Serenity
I wanted to give this book five stars, but it's a shame I can't. Before explaining why, I want to say that I love this story. The beginning is strong and intriguing, and although I've heard someone say it gets boring midway, I couldn't disagree more. It will only be boring if you don't like the characters, and I loved them all.
Linus is a “fluffy” caseworker that has to go to an “orphanage” (it's more of a home) to investigate if this home should stay open or be closed. Arthur runs the home and cares for six magical children. Linus must stay for a month and give a professional recommendation regarding whether it's a suitable place for the children to live.
All of them are delightful, wonderful kids. By the end of his stay, Linus comes to realize his unintentional prejudice against magical creatures and starts to realize that “how things are” shouldn't in fact be that way. The whole story is about changing your perception of people you do not understand. The gist of the story is that we demonize beings who we do not understand, which brings me to why I could only rate this 3.5 stars.
One child in particular is six year old Lucifer, or “Lucy”, who is supposedly the “antichrist”. I will say this straight out: I do NOT believe that Lucy is the son of the devil. From the beginning, I always imagined that this was a name given to him because the people around him were frightened of him and demonized him. They saw a child that was so powerful that they had to name him after the antichrist out of fear and prejudice. It makes complete sense in my mind. Yet, even Arthur believes that he is the antichrist (page 121 and 392). I could never believe it though, and was disappointed that Arthur believed he was. Like, how?? Did Satan sign his parental rights away?! It's completely illogical that Arthur believes that. I can believe in gnomes and magical creatures, but I just couldn't accept that Lucy was the antichrist. It makes more sense that Lucy is merely misunderstood.
We saw this misunderstanding with another child, Chauncy. He's a magical creature that resembles a watery jellyfish. Before going to live with Arthur, people told Chauncy that he was “the monster under the bed”. Now, he's internalized this perception of himself from others and hides under beds. I feel that Lucy is the same way.
It wasn't until I read TJ Klune's notes that I accepted that Lucy was the antichrist. Klune said he purposefully made Lucy the antichrist because he wanted to explore “nature vs nurture”, but I just couldn't believe it as I read it. I was literally waiting for someone to defend Lucy and declare that he wasn't the antichrist, but it never came. Furthermore, the antichrist is not a “magical creature”, unless it was his intention to hint at that. I don't know. I'm just extremely disappointed that Klune kept the joke running. Lucy is no demon and no devil. He's an innocent little boy that's been traumatized and is scared about who and what he is. He needs therapy and love. And like Linus said, Arthur IS HIS FATHER (page 359), and later, so is Linus. That's how I wish it would have been- Linus and Arthur vehemently denying that Lucy is the antichrist and insisting that others are judging him based on appearance- but TJ Klune sticks to the joke. He could have still used the “he's the antichrist” joke, but the fact it was “real” in the story is extremely disappointing.
Despite my disagreement with the author on how he handled Lucy, I still feel that this is a lovely, wholesome story about two beautiful men falling in love, and adopting six hilarious children. It's become a favorite of mine, and I'll be re-reading it again in the future.
Edit: forgot to mention that I was disappointed that the book had a handful of instances that were distinctly anti-Christian and none showing the opposite. I fully acknowledge that there are aspects of Christianity that are wrong (because human beings are sinful), but I wish that Klune had included at least one moment demonstrating the goodness that exists in Christianity too. It's ironic that a book about prejudice seems to be prejudice itself against a religion. It would have been nice for at least one character to represent how a Christian should be. One particular character, Helen, could have worn a cross like her nephew to show that there are good people in the faith too. It was definitely a missed opportunity I would have appreciated. Maybe it was done on purpose, which is a shame.
Edit 2: I also forgot to mention that I didn't like the ending reunion. It confused me. I don't understand why all the children was so angry at Linus for leaving when they literally had a party for him because he was leaving. Linus had to do so much groveling when he begged them to forgive him for leaving to do his job, and I thought it was so unnecessary after he fought so hard for them to keep their home.
I wanted to give this book five stars, but it's a shame I can't. Before explaining why, I want to say that I love this story. The beginning is strong and intriguing, and although I've heard someone say it gets boring midway, I couldn't disagree more. It will only be boring if you don't like the characters, and I loved them all.
