"The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian" book review

How fast of a read is Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian?  I wanted this book to last me a couple days—it was the last book on my list to read for Banned Books Week—but I accidentally read it in three hours instead.  How does one read a whole book “accidentally,” you may ask?  I only wanted to read about half yesterday and before I knew it I was on page 150 out of 230, at which point I was too engrossed to put the last 80 pages aside another day.

Alexie’s biggest strength with this short novel is his ability to convey deep plot points—racism, poverty, alcoholism, death—in a lighthearted way that somehow doesn’t undermine what needs to be said.  Arnold “Junior” Spirit is an excellent narrator for this story.  He tackles his life-changing decision to attend high school not in the impoverished school in the Indian reservation his family lives but instead at the traditionally white high school miles away with well-timed wit and humor that you may not expect.  It’s a breath of fresh air to report that Junior sounds like a genuine teenager, and not the 40-year-old author attempting to recreate teenage mannerisms learned secondhand. 

I went into this book without prior knowledge of the plot.  Therefore, it struck me hard within the first couple chapters where Alexie writes with such intense passion about the Indian reservation’s living conditions—and the struggles Junior and his parents fight to overcome.  I was engrossed from the start, and the short novel led to a series of emotions:  triumph, grief, and plenty of laughter.  Grade:  B+

"Fight Club 2" book review

[Note:  Yes, “Greg” exists—although his name has been changed to protect the innocent.  Also, I don’t have any friends by the name of Greg and I secretly always wanted one, so there you go.]

Dear Greg,

I hope this letter finds you well.  It’s been far too long since our last correspondence; sorry about that!  While the nature of this letter—a warning that you stay far, far away from Fight Club 2—is a strange and short message, I hope our dialogue could continue on a routine basis.

You introduced me to Fight Club in 2008, when we both worked at that snack bar inside of the dormitory.  I’m not exactly sure how I made it to age 20 before (a) watching Fight Club, or—even more impressively (b) making it that far without being spoiled by the quintessential movie twist of our generation.  Hell, I didn’t even know it was a book before it was a film.  Anyway, it was a very slow night at work, and those two and a half hours watching that hyper-masculine drama helped make the night go by fast.  So for that, I thank you. 

I don’t normally thank people for showing me movies eight years ago, so I should probably stop burying the lead and explain the meat of this letter.  For some reason, I went seven years after first watching the film before seeking out the novel that started all of this…despite your fervent recommendation (I was an English major, so I had too many other things to read on my radar).  Chuck Palahniuk’s most well-known novel is indeed a high-paced thriller, and I do appreciate his philosophical ruminations—but the whole thing is too abrasively full of itself.  I know that Mr. Palahniuk has gone on record in saying that he thought the film adaptation was better than his novel, and I’m inclined to agree with him.

Regardless, I was motivated to give the sequel a shot:  it is published as a graphic novel, and my local library had a bind up of all ten comics, so I didn’t have to gather all of the installments in chronological order before reading.  I’m glad I was able to find a bind-up, because the chapters aren’t very long, and I’d have felt cheated if I had to wait around.  If you are encouraged to read the sequel (despite what this letter is warning you), I advise you go the same route.

In short, this was a real piece of shit.  While it only took two hours for me to read, I mourned the loss of those two hours, which could have been served in more productive ways.

To start, the sequel was too derivative of its predecessor.  Yes, by definition sequels are supposed to take the characters and setting of the original and form a continuation; however, it’s essential that the sequel expands on the ideas of the first (if not coming up with entirely new concepts), not retread on what we’ve been given before. 

Additionally, the artwork in the graphic novel isn’t all that impressive.  The colors are dingy, the characters look like Beavis and Butthead rejects, and the images don’t jump off the page in a dynamic way.  What does literally jump off the page, however, are pills, rose buds, and blood, which occasionally will soak the pages and make the text literally impossible to read.  This intentional method to block readers from the text (which isn’t exclusive to plot-specific portions) is telling:  perhaps the writers don’t have faith in their material being compelling enough on its own, and would rather have readers imagine what was written there instead.

