How Cute, My First Book Review

It was an honor to be asked to write a book review for The Centre Daily Times. Fitting thoughts about a complex book into a short essay allowed me to exercise different writing muscles and it whipped my word count-itus into shape. It also made me sympathetic to reviewers (the other side of the coin) who have to boil down thoughts about a book into a couple of paragraphs on a regular basis. My review was published today!

Check it out online! Based on my review, would you read the book?  Oh, do me a favor? Press the thumbs up...it makes me smile: www.centredaily.com.  

I am not short on opinions so reviews might become a habit. I do like reading for the sheer pleasure of being lost in a story or skillfully entertained but I also like reading as a 'job'. It made me take the book and craft seriously which was a welcome challenge. 

~gregorific

Psst, hey, did you notice you can subscribe to my blog now? Yeah, I'll cozy up in your inbox and patiently wait until you feel like a bit of gregorific.  Yeah, I'm really addicted to finessing this blog. 

Breakthrough on the Investigation!

As gregorific fans may have noticed, many serious Mysteries of Human Nature fling themselves across my path. One of these is the concept of a sign for dogs, or is it for the owners? A sign suggesting that they not poop on the sign owner's yard. This sign looks like a dog pooping and has the word ‘No!’ on it. When I saw this sign for the first time I doubled over with teary laughter. So apt, so funny, so graphic to have on your lawn. Because what's worse than poop in your yard? A sign of a dog perpetually pooping!    

If dogs can read the sign may serve it’s purpose.

If dogs cannot read, and sadly I am almost positive mine cannot (yet), then the signs indicate the exact behavior they are trying to discourage. A dog sees the sign and thinks, yeah, I'm gonna do that. 

Most mystifying to me is the creation and sales of these signs. Who thought of this? Who are they targeting? People who don't like picking up poop but don't mind seeing a pretend dog in the middle of pooping on their lawn? All the time? There is an abundance of these signs in an enchanting little town I like to visit called Baltimore.

In recent posts I have documented such signs and wondered, where, oh where for art thee buying such rudimentary -or- sophisticated signage?

Eureka!

I have solved this case! In part. I was wandering about on vacay looking for mermaid ornaments (don't laugh). In the very back of one souvenir shop, through the main store and past the sale porch and over a ramp onto a moving truck, was a weird 'bonus' store. The truck was fixed up with shelves full of random sale items. Under bird baths and baby bjorns was a stack of signs! Who knows how this truck was organized or why but I raced back the next day to document it.

Behold!

Ahh, it feels good to close a case. And clearly the store is mobile, so it must travel about catering to people experimenting with dogs and owners and their ability to follow different methods of directions. I'm often calling for a study to be done and I think this one is already in progress. Kudos, people!

Did I buy one? NO WAY! Any dog can poop on my yard. I hope their owner scoops it, but hey, last thing I want is art of a dog pooping and an exclamation about it. To each their own. 

~gregorific

In honor of our furry friends, here is a quote that I completely love:

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~ Immanual Kant 

 I Live in Every Town

{Gregorific lives in State College, PA}

            Guilty. Of course he is. From the minute I read the testimonies of the eight victims I knew something terrible had happened and was covered up in Happy Valley. There is no way I would buy that so many separate individuals would claim abuse of that nature if it weren’t absolutely true. By the same token, I have trouble believing a man of that age with that amount of power and so little regard for the accusations. What I wasn’t sure of was how the community would react and how the system would judge a man who had been lifted to such esteem.

            Guilty. I’m relieved that the jury was of sound mind and moral conscience. I’m proud of them. I’m also proud of the college, the football fans for their outrage and overflowing support for the victims, and the heartfelt efforts for prevention of sexual abuse. Most of all, I’m proud of the victims for standing up and risking it all to spare future children.  

            Yet, the question is deeper than one man and one town.  

            Is State College ‘Every Town’? Could this have happened anywhere? Is it happening in other places,  with less famous football programs and less beloved public figures? I would hazard that the answer is yes. Even in a place dubbed Happy Valley, you must watch your children, examine influences in your lives, and listen to your gut. Did we as a town or as a collective make athletics, football, and fame more important than a child’s safety and innocence? It’s worth serious introspection. No one can read the accounts of abuse and not wonder, ‘What would I do?’ or ‘Would I have suspected?’ How did such sickness go unnoticed, unreported, uninvestigated?

            The horror of the abuse and length of time it went on is revolting. It’s worse than anyone could imagine and yet we’re reading about it in the newspapers and speaking of it daily. This tragedy has broken something important in State College, a sacred social covenant. We do not live in the wild where nature is in a constant war of survival and where the strongest prey on the weakest. We live in a civilized town where the love of football, a common interest that binds the community spirit,  instills local pride and identity. Did this pride lead to such a disturbing abuse of power that the landscape of Happy Valley is forever altered? ?

            And, if so, how do we move on from that? Can good come from tragedy?  The general public seems to be soul searching about what constitutes ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and if there are levels of culpability. This is in regard to the people who may have known or had hints of the crimes. Inaction is close to guilt; a blind eye to abuse is not right. Yet this tragedy has lifted the  level of social consciousness about what is morally right. Morality is not a popular topic, so this too has changed and brought values to the public conversation.  As children we have instincts to be honest and open. As adults, we grow blinders of rationalization, image control, and justification which crowd our moral consciousness, squeezing out our instinctive knowledge.

            Guilt. This tragedy has torn off our blinders and while we blink in the glare of a harsh reality we can actually see where we have wandered. With this verdict comes the opportunity for each of us to evaluate our own moral compasses and refresh our energies to protecting our children first and always. It’s not over; it’s not case closed. It’s a beginning with a new, deeper respect for victims of abuse and for the collective responsibility to stand up -no matter the consequences- for what is right.  

Faith,

~gregorific

TWEET IDEAS

Stop texting and look at me! #EveryoneNotTexting

Another font idea- ‘bittersweet’, made of tiny tear shaped letters. #MakeItAlready

When I see a baby with a pacifier clipped on it’s onesie, I want to yank it off. #DoYou?

When I see a wallet chain I want to ask, were you a baby with a pacifier clipped on your onesie? #FullCircle.

Play a Dirty Dancing Song and I will love you. #NobodyPutsBabyInACorner.

I love getting all dressed up and then watching reruns. #SlackersRUs

Is there a font for snark voice? #MakeOne

Feeling out of place at the beach because I have no tattoos. #GettingOneNow

Shhh...I love stroking certain book covers. #bookiphelia

I sure hope I get a standing ovulation. #misspoke

Remember: Reduce, Reuse and stop reproducing. #solvingworldproblems

Everyone getting a gastric bypass is required to support one third world family forever. #solvingworldproblems

Instead of a metal detector I had a bullshit detector installed. I will detect you! #YesIdid

50/50

*Blush.*
I finished 50 Shades of Grey.
*Blush.* 
And I read 50 Shades Darker as well.

I enjoyed them! I was all set to be offended because we should not support women demeaning themselves for a man, or buying into the idea that women are perfect victims, or sexual playthings, or toys.

I know. I know. I wrote about embracing any book you like and not falling for the hype. Still, I was wary of the "mommy porn" label and the subtle innuendo attached to such a label that somehow by enjoying the book you are weird or unfulfilled. Not at all. People, if you like romance, this book is for you. People, if you have ever been curious about S & M ( I’m dating myself and my ignorance of the lifestyle here),  if you’re curious or know someone in it or just out of it or avoiding it, then this is a good book to help explore the idea. {SPOILER alert- reading below may spoil the book for you.}

If you only like hoity toity books that are very high brow and literary with words flowing like gentle breezes and perfect punctuation and grammar and editing and characters of uncompromising ideals…well, keep looking!

When I read a book I seek entertainment, enlightenment, awareness.  I love to learn something or feel something and I love a good laugh, and occasionally a good cry.

This book had a lot of that. It reminded me of Twilight because of all the yearning. The press has stirred controversy saying 50 Shades of Grey is too much like Twilight (especially since it started as fan fiction) to which I reply, BAH.  She changed it to be a different set of characters and a complete divergence of plot and concept. The female protagonist of Grey was very different and (I thought) more likable than in Twilight.

You know what it also reminded me of? Gone with the Wind. And some Susan Elizabeth Phillips books that I’ve loved and also some by Judith McKnaught.

The sex is explicit. Not for the faint of heart. Without the sex the book would be 2/3 less. The sex tells the story of their unfolding power and emotional connections and disconnections. No pun intended.

It’s an interesting way to convey a complicated romance. The details were very modern and authentic. The character’s pasts and personalities were fleshed out and built upon to explain their actions and to show their growth.  A main theme of 50 Shades of Grey is how a horrible trauma can shape a person deeply but not necessarily forever.  Change to a degree is possible; hence the shades of gray word play.

We like the show Dexter at my house too. That’s also about a person’s dark reaction to a terrible past trauma.  But in Dexter, the main character kills people. Whereas in 50 Shades of Grey, the main male character likes consensual but aberrant sex. Why is Dexter critically acclaimed and 50 Shades of Grey spat upon?

Sexism people, sexism.

The concept is the same but the way it’s portrayed is different in style, technique, gender, and some would say skill. Hey, women can get their kicks, too.  Shades of Grey is geared to titillate women while Dexter is aimed at men. You can tell this by the perspective of the sex and the characters whose point of view you follow.  In both, men use women until they find one that won’t let them. The woman at the heart of 50 Shades of Grey is strong, not perfect, but strong. She knows her own mind and is able and willing to compromise- to a point. I liked that. It detailed her honest reaction to deviant behavior and then her intelligent consideration of her own limits. And remarkably, she did not totally capitulate but again, compromised. 

Plus, the couple had honest interactions- which is unusual in a romance novel and very heartening. (In Dexter and Twilight, relationships and plots are built on lies.) In many ways, Shades of Grey has a good example of a couple from different starting points merging in the middle. So why all the hating, haters?

If you’re looking for literary genius, no one said it was in 50 Shades of Grey. If you seek a moral compass in your reading, be more careful what you pick up. Again, I wonder why people waste their breath not liking things instead of just using that energy to find things they DO like. There is a reason readers like this book and it should be accepted as having value for that very fact.

I would like to do a study. (The studies I’m proposing are adding up people; we need funding for all this social research!)  A study polling the negative reviewers and random haters out there asking: Have they read it? All of it? What were they looking for? What did they get? 

I think it would be very revealing. 

Come out of the shade and fess up! Hype’s just that. If you have an open mind when you open the pages then you’ll be able to see that it’s not all good or bad, black or white.  

Just Sayin',
gregorific

I know you need a little quote to go with such a post. I searched many banned books for a good quote, worthy of encompassing the world today where 50 Shades of Grey stirs such controversy, popularity and censure. Here ya go!


"Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little hopes. It is rather hard work. There is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or scramble over the obstacles. We've got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen." - D.H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley's Lover, Ch. 1 
Here's a list of banned and challenged books.

• 1984 - George Orwell
• Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) - Mark Twain
• Adventures of Tom Sawyer - Mark Twain
• Animal Farm - George Orwell
• Arabian Nights
• As I Lay Dying (1932) - William Faulkner
• Awakening - Kate Chopin
• Beloved - Toni Morrison 
• Black Beauty - Anna Sewell
  
• Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
  
• Call of the Wild - Jack London
• Candide - Voltaire
• Canterbury Tales - Geoffrey Chaucer
• Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
• Catcher in the Rye (1951) - J. D. Salinger 
• Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl
  
• Civil Disobedience - Henry David Thoreau
• Color Purple - Alice Walker
• Dubliners - James Joyce
  
• Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
• Frankenstein - Mary Shelley
• Gone With the Wind - Margaret Mitchell
• Grapes of Wrath (1939) - John Steinbeck
• Hamlet - William Shakespeare
• Handmaid's Tale - Margaret Atwood
• House of Spirits - Isabel Allende
• I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings - Maya Angelou
• Importance of Being Earnest - Oscar Wilde
• King Lear - William Shakespeare
• Lady Chatterley's Lover - D.H. Lawrence
• Leaves of Grass - Walt Whitman
• Lolita (1955) - Vladimir Nabokov
• Lord of the Flies - William Golding
• Macbeth - William Shakespeare
• Madame Bovary
• Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
• Origin of the Species - Charles Darwin
• Scarlet Letter - Nathaniel Hawthorne
  
• Separate Peace - John Knowles
• To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee
  
• Tropic of Capricorn - Henry Miller
• Uncle Tom's Cabin - Harriet Beecher Stowe
  
• Wrinkle in Time - Madeleine L'Engle
• Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte

Gregorific is well aware that 50 Shades is not banned; it is only considered smut or 'less than'. But so were some of the books above. Give it a try or ignore it. Book bashing should be banned. 

Just sayin',
~gregorific

There’s Room on the Shelf for Everyone

I’m about to dive into 50 Shades of Grey. I set it as a lure or a reward for when I got all of my writing and reading ‘work’ done.  It sucks when you’re self-employed and your boss is a driven snookie-head.

My hardest task was to revise LUPA, (my YA paranormal romance) in which brainiac Lucas risks everything to shield his crush Maddie’s dark secret from being exposed. Unfortunately, it’s his best friend Tim who wants to cage and experiment on all lupa, or she-wolves. Did I mention Maddie’s alter ego is a fiercely free wolf?

So that revision is done and I’m proud of the distilled product. The genre is saturated right now, like a baby's diaper in the morning, but I persevere. Good writing trumps all, a query shark once told me, and I hope so. On both counts. That my writing is good and that it trumps all. 

I read the book for the review I'm writing for the paper. Since the book was about opera it took me a little longer than usual. Don't worry, I'll post the link when it's published. The opera was Don Giovanni; so essentially it was prep work for 50 Shades. 

Then I had a manuscript request (!) and a pitch slam to prepare for, so I hustled my bustle. And here I am! 

Mundane recap but at least now you are on the same page as me, comprehensively and literally. Page one of 50 Shades of Grey.

I have read many articles on this book. Enough to fill said book. The articles rant and rave about this being a step back for feminism. Reviewers scoff at the writing technique and quip that it is nothing more than Mommy Porn.

I’m sorry if that hurt your delicate ears. But that label is following it pretty closely and I cannot fathom why it disturbs me so. I’m a mom. I’m going to read the book. Why not? I heard it was a good read from my friends. Sure, some of them are moms. And some aren't.  

Putting the title of my dearest role in life before a term I would define as debasing- that’s what I don’t like. I think Lady Erotica would have been better. Funnier, too. How did ‘mom’ enter into this discussion? I get how erotica or porn came into the picture. But the book isn't about a mom or geared to appeal to a mom. A woman, yes. 

Look up how many women reading it are moms and compare that to the percentage of moms reading other genres. Get back to me. I’ll do a study on it.

I’m of the opinion that whatever you want to read is fine by me. Books, I mean. Any book you want to spend time on and enjoy is great. Walmart fiction? Cool. Romances? Lovely. Non-fiction? Hey, more power to ya. Memoirs? Wonderful. Self help? Choose-Your-Own-Adventure? Postmodern? Poetry? Western? Mystery? SciFi? Hey, it’s allllllll good.

Why do people blither and blather about taste in books? Well, it’s another random way to divide and judge for those people so insecure that they have to spend time dividing and judging. I’d rather read.

I’ll get back to you about 50 shades of lust. I’m looking forward to the ride. 

~gregorific

7:36 pm 
Jeopardy makes me feel stupid.
7: 43 pm  
Jeopardy makes me feel brilliant (just got an answer right).

“There are two kinds of people in the world…” 

I love it when any sentence starts, “There are two kinds of people in the world…”

Don’t you? Or are you one of those people who don’t like that?

