!

Holy crap, Heath Ledger's dead.





In totally unrelated news...

Jerry O'Connell makes fun of Tom Cruise. Good for you, Jerry. I really wish more people would tell Tom that he's full of crap. (This video only makes sense if you've already watched the one of Tom Cruise that I posted about previously).

Good books, great tv, and insane celebrities

Wow, it's been awhile. I've been meaning to post on all sorts of things, but I just haven't had the time.

1. I just finished reading Inkspell by Cornelia Funke, the second novel in her trilogy. I thought I should read it in anticipation of the Inkheart movie that's coming out in March. I thought the book was okay. It was actually really, really hard to get into at first, but about half-way through it picks up a bit, and actually turns out to be pretty good. I came across an absolutely scathing review of the book, and I do agree with a couple of things in it - namely that the book should have been edited a bit more. And I also agree that, when you think about it, the female characters, especially Meggie (who's supposed to be the main protagonist!) are a bit weak. But in the end, it was still a good story. Although it kind of left you hanging. The last book, Inkdeath, is being released in English in April of this year.

2. I was channel surfing on Saturday night and stumbled across the new series on Space, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and was it ever good! I liked the Terminator movies, although I'm not an uber-fan; I haven't even seen the third movie because I heard it wasn't very good. And apparently the creators of this series agree, because it takes place after the second movie, and is all about sarah and john hiding out and trying to stop the creation of skynet. And they're being protected by a sexy teenage cyborg from the future, who sometimes acts like a normal teen girl and sometimes acts like a creepy robot. I am wondering a little bit about the age of John. Now, the first movie, Terminator, takes place in 1984. Sarah gets pregnant with John in the movie, and even if you assume that the movie takes place in early 1984, so that John would be born in late 1984, that still makes him only 15 in 1999. In the first episode, they do a time jump from 1999 to 2007. That's good in a way, because it brings the series up to the present, but John still gets to be a teenager. If he hadn't skipped those 8 years, he'd be 23. The thing is that the actor who plays John, Thomas Dekker, is actually 20, and I have a hard time trying to believe that he's only 15. But aside from this, I thought the first two episodes were really good, and the series has potential. So if you get Space, and you even minorly enjoyed the Terminator movies, check it out.


3. Tom Cruise is insane. He comes across as a total megalomaniac in this video (I'm the only one who can save the world!), that is if you can get past his almost complete incoherence. Jargon and acronyms all over the place, incomplete sentences and unfinished thoughts, basically the same idea stated over and over again (I'm here to help people, cuz scientoligists can really help, so we're going to help because people need help...). Tom does not do well without a script.

Welcome 2008

Hello all;

Hope you had a Merry Christmas and a Smashing New Year. My New Year's was technically smashing (although not as smashing as last year) because somebody broke a mirror in my friend's bedroom at her New Year's Eve get together. But that's a really misleading anecdote as it was an otherwise fairly tame event, and I was at home and in my bed by 1:00 am.

Now the other thing that comes with the New Year, besides broken furniture and hangovers, is resolutions, and it seems everyone I know has been pestering me to tell them mine. To be honest, I don't usually make New Year's Resolutions. Mostly because I have discovered I am all talk and no action, and I break my resolutions almost before I've finished making them. But I think this year I'll make an exception. So my resolution for 2008 is:

No More Procrastinating. Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today. And all that jazz. Because although I've gotten slightly better about this in recent years, it is still an area of my personality that could use some major work. How bad am I? Well here is a prime example: I have lived at my current residence for 2 years and 3 months. And sitting in a corner of my living room is a laundry basket full of paper. And it's been there since I moved in. 2 years and 3 months ago. Shocking, I know. And I can't say that I haven't had time to go through the papers. I'm sure there was an afternoon or an evening somewhere that I could've just bit the bullet and done the deed. But you know, there's always better things to do. BUT NO MORE.

In fact, in honour of my resolution I have declared January "National Get-Your-Shit-Together Month". And I encourage any of you who are similarly inclined to join me. I have even cleared the slate at work - no storytimes or programming - so that I can do some badly needed file sorting and weeding. So hopefully I'll be a busy non-procrastinating little bee this month, sorting, de-junking, and cleaning.

Starting tomorrow. Because you see, I was going to start tonight, but there was a really good movie on TV (never you mind that I've already seen it three times). And then of course I had to blog about my resolution. But, starting tomorrow, No More Procrastinating.

Really. Serious. I promise.

Items good and bad

1) The Sweet Far Thing by Libba Bray is officially out in four days. Woo hoo!

2) I have just purchased the Labyrinth Soundtrack and it is fabulous. When I hear a song, I can see exactly what's happening in the movie, even though it's been years since I last saw it. Labyrinth is the best movie ever made, and no one will ever convince me otherwise. Jim Hensen, Goblins, Jennifer Connelly, and David Bowie in tight pants! You can't go wrong.

