06.14.10
Posted in Writing tagged fanfiction at 11:54 pm by kyrias
I heard about the Clan Mitchell fandom_wank from Thene and just had to go wade around in the glorious, beautiful dramaz.
Couple of things that I thought:
What is wrong with a family that pushes each and every single one of their members to be the best they can possibly be?
Well, I didn’t find that triggering until someone pointed it out because that idea is so ingrained into us, but once I realized what that entailed, I immediately felt as if someone had lit a match under me. Most of the worst mental issues I’ve ever had have come from that concept of “being your best possible self”. In fact, I still routinely get my parents sighing over me and lamenting that “you’re such an intelligent person”!
Yes, well, maybe I can be a rocket scientist if I wanted to be — but isn’t part of the point of it being my life that I get to decide what is fulfilling for me? That maybe I should be allowed the decision to not push myself to the outer limits of my ability because I personally don’t find that necessary for my gratification? That I get to decide if my mind is wasted on what I choose to use it on?
So to answer that question: Yes, there is everything wrong with such a family. In fact, I’m surprised that someone hasn’t stepped up before this and asked for a prompt with someone not being able to take that particular family with its particular set of problems in stride.
Then there’s Synecdochic’s reaction to the “Mitchell-bashing”.
She claims to be gutted by people’s interpretations of her work, that apparently she either hasn’t been writing the story she thought she was or people haven’t been reading the story she was writing, and if so many people agree with that viewpoint, clearly she has failed in communicating the core essential nature of her story and she both doesn’t see any point in trying to correct it and doesn’t know how to.
I’ve read the filling for the prompt. So can you, it’s the first post on this page of screen caps. Personally, I don’t see a problem with that filling. I thought that the writing wasn’t anti-Mitchell, per se, but it brought up issues that probably should have been raised earlier, and that it was a bit of a criticism, but it never went into “bashing” territory. I suppose I can see how she’d be hurt by that interpretation of what she saw as a big happy family, but I can’t see the intense amounts of drama that resulted from it.
After all, I see how my friends relate to my relationship with my parents. I see how I personally relate to their relationships with their parents. It’s pretty clear that what is an optimal parent-child relationship for someone wouldn’t work for someone else, and on the darker side of the scale, what one person can tolerate might just drive someone else running for the hills. Especially when that other person doesn’t have love as a tempering force for the madness.
Fun times all around, I guess.
I’d have to say though, it should probably be taken as a compliment when someone spends enough time in the heads of the people in your universe to be able to write something that well-considered for it.
Permalink
11.24.09
Posted in Writing tagged Mulan at 9:28 pm by kyrias
I was browsing through Amazon’s suggestions for me and I saw that an author I liked did a re-telling of Hua Mulan.
My first reaction was to wince: After all, the disaster that was the Disney reinterpretation is still fresh in my mind despite the years.
But then I thought that perhaps Cameron Dokey, being a better writer than some, might have done something worth reading.
A quick perusal of the reviews persuades me otherwise:
- A prince makes an appearance
- Romance! Love!
- Family dynamic where she didn’t grow up with her father around and he re-marries
- Mulan is once again portrayed as not very feminine
- Making a huge splash in the army
I realise that this is a re-telling and so there has to be artistic license taken with the original story. For some background reading, here’s a translation of the original ballad that inspired numerous re-tellings of Mulan’s story. Here’s another person’s compilation of the various versions of Mulan.
What bothers me is the insistence of writers that a woman who can fight cannot be feminine. In the original ballad, she’s weaving when at the begining. Later on, when she returns home, she turns back to her old clothing and puts on makeup.
I have my own issues with the kick-ass heroines who do it in *gasp* high heels. Or the internal monologue of a certain main character which never quite leaves fashion behind. However, I don’t think it’s particularly hard to imagine that a woman supposedly as intelligent and talented as Mulan is portrayed to be would also be just as good at the more feminine skills. I also don’t find it hard to imagine a woman, weary from war and of acting the part of a man with all the machismo that entails, finding some measure of comfort and joy in returning to her old clothing and feeling pretty again. What I don’t understand is why so many people have a hard time with that idea.
Then there’s the whole concept of Mulan drawing attention to herself. Really, just think about it. You’re a girl trying to fit in with all the guys in the army. The last thing that you want to do is to draw scrutiny to yourself: ergo no showing off and no hobnobbing with all the glamorous sort. So far as I think is reasonable is that she did a good job, enough to be awarded merits, but not enough that she would have particularly stood out. The fact that she was allowed back home is somewhat indicative of that. If she really was a superstar in the army, there would have been no way the emperor would have allowed her to leave. They just didn’t operate that way back then.
Then there’s the romance. *sigh* Alright, I can understand the desire for romance in everything. After all, who doesn’t like a good love story? However, first off, I can’t see her being great buddies with the boys. Secondly, I can’t really see how you can get a love story when the other men see her as a man. Thirdly, they’re in the middle of a war that goes on for at least 12 years according to the ballad. Really — I think survival trumps soft fuzzy feelings at that point. I’ll bet the men would have had more love for a bed and warm meal than their comrade in arms. On top of all that, I just don’t see the men of that era falling for another man. Just saying. But I can put all that aside because you never know.
What really gets my goat is the prince. Why does she have to fall in love with the prince? Who, by the way, never showed up during the original ballad. Right. Artistic license. Where did that prince come from? The princes of old didn’t lead armies themselves that frequently and when they did it’s unlikely that all three of them would have been in the same clump of men. More likely they would have each been a general and wouldn’t have been gadding about together. I think it would have made much more sense for Mulan to have fallen in love with a fellow soldier, if she absolutely had to. The possibility of getting in major trouble for lying to royalty back then probably would have held any warm fuzzy feelings at bay. You know, the type of trouble where everyone you know gets beheaded? It’s called lying to your emperor. Who usually takes a really dim view of such things.
Last but not least: Why have her father be estranged from her for that long? Why was that necessary? Yes. Artistic license again. I just thought that it would have been more true to the spirit of the story for her to have been on good terms with her parents. Personal preference. Right. I’ll shut up about that part then.
I might still pick this book up just to see how Dokey does. She is one of the authors I like, so I’m really willing to give her a sporting try. Maybe she’ll surprise me. I don’t want to buy it though — so we’ll see if the local library can get it. Then I’ll probably post a real review rather than just a rant. 
Permalink
Posted in Writing tagged character sketches at 10:33 pm by kyrias
Caesura
Sex: Male
Sexual orientation: Straight
Vice: Gluttony
Virtue:
Weapons of choice:
Elements of choice:
Appearance: 3
Average height, average build. Dark blond/brown hair with green eyes.
Charisma: 3. Apparently has a good effect on people with authority though.
Presence: 3
Manipulation: 3
Composure: 3
Intelligence: 4
Wits: 4. Clever and funny in conversation with incisive comments. Frequently entertaining. Sometimes crosses over into coming across as a troll though.
Perception: 3, but variable. Can pick up on social and emotional cues if paying attention, but either cannot with regards to people he doesn’t care about, or doesn’t care to. Often comes across as a troll as a result.
Resolve: 2 and somewhat variable. Often neglects duties, although usually has above-par performance at work. One assumes that he uses all willpower on completing his duties and thus fails at other areas.
Leadership: 3
Confidence: A low 3. Has improved since doing well at his job, but still doesn’t appear to be fully past his previous failures.
Self-perception: 2. Subject is not wont to examining his emotions to determine their true cause. Neither is he clear on his strengths.
Common sense: 3
Strength/athleticism: 4
Permalink
Posted in Writing tagged character sketches at 10:20 pm by kyrias
Mr. P
Sex: Male
Sexual orientation: Straight
Vice: Sloth
Virtue:
Weapons of choice:
Elements of choice:
Appearance: 3
Dark blond, almost brown, slightly curly hair. Slightly less than average height, although may appear so because subject is slightly overweight. Fuzzy, straggly facial hair.
Charisma: 3. Apparently has a good effect on professors though.
Presence: 3
Manipulation: A low 3 if not outright 2. Subject’s attempts at manipulation often fail and sometimes backfires spectacularly.
Composure: 3
Intelligence: 4
Wits: 3
Perception: 2. Does not always realize when people are mad at him or when he is being obnoxious, although subject has improved on this front massively since first meeting.
Resolve: 2
Leadership: 2. Has low chance of having others follow his lead, although this may be because subject is often oblivious to outside factors that would serve as obstacles to his plans. In short, doesn’t know his constituency as well as he should.
