it comes to Prince Caspian, for a blockbuster action movie, the new one is good. For a Narnia movie, it feels s a little out of place. The BBC version, however, old-school effects aside, is fantastic and follows the book wonderfully.
For the BBC productions, I appreciate how Caspian and Dawn Treader were on the same disc. Since Caspian is, I would argue, no one’s favorite book in the series, pairing it with Dawn Treader, my personal favorite, was a stroke of genius. I also like how in the beginning of Caspian, they are headed to their respective adventures in Treader. It’s a nice cohesive move. Well done, BBC, well done.
Overall, I love the BBC Prince Caspian. Caspian is a better age in this version, and they do a better job, I think, of setting up the story of Caspian. Not to say Ben Barnes didn’t do a good job, but this kid had, I think, a better script (at least when you compare it to the books. Which I do). Plus, Sorcery and Sudden Vengeance!
When it comes to Dawn Treader, the BBC film is long enough to put all the wonderful things that got cut out of the new movie (rant points pending below). The only thing is, I really don’t like the BBC Caspian in Dawn Treader. His acting is good, but he never looks like how I pictured Caspian to me.
Two of my favorite parts in the book are the Deathwater Island scene and the Dragon’s Island scenes, and although I thought both the new and the BBC versions of them got the spirit of both scenes, I wasn’t thrilled with either.
In the BBC Deathwater scene, Lucy got involved in the fight and it actually becomes a fight. I did like the Deathwater scene in the new one, because even though there were differences from the book, I thought it was acted in a way that conveyed the spirit of the scene. However, it also turned into a fight.
The scene also continued in the trend of the new films to make conflict between Peter and Caspian (Prince Caspian), and Edmund and Caspian (Voyage of the Dawn Treader), over leadership roles. Another thing added with the stupid subplot of trying to find the missing swords to save the people from the green mist, but that’s another story.
However, while the dragon scene was good enough in both, the BBC one had a better representation of the transformation, but the new one had a better dragon. Despite that, I missed the interaction between Edmund and Eustace, and had looked forward to seeing the transformation of Eustace from dragon and back to boy. On the other hand, at least the BBC Dawn Treader had things in order. The new one just moved things around and changed things. I was equally disappointed in both versions.
Also, the new Dawn Treader had that stupid thing with the green mist and the swords, and, honestly, I stopped paying attention after a while because there was so much new stuff. I got annoyed, I just wanted to see stuff from the book that I loved, so I decided to read the book instead.
This is how you tick off fans and lose the rights to your story.
I get that they were trying to make the story flow together in a more cohesive way, but the book was tied together in a cohesive way; the search for the seven lords and the adventures that they had while searching. There was no need for an added conflict; Lewis wrote conflict enough in the book already. Combined with the adventure, it remains a wonderful book.
Having never seen The Silver Chair before, I was really excited and, like all the BBC Narnia movies, the only way it disappointed was in the outdated special effects and Caspian’s hair. I’m just impressed that they got to make The Silver Chair, less people probably call it their favorite than Prince Caspian.
Overall, both series have their good points (one is better at story and one is better at special effects). While I realize that the BBC version was groundbreaking in it’s day when it came to special effects, the new movies just look so good! Except for Dawn Treader. No amount of special effects can make me like that movie.
I want to take the script from the BBC version (or something similar to it) and have it made today, with the same special effects budget that the new versions had. This is what I’m hoping we get in new films.
I had grand plans for my first post to be something serious, but then I found this that I had written and never posted, so I thought, eh. The best laid plans. So, here it is. This is one of the things that you can expect from me (with some serious things in there occasionally).
I know it sounds cliché, but I enjoy thinking about books that influenced or impacted me as a kid. When I wrote the original post, I had been talking with my sister and her roommate about the Hobbit Movies (which I may talk about here later), which morphed into a discussion of the most traumatic childhood reading deaths.
So here, for your enjoyment, are the top fifteen traumatic book moments from my childhood at the hands of brilliant authors. Seriously, read these books. Obviously, here be spoilers.
Of course, these are cut off at the end of my childhood, so series like The Hunger Games, The Lunar Chronicles, and A Song of Ice and Fire are out (though all are highly recommended).
(Spoilers for the Anne of Green Gables Series, Little Women, The Redwall Series, Jurassic Park, The Hobbit, Bridge to Terebithia, Harry Potter, Old Yeller, Where the Red Fern Grows, and Meet Addy: An American Girl).
15. Old Yeller in Old Yeller. I put this here because I never read the book-the movie was too sad and I wasn’t going to walk myself right into THAT sob-fest. I’ve heard it’s a great book, but that several boxes of tissues are required.
14. The fact that Jo and Laurie don’t get together in Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. Less traumatic, more disappointing; I kept hoping that they would figure it out. I can understand it, talking to other people I see the reasons that they didn’t get together, but I did want him to figure out that he couldn’t change her (and that he didn’t really want to).
13. Joy’s death in Anne’s House of Dreams by LM Montgomery. Joy was the first child of Anne and Gilbert, and she died soon after her birth. She only had a few pages, but those few pages conveyed grief and did make a mark on my young self.
12. Beth March’s death in Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. When I reread Little Women, I skip this section. Beth March was never my favorite, I always liked Meg best (though Jo was cool too), but I remember being very upset. Why do people keep killing off main characters?!
11. Mrs. Bankvole and Friar Hugo from Mattimeo by Brian Jacques. Before George RR Martin started killing off innocent characters, there was Brian Jacques. These two were causalities of Slagar the Cruel’s revenge plot and his kidnapping of all the children of Redwall Abbey. One of my favorite books, these deaths brought a reality to this fictional world and made me fear for the other characters.
10. Rose from Martin the Warrior by Brian Jacques. Seriously, Mr. Jacques? She dies a hero, but still, it was awful that she did die. I remember hating this book, and I think that was part of the reason.
9. Where the Red Fern Grows. Just…the whole book. The second book I ever cried at. That ending. Still cry.
8. John Hammond in Jurassic Park by Michael Crighton. Poor idiot, just trying to let kids see dinosaurs only to be eaten by compys. If I had thought this book would have a happy ending for anyone (even the survivors were traumatized!), this proved me wrong. The creator killed by his creation (very Frankenstieny of you, Mr. Crighton).
7. Veil in The Outcast of Redwall by Brian Jacques. The basic idea of this book is that a ferret is raised by a mousemaid in Redwall Abbey (the former being generally evil in the Redwall Universe) and he struggles to overcome his father’s legacy of evil and the evil he fears inside of him. His father ferret is also engaging in war with Sunflash the Mace, the coolest Badger Lord ever written. In the end, Veil embraces the Dark Side and runs away to join his father. His adopted mother goes after him, with some amazingly written consequences.
6. Matthew Cuthbert’s death in Anne of Green Gables by LM Montgomery. This is high up here because Matthew Cuthbert was an amazing character and his death was really sad. It was also one of the first times a major character was killed off; I loved the balance he added to the Green Gables family. LM Montgomery never replaced him, but she gave Anne and Marilla other characters to love, and Matthew’s legacy lived on, at least to readers.
5. I was a big fan of the American Girls books growing up, but the first book about Addy is one the most punch-packing thing I have ever read. It was written for a younger audience (eight or so), but man. First, Addy missed some little green worms while clearing the tobacco plants and is forced to eat them. Then, her father and brother were sold further South. There may have been a whipping involved too. Then Addy and her mother escape North, but they have to leave their baby behind.
I was so furious that this kind of thing happened to people, that I followed up with some reading on the Trail of Tears and Japanese Internment during WWII. (It took me a year or so to be proud to be an American again; I finally realized that great countries can do terrible, awful things, but we can’t let them define us, just make sure they never happen again). This book set the stage for the rest of the Addy series, and made her the bravest girl I had ever read about.
4. Methusialeah’s death in Redwall by Brian Jacques. I know that any death I put after my childhood realization of the horrors of slavery is going to look silly, especially when this one is a mouse, but this one really got me. Actually, all the deaths in this book were pretty awful. Gossun the shrew’s death helped cement my fear of snakes and I felt bad for Stella the Vixen, even if she was treacherous.
3. Sirius Black’s death in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by JK Rowling. I have to not include books six or seven in here, because I was 18 and 20 when they came out (otherwise, several more deaths would be included here). But man! This death, I felt so bad for the guy. And Harry loses another father figure.
While Cedric Digory and Frank the Muggle from Goblet of Fire were shocking, Rowling spent three books getting us to like Sirius and imagining him as a Marauder. He was the first in a long line of major good guys that we had grown to love to bite the dust, and that makes his death all the more traumatic.
2. Thorin and Fili and Kili’s deaths in The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien This is one of the first books that I remember reading on my own, so this one certainly packed a punch. I remember feeling that these three characters were safe (why would Tolkien kill the king and BOTH his heirs?) But no. Thorin was killed saving the others, and Fili and Kili killed trying to save him. Thanks a lot JRR. Thanks a lot.
1. Leslie’s death in Bridge to Tereabithia by Katherine Paterson. I feel like anyone who says they didn’t cry at this was lying. I had never cried at a book before, but I just bawled.