Raven, by Dean Whitlock

I picked up this book at a used book store for maybe two dollars. It turns out it was a two dollars well spent indeed. Raven, by Dean Whitlock, is a fantasy romp through an industrial revolution-adjacent land where the rivers dictate power, the ruling class is composed of land-holding Barons, and magic is stronger the higher you climb into the reaches. Raven is a headstrong girl and a bird mage, hence her nickname, and she is one of the most unwitting heroes I've ever come across, which only adds to her charm, really.

It's worth mentioning that this novel is also one of those rare gems where two out of the three main protagonists identify as women and are noted to be women of color. To see that kind of representation in a stereotypically male and often whitewashed genre is refreshing, in a big way. Equally as important, the characters are really well written. Their slang and curses aren't quite as easily recommendable to everyday speech as Scott Westerfeld's "Barking spiders" and "clever-boots," courtesy of the Leviathan trilogy, but I wouldn't be surprised if I caught myself saying "blazing mages" a time or two.

Another aspect worth noting is that Raven is, technically speaking, the sequel to another of Whitlock's novels, Sky Carver. From what I can tell, Raven also appears in Sky Carver, though not as the main character, and Raven takes place four years after the events of its prequel. That I didn't realize this fact until after I began filling out an entry on Goodreads says a lot. This book stands on its own, which strikes me as both unusual and skillful on Whitlock's part.

If you're a fan of fantasy, mages, ravens, cranky anti-heroes, and steam boats, you should probably give this a read.

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

Honestly, my mind is still racing to catch up. I haven't devoured a book the way I devoured The Hunger Games since right before fall quarter, the exhausting two-day stint wherein I completed both Gaiman's The Graveyard Book and Brom's The Child Thief.

There are a few reasons this parallel came as a surprise. I admit that at first I was a little resistant to reading The Hunger Games, though with 20/20 hindsight it was a foolish reaction. On some level I feared a sort of fiction-following rebound. In the gaping hole that the cinematic conclusion Harry Potter left behind in addition with the fact that the last piece of the Twilight saga is nearly at hand, part of me wondered if the fanatical attention given to Hunger Games wasn't just to fill the massive media vacuum both franchises have and will inevitably leave behind. To some extent I think the Hunger Games film is meant to do just that, but more on that front later.

This resistance was tough to shake, especially when I opened the book and was immediately confronted with not only first-person but also present tense narrative. I have close to no conception why, but either of these on their own is enough to shut me down to a fiction book, let alone both in tandem. As I said, I couldn't tell you why, though if asked I suppose I would answer that something in the cadence of it feels all wrong ninety percent of the time. That being said, just how hooked I was, and in such a short amount of time, is a testament to Suzanne Collins' sheer mastery.

The massive hooks throughout the book, and possibly the best aspect of Collins' writing, consist of tremendous amounts of suspense coupled with extremely visual, imaginative prose. It's little wonder the movie companies couldn't wait to sink their claws into it - turning this into a storyboard would be a piece of cake. Paring it down to the length of a single film? Maybe not so much.

***Now we enter the potential Spoiler zone. Read on at your own risk***

On the subject of the trailer, having watched it now that I'm in the know I completely understand all my friends and acquaintances who claim they're already bracing themselves for disappointment. The casting all along the board seems all wrong, Katniss seems hopelessly toned down, and the visual look of what the audience gets from the meager two minutes of trailer seems listing far off-course from the look and feel of the book. Danger! Here there be monsters!

Which of course comes back to the whole 'divorce the book and the movie so that you don't get mad' business.

My other reservations lie in how self-sufficient this first volume is. Not for a second did the conception even enter my mind that the entire games would be over and dealt with in the first novel. The suspense throughout its entirety was insane - the driving plot to stay alive, to kill or be killed, to keep up a farce in order to earn food and water - but what does that leave? The only remnant from the first novel which will inevitably carry over to the subsequent two is the love-triangle which is hardly even a triangle. I congratulate Collins on the portrayal of a girl who is confused and doesn't know what she wants, thinks, or feels - that she "can't explain how things are...because [she] doesn't know [her]self" (373). But is that really enough to go on for two more books, after the whirl, desperation and brutality of the games? It teeters dangerously close to that media vacuum I mentioned before - worse, the teen-romance portion of the vacuum that verges on the inane. I can only hope this'll be incorporated into that hindsight 20/20 bit.

In all I have my doubts, clearly, but I'm determined to reserve judgment. Suzanne Collins has impressed me once, and done a thorough job of it. I am more than willing to believe that she can do it again.