Confidence: 3
Self-perception: 3. Subject does do a good amount of navel-gazing, which actually might have raised this attribute.
Common sense: 3
Strength/athleticism: 3
Permalink
Posted in Writing tagged character sketches at 9:14 pm by kyrias
Xyfania
Sex: Female
Sexual orientation: Straight
Vice: Wrath
Virtue: Justice
Weapons of choice: Bow and throwing knives
Elements of choice: Wind and water
Appearance: 3
Of Asian descent and petite. Long black hair, dark brown eyes, and slightly on the plump side.
Charisma: 4. Seems to be a either love or hate effect.
Presence: 3, arguably 4 when Wrath is in effect.
Manipulation: 4.
Composure: 2, although this may be a by-product of low confidence rather than purely low by itself. Composure seems to be something that can be raised once problems with confidence has been solved.
Intelligence: 3, perhaps 4, but might have atrophied from lack of use.
Wits: 3
Perception: 4
Resolve: 3
Leadership: 3, perhaps 2. Lack of confidence and composure results in inability or unwillingness to take charge.
Confidence: 2 – lack of self-esteem brings this stat down. Possibly also affected by lack of composure.
Self-perception: 3, perhaps 4, although one could argue that excessive navel-gazing doesn’t necessarily raise this particular attribute.
Common sense: 4 – although this number is based on the idea that common sense isn’t common.
Strength/athleticism: 2
Note: Using 1 - 6 rating system with 3 being average.
Permalink
Posted in Writing tagged character sketches at 8:52 pm by kyrias
Dochola
Sex: Male
Sexual orientation: Straight
Weapon of choice: Information
Element of choice:
Appearance: 3
Brown hair, light blue eyes, bit on the skinny side. Of average height.
Charisma: 4.
Presence: 3 perhaps 2. Tends to fade into background, whether through intent or natural inclination is unknown.
Manipulation: 4. Tends to get his way, but perhaps a by-product of charisma rather than intent. Observer wonders if subject deliberately cultivates air of detachment and occasionally acts infantile to boost his charisma?
Composure: 5
Intelligence: 4
Wits: 4
Perception: 4
Resolve: 3 Have not actually had reason to shift this attribute from normal. Needs further observation.
Leadership: 3 Observations indicate that perhaps 4 may be in order in situation where subject excels, but have currently decided that World of Warcraft is not the most convincing medium.
Confidence: 3 Might have problems with self-esteem – but nothing seems to point to anything too major. This may, however, simply be a result of subject’s high composure, which would limit outside observations. Past choice of girlfriends, however, hint at interesting ideas.
Self-perception: 3
Common sense: 4 – although this number is based on the idea that common sense isn’t common.
Strength/athleticism: 3
Permalink
05.26.09
Posted in Crafts, Ethics and morality, Writing tagged Add new tag, mammothfail09, racefail09 at 12:18 am by kyrias
For those who want to wade through the entire puddle of fail, here’s the link.
To start off with, I’m really appalled regarding Patricia C Wrede’s attitude towards The Thirteenth Child.
To quote:
The *plan* is for it to be a “settling the frontier” book, only without Indians (because I really hate both the older Indians-as-savages viewpoint that was common in that sort of book, *and* the modern Indians-as-gentle-ecologists viewpoint that seems to be so popular lately, and this seems the best way of eliminating the problem, plus it’ll let me play with all sorts of cool megafauna). I’m not looking for wildly divergent history, because if it goes too far afield I won’t get the right feel.
Um. Whut?
First of all, I’m appalled that you’re dismissing the portrayal of an entire race of people as a problem. After all, you’re a writer, isn’t portrayal what you do? Secondly, I’m disappointed in you that you’re so casually restricting viewpoints of Native Americans to these two stereotypes — I think you’re a better writer than this and you’re both being dismissive, insulting, and lazy. Lastly, how can you think that an America without Native Americans isn’t wildly divergent? I rather think that’s also insulting.
God, I hope I’m taking that quote entirely out of context, but I honestly don’t know how I can put it in context.
Then, yet another writer I truly admire really lets me down here.
Lois McMaster Bujold actually starts out rather reasonably, in my opinion, by stating that:
The book actually began with a contemplation of the what-if question, “What would happen if the megafauna survived into historic times…?” The theory presently being argued in archeology is that the pre-Columbian settlers wiped out said megafauna, and that’s the one Pat chose to follow up; so if one wants mammoths and short-faced bears and terror birds, the Bering land bridge human immigration needed not to have taken place, 13,000 years back. From that, the rest followed, q.s. to the limits of a necessarily slim volume.
