Race and Relations in Londonstani

Spoiler Alert!: The biggest surprises of the novel are revealed in this post.
by Courtney Hilden

Londonstani by Gautam Malkani is the story of a young Sikh man named Jas, who, with his gang of Sikh and Hindi guy friends, is running a cell phone scam. After partnering with an older Indian man, Jas is mentored about dating and begins seeing a Muslim girl. The novel presents multiple ideas about race via the many characters, and when near the end of the novel it is revealed that although Jas is actually white and Sikh, the previous assumptions of the readers are upended. The sudden change is stunning, and although frustratingly late in the novel, it forces readers to reassess the ideas about race, gender, religious beliefs and other forms of identity the novel previously presented.
First, there is the issue of Jas's identity and the way it is presented to the reader at various times in the novel. Near the beginning of the novel, Jas self-identifies as Sikh. Later on, when talking about the character named Jaswinder, Jas says he was mad because "I'd got the nickname Jas." When Jas offers to share his nickname, Jaswinder tells him not to be stupid because "It's bad enough havin so many desis at school with the same fuckin nickname." The implication leads us to believe that Jas's full name is Jaswinder, though at the end of the novel it is revealed to be Jason. Jas's father is called a good Indian businessman. Jas has Indian friends and talks about what white people are like in way that indicates he does not see himself as one of them. Though Jas is obviously an unreliable narrator, the reader imagines almost the entire story with Jas being Sikh. Obviously, this comes into question when Jas's medical papers describe him as white and use a stereotypical old-school, elite British name. And although Jas calls himself Sikh, his identity is never completely clear, as his parents obviously do not see him as South Asian, saying that he is not one of them. Mr. Ashwood says that he was once a better person, implying that once he was not one of them. The following interpretation assumes that Jas is a white Sikh convert but one who is passing as South Asian amongst the South Asian community.
Identity is the major focus of the novel. The three sections of the novel are titled different and not necessarily politically correct names for South Asians. Much of the dialogue of the novel is peppered with identity terms, including the most often used one: coconut. A coconut, as the novel defines it, is someone who is brown on the outside and white on the inside, or put more accurately, a South Asian who acts white. Jas goes so far as to say that Arun is semi-coconut, which is to say someone who does not act white but is not truly South Asian either. Coconut gets thrown around frequently in the novel, which is interesting, since Jas himself is the opposite of a coconut: he is a white man who acts South Asian.
The novel presents an unflattering view of South Asian men, especially young South Asian men. The characters have various ugly faults, ones that reinforce ideas about how apparently dangerous and evil young South Asian men are. Ravi and Amit are homophobes, making jokes about Jas's sexuality, mocking men coded as gay at the gym and talking about how much they would like to see a skin magazine featuring Indian lesbians. The gang talks about women as objects, Ravi commenting about he will "get off wid as many fit gyals" as he wants and Sanjay explaining how his teeth are a "thong-removal system." Hardjit is aggressive and often violent. The gang defines their strength by their sexual prowess, Sanjay chastising Jas about his lack of sexual experience by saying he is "so pathetic you'd probably go limp if she let you do any more." The novel depicts the dominant view of South Asian men: they are violent and hateful and dangerous. The novel never subverts this racist perspective of them. The only male characters who make some effort at respecting women are Jas, who is actually white, and Arun, who is defined as being un-South Asian. Although Jas does not completely respect women, the two whitest characters are presented as the protectors of womanhood, a racist and patriarchal idea.
If this was not enough, Londonstani goes farther in its racist view of South Asian men: that they corrupt good white men like Jas. Mr. Ashwood comments several times that Jas was never like this before. And Jas himself often remarks about the time in his life before he was friends with these group. Near the end of the novel, Jas attempts to steal from his own father. His parents say that his friend are a bad influence on him, again, presenting the dominant view about the Other: that they are a menace to society and will hurt even supposedly good white boys, like Jas apparently was before he fell into this group.
Even the character who outwardly represents a model, both in the sense of being a model minority to white characters and a model to the Indian characters, turns out to be dangerous and violent. Sanjay is a slightly older, former student of Mr. Ashwood. Mr. Ashwood sets up Jas and the rest of the boys with Sanjay in an attempt to provide them with a positive role model, because he has a good education and a good job. He who is clearly meant to be a stereotypical model minority, with his fancy apartment, fast car, and cultural capital, but is really a gangster pulling a multi-country scam. He too turns out to be a corrupting force in Jas's life, manipulating him into stealing from his own father. There is no good male South Asian man in this entire novel. All of them are bad.
Economic forces also come into play in the novel. Ashwood discusses, among other things, his beliefs in socialism. But Sanjay the model minority is himself a capitalist, one who believes in "bling-bling urban youth culture." He cuts business deals, including one with Jas and his friends. Many of the characters use materialism through the luxury items they have, as a way of expressing power. Sanjay himself sees traditional work as a problem, using the problematic term "whore" to describe his work. Capitalism is criticized in the book as being the root of many of the problems in the South Asian community since it is a way for South Asians to assimilate into the larger, dominant culture, and Malkani sketches how problematic this connection is, but never goes farther than this.
Gender is also problematic displayed. Samira is the only major young woman in the novel. As a Muslim woman, she is expected to date and eventually marry a Muslim man, even though she spends a significant portion of the novel dating Jas. Samira's father is apparently okay with this, but her brothers are not. Samira is presented at the beginning of the novel as being beautiful, but Jas is surprised to learn she is a virgin, and although he respects her, the things that both his friend and later he himself say about her indicate their desire to control her. As a white man, he has the obvious power advantages over her, but as stated before, he is the only one who can apparently respect women, since his friends spend time discussing the sexual ways they would like to interact with her. Samira dates a white man and no one sees this as problematic, especially given that South Asian men are coded as less desirable within the novel. Meanwhile, the mothers of these young men are depicted as absolute harpies. They are shrill, ridiculous, petty, hysterical, manipulative and insensitive to everyone around them. They are constantly nagging their sons, to the point where one son actually kills himself. One mother constantly tries to control her future daughter-in-law's clothes and behavior. They emasculate their sons and husbands. They are miserable, and this too is never challenged. South Asians mothers are possibly the least likable characters in the novel, and this idea manages to be racist, misogynistic and ageist all at once.
Ultimately, the problem with Londonstani is that is presents a host of racist ideas about South Asians, which, considering the author's background, makes it an even more complicated issue about internalized hatred. While the novel does critically look at capitalism and its role in South Asian assimilation, the novel also presents stereotypes of South Asian men and women while depicting the one white character as being semi-heroic and understanding. The novel asks readers to have empathy for the white narrator, who has been wrongly influenced by South Asian thugs but is good-hearted enough to protect a South Asian woman who apparently cannot rely on men of her own race.

