Warning: Use of undefined constant WP_DEBUG - assumed 'WP_DEBUG' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/popcultu/public_html/wp-config.php on line 77
Pop Culture Nerd – Page 61 – Pop Culture Nerd
All Posts By

Pop Culture Nerd

Book Review: Michael Harvey’s THE THIRD RAIL

I’d just schlepped my way through a couple books that were dull and slow-moving so as I picked up Michael Harvey‘s The Third Rail, I thought, “If this doesn’t grab me in three pages, I’m done.” No worries there. The breakneck pace compelled me from the first, third, forty-seventh—all the way to the last page.

In this third novel featuring Chicago P.I. Michael Kelly, he’s on the hunt for a sniper targeting random commuters on an L train and along a busy highway. After the killer (or an accomplice) makes a personal call to Kelly and delivers cryptic clues to his home, the detective starts wondering if the events may be related to an L crash thirty years earlier, one that Kelly happened to be in when he was nine years old. In a plot that never stops hurtling forward and taking unexpected turns, Kelly uncovers nefarious plans involving bio-weapons, greed, corruption and the Catholic Church.

Though I sped through Rail and enjoyed the ride—it reads like a ’70s action flick starring Steve McQueen as Kelly—I realized afterward some things didn’t make sense. Revenge is directed at a blameless person because the blamed party isn’t available, and it’s unclear what a sniper attack on Lake Shore Drive has to do with the 30-year-old L accident that occurred at a different location. (There are other spoilery head-scratchers I can’t discuss.) I even asked my husband to read the book in case I missed something and he could answer some questions for me. He couldn’t.

I think the problem stems from Harvey incorporating aspects of two real, unrelated incidents—a 1977 L accident and a 1993 Pentagon report called “Terror 2000”—into one story and they don’t mesh seamlessly. Throw in the Catholic Church angle and there’s a lot of ground to cover; two separate novels might have been a better idea (Harvey said in this Amazon interview a follow-up is possible). I take no issue with the ending leaving some threads untied—it adds to the sinister feel—but am confused by the lack of clarity and logic of the answers that were provided.

Nerd verdict: Third Rail zips by, but derails a few times along the way

Share

Winners of Neil Pasricha’s THE BOOK OF AWESOME

Congrats to Julia F and Erin, who won ARCs of Neil Parischa’s The Book of Awesome! Their names were randomly drawn with the help of random.org. Julia and Erin, please send me your address via the “contact” form above and the awesome Lydia from Putnam will ship you each an ARC. If you don’t respond by 9 a.m. Thursday April 8, alternate name(s) will be selected.

Thanks to all who entered and shared your awesome moments with me. The book will be available April 15 if you’d like to buy a copy.

Stay tuned for another fantastic giveaway coming up soon!

Share

Five Phrases That Should Be Permanently Retired from Reviews

Happy Monday! Hope you survived all the chocolate eggs and ham, or Pad Thai if you celebrate Songkran.

Since it was Easter weekend, I didn’t do much work. Read plenty, slept and ate even more, but didn’t quite get around to finishing my reviews.

In thinking about them, though (I’m much more productive in my head), I came up with a Top 5 list of words/phrases that make my eyeballs roll when I see them in reviews. If you ever see these in mine, you have permission to send me hate mail.

  1. “A roller-coaster ride.” Seriously, have you ever said this in your life after seeing a movie or finishing a book? Besides, I hate roller-coasters. They make me sick.
  2. “America’s Sweetheart.” This label has been slapped on everyone from Julia Roberts to Sandra Bullock to Meg Ryan to Jennifer Garner to Reese Witherspoon. Shouldn’t the correct phrase then be “one of many members of the America’s Sweethearts Club”? Plus, who determines this status? Sometimes I’ll look at someone labeled thusly (not anyone mentioned above) and think, “She’s not my sweetheart.”
  3. “Best movie/book of the year” when it’s March. ‘Nuff said.
  4. “Breath of fresh air.” I thought this was stale first time I heard it.
  5. “Unputdownable.” I just hate that word, and not because it’s not a real one. I’m all for new words being coined and it was (maybe) cute the first few times, but after the 2,927th time, I’m done.

What about you? Is there a hokey phrase that will guarantee you won’t buy a book if you see it on the cover?

Share

Tell Me a Story About…Fence

Last night, the hubster and I played that game I’ve featured here a couple times, where one person throws out a random, ordinary word and the other tells whatever story/memory that word triggers. (This is based on something Elizabeth Gilbert wrote about doing with her lover Felipe in her book, Committed.)

