James Dashner did what seems to be increasingly popular in Young Adult fiction–he wrote a dystopian trilogy. I have only read The Maze Runner so far, since I wanted to read it before seeing the movie.
The Maze Runner, as many books do, seems to draw on previous stories and change things about them. I specifically felt there were similarities to Lord of the Flies. That’s not a bad thing, since Lord of the Flies is one of the classics.
Where The Maze Runner differs is in the setting, the time period, and the conflict. The kids in The Maze Runner are stuck in a glade that’s inside a giant maze, and the main conflict results from them trying to find a way out and avoid the monsters in the maze. In the movie, a lot of this action–the time spent studying the maze–is either fast-forwarded or not even discussed. I understand movies have to be condensed, but it didn’t seem to be handled well. I walked away with the feeling that the director was banking on people having read the book.
The movie is still entertaining, even if the fighting action sequences were too blurry to follow well. It does stick to the book in most essentials. Of course, it has a cliff-hanger ending since it’s based on the first book of a trilogy. This was still a novel (no pun intended) thing way back when Peter Jackson directed the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Is it going old? Well, it’s making money, so I don’t see the practice changing anytime soon, but it gets tiring sometimes.
The book has interesting ideas and presents them in an entertaining format. I wish the movie had followed it a little better, but it was still entertaining as well. It remains to be seen how strong the whole trilogy will be.
Veronica Roth’s Divergent trilogy has been compared to Suzanne Collins Hunger Games trilogy. So far, I’ve only read Divergent, but I can see why people would make that comparison. However, I don’t think the two are similar much beyond the fact that they are both young adult dystopian trilogies.
In Divergent, there is a world that is both more familiar and more unique. What makes it familiar are the location–Chicago in the future–and what is different is the idea of all people being divided into five factions, and each faction having a specific set of jobs.
The main character, Beatrice or Tris, changes factions, but finds she still doesn’t fit in. This is something that most people can relate to, at least in some point in their lives. Roth may play the concept up a lot, but it’s important to the story line. What is interesting is that the “outsiders,” those who don’t fit in, are also those who can’t be controlled like everyone else.
Maybe being the odd one in the crowd is better than you think.
The Giver, directed by Phillip Noyce, is based on the book of the same title, written by Lois Lowry. The book is an early young adult dystopian novel, but it seems much different from the typical dystopian YA novels written today. For one thing, it is more similar to something like Brave New World than it is to The Hunger Games. Why do I say that? Because in The Giver, everyone thinks they are living in a utopia, even though the reality behind the facade is quite chilling. No one, except perhaps some of those in The Capitol, would ever think that in The Hunger Games.
The movie version of The Giver follows the book well in the important areas. As usual, there are a number of changes, but most of them are understandable due to the issues of compressing a book into a movie length.
The actors were well-suited to their parts, especially Jeff Bridges as the Giver. It seems that he has gotten much better over time. Even if he isn’t as old as I imagined the Giver, his performance is thoroughly convincing. The movie also contains some good cinematography and photography.
If you are looking for a movie that combines action with thought-provoking ideas, you should check out The Giver. After all, you might be curious to see a portrayal of what happens when everything is decided for you. Would you be in the majority living in the utopia, or would you be on the fringe, be different?
A while back, a friend recommended Dean Koontz to me. I added him to my mental list of writers to read, and eventually I picked up a couple of his books from the library. I wasn’t impressed by one of his books–Velocity, I believe–but I went on to read Odd Hours anyway. I enjoyed the main character, Odd Thomas, so much that I went back and started reading the series at the beginning, with the book Odd Thomas.
I’m still not entirely sure why I enjoy the series so much, especially since I still don’t care for Dean Koontz’s other books. It’s probably due to the character Odd. The books are strange, bizarre even, with a lot of paranormal themes, but Odd’s narration and wit carry the story through any difficulties. He is a believable character, sometimes stuck in unbelievable situations. And yet I continue to read the stories.
There is now a movie out, also called Odd Thomas, and based on the first book. Anton Yelchin plays Odd, and does a good job of portraying the character without making the story silly.
I would recommend both the books and the movie to anyone who wants to enjoy a humorous, engaging story told by a likable chap. Even if you’re not a fan of paranormal stories, you should give Odd a chance!
It often happens that I have discussions about books and writers with friends and family. I have had two such conversations recently. One has to do with the idea that a reader can learn much about other areas and cultures by reading, even if they are unable to travel. Neither Emily Dickinson nor Jane Austen traveled much in their lifetimes, and yet many readers have appreciated their work for years.