Linus is a “fluffy” caseworker that has to go to an “orphanage” (it's more of a home) to investigate if this home should stay open or be closed. Arthur runs the home and cares for six magical children. Linus must stay for a month and give a professional recommendation regarding whether it's a suitable place for the children to live.
All of them are delightful, wonderful kids. By the end of his stay, Linus comes to realize his unintentional prejudice against magical creatures and starts to realize that “how things are” shouldn't in fact be that way. The whole story is about changing your perception of people you do not understand. The gist of the story is that we demonize beings who we do not understand, which brings me to why I could only rate this 3.5 stars.
One child in particular is six year old Lucifer, or “Lucy”, who is supposedly the “antichrist”. I will say this straight out: I do NOT believe that Lucy is the son of the devil. From the beginning, I always imagined that this was a name given to him because the people around him were frightened of him and demonized him. They saw a child that was so powerful that they had to name him after the antichrist out of fear and prejudice. It makes complete sense in my mind. Yet, even Arthur believes that he is the antichrist (page 121 and 392). I could never believe it though, and was disappointed that Arthur believed he was. Like, how?? Did Satan sign his parental rights away?! It's completely illogical that Arthur believes that. I can believe in gnomes and magical creatures, but I just couldn't accept that Lucy was the antichrist. It makes more sense that Lucy is merely misunderstood.
We saw this misunderstanding with another child, Chauncy. He's a magical creature that resembles a watery jellyfish. Before going to live with Arthur, people told Chauncy that he was “the monster under the bed”. Now, he's internalized this perception of himself from others and hides under beds. I feel that Lucy is the same way.
It wasn't until I read TJ Klune's notes that I accepted that Lucy was the antichrist. Klune said he purposefully made Lucy the antichrist because he wanted to explore “nature vs nurture”, but I just couldn't believe it as I read it. I was literally waiting for someone to defend Lucy and declare that he wasn't the antichrist, but it never came. Furthermore, the antichrist is not a “magical creature”, unless it was his intention to hint at that. I don't know. I'm just extremely disappointed that Klune kept the joke running. Lucy is no demon and no devil. He's an innocent little boy that's been traumatized and is scared about who and what he is. He needs therapy and love. And like Linus said, Arthur IS HIS FATHER (page 359), and later, so is Linus. That's how I wish it would have been- Linus and Arthur vehemently denying that Lucy is the antichrist and insisting that others are judging him based on appearance- but TJ Klune sticks to the joke. He could have still used the “he's the antichrist” joke, but the fact it was “real” in the story is extremely disappointing.
Despite my disagreement with the author on how he handled Lucy, I still feel that this is a lovely, wholesome story about two beautiful men falling in love, and adopting six hilarious children. It's become a favorite of mine, and I'll be re-reading it again in the future.
Edit: forgot to mention that I was disappointed that the book had a handful of instances that were distinctly anti-Christian and none showing the opposite. I fully acknowledge that there are aspects of Christianity that are wrong (because human beings are sinful), but I wish that Klune had included at least one moment demonstrating the goodness that exists in Christianity too. It's ironic that a book about prejudice seems to be prejudice itself against a religion. It would have been nice for at least one character to represent how a Christian should be. One particular character, Helen, could have worn a cross like her nephew to show that there are good people in the faith too. It was definitely a missed opportunity I would have appreciated. Maybe it was done on purpose, which is a shame.
Edit 2: I also forgot to mention that I didn't like the ending reunion. It confused me. I don't understand why all the children was so angry at Linus for leaving when they literally had a party for him because he was leaving. Linus had to do so much groveling when he begged them to forgive him for leaving to do his job, and I thought it was so unnecessary after he fought so hard for them to keep their home.
This book was not what I expected. If you think it's going to be like the Disney version, you're in for a big surprise. This story is very different. Some of it I liked, and most of it I didn't.
In a nutshell, I would say that I prefer Disney's Peter Pan over the novel. The story had a strong start. It felt very magical, but it lost that magic towards the end and I lost interest. The last chapter is especially sad since it's based in the future and some characters are dead, and worse, Peter forgets them.
Pro:
- Tiger Lily is a badass! She carries a hatchet with her and even Captain Hook fears her
Cons:
- Some parts are confusing and hard to follow. For example, “Mrs. Darling's Kiss” is a phrase I don't understand and is never explained in the book.
