Navigation

 BlackChampagne Home

In association with Amazon.comBuy Crap! I get 5%.
Direct donations to cover hosting expenses are also welcome.

Site Information
 
What is Black Champagne?
 
Cast of Characters/Things
 Your First Time
 Design Notes
 Quote of the Day Archive
 Phrase of the Moment Archive
 Site Feedback
 Contact/Copyright Info

Blog Archives
 • Blogger Archives: June 2005-present
 • Old Archives: Jan 2002-May 2005

Reviews Section
Movie Reviews (153)

Ten Most Recent Film Reviews:
  • Infernal Affairs -- 5.5
  • The Protector -- 6
  • The Limey -- 8
  • The Descent -- 6
  • Oldboy -- 9.5
  • Shaolin Deadly Kicks -- 7
  • Mission Impossible III -- 7.5
  • Chase Step by Step -- 7.5
  • V is for Vendetta -- 8.5
  • Ghost in the Shell 2 -- 6
  • Night Watch -- 7.5
Book Reviews (76)
Five Most Recent Book Reviews:
 • Cat People, by Michael Korda -- 4
 • Attack Poodles, by James Wolcott -- 5
 • Caught Stealing, by Charlie Huston -- 6
 • The Dirt, by Motley Crue -- 7.5
 • Harry Potter #6 -- 7

Photos and Captions
 • Flux Photos
 • Pet Photos (7 pages)
 • Home Decor Photos
 • Plant Photos
 • Vacation Photos (21 pages)

Articles Section
See all 234 Articles

Fiction
Original fantasy and horror short stories.

Mail Bags
 Index Page

Features
 
Links
 Slang: Internet
 Slang: Dirty
 Slang: Wankisms
 Slang: Sex Acts
 Slang: Fulldeckisms
 Hot or Not?
 Truths in Advertising

Band Name Ratings
(350 Rock Bands Listed)
FAQFeedback
A • BC • D • E
FGHIJ • K
LMNOP
Q • RSTU
V • W • XY • Z

Diablo II
 • The Unofficial Site
 • Flux's Decahedron
 • Middle Earth Mod

Books Lying Open
¤ The Lovely Bones, Alice Sebold
¤ The Bachman Books, Stephen King
¤ Bushwhacked, Molly Ivins
¤ Skinwalkers, Tony Hillerman

Soul-Devouring Worry:
¤
Era inappropriate remarks, in a national forum.

Answer of the Day:
¤
Because it goes with the wallpaper.

Curse of the Day:
¤
May your cat and your girlfriend share a common language, one comprised entirely of octaves far above your pre-eunuch range.

Phrase of the Moment:
¤ Phrase: "fumble"
¤ Usage: When someone drops something. Anything at all. Yell it in a play by play guy voice.
¤ Origin: It's what they call a dropped ball in a football game.
¤ Notes: I've been saying this one, usually in my head, for years. I started saying it at the NFL games I used to work at the San Diego stadium, since after all, players drop the rock, and you've got to point that shit out. It's also a lot of fun to yell. Draw it out, like the play by play guy. "Fummm-boh!"

It's fun to say, or at least think, in real life, when you or someone else drops something. Malaya enjoys it when I say it, and has taken to saying it herself, both when I drop things and when others, out in public somewhere, drop them. It helps your public declarations of this a lot if you're unconcerned by other people viewing you askance. -- May 31, 2004

Tuesday June 8, 2004
Quote of the Day -- QotD Archives
"One reason the dog has so many friends: He wags his tail instead of his tongue."
--Anonymous

oday brings yet another review, as the new page title portends.  This one is about Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones, a critically praised and best selling novel that I got from the library a couple of weeks ago, enjoyed for about 100 pages, and then gradually soured on. I discuss the book, the type of writing it is, and why it didn't much work for me below. As a bonus (of sorts) I include a detailed and spoilery discussion of why the book's conclusion doesn't work at all, and what the book's title means. Basically, it's a quick Ruined Endings.com digression, as I inform you of the two things you might want to know for trivia/conversation, but that you probably don't want to know badly enough to read the whole thing to find out.

Not that I'm aware of any crying need for a ruined endings of books website resource...

 

 

¤ To follow up on the Harry Potter 3 box office, no it didn't break any all time records for the opening weekend, despite Friday's gross being the biggest single day gross ever in the US.  Check out this handy day-by-day listing of the 3 HP movies to compare their takes over time. HP3 blew up Friday, declined Saturday, and declined more Sunday. Every movie declines Sunday, since people don't go to as many late evening showings when they have to work the next day, but the big Satuday drop was unexpected since films quite often do more Saturday than they did on their Friday opening. Especially kid's movies, since kids can go to the matinees on Saturday, when they're not in school and they've got parents to drive them there.