Horrible Bosses Deserves a Promotion

by Jon James

Horrible Bosses starts off with a cast rock-solid enough to sink a body with. Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, and Colin Farrell star as three supervisors despicable enough to lead average men Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day), and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) to consider homicide. Spacey shines brightest, playing a manipulative, demanding, white-collar company president who would probably make a pregnant woman work until her water broke and then bill her for carpet cleaning. Aniston delivers a sex-addicted, extorting dentist that makes you really start to see the advantages of Novocain over nitrous gas. Colin Farrell kicks it up with a sleazy, coked-up, chemical-waste-disposal-company heir that would personally dump DDT right into a lake if it would save him ten bucks for more blow. The morbidly-inclined employees bring a synergy that’s not unlike the (original) Three Stooges, if they had turned into a manhunting trio. Day steals the show with a whiny, dim-witted but lovable incompetent that is straight out of his It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia character, only slightly less malefic. Bateman’s character is also similar to the role he’s known for in Arrested Development, but minus the family holding him together. Sudeikis’ womanizing character leaves something to be desired, though whether that is the actor’s fault or is just a universal trait of Jung’s ancient archetype “Himbo” is hard to say. The three play off each other well, though, and their chemistry really drives the humor part of this dark comedy.
Jamie Foxx also shows up, as a heavily tattooed “murder consultant” whose name would have more asterisks than letters if it were printed here. The character is used to make a few jabs at the racial ignorance and stereotyping that is still present in well-meaning middle class white men, but the character himself stands out as being just slightly more absurd than the other characters, like a mime corpse in a clown hearse. As with many movies with all-male leads,the movie’s next big jokes revolve around homophobic humor. A few of the scenes were funny and contributed to the development of the plot, such as when a urophilic gigolo shows up instead of a hitman, but mostly the jokes are passe and only distract from the tension-comedy waltz that fuels the movie. The pacing is well-orchestrated and effective, culminating in a plot climax that coincides with, well, another sort of climax. The humor and suspense develop up to this point is unrelenting, without a slow moment, and managing to generally avoid the awkward comedy motif that has been in vogue since The Office started airing in the U.S. The plot itself is driven by a decent degree of unexpected twists without falling back on various unjustified dei ex machina. In the meantime, Horrible Bosses manages to take some jabs at such cultural absurdities as movie piracy, outsourcing, stereotyping, and male sexual harassment, while keeping the jokes light and nondistracting.
In all, Horrible Bosses uses its A-list cast well, and revisits the Shakespearean art of balancing comedy and drama. Most of the jokes are fresh, with the exception of a bit of stale homophobic and chauvinistic humor, for which the creators should be berated. But if you’re looking for a refreshing comedy and don’t mind plenty of justification for an R rating, Horrible Bosses is worth a shot.

Drood

by Clare MacGregor

Drood by Dan Simmons is a story of friendship, deceit, madness, and mystery. The narrator, Wilkie Collins, a friend and collaborator of Charles Dickens, begins the tale in the year 1865, recounting the Staplehurst railway accident and the aftermath of the accident. During the accident Dickens encounters a mysterious man by the name of Drood. Deeply intrigued by this phantom-like man Charles Dickens discovers Drood’s whereabouts and insists that Collins come along with him when he visits Undertown. Reluctantly, Collins goes with him, but is only permitted to go so far. Days after this night-time visit to Undertown, Wilkie Collins meets a police officer who enlists him to act as an informant regarding the man named Drood. Drood’s influence seeps deeper and deeper into Wilkie Collins’s life and imagination, but it’s not only Drood who haunts Willkie Collins’s mind, Willkie is convinced that there is another Willkie, one who looks just like him, but is not him, who begins making additions to whatever story or play Wilkie Collins is currently working on. At first Collins is infuriated that “the other Wilkie” who is contributing to the stories while Collins is sleeping; but as things progress Collins begins to rely on his doppelganger more and more. One evening while Dickens is visiting, Collins hears Dickens, Drood, and the doppelganger of himself conspiring against him. As Dickens health begins to decline, Drood assigns the task of writing his biography (a tasks once entrusted to Dickens) to Collins. He adamantly refuses, but Drood will not be dissuaded. Already obsessed with Drood, Collins’s mind and life begins to increasingly overflow with paranoia. A few days before Dickens suffers a stroke, he reveals a secret about Drood.
Drood will appeal to fans of historical fiction, thrillers, mystery, horror, and fans of the movie/play Amadeus as Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins have a Salieri/Mozart-like friendship.

Amulet: The Stonekeeper

Spoiler Alert!: Most of the big reveals in this story are given away in this review.
by Courtney Hilden

Amulet: The Stonekeeper is the first book in a graphic novel series that follows Emily and her brother Navin as they struggle to rescue their mom, who has been taken by a tentacled monster. Despite the overly-used premise and nods to other fantasy stories, this first part of the Amulet story manages to feel fresh.
The story opens up on a family vacation, one that ends in tragedy after a car crash kills Emily and Navin's father. Because of his death, their mother moves them both to their ancestral home, which has an opening to a mystical world that Great-Grandfather Silas (still somehow alive) was running with the help of an amulet. Similar to the titled ring in The Lord of the Rings, the amulet's power comes with serious, personal drawbacks, but to save her mother, Emily decides to wield its power. Great-grandfather's gang of helpers, including a bunny-like Misket, help Emily and Navin, and the story ends before readers can know if their mom survives.
The artwork is stunningly cinematic, especially in their color choices and background detail. The monsters feel new, with a strangely combination of the Halloween ghouls of Invader Zim and the many characters, good and bad, from Hayao Miyazaki. The children, Emily and Navin, are perfect cartoon characters, both simple and expressive. (The series is now in the process of being made into a movie, and given the fantastic art, this is not surprising.)
It is also nice that the main hero is Emily and not a young man. So often in fantasy stories that are written for both genders the hero is male. Often, female characters play small roles or ones that confine them to feminine roles (as mothers, nurturers, or even in Avatar: The Last Airbender, where the main female character, despite considerable power, was the one doing most of the cooking and laundry.) Here, Emily is a character who is without an disadvantage that could be coded as "womanly." She is tying to save her last living parent and take care of her younger brother, a role that could have easily been male, but here, thankfully, is not. It is time both young girls and boys read a story about a real girl, one who is brave and well-intentioned but imperfect, and this looks like a great series to do so with.

The Green Lantern

Spoiler Alert!: Some of the best and juiciest bits of the movie are revealed in this review.

by Courtney Hilden

With all the superhero movies made in recent years, like Batman, Spiderman and Ironman, the competition for the high-flying, mutant-spider-bitten, and spandex wearing can be tough. And yet, The Green Lantern, a lesser-known superhero, gets a decent movie.
The story picks up with Hal Jordan, a hotshot pilot, who, since he is being played by Ryan Reynolds, puts the hot in "hotshot." At work, he flies suicidally in an effort to beat drone planes, and it is a Pyrrhic victory: he beats the planes, but in the process, loses his company a government contract, and half of the employees will be fired. His ex-girlfriend, his boss, also worries about his safety, since his own father also died while flying.
Despite all this, The Green Lantern is never as dark or brooding as Batman or the later Spiderman movies. Instead, there's something wild about this character, something recklessly stupid. He shows up to his ex's in full costume, risking her discovering his identity (which takes her all of a minute to uncover.) And although he decides to save Earth solo, he does so in a way that almost destroys his life. Hal Jordan is a go-for-broke kind of character, and there's something refreshing about someone who does not brood about his decisions before or after. He simply does.
The true knockout performance in this movie is not Ryan Reynolds, although he delivers and understands his character. Peter Sarsgaard's Hector Hammond is quite possibly the most Shakespearean villain ever on screen. He is constantly being criticized and passive aggressively pushed around by his father, he is in the thankless job of a university professor and he never got the girl, and at the first hint of power he decides to use it on murdering his own father. (The writers smartly decided to concentrate the story of Hector's poor relations with his father instead of his rejection at the hands of the one female character.) Hector becomes literally bloated with his new-found power, and turns into a Frankenstein's monster of his own and his father's making: he is pitiable and evil at the same time. Sarsgaard balances these perfectly, never laying it on too thick. And his screams of pain are heartbreakingly tortured. The singer/screamers of metal bands work years to perfect their howls, and none of those come to the ones that Sarsgaard delivers.
Lastly, Mark Strong as Sinestro gives a solid performance as well. Strong is better known for playing intense enemies in movies and television shows across the pond. Strong's best characters were ones with rage bubbling beneath their surfaces. Strong does a slight turn here; instead of rage, his Sinestro is fierce, but in a subtle, strangely nurturing way. If there is going to be a second movie (and honestly, I am not opposed to the idea), then let's hope we get to see more of Strong and Reynolds together, saving the world.