The graphic novel has numerous problems, but the part that infuriated me the most was the inclusion of Chuck Palahniuk and his writing staff as characters in the story.  At one part, Marla is given a phone number by Mr. Palahniuk and is told to call if the plot ever lags.  Shortly thereafter the plot does lag, so Marla calls and asks for advice on how to proceed.  And then we get to the conclusion, where Mr. Palahniuk and his crew come up with an awful solution.  He then has a group of fans protest this ending, and for far too long this banter goes on.  This goes well past dues ex machina:  it’s horribly lazy, and none of the readers deserve an ending this lame.  I give this book an F.

In the end, Fight Club 2 is an example of a sequel that should have never happened—at least not officially.  Sometimes an author should leave behind their most famous works, and have their committed fanbase fill in the blanks left behind without feeling the need to butt in and give a lame follow-up.  

I’m sure you’ll agree.

Anyway, I hope all is well.  I look forward to talking to you again soon!

Sincerely,

Mike

P.S.  I saw that you took your wife on an anniversary trip to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter.  I’m insanely jealous!  Speaking of, have you read Harry Potter and the Cursed Child?  If not, I think I have a suggested topic for our next discussion.

Here's what I plan on reading and watching this week (9/25 - 10/1)

Good afternoon!

It occurred to me that I need to be a little more interactive with this blog to increase my regular posting.  To that end, I thought I’d go ahead and start each week by going over what books I plan on reading and what films I plan on watching.  I thought about adding more to this paragraph to flesh it out, but I think it’s pretty self-explanatory.  Nothing to see here.

Of course, I could just get lazy and eat pancakes all week instead.  We'll find out how I did next week!

Books

I’m a day late on this post, as I consider Sunday the start of my week.  I already read one book this week—Fight Club 2 by Chuck Palahniuk, Cameron Stewart, and others.  This book gave me such rage and nausea.  I’m working on a review and I’ll have it up tomorrow. 

It’s Banned Books Week!  In case you aren’t aware of the occasion, I’ll link to the official website.  To celebrate, I have chosen a couple of recently challenged books.

•            This Book is Gay by James Dawson.  This book was challenged at a library in Alaska because some parents took issue with the book’s positive stance on diversity and the LGBTQIA community.  I haven’t heard much about this book, but I knew of its existence. 

•            The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie.  Again, this book was challenged based on diversity.  I very briefly met Sherman Alexie at Bookcon in May and foolishly didn’t bring this with me for him to sign, but this book has been on my radar for quite some time.

If I’m feeling especially adventurous, I’ll seek out a third book to read for Banned Books Week.

Movies

Earlier this year I would be lucky to average one movie per week.  Lately, it’s been 4-5.  I guess I am mentally preparing myself for awards season already!  It’s better to watch multiple movies per week than catch up with 10-12 per week in January, I suppose.

Here are the movies I plan on watching this week:

•           Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, directed by Tim Burton.  Tim Burton is very hit or miss with me—especially his live action projects, which have been misses for me since Sweeney Todd back in 2007.  Still, I enjoyed the source material, so I am cautiously looking forward to this.

•          Storks, directed by Nicholas Stoller and Doug Sweetland.  It came out last week, but I was swamped over the weekend and wasn’t able to see it.  According to the box office records, I wasn’t the only one who stayed away.  The reviews aren’t terrible, so I’m hoping for a silly animated film.
• 
  
•           The Revised Fundamentals of Caregiving, directed by Rob Burnett.  Not sure why they butchered the title of the book, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.  I was a fan of the book, so I’m optimistic, despite my usual aversion to Selena Gomez.  

"I'm Thinking of Ending Things" book review

“I’m Thinking of Ending Things” is the kind of books you can’t ever fully review.  It contains too many twists and turns that in order to adequately digest what goes on in Iain Reid’s debut novel, you must spoil everything—which would definitely be unfair to those wanting to get their hands on this addictive short book. 

And yet, the synopsis of the book does a pretty good job of spoiling the reader for what is about to happen:  it forewarns an event that doesn’t happen until page 125 out of 225.  To be fair, it did heighten my enjoyment of the first two-thirds of the book, which plays out like a slow burning thriller.  The narrative is uncomfortable and will keep the reader on high alert—even in mundane scenes, where the tension doesn’t subside despite nothing nefarious happening.

I advise those wanting to read “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” to avoid the synopsis on the back of the book, and definitely any extensive reviews of the novel. 

