Wicked Cool: I've Gotten Over My Literary Snobbery (A Little)

At one point in my life, I was a ridiculously voracious reader. I'd read two or three books a day, often more, never less. When you suffer from insomnia beginning as a toddler, I guess you're bound to be either a hard-core reader or a television addict.

As I've gotten older and found that free time is at a premium between my daughters, my students, and the never-ending cycle of grading, planning, keeping on top of professional development and such, I just don't have the time to read that I once did.

It's kind of funny, though ... I always fancied myself something of a literary snob that took pride in avoiding the "book of the moment". I was late to the party in terms of excellent works including Stieg Larsson's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo trilogy, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, and even the dreaded Twilight books (which I couldn't stop reading until I was finished and realized how poorly written and unoriginal they were).

Perhaps the greatest proof of what an idiot I was? I received a copy of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird from my eighth grade English teacher as a prize for a writing contest. Totally refused to read it because it was "supposed to be so great and all the books that have that reputation totally SUCK." Well, it didn't suck (it is, in fact, my favorite book of all time)

I even eschewed Dan Brown for months even when everyone on the planet was reading The Da Vinci Code.

So I guess it's no surprise, really, that I somehow missed this one.


Published in 1995, Gregory Maguire's Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West tells the backstory of Elphaba (sound out the initials of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz author L. Frank Baum for the pronunciation) ... including her run-ins with Dorothy, Toto, the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion.

Can I just say that this book is blowing my mind?

I'm a huge fan of Baum's Oz books, and this book is making me question motivations and points of view and bias and bottom lines and so on to the point where I'm probably going to be rereading Baum's canon as soon as possible (which will probably be next Christmas vacation at this point).

The intent of this post is not to be a scene spoiler (plus, I'm only halfway done the book ... I plan on finishing it tonight), but just to contemplate why I am so reluctant to read "popular" books despite the fact that I am almost never disappointed once I give in ... and to see if anyone else has this tendency.

Also, I've got another conundrum ... I have very strong feelings about movie adaptations of books I've enjoyed. Since Wicked has been made into a very popular musical, should I make an effort to see it, or would it be the same kind of limiting, unsatisfactory experience movie adaptations usually are?

If you've ever turned up your nose at a book, eventually changed your mind, and ultimately loved it, please share titles in the comments (and of course any other thoughts this post might inspire ;-))

Behind the Eight Ball, but Needed to Weigh in on New Moon Concerns

The film adaptation of Stephenie Meyer's New Moon comes out at midnight, and the country seems to be abuzz with concerns. I'd noticed the latest vocalization about a series I make no secret of being exhausted with, but I hadn't realized the scope of the chatter this time around until reading an excellent post on Zelda Lily on the theory of Twilight as pro-abstinence.

Since then, I've noticed a lot of people talking about Meyer's characters in a less-than-complimentary light. One of my Journalism students actually mentioned a news report talking about how Bella and Edward are the very epitome of an unhealthy relationship. On my way back from the teachers' room at lunchtime today, I came upon a group of eighth grade girls reading The New York Times (yes, you read that correctly) and discussing--intelligently!--the merits and shortcomings of concerns raised in an article.

I'd never really thought of the Twilight saga as more than a collection that was marginally entertaining the first time around. Now, people are talking about why America is putting an emotionally twisted relationship on a pedestal ... about the sexual repercussions of the books ... about Bella's inability to have any sort of individual identity beyond the men in her life (Edward, Jacob, even her father Charlie) ... about the coyly ambiguous relationship between Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart ...

And I like to think of myself as one who finds philosophy everywhere! Geez Louise ...