Heavier Than Heaven: A Biography of Kurt Cobain

by Courtney Hilden
Heavier than Heaven: A Biography of Kurt Cobain by Charles R. Cross, covers the life and infamous times of the well-loved musician. The book charts the struggles within his family, his adolescent stints as both homeless and creative, his lovers (some of whom are famous in their own right), and, of course, the explosive band he served as frontman for, Nirvana.
The most difficult things about biographies is the tone. The feelings of the biographer inevitably come out, and usually this is either admiration or hatred, with little in-between. Cross manages to avoid writing a hagiography, but it is still a mostly admirable view of Cobain, and, depending on your view of Cobain, may or may not have been deserved.
Cross gives all sorts of interesting, and often surprising, details about Cobain. Cobain, famous for jumping into drum sets, destroying sets, and yes, smashing guitars, drove like "a little old lady" in the words of his bandmates, to the point where they often did not want him to drive.
Despite being fairly long, there were multiple parts of the book that begged for more details. As a teenager, Cobain became a born-again Christian while living with and befriending other born-again Christians. Given that Cobain seemed, at the least, agnostic later on in life, and famously covered Christian songs, this section of his story deserves more research, especially given that a clear reason for his falling out with Christianity never is explained.
The book focuses mostly on Cobain, but his relationships with his bandmates is only glanced at. The book does spend time discussing Chad Channing's split from the band, and how it was handled relatively maturely by Cobain and his fellow bandmate and best friend, Krist Novoselic. Minimal time is spent on Cobain's relationship with Novoselic and less on Dave Grohl, who, among other things, was Cobain's roommate.
The book also comes with a collection of black and white photos of Cobain. One of the things missing is photos of his art, which was Cobain's other great creative expression. As a fan (yes, yes, I will admit that I am really a fan of Nirvana), this could easily be a whole other book, probably in coffeebook style.

The most fascinating thing about Cobain was actually the women around him. Cobain struggled with his relationship with his mother, who Cobain seems to have seen as what we would now call a cougar, but was also put in impossibly difficult situations, with at least one unwanted pregnancy and an abusive husband. (Not Cobain's father but stepfather.) Cobain's younger sister is a lesbian, and this was almost entirely brushed over. Cobain's girlfriends, Tracy Marander, Tobi Vail, Mary Lou Lord, Courtney Love, were all interesting in their own right. The later three were all musicians themselves; Vail was a member of the seminal Bikini Kill and Love famously fronted Hole; Lord was a folk singer. Marander in particular sacrificed for Cobain, economically supporting him when Cobain was out of work. It is too bad that there are not books (or in some cases, more) about these women, who unfortunately, have become footnotes in Cobain's life and not the full people they obviously are, though this is through no fault of Cross.
For a fan, Heavier than Heaven is a must read. The less interested in Nirvana, though, the less interested most readers would be in this book.

AngelMonster

by Clare MacGregor
Spoiler Alert!: Some spoilers are revealed in this review

AngelMonster by Veronica Bennett tells the story of Mary Shelley, the author of the classic novel Frankenstein. AngelMonster begins when Mary is sixteen and ends when she is twenty-one. Mary’s life events are interwoven with the lives of her stepsister, Claire Clairmont, and Percy Bysshe Shelley. Throughout the course of story Mary, Percy, and Claire travel from England to France, Switzerland, and Italy. The reader is drawn into the story like a close friend of the characters. Though the novel is based on actual events and follows Mary Shelley’s life very closely, AngelMonster is not devoid of twists and turns that are sure to keep readers on the edge of their seats. During a summer visit to Lord Byron’s villa near Geneva Mary, Percy, Claire, Lord Byron, and John Polidori, take turns telling ghost stories and the beginnings of what would become Mary's Frankenstein-filled mind. Mary’s novel further develops in her imagination as her husband grows more and more dependent on laudanum, she reflects on her own mother’s death, and Claire’s life is torn apart by Lord Byron. Some of these events are conveyed in dream-like intervals sprinkled throughout the story.
Bennett provides such richly vivid historical detail that the reader feels as though they are in the same room as the characters. The story of Mary Shelley’s life is skillfully told by Bennett. AngelMonster is a must read for anyone who loves Frankenstein and wishes to learn more about the author, or any fans of Gothic novels.

Creepy Creatures

by Courtney Hilden
Spoiler Alert!: Some of the endings of the stories are revealed in this review.

Earlier, we here at Recommended reviewed Terror Trips, a collection of horror stories from Goosebumps told in a graphic narrative style. Creepy Creatures is the same basic format: three horror stories from R.L. Stine. Because this is Goosebumps, the stories are meant to still be appropriate for younger readers. "The Werewolf of Fever Swamp" is about a family that moves into a new neighborhood and finds there may be werewolves living in the forest. "The Scarecrow Walks at Midnight" is about two siblings whose trip to their grandparents farm is ruined by animated scarecrows. And "The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena" is about a scientist father and his children bringing home Bigfoot.
The artwork is all three stories is distracting. Both "The Werewolf of Fever Swamp" and "The Scarecrow Walks at Midnight" have art that is relatively realistic, particularly the latter. The art for "The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena" is much more cartoony, but the eyes are really distracting, with uncolored pupils.
The two superior sections, in terms of storytelling, are "The Werewolf of Fever Swamp" and "The Scarecrow Walks at Midnight." In the werewolf story, in the end, the young man and narrator turns into a werewolf, which, considering these stories are meant to be for children (just about no one ever dies), is surprising. "The Scarecrow Walks at Midnight" is actually interesting because it depicts one of the grandparents' employers, Stanley, who is depicted as having some kind of special need.
It is this character who is the most problematic. Stanley is the bad guy in the story, who has created zombie-like scarecrows based on things he read in a magic book. People with disabilities are often depicted as stupid, pathetic, evil or combinations thereof. In this story, Stanley is depicted as all of them. He is evil enough to use his scarecrows to threaten the grandparents and the siblings, but too stupid and pathetic to effectively control or destroy the scarecrows. No real motivation is given for his actions; apparently his "inabilities" do that for him. No critique of the family that employs him or society that marginalizes someone like him is given (which would have served for a more reasonable and sympathetic motivation.) Instead, he is just bad. Instead, he is just like his zombie-scarecrows; dangerous and needing to be controlled by the employers (easily read here as capitalists) and the abled.
Creepy Creatures is not as good as Terror Trips, both in terms of art and storylines. Creepy Creatures also has some problematic depictions of those with special needs, which discerning parents might want to shield their children from or at least discuss with them.