It's too soon to speculate on the long term meanings of the opening weekend, but HP1 made more than HP2, despite HP2 having a bigger opening weekend, and sequels almost always make less than the original films. The LotR movies bucked that trend, and HP might as well, since it's more like LotR with a closely-continuing, ongoing story than a normal, "years later" sequel.  It's very unlikely anything will challenge Shrek 2 for the biggest hit of the year though, since it's well over $300m already, by far the fastest any movie has gotten to that level, and it's a pretty sure bet for $400m+ in the US before the summer ends.

I think more box office attention should be paid to overseas, but this being the "only we matter" US, it's what we mostly hear about. HP3 has already done well over $100m worldwide. Shrek 2? $4.5m so far. The first 2 HP movies both did nearly double worldwide what they made in the US, so even though Shrek 2 will make $50m or $100m more than HP3 in the US, and get the publicity for that, HP3 will probably made $300m more worldwide. Which would you prefer if you were counting that coin?

 

 

¤ This is a pretty stupid story, and the sort of thing that people complain about political correctness when a big deal is made about it. All the same, it's pretty funny. Bill Parcells is the coach of the Dallas Cowboys. He's also an old ass white man, 65ish, a bit of a good old boy, and works in a very "man's man" industry, where every sort of insult, profanity, slur, etc is thrown around during every play of every scrimmage. Not to mention what goes on during the actual games. He's also been around long enough, and is media-savvy enough to know you can't say things on the record to the media that you can scream at your players on the practice field, even if the media can clearly hear you say them then.

While talking to reporters after a day of training camp, Bill let this one rip:

"You've got to keep an eye on those two, because they're going to try to get the upper hand," Parcells said about quarterbacks coach Sean Payton and defensive coordinator Mike Zimmer. "Mike wants the defense to do well, and Sean, he's going to have a few ... no disrespect for the Orientals, but what we call Jap plays. OK. Surprise things."

After a murmur in the room of reporters, which included a Japanese journalist, Parcells repeated, "No disrespect to anyone."

The Dallas Cowboys coach was talking to reporters at the team's minicamp about how his quarterbacks coach and defensive coordinator try to outdo each other when he made the comment, perhaps a reference to Japan's 1941 surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

The funniest thing is that just how he starts off his remark is more of an insult than the "japs are sneaky" part. You just don't use the word "oriental" anymore, Bill. It's like calling your starting defense, "a bunch of negroes."  It cracked me up when I read it, and Malaya when I showed it to her, since one of my stories that she laughs the hardest at stars my dearly-departed grandmother, and her first visit to my first apartment back in about 1990.  I was just moving in, and the grandparents happened to be visiting that week, and since I needed to go over and sign some papers before moving in, they went along with me.

The apartment was in Linda Vista, an area of San Diego with a very high population of Asians, and after we walked through the grounds to see the new apartment, then back to the office Granny pipes up, "There are a lot of Orientals here, aren't there?"  I think I winced, and the apartment manager, who was white, looked like she'd swallowed a small but very tart lemon, though she said nothing. Granny didn't mean anything by it, after all, she wasn't raised to be racist towards anyone but Mexicans and Blacks, and I'm sure she'd gotten over WWII by 1990, but living in the Midwest she wasn't often around Asians, and just didn't know the term to refer to them. And yes, there were a lot of Asians there, mostly Filipinos and Vietnamese, but one doesn't point it out in quite that fashion, if one has any subtlety about these sorts of things.

And that's why any time we see or hear the world "Orientals" Malaya and I crack up. I'll tell the "breakfast burrito" story some other time. It stars Gramps, a morning visit to a 7/11 in Brownsville, Texas, and several perplexed Mexicans on their way to work.

Anyway, as for Bill Parcell's comment, I doubt he sees a Japanese person and thinks, "sneaky little yellow bastard." It's just a saying that he didn't think was offensive enough to shut up before he said it. I'm wondering though, who uses that? I mean who uses "Jap" as a synonym for "trick" or "sneak?" Besides Chinese still bitter about Nan King, perhaps? Maybe it's an NFL term everyone uses there but that I've never heard.

Anyway, it's obviously in pretty poor taste, even if the offense was mostly unintentional. Substitute "blacks" and "nigger plays" for "Orientals" and "Jap plays" if you want to consider why anyone might be offended by Parcells' comments. But really, what do you expect from an old white football coach? Or old-school white person, for that matter?