Alright. So we’re talking an either Native Americans or megafauna scene here, ok. I can buy that. I do wish that she had admitted that the premise could have been interpreted badly, but I’m not horribly upset by her treatment.
Then she starts venturing downhill by not directly addressing the question but asking for the function of fiction:
Which begs a larger question: what is the function of fiction? Social engineering? Propaganda, sermon? Or something else? Windows? Mirrors?
People who come down on the social-engineering side do tend to value a book by how well it serves some agenda outside of itself. I see that as a slippery slope, myself.
What, by the way, is a “moral writer”, in your lexicon? Just for my orientation. That almost slipped past as an undefined term, there.
The problem with her question is that the point is the premise bothers people because it literally erases people who have historically faced genocide. The function of fiction as mirror or window or entertainment isn’t the point. And her question of the definition of moral writer is phrased rather patronizingly, I thought.
It only gets worse:
You know, I thought you were making a few interesting points, till you came to this:
“I’ve come to the conclusion that based on the shadow cast by white supremacist colonization and the ongoing genocide of the original inhabitants of the Americas, I can’t– in good conscience– read the Thirteenth Child. It’s not so much recoiling from a shadow cast by a distortion in my head but disgust with a trope that holds that even when they’re strangers in a strange land, all white people need in order to prosper is whiteness.”
My mother — born in 1912 — used to have a phrase for this: “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”
A stance of moral superiority really cannot be floated over an abyss of ignorance. (Though I admit, people routinely try.) It’s especially not a sound footing for this book which, within the limits of its scope, actually does some very interesting things with subverting assumed Avyrupan dominances.
I will stop recommending you read it, however. The book deserves better than to be pored over by an inquisitor only seeking evidence for a conviction already decided upon.
See, I expected more from Bujold than that. The fact that Skywardprodigal made good points isn’t obscured by her inability to read the book. Also, I thought her tone was definitely patronizing in this post and it seemed that she wasn’t so much interested in discussing the subject, again, as being confrontational. Very disappointing. Not that I think that the others are being brilliant paragons of humanity, but I really did expect more from Bujold.
And the dissenters haven’t even gotten really inflammatory yet.
Then there’s Avalon’s Willow of the Elizabeth Bear kerfuffle fame. I will come out on a limb and freely admit that I cannot agree with this person. She’s abrasive and insulting, not to mention often patronizing. I can see her point, but her presentation turns me off like nothing else:
Don’t you know the Coaltion of White Female SF Authors passed out a memo that states they categorically cannot be thought to hold racist thoughts cause they decided so?
Then Elizabeth Bear told them how all they had to do to interact with PoC was lie to them and belittle them cause it would raise book sales and they all agreed that willful blindness was the new hotness.
What are you doing bringing *HISTORY* and *LOGIC* and *CONTEXT* into conversation? How dare you introduce Post-Colonial Ideology. White people don’t know what that is, it involves brown people. How dare we assume they’d pay attention.
Also? This is Tor’s site. TOR, Skyward. T. O. R - THE ORIGINAL RACISTS. You seriously should know better.
Meanwhile, yet another fantasy novel that glosses over the ugly realities of colonialist narrative by disappearing the native brutally conquered tribes in order to have white people skipping merrily towards Manifest Destiny?
Colour me unsurprised.
You and I, however, know that if it weren’t for grave robbing thus discovering signs of another civilization, stealing of the corn set aside by the natives for their next season’s harvest, and lying in wait for someone to return to claim it; the colonists would have starved to death.
But yeah, who needs Tisquantum. They have Mammoths! And hey, at least no one in this book’s universe will ever bust out with the typical. “But my great great grandmother was a Cherokee Princess!”
I’m going to ignore that shot at Elizabeth Bear and how Avalon’s Willow thinks Bear thinks the coalition of white female SF authors should treat POCs. That remark that implied history and context and logic has no place in this conversation because it involves whites? The one about calling TOR the original racists? I can’t hold with calling an entire company the “original racists”. Feel free to call one person or two people or three or even twenty names — but an entire boatful of people?