No matter what follows that beginning, I disagree. But I love to hear how people decide to randomly categorize humanity.

Once a college friend told me, “There are two kinds of people in the world:  Those who have ‘around the house pants’ and those who wear the same pants all day.”  For a while I thought she had cracked the code on human nature. She did not have a single pair of comfortable pants. Meaning she would wear her dark, stiff jeans all day, even when watching television! With the belt! A different breed than I, she was driven and intent on certain standards.

I wish I could call her now and compare notes.

Does she have sweat pants finally? Has she succeeded beyond expectation because of her unwillingness to let it all hang out? And speaking of which, how does her physique look after these decades of being pulled up and in? I bet pretty good.

I can’t deny which type I am nor can my closet of which half is dedicated to ‘around the house’ pants. I have the sweat pant variety where the pair handed down from my father is king. I have the drawstring pajama bottoms variety where a pink and blue cloud pair rules. Yoga pants threatened to take over for a while with their soft, fold over waist and years of stretchability. I have your random track pants and leggings that make do when there’s a laundry strike.

I change right when I get home from being OUT. The minute my ‘around the house’ pants go on, my breathing slows and a calm settles on me like a warm cloak of home.   

I bet the ‘same pants all day’ types have clean houses, too.

Other categorizations to consider are:

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who wipe the public toilet seat before use and those who don’t. (I’m thinking this is a female differentiation)

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who give and those who take. (No one does both?)

There are two kinds of people in the world: the Haves and the Have Nots. (This is the same as the next one.)

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who see the glass as half-full and those who see it as half-empty.  (same glass, people)

I like the idea of broadly sweeping the world into distinct categories but alas, I do not see any logic or truth in it. It’s still fun to grandly proclaim a theory like this, and it certainly can make an impact. Every time I slide into my ‘around the house’ pants I affirm my choice to be who I am, and to be comfortable with it.

I guess that leads me to conclude:

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t. 

140

What if life had twitter character requirements? 
Things would be short-- but would they be sweet? 
140 characters is a random allotment...
                                                     #

Who decided that 140 characters was enough to convey a thought or feeling? Or was it a techno-geek thingie that was most cost wise?
                                                     #

I can get a joke in 140, a factoid or a news tidbit, or ponder the irony of the universe in 140. Sure I can.  But bond? Empathize? Console?
                                                     #

If life had these requirements:
Church would be awesome.
Presidential speeches wouldn't interrupt my favorite programming for very long.

                                                      #

Phone calls would be sweet. School lectures would have to be concise. A lot more reading would happen. Sitcoms would have to work hard.
                                                     #

Commercials would have it made- they already have it down to a science. News broadcasts would cut to the chase. I like that. 
                                                    #

 

Friends would suffer. But you can only say so much anyway, right? Wrong. 140 can't boost low spirits or pump you up before an interview.
                                                    #

140 can't assure you those pants look good, or your hair isn't that bad today. 140 can't justify you leaving or convince you to stay.
                                                     #

140 isn't enough to catch me up on the day or fill me in on the night; it can't cover a recipe or a song or cheer me up or talk me down.  
                                                          #

My conclusion on my jaunt into 140 limits on life?
It covers the superficial, the outside circle, and disposable interactions.
                                                     #

It can't begin to account for the genuine depth of true human connection and communication. It cheats a friend and laughs at a lover.   
                                                     #

It thumbs it's nose at deep talks through the night and drunken rambles that you can't remember but never forget.. 
                                                             #

140 moons the family dinner and gives the finger to sister chats. It mocks flirtatious banter and scoffs at endless road trip chatter.  
                                                      #

140 is a peep, a chirrup, a burp of words randomly allotted for mass communication. Using more makes us more than a chick or blip online.
                                                       #

Let's be massive. Let's be 140,000. Stand firm and finish your thought. Don't be stifled, stunted, and twiddled down to an arbitrary  size.
                                     *

Reject the rations and say what you want for however long you want. Maybe I'll tune out at 140. But you never know how far you can go if--
                                                  *     




~gregorific