When I was in junior high in Texas, the term "jew'ed him" was used as praise, if you were a shrewd negotiator.  Did we mean it as a slur against the Jewish people and their stereotypical money-hoarding image? I didn't; I never even considered what it really meant until my dad pointed it out to me. Sayings just get into use and perpetuate without anyone thinking much about it. I remember hearing kids say "beaners" for Mexicans when I was first in San Diego in 4th grade, and it didn't immediately occur to me that it was an insult. When it did, I was confused. Did it mean that they picked beans? Looked like beans? Ate too many beans? And let's not get started on how "fag" is sort of the default insult for most boys from 12-16 or so, while they're working through their own sexual identity issues. 

For another old-school/Parcells-style example, my grandparents and their friends commonly used the term "nigger out" in card games like Pinochle or Canasta or Rook, when someone had a huge lead and was close enough to going out that they could just pick up a trick or two per hand and sneak out without risking a setback by bidding large enough to take the blind and have to back it up with a quality hand.  Obviously it's a slur, and not something to be said in polite company in this day and age, unless you're a rap vocalist at least, but what did it mean? I've never heard of blacks having a reputation in racist jokes for trying to sneak into a victory without taking any big risks to earn it. I don't even think it was meant as a racial thing, or an insult so much as it was an old saying that they kept using decades later, without really thinking about what it might have meant.

Good thing none of those card games ever grew popular enough to be national sports pastimes, since if Granny or one of her friends had been interviewed after a big win in which they sneaked out with several small hands after playing boldly and seizing a large lead early on... they might have made headlines for all the wrong reasons.

he Lovely Bones, by Alice Sebold

This book came out back in 2002 and apparently sold a ton, over a million copies in two months, which is extraordinary for any book that doesn't include "Harry" and/or "Potter" in the title.  I had heard of it as an original and literary-style book about a young girl's rape/murder by a serial killer, and the aftermath of that event as her family members are all impacted by the tragedy. I went in expecting a more literary version of Silence of the Lambs, or something along those lines. It's not at all like that.

This review will contain spoilers, but they're not really all that spoilery, since there's really nothing to spoil. The cool and original aspects of the book are all detailed right at the start. Within the first chapter you know the story is being narrated by the young girl who was murdered, that she's in heaven talking about this and looking down on her family, that she was murdered by a neighbor who she names, in a place she describes.  The book is in no way a mystery or crime novel, since the descriptions of the ongoing investigation are cursory at best, and there's never any suspenseful chase scenes or police work. The only possible suspense is whether or not they'll catch the guy, and that's basically all I kept reading to find out, after growing bored with it by page 200 or so. Strangely, it really doesn't matter. By the time you find out if he's caught or not you no longer care, it hardly matters for the plot of the story, it doesn't happen at the very end, and it's written in a very offhand, anti-climactic style.

Before discuss the novel in any more detail, here's my usual categorized rating:

The Lovely Bones, by Alice Sebold
Plot: 2
Concept: 7
Writing Quality: 7
Characters: 8
Page Turner: 5
Rereadability: 3
Overall: 3.5

My score is relatively harsh, perhaps harsher than it should be, because I was so disappointed by the last 1/3 of this 288 page novel. If I'd rated it after reading the first 50%, I would have given it 7's or higher in every category. Unfortunately, the last half was boring and pointless as the plot vanished entirely into a series of vignettes of perpetually-grieving people and flashbacks to their younger days. And it wasn't just that the last half sucked, it was that it revealed how hollow the first half was. Once the stylistic devices and flowery description grew familiar, I began to see how naked the emperor was beneath them.

 

The opening chapters are great; original, captivating, emotional, touching, full of fascinating characters and broken "how a novel should be" rules. After the great opening, the middle third begins to drag as you slowly realize there is no real plot and you're only reading it to keep reading it, as time passes and all of the main characters age and change over time. At that point, I stopped reading it for about a week when I was up around page 200, since I was just bored with it.

Nothing had happened for 50 pages, all the originality of the plot devices had long since worn off, and the plot writing devices of constant flashbacks, scenes from childhood, ancient memories, etc, had lost of their novelty. The story most reminded me of the desperate "I am zee arteeist!" style overly-literary short stories that I saw from the mopey, sensitive types in my college creative writing classes. You know, the type of stories that win awards and prizes, despite never being about anything.