Mary Olivier: A Life

Spoiler Alert!: Some details of the novel, like the death of a certain character, is revealed in this review.
by Courtney Hilden

Mary Olivier: A Life by May Sinclair, is exactly that: the life story (though, interestingly, not necessarily her death) of the title character, who comes of age in Victorian England, struggling with an unsympathetic family, uncaring men, and a passion for intellectual pursuits.
The writing is marvelous. Like The Awakening, the novel begins as the main character is just swimming out of consciousness, and the reader moves through the first part of the book as if in coming out of a dream, becoming more aware of details as the story progresses. Sinclair, who coined the term "stream of consciousness," gives a lovely example of the technique that has so famously become a part of modern novels. The novel is incredibly impressive just because of the writing.
Mary Olivier is often compared to Jane Eyre. Both novels feature smart, meditative young women growing up in Victorian England. Because Jane Eyre is often considered a cult masterpiece by feminist scholars, I wanted to briefly compare the two characters, Mary and Jane, and to write about the issue of control within the novels.
Mary's and Jane's families, especially the women in those two families, attempt to control the main characters. Mary's mother is a Mommy Dearest: passive aggressive, inducing guilt trips, and manipulating her daughter, even when Mary is middle-aged. She disapproves of Mary's love of German, poetry, philosophy, and other subjects, so she takes books away from her. She hates that Mary is an atheist, so she constantly nags her about her beliefs and makes Mary read the Bible to her. She does not want her daughter to get married, so she continually sabotages any relationships Mary has with men. She isolates Mary alone in a home with her for decades, where Mary has little interaction with others, cannot do what she likes, and becomes increasingly cowed by her mother. This is the one of the things that was anti-feminist about the novel: as a young woman, Mary fights this oppression, but eventually allows herself to be controlled. It gets to the point where her mother no longer needs to throw her weight around; Mary makes choices based on her mother's "needs." Like a prisoner who has been watched for too long, she polices herself. Jane, of course, never knows her mother, though other women in her life (such as her aunts and her female cousins) attempt to control her. For the most part, Jane does not let them.
Then, there are of course, the men and how they attempt to control both characters. For Mary, there are multiple men that she considers for suitors: Maurice Jourdain, Lindley Vickers, and Richard. All of them disappoint her in the end. Jourdain likes her as a little girl and pays for her education. He finds that he does not like her with a real mind and that she is too headstrong, and, after being unable to change her, he marries someone else. Vickers courts her while simultaneously sleeping with another young woman in the village. And Richard grows impatient with her and her issues with her mother, so he too marries someone else. And Mary never marries, which to many readers might seem sad, but the novel ends happily, with her, in third person narration discussing how the little things in her life make her happy. Jane's Mr. Rochester infamously treats her with disdain, manipulating her and lying to her about his own marital status. And St. John tries to compel her to marry him and be his sidekick on his suicidal missionary trip. And Jane marries Mr. Rochester, who becomes less handicapped because of her in the epilogue of the novel.
Jane Eyre is a complicated novel when we consider the feminism question. On one hand, it is hard to see her as much of a feminist character or hero because she marries a man who shows her little respect, but one the other hand, she is otherwise fiercely independent when it comes to anyone else in her life. The novel suggests that one should not give up one's independence until the man of your dreams comes along. Mary, conversely, inevitably spurs the advances of all her suitors by being herself, and yet she becomes completely controlled by her mother in her later years. Mary is only happy after her mother conveniently dies. Both Jane and Mary claim to be happy at the end of their novels, and yet I am more convinced that Mary is and will continue to be relatively happy, since she has lost the last controller (her mother) of her life.
Mary Olivier is a fascinating novel in terms of its depiction of women's lives (other female characters make surprising choices not covered in this review). The novel is a great choice not only for Jane Eyre fans, but readers who enjoy Victorian and modernist literature, particularly those who enjoyed The Awakening, "The Yellow Wallpaper" or the works of Virginia Woolf. (The novel was published in 1919 but is set much earlier.)

The Dark-Hunter Companion

by Clare MacGregor

Sherrilyn Kenyon’s Dark-Hunters books draw readers into a world of hunters whose duty it is to protect the human race from supernatural forces that would harm them both in the waking world and in their dreams. Each group of hunters has strict rules they must live by. These rules not only dictate their interactions with humans, but interactions with each other. Because there are so many factions in the world of the Dark-Hunters, readers might easily find it difficult to keep the relationships between the various Hunter factions, the Demons and Gods clear in their head. The Dark-Hunter Companion by Sherrrilyn Kenyon is a companion book for the Dark-Hunter, Dream-Hunter, and Were-Hunter series’ is written as an instruction book for a new Dark-Hunter. In the book each subdivision of Hunters has their own chapter. The first chapter is made up of the dos and don’ts of the Dark-Hunters’ world. Included in each chapter has a “directory” for the Hunters of that subgroup. The “directory” also notes which books in the series feature certain characters. In the Were-Hunters’ chapter includes descriptions of and menus from the Were-Hunters favorite hang outs. Some of the restaurants/clubs sound so amazing readers will wish they were real places. Each chapter explains the origin of each group of Hunters. If readers are familiar with mythology (particularly Greek) the easiest characters to remember will be the Gods and Goddesses. The Dark-Hunter Companion includes deleted scenes from some of the Dark-Hunter novels and an interview with Sherrilyn Kenyon.
The Dark Hunter Companion is a wonderful book to have on hand when reading the Dark- Hunter, Dream-Hunter, and Were-Hunter series to use as quick reference.

Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches' Guide to Romance Novels

by Clare MacGregor

Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan are the founders of Smart Bitches, Trashy Books website and blog have published a book that has caught the eye of romance authors and romance readers alike. Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches’ Guide to Romance Novels by Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan is a wonderful laugh-inducing literary criticism of the romance genre. The authors of this book, both avid romance readers, delve into everything romance readers’ love and love to laugh at about the genre. Subjects discussed in Beyond Heaving Bosoms include “Cringe-Worthy Plot Devices”, “The Covers, and The Reasons to Snark Them”, and “Defending the Genre”. There are also in depth analysis of heroines and heroes. The book also includes “The Ten Commandments of Heroine Conduct” and “The Bitches’ Dictionary” which provides definitions of stock characters and situations that can be found in nearly every subgenre of the romance novel. Beyond Heaving Bosoms includes lots of fun and games such as “Choose Your Own Man Tatty”, the Romance genre’s answer to Choose Your Own Adventure, a color by numbers Romance cover, and “Write Your Own Romance” (a Mad-Lib game) just to name a few. While some games and activities like the Romance maze allow for only one player, others like “The Smart Bitches’ Big Mis Game”, “Create Your Own Deflowering Scene”, and “Anatomy of a Truly Excellent Romance Cover Treasure Hunt” are great for a Girls’ Night In.
Reading Beyond Heaving Bosoms is like chatting with friends. Beyond Heaving Bosoms is great light-hearted read for both avid romance readers and fans of other genres alike.

Crash Love

by Courtney Hilden

Although I might be later embarrassed to admit this, I am an A.F.I. fan. I first became aware of them when they were mostly a punk band, and I liked the supernatural melodrama of their album The Art of Drowning, which struck me as a perfect soundtrack to shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Later on, when they released their Sing the Sorrow, I was impressed by the breath of influences (80s neoromantics, metal, punk, goth, pop) and their lyrical content, which focused on the same apocalyptic themes but with more imagery. In songwriting, it is so easy to tell listeners; it is so much harder to show them. Then Decemberunderground came out, and I was so disappointed by the B-side-esque quality of the most of the music, I was simply to afraid to try their next album, Crash Love. If it was bad, it would break my heart, because then it meant that A.F.I. was no longer the band I had loved. So I put off listening to it, even though I purchased it in late 2009.
What a mistake putting that off was.
Crash Love is not a perfect album, but it would be hard for anyone to beat out Sing the Sorrow. Crash Love is still wonderful, and breaks new ground lyrically for A.F.I. The album's lyrics are mostly centered around a souring relationship, which, considering the focus of some of their earlier work, is both new ground for them and old hat for most bands, which usually focus their work of this exact subject. What makes A.F.I.'s take on the subject interesting is how unrelentingly and unembarrassingly messed up and melodramatic this whole unraveling relationship is. Several of the songs, like "Beautiful Thieves" talk about committing crimes together, in a way that strangely conjures up Bonnie and Clyde, if they were modern criminals who shopped at Hot Topic. Many of the songs discuss pretending within the relationship, like in "Veronica Sawyer Smokes" mentions "feigning falling" and "Okay I Feel Better Now" where the singer admits "faking for you." The song "Too Shy to Scream" prophetically works through the breakup, noting that the other person will not even pause their life after ending a relationship, just simply move on. Hughes films are even referenced in "Veronica Sawyer Smokes."
The song that is actually the most interesting (and perhaps the most lyrically impressive) is "Sacrilege." It is the only song that is not obviously about a deteriorating relationship. Instead, it appears to be a critique of religion from an atheist point of view. It brings up multiple aspects of religion, calling it obsolete, filled with "hysteric fairy tales" and "one big joke." It twists and flips religious imagery and phrases in clever ways. "Say your prayers, they're the final punchline./I don't see the love/below or above," Havok sings. "Please believe I'm doing just fine." Given that so much of A.F.I.'s previous music has referenced apocalypses and religious imagery, this song is particularly interesting and sheds a new light on their older work.
The album is a perfect distillation of the power punk pop that A.F.I. is so famous for. There is something invigorating about the overall sound of the album, and unlike most pop out there, the songs deal in uncommon ways with love, and in the case of one song, critiques religion in an impressively passionate way.

Terror Trips

Spoiler Alert!: Some of the endings to these short stories are revealed in this review
by Courtney Hilden

Terror Trips is a collection of three Goosebumps stories done as graphic narratives. "One Day at Horrorland" chronicles a family's misadventures at a theme park, "Deep Trouble" is about a boy visiting his scientist uncle and meeting a mermaid, and "A Shocker on Shock Street" is about two kids trying out a new theme park ride.
Each story stands up at least reasonably well within the graphic narrative (or as the kids would probably read these call them, comics.) There is plenty of action and monsters to make each story fun.
The two stories for "Deep Trouble" and "One Day at Horrorland" are predictable. "Deep Trouble" has the hero, Billy, comes to the inevitable conclusion that the mermaid, captured for scientific study and confinement, should be released. "One Day at Horrorland" is slightly less predictable, with the children remembering a detail about the theme park that leads them to the discover the weakness of the monsters that are about to kill them. It is the sort of detail that seems to obvious in retrospect. In terms of the storyline, the impressive one is "A Shocker on Shock Street," which has an impressive Twilight Zone-esque ending. The story starts out with the assumption that the two children are completely normal, but in the end, it turns out they were like their father's other creations: robots meant to emulate something else. The ending was well-handled, fast, and devastating.
The art work for "Deep Trouble" is particularly beautiful. The artist, Amy Kim Ganter, created an adorable mermaid, one that I would love to follow in further adventures. The artwork for the other two stories was serviceable for the story but not as eye-catching as Ganter's work.

Motor City Blues

Spoiler Alert!: The most important spoiler for the season so far is in this review.

by Courtney Hilden

Oh, hi, Detroit 187, it's been a long time since we've checked in with you.
The first thing this episode covered, and probably the biggest change on the show, is the death of Detective Stone. He sort of died off screen, as the audience watched him get shot and then they ended the episode there. And when we returned, there were the detectives, mourning his loss. Given that Stone was one of the few white and young actors on the show, it's surprising that they killed him off. This is actually sort of admirable, because usually when they kill off characters they are the person of color who has always been relegated to a side character anyway. Here's hoping the show will allow the other characters, almost all who are people of color, will be the focus of the show. They are far more interesting.
That said, the characters got over Stone's death pretty quickly. By about fifteen minutes into the episode, it was easy to conclude that no one on the team had died, judging by how business as usual the characters were. Sanchez, as a woman (and the only woman really on this team, as one of the others is a boss and the other is federal) was the only one allowed to mourn, which adheres to our culture's insistance that only women can (should, are weaker for) showing emotion and that men never feel anything, especially not for a colleague or friend. The scene between Sanchez and Fitch, talking about Stone, rang incredibly false. The actress playing Sanchez seemed to struggle to be sad.
Speaking of feminism, it would have been easy for this show to turn Fitch's wife, Linda, into a sterotype, but instead, they showed her as someone who wanted her son to know his father and wanted to avoid a confrontation with him. This is possibly the most heartaching and realistic-kid-centric divorced couple I've seen on television.
That said, taken in the context of Sanchez, Latina as female stereotype and Linda, white woman as not a female stereotype, I was bothered. Linda, a white character, is allowed to be more than her identity as a white woman, while Sanchez is confined to the stereotypes of Latinas as histronic. Or, put another way, Sanchez, as a woman of color has been defined solely as a woman of color, and nothing beyond that.
(As of this episode, Sanchez is also the character with the least to do or the least backstory. The show has spent time showing the audience Fitch's family problems, Washington's relative family bliss, Longford's struggle with whether or not to retire, and Mahajan, with his romantic life. When are they going to give Sanchez something to do other than be a love interest of Stone and Fitch? When is she going to be defined as more than a woman for male characters to desire?)
That said, this show as a whole has done been doing some wonderful things with their soundtrack and set. The soundtrack has been a wonderful blend of old school and new school, with an emphasis on music that has come out of Detroit. The graffiti in this episode was also great. "At least Katrina was quick." That's a wonderful bit of on-the-nose politics. Nice. And the best moment? Bobby freaking out Washington by calling him on the phone.

Any Human Heart Episode Three

by Courtney Hilden

I am usually sad to see a miniseries come to an end on Masterpiece Theater, Classics Edition, but here I found I was desperate to see this particular story, with increasingly wonky structure, no discernible meaning, and despicable characters, end, so then finally, blessedly, I would never have to revisit this work.

The first two episodes were relatively simple: Logan, the main character, moves between a netherworld where all his former selves reside, the story of his life, and then his old age self. Episode three found the story also moving between several stories of the older self (played by Jim Broadbent), and this became particularly confusing, as it wasn't exactly clear when things were happening. (When exactly, in the chronology, was Logan at the beach? He was suddenly in the cabin burning things, then we cut back to the beach scene, where he's drinking a beer and looking miserable.)

Midway through the episode, Logan asks himself "is my luck running out?" What I find myself wondering is when he ever had luck. His entire life was just one mistake after the next, and the fact that he spends his entire life thinking it's luck, when it's clearly all about the decisions he makes (and, the decisions other's make), his continued illusions just make him seem far too stupid. (The only thing easier to see through is the makeup that the various young actors had to put on.)

But all these things are tiny quibbles next to the various problems of the work as a whole, which I found myself struggling with. The place of women within the story was troublesome. Logan spends his entire life treating women poorly. He sleeps with women he knows are involved with his best friend, Peter. He marries two separate women because he wants to be in a relationship, not because he loves them. When one tells him she's divorcing him, he throws an abusive fit at her. He longs for children, but never to really be there or do anything remotely supportive, he just wants their love and affection, particularly the love and affection of female children, in what is an obviously creepy role. And then he sleeps with whatever he can. And yet, the work never passes any judgement on his poor behavior, never reveals the obvious misogyny and patriarchy that destroys several of these women's lives. If nothing else, it seems to revel in Logan's relationships with women, even depicting them as the underpinning of his life. But, of course, Logan's life is not about how much he loved these women, it's about a pathetic man too oblivious to realize how much harm he does and how treating women badly is impractical because it just leaves him feeling empty and hopeless, which just causes him to repeat the cycle of lovelessness all over. The work glorifying him as a model is problematic because there is nothing really good about him, just selfish, pathetic, or both.

The other troubling depiction is of the socialist collection Logan works for in this particular episode. Like other parts of this story, this just seems to be another way for the work to show how important its star is ("Look!" the works says. "There's the former King of England, there's the second World War, there's a reference to "Hills Like White Elephants." Please. Let's not pretend that this isn't just a cherry picking of historical events to make the audience feel as if somehow Logan is important, when the truth of someone's life within historical events is often far more complicated and rarely so involved in things only a Masterpiece Theater audience would be familiar with.) This socialist collective could have been fascinating, a critique of the collective's most anti-woman, racist leanings, which is vaguely danced around. Instead, it became a series of jokes, poorly made and apolitical. This miniseries might leave you to believe that the collective was ridiculous to have security measures, but the truth was that organizations like this were under constant watch from various governments, and they did work, through spies to infiltrate and disrupt their activities. (Whole books, yes, whole books, have been written on the subject, and yet this miniseries, with its dedication to HISTORY, is ignorant of them.) Two girls who engage in lesbian sex are depicted as evil, mean and stupid, and just another attempt to make lesbians villains. Moreover, this part of the episode totally brushes over what the collective was trying to do, making it into a silly game of silly young people, instead of important work to end oppression, work that still, in various ways, goes on today. It is an insulting depiction of activists. If you think that activists are unimportant, then clearly you haven't been paying attention to the work going on in Egypt.

Overall, the work was toggling between boring and offensive. I would much rather seen the life story of almost every female character than Logan, and I would have much rather seen historical events depicted in the way they happened, not from a reactionary, simplistic point of view. The only thing that I liked about this miniseries is that it is over and that, unlike say, Downton Abbey, there isn't talk of a second season.

Two Stories

Spoiler Alert!: This review spoils all the best treats of this episode.

by Courtney Hilden

Enough time has elapsed that most people probably don't remember "Three Stories," which took place in a similar context: House talked to students (that time, the kind getting medical degrees, this time, the kind learning long division) using several medical stories, with the big reveal at the end (what happened to House's leg and, apparently, attitude.)

It's this lack of revelation that made "Two Stories" such a disappointment. The three stories wove around and then showed the audience what was unexpected but necessary to understand; here the stories wove around and the payoff was nonexistent. The actual case (about a young man who had food quite literally go down the wrong pipe), was so clearly the sideline that it could have been absent and unmissed. The storyline that we should have cared about, over Cuddy and House's relationship, was equally lacking. It is hard to believe that Cuddy would only now realize that House's jerkiness extents to petty things like slamming the door and using someone else's toothbrush. And then he says he's sorry, and that's it. If the payout from this had been better (it wasn't really the toothbrush, it is that he is selfish and uncaring and that maybe those qualities are more problematic because, um, Cuddy needs someone responsible and thoughtful enough to think of her/them/Rachel, and maybe she's pregnant...I'm just brainstorming here, and even on a stomachache in a end-of-the-work-week haze I can come up with more reasonable or sane reactions from her.)

House fans have quickly become apathetic about House/Cuddy (and, from what I can tell, even Huddy fans aren't really enjoying the glow). I know I'm apathetic, just because the relationship, which could encourage a certain amount of emotional growth from House has allowed him to plateau all over again. House is always at his best when he's forced to confront himself or being funny. This episode featured none of the former and only some of the latter; it's time to get back to the formula that works and actually has story potential.

Threat Level Midnight

by Courtney Hilden

"Threat Level Midnight" was not just the title of the episode, but the title of Michael's movie, that he apparently spent eleven years on. The episode is the movie (an abbridged version, sadly) and the office watching it.

This episode is possibly the best idea the writers have had for an episode. It plays off of already established information (Michael's bad movie script from so many years ago.) One of the best parts of the episode was that it brought back multiple characters that have since left the show (mainly, Michael's ex-girlfriends, Jim's one ex-girlfriend, and that goofy friend of Michael's that no one likes.)

This episode highlights what the show does best: silly situations and Michael's huge, unreasonable ego. All of the actors did a great job acting in the various parts of the movie, perfectly playing both their characters and their character's characters. Andy totally nailed it as a bad actor playing a Jersey man. I also loved how Holly saw how Michael's goofiness, although sometimes fun, is also out of control and frequently is the most obviously immature thing about him. Michael might want to get married, but he has no idea what that would really mean, and Holly is hopefully realizing that the desire to get married does not necessarily make him compatible for her.

Honestly, I would watch a whole episode of just Michael's various movies. Jim's Goldface character was possibly the best villian of all time. Could we please have a sequel episode of Goldface's evil behavior? Please?

Chuck Versus the C.A.T. Squad

by Courtney Hilden

Last episode, Chuck realized that Sarah did not have the kind of family and friends to come to their wedding, so he begins to search for her colleagues from the CIA. Chuck comes across a group of girls called the C.A.T. Squad, and you know that means an episode filled with bad jokes.
Obviously the C.A.T. Squad was meant to be remind viewers of Charlie's Angels, but like so many of the sexist concepts on the show, this fell flat. Sarah's already a hottie, we get it, it's hardly as if anyone needed reminding. The only good thing was that the writers were competent enough to give each of the girls motivation, even if it was pretty two dimensional and predictable. (The Party Girl was clearly the cutest and most likeable, like a Reese Witherspoon-esque character, which of course also meant she had to be the villian.
What was the point of this episode? Of this entire storyline? What the show should be doing is exploring Sarah's past, especially since she is the second most important (and one of the more interesting and engaging) characters. Sarah deserves to have as many episodes exploring her past as Chuck as had for his. This episode just felt like a waste of our time and excuse for a bunch of sexy women to bounce around. The strengths of this show are their storylines and character development, and that is what the writers should be focusing on.

The Daredevil in the Mold

Spoiler Alert!: This review gives away all of the events of this episode, and some of them are big.
by Courtney Hilden

In this episode of Bones, Booth and Sweets get drunk and decide to propose to each of their girlfriends, while Cam struggles with her own love life, and the rest of the team investigates the murder of an extreme sportsman.

The theme of the episode, extreme biking, was fairly well-d0ne. One scene involved the coordination of several bikers doing stunts amongst the actors, all of which was handled flawlessly and looked fluid and natural on the screen. The subject also gave us the chance to enjoy some fun guest actors and their characters, including Naul (with possibly the weirdest name of all time). Anglea chasing people down to interrogate them was also fun to watch. (Can we please have more of the squints go out in the field to interview subjects, espeically the otherwise-annoying interns? There's something fun about their reactions to the world outside the lab.)

In terms of goofs, Cam would never have had a problem with a discussion of dog vomit slime and bed bugs, since she works with dead bodies all the time.
And finally, the most important thing about the episode: Booth's proposal to Hannah. So much of the proposal was rushed, from Booth's decision to while drunk (which felt totally false and far-to-pat) to Booth buying a ring with Sweets. On a normal episode of Bones, all of this would be drawn out enough that everything would feel genuine. Usually on this show, a case gets one of the characters to change their point of view, like it did when Bones saw herself in a victim. If the writers were not in such a hurry of getting rid of Hannah (who really has grown on me), she would get sucked into a case (another gang deal gone bad? a hostage situation?) and then Booth would realize that he loved her so much he wanted to marry her. And then, of course, she'd let him down.

It seems obvious that Hannah is not the right person for Booth. I hate to reference a certain line, but: Booth loves Hannah but is not in love with her. What a relief that Hannah said no, but not really because it gives Bones a chance at Booth. I love that Hannah knows herself well enough to know that getting married is a bad idea. But Booth was totally acting like Hannah was the problem, instead of recognizing that making her marry him would never work.
This is not to say the Bones is really a good choice for Booth. As this season has gone on, it seems clear that Bones, despite the occassional pang of lonliness, doesn't really need anything at all, and I'd rather like to celebrate that instead. Booth increasingly doesn't deserve her, and I'd much rather see us move on from that.

The montage at the end of the show, after Hannah rejected Booth's proposal, featured Booth getting drunk at the Founding Fathers, was totally boring and unnecessary and just filler.

Given the events of this episode in terms of the long story arc, this was all big stuff, yet it felt thrown together instead of the event that it should have been.

Family Practice

by Courtney Hilden
Spoiler Alert!: One of the turns in the case is revealed in this review.
On this very special episode of House, Cuddy's Mom was having a heart problem. This meant that House was going to have to help. This meant House would even dress up in a doctor coat. There was something slow about this episode. I still can't decide if it was boring or not.
The highlight of the episode was the possibility that Cuddy's Mom was an alcoholic (which, in fact, turned out not to be true.) Making Cuddy's Mom an addict was a fascinating turn of events. It makes Cuddy's relationship with House all the more fraught with pitfalls, since, as viewers know, House is himself a recovering (and sometimes not-so-recovering addict.) Hopefully, the show will continue to explore this facet of the House/Cuddy relationship and Cuddy's relationship with her Mom.
In the B storyline, Taub attempted to make more money working for his ex's brother. You knew it was going to turn out badly, but it became another attempt by the writers to make Taub likable. By the time the writers figure out how to make that happen, the show's going to be over.

Chuck Versus the Push Mix

Spoilers Alert: There's only one spoiler in this episode, and it involves the antics of Jeffster.

by Courtney Hilden

This time on Chuck, our hero demands that Sarah be brought back home after she pushes Casey out a window, nearly killing him. As usual, the General refuses. Sarah, meanwhile, is working with Chuck's Mom to bring down Volkoff. Which would probably happen without Orion, back from the dead, showing up.

Chuck frequently has episodes that are about pushing the storyline farther. It is actually one of the nice things about the show, since it means we do not dawdle with storylines and instead go from one necessary event to the other. So even though this episode had some important events, for the most part it was not as fun or as engaging as the show usually is. (Though, it still manages to be one of the best written shows on television and definitely the best planned.) The highlight of the night? Jeffster singing "Push It."

I was truly afraid that the laser chamber was going to feature extremely distasteful images of Morgan. It was bad, but not as bad as it could been, and I appreciate that.

As much as I am enjoying the Alex and Casey scenes, I wish we'd see more of Alex's Mom. I would much rather see a Casey/long-lost love romance then this creepy and inappropriate Alex/Morgan thing.

In terms of other great characters, the General is the most unsung character on this show. She manages to be perfectly respectful and adorable at the same time. It's too bad we only see her so frequently doing her broadcasts to Castle and not in person.

Sarah is starting to look a look like Prue from Charmed with her black hair, so I guess it's a good thing that she is done with her mission and will be back to normal with her typical blond hair. Giving Sarah black hair to represent her "turn to the darkside" was lame, especially since the audience and other characters know who she is.

Knockdown

by Courtney Hilden

In the latest chapter of Castle's hunt for Becket's Mom's murderer, Becket gets a break when contacted by the detective originally on her case nine years ago.  Just before he tells her what she needs to hear, he too is murdered, setting off a string of events that leads the cast to pursue two related cases: who murdered the retired cop and who murdered Becket's Mom. 
The best thing about this episode was the guest casting.  The actor playing Raglan was perfect.  Even his younger-self picture was nice, making him look a lot like Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.  This episode's villain was possibly the best villain the show's ever had.  He had a smooth voice and was confidently, quietly menacing.  We really need to see this guy again. 
Becket's smashing of the villain was also great.  We so rarely get to see women express their rage, and it was so gratifying and such a relief to see her angry.  We need more angry women; we need more women expressing their feelings without people reacting in fear and disgust but with understanding.  Props to Castle for letting Becket's feelings always be understood by her male colleagues and never be considered hysterical. 

Downton Abbey: Episode 3

by Courtney Hilden

This time, in the penultimate episode of Downton Abbey, the carnival comes to town! Which mostly means various couples try their luck with each other and fail (or in the case of Matthew and Mary, fail again.) Then Grandma has her revenge by knowing some medicine and letting poor Mr. Mosley win the flower competition. And if there was not enough cattiness between Grandma and Matthew's Mom, don't worry: Mary and Ingrid are still at each other's throats.
If this makes it seem like not much happened in this episode of Downton Abbey, well, yes, not much did. Even though not much developed in the way of the story, not the way the previous two episodes did (or, the fourth episode hopefully will), it was a mostly enjoyable episode. Most of these characters are interesting enough at this point that just watching them interact together is enough.
As usual, the politics of some of the things going on are troubling. Thomas must be the most hurtful person on earth, asking Daisy out, even though he knew that William was interested. But at the same time, there's something bothersome in the character of Thomas. He is a terrible human being, but because he is also interested in men, making him into a villain is just another way of making gay men evil, and really, there are enough villain-gay men in the world. Even one of the cooks described him as a "troubled soul," which, although slightly more forgiving than some viewers might be inclined, is still sad. Would it really kill this show to depict how both lonely and scary being a closeted gay man in a homophobic world? Or are they too busy making him into the bad guy, who, at this point, I have concluded probably had the Turkish gentleman poisoned in revenge. It is the sort of terrible thing this show would do.
It is so nice, so refreshing, to have a miniseries that engages with the problems of women. Sadly, it is high class women that are mostly explored, but Mary's struggle to accept "just marriage" is sad to watch. It is interesting to note that Mary is not the one who takes up feminism, but her younger sister Sibyl, even though feminism has just as much to offer Mary as it does the other women. "The world is changing," Countess Cora says to Mary, "just not fast enough for you." Mary is right to be angry that no one wants to fight for her.
The show also gave Mrs. Hewes a difficult choice: continuing her job at Downton or marriage to the man she spurred many years ago. She chose her job (and, in modern parlance, her career), but there was something sad about this. She too, is limited by the roles appropriated for women. She can be a career woman or a family woman, but she could never dare be both. Also interesting to note that she did not even consider love in her decision: she never said she loved her beau, just that he was "nice man."
The cutest couple award for this show goes to Sibyl and Gwen. Sibyl, a budding young feminist, is all about helping out Gwen the maid become Gwen the secretary. So far there has not been any luck, but Sibyl's encouragement (and the lending of clothes) has been heartwarming to watch. They are both nice girls, and I would really like to see a full-blown romance develop between them.

Larger Than Life

by Courtney Hilden

In this latest episode of House, a man, spending time with his daughter, tries to desperately save a random woman from a train. Then he himself begins to have medical problems, opening up another round of cynical House and optimistic Masters.
As someone who lives in New York, I can tell you that the opening sequence, of a man trying to save a woman having a seizure who is stuck on the subway track, is one of my nightmare's. The horror of fellow subway passengers, desperate to know if he was okay and their held breaths at the thought he didn't make it, rang all too true.
House also brought the talent tonight, including Matthew Lillard (how is it possible that he is old enough to play a father?) and Sprague Grayden (from the cancelled-too-soon John Doe). Watching these two was watching a master class on chemistry. The history between their two characters was totally believable. Can someone make a show about this couple?