- Peter Pan: book!Pan is VERY different from Disney!Pan. He's way more childish and ruthless. He nearly kills all the pirates and then forgets them. He's extremely forgetful. At the end of the book, he even forget who Tinker Bell was after she died. He didn't even remember who Captain Hook was. He also has this thing about believing “make belief play.” For example, if you pretend to give him an apple to eat, he will actually believe that he ate an apple. All of the other children knew that they were playing pretend, but not Peter. It made the other children feel uncomfortable, but everyone was too scared to tell Peter that it was fake.
- Ending: I preferred the Disney movie ending to the book ending. Hook's plan to kill Peter is way too complicated in the book. I just felt it was needlessly complicated and it dragged too long.
At the end of the story, JM Barry (the author) makes it a point to repeat multiple times that the only children who can fly are those who are “gay and innocent and heartless“, meaning that they were “happy, innocent, and heartless”. I interpret this as meaning that Peter Pan is a character who is very carefree, young, and heartless in the sense that he lacks the social and emotional maturity to the point where he is hurtful to others and very self-centered. That basically sums up Peter Pan's character in this book.
In the Disney movie, he is immature, but he's not heartless. He's also far more charismatic in the Disney movie than in the novel. In the book, the lost boys simultaneously fear and respect him, and then they decide to leave him and stay with Wendy's parents. Whereas in the movie, they stayed with Peter out of loyalty and respect.
This book was not what I expected. If you think it's going to be like the Disney version, you're in for a big surprise. This story is very different. Some of it I liked, and most of it I didn't.
In a nutshell, I would say that I prefer Disney's Peter Pan over the novel. The story had a strong start. It felt very magical, but it lost that magic towards the end and I lost interest. The last chapter is especially sad since it's based in the future and some characters are dead, and worse, Peter forgets them.
Pro:
- Tiger Lily is a badass! She carries a hatchet with her and even Captain Hook fears her
Cons:
- Some parts are confusing and hard to follow. For example, “Mrs. Darling's Kiss” is a phrase I don't understand and is never explained in the book.
- Peter Pan: book!Pan is VERY different from Disney!Pan. He's way more childish and ruthless. He nearly kills all the pirates and then forgets them. He's extremely forgetful. At the end of the book, he even forget who Tinker Bell was after she died. He didn't even remember who Captain Hook was. He also has this thing about believing “make belief play.” For example, if you pretend to give him an apple to eat, he will actually believe that he ate an apple. All of the other children knew that they were playing pretend, but not Peter. It made the other children feel uncomfortable, but everyone was too scared to tell Peter that it was fake.
- Ending: I preferred the Disney movie ending to the book ending. Hook's plan to kill Peter is way too complicated in the book. I just felt it was needlessly complicated and it dragged too long.
At the end of the story, JM Barry (the author) makes it a point to repeat multiple times that the only children who can fly are those who are “gay and innocent and heartless“, meaning that they were “happy, innocent, and heartless”. I interpret this as meaning that Peter Pan is a character who is very carefree, young, and heartless in the sense that he lacks the social and emotional maturity to the point where he is hurtful to others and very self-centered. That basically sums up Peter Pan's character in this book.
In the Disney movie, he is immature, but he's not heartless. He's also far more charismatic in the Disney movie than in the novel. In the book, the lost boys simultaneously fear and respect him, and then they decide to leave him and stay with Wendy's parents. Whereas in the movie, they stayed with Peter out of loyalty and respect.
Jurassic Park is one of the rare instances where the movie is superior to the book. I'm rating this a 4 due to its boring start (pre-island), it's stupid ending, and the fact that Malcolm and Genaro carried the story for me. This book is very different from the movie. Both have their strengths, which I will share via spoilers.
What the movie did better:
1. The kids. They are annoying in the book. I understand that Lex is 7 or 8 years old, so she deserves a plethora of grace, but she's extremely annoying. The author seemed to hate her; she made all of these mistakes that nearly killed them. She was even pooped on by a pterodactyl. Whereas Tim is 11 yrs old and this brilliant little Dino-nerd that is the only one that can work the computer and bring the power online (instead of Lex in the movie). I much prefer their behavior and relationship in the movie where Tim still loves dinos, but Lex is mature and the elder sister.