3) Today at the library I noticed two young boys, around 5 and 8 years old, sitting in the children's section. They were just sitting there looking sad and incredibly bored. So I went over to talk with them. And apparently their Dad had ditched them to go and do something on the adult side of the library. So I asked them if they would like to look at some books while they were waiting, and they said no. And I said, "Well, you look bored. I'll go find you some books and you guys can look at the pictures." So I found some picture books, brought them back to them. And they didn't even open them. They sat there for 45 minutes, completely bored, with an entire children's department of books surrounding them. It was so frustrating, because I don't want to force books on unwilling kids, but I mean really, what is this world coming to??? Obviously their parents don't read to them at all. If my parents had ditched me at a library at that age (or any age) I would've been in heaven.

4) I noticed that SB over at Digital Diamonds has attempted to read God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and found it... lacking. I read this book a few months ago, but just never got around to posting about it. Basically, although I agree with the sentiment behind the book whole-heartedly, I have to say that it is a spectacularly badly-written book. First of all, it's a tough slog at times because he uses a lot of big complicated words. Sometimes it's good to add a new word to your vocabulary, but there are other times when it is completely unnecessary. Hitchens may think he sounds intelligent, but really all he's done is make his book inaccessible to normal people. People who don't have the patience to wade through his overly-complex prose. If you want to convince people of your point of view, then you should probably try to speak to them on their level.

Secondly, and more importantly, he meanders. He starts out the book well with a well-organized introduction. And each chapter seems to start out fairly well, with a clear direction of where he wants to end up. After that's where it all falls to pieces. He meanders of topic, goes into various asides, and often ends the chapter in a completely different place than where you thought you were headed at the beginning. If I had turned in essays like that in university, I would've gotten a C-plus, at the most. I don't know a lot about him, but I think I read somewhere that the guy's a journalist. For someone who is supposed to write for a living, he sure doesn't appear to have had much practice.

Really, the book in general is a pretty big disappointment. It promises so much with it's bold controversial title, and then just ends up being barely mediocre. Sad, sad, sad.

5) Merry Christmas everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My cat is weird

George is kind of a weird cat. Avery sleeps in normal kitty places, like in her kitty bed or curled up on the couch. George is another story.


This is George, momentarily disturbed mid-nap by my camera's flash. He really does sleep like this. On his back, legs in the air, usually in the middle of the floor somewhere.




These two pictures display George in his other preferred sleeping position: Face down, usually on top of my desk or my stereo. I've never seen another cat do this, with one possible exception.

In other news, I saw The Golden Compass last night. And I thought it was pretty good. Maybe a bit slow in the middle, but good. I was worried cuz I'd read a bunch of bad reviews. People were saying that the end was terrible because there was no climax. Of course there was one, but it obviously didn't tie up all the loose ends because it's the first part of a trilogy. The book was like that too. If you didn't go on to read the second and third books, then the first one was really unsatisfying. A lot has to get set up in the first book for the other two to work. Interestingly enough, the movie ended in an earlier place than the first book. But I think I agree with the way they did it. Because in the book, it was like you got two climaxes. The first one (where the movie ended) and then the second one later. And they're saving the second one for the beginning of the first movie. And that's fine. Good acting from Dakota Richards, the girl who plays Lyra, and Nicole Kidman who plays a very good (bad) Mrs. Coulter. Didn't get to see too much of Daniel Craig. I guess I'll just have to wait for the next Bond movie.

I've also just finished reading The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. It was quite good. The book is absolutely huge. In fact, I'd say the length is on par with the fifth Harry Potter book. But it really is deceptive, because probably about a third or more of the book is made up of drawings. It's a really neat book, because it's like a novel/graphic novel in one. But the pictures almost work like a film sequence. And film is a very important theme throughout the book. So it was a good read, and for you librarians out there, don't be fooled or put off by the thickness of the book. The book is actually quite short, I read it in a couple of evenings, and I would feel comfortable recommending it to a good third grade reader.

I also finished reading Cornelia Funke's Inkheart and have moved on to its sequel Inkspell. And while I was at The Golden Compass, I saw a preview for Inkheart the movie. And I think I have a new crush on Brendan Fraser. I also just re-watched Mrs. Winterbourne which isn't a great movie in my opinion, but it just reminded me of how cute Brendan Fraser can be. Anyway, Inkheart is slated for release in March 2008, and I can't wait.

*blush*

So I went home for lunch today...

And discovered that I had been wearing my shirt inside-out all morning. And no one said anything. Now it could be that no one noticed, because it was chilly in the basement this morning, so I wore a sweater to do storytime. That would have covered up the attractive white tag sticking out the side. But it wasn't buttoned up, so it probably flapped open a bit during the Hokey Pokey. Luckily my copious amounts of hair camouflaged the wonky collar.

But I was stilly pretty embarrassed.