Interested in purchase? Say no more.

Merlin, Season One

"In a land of myth and a time of magic, the destiny of a great kingdom rests on the shoulders of a young boy. His name: Merlin."

Thank you, British Broadcasting Corporation. Thank you for bringing the world such a glorious show. Right off the bat, I will put it this way: for a long time, I have not watched television. The only purpose my TV served was for movie nights with my parents and friends, and the (very) occasional videogame. In Summer 2009 Merlin Season One aired in the United States, and thanks to Tivo I was able to catch the first episode. Because of it, I learned a schedule for a show. I hadn't done that since I was at least nine or ten. My appreciation for it has only grown now that I own a shiny set of DVDs, for which I am wildly grateful. But before I bombard you with that, a little background.

Merlin first aired in Summer 2008 on BBC while most of us were running about the woods making up our own stories (or at least that's how it goes where I come from). It was only released to wider audiences a year later. Somewhere in the interim it gained the alternate title 'The Adventures of Merlin' in Australia and Hong Kong (IMDb tells me so). So as we speak, or respectively write and read, season two - which aired to the Brits as I was initially spazzing out over season one at home, yet to graduate from high school - is airing here in the US, just waiting to be snapped up!

Can't wait for shiny DVD set #2. My credit card tingles with anticipation. Cue the obligatory college moths reminding me that my wallet actually doesn't exist. Credit card: exit, stage left.

All shenanigans aside, this show is lovable for a lot of reasons. There are also reasons that people don't love it, and I'd like to address some of them here.
The main complaint I've heard is, as one acquaintance of mine so deftly put it, that the show "totally fucked over the story." I will agree that the BBC retelling of Merlin is far from what one might call "conventional Arthurian legend," however, such a stance completely depreciates the welcome use of revitalization. No, Merlin and Arthur are not the same age in the original tales, nor did Merlin serve as Arthur's servant. Morgana was certainly not Uther Pendragon's ward (to my knowledge) and Guinevere was even more certainly not Morgana's maidservant. However, the old stories, while perhaps not universally known, are just that: old. Don't get me wrong - I have a habit of seeking out the "original" side of things and tracing stories and pop phenomenon alike back to their respective sources - but an overhaul, when it's done well, does not have to be a negative thing. And I haven't even touched on the right to creative license, especially where legend is concerned. All in all, purists: whatever floats your boat. Honestly. Just don't get your underpinnings in a twist when I can love the original legends and the show at the same time.

I think much of my love for the show is based in the quality of the acting. Some of the effects leave something to be desired and there are moments that are outright groan-worthy, but the screen presence of the actors more than makes up for these things. To begin, Anthony Head is Uther (Arthur's father and the current King of Camelot). I could sing Anthony Head's praises all day. I've loved him ever since he was Giles on Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I loved him as Nathan in Repo! The Genetic Opera. I love him as Uther, especially because he is anything but a flat villain. Like all of the other main characters, we are allowed to see multiple facets of individuals, something that I think is quite often lost in entertainment today. Uther, though he often takes the role of antagonist in the formula of the show, also has his moments. It makes it worthwhile that he is a character that one can both love and despise, occasionally at the same time.

And of course there are the wonderous Colin Morgan as Merlin and Bradley James as Arthur. What a dynamic duo. They've almost been elevated to the point of bromance and I have to approve. Both are very talented, not to mention attractive (which always helps), and I can't wait to adventure with them into season two.

So I don't ignore the ladies, though Angel Coulby makes a great Gwen, Katie McGrath as Morgana takes the cake. In watching it with my friends, we have dubbed her "Morgana the Bangable" because oh gracious, is she gorgeous. Not to mention her clothes are amazing. I believe we decided that if you took Keira Knightly, taught her to act (both in general AND ESPECIALLY without her chin), made her more than skin and bones and then combined her with non-Twilight Kristen Stewart, you'd get Katie McGrath. Her presence on the screen is amazing, and I love the light attitude she brings to a character who has such potential for dark motivations.

Apparently Merlin was heavily inspired off of Smallville, believe me or no. It makes sense structurally: the writers have a formula (which I will not disclose for purposes of being spoiler-free) and oh, how they stick to it. But somehow, it works. Though I've never seen Smallville, one of my abovementioned friends is quite familiar with it and both sees and approves of the connection.

All in all, now that this has gone on for far too long, it's fabulous. For a good healthy romp in a time fargone from now with magical shenanigans up to your eyeballs, pay Camelot a visit. Just take care you don't wake the Dragon.

Preview!