The word my husband gave me was “fence.” Here’s my story.

When I was a kid living in Saigon (I don’t know why I always reach way back to childhood memories), my bedroom window overlooked the neighbor’s backyard. Every afternoon, my mother made me go to my room to take a nap, but instead of doing so, I’d spy on the people next door. Not all Rear Window-y with binocs or anything; more like killing time until I could go downstairs and say I’d slept.

Usually, the only thing I ever saw was the old lady next door taking her nap in the backyard hammock. What amused me was she’d wake up with diamond-shaped etchings on one side of her face from the hammock pattern. It made her look like she’d been standing for a long time with her face pressed up against a chain-link fence. I started referring to her as “fence-face lady”—though never to her face—because I didn’t know her name.

One day, after she awoke, she abruptly pulled down her elastic-waist black pajama pants and urinated right there in the yard. (No wonder her grass was always so green.) Seeing the same criss-cross indentations on her rear, I yelped, “Oh no! She has a fence butt, too!” From that moment on, she became fence-butt lady.

I’m not trying to be crude or cute with this story. I honestly still think of her when I hear the word “fence.” I wonder if she got out of Viet Nam after the war, though I’m quite sure she didn’t because most of the older people I knew chose to stay. I can only hope she didn’t end up behind a different kind of fence.

So, what/who do you think of when you hear “fence”? Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Share

Kim Wright: Finding Closure In MID AIR

The starred Publishers Weekly review for Kim Wright’s debut novel, Love in Mid Air, may have aroused my interest, but I really wanted to read the book and host Wright on her blog tour because the lead character’s name is Elyse. In all the books I’ve read in my entire life—and that’s a WHOLE lot—I’ve never encountered a protagonist who shared my first name (have you?). Thankfully, the similarity ends there.

Kim with Otis

Elyse is unhappy in her marriage with a husband who, while not an outright jerk, is frustratingly uncommunicative. She meets an attractive man on a plane and wonders if she should jump into a possibly destructive situation or remain in a comfortable suburban life that “most women would be happy with” but Elyse feels is suffocating. It’s the equivalent of choosing to skydive or stay seated with your seat belt fastened and tray in the upright position.

Because Kim based the story on her own experience (though Elyse is NOT her), I asked if writing the book gave her a satisfying do-over or helped her find closure on any unresolved issues. I give her the floor as she responds.

In a way, writing a novel is one big “do over,” a chance to revisit old conflicts and wounds but this time you’re infinitely more clever because you’ve had years to come up with the perfect response. Natalie Goldberg says in her memoir, Old Friend From Far Away, “Writing gives you a second chance.”

So yeah, I guess you can use a novel to re-imagine events in your personal history, only now you have the authorial power to punish the guilty and reward the innocent and say all the things you wish you’d said the first time.

But I didn’t use Elyse’s story that way. I wrote Love in Mid Air in first person present tense—we see what’s happening to her as it’s happening— so she’s not always thinking clearly. Divorce makes you crazy. You do and say things you never would have believed you’d possibly do or say. To make Elyse all balanced and perfect and aware of what was happening around her would have been a bit of a cheat. I wanted to show what it’s like for a woman in the moment that her whole world is coming apart in her hands. Show a smart woman doing stupid things.

But on a different level, writing a novel does give you closure. Not in the sense you get to go back and fix things, but in the sense that it requires you to imagine how a situation looked from all sides—what Elyse’s friends were thinking, as well as her daughter, her husband, and her lover. I had to give them reactions and dialogue, too, so there were points in the book where I stepped back from Elyse and tried to create the bigger picture. Seeing a situation from someone else’s point of view may be the ultimate closure.

Thanks so much, Kim, for taking time to answer my question and being so open and unflinching with Elyse. Best of luck with the book and rest of the tour!

Readers, hope you’ve enjoyed meeting Kim. For more info, visit the book’s website or click on the link if you’re interested in buying Love in Mid Air.

Share

AWESOME Giveaway

I’ve given away some great books but this one is literally Awesome. Thanks to Amy Einhorn/Putnam, I have two ARCs of Neil Pasricha’s The Book of Awesome, a collection of everyday awesome things that the author has documented on his blog 1000awesomethings.com. Next month, it comes out in book form so you can tuck it in your bag and pull it out whenever you need a little reminder that awesomeness is everywhere.