I've never actually done something like that before. I mean, how could I not notice all morning? Yes, I got up late and dressed in a hurry. And I hadn't finished planning for my morning storytime so I had to rush right away and do that, and then launch immediately into storytime. But still.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not the most organized or 'together' person in the world, but this was bad even for me. So has anyone else done something equally silly? That maybe you could share? And then I wouldn't feel quite so dumb?

More silliness

*Sigh* Not again.

And this just after an attempt to ban a book in my own library system. A mother was angry because her 8-year-old read an 'inappropriate' graphic novel that was shelved and labeled as young adult. So maybe you should tell your 8-year-old child to stick to the juvenile section instead of trying to yank an entire series of graphic novels off the young adult shelves. Ever think of that, hmmmm?

So, according to a recent news article (thanks for the link Garden Girl), a Catholic School Board in Ontario has yanked Philip Pullman's Golden Compass trilogy from its school's shelves due to all the atheist controversy swirling around it.

First of all, it is my personal belief that it is almost NEVER acceptable to remove any book from library shelves. I do realize that because I work in a public library, it's a little easier for me to say that. I'm supposed to be a neutral party, promoting no one point of view over another (let's please not get into whether it's actually possible for a librarian to be completely neutral). A Catholic School Board however, by its very nature, is already biased. So when they come across a book that promotes atheism, I can see how it might draw some negative attention.

But does the Golden Compass trilogy promote atheism? Oh yeah, absolutely. I read and loved those books, and one of the reasons I loved them was because they were so critical of Christianity. I mean, they basically turn the Christian Creation Myth on its head. And I loved that because I've always found Christianity to be horribly misogynistic, what with the whole thing about Eve being the mother of all sin. And Pullman turned it around and basically said that original sin is good. Eve's a HERO for eating the fruit of knowledge. And I think that's fabulous. And the bad guys in this story were members of a religious organization which was basically a thinly disguised version of the Catholic Church. So I can see why Catholics might be upset.

But the thing to remember here, is that we're not talking about adults reading these books, but children. I was 23 when I first read these books. So yeah, I got all the biblical references and I knew exactly where Pullman was coming from. But a kid? Even a teen? I think maybe an older, thoughtful teen would pick up on the atheist sentiment, but otherwise I think most kids are going to read this book as an awesome adventure fantasy novel. Because that's exactly what it is.

When I was in Gr. 3, I read the Chronicles of Narnia for the first time. And I fell in love with them. I thought they were awesome. At that time, I went to the Anglican Church almost every Sunday, and I was fairly familiar with the story of Jesus. But did I get any of the Christian allegory?? Of course not. I just thought they were really good books. The parellels of Aslan allowing himself to be sacrificed on the stone table to save Edmund and Jesus allowing himself to be crucified to save humanity is something that only became obvious to me when I re-read the books when I was a lot older. Kids just aren't looking for these things, and they don't really care either.

The funny thing is, Philip Pullman absolutely hates the Chronicles of Narnia, seeing them as these horrible tools to indoctrinate children to Christianity at a young age. But I think he's being kind of silly. It didn't work on me. And I think if anyone, including Philip Pullman, thinks that the Golden Compass is going to churn out a whole generation of atheists, then they're dreaming.

Kids will, for the most part, just read it as a story. But I think the Catholic School Board has probably done the exact opposite of what they intended by removing the books from its shelves. Cuz now kids KNOW that there's something wrong with the books, something that adults don't want them to know. Now they're going to be curious. What's up with this book? And many more kids, who might not have picked up the book otherwise, are going to want to have a look. And they're going to be able to get ahold of it whether or not the silly Catholic School Board has it on its shelves or not.

And that basically sums up what I think of the whole thing:
Attempted Censorship = Silliness

Get a life peoples.

A mild blow to the ego

I gotta admit, I'm a little disappointed. I mean, I have always really hated people who obfuscate their prose with big words and jargon just to sound smart and well-read. Remember those papers you had to read in university where you had to get the dictionary out for every other word? I really don't think that people have to write unintelligibly to write intelligently.

However, I must admit, as much as I love reading it, Children's and YA lit probably isn't the best thing for expanding my vocabulary. So I'm thinking of trying something that was actually intended for an adult audience.

*Gulp*

I Hate Hotmail

Okay, is it just me, or does the new hotmail suck? And that's not a rhetorical question, because I really could be overlooking something which would prove that Microsoft really doesn't hate me. So if anybody knows something I don't, please share.

Complaint #1: I cannot figure out how to edit my forwards. You could before. And I like to do that, especially the ones that have been around a lot and have collected all those lists of e-mail addresses at the top which you have to scroll through before you get to the funny picture/video/joke at the bottom. But it doesn't let me now, and I don't know what to do. I actually sent a complaint to microsoft about this one, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Complaint #2: I have been having trouble with their picture uploading tool. Maybe it's just my computer, but I click on upload picture, select the picture, and it looks like it's going to attach, but then it kicks me back to my e-mail, and there's nothing attached. Super, super frustrating.