Then there’s Kynn who thinks that the theory which says that the Native Americans contributed to the extinction of megafauna is insulting. When challenged, she says:
Whether or not you think it SHOULD be insulting, it definitely IS insulting. (I’m not an American Indian, but I can see the insulting components of this type of worldbuilding.)
Personally I think that humans have caused animal extinction many, many times, and I really can’t see how it’s insulting. You can say it is a faulty theory, but to insist it’s racist?
Bujold steps back with some more fail:
OK, I’ve gone away and thought about this for a few days. Let’s try again. (Also resolved: do not make blog posts after midnight, or after consuming a sleeping pill that isn’t working.)
I have no argument with the larger issues of cultural/racial erasures and historical crimes in the real world; these are real and harrowing (and universal, the more you know about everywhere. _Carthago delenda est_ and all that. But 20,000 wrongs don’t make a right, merely a trend.) Ditto on-going local oppressions; despite the fact that Native Americans are over two million strong, voting citizens, fellow exiles in the 21st century, and many are educated, articulate, and perfectly able to speak for themselves (most of the major tribes have websites now, a thought both hopeful and boggling) poverty and discrimination do still fall disproportionately upon many others. Back to this in a moment.
I still have a profound problem with any argument that leaps from hearsay to condemnation without any intervening stop at “evidence”. It doesn’t matter *what* the subject is, the *form* is wrong, even if the conclusion after examining the evidence bears out the initial belief. And it’s just as wrong in a court of public discourse as it would be in a court of law. Worse, someone making this leap throws every other assertion they may make into doubt — were they all arrived at as casually and cheaply? Don’t do this, people, and don’t let others get away with it, either — because someday, your own life or happiness may depend upon just such due process.
But I also believe that a person who holds admirable opinions, yet does nothing, is scarcely distinguishable from a person who holds execrable opinions, and does nothing. Virtual virtue doesn’t count. Talk is cheap (especially on the Internet.) As Stephen Leacock swears he heard two Scottish Calvinists arguing on a train, on whether damnation is achieved through good works or grace alone, I’m on the good works side, myself.
The past is beyond anyone’s reach, and history is fractal — one sperm over, and we would all have been our siblings, and our own self-centered universes would never have sprung into being at all — so what can an ordinary person do right-here-right-now about any given hurt in the world? The two standard answers are money and time — well, and blood, but I don’t direct where that goes. And “start anywhere” is usually pretty good advice, when one is spoiled for choice.
So I asked my friend who knows about such things, and she supplied these, her favorites — more could perhaps be added:
“Oglala Lakota College — www.olc.edu (They always need contributions to help students pay their loans, without which they can’t graduate.)
Lakota Funds (making mini loans for economic development and training people to run their own businesses) http://www.lakotafunds.org/
Soaring Eagle — not Lakota, but Cheyenne is a neighboring tribe; this is a residential home for elderly Cheyenne started by their long-term priest, Father Emmett Hoffmann, to help elderly folks who needed care (and keep them from being sent off to Denver, away from family and anyone who spoke their language): www.soaringeagle.org/
Also, Running Strong for American Indian Youth — not limited to Lakota, but does do neat things there — organic gardens, etc.”
Didn’t take me long to choose, as I’m always for education — which reminds me that I need to contribute to the engineering scholarship fund in my Dad’s name back at OSU — but to make it extra easy –
https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/6/donate.asp?formid=DonateOLC
It’s as much of a snap as Amazon.com, I found.
And you may at least congratulate yourselves for tipping me over from “I really ought to do that one of these days,” to “There! Done!”
Full disclosure: It was I who invited Pat over, a few years back, to watch a fascinating BBC documentary DVD titled “Walking with Prehistoric Beasts”, which started the cascade of interests that resulted in the book you aren’t reading. So, while the first rule for avoiding Internet insanity is still “do not feed the energy monster”, I really cannot tiptoe away from this. Even though it would be *infinitely* smarter to do so.
Um, Bujold, grats. You just non-apologized, if I’m reading that sentence about posting after midnight with a sleeping pill that isn’t working properly. You also still didn’t address everyone else who has been trying to convince you that “Yes, there kinda is a problem with this premise.” You also, I’m hoping unintentionally, told people to just shut up and actually do something about the issue, like throwing money at it, in a very patronizing way. I really do like you as a writer, but I feel like you’re slamming your foot in your mouth at supersonic speed. Especially with your addition of boggling when referencing Native American tribe websites. May I ask what exactly is boggling about that? I also note that you never respond to comments that ask you that question either.
At post 121, she still doesn’t address the issue. That’s ok. Whatevs. I give up at this point at your trainwreck of a post.
Lastly, how everyone jumped all over Hapax’s comments regarding how she regards books is illuminating. I love how “white privilege” is slung around casually, constantly.
The way I interpreted what she’s been trying to say this entire time is that she feels there is something to be gained from every book — therefore she’s against censorship, even when it’s as innocuous as people saying “I cannot in good conscience read this book”. Although, once you really get down to it, isn’t someone saying that they couldn’t in good conscience do something sometimes pretty compelling reason to follow suit and not do it?
I simply love how she’s lambasted:
Newsflash, minorities, you need to read poisonous literature for your edification. Because if you don’t buy it, well, the poor white writers and readers will just keel over and die without your pained support, right after pillorying you for refusing to give their racist and othering work ‘a chance’. Because none of this is about your feelings. It is about changing the world! By buying and consuming the work of, again, racist white writers.
I’m honestly not quite sure how “almost everything has worth in my eyes” is translated to “you must zomg buy all books by all authors, especially the poisonous ones and read them!”
Then there’s Kynn:
Also, hapax, your privilege is really dripping all over the place in ways that may prove too caustic for many people to want to engage you, especially if they are people of color who have been subject to oppressions you have not had to face. You are very glib and white and privileged, and I wince (as a white person) at many of the things you are saying.
I don’t think it’s an accident that only white people (such as Bruce, who has been excellent on this thread) are willing to engage you. You seemingly just don’t realize how repellent your words are.
Really, I think the worst one can accuse Hapax of is derailing the subject. I don’t think she’s saying that criticism of books isn’t allowed or that there’s some sort of golden rule for how one chooses to decide what they read. I think she makes that pretty clear by saying that she doesn’t hold anyone else to the priorities she holds herself to. I don’t know what lenses these other people are viewing her words through, at all.
Lastly, I note that Patricia Wrede has still managed not to come and even try to explain, despite a couple hundred comments. That is full of more fail.
What a massive load of fail, all of it. In the end, I’ve lost faith in two authors I used to love and I’m again reminded of how ugly people can be when confronted with a viewpoint they do not share.
Permalink
04.04.09
Posted in Writing at 12:38 am by kyrias
Or, as the Chinese saying goes: 天下文章一大抄。
I was poking about Wikipedia and read up about the analogues to Harry Potter’s story and his world, and it’s been rather interesting.
Regarding Jane Yolen statement that she wouldn’t mind cashing a very large check from J.K.R if she ever wrote her one –and Sunny’s interesting literary relationship with Anne Bishop’s world ..
I’m rather irritated on multiple counts.
It’s really, frankly, quite detestable to lift other people’s ideas without having the grace to acknowledge that you didn’t create your work in a vacuum and you owe your success in some part to what came before you.
It’s also quite slimy to climb on the bandwagon after someone has become massively popular and decide to try and sue their asses off without a clear case. (No, I’m actually not referring to Jane Yolen, but some other less savoury characters.)
Finally, it’s hideous to automatically assume that just because someone famous wrote something about a certain theme, then whoever else who follows after who decided to write something along the same veins must needs be plagiarizing.
Slaps all round, and can we sit down to tea like civilised human beings now?
Here’s my rules of orderly conduct regarding creative work:
- If you’re a writer and you’ve been inspired by someone’s world — please, please, please try not to simply run off and write glorified fanfiction on it.1 Sit on your hands for a while if you must, but don’t just lift more than a couple of concepts.
- If you’re a fan, writing another author to complain to him/her that s/he ripped off your favorite author is in extremely poor taste. Especially if that author was published years before yours ever even thought about writing.
- If you’re a budding writer who really, truly wants to write about something that has been done to death — do remember that almost everything has been done at least once. That doesn’t mean whatever new interpretation you bring will not be valuable in its own right. That said, please refer back to rule #1 if necessary.
1. The jury on Sunny’s case is still out, and I have no idea when they’ll reach a verdict. I’ve read her other work, and it’s not quite as horrible as that first book. But, oh how that first book made me want to hurl it across the room and then stomp on it.
Permalink