2. The movie bypasses the boring backstory for the most part while keeping the most important scenes I think.
3. The characters in the movie are more likable for the most part, minus Genaro!! They did my man Genaro dirty in the movie. Not cool. I really liked Genaro in the book- more on that later. Ellie Sattler specifically was shown to be more interesting and fleshed out than the book. In the novel, she's mostly admired for her legs rather than her scientific knowledge.
4. The ending. The book ending is so boring, dumb, and anti-climatic. To start, the raptors in the main building are not killed by a trex. They are killed by Grant tricking them into eating eggs filled with some sort of chemical that poisons them (forgot which). He killed like, three of them this way. In no way did I find this believable or exciting. One raptor, yes, three - no. Then when the raptors are gone, Hammond is practically MIA and Genaro is the one to call the Costa Rican government for help to blow up the island via air strike. Grant goes berserk, roughing him up physically and blaming HIM solely for the park (not Hammond), forcing him to search for the raptors nest to count the number of creatures to make sure they all die. I thought it was extremely unfair of Grant to assault Genaro and call him a coward. I firmly believe that Grant's priority in seeking the raptor nests was scientific curiosity, not genuine concern for mankind. Muldoon should have backed him up, as he and Genaro spent lots of time together, but even he turns on Genaro at the end and threatens him with electric shock to get him into the raptor nest. When they are finally at the nest, nothing happens. The adult raptors miraculously don't notice 3 humans (unbelievable) in their den. Then everyone is rushed from the island and the Costa Rican government blows it up. Soooo boring.
Things I think the book did better:
1. Malcolm is even cooler! We get far more monologue from Malcolm in the book than the movie, and he's somehow cooler. The fact that he's balding just makes him more badass because he doesn't let his receding hairline take away from the fact that he's intelligent as hell with his chaos theory. God I love Malcolm.
2. More Dr. Wu: Dr. Wu was hardly in the movie, which is a shame. In the book, he and Hammond have lots of moments together where we learn more about him. He's brave, and tries to save Ellie when the raptors were trying to kill her. I was sad to see him die in such a gruesome way, but there is something poetic about the major players in Jurassic Park dying at the claws of their own creation (Hammond, Arnold, and Wu).
3. Genaro the Lawyer is badass. The movie did him dirty and combined him with Ed Regis' character in the book, the Public Relations person that pees his pants and abandons the kids in the car. In the book, Genaro stays with Ellie and the vet with the triceratops, so he never encounters the Rex and gets eaten. Then, Ellie stays behind, but Genaro goes out with Muldoon to find Grant and the kids, and he is out there in the park trying to help get the park up and running. He even agrees to help Muldoon with the raptors although he's afraid. I don't blame him for wanting nothing to do with the raptors nests at the end. Frankly, it's easy for Grant to call him a coward when no one is waiting for him at home. Genaro has a wife and kids to take care of, so he shouldn't be treated like shit at the end when he's already risked his neck multiple times.
Other things didn't like about the book:
1. The trex following Grant and the kids. It's literally stalking them. Why!? There are so many dinos for the trex to eat. Why follow the three, small humans so much?
2. Grant never confronting Hammond about his role in opening a dangerous park. I guess he didn't want to risk pissing off the man that funds his dig sites (coward).
Anyways, I rate it a 4/5 for these reasons. I still loved the book, and I enjoyed the narrator for the audiobook.
Jurassic Park is one of the rare instances where the movie is superior to the book. I'm rating this a 4 due to its boring start (pre-island), it's stupid ending, and the fact that Malcolm and Genaro carried the story for me. This book is very different from the movie. Both have their strengths, which I will share via spoilers.
What the movie did better:
1. The kids. They are annoying in the book. I understand that Lex is 7 or 8 years old, so she deserves a plethora of grace, but she's extremely annoying. The author seemed to hate her; she made all of these mistakes that nearly killed them. She was even pooped on by a pterodactyl. Whereas Tim is 11 yrs old and this brilliant little Dino-nerd that is the only one that can work the computer and bring the power online (instead of Lex in the movie). I much prefer their behavior and relationship in the movie where Tim still loves dinos, but Lex is mature and the elder sister.