I love this book and am intentionally not reading it all in one sitting. At the end of the day, I’ll open to a random page, read the comment or mini-essay that accompanies that particular awesome thing, and find myself smiling and nodding in agreement.

Examples:

  • Successfully moving all your clothes from the washer to the dryer without dropping anything (this is a BIG deal for me ’cause I’m always dropping socks)
  • When the thing you were going to buy is already on sale
  • Waking up before your alarm and realizing you’ve got lots of sleep time left
  • When there’s still time left in the parking meter when you pull up
  • Snow days

Enter to win one of the ARCs by leaving a comment about something awesome you experienced in the last 24 hours. I’ll start: I sat on the couch and read all day while my husband cooked brunch AND dinner. If that isn’t a definition of awesome then I need to relearn the entire English language.

You also have to:

  • be a subscriber or Twitter follower (tell me which). Current subscribers/followers automatically get an extra entry; people who tweet about the giveaway get 3 entries
  • live in U.S. or Canada, no P.O. Boxes

Giveaway ends Monday, April 5, at 5 p.m. PST. Two names will be randomly drawn; winners will only be announced here and on Twitter and have 48 hours to reply with address before alternate name(s) are chosen.

Let’s start the Awesomefest!

Share

PCNews Roundup

Didn’t have time to keep up with pop culture news this week? No worries. Watch my quick slideshow and you’ll be up to date in no time.

[cincopa 10572866]

Share

Serial Reader

This topic has come up a few times for me recently so I thought I’d open it up for discussion. If you’re about to start reading an author who writes a series, how important is it for you to start at the beginning? If you’re a reader who has been reading that series from the start, how much backstory do you want the author to include to fill in those who don’t read in order?

My husband was reading Jim Butcher’s latest Dresden Files adventure, Changes. It was the first one he’d sampled but 12th in the series. He said, “I wish Butcher had included more details on past events so I’d have a better understanding of what’s going on.” I said, “Well, if you’re curious, you can always go back and read the other ones. At least he didn’t spoil them for you.”

See, we’re not sticklers about starting with book one. What if the author doesn’t hit his/her stride until book 8? You might stop reading after the third one and miss out on a masterpiece. I know writers who’d prefer you don’t judge their series by the first book, like actors who try to steer you away from their very first gig in Children of the Corn: Impaled on the Cob. I’ve also known readers who quit a series too soon and no nagging on my part could get them to hang on for the breakthrough book.

Now, I’m not talking about a finite series with serialized plots heading towards an ending that’s already been planned out. If anyone ever advises you to start the Harry Potter series with Goblet of Fire or the Millenium trilogy with The Girl Who Played with Fire, just slap them hard. It’s like saying you should watch the Star Wars movies by starting with The Empire Strikes Back. You’d be sitting there, thinking, “What is a Muppet doing in here and why does Luke keep hearing some old dead guy in his head?” No, I’m only discussing series with self-contained installments here.

And let me be clear that I’m not against reading in chronological order. I’ve often done so and am all for it if that option is available/feasible to you. The experience will be richer if you know all the backstory before embarking on a new adventure. Which brings me to the second question in my opening paragraph: How much background is needed in each subsequent book?

When I’ve been following a series from the start, I sometimes get impatient as it progresses because the author has to include details from past books so new readers don’t feel lost. Depending on how well the writer incorporates those threads, I find myself skipping passages, thinking, “I know that already. Get on with the current story!” I’m also averse to TMI if I jump in mid-series: “The dead guy in the last book wasn’t really dead? Guess I won’t be reading it now.” It’s like I said to my husband: New readers can research the backstory on their own.

Do you ever feel this way? Am I being Grumpy McBitchy? What are your preferences when reading a series?

Share

Winners of Anne Lamott’s IMPERFECT BIRDS

Random.org selected two winners for me: Charlotte Cecilia and Storeetllr will each receive an ARC of Imperfect Birds courtesy of Riverhead Books. (Interestingly enough, both said they hate cleaning the house, something I also loathe.) The book will be available April 6.

Charlotte Cecilia and Storeetllr, please click on “contact” & send me your address, which will be forwarded to Riverhead. If I don’t hear from you by 6 p.m. PST Friday, March 26, alternate winner(s) will be selected.

Thank you to all who entered and shared your imperfections. I can relate to many of them so you are not alone. If you didn’t win, I have more great giveaways coming up very, very soon so keep your eyes peeled!

