I think we can all agree that maybe it's not the best way to store bodies.

The Amazing Spiderman 2

Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Jamie Foxx

A couple of weeks ago, I found myself on a plane. (I had no idea how I'd gotten there, and spent the next 24 hours trying to discover the truth about myself with a group of similarly amnesic misfits.) During my time in a big metal box in the sky, I took advantage of the free movies at my fingertips and I decided to watch The Amazing Spiderman 2. I'd been wanting to watch it for a while, and the first movie was good, despite it having the same rehashed plot seen in Batman Begins, Man of Steel, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) (also ew) and probably many more, but I just hadn't got around to it.

So how did I find Amazing Spiderman 2?

[Insert sounds of confusion and relative distress here]

There were a lot of things that I enjoyed about Amazing Spiderman 2; overall, it was perfectly enjoyable, with engaging dialogue and an interesting villain backstory, but one aspect stood out to me in particular, and that was the character of Gwen Stacy. I'm going to pause here to deliver a brief spoiler warning. In the interest of getting my point across as clearly as possible, I'm ditching the town of vague allusions to plot points and venturing into spoiler city. If you've already seen the movie or read the comics, or you just don’t really care about spoilers because the movie's been out for a year or so now, then hey! Keep going! Otherwise, sorry, here's a .gif of dogs jumping rope. Thanks! Come back next time!

Back to Gwen. It's necessary to first establish that Gwen is Spiderman's girlfriend. Her purpose within the narrative is to be Peter Parker's love interest; to be a character that the male hero can protect and worry about. She serves as his weakness, and provides a space for his character to be fleshed out, his personality and humour to be exposed and developed, especially in the absence of a best friend/sidekick character. Gwen's character also facilitates the showing of Peter's caring side, and any conflict within the relationship provides extra drama to run along as a sub-plot to the main story line. This is the role that the girlfriend character in any traditional hero narrative fills, and to a certain degree, that's okay; every character in a simple plot such as this provides either conflict, assistance, or exposition, and the same goes for events.

Obviously in a fictional narrative in any form, everything is a plot device. That's how stories work, but here's the thing; if you're going to treat your male protagonist as a person, then you have to do the same with the rest of your characters – yes, even the female ones – too. And the thing is that Amazing Spiderman 2, so narrowly misses achieving this.

Gwen Stacy is the top in her classes, she graduates from highschool as valedictorian and oh by the way, had a job at a major scientific company before she graduates. In both movies, she is essential to Peter's success, because she is the one who actually comes up with the plans. In Amazing Spiderman 2, she makes his webs heat resistant using magnets... because science. Not only is she intelligent, though, she is independent. At the beginning of the film, we see Peter attempt to break up with her “for her own safety.” (brooding heroes amirite?) It is implied that this is not the first time that he has done this, and Gwen, instead of being pushed around by his angst, puts her foot down and breaks up with him. There is an entire sub-plotline devoted to the full ride that Gwen has been offered at Oxford University, and how she will not sacrifice her dreams to follow him around. Ultimately Peter decides that he will follow her to England, putting her aspirations in front of any of his plans. As a plot tool she exists for the furthering of Peter's character, but as a person within the narrative, she has an entire story line, if not arc, that is independent of him.

… And then they put her in the refrigerator.

Let me back up a little. What I'm referring to is the Women in Refrigerators Trope, where strong female characters are killed off or brutalized purely to advance the male protagonist's story arc. The impact of their deaths are then glossed over in exchange for some male brooding and revenge obsession. This perfectly timed Feminist Frequency video that I just happened to have on hand, does a really good job of breaking down this particular trope.

So now when I say that they (the scriptwriters, the comic book writers, the patriarchy, whoever) put Gwen Stacy in the fridge, I think you can probably guess how her story arc ended. In the big, climactic fight seen, Gwen is thrown from a clock tower. Despite being caught by good ol' Spidey's web on the way down, Gwen still dies from whiplash, or severe falling... trauma, or... patriarchy, I DON'T KNOW. And I'm conflicted, because on the one hand, everything in every piece of narrative fiction is a plot device. If there were no plot devices, every story, ever would just be a couple of people sitting in an empty room, with nothing happening the entire time, and it wouldn't be in an avant-garde-make-you-think-about-life's-little-intricacies kind of way, no, it would be in an absolutely-nothing-happens kind of way. Also, it's not like you can say “that's it! No more women die in film ever!” because that's really not the point, and would rob the world of some beautiful and very honest portrayals of death.

But on my other hand, which to be honest is lifting higher that the first one, this death just feels unnecessary. And no, I will not accept the fact that she died in the comics as a viable reason, because that is so not how the world of cinematic adaptations works. Sure, Peter's really sad and very broody, but the same conclusions could have been reached without Gwen's death. Think how much better everything would have been if she had continued on as a contributing member of the movie and the fictional society, instead, the scriptwriters fell back on, frankly, a really dead, beaten horse of a trope.

What's more, her death is even more pointless because it comes at the end of a movie that does not have and will not have a follow-up film, seeing as the franchise is being rebooted with a new Spiderman, and a new story. What did her death contribute to the movie? HUH? 15 minutes of angsty hoodie-sulking and guilt, only to end with some “all you need is hope” cliché? Where's your revenge plot now, hmm?

You could have had it all, but instead you shoved her in there with last Tuesday's leftover lasagne.  

Strap in folks, because we're talking about tropes

Red Queen

By Victoria Aveyard

I feel like it's pretty safe to say that a lot of YA dystopian novels follow a predictable pattern, noticeable even from just reading the blurb. This was what I was expecting of this week's book, Red Queen, or, in my case, audiobook. The recurring theme that I have been coming across generally goes something along the lines of:

“[Protagonist], between the ages of 15-18, is set up to live a happy comfortable life, part of the elite society in which she was raised, however, on the eve of an important turning point she meets dark and mysterious [male love interest], who was raised in the less privileged life she has been sheltered from, who shows her the bleak reality of life outside her privileged bubble, and together they uncover dark secrets about the Capitol/Society/Republic (etc.), and become entangled in a conflict that threatens to change everything. However, [Protagonist] also finds herself embroiled in another conflict – between the dark and mysterious [male love interest 1] and loyal and dependable [male love interest 2]. (Who she's probably been friends with since childhood) [Protagonist] must make a choice that will change her life and everything around her forever.”

Or, it’s the reverse; [Protagonist] is part of the oppressed population, is somehow exposed to the pageantry filled life of the elite ruling class,  joins a rebel group and plays a key role in the following the revolution. And, while the childhood-friend-as-love-interest trope remains, the dark and mysterious love interest is often replace by a prince. As in an actual prince. The genre is very fond of princes. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to every dystopia, of course there are exceptions, but the fact that it's a recognizable pattern is proof enough of its prevalence.

To paraphrase Red Queen's blurb:

Mare Barrows is living in poverty in a society where those who bleed silver and have abilities live in their mansions and palaces as living gods while their red-blooded brethren live in poverty; suffering so the elite can live in luxury. Change and equality seem like an impossibility, until Mare, working for the Silver elite, discovers that she, an ordinary, common Red, has an ability to rival that of the most powerful Slivers. All of a sudden, she is a threat to them, because she could tip the balance of power for good, changing everything forever.

From the summary of the book, I think it's pretty easy to see that Red Queen fits into the second type of dystopian narrative, and as I was listening to it that's where I assumed it was going. At the beginning it felt like it would be a predictable story; all the elements like the class divide, the rebel movement and the pageantry of the ruling class were there. But, although it seemed so formulaic, the beginning of Red Queen was so entirely engrossing, with imagery that almost physically grabs you and pulls you into the story. I became a little bit obsessed, trying to listen to it whenever I possibly could, even if just for five minutes. Because I was so invested in the world, I was completely willing to keep listening, and really curious to see if it would actually deviate from the standard course.

 The further the story got, the more it started to branch off of the conventional path. If you read any of the reviews on Goodreads, you will be met with many exclamations of “THAT PLOT TWIST!!” followed by many dramatic, but apt gifs. I have to agree; I honestly did not see the plot twist coming, and I have to say, being blind-sided with a plot twist is not only surprising and entertaining, but also really exciting. In my book, shouting “WOW I DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING,” and then immediately afterwards “OH MY GOD WHY?,” means the book is doing something right. I definitely wasn't expecting the story to take so many turns in all the directions, but it made perfect sense after the fact, not just from a story arc point of view, but also because the characters had been so well realised, and it made so much sense from the way the main character portrayed the events.