2. The movie bypasses the boring backstory for the most part while keeping the most important scenes I think.
3. The characters in the movie are more likable for the most part, minus Genaro!! They did my man Genaro dirty in the movie. Not cool. I really liked Genaro in the book- more on that later. Ellie Sattler specifically was shown to be more interesting and fleshed out than the book. In the novel, she's mostly admired for her legs rather than her scientific knowledge.
4. The ending. The book ending is so boring, dumb, and anti-climatic. To start, the raptors in the main building are not killed by a trex. They are killed by Grant tricking them into eating eggs filled with some sort of chemical that poisons them (forgot which). He killed like, three of them this way. In no way did I find this believable or exciting. One raptor, yes, three - no. Then when the raptors are gone, Hammond is practically MIA and Genaro is the one to call the Costa Rican government for help to blow up the island via air strike. Grant goes berserk, roughing him up physically and blaming HIM solely for the park (not Hammond), forcing him to search for the raptors nest to count the number of creatures to make sure they all die. I thought it was extremely unfair of Grant to assault Genaro and call him a coward. I firmly believe that Grant's priority in seeking the raptor nests was scientific curiosity, not genuine concern for mankind. Muldoon should have backed him up, as he and Genaro spent lots of time together, but even he turns on Genaro at the end and threatens him with electric shock to get him into the raptor nest. When they are finally at the nest, nothing happens. The adult raptors miraculously don't notice 3 humans (unbelievable) in their den. Then everyone is rushed from the island and the Costa Rican government blows it up. Soooo boring.
Things I think the book did better:
1. Malcolm is even cooler! We get far more monologue from Malcolm in the book than the movie, and he's somehow cooler. The fact that he's balding just makes him more badass because he doesn't let his receding hairline take away from the fact that he's intelligent as hell with his chaos theory. God I love Malcolm.
2. More Dr. Wu: Dr. Wu was hardly in the movie, which is a shame. In the book, he and Hammond have lots of moments together where we learn more about him. He's brave, and tries to save Ellie when the raptors were trying to kill her. I was sad to see him die in such a gruesome way, but there is something poetic about the major players in Jurassic Park dying at the claws of their own creation (Hammond, Arnold, and Wu).
3. Genaro the Lawyer is badass. The movie did him dirty and combined him with Ed Regis' character in the book, the Public Relations person that pees his pants and abandons the kids in the car. In the book, Genaro stays with Ellie and the vet with the triceratops, so he never encounters the Rex and gets eaten. Then, Ellie stays behind, but Genaro goes out with Muldoon to find Grant and the kids, and he is out there in the park trying to help get the park up and running. He even agrees to help Muldoon with the raptors although he's afraid. I don't blame him for wanting nothing to do with the raptors nests at the end. Frankly, it's easy for Grant to call him a coward when no one is waiting for him at home. Genaro has a wife and kids to take care of, so he shouldn't be treated like shit at the end when he's already risked his neck multiple times.
Other things didn't like about the book:
1. The trex following Grant and the kids. It's literally stalking them. Why!? There are so many dinos for the trex to eat. Why follow the three, small humans so much?
2. Grant never confronting Hammond about his role in opening a dangerous park. I guess he didn't want to risk pissing off the man that funds his dig sites (coward).
Anyways, I rate it a 4/5 for these reasons. I still loved the book, and I enjoyed the narrator for the audiobook.
This ending was the best so far! Somewhat what I was expecting, but not quite. Bittersweet, but full of hope for Fireheart and Thunderclan. The beginning was sooo slow though, and I disliked (nearly hated) Graystripe so much for always being absent from the clan and Fireheart. Apparently, Fireheart's worry about Graystripe's loyalty to the clan proved to be justified as Graystripe clearly didn't care about Thunderclan by the end, so I'm glad he leaves. It made the ending more tolerable, but my heart ached for Fireheart.
It was also nice to finally see Fireheart vindicated in this novel and the mystery of Tigerclaw's loyalty finally being resolved. Honestly, I thought the ending would have been much worse with more death, but in a way, it was since something died inside Bluestar, Fireheart, Tigerclaw, and the Clan. Putting it that way, Tigerclaw's betrayal took much more than lives away.