I’m just going to make a list of the things I can talk about in regards to Iain Reid’s novel:

1. I loved the philosophical discussions between the man and his girlfriend en route to the man’s family.  Despite only being together for weeks, the man is introducing his girlfriend to his parents some two hours away in a small farm town.  The aforementioned discussions range from love to identity—and I enjoyed the banter between the main characters.
2. Mixed between the chapters is dialogue between two detectives who stumble on a very bloody crime scene.  While I liked that it stressed that something very dramatic was on the horizon, the execution was clumsy—and the dialogue didn’t come off as natural by any stretch of the imagination.
3. And then there’s the conclusion, which I *definitely* can’t talk about.  Suffice it to say, it’s going to divide readers.  In lieu of expanding on my opinion of it, I’m going to say that although my B- rating of the book suggests that the book is uneven, Reid’s novel is thoroughly engrossing right up until the last page.

Rating:  B-

"Sully" movie review

Unfortunately, Clint Eastwood’s “Sully” struggles to take off.  I apologize for the flight pun.

When it was announced that Eastwood was directing a feature length film about Captain Chesley Sullenberger’s heroic landing of the US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River, I was excited—especially when I found out that Tom Hanks was playing the title character.  The plot practically writes itself:  we start on the morning of the plane’s departure, and we make a cursory attempt at character development.  Following takeoff, the film’s big set piece—the aforementioned descent and landing—takes place.  From there, the film could focus on the media’s reaction of the event, and we can get further into the head of Captain Sullenberger…and his PTSD that he suffers through in the days following.  The film could also look at the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation of Sully’s actions, where they question if the landing in the Hudson was necessary. 

All of this made it into the final product, and yet the film’s problems with structure made the end result feel like a non-event. 

Screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (whose previous credits include “Perfect Stranger,” a Halle Berry thriller that can be found in the bargain bin at your local Wal-Mart) starts the film with Sully having a nightmare that he actually crashed the plane in a building, which is bound to upset some considering this takes place in New York.  We see that nightmare twice, and also one with Katie Couric shaming Captain Sully on national television.  As mentioned above, Sully really did suffer from PTSD following the landing of Flight 1549—but the film doesn’t do that great of a job conveying these in a dramatic fashion.  Additionally, the film takes an In Medias Res approach and begins after the plane’s dramatic landing and doesn’t show us what happens on the flight until after 20 minutes—which doesn’t work that great with this kind of narrative.  It’s almost like it was decided that the film about a plane landing on the Hudson River needed more drama to stretch it to feature length.

I also had problems with the NTSB investigation, which is exaggerated for the film so that there is a clear-cut hero (the All-American Tom Hanks playing Sully) and a designated villain (the investigation board, led by characters played by Anna Gunn and Mike O’Malley). 

The marquee performances—Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, and Laura Linney—are all fine, with Tom Hanks making it out the best of the three.  His internal struggle is played with restraint, and Hanks goes a long way to give the film some much needed ethos and pathos.  However, Hanks has spun gold with dodgier material—and when he shows up to act, we should expect a believable performance.

I feel inclined to end this review on another negative note.  Because of the aforementioned PTSD of the main character and the ongoing investigation, we end up seeing clips from the flight’s descent and landing three times over the course of the film.  Further, we see people reacting to the plane going down at another point in the film.  This repetition would have been annoying in a two and a half hour film, but in a 90 minute film (which is what “Sully” is) it feels like the filmmakers have run out of material and are desperately looking for something to pad. 

Rating:  C

Greetings!

Hello, hypothetical reader!

My name is Mike, and this is my first attempt at using blogger.  It's not my first attempt at maintaining a blog, however; during my college years, I used LiveJournal (because OF COURSE I had a LiveJournal!) to post movie reviews and assorted pop culture thoughts.  This time my focus will be on books, movies, and the aforementioned random pop culture analysis.

For a little bit, this blog will be under construction.  When it's fully up and running, there will be a running tally of all the recent books and movies I've read and watched. In the meantime, check out my Goodreads account.

See you around, and pardon the mess!

Mike

P.S.  Special thanks to Gina (Randomly Bookish Gina) for the blog name suggestion, along with the mad photoshop skills that helped with the header.  You're a superstar!