Complaint #3: I tried for 20 minutes this morning to send an e-mail, and couldn't because their freaking server was too busy. Now I have tried to log on to hotmail before and had it say that the server was too busy. That's fine. But once you're in there, you should be able to send stuff. Otherwise, what's the point? And I've never been unable to send stuff before they did the upgrade.

Personally, the old hotmail was working just fine for me, thank you very much. I don't know why people have to go and change things and then there's all these stupid bugs. Anyway, I'm quickly running out of patience. I think I hear gmail calling me.

Post-Election Blues

I have lived in three different constituencies in this province, and not once has the candidate I voted for won in either a federal or provincial election.

I'm starting to feel like maybe I'm a jinx.

I thought for sure this election would be different. This riding was expected by everyone to stay the same as last election. But no, in an unexpected upset, the guy I voted for lost by an extremely narrow margin. So I'd like to apologize, cuz it's my fault. I voted for him, therefore he couldn't win.

I know I'm being silly, but I can't help being slightly depressed.

Scary Movies

So tonight is Halloween. Definitely my favourite time of year. Candy packaged into little bite-sized pieces. Costume parties. Pumpkin-carving. And scary movies. In the days leading up to Halloween, there's always tons of horror movies on TV. And I used to really enjoy them, but I gotta say, I think I'm losing my tolerance for them.

When I was a kid, my parents were pretty lenient when it came to what movies or TV I watched, but I still wasn't allowed to watch horror movies until I was about 12. In fact, for one of my birthday parties, my friends and I snuck out and rented The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, watched it after my parents went to bed, and secretly returned it the next day. I'm not really sure it was worth it, because the fear of what would happen if we got caught was way worse than anything the movie dished out. In fact, those types of movies, the ones with psychotic killers in silly masks jumping out from behind doors wielding chainsaws and knives, just weren't ever that scary to me. For one of my later sleepovers, we rented Clownhouse, and while my friends were shaking in their boots, I thought it was just the dumbest thing I'd ever seen. Three escaped mental patients happen across some circus clowns, kill them, steal their costumes, and then proceed to torment three young brothers who happen to be home alone, one of whom happens to have a phobia of clowns. Really? Uh huh.

Now the movies that I really enjoy and that also really get to me are the ones that have supernatural elements in them. I'm not sure why this is, because whether you're being chased by a murderous psychopath or a murderous ghost, it all amounts to the same thing, doesn't it? But maybe it's because, with a psychopath, you can take some precautions. Lock the door. Don't answer the phone. Don't go down to the creepy dark basement by yourself with a dim flashlight as your only weapon YOU FUCKING IDIOT! (Ho ho, I bet that gets me an R rating.) But with ghosts, there's nothing you can do. They can go through walls and doors, they can get into your mind, and they can't be killed (although it seems like some of the psychopaths are impossible to kill as well *cough*Michael Myers*cough*).

Which brings me to the current state of affairs. I'm not sure I can handle creepy ghostly horror movies anymore. They FREAK ME OUT. The last couple of horror movies I watched were really bad experiences. The first of these incidences was the night my sister and I went and saw The Ring. I'm not sure why that night was so bad, but maybe it's because we really didn't know what we were getting into. Neither of us had seen the previews, although I admit that we at least knew that it was supposed to be some sort of horror movie.

Well. It was good, really good, but scary, really scary. Those images that were in the movie (the movie within the movie I mean, the movie that's supposed to kill you), the imagery was just really disturbing. And the girl with the black hair combed over her face crawling out of the well. I still get shivers thinking about it. You know that scene when Naomi Watts has just finished watching the movie and her mouth is open and there's this stunned look of horror on her face? That's pretty much how K and I looked at the end of the movie. Completely shell-shocked. On shaking legs we went out to the car, promptly drove to the nearest video store where we rented a whole bunch of cartoons. We then went back to my apartment and stayed up to watch all of those cartoons in an effort to erase the terrifying images that had been imprinted on our brains. It did not work. K spent the night at my apartment with me. We kept all the lights on, and I still did not sleep a wink. I, in fact, did not sleep well for a week.

That experience cured me of wanting to go and see any horror movies for quite some time. Then, a couple of years later, K was in E-Town visiting with me, and we got it into our heads that we should go and see The Amityville Horror. We just don't learn, do we? We payed almost twenty dollars each to get in. Then the movie started, and we immediately realized we'd made a mistake. We were alternately covering our ears, covering our eyes, or grabbing each other in terror. You know that scene where the babysitter is locked in the closet with the dead girl and she sticks her finger in the bullet hole in the girl's forehead? I just about died. Halfway through the movie we decided that we should probably remove ourselves from the theatre before we injured ourselves or someone else. I imagine the entire audience breathed a collective sigh of relief as we exited. We felt kind of silly afterwards, because it was just a movie, and we'd basically wasted fourty bucks. But obviously, K and I just can't handle scary movies.