This ending was the best so far! Somewhat what I was expecting, but not quite. Bittersweet, but full of hope for Fireheart and Thunderclan. The beginning was sooo slow though, and I disliked (nearly hated) Graystripe so much for always being absent from the clan and Fireheart. Apparently, Fireheart's worry about Graystripe's loyalty to the clan proved to be justified as Graystripe clearly didn't care about Thunderclan by the end, so I'm glad he leaves. It made the ending more tolerable, but my heart ached for Fireheart.
It was also nice to finally see Fireheart vindicated in this novel and the mystery of Tigerclaw's loyalty finally being resolved. Honestly, I thought the ending would have been much worse with more death, but in a way, it was since something died inside Bluestar, Fireheart, Tigerclaw, and the Clan. Putting it that way, Tigerclaw's betrayal took much more than lives away.
The audiobook was FANTASTIC and only about 5ish hours long. Highly recommend it as there are multiple colorful narrators that truly bring life to the characters. That being said, all the names will probably be misspelled.
This story did not go as I expected it to; it was much better!! I would say that it had a very strong beginning, somewhat slower middle, but a fast paced and exciting ending. Our main character is a princess named Cimorene. She doesn't want to be a conventional princess and marry a prince, so she runs away to be a dragon's princess. Specifically, Kazul's princess.
Kazul is a super cool dragon. She completely sounds and acts like a dragon, but she is also very witty, intelligent, and cunning. She treats Cimorene well and fairly. I adored their relationship. I wouldn't call them friends, but they were friendly to each other, and there was loyalty and a bond between them both. Their personalities were perfect for each other.
Along the way, Cimorene also meets another princess named Aleanora. They had a nice friendship. I liked how all of the princesses got to see each other despite being captured by dragons. I expected Cimorene to end up finding a prince and falling in love, but instead, she helps the other girls find princes, which was great! I totally wasn't expecting it, and I actually really like that she stayed by Kazul's side when Kazul became king of the dragons. She isn't ready to settle down yet, and that's OK. She should enjoy her freedom while she can.
Overall, I would call this a lighthearted and charming fantasy story. It's silly and cute, but not childish. It's always lovely to read a story about dragons without the “the dragons are dying out“ or “this is the last dragon alive” tropes. I would recommend it to others, and I would listen to it again in the future.
The audiobook was FANTASTIC and only about 5ish hours long. Highly recommend it as there are multiple colorful narrators that truly bring life to the characters. That being said, all the names will probably be misspelled.
This story did not go as I expected it to; it was much better!! I would say that it had a very strong beginning, somewhat slower middle, but a fast paced and exciting ending. Our main character is a princess named Cimorene. She doesn't want to be a conventional princess and marry a prince, so she runs away to be a dragon's princess. Specifically, Kazul's princess.
Kazul is a super cool dragon. She completely sounds and acts like a dragon, but she is also very witty, intelligent, and cunning. She treats Cimorene well and fairly. I adored their relationship. I wouldn't call them friends, but they were friendly to each other, and there was loyalty and a bond between them both. Their personalities were perfect for each other.
Along the way, Cimorene also meets another princess named Aleanora. They had a nice friendship. I liked how all of the princesses got to see each other despite being captured by dragons. I expected Cimorene to end up finding a prince and falling in love, but instead, she helps the other girls find princes, which was great! I totally wasn't expecting it, and I actually really like that she stayed by Kazul's side when Kazul became king of the dragons. She isn't ready to settle down yet, and that's OK. She should enjoy her freedom while she can.
Overall, I would call this a lighthearted and charming fantasy story. It's silly and cute, but not childish. It's always lovely to read a story about dragons without the “the dragons are dying out“ or “this is the last dragon alive” tropes. I would recommend it to others, and I would listen to it again in the future.
Added to listOwnedwith 31 books.
The cat in the hat does it again. He makes the impossible happen, but somehow he makes it right. It's a cute story to read.
The cat in the hat does it again. He makes the impossible happen, but somehow he makes it right. It's a cute story to read.
The cat in the hat does it again. He makes the impossible happen, but somehow he makes it right. It's a cute story to read.
The cat in the hat does it again. He makes the impossible happen, but somehow he makes it right. It's a cute story to read.