My thoughts, in a nutshell:
1. Any books that lead to children reading cannot be all bad.
2. It really pisses me off when there are film adaptations made of books that kids actually read and enjoy (Holes is a great example ... the Harry Potter films are exceptions)
3. Bella and Edward are not good for each other. You do not need another person to make you whole, and their emotional obsession with each other is really pretty creepy.
4. The idea that these books are pro-abstinence is laughable. I mean, there are some pretty hot scenes throughout the course of the series. Although Bella and Edward do (because of circumstances and timing) hold off from actually having sex until they are married, I somehow don't see the pro-abstinence groups embracing the sort of intense foreplay both implied and stated in the books.
5. Bella is a pathetic "leading lady" in that her actions and choices are dictated by men (or her mother, whose life revolves around her new husband).
5a. I think it's kind of ironic that Bella names her baby daughter Renesmee after two women in her life--two mothers, if you will--when neither played what could be called a pivotal role in the saga.
6. Pattinson and Stewart are probably dating (or something ... but were told to keep it on the DL so as not to spoil that "pro-abstinence thing")

While I have read the entire series, I did not see Twilight and I do not intend to see New Moon (much to Addie's chagrin). My thoughts are based entirely on the books.

What are your thoughts on the bizarre phenomena of suddenly coming up with all of these concerns about a series that has been in the public eye for years?

Trying to Make Sense of the "Twilight" Phenomena

As a teacher, I make a serious effort to read every book a student recommends to me. I see it as a matter of respect; if a teenager is willing to put him- or herself out there and say, “Gee, I think you’ll like this book,” I feel a responsibility to take the time to at least give it a shot.

Still, I was reluctant to take up Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight, despite the growing number of students telling me how amazing it was. I can’t explain why this was, although I think the apple on the cover (and the idea of a town called Forks) just randomly irked me.

Between Addie jumping on the Meyer bandwagon and one of my students pointing out, “You didn’t want to read Harry Potter either, but you ended up loving them,” I finally decided to give the book a fair shake … and got sucked in.

I read the first three books—Twilight, New Moon, and Eclipse—in one frenzied weekend. I was captivated by the seemingly impossible love story between awkward, recently-uprooted from-Arizona-to-Washington-state Bella and the human-respecting vampire, Edward. I found Edward’s “vegetarian vampire” family fascinating, their struggles different (but no less difficult) than when they were human. The development of a love triangle between Bella, Edward, and a werewolf (along with unspeakably awful villains) kept me turning pages late into the night.

All right, I have to confess, I was one of those freaks panting to get a midnight copy of Breaking Dawn when it was first released. In fact, I was tempted to buy two copies since Addie had made it clear that she would be reading it first (only fair, as she’d gotten into the series long before I had). When I finally got my hands on it, I ate up the conclusion in one night.

Okay, another confession. Once I’ve read a book, the odds are pretty good that I’ll reread it at some point in time. After all, I seem to get something different out of a work of literature every time I open it up. Therefore, when I found myself looking for a book to read in late August and my eyes happened upon Twilight, it seemed like a great opportunity to revisit some old friends.

I didn’t even make it fifty pages before closing the book and moving on, something that I almost never do. I made a mental note that Stephenie Meyer’s vampire series was on a short list—books that I could only read and enjoy once.

Stephen King has taken a lot of heat for saying to a USA Today journalist about J.K. Rowling of Harry Potter fame and Meyer, “They’re speaking directly to young people. The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good.”

This stood out to me because I couldn’t put my thumb on why I can reread Rowling’s Harry Potter books over and over, while Meyer’s series was a one-shot deal for me. With that being said, though, I was unquestionably bitten by the Twilight bug, obsessed with finding out exactly what was going to happen. I could not put those books down while in the midst of the world Meyer created. Even if my visit was short-lived, Meyer’s writing had the power to keep me turning pages, so I think dismissing her as “not very good” is not really fair.

Ultimately, Meyer has inspired kids to read. Her books may not go down in history as fine works of literature, but they have sparked an interest in people of all ages and for that they deserve a measure of respect.

If you haven’t read the Twilight series, you should. Like popcorn at the movies and the center of a Tootsie Roll pop, you’ll enjoy it … just bear in mind that the pleasure associated with reading these books may well be gone (like a lollipop) when you are done.