Having said that, there are some scary movies that I've enjoyed like The Others (that one was really fun as one of the girls I was sitting with threw her popcorn into the air at one of the scary parts and it went everywhere), or The Sixth Sense. But these aren't really scary, just a slightly creepy. And no really disturbing imagery. In fact, I'd say that it's the gory details that get to me, except that I think The Shining has some pretty graphic details in it, what with the blood gushing everywhere and the dead woman in the bathtub, but that's another horror movie I don't mind watching. In fact, the only connecting factor I can come up with between horror movies I enjoy and horror movies that terrify me is... my sister.

I don't know what it is. Maybe we feed off each other's fear creating some sort of energy of terror that engulfs us both. Whatever the reason, I know who I will NOT be watching my next horror film with. Ya hear that K?

Bad Movies

Here are, in no particular order, three of the worst movies I've ever seen:

Mr. Wrong: This movie is wrong. Poor Ellen. I have liked Bill Pullman in other movies, but this was just so un-funny. I spent the last half of the movie cringing.

Godzilla (1998): I like Matthew Broderick, so I tried hard to like this movie, but it's usually a bad sign when you want the monster to win. Seriously, if the monster had come up on land and chomped all the people, the movie would have been improved 100%. I have rarely been so tempted to leave the theatre in the middle of a film.

Down to Earth: This is one of those movies where all the funny parts were in the previews, except that even the funny parts weren't that funny. I didn't even crack a smile. It was just tedious. Once again, I seriously considered leaving halfway through the film. But I just kept saying to myself, "It's Chris Rock! Surely this gets funnier?". But, alas, it did not.

I'm pretty forgiving of movies. So if I hate something, it's usually really, really bad.

Night-time Entertainment

Why, when I dream, am I never wearing any pants?

The Angel Gene

There is the most adorable five-year-old boy that comes to my story times. He is always cheerful and enthusiastic about everything. We're doing play dough for craft time? Wonderful! I love play dough! A book about cats? Wonderful! I think kitties are so cute! He gets totally into all the songs and stories. And I swear to you, I've never seen the kid frown. Not even for a second, not once. He's also really polite, both with adults and other children. He has a little brother who is about 3, and it's the same thing. Just absolutely ecstatic to be alive in the world.

This, to me, is amazing. I mean, everybody has bad days, wrong-side-of-the-bed days, can't-do-anything-right days. I know I only see them once a week, but they've been coming to storytime for over a year now, and even my other storytime favourites have a meltdown now and again. But not these kids. I have basically come to regard their mother with awe. I have been tempted to ask her, "How have you brainwashed these Stepford children into being complete angels, and can you teach me how to do it?" (Yes, I know I don't have kids, but if I ever do, this knowledge will be invaluable.)

And then today, they brought their baby sister along with them. She is about one I would guess. Sitting up, crawling, but not yet walking. And she was exactly the same. Completely happy. Her mom took her out of her stroller, set her down on the floor in the middle of a bunch of strange kids and parents, and then went to help her boys with the craft. And this baby didn't even bat an eyelash. She grabbed a nearby ball and started playing catch with the closest adult. Smiling and laughing.

A one-year-old is too little to be bribed, cajoled or disciplined. Which leads me to believe that the mom has not done anything to make her kids this way. This is their natural state of being. They are genetically prone to be angelic. I think that geneticists everywhere might be interested in isolating and studying this amazing genetic phenomenon.

It's not rocket science people...

You Scored an A

You got 10/10 questions correct. It's pretty obvious that you don't make basic grammatical errors. If anything, you're annoyed when people make simple mistakes on their blogs. As far as people with bad grammar go, you know they're only human. And it's humanity and its current condition that truly disturb you sometimes.

The It's Its There Their They're Quiz

Miscellaneous

Ho hum. So Harper made his throne speech. The Bloc and NDP have already said that they will vote against the Harper government, so the Liberals have the balance of power. Any guesses as to what they'll do? In his speech, Harper indicated that he would like the Canadian troops to stay in Afghanistan until 2011, and that there was no way that Canada could honour their Kyoto commitment, two issues that the Liberals have been pestering the conservatives about constantly. But I suspect that the Liberals will end up supporting the government. Because they know that if there's an election now, they will get their asses kicked, and then we'd be stuck with a majority conservative government for at least 4 years. I've gotta admit, right here, I'm NOT a fan of the conservatives. But in a way, I wish the Liberals would vote against the government. At least they'd be honouring their principles. And it just seems like everyone out there is just out to get in power or stay in power. Whatever it takes. They flip flop on everything. I would like the political parties out there to say "This is what we believe." And then stick to that, whether or not they do or don't get elected. Because otherwise, what's the point? If all the parties out there will change their policies and principles at the drop of a hat just to stay in power, or have a better chance of getting in power, then does it really matter who we elect? They all become the same. I can really understand why voter turnouts are getting to be so low in this country. I think I myself have come down with a major case of apathy.