If one has the ability to read, it can open up the world in ways that most other activities cannot. The more you read, the more free you become, and the more you learn about yourself and others. Malcolm X was semi-literate, so he started copying out the dictionary when he was in prison. Once he started learning words, he was able to read and understand books. He read all the time, and even said that up until that time of his life he had never been so free.
Books are powerful. Words are powerful. The more we read, the more we can understand and grow. And, really, it’s fun!
There haven’t seemed to be many new interesting movies recently, so I’ve been watching some classics that have been recommended. One that I watched last week was the 1966 version of A Man for all Seasons, starring Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More.
A Man for all Seasons is the story of More and King Henry VIII, who were friends. However, the story ends with More’s execution because he wouldn’t go against his conscience and agree with the King’s divorce, remarriage, and creation of a new church.
Scofield does a good job of showing the influence that More had in his day, and why it was so important to King Henry that he had More’s “blessing.” More’s silence spoke louder than the words of agreement or disagreement from many others.
It is refreshing, in our age of political pay-offs, to see an official who was truly honest. In fact, More was so honest he couldn’t go against his conscience, and it cost him his life.
A Man for all Seasons may not be as action-packed as most modern movies, but it is a good story. It has the benefit of being a true story, and it is one that we can learn from today.
Rose Under Fire, by Elizabeth Wein, is a sequel of sorts to Wein’s Code Name Verity, although one does not have to read one to understand the other. The style is similar, since both are told predominately through the eyes of a girl (or girls) writing a journal. The form might sound tedious, but it is well done and engaging.
I enjoyed Code Name Verity, but I think Rose Under Fire is better. It is more believable, yet more horrible in subject matter. It is the story of Rose Justice, an American civilian pilot, who is captured by the Germans and sent to Ravensbrück, a women’s concentration camp.
Rose Under Fire is Rose’s story of her time in Ravensbrück, who she met there, and how she survived. It is similar to many other stories, but it is geared toward a younger audience. As such, it is not as graphic as some books in descriptions of what happened, but still doesn’t shy away from depicting what went on.
I would recommend that young people, especially, read this book, so that they never forget what happened during World War II.
There are a lot of books written about WWII, but not that many for young adults, especially not with girls as the protagonists. Elizabeth Wein, however, has written an excellent book called Code Name Verity. The story is mainly about two girls who become friends and help out in the war effort, in different ways. They have different backgrounds and personalities, but they work together and form a lasting friendship.
Code Name Verity is written most in journal-type form, but done well so the story moves along and holds the reader’s interest. It is well-written and definitely worth checking out.
I am not always a fan of animated movies, especially Disney animated movies. I went to Frozen anyway, and it turned out to be much better than I was anticipating. In fact, it almost seems that they listened to some of the complaints that many people have voiced over the years, and changed how the heroine is saved in the climax of the movie.
Another thing that is enjoyable about Frozen is that it takes place in Norway, which is not the usual setting for a Disney movie. How do I know it was Norway, and not a different Scandinavian country? Well, it is full of Fjord horses, the main city is built next to a fjord, and they mention lutefisk.
The story is better than many animations, as well. It deals with family issues and with the subject that Disney often ruins or makes absurd–falling in love. Of course, there is also a lot of comic relief, available in the form of a silly reindeer, a talking snowman, and, of course, trolls.
Frozen is a movie that a whole family could enjoy, especially at this time of year. It certainly doesn’t hurt that the soundtrack is quite excellent, too!
It’s official–I’ve become a Whovian. But, really, what’s not to like about an alien who can regenerate and (in one form) thinks bow ties are cool?
In a world gone a little mad–many people becoming more and more self-serving and narcissitic, or obsessed with narcissistic celebrities, it is refreshing to have a character who tries to live honorably and help others. The Doctor is an egotistical and flawed character, but he is still motivated by a desire to help people and show them the beauty of the universe.
It certainly helps that the show has a lot of wit, intelligence, and humor. I think, however, that one thing I like most about the character of the Doctor is his willingness to be an extreme individual–he stands out because he doesn’t mind standing out. He’s unique, and he attracts unique people who work with him. In a world obsessed with fitting in, it’s nice to have a hero who doesn’t care about such ridiculous things. After all, you never know when you’ll meet someone named Alonso, so you can say “Allons-y, Alonso!” And bow ties are cool.