Most literary type stuff is well written, artistic, full of flashbacks and burdened consciences and lovely language and detailed, incisive descriptions. It's generally enjoyable, so long as you don't mind the fact that it's not really about anything, and can overlook the fact that nothing really happens. The Lovely Bones does a better job being about something than your typical navel-gazing short story, but that's only because its setting and story-telling device (the dead girl narrator) are interesting. Once you're no longer fascinated by that the story becomes pointless, since it's no longer a story. It's just one scene after another of the same few characters, as they live their lives. There's no sense of rising conflict, drama, action, tension, or a pending climax. It's just scene after scene after scene, and it feels like it could go on forever, chronicling the next 20 or 40 years in the characters' lives.

And it does go on for quite a while, extending out 8 or 10 years past the opening when Susie is murdered, but fortunately it does eventually end. I wouldn't say it concludes, since there's no real ending; it just sort of stops, like one of those mediocre pop songs that have two verses, then a chorus, then repeated verses, and then endless repetition of the chorus, over and over again, until the audio cut and paste finally ends with a gradual fade out as the volume is dialed down. That technique works okay for music, but it's pretty lame for a novel, where you'd like the last 50 pages to be the best 50 pages, as all of the loose ends are tied up and the action rises to a climax.

 

I'll run over the categories briefly, since I'd like to elaborate a bit more.

Plot: 2
To put it simply, there is no plot. Not once you get past about page 150. From there on it's just random, unrelated events in the lives of the characters who were once related. The plot of this one works sort of like a firework. Everything is tight and together at the start, there's the explosion of Susie's murder, and then all of the characters are like glowing points of light, blasted out from the central explosion. Points of light that are pretty and artistic, but that seldom interact or bump into one another.

The other aspect of the plot rating is how logical, intelligent, realistic, etc, things are, and on that level the book fails pretty miserably. It's not meant to be a detective thriller or crime procedural or anything like that; it's a literary story with a crime as the tent pole to get things off the ground. But all the same, there's a crime in it, a policeman investigating the crime, and a serial killer on the loose, so as a reader you have the right to expect some sort of logic and intelligence in the investigation. Unless one of the plot points is that the cops are entirely incompetent, and they are not portrayed as that in word. They are in deed though, but I think that's mostly on the writer. She either doesn't have an analytical mind or has not absorbed anything from the crime thrillers she's read, since I spent much of the book thinking, "Oh God, the police would never do that." or "Come on, that's stupid, of course they'd investigate that possibility." or other things along those lines. It's like a love story where the man murders his love's stalking ex-husband on page three, and then the cops never bother to take his fingerprints or check his alibi since it would be inconvenient for the love story, even though he'd obviously be suspect #1 in any real world investigation.

Concept: 7
It's clever, and it's a great hook to get the reader reading. It's just unfortunate that the book does nothing with it after the introduction.

Writing Quality: 7
I might be a bit generous here, and you definitely have to buy into the flowery style of the writing, with the verbose and strained metaphors, but it's a consistent style, and works well with the melodramatic subject matter and presentation.

Characters: 8
They aren't actually all that interesting, and the male characters especially aren't very developed or original, but every character in the novel is sketched out with words to the point that the reader has a vivid impression of them. It would be nice if they did more interesting and original things, but after reading this you feel that you know them all intimately. Even if they are boring.

Page Turner: 5
Very page turny, for the first half or two thirds. After that, you've got to want to find out how it ends. I read the last 100 pages during commercial breaks in game one of the NBA finals, or I'd never have made it. It wasn't interesting enough to keep at for a solid hour+, but with frequent breaks for something else it wasn't so bad.

Rereadability: 3
I can't see any reason to read it again, unless you wanted to really sink into the first third and have a good cry at the amazingly tragic and painful events and character reactions to them.  Romance Fiction fans in need of emotional release only.

Overall: 3.5
It's hard to give it an overall, since the first half was a 7 or 8 overall, and the last half was about a 3. If I averaged it out the book would get at least a 5, but after such a good opening I was very disappointed by the conclusion ending, so the overall score is much lower than the sum of the parts.

In conclusion, this is not a book to read if you're in it for the plot, conclusion, climax, narrative, etc. It's all about the writing style and the character portraits and the heart string-tugging. It could not be less like Silence of the Lambs or other serial killer books. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and I could have liked it for what it was, if it hadn't lost all semblance of a plot down the home stretch.

 

I was curious to see how most readers took this novel, and checked out the listing on Amazon.com. My expectation was that most would love it, eagerly swallowing up the sad syrup. And while it's got a 4 out of 5 star rating overall, with an enormous 2000 reader reviews/ratings, almost all of the most-helpful reviews are bad ones. 1 and 2 star reviews, mostly, and most of them say something similar to what I've said here. Even the quicker ones that haven't been much agreed with say something like, "I liked the start and then it got boring and there was no resolution." 

Of course there are far, far more 5 star reviews; enough of them to pull the average up to 4/5, even with the hundreds of 1-star complaints, so this book is clearly doing something for someone. And it did something for me, moving me and involving me and making me very sad several times over the first 80 or 100 pages. It's just that after that, it went downhill. To paraphrase several of the 1-star reviews, "Just because a book makes you cry doesn't mean it's any good."

 

Okay, so you're vaguely curious, but you're not going to read it, and you just want to know how it ends?  Spoiler time. The killer vanishes about 1/3 of the way through the book when he's finally coming under some suspicion, and that's as good as a confession to the cops. His disappearance ends the only enduring mystery to that point; whether or not the father (who is sure he knows the guy did it, despite a lack of evidence) will convince anyone else. The reader has known who did it all along; so the only suspense or mystery is for the characters themselves.

The killer is hardly mentioned after that, for at least a hundred pages. We get a bit of his serial killer background (multiple rape murders are mentioned, though none in any detail) and presumably he's killing other women all along, though none are detailed other than by a mention of a gravesite he dug that the cops found. No one is hunting him, no one is really haunted by his absence, and the book hardly talks about him at all. Eventually, basically out of the blue, he decides to drive back to the old neighborhood, and sees the sister of the dead girl through the window of her home, next door to his old home... and then he drives on, never to return or be mentioned for another 50 pages.

His eventual end? After sneaking up behind a girl at a truck stop and creeping her out a bit she takes off, and then an icicle falls and hits him in the head, sending him falling down a steep hillside where his body is not found until spring. The angel/dead girl is watching him at the time, and she sees the icicle over him, but it's not made clear if she's able to "break through" enough to knock it down herself, of if it's just a coincidence. Despite the fact that she definitely wants him dead, she's never been able to break through enough to touch anything in the entire story (Other than one Ghost-like possession of another female character, during which she has a quickie with the only boy she ever kissed before she was killed.) and she doesn't exult or celebrate or even feel relieved when she describes the man dying from the icicle.  Her lack of reaction is weird under any circumstances, since even if she couldn't kill him herself, she should have at least been overjoyed at his death.

Odder yet, this whole thing happens about 50 pages from the ending of the novel, and no one else in the story ever knows the guy is dead, during the remainder of the book. Despite the fact that several of them have basically devoted their lives, since Susie's murder, to wanting the killer captured. The experience completely broke her father's heart and health, for instance; and it felt inexcusable to not have any sort of scene showing how he felt about finally knowing the escaped murderer was dead.

 

The other strange thing is the title. All along the reader assumes "The Lovely Bones" are the dead girl's physical remains, which vanished entirely, all except for one elbow bone found by a dog. Her family has always wondered where she ended up, what became of her, if maybe she's really still alive somewhere, etc. The reader knows that they were sealed in an old safe and dumped into a sinkhole by the killer. We find that out early on, then spend the next 200+ pages waiting for someone (Oh... the police, perhaps? Especially once they know who the killer was, and could simply ask the old lady who owns the land if he ever dumped anything large there during that time frame.) to think to look there, or for a construction crew to stumble upon them.

No one ever does, until near the end, just before the Ghost-like body possession return from the other side, two of the characters are out looking down into the old sinkhole and wondering about Susie's murder (which completely captivates and motivates and controls virtually every action and thought of every other character in the novel, even 10 years after the fact). You expect them to find the bones then, or at least wonder about them, since there's construction going on and the hole is being filled up as the land is improved.

Nope, it's all a false alarm, and her bones are never found at all. What we do find is a very strained metaphor about how "the lovely bones" are the support network and connections that have grown between all of the 8 or 10 main characters over the years since Susie vanished. No, it doesn't make any more sense in the book either. My impression is that the author had the title early on, knew it would seem to refer to the vanished carcass, and tried and tried and tried to think of a metaphor for something, anything that she could call "lovely bones" and make that a twist near the end, just when the reader is sure Susie's bones are going to be found to give everyone closure.. and then they aren't. Mostly since no one ever really bothered to look for them with any intelligence.

Unfortunately the lovely bones metaphor doesn't work well enough, and it therefore feels like the entire title and our perception of it has been a cheat. One last disappointment to send us out the door.

<-- Previous  --  Next -->
Archives Index Page

 

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.