In other news, I have once again been too nice and accomodating, and now I have WAY too much on my plate. It's just really tough for me to say no to people. If I've said yes to one person, then it just doesn't seem fair for me to say no to another. And now I've just got a ton of stuff going on at work. For example, I am doing a database presentation for another library's staff workshop, and I have done this presentation before, got all the handouts already, so I thought it wouldn't be a big deal time commitment-wise, except that they went and CHANGED THE DATABASE INTERFACE so that nothing, NOTHING in my handouts applies anymore. So I have to rewrite my whole damn presentation. Generally speaking, I actually do well under pressure. In university, I couldn't even work on an assignment until the situation started to get desperate. I wrote some of my best essays the night before, and I have always been notorious for last-minute exam cramming. But I'm only good until the pressure reaches a certain point. If the pressure gets too hot, something's gotta give. And I feel like I'm at that point right now. There's that barely controlled feeling of panic in my stomach, like I'm in the water and my head's about to go under for the third and final time. At this point I either a)completely lose it and start yelling at someone ("Get someone else to write you a reference, I have a f@#$ing newsletter to finish here!") or b)get sick and end up cancelling a whole bunch of stuff until I feel better. Wish me luck.

And finally, in complete denial of my situation and in a display of pure procrastination not seen since my library school days, I have been doing a lot of reading. In particular I would like to say that Shannon Hale is AWESOME! I read The Princess Academy, and thought okay, that was pretty good. And the I read the Goose Girl, and thought, this lady rocks! It might be partially because I have always been very fond of the fairytale The Goose Girl. Very gory. With the horse head nailed to the gate. And even though I'm sure it's been 20 years since I read that story, I still remember what the horse head says to her: "If your mother only knew / her heart would surely break in two". And the ending, where the imposter gets the punishment that she suggests for the real princess: to be placed in a barrel spiked with nails and rolled through the streets behind two horses. I mean, how gruesome a death is that? Another of my favourite fairy tales which doesn't get told very often is The Tinderbox. With the dogs with the huge eyes who go to the palace and steal away the princess every night. Or, does anyone remember the one about the princess on the glass hill? And the knight who was able to ride his horse up the hill got to marry her? Anyone remember that one? So how about you? Any favourite fairy tales out there?

Harry Potter 7 Review

Hey y'all. I am back from vacation. I have been MIA for three weeks, and it's been wonderful. I was actually in Kelowna for one of those three weeks, but mostly I've just been relaxing, doing some reading. And I finally finished re-reading Harry Potter 7. I just didn't get around to it until now, cuz I was super-busy at work, and I also had to wait for the rest of my family to read it before I got it back (all of them are fans, but none of them were willing to buy their own copy - cheapskates.) But I finally did, and although it's been 2 months since it came out, I suddenly feel like talking about it. So for those of you who haven't read it yet, please stop reading right now, I beg of you. Don't ruin it for yourselves. And for those of you who would actually like to read my thoughts, please click and drag. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't give anyone any accidental spoilers.

So, I really, really, really loved the final book. It was awesome. As I said, I just finished re-reading it, and I have to admit, I cried. I cried really hard. I cried even harder than I did the first time I read it, and I think it's because I wasn't racing ahead to find out what happens in the end, so this time I could savour the tragedy of it all.

So, how about that Snape guy? As I've said before, I love Severus Snape, and I was quite pleased to see that every one of my predictions about him turned out to be true. I find the whole Snape/Lily story deliciously romantic and unbearably tragic. So Snape really was on the side of good... but was he actually a good person? J.K. Rowling has said herself that she doesn't really consider Snape a hero. Without Lily, I think it's fairly safe to say that Snape would have grown up an unrepentent Death Eater. And even with her influence, that is still the path he chose while at Hogwarts. It was only when faced with Lily's death that Snape was able to make the choice that would have won him her love if only he could have made it when he was younger. And it was all for Lily. Snape never cared for Harry. In Harry he only saw his old rival, James. This is illustrated in this scene (which by the way, I love) when Snape gets upset after Dumbledore tells him that Harry must die:

"But this is touching, Severus," said Dumbledore seriously. "Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?"
"For him?" shouted Snape. "Expecto patronum!"
From the tip of his wand burst the silver doe: she landed on the office floor, bounded once across the office and soared out of the window. Dumbledore watched her fly away, and as her silvery glow faded he turned back to Snape, and his eyes were full of tears.
"After all this time?"
"Always," said Snape.