Share

The Girl Who Watched Tattooed Girls

Even though I looked forward to seeing The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I held on to a small amount of skepticism so I wouldn’t be too disappointed if it turned out crappy. I’m happy to report the concern was unwarranted. The movie is exactly as I wanted it to be—a tight, tense thriller which stays faithful to Stieg Larsson’s book while bringing Lisbeth Salander, the extraordinary character at its core, vividly to life, hot as the fire she plays with.

The movie strips away a lot of exposition at the beginning of the novel by jumping right into the plot of an old wealthy businessman, Henrik Vanger, summoning disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist to his estate to look into the 40-year-old disappearance of Vanger’s niece, Harriet. Salander, tattooed girl and brilliant computer hacker, does the background check on Blomkvist for Vanger but continues to secretly track the writer’s progress in the case even after her job is done. When she finally reveals herself by e-mailing him an important lead, the two team up to solve the mystery, one much more deviant and deadly than they imagined.

Reading the book, I thought it might be impossible for any actress to do justice to Lisbeth, who’s punked out, idiot savant-y, waifish, ferocious, antisocial, and unpredictable but utterly captivating. It’s amazing, then, to see how spot-on Rapace is, nailing all of Lisbeth’s complexities, disappearing completely into her skin (in real life, Rapace is much softer looking; she shaved her hair and got multiple piercings for the sake of authenticity). Even though Lisbeth doesn’t speak much, her thoughts and emotions come out through Rapace’s eyes, telling us what pages of dialogue probably couldn’t. Whoever takes over this role in the American remake has giant shoes—or rather, black leather shit kickers—to fill.

Everything else in the movie also comes pretty close to my mental pictures, including Michael Nyqvist as Blomkvist and the violent scenes between Lisbeth and her sadistic legal guardian. Yes, they are disturbing to watch, but they are necessary to depict Larsson’s original title for this book, Men Who Hate Women, and director Niels Arden Oplev doesn’t linger on them any longer than Larsson did. Several subplots are pared down or eliminated altogether, but I didn’t miss them, nor did I feel the movie’s two-and-a-half-hour running time.

Nerd verdict: A dark, striking Tattoo.


The other movie I saw this weekend, The Runaways, about the rise to fame of the eponymous all-girl band in the ’70s, could’ve taken a lesson or two from Lisbeth when it came to exuding real girl power. Instead, Kristen Stewart as Joan Jett and Dakota Fanning as lead singer Cherie Currie come across as blank little dolls putting on a tough act with no growl behind it. This isn’t their fault; both are fine actresses who were failed by an inadequate script and director Floria Sigismondi, who focused more on music-video-style flash than character development.

The movie starts with Jett buying a leather jacket right off a man’s back in a store and telling record producer Kim Fowley (Michael Shannon) at a club she’s going to form a band with only girls. Once Fowley plucks Currie’s jailbait blondness out of the crowd to front the band, however, the focus shifts away from Jett, which is a major misstep. Since Currie quickly disappeared from the spotlight, I didn’t care about her story; it’s like asking me to be invested in what happened to the lead singer of, say, Kajagoogoo. Jett had huge success post-Runaways and is still touring and making music today. I want to know what makes her tick but the movie gives me no clue.

Stewart, with her jet-black shag, has Jett’s looks down cold (she’s rumored to head Sony’s list to play Lisbeth) and probably could’ve done more for the movie if she’d been given a story arc along with a guitar to play. Fanning, on the other hand, should’ve just said no. She tries hard but is too soft to make a convincing sexpot, punk-rock singer. She’s not dirrty enough. The romantic scenes between her and Stewart, perhaps meant to be provocative or edgy, are simply confusing because it’s never clear what kind of relationship they had. Similarly confounding is how Lita Ford, the band’s lead guitarist who went on to have a few hits as a solo artist, wasn’t even mentioned in the where-are-they-now end notes. Not only couldn’t the film be bothered with its characters’ backstories, it left out their future stories, too.

Nerd verdict: Stay away from Runaways.

Share

Movies I’m Anticipating in Spring/Summer 2010

Now that the Oscars are over, we can stop thinking about last year’s films and look forward to what’s coming up this year. Here are the ones I’m most anticipating in the next six months, with release dates and trailers.

Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth Salander

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (today, limited release)

If you’re a regular reader here, you already know how much I love Stieg Larsson’s books. Now the Swedish film is finally opening in the U.S. Yeah, yeah, an American remake is in the works but I ain’t waiting for it (to be ruined, most likely). UPDATE: Read my review here.