Other good things about this episode including the cinematography, which took a different take on the show, focusing in on characters as the scene runs. Usually a show this far in does not do anything different, especially for a normal episode, but here it was noticeable because so little else in the episode was.
Sadly, none of these touches could make up for the overall show, which is saddled with an increasingly unlikeable character. House really does not deserve the people in his life. The nice thing about the show once upon a time was watching him struggle with kindness, but here House was, trying to get out of dinner with his girlfriend and her Mom on her birthday and then trying to get out of his best friend's festival. At this point, House is just spinning his wheels. And given Hugh Laurie's phenomenal performance, maybe he should just be teaching acting instead of trying to make something enjoyable out of this poor writing.

The Museum of the Moving Image

This week is the reopening of the Museum of the Moving Image, dedicated to movies, television and other forms of art.
Having been there this week, I can say that there are some wonderful things there to see, especially if you are a film buff of any kind. There are numerous artifacts from various movies, including the mask from The Mask, razzle-dazzle suits from Chicago and even the creepy possessed girl from The Exorcist. The museum has lots of fun bits of pop culture, even with a room dedicated to video games, having numerous old-school arcade games including Space Invaders.
The upstairs is dedicated to various forms of reality, which is actually a little disappointing. Most of things installed there are either rather boring or something most museum goers would already have access to. (For example, there is a video of Second Life and a Wii-like game.)
By far the most artistic and fascinating thing is Dictators Versus Dolls, an eleven minute video. The animation is superb and beautiful, and it depicts battles of various dolls (including Barbie) with various world dictators, including the leaders of Libya and South Korea. It is visually stunning and makes you wish that you could see more films done this way.

National Museum of the American Indian

The Museum of the American Indian should be a place where Native Americans/First People/Indigenous Peoples should be celebrated and where the ongoing issues these nations face can be discussed in an intelligent manner. Instead, the museum showcases the “acceptable” things about Native Americans (their material culture, mostly) and ignore the uncomfortable affects of imperialism.



The crowning achievement in what makes this museum offensive is in the atrium of the second floor, which opens up onto what at first appears to be a beautiful room. And then you look at the walls, which are decorated with images of ships and cargo being loaded onto docks, the signs of Western political and economic domination. In between these fresco are images of various conquerors, including Columbus, Verrazzano and Cortez.



For those of you who are not aware, Columbus landed in Hispaniola, where the native people were almost completely wiped out by disease, and then the rest were enslaved, their culture disappearing soon afterwards. Cortez conquered what is now mostly Mexico, and famously massacred unarmed native nobility in an attempt to scare them into submission. In addition to this, he owned a large number of slaves, almost all of them with African descent, another people of color who have been exploited by capitalism and imperalism.
This is offensive because this is a museum to Native Americans, and here, in a space that should truthfully depict history, there is art that glorifies the very forces and people who brutally conquered them. The art does not show native people being murdered, enslaved or dying of disease. There is not even an attempt to explain that this art was created before the mainstream realized the destructive nature of imperialism, instead, it is presented as simply art, as apparently ahistorical and apolitical. If this were a museum to the Holocaust or on Jewish history, this would be the equivalent of having art that depicted the Nazi war tanks and European leaders who discriminated and killed Jews as heroic, brave and admirable. Anyone walking into that room would realize the tonality and content were completely offensive and inappropriate, and in this way, this room in the Museum of the American Indian is also offensive and inappropriate.
Perhaps museum curators are afraid Americans (white Americans, right?) are uncomfortable with confronting the problematic nature of their privilege. But museums should make people think, even if it is uncomfortable kind of thinking. What this museum should be doing is showing how crushing discrimination and racism have destroyed, as much as possible, Native American political, economic and social power and celebrating Native American activists whose work have aided their communities.
Moreover, the building itself is problematic. The museum is in the Customs House, which holds, among other things, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This is the government agencies who works to impede desperate Chicanos and Chicanas from entering the country (who almost always have Native ancestry), making this building particularly unsuited for this museum.
Native Americans deserve a museum, but maybe the problem is that the government is funding and providing for this one. The U.S. government has already taken their land; does it really need to take their cultural objects, put them on display, and then ignore the parts of their history that makes the government look bad? Apparently so. Native Americans, at the very least, deserve to run their own museum of their own history, one that tells their story appropriately and fully, in a building named after one of their leaders, not Alexander Hamilton.

Downton Abbey: Episode 1

by Courtney Hilden

Spoiler Alert!: Some of the episode's best surprises are given away in this review.

Downton Abbey, Masterpiece Theatre's premiere show this season, centers on the title house and the two classes of citizens it contains: the elite, wealthy family and their servants. In this first episode, Robert, an Earl and patriarch, discovers two of his relatives, and heirs to the estate, have passed away aboard what is certainly but not named to be the Titanic. This causes Robert's wife Cora to try to gain part of the estate for herself and her eldest daughter, Mary, and for Robert to invite the new heir, Matthew Crawley, to the estate. Meanwhile, the "downstairs" family deals with a new servant, who, because he was wounded a war, has trouble fulfilling his duties, but much more trouble because most of the other servants treat him so poorly.
It's not as if anything is wrong with the show, it just feels very much like other movies and miniseries that also feature both the wealthy family and servants, and in fact, there doesn't seem to be anything different from this than other earlier shows. So we trend on the familiar ground of the servants and the family and their intertwining drama. The servants, of course, have the more interesting, lesser-seen drama. The family's drama has been part of so much of the Masterpiece stories and Austen adaptations as to be boring to anyone who is familiar with either. This is, after all, the same situation Mrs. Bennett was trying to prevent in Pride and Prejudice, which takes place some one hundred years before. At least in this version, the economic situation of the elite female characters is not avoided. Countess Cora spends time trying to get some money to live off of, but she is blocked even from trying to get her dowager money back out of the estate. In a system like this, the economy is structured to take from women (their bodies, ones that are forced to stay sexually monogamous) and give them nothing or close enough in return.
There are some highlights in terms of great characters. The eldest daughter, Lady Mary, shows a delightful lack of care towards her dead fiance, a perfect reminder of the love that was not present in these marriages.
The show also deserves credit for having a "lame" character. John Bates had served Robert in the "war with the Boers", and now has taken a job as Robert's valet. The show does an excellent job at depicting both how relatively fine Bates is at his job and the way the majority of servants look down on him for his disability. "Crippled" characters are few and far between on television, so it is nice to see a show that depicts him in a way that is judgemental of those who are judgemental of him.

Unfortunately, the depiction of homosexuality leaves much to be desired. Thomas, the first footman, spends time scheming (first against Bates, then later against his former lover). The other gay character spends time manipulating Thomas and Lady Mary. Gay men are not evil, and showing them this way just plays into stereotypes and homophobia.
As for the next episode, it seems obvious that the solution to the problems of the estate rest with the lawyer, Matthew Crawley. Countess Cora would be wise to enlist Crawley to figure out how to separate her money from the rest of the estate or to simply let her have it, as that is what would make both him and Cora happy.
So, even though the show manages to create sympathetic female and disabled characters, ones who are forced to fight through difficult circumstances, the show fails a rounded depiction of homosexuality. It acknowledges their difficulties of being so closeted, but tonally makes the judgement on them that they are dangerous. Coupled with the already-explored aspects of the story, Downton Abbey is somewhat admirable but in no way splendid.