I love those last two lines. After all this time? Always. Can't you just see an anguished Alan Rickman growling out that last word? They'd better put that part in the movie. But, back to my point, Snape never cared one bit for Harry. And that brings me to another one of my favourite scenes. While Snape lies dying and Harry comes face to face with him for the first time since that night on the tower:

Harry took off the Invisibility Cloak and looked down upon the man he hated, whose widening black eyes found Harry as he tried to speak. Harry bent over him; and Snape seized the front of his robes and pulled him close.
...
"Look...at...me..." he whispered.
The green eyes found the black but after a second something in the depths of the dark pair seemed to vanish, leaving them fixed, black and empty. The hand holding Harry thudded to the floor, and Snape moved no more.

I cried and cried the first time I read that scene, because Harry has his mother's eyes, and you know that when Snape tells Harry to look at him, it's not for Snape to see Harry, but for Snape to see Lily's eyes one last time. It's really romantic, and really tragic, and also vaguely creepy all at once.

But even though Snape never did care for Harry, and he never would have changed sides if it hadn't been for Lily's death, I actually do think that, in the end, Snape was a better person. At one point in one of Snape's memories when he's talking to Dumbledore, Dumbledore asks him, "How many men and women have you watched die?" and Snape replies, "Lately, only those whom I could not save". This shows that Snape really has changed. He cares about people dying. And Dumbledore himself has one of the best quotes in the books regarding Snape: "You are a braver man by far than Igor Karkaroff. You know, I sometimes think we Sort too soon..." I love, love that quote. Snape couldn't make the right choice when he was a boy at Hogwarts. But as a man, Snape turned out to be just as brave and good as anyone in Gryffindor. And I also loved the fact that Harry named one of his kids after him: "Albus Severus...you were named for two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew".

So besides Snape, there were of course loads of other awesome parts in the book. I loved the fact that Ron came back and ending up saving Harry and destroying the first horcrux. I mean, really, Ron's been rather useless up until now. He hasn't got the brains and skill of Hermione or Harry's nerve. He was always just kind of there. Of course I know he was a good friend to Harry (most of the time) and supportive, and he helped out here and there. But I'm really glad he kind of got to shine in this book a bit. And it also kind of finally laid to rest all those underlying feelings of inferiority he had. The Horcrux basically showed Ron his worst fear: that he really was nothing in comparison to Harry and that Hermione would always love Harry better. And Ron had to get past that in order to destroy it. My favourite quote from the scene:

"You've sort of made up for it tonight," said Harry. "Getting the sword. Finishing off the Horcrux. Saving my life."
"That makes me sound a lot cooler than I was," Ron mumbled.
"Stuff like that always sounds cooler than it really was," said Harry. "I've been trying to tell you that for years."

I think that quote should be in the movie too.

And speaking of Horcruxes, I also liked the fact that a different person destroyed each horcrux: Harry destroyed the diary, Dumbledore destroyed Gaunt's ring, Ron destroyed the locket, Hermione destroyed the cup, it was technically Crabbe who destroyed Ravenclaw's diadem since he cast the Fiendfyre, and Neville destroyed the snake. I think it kind of said something about it not being up to one person. One person on his or her own maybe wouldn't have succeeded, but everyone did their own part (wittingly or not).

And that reminds me of another part of the book, which was not so good, but was admittedly necessary. The deaths. The many, many deaths that took place throughout the book. So whose death was most tragic? Dobby? Fred? Tonks? Lupin? Do you know whose death shocked me the most? Hedwig's. I mean, I know she was just an owl, but it was just that I had never even considered the fact that Hedwig might die. She was Harry's owl, his pet, and I just assumed she was always going to be there. When she died so suddenly like that in the beginning, I seriously felt like Rowling had violated some sort of trust. And I remember thinking, "If Hedwig can die, then anyone's fair game." And after that, the death's just didn't affect me as much. Maybe it was just because there were so many, and the fact that I was expecting people to die, but their deaths just didn't affect me as profoundly. I think Sirius's death and Dumbledore's death affected me more because they were one, single, horrible death at the end of the book and it was really shocking. But by the end of the Deathly Hallows, I think I was just sort of numb. I did not predict Dobby's death, or Fred Weasley's death. But I knew, as soon as Lupin made Harry his son's godfather, I knew that Tonks and Lupin were doomed. And Tonks was one of my favourite characters, so I thought that was sad.

And then there was, of course, Harry's death. Oh man, did I cry and cry all through that. Especially that last walk through the woods. There is one thing that I was thinking about though. When Harry uses the Resurrection Stone, he brings back his mother, his father, Sirius and Lupin. But he doesn't bring back Dumbledore. The whole book he's been wishing to talk to Dumbledore, but then when he has the chance to bring him back, he doesn't. At first I thought that was weird, but then I remembered that Harry was, at that point, feeling terribly betrayed by Dumbledore. He felt that Dumbledore never really cared about him, but was just using him. So I guess that's why Harry didn't want to talk to him. And what about that crazy scene in King's Cross? With the crying baby? Was that the piece of Voldemort's soul that was attached to Harry? Anyway, it was a little weird.