Date Night (April 9)

Steve Carell and Tina Fey are two of the funniest actors working, plus it features James Franco and Mark Wahlberg, who makes me laugh even when he’s doing drama. UPDATE: Read my review here.

Robin Hood (May 14)

I’m usually not a fan of movies with men in chain mail but this stars Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, directed by Ridley Scott and written by Brian Helgeland (Mystic River, L.A. Confidential). It could be about growing potatoes and I’d still go.

Iron Man 2 (May 7)

The first one was a fun ride and this one looks even more badass. Besides the returning RDJ, Gwyneth Paltrow and Samuel L. Jackson, we’ve got Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, and Mickey Rourke as Whiplash. (He doesn’t need his whips; his teeth alone are scary enough.) And Don Cheadle as War Machine! It’s head-crunching time!

Sex and the City 2 (May 28)

Looks like this time, Carrie and her friends travel to some exotic locales. Since I can’t afford all those fabulous clothes and expensive vacations, I’ll be happy to experience everything vicariously through them.

Inception (July 16)

Isn’t the fact this is Christopher Nolan’s first film since The Dark Knight enough to make you want to see it? How about the noirish trailer and a cast chock full of Oscar winners/nominees like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Ken Watanabe and Michael Caine? This looks like a head trip but one I’ll gladly submit to, considering that most summer fare asks me to turn off my brain and not even put it on vibrate mode.

Eat, Pray, Love (August 13)

Loved this book and am a fan of Julia Roberts, not to mention Javier Bardem, James Franco, Billy Crudup, Richard Jenkins and Viola Davis. The only glitch for me is that Elizabeth Gilbert is a minor celebrity in her own right, having appeared on talk shows and in speaking engagements, so I kept waiting to see her in the trailer or hear her voice come out of Julia’s mouth. And it’s sad that the real Richard from Texas passed away recently before he could see Richard Jenkins play him.

Which movies are you looking forward to?

Share

IMPERFECT Giveaway

Are you a writer who carries around a marked-up, tattered copy of Anne Lamott’s Bird by Bird in your knapsack? Perhaps you’re into spiritual journeys and are a fan of her Traveling Mercies: Some Thoughts on Faith. How about a reader who just loves good writing?

This giveaway is for you: Two ARCs of Lamott’s latest work, a novel called Imperfect Birds being released April 6 by Riverhead Books, are up for grabs. Here’s the description from the Penguin website:

A powerful and redemptive novel of love and family, from the author of the bestselling Blue Shoe, Grace (Eventually), and Operating Instructions.

Rosie Ferguson is seventeen and ready to enjoy the summer before her senior year of high school. She’s intelligent-she aced AP physics; athletic-a former state-ranked tennis doubles champion; and beautiful. She is, in short, everything her mother, Elizabeth, hoped she could be. The family’s move to Landsdale, with stepfather James in tow, hadn’t been as bumpy as Elizabeth feared.

But as the school year draws to a close, there are disturbing signs that the life Rosie claims to be leading is a sham, and that Elizabeth’s hopes for her daughter to remain immune from the pull of the darker impulses of drugs and alcohol are dashed. Slowly and against their will, Elizabeth and James are forced to confront the fact that Rosie has been lying to them-and that her deceptions will have profound consequences.

This is Anne Lamott’s most honest and heartrending novel yet, exploring our human quest for connection and salvation as it reveals the traps that can befall all of us.

I haven’t read the book but think the idea is that we’re all imperfect birds. To enter, leave a comment telling me something about yourself you’d like to improve. I’ll go first: I wish I enjoyed cooking and grocery shopping more. I love a well-cooked meal but have no patience for selecting just the right melon or all that dicing and simmering. Sometimes I stand in front of the oven and yell, “Hurry up!” at the turkey inside.

Most of the time, we try to hide our flaws, but here’s a chance for you to get them out in the open and possibly be rewarded for your candor!

To be eligible, you also have to:

  • be a subscriber or Twitter follower (tell me which). Current subscribers/followers automatically get an extra entry; people who tweet about the giveaway get 3 entries
  • live in U.S. or Canada, no P.O. Boxes

Giveaway ends Wednesday, March 24, at 5 p.m. PST. Two names will be randomly drawn; winners will only be announced here and on Twitter and have 48 hours to reply with confirmation and address before alternate name(s) are chosen.

Let’s start the oversharing!

Share