Speaking of our [Protagonist], I found Mare really interesting in the way that she subtly defied the traditional role of a female protagonist so frequently seen in cookie-cutter dystopias. All the events of the book are triggered by her efforts to protect her friend (childhood friend, but more on him later), something that she continues to do throughout the book. She also works to protect other male characters from various events and truths. What’s so nice about this is how it’s not some hugely emasculating offence to the guys in question. 

One repeating line throughout the book is “anyone can betray anyone,” and betrayal is definitely a strong theme. It is made clear that Mare is willing to manipulate anyone necessary, and sacrifices of life are made for the greater good, often of sympathetic characters. Red Queen plays with morality and sacrifice in a very blunt, conflicted, and honest way.

Something else I really liked was that Mare’s super bad-ass powers  are offensive abilites. So often, women are the healers, or the shields; they are given bows and arrows that remove them from the heat of the battle, or are left behind entirely. Susan and Lucy from the Narnia Chronicles are perfect examples; given a bow and healing tonic, respectively, while their brothers get swords and armor. Mare discovers the full extent of her abilities, and she uses them to their full potential. In fact, in the world of the Silver elite, everyone is trained to kill equally, and Queen’s Trial, the competition to choose a bride for the two Silver princes, is not a pageant of beauty or social graces, but of strength of abilities. The female antagonists in this book are not stereotypical characters. They are strong, they are forces to be reckoned with, and they are just as deadly as their male counterparts.

Another note-worthy deviation from the convention is the love triangles in the narrative. I've already written (read: ranted) before about love triangles, but this triangle in question is quite different. I guess in the case of Red Queen it should be called a Love… Quadrangle? Maybe just a love square. The love polygon (?) is taken to the max with not only the childhood friend trope but also not one, but two princes. The triangle or quadrangle, or whatever, is almost present but doesn’t come to a big, climactic conflict moment, which works really well because it doesn’t make sense for Mare to be with any of the possible love interests, because of conflicting interests, or wrongs done. It would possibly make sense for conflict to arise in the second book (waiting for 2016… waiting…), but I’m glad that it didn’t happen in this one for the sake of contextual consistency and integrity.

While plot-wise, Red Queen is excellent, the one thing that annoyed me about the book was how often words and motifs were repeated. This works fine in the case of the aforementioned betrayal quote, but not necessarily for the other cases. A lot of characters do a lot of smirking. Also sneering and grimacing. Mare not understanding things, is another heavily repetitive theme, with her not understanding technology, behaviour, or people in general. I couldn’t quite tell if it was intentional, building up to one big moment of clarity, or if it was an easy way to dismiss things the author didn’t want to go into detail on. I wanted the lack of understanding to represent a transition of Mare thinking she was ordinary and selling herself short, to her realising her full potential. Ultimately there was a big moment of clarity, like I’d hoped, but it was difficult to know if it was on purpose, or a coincidence.

All in all, Red Queen is utterly enthralling; another book whose sequel goes on the “Eagerly Anticipated” list. It kept me listening, grabbing for it at any possible moment, and got me through many electricity-less nights. 

Feisty Chick-O-Meter: 9/10
Age Rating: 14+
Rating: Starting a 7/10 with a sharp slide up to a 9/10
Book or Audiobook: Audiobook
Stand Alone or Series: Series
Length: 320  pages
Obsession level: ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT DETAILS ABOUT THE TITLE AND COVER OF THE NEXT BOOK ARE COMING THIS SUMMER AKA. SOON.

And now for something different:

Every time someone in my general vicinity  mentions Meghan Trainor, a little fire of rage ignites inside me, that slowly grows, fed by my anger into an inferno of pent-up rant potential. 

I feel like that’s a pretty good, neutral way to start this off, so come and join me in yet another rant.

I thought I should come into writing this with a greater knowledge of Meghan Trainor’s musical repertoire outside of the three songs that I’ve heard. I thought I could broaden my musical horizons. I tried. I really tried. So, today’s rant will focus solely the song that fills me with the most frustration and anger.

Meghan Trainor came onto the music scene in the middle of last year with her song AllAbout That Bass. I think it was generally assumed that it was a one-hit wonder, similar to the likes of Carly Rae Jepsen’s Call Me Maybe, but she stuck around with more dubious songs. All About That Bass was hailed as the new anthem for curvy women, just as the re-evaluation of body image, and “real women have curves” became a popular phrase in the body image debate. This song also apparently ushered in the “era of the booty.” I am not sure who decides these things, perhaps there's a committee for such issues, or maybe there's a more people-based democratic system? I don't know. The problem with this song though, is that it seems like an empowering song, a step into the body-positive future, when reality, it's really not that much better.

Before I get into my rant on the subject matter of the song, I have one fundamental question. What is “that bass”? The song's most notable line goes: “Because you know I'm all about that bass, bout that bass, no treble,” which is repeated ad infinitum, but what does that mean? Is bass being curvy and treble being skinny? If that's what it is, it's a seriously clunky metaphor. And can I point out how there is a serious lack of actual, musical bass in this song? Yes, I get that it's just a song, but come on!

Alright, so the main premise of this song is that women who are above a size two are equally attractive as women who are under a size two, as seen in the first verses:

Yeah, it's pretty clear, I ain't no size two
But I can shake it, shake it, like I'm supposed to do
'Cause I got that boom boom that all the boys chase
And all the right junk in all the right places

I see the magazine workin' that Photoshop
We know that s**t ain't real, come on now, make it stop
If you got beauty, beauty, just raise 'em up
'Cause every inch of you is perfect from the bottom to the top

This song sounds like the epitome of self love and body confidence, right? But then we get further along, and we come across this:

Yeah, my mama she told me "don't worry about your size"
She says, "Boys like a little more booty to hold at night"
You know I won't be no stick figure silicone Barbie doll
So if that what you're into, then go 'head and move along

So. What's wrong with this picture? Notice how we just dropped from self confidence right back into body shaming, only directed at a different target? This next verse is the only one that isn't just a repetition of a previous part of the song, and frankly it just gets worse:

I'm bringing booty back
Go 'head and tell them skinny bitches that
No, I'm just playing, I know you think you're fat
But I'm here to tell you...
Every inch of you is perfect from the bottom to the top

Oh thank you so much Meghan Trainor for shaming every skinny girl and then visiting us like the body-positive angel of redemption and telling us that we are now permitted to love our bodies. Nothing after this verse is worth discussing because it's all just a repetition of something from the first one and a half minutes, and equally mind-numbing.

I think it's pretty obvious that this song isn't really that positive. All it's doing is taking the shaming that was directed at women deemed “fat” - otherwise known as anyone over a size four - and redirecting it at skinny women, or, to use a phrase so beloved by people such as Meghan Trainor and Nicki Minaj, skinny bitches. Just like how we do not need to degrade men in order for women to feel and be empowered, so too is shaming skinny girls in order for curvy girls to feel empowered so unbelievably ridiculous. Someone please listen to me when I say that THIS IS NOT EMPOWERMENT. This is body shaming, but it's accepted because it's directed towards the other end of the spectrum.

But wait! There's another issue! Remember the two lines, "Cause I got that boom boom that all the boys chase," and "She says 'Boys like a little more booty to hold at night'”? Oh no, lets not talk about girls being recognised and praised for their intelligence, or their leadership skills, or their strength of will and character, no, let's talk about how they should look to appeal to men. Does this sound familiar to anyone else? Can someone please tell me why a song about self love is using what men want to prove that one type of body is better? Had it been purely about loving your body, regardless of your size, that would have been wonderful, but this song isn't doing anything different. It's sending the exact same message seen throughout advertisements and the media, but this time its bumping up the “ideal body” a few sizes. Nothing else changes; it's still shaming everyone who doesn't fit the ideal, and telling girls to strive for this ideal because that's what men want. This song is not better. It's just as bad.

The fact of the matter is that no-one is the boss of anyone's body but their own. What you look like should not be dictated by what men are attracted to, what the media tells you is beautiful, or what other people are telling you to look like. Similarly, BUTT OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES!The only time you are allowed to suggest that someone changes something about their weight or diet is if you have clear and non-circumstantial proof that their health is at risk, and you are doing so out of concern for their health and well being. This doesn't mean calling a skinny girl “stick” and telling them to eat more. Eating disorders, on both ends of the weight spectrum, are serious issues, and not to be taken lightly, which is why you cannot just use them on a label that you slap on any person whose body you don't like.

Yes this song came out a year ago, so I'm either really behind on my rants, or I hold a grudge a really long time, right? The latter is true, but that's not why I'm writing this. The reason I'm writing this is because this song is still popular, almost a year later. No, this isn't my blind crusade to rid the world of it, and it is important to note that you can still enjoy listening to this song, (see the quote from Anita Sarkeesian from my post on love triangles) but I think it's important that it's recognised that this, this song, is not progress, it's not making the body image world better; it's just as harmful, and people will internalise the messages in this song, and the songs like it. 

Every time we look at someone's body and form an opinion on it, we are making a snap judgement. You cannot know the circumstances behind someone's appearance. Maybe it's genetic, maybe it's related to medication they're taking, maybe it's diet related, or maybe, just maybe, they like the way they look and don't give a damn about what you think.

Soft Focus

Focus
Starring Will Smith and Margot Robbie



Never drop the con. But also, more importantly never drop the plot line.

Let’s preface this by explaining how I came to be watching this movie. Was it because of the cast of talented actors, you ask? No. How about the cinematography? Nope. The plot? Nuh-uh. The script? Still no.

It was because of electricity. Not between the lead actors, or in their performances, but rather my lack of it. Yes, the power was out and the cinema was cold, ie. It was an obvious solution. Here is what I knew about this movie going in:

“In the midst of veteran con man Nicky's latest scheme, a woman from his past - now an accomplished femme fatale - shows up and throws his plans for a loop.”

And I said something along the lines of “eh, why not.”

Pleasantly surprised seems to be the best way to describe this movie. It starts off as a standard con movie, featuring tropes such as the experienced-con-man-takes-on-fresh faced-protégé, the multiple con-in-progress montages, and the mysterious-troubled-con-man-leaves-fresh-faced-girl-who-hasn’t –yet-become-jaded-because-he-thinks-he’s-bad-for-her. This section is all part of a very long flashback to explain the backstory of Will Smith’s character, Nicky, and Margot Robbie’s character, Jess. The nature of this section led me to believe that the rest of the movie would follow this theme of a largely con-central movie, with a romantic subplot, but once it cuts to three years later the tone changes entirely.

Now, three years later, Nicky is working a job, when Jess reappears as the girlfriend of his employer, supposedly having quit the life. The rest of the movie is Nicky working the con and trying to win Jess back. This is where my reaction changes to a combination of “meh” and “DISAPPOINTED.”

The beginning of the movie set itself up to be a really clever movie; the kind where you have no idea how they managed to pull each con off, until they explain it and you realize that the threads and hints have been running through all the previous scenes, but you just haven’t noticed them. I was hoping for it to be at the level of Now You See Me, or The Usual Suspects. Once the flashback’s ended, however, everything seems to meander a bit. There were half a dozen really clever plot twists that they could have gone with, but it felt like they tried to go with a fewof them but then stopped halfway through. There were a couple threads that got mentioned in the beginning that reappeared at the end, but they didn’t have the same effect because they hadn’t been properly hinted at throughout the movie. This was disappointing especially considering how well this was done in the beginning of the movie.

It was like having a murder mystery, where first, we are shown a flash back of the detective’s previous cases, solved à la Sherlock Holmes, then it cuts to the present day, and after an hour and a half of random case solving, and trying to make their ex-girlfriend take them back, the detective points to a random person and shouts “HE DID IT.” And instead of saying “Ohh! That makes so much sense!” you say “oh, okay… I can kinda see that…”

I find it somewhat ironic that the movie with the two main promotional slogans being "never lose focus" and "never drop the con," slowly meanders downhill into first-draft fluff. Those slogans imply some sort of genius reveal at the end, right? It would make sense for "never drop the con" to imply that either one or both of the main characters has some set of ulterior motives, or another con running under the surface, doesn't it?

Overall it’s a decent movie, with some good laughs, and good acting; it’s perfectly enjoyable, what’s really frustrating is that it could have been so much more.

Feisty Chick-O-Meter: 7/10
Age Rating: 16+
Rating: eh
Length: 105 mins

The Triangles of Luuurrve

Ahh love triangles… It’s gotten to the point now, where if I see a blurb that vaguely hints at a love triangle, my knee jerk reaction is to cringe away. Of course, not all love triangles are bad, but I have read so many books with the same old, repetitive formula, that I now have a nervous twitch.

*One note before I begin is that the examples of love triangles I am including are unfortunately all of heterosexual relationships, with a female protagonist. I have never come across a love triangle in a different incarnation, but I can’t say whether this is because love triangles manifest themselves primarily in this form, or if it is due to a lack of diversity in the books I’m reading. This is something I shall pursue this year.

The most common and most infuriating triangle is the Shiny boy versus Friend, which can be divided into two groups: Prince v. Captain of the Guard, and The Tall, Dark and Mysterious v. The Childhood Friend (or any combination of those four). Whether or not the character are actually princes, or tall is irrelevant, as it has less to do with the characters position or appearance, and more to do with how they are seen by the protagonist. In this triangle, it’s someone perceived as unattainable, either a dangerous, often morally ambiguous bad boy, or a charming, polished, suave character.  The Prince and TDaM are portrayed as somehow better or above the female protagonist, and when they turn their affections to her, she is completely bewildered as to why they could care for her, and feels she is not worthy. Often lots of golden boy metaphors are included - and they’re usually not that subtle.

On the other side, the childhood friend/captain of the guard is the reliable friend love interest, the one who is there for her, often as the shiny boy strings her along. The motives behind him stringing her along vary depending on the actual decent-ness of the character. Nine times out of ten I will side with friend over shiny boy, provided that the friend is a decent human being.

Now obviously, if the triangle of luuurve is well written, such as in The Throne of Glass, the relationship conflict is resolved in a mature way, or at least, like decent human beings. If, however, it is not well written, one or both of the possible love interests are not actually good people, or at least people you’d want to spend a considerable amount of time with; they are characters with unattractive personality traits wrapped up in an attractive packaging. So often the shiny boys mutate into controlling characters and the friend boys become “nice guys.” Both of these character types are equally manipulative.

~ cue rant ~

Here’s my problem with the notion of the “nice guy.” The term has gained recent popularity alongside the notion of the friendzone, the “place” you apparently go when someone rejects your romantic advances because they only see you as a friend. (WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THIS?) This rejection often elicits a response along the lines of “Why don’t they like me? I’m such a nice guy!” The proclamation of which assumes that they are somehow entitled to this person’s affection, just because of certain traits that make them “nice.”

Guys.
Listen to me.
The friendzone does not exist.
 It is a concept constructed to make people feel like rejection is a slight done unto them, not something that will happen when people just aren’t attracted to you.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE FRIENDZONE.
LISTEN TO ME.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL NOT RECIPROCATE YOUR FEELINGS FOR THEM.
THAT IS JUST HOW LIFE WORKS.

(It should be mentioned, however, that if you take advantage of someone’s feelings for you, especially if the feeling is not mutual, you are being a jerk and - just don’t)

Even if “friendzoning” isn’t a common theme in love triangle until a choice has been made, the “nice guy” character often is. He’s there as the character who feels he deserves or is entitled to the main character’s affections. After the main character chooses (if it EVER HAPPENS) between one of the two possible love interests, the “nice guy” will often refuse to accept and respect this decision, she says staring pointedly at Jacob from Twilight.

Just as the friend often becomes the “nice guy” the shiny boy often becomes manipulative and controlling. This can go two ways; if the shiny boy is of the Tall Dark and Mysterious persuasion, then it often plays out that he is just genuinely not a good person, The triangle in The Shadow Reader, for example, will always baffle me, as the female protagonist goes for the guy who kidnapped her, kept her imprisoned, beat her up and repeatedly lied to her. (*falls to her knees in the rain, and screams to the sky “WHYYYYYYYY?!”*)

The other possible outcome is that shiny boy of the princely persuasion, and female protagonist end up in a relationship with a huge imbalance of power. Through the female protagonist’s/author’s idolization of the shiny boy he is presented as somehow better or above the female protagonist who does not deem herself worthy to receive his affection. She finds it inexplicable that he could care for her. This divide whereby he is far above her is even further emphasized by ALL. THE. GOLDEN. METAPHORS. Seriously stop with the gold.

Complaints about gold metaphors aside, however, this type of love triangle presents a relationship where there is an imbalance of power, as healthy and romantic, and it just isn’t.

Now at this point, it’s time to address why the subject matter of this rant is such a big deal in the first place. If they’re bad love triangles, then they’re bad love triangles and you just move on, right? No, not really. Love triangles have become such a staple of the YA genre, especially in their shiny boy v. friend incarnation, and it’s very easy to internalize these unhealthy relationships in their romanticized, and glorified forms as something that is normal, or even worse, exceptional, and to strive for. Unhealthy triangles, the ones that portray manipulative relationships with an imbalance of power, are dangerous for the consumers of the media, because they put unhealthy relationships on pedestals. Unhealthy and even abusive relationships shouldn’t be kept out of books, I would never say that all relationships in all books should be perfect, but there is a difference between portraying unhealthy relationships as they are and showing the struggle of those relationships, and taking manipulative, unhealthy relationships, but without the label of unhealthy, and marketing it as something desirable.

It is important to note that some love triangles are well handled, and play out in a healthy manner - even if there is conflict; love triangles can be really nice, if done well. I will continue to hold up The Throne of Glass, and proclaim its virtues until I’m blue in the face, but it is an example of a book where the love triangle still causes conflict, but is not agonizingly painful to watch happen. Both the prince (actual prince) and the captain of the guard (he is also the actual captain of the guard) are respectful of the female protagonist, and also of each other.

I won’t detail the entire plot, or reveal what ultimately happens, but it is structured so that she explores a relationship with the first boy, while the feelings between her and the second boy have not yet been realized or expressed. The semi-relationship between her and the first boy ends amicably, at the end of the first book, and the second book sees the development of her relationship with the second boy. This relationship development has to be my favourite of all the books I’ve read because it is a really nice progression from friends to “lovers” (*throws up a little bit at the choice of word and seriously questions her sanity*). Everything overall is just really healthy and comfortable, and really nice to read, because not only does it stay away from torrid back and forth-ing, but it also just reads as realistic.

I would never say that you should stay away from all Love Triangles, or even from the ones that manifest themselves in the shiny boy v. friend boy pattern. Ultimately a lot of the time a story has so much more to offer than the love triangle; I love the Mortal Instruments series with all my book loving heart, despite the fairly standard cookie-cutter triangle in the first book.  All that is important is to recognize, and make sure that you don’t internalize any harmful messages coming from unhealthy triangles. Anita Sarkeesian, of Feminist Frequency in an interview in 2013, said “It’s possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy a piece of media while also being critical of some of the more problematic aspects of that same media.” While this was said in the context of the portrayal of women in video games, it is very relevant in this context as well.

Now go forth young readers, into the void, better prepared to detect and deflect any unhealthy love triangles that may cross your path!

I tried so hard to come up with a good title, I really did.

The Young Elites
By Marie Lu

This post was supposed to have been posed after the end of Booktober (or Rant Month), but it wasn't until now that I managed to get all my thoughts together, and really break down what makes this book so awesome.

I have praised the many virtues of Marie Lu’s writing on multiple occasions, so my reaction, upon discovering that she had a new book out went something along the lines of Marie Lu = Good. Book = Good. New Marie Lu book = Want. Now, I loved the Legend series, and I didn’t expect any less from The Young Elites. Even with that in mind, I hideously underestimated it; I was expecting Legend-level goodness, and I got so much more. The book is described by Marie Lu herself, as “set in a fantasy, Renaissance-like world where magic is new and misunderstood. It stars a girl named Adelina who is essentially the teen female version of Darth Vader, and chronicles her downfall to the dark side.”

The story centres on Adelina Amouteru, a malfetto; a survivor of the blood fever that ravaged the continent a decade earlier. Malfettos are marked from the illness, and ostracized by the rest of the population, believed to be abominations, and the causes of all the kingdom’s suffering. Adelina has spent her life believing herself to be damaged, hiding the silver hair and scar the blood fever left behind in place of her dark hair and left eye. Some malfettos, however, have more than just markings; they possess extraordinary powers. They call themselves Young Elites, and, on the run for her father’s murder, Adelina is taken in by a group of elites known as The Dagger Society. With them, Adelina discovers her own, dark powers, and the consequences that come with them.

This is such a good book and there’s so much I want to talk about that I'm not sure quite where to start. The first thing that makes this book so amazing is how different it is from the Legend trilogy. It feels like Marie Lu just had a really good time writing it, and exploring different types of characters.

Adelina is such a brilliantly written character. So often books about villains attempt to portray them as misunderstood, but The Young Elites doesn’t do that. You understand why she’s becoming the person that she is, but the narrative doesn’t seek to excuse her actions. Adelina is so wonderfully flawed and human; she’s one of the most realistic characters I’ve encountered.

The story is a beautiful look at what it’s like to be “other,” what it’s like to be unwanted, and seen as socially dirty. It’s very interesting to see how much of a character’s descent in to villainy, if you will, is a product of how they are treated by their community or society at large. Obviously this is the classic villain backstory; outcast figure is mistreated, shunned, ostracized, and becomes bitter, angry and volatile, and plots their vengeance. However, in The Young Elites, this is so believable and realistic, and you see Adelina’s anger and distrust being taken advantage of to further other people’s goals. It’s heartbreaking, and you understand why she behaves the way she does, and you empathize with her, despite the fact that she is not entirely a good person, and becomes less of one as the story progresses.

Marie Lu, as always, is a beautiful writer, and The Young Elites is so absorbing. Everything in it just feels stepped up. Everything from the geography to the history to the lore – even to the clothing – is incredibly detailed. The Young Elites is so different, it’s hard to find something to compare it to, some people have said X-Men, meets Game of Thrones, meets Assassin’s Creed 2, or compare it to the Throne of Glass series, but that doesn’t really capture it. Suffice it to say, it’s very different from any other books I’ve read. The Young Elites is an amazing book to read, but it also reads like a book that was amazing fun to write, too.

Happy 2015! Have a book!

Feisty Chick-O-Meter: 9/10

Age rating: 15+

Rating: 10/10

Book or audiobook: Audiobook

Stand alone or series: Series - SOON

Length: 368 pages

Obsession level: SO very

Dear Alyssa M.

Dear Alyssa M

You don’t know me, and I don’t know you, so I’m going to keep this short; I bought your old copy of Lord of the Flies from a second-hand book store. Do you want to know how I know it was yours?

Yeah. It was quite hard to figure out at first, but with a bit of sleuthing I got it.

I understand writing your name inside the cover, I understand highlighting passages if you’re reading it in school, which I assume is why you had this copy, that stuff is totally fine by me. This is the stuff I have a problem with:

Aaaand this:

If you’d read an earlier blog post I wrote, which I’m sure you didn’t because we don’t know each other, you would know how I feel about leaving books open, face down, and for all I know, you could have done that to this poor book as well, but I think that maybe I wasn’t clear enough about my opinion on other forms of book treatment. From what I can tell you haven’t dog eared the pages, but your other transgressions are crime enough in my eyes.

I can foresee two possible solutions to this problem. Neither of them fix the current state of Lord of the Flies, but I’m willing to overlook that if you implement at least one of these options.

1. You stop writing in your books unless it’s for purely academic purposes, because no one  likes a book that’s been written in in pink highlighter; or
2. You stop donating books that you have written in, because while it is interesting to read people’s notes in the margins, I haven’t found that your particular style of notes gave any enlightenment to my experience and enjoyment of this book

I hope we can work together to come up with a solution that is best for the whole book-reading community at large.

Yours Sincerely,

Teya of Eddie’s Sofa
Book-reader, and concerned member of the Society of Book Nerds (SoBN)