But the ending was really good I thought. It was great that Neville was the one who killed the final horcrux. I always thought that he should have a big role to play since he was the other boy the prophecy could have indicated. But I was disappointed that he didn't get to do in Bellatrix and avenge his parents. And how about that? Mrs. Weasley? "NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!" I actually gasped out loud when I read that line. In a way it's kind of cool, because she finally got to show what she was made of, that underneath the dumpy housewife exterior she's a really talented witch. And it also showed how protective she was of her children. But I was just really surprised.

And did anyone else totally not get the whole Elder wand bit? At least one other person I talked to didn't understand that part. Harry was going on about how Draco Malfoy was the real master of the Elder wand, and I was like, WTF? However, my sister explained it to me after she'd read the book, so I am no longer confused. Basically, although Snape was the one who killed Dumbledore, Draco was the one who disarmed him first. So Dumbledore's wand (the Elder wand), changed its allegiance to Draco that night, even though Draco never even so much as touched it after he had disarmed Dumbledore. Then in the escape from Malfoy mansion, Harry wrestles Draco's own wand out of his hands. So Draco's wand changed its allegiance to Harry. And in the last fight, the Elder wand somehow knew that Harry had disarmed Draco and changed its allegiance to Harry. And I do like the fact that Harry used Expelliarmus in the duel, and that it was Voldemort's own deflected killing curse that did the job in the end. I knew it had to be like that.

Another thing I just wanted to touch on was the whole theme of death throughout the series. Specifically, people's attitudes towards death. Voldemort's main goal (besides taking over the world) was to avoid death at all costs. His very name, Vol-de-mort, means "flight from death" in French. Dumbledore also sought to conquer death, not through horcruxes, but rather through the Hallows. Dumbledore himself wonders if he was any better than Voldemort by seeking out the Hallows. But I think he was better than Voldemort because he sought the hallows not to extend his own life, but rather to bring back those that he loved. And I love the fact that what Dumbledore actually saw in the Mirror of Erised way back in book one, was actually the same thing that Harry saw: His family. Dumbledore wanted more than anything to have his mother and sister back again. In the end though, it was actually the person who did not seek to avoid death, but actually sought death out, who was able to unite the three hallows. Because Harry was willing to die, he was the only one who could safely possess the hallows. And that brings me to another interesting point: Some people have speculated that Harry might be somehow related to Voldemort. And if you think about it, they're right, although it's a very distant connection. Harry is obviously related to the Peverell brothers, as he has inherited the cloak of the third brother. But the Resurrection Stone belonged to the Gaunts. So, if the ring was handed down through the family as the cloak was, then Voldemort was related to Harry, not through Slytherin, but through the Peverells.

Finally, I thought I would point out a small "oops" that I caught in the book. Did anyone else catch this? When Ron, Hermione and Harry leave the wedding, they stop in a coffee shop and then end up in a duel with Death Eaters. They decide they need to wipe their memories. "I've never done a Memory Charm" says Ron. "Nor have I," says Hermione, "but I know the theory" (139). But that can't be true because Hermione has already told them that she put a memory charm on her parents: "I've also modified my parents' memories...Assuming I survive our hunt for the Horcruxes, I'll find Mum and Dad and lift the enchantment. If I don't - well, I think I've cast a good enough charm to keep them safe and happy" (84). Aaaah well. Even someone as talented as J.K. Rowling can't be perfect all of the time.

I always knew I should've been a Vulcan

You Are Incredibly Logical

Move over Spock - you're the new master of logic You think rationally, clearly, and quickly. A seasoned problem solver, your mind is like a computer!

How Logical Are You?

My kitties are in love

My kitties fight and fight and fight and fight all the time.

And then I come home and catch them like this:



Awwww. I guess they really do love each other after all.

Adieu, Bête Bleue

So over the weekend, I went to Saskatoon and did a little shopping.

Car shopping that is.

And I am now the proud owner of a slightly used, dark blue, Honda CR-V. I really wanted a Toyota Rav 4, because I once drove one of those for work and liked it, and my cousin has one which I tried out in Edmonton at Easter. And I test-drove a very nice silver one. But I surprised myself and went for the Honda. It's a bit bigger than I ideally would have liked. But smoooooth. Standard transmission, of course.

So no more bête bleue. In many ways, I am going to miss the little guy. He techincally belongs to my Dad, so that's where he is right now. I don't know what Dad's going to do with him, but I hope that he will be spiffed up and sold to a deserving but poor college student who will need something like la bête: a cute little car to run around the city in, with 4x4 for those pesky January snowstorms, small enough that you could parallel park downtown blind-folded, but big enough that you could still fit five skinny people in a pinch.

So now I must move on and make some new memories. I'm currently trying to decide on a name for my new mode of transportation. This beast is also blue, but there can only be one bête bleue. Any suggestions? Here are a couple of visual aids to help you make a decision: