92. L.A. Confidential by James Ellroy

Colin and I were looking for movie adaptation ideas, and he was reading titles off of some website. When he got to L.A. Confidential, he was all for it -- he said that I should really read this one and then we could watch the movie together. It turns out Colin loved the movie adaptation when it came out and thought it should have beaten Titanic for Best Picture. Okay, then: decision made. L.A. Confidential it is.

James Ellroy's L.A. CONFIDENTIAL is epic noir, a crime novel of astonishing detail and scope. It stands as a steel-edged time capsule -- Los Angeles in the 1950s, a remarkable era defined in dark shadings.

Pornography.

Police corruption.

Gangland intrigue.

A horrific mass murder that invades the lives of victims and victimizers on both sides of the law -- three cops treading quicksand in the middle.

Ed Exley wants glory. Haunted by his father's success as a policeman, he will pay any price, break any law to eclipse him. Bud White watched his own father murder his mother -- he is now bent on random vengeance, a time bomb with a badge. Trashcan Jack Vincennes shakes down movie stars for a scandal magazine. An old secret possesses him -- he'll do anything to keep it buried. Three cops in a spiral, a nightmare that tests loyalty and courage, a nightmare that offers no mercy, allows for no survivors.

Greed.

Perversion.

Ruthless ambition.

L.A. CONFIDENTIAL is incendiary, a novel as broad and explosive as its themes. Here is James Ellroy's masterpiece, his stunning gifts stretched to the limit, darkness to haunt you in shades of red, gray and black. 

Plot summary taken from the book jacket. Laying it on a bit thick, aren't they?

Ellroy's writing style was extremely off-putting at first and I had a really hard time getting into this book -- a bad omen, considering its 500-page length. I can't describe it really, but the style just didn't make sense to me and it was difficult to decipher what the hell was going on. It's a good thing that the plot is so damn intriguing or I might have considered giving up. After about 150 pages, I felt more comfortable with the writing and desperately wanted to make it to the end. It went pretty fast after that first 150, and I ended up finishing the book in two days, surprising myself. I liked the twists and payoff of the exposition, but I didn't think this was the best mystery/suspense/thriller that I've ever read -- maybe at heart, I'm just not a noir person?

One thing that I found really interesting, and I'm not sure if I liked or disliked, was Ellroy's incorporating actual people and events into his fiction. The gangster Mickey Cohen was mentioned in the first chapter, and the name sounded familiar but I didn't think much of it -- until Johnny Stompanato, one of his associates, came up. Now that name I know for sure. I'm the proud owner of Lana Turner's autobiography and her daughter Cheryl Crane's autobiography -- and Johnny Stompanato takes up at least a chapter or two in each. Stompanato dated and abused Turner and was killed in her home. The official story is that Cheryl stabbed him to prevent him from beating her mother, but there were a lot of rumors and other theories about what happened at the time. It was a huge scandal. So once I saw that name, I did some online research and found that Ellroy used a lot of historical information in the book, most notably the Bloody Christmas affair, which puts several plot points in the book into motion. I'm still deciding it that was cool or confusing. Probably both. 

And now for some trivia before I get into the movie adaptation that Colin loved so much. 

At one point, the name Barney Stinson came up -- we never meet this character but his name is provided as a criminal's drug dealer. Who cares, you ask? Well, Coin and I are big fans of the show How I Met Your Mother, and Barney Stinson is the name of Neil Patrick Harris's character. Coincidence? Hm...

This may be a spoiler, so please avert your eyes if you wish to remain spoiler-free. Pierce Patchett, one of the big baddies in the book, was from Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Just like me! This fact doesn't have a lot of bearing on anything, but it was interesting to me. In another world, maybe I would have been the Grosse Pointe native that ended up running a Hollywood look-a-like brothel in Los Angeles. Who knows?

Now, those of you paying attention will know that I read L.A. Confidential immediately after No Angel. This is apropos of nothing, except that in both books the city San Bernardino, CA, is referred to as "Berdoo" and "San Berdoo." What's up with that? I thought it was just a Hells Angels things when I was reading No Angel, but then it comes up in L.A. Confidential? What does it mean? I did some preliminary research online, and it seems that it doesn't mean much of anything -- "Berdoo" has been a nickname of San Bernardino for over 100 years. Shrug. Mystery solved, I guess.

I had never seen the movie adaptation of L.A. Confidential. All I really knew about it was that Kim Basinger won Best Supporting Actress for her role and she wore a really lovely green gown to the ceremony and was still married to Alec Baldwin at that point. Colin and I watched it just a few days after I finished the book, so everything was still fresh in my mind. And every time the movie deviated from the book, I couldn't help but point it out. Yes, I was that guy. Even though I knew they would have to trim down a lot to adapt the book, I was still surprised by how much that was different. I'm not sure why Kevin Spacey agreed to play Vincennes -- his entire background was cut out, as well as his romance, and (spoiler alert!) he dies sooner in the movie than in the book. What's up with that? Also, it's more noticeable to me when a movie takes itself very seriously than when a book does. I'm sure the book did take itself very seriously, but I couldn't help but notice it during the movie. At one point, White is beating up Exley and Exley is trying to convince him that someone is setting him up. He actually yells, "Think, goddamn you! Think!" I laughed. This was one of those times when I couldn't watch the movie objectively, so if you want to discuss it I suggest you talk to Colin. I didn't appreciate it as much as he did. 

87. Breakfast at Tiffany's by Truman Capote

I have always loved the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's -- not necessarily for the story/plot but for the style, look and feel, lingo, etc. And Audrey Hepburn. She is the epitome of class and grace, and I just love her in the role of Holly Golightly. I actually own three copies of the movie: one on VHS, one on DVD, and one DVD in a box set with two other Audrey Hepburn movies. So when I was trying to think of books to read for the movie adaptation category and Colin suggested Breakfast at Tiffany's, it was a done deal.

When Breakfast at Tiffany's was first published in 1958, Time magazine described its heroine, Holly Golightly, as "the hottest kitten ever to hit the typewriter keys of Truman Capote. She's a cross between a grown-up Lolita and a teen-age Auntie Mame...alone and a little afraid in a lot of beds she never made." Of all his characters, Capote later said, Holly was his favorite, and it is easy to see why. This wacky hillbilly-turned-playgirl who lives in a Manhattan brownstone shares not only his philosophy of freedom and acceptance of human irregularities but also his fears and anxieties -- "the mean reds" she calls them. For her the cure is to jump into a taxi and head for Tiffany's; nothing bad could happen, she says, amid "that lovely smell of silver and alligator wallets," and her dream is to have breakfast in that soothing setting. "Holly Golightly is outre, funny, touching -- and real," remarked The Atlantic. 

This is from the book jacket. It's not a plot summary per se, but I think it's great. 

Relief! I really loved it. I had heard somewhere that they had to change a lot to adapt the book into a film, so I wasn't sure what to expect. I thought it might be grittier. But it was actually a really faithful adaptation, I even recognized some of the dialogue. The changes they made worked for the new medium very well. They changed the ending but really had to -- the novella ending is probably more true to life, but the movie ending is more satisfying and people can walk away happy, it feels more like an ending.

Side note: I didn't like the use of the n word, but I have a feeling it was accurate for the time and place/context. 

Breakfast at Tiffany's is the first book of Truman Capote's that I've read, and I'm not sure if I will read more of his work... all I really need to know about Capote, I think I do:

    

1. he wrote this novella

2. he was the basis for Dill in To Kill a Mockingbird

3. he was in Murder by Death

Although I bet a biography of his celebrity years would be full of dish... and I do love reading about the scandals of New York society. (I'm kidding a little bit -- I saw the movie Capote, which doesn't really make the case for his being a nice person, you know? I think that's why I would be hesitant to delve more into his work.)

And a final note: both the book and the movie can make you feel a bit sad about life, which I HATE, but I really like them more for feeling of the time, the glamour and clothes, and the lexicon, you know? I don't think that either will give you a case of the "mean reds," but consider yourself forewarned. 

78. Fantastic Mr. Fox by Roald Dahl

Colin was so looking forward to the movie version of Fantastic Mr. Fox that he went to see in the theater. Alone. For whatever reason, it really wasn't on my radar. But Colin loved it, so when he brought home the DVD I sat down to watch it with him. I realized that I had never read the book -- we always had a lot of Roald Dahl books around my house, because my sister Annie loved them, but I don't remember this one. So I checked the library and was happy to learn that they had a copy waiting for me.

IN THIS BOOK YOU WILL FIND:

BOGGIS

An enormously fat man, a chicken farmer...and a mean man.

BUNCE 

A pot-bellied dwarf, a duck-and-goose farmer...and a nasty man.

BEAN

A thin man, a turkey-and-apple farmer...and a beastly man.

BADGER

The most respectable and well-behaved animal in the district.

RAT

A rude creature and a drunkard.

MRS. FOX AND HER FOUR SMALL CHILDREN

A fine family.

and

MR. FOX

Our hero, a fantastic fellow.

If you're three years old or more you'll love this extraordinary adventure story, Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Plot summary lifted from the book jacket.

This book is really good! I liked it so much! I definitely want to have a copy to read to any future sons, daughters, nieces and nephews. Fantastic Mr. Fox is a really charming kids' story that adults will still enjoy (as I did). They made some significant changes when adapting the book, which I understand as necessary. The book is pretty slender, and a movie version needed more character development and background information. I think the movie works really well on a more adult level. Even with the changes and Wes Anderson's stamp all over the movie, it has the same tone and irreverence that the book has. Anderson complements Dahl's work beautifully and I have to believe that Dahl would be pleased with this adaptation. One thing that I really liked in the movie was the cussing -- every time a character would cuss, they literally said "cuss" instead of ... you know. Certain other four-letter words. The wit and charm really won me over, both the book and the movie. Definitely check out both! 

65. Shutter Island by Dennis Lehane

I first heard of Shutter Island when the movie trailer started playing before every single movie I saw in the theater. Colin and I were both intrigued, and he decided to check the book out of the library. He read it pretty fast and furiously, and really loved it. But he asked me not to read it before we saw the movie; he was interested to see what my reaction would be without having read the book first. I kind of owed him one -- I read The Reader before we saw the movie adaptation, and I came thisclose to telling him the big reveal while we were watching it in the theater. I almost had to sit on my hands to stop myself from nudging him during the important parts and winking. So I was dying to see Shutter Island by the time it finally came out (why they pushed it back from October to February baffles me, but that's why I'm not a big-shot movie exec). I read the book about a week after we saw the movie. Read on to see how they compared.

It's 1954, and U.S. Marshals Teddy Daniels and Chuck Aule arrive at a small island in Massachusetts' Outer Harbor. It is home to Ashcliffe Hospital, a federal institution for the criminally insane, and one of the patients has escaped. Although the two men are new partners, they have already developed a wry, jocular relationship while also swapping personal, painful details. Daniels lost his much-loved wife two years prior in a fire, while Aule requested a transfer out of Seattle after being harassed over his personal relationship with a Japanese American woman. After interviewing the hospital's medical personnel, both men have the feeling they are being stonewalled, especially by the director, who seems to alternate between a cold authoritarianism and a sudden and sweeping compassion. When the island is hit by gale-force winds and Aule disappears, Daniels must go it alone, beset by the fear that he has been fed psychotropic drugs and the belief that the hospital is performing radical brain surgery as part of a secret-ops program. Lehane throws in one mind-bending plot twist after another in a psychological thriller that will leave readers in suspense right up to the end. 

Summary lifted from amazon.com. 

This is my first time reading one of Dennis Lehane's novels, although I've seen at least three movies adapted from his work so I had a pretty good idea of what to expect. I was a little surprised when I first started reading because I didn't feel drawn in right away. This was probably due to my high expectations, because after a while it became more of a page-turner and I found myself thinking about it when I had to put the book down. I loved this quote below so much that I wrote it down to include here. I think it's pretty representative of the overall sense of humor:

WHO IS 67?
(This is written on a note that's being read by the characters.)

Chuck said, "Fuck if I know."

Cawley stepped up beside him. "Quite similar to our clinical conclusion."

Okay, tell me that's not funny. You can't, can you?

I really enjoyed this book and I highly recommend it to everyone. It is so good! As I said above, it's a page-turner and I love the subtle humor. One thing that I found interesting is that I expected one story and found a completely different one. I liked where the story went, but it could have gone in a completely different direction and been just as good. I wrote down in my notes "how much violence can a man carry before it breaks him?" but I don't know if a character verbalized that theme or if I did, I can't remember writing it down. It hits the nail on the head pretty good. There was a lot of flickering between reality and delusions in dreams, which is generally not something I enjoy. Stream of consciousness is just not my thing. But it worked in this book. And finally, I completely related to Daniels' main struggle, which I can't elaborate on, because it's part of a great reveal. Suffice to say, I understood what motivated him (to a point, at least) and that made me enjoy the read all the more.

So how did the movie adaptation fare? Pretty well, although I enjoyed reading the book more than watching the movie. I thought the reveal of the truth, and the circumstances surrounding the reveal and the explanations of the truth, in the book was more effective. For one thing, the migraine dreams in the book seem more related to the reveal at the end than the dreams in the movie. The movie focused more on Daniels' experiences in World War II, something I'm still a little puzzled by. Perhaps Scorsese was more intrigued by that aspect than Lehane was? Also, the movie was a little more gruesome in its depictions of violence than the book and it didn't add anything to the story or my reactions to it. It was just a little more gruesome. But that's not to say that I didn't like the movie -- it's definitely worth seeing, especially for the atmosphere it created. The look of the settings and costumes is beautiful. I just thought the book was a better experience, something that is usually the case.

57. The Godfather by Mario Puzo

I don't really remember why I chose to read The Godfather. I saw the movie once in high school; a few of my friends who took the film class were assigned to see a showing of the movie adaptation at the Main Art in Royal Oak and I tagged along. I vividly remembered the scene with the horse head, but other than that I just remembered it being really long. But for some reason, I thought of The Godfather when I was trying to find a book in the movie adaptation category and I suddenly felt really excited to read it. (And it didn't hurt that the edition for Kindle on PC only cost $6.39.)

I couldn't find a succinct plot summary anywhere, so I thought about attempting to write one myself... but come on. You know the basics, right? (If not, do a quick Google search and you'll find over 3 million results to sift through. Go ahead, I'll wait.)

I was not expecting to like The Godfather as much as I did. It is a definite page-turner, or whatever the equivalent is when you're reading on-screen, and each time I had to stop reading I was anxious to get back to it. The book opens with the wedding of Don Corleone's daughter Connie, just as the movie version opens, and it's a very effective way to immerse readers into this world. I found it easy to keep track of who the characters were and what was happening, which I was a little surprised by. After all, there is a lot going on. But Puzo doesn't overwhelm you with information, and I found myself hungry for more background and more information. I was completely engrossed in this new setting and then the story moved into the war between the five families, and it became very suspenseful. That was actually my favorite part of the book, which is unusual for me -- I've mentioned time and time again in these reviews how I get lost in action sequences. So I was pretty impressed while reading that I was so hooked during this part. 

The filmmakers had to cut out a lot when putting together the movie, and I think they made smart choices. I re-watched the movie after finishing the book, and it seemed like they chose to include all of the parts of the book that I liked the best. But there's no comparison here for me -- I definitely like reading the book better than watching the movie. I don't think the movie envelopes you in this world as effectively as the book does. For example, Michael's trip to Italy. In the book, Michael spends a lot of time with one of men who he's staying with and learns from his stories about how his father's world works. He comes back to New York with this greater understanding of his father and is comfortable joining the family business. In the movie, Michael's trip is kind of pointless. I think they tried to make the murder of his wife Michael's motivation for working with his father, but I'm not buying it. 

Also, I prefer the pacing in the book. This may be due in part to the fact that I didn't grow up loving the movie. I do know people my age who have seen the movie a million times and are totally devoted to it. I think watching it for the first time as an adult, you'll probably find the pacing of the movie to be extremely slow. That's one of the things that Colin mentions in his review of the movie, and I agree with. Although, he really didn't enjoy the wedding scene and thought it was overly long. After reading the book and re-watching the movie, I told him how much longer that scene could have been! But honestly, you don't even think about that when you're reading. For me, the time reading really flew by and I was sad when I finished the book. It's the kind of book that I wish I could read for the first time again. 

40. Everything is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer

I went to the library one day with a list of books to get, having checked online to see if they were available in the library. Maybe I was distracted when I was checking, but one had been checked out when I got there and another was at the other library location in my town. Sheesh! One of the books I was looking for was by Jonathan Safran Foer. Colin suggested that I get Everything is Illuminated because he loves the movie, and would watch it with me when I finished the book. So I shook off the disappointment of my less-than-stellar fact-checking and took his suggestion.

Everything is Illuminated is comprised of two stories. The first is about a young American, named Jonathan Safran Foer, and his journey to the Ukraine to find the woman, Augustine, who may or may not have saved his grandfather from the Nazis. He is accompanied by Alex, a young Ukrainian translator; Alex's grandfather, also named Alex, their driver; and Sammy Davis Jr. Jr., Alex's grandfather's seeing eye dog (for Alex's grandfather, depressed since the death of his wife, insists he is blind). The second is the history of Jonathan's grandfather's shtetl in the Ukraine and his ancestors who lived there.

I loved this book. I had so much fun reading it, which is a little surprising considering that some parts are quite dark. I thought the format was very clever. The book is written after the majority of the action takes place -- Jonathan is writing a book about the experience, and Alex sends him chapters from his point of view as well as letters in response to Jonathan's feedback (which we are not privy to). The history of the shtetl is written by Jonathan, and chapters of it are interspersed with Alex's writing. Alex's English is quite broken, and I thought it was insanely annoying for the first two pages -- but once I got into the rhythm of it, I really enjoyed it. The subtle humor in the mistakes and literal translations had me laughing out loud. I thought the history of Jonathan's ancestors was going to be really boring, but it was entertaining for the most part and only dry occasionally. There was some emphasis on the idea that the choices and decisions people make affect the lives of their descendants for years to come, which reminded me of Ursula, Under. While the book was funny and entertaining, there were serious undertones throughout and it left me thinking about the characters and their choices.

I enjoyed Everything is Illuminated the movie, too. I thought it was probably the best adaptation that could be made. I knew the film makers would have to cut the back story on Jonathan's ancestors, and they did (it would have been too complicated to cut back and forth to, in my opinion). I'm trying to avoid spoilers for anyone who hasn't read the book, but I will say that I didn't really think they needed to change the grandfather's story but I did like the closure on Augustine in the movie. All of that being said, having read the book before seeing the movie made the movie seem incomplete. As is often the case, the book being adapted was so rich with details and humor and well-developed characters that the movie paled a bit in comparison.

39. Casino Royale by Ian Fleming

At some point, my father-in-law gave Colin his collection of James Bond paperbacks. (Or Colin "borrowed" them, I'm not sure.) They've been sitting on our bookshelf for awhile now, and I don't think Colin has made a point to read any of them yet. We were talking about the Bond movies one day, and Colin mentioned that when they rebooted the franchise with Daniel Craig, they used Casino Royale as the basis for the story because that was the first book published. For some reason, that intrigued me. I thought it was a pretty cool move on the film makers' part. I asked him if we had a copy of Casino Royale and we found it sitting on the bookshelf with the others.

In Casino Royale, James Bond has what seems like an unusual assignment. MI6 has learned that a criminal named Le Chiffre is running a baccarat game at Casino Royale, in an effort to recover money he lost in a failed chain of brothels. Bond, the agency's best player, is sent to prevent Le Chiffre from winning, in hopes that Le Chiffre's gambling debts will provoke a Soviet spy agency to kill him. All goes to plan until Le Chiffre kidnaps Bond and his beautiful assistant, Vesper Lynd. The money is safely hidden while Le Chiffre tortures Bond for it, only to be assassinated by a Soviet spy. The spy spares Bond's life, and it takes weeks for him to recover. Bond and Vesper are vacationing afterward and Bond notices that Vesper is acting strangely. He begins to suspect her, and wakes one day to find that she has killed herself. In her suicide note, she explains the circumstances that led her to be a double agent. Bond, who had fallen in love with Vesper and hoped to retire