Books – Random Geek Child

Tales!

My second book is officially available on Amazon, in Kindle format or in print! Tales is the sequel to An Unexpected Journey, but it has a different set of characters in a separate location, so you can read it before the first book, so long as you read them both before book 3. (We don’t have a time frame for the release of that one, sorry, I’ll try not to wait another five years though.)

There are a lot of people who went into making this possible: Cheshire Moon, whose song inspired Mom’s idea which inspired this story, Mom, who was also my editor, and Donna, my amazing artist, who served on my beta team with two of my cousins and my best friend. And, of course, all of the people who have kept encouraging me to write over the years. Thanks, all!

An Unexpected Journey

Nope, not the Hobbit book. In this case, I’m actually referring to the book that I wrote titled An Unexpected Journey a few years back. I recently realized that I haven’t bothered to talk about it, despite this being an ideal place to do so, so here we are. So… it’s a kids book about an alligator named Cilantro who accidentally ends up going on a quest when he really just means to find a new place to live. Yeah.

You can find out the rest by reading it! It’s really short, 46 pages and it’ll be shorter once I’m done editing out the unnecessary extra line spacing, but, well, it was my first book and I may have made some mistakes. That’s part of the point of this post: to advertise the fact that I am finally going back and fixing spacing, punctuation, I think one or two typos… all the stuff that makes me cringe when I open it up and go, “There should be a comma before that dialogue!” Which means that first edition will be, fingers crossed, going out of print very soon. If you’d like a copy, pick it up before second edition is released! (This may also be a good time to plug the fact that the second book is in the later stages of editing, so you have that to look forward to, too.)

While I’m working on that, I’ll leave you with a snippet of one of the fight scenes. Enjoy!

“What was that?!” Rebecca whispered, “A monster?”
“Shhh! I’m trying to listen!” Allan warned, “I think it’s goblins. Everyone, stand in a circle, back to back.” 
Cilantro noticed a couple of sharp, pointy sticks. “Rebecca!” he whispered, “I’ll grab a stick. Use your horn as a spear.”
“What?! Are you kidding?!” she yelped, “I spend hours polishing and cleaning my horn until it sparkles like freshly fallen snow! I’ll take a stick too, thank you very much!”
Allan looked at them. “Do you guys even know how to fight?” 
Rebecca looked at him, giggled, and said, “Of course! Beat up the bad guy, and don’t get beat up!” 
Suddenly, a goblin pack started dropping from the trees. “Augh!!” Rebecca screamed, while instinctively poking at one with her “spear.” 
Meanwhile, Allan had drawn a sword and was busy slicing goblins with, may I add, great skill. Just then, they heard a shout from Cilantro, signaling that he had been captured. Allan took one look toward Cilantro, chopped off a goblin’s head, and charged toward the goblin holding Cilantro. 
As Allan’s sword made contact with the goblin’s torso, he heard another scream from behind him. As Allan and Cilantro stared, they realized it was the goblin’s scream, not Rebecca’s. “How dare you mess up my hoof polish!” she scolded the goblin, “It took an hour to put on!” That made them laugh hysterically.

Do give it a bit of slack, I’m not adjusting the actual story or the writing style and I was nine when I wrote it, so there’ll be cliches and tropes and so-so sentences that are probably unnecessary, but I’m trying to stay true to my beginnings.

Adequate Adaptation or Flunk?

Warning: Sherlock Holmes: Hound of the Baskervilles potential spoilers, for the book, the Hallmark film adaptation, and the BBC Sherlock episode. I did my best to edit out my spoilers, but still, you have been warned.

Perhaps you are one of those people who doesn’t like it when books are adapted into movies. As a general rule, I don’t mind the movie, I just don’t necessarily like it as an adaptation of the book. Watching two adaptations of the same book is even harder, because then you naturally try to compare them. Especially interesting for both films were how they portrayed the setting, Watson and Holmes and – arguably most importantly – how they handled the changes in the plot.

First off, a large factor in how a movie plays out is the setting. When I read the books, I imagined Baskerville Hall as a dark, gloomy place, which it was in the Hallmark film, but only indoors. Outdoors, it was sunny and clear. The BBC version had a slightly creepier feel, with the light blurring across the screen with every transition, accompanied by a soaring sound effect. Baskerville itself looked not nearly as I imagined it, but that’s because they modernized it.

Neither of them captured my expectation of the moor. Rock piles here and there in no way equate to the perpetual gloom and bogs that I had pictured. For the Hallmark, the only satisfactorily creepy shots of the moor were at two different death scenes. For BBC, Dewer’s Hollow was the only place that hit my imagination, with the eerie fog and dark, gloomy trees. That is, in fact, very similar to how I imagined the surroundings for the original Baskerville Hall.

The hounds themselves are another important part of the setting. One reason I found the Hallmark less frightening is that we saw the hound a lot. That hound itself wasn’t particularly frightening, and I felt more sorry for the creature than afraid of it. With BBC, not only was it not revealed until the end, making that much more terrifying, but the hound itself looked freakier. Either way, neither hound was a huge, glowing hell-hound, which disappointed my imagination, but notably relieved my conscience.

One of my favorite things to compare is the characters themselves. With Hallmark, Sherlock was a very exaggerated speaker, more so for the beginning than the end. This made him harder to understand when he spoke, and I was very disappointed with how little we could see of his thought process. In BBC, Sherlock was again exaggerated, not in his words but in his character. There was much more drama with Sherlock’s general personality, and I appreciated watching him think. It made some of the deductions easier to follow.

Watson was also very different in each film. The Hallmark Watson was older and quieter, whereas the BBC Watson was younger and very vocal. He wasn’t leading the investigation, but I feel that, – noting Sherlock’s presence at the scene – he tried to be as useful as possible. Both Watsons were willing to argue with Holmes, but I found the BBC Watson much more interestingly done. (This may just be because I like Martin Freeman as an actor, though.)

The Sir Henrys were also very different. In the Hallmark, I was very impressed. When I read the book, I kept forgetting that he lived in North America, but the movie showed his slow transition to a British life in a way that worked well for me. I wasn’t particularly impressed with BBC Henry, though. They portrayed him as an Englishman with psychological issues, as opposed to an heir who was brand new to the area. That said, BBC did stick with the death of a relative as (at least part of) the reason for the case.

In all probability most interesting is how the interpretations dealt with changes of plot. Hallmark didn’t have many. They changed the town of Coombe Tracey to Grimpen, the ending was slightly altered.

The BBC film was more “inspired by” than an “interpretation of” the book. They played on the names, changed the genders of many of the characters and changed the villain of the story. The crime was centered around a completely different basis, as we find out, and the whole reason Sherlock took the case comes down to wordplay and a glow-in-the-dark rabbit. This isn’t to say that the BBC Sherlock is bad, it’s just very different.

Overall, the two plots were both the same and very different. They had different portrayals of the settings, the characters and the overall plot, and yet you can tell that they are both based off of the same tale. What would be interesting is if Sir. Arthur Doyle was alive today, so that we could show him both adaptations and get his opinions. Personally, I liked both in different ways. I generally don’t like jump-scares, so the BBC film was a little concerning, but because of how early Hallmark revealed the hound, it didn’t have the thrill of the BBC. If you are watching for faithfulness, watch Hallmark, but if you are watching for relatability, watch the BBC version.

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter

Disclaimer: In light of more recent events, Random Geek Child no longer supports Ms. Rowling. However, we have chosen not to pull down this post, as that would be erasing part of our blog’s history.

Right, so last week I talked about J. K. Rowling. But of course, why talk about the author if I don’t mention her books? After all, were it not for Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, most of us probably wouldn’t even know who J. K. Rowling is!

The Harry Potter series is about an orphaned boy named – gee, you guessed it – Harry Potter. When our story begins, Harry is ten years old and lives with his horrible aunt, uncle and cousin, who have drilled it into his head that he is practically worthless. It isn’t until his eleventh birthday, July 31st (yes, that date is eerily familiar… re-read my last post until you realize the connection), that a stranger appears on the doorstep and tells him the news: that he is a wizard, and one of the most famous wizards at that, though Harry doesn’t completely understand why.

Harry also finds out about the magical school, Hogwarts, where he makes the first friends of his life. Throughout the series, Harry and his best friends, Ron and Hermione, solve mysteries, make new friends and avoid some seriously freaky bad guys, like that pale-to-the-point-of-bloodless dude with red eyes and no nose. I mean seriously, what’s up with him? And once we’ve read far enough in the series (like, book two or so) we know he didn’t always look like that, too, so when did he go from relatively good looking, smart, seemingly-kind teenage boy to murderous creep? Anyways, you get the idea.

But what is it about this Harry kid that makes him such an interesting character? Is it his seeming inability to ever die? Actually, no. Well, okay, kind of, but not entirely. It’s his flaws that make him a memorable character. This kid has lost his parents at a young age, which he has had nightmares about ever since, grown up with relatives who practically despise him, and then, within a year of finding that somebody actually cares about him (oh, and he’s famous), he nearly dies at least five times!

Throughout the series, he watches people he cares about die, nearly dies himself, and tries to push his friends away so that they don’t die. Yet, despite these horrible odds, he and his friends always persevere. This message of perseverance in the most difficult of times is what stays with you the most about the Harry Potter series.

That, and, you know, these kids are awesome! Or, to say it more professionally, “In contrast to the lack of power most children have in their own lives, Harry and his friends master the natural world and make it behave in ways that are most unnatural,” wrote Sara Ann Beach and Elizabeth Harden Willner in World Literature Today. “In addition, they are able to use their power to frustrate those adults who do not have children’s best interests at heart. Rowling opens the door for adolescent readers to share the characters’ power while experiencing a connection to literature that has the potential to enrich their lives.”

Ironically, the “connection to literature” that the journalists above mentioned, while certainly a most-welcome product of the series, was not Rowling’s original intent. She said that, “When I write the books, I really do write them for me,” and that she didn’t expect them to be all that popular. Boy, was she proved wrong! The quote above may be another reason why we love her work so much, though: it’s straight from the heart. “… So the humor in the books is really what I find funny.” This makes the fictitious world she created all the easier to connect to.

And speaking of her expansive, hidden, magical world, let’s talk about Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them! No, not the book, the film. The book doesn’t have any characters, except the author. It’s more of an index, really… an index written by Newt Scamander, the main character of the film!

Given that J. K. Rowling was directly involved in the creation of the original movies, I wasn’t that surprised to find out that she was writing a film, just excited. Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them follows the awkwardly introverted English author Newt Scamander and his TARDIS-like (and technically illegal) briefcase of crazy critters to New York, where he allegedly hopes to purchase a particularly species of Puffskein as a gift.

All is going well until he runs into a Muggle (no-Maj, or non-magic person) who carries a similar briefcase, and they accidentally switch the two. The Muggle, Jacob, opens the briefcase believing that it contains harmless pastries, and instead unleashes the catastrophic creatures. Newt, Jacob, and American witches Tina and Queenie spend the rest of the film chasing down the animals, running from the uncompromising agents of MACUSA (The Magical Congress of the United States of America) who consider Newt to be a felon, and worrying about a mysterious child possessed by a dark blob that causes them to turn into a giant, destructive swirling cloud of anger.

Just like Harry Potter, Newt has his fair share of issues. His fascination and love for peculiar creatures has gotten him into much trouble over the years. He was expelled from Hogwarts after an incident with a creature (A Jarvey, I believe) that endangered the life of another student, and he carries some pretty deadly animals around with him. (Quote Newt talking to one of his creatures, “Leave his brains, come on!”) And yet, despite these flaws, he perseveres.

With these statements in mind, I will repeat one of the first lines of my last post, this time with evidence for my point:

It is this characteristic that makes these books so excellent: Rowling’s ability to create severely flawed characters, who, despite these flaws, or perhaps because of them, rise to the occasion and beat the odds. This allows her characters to be both easy to connect with and a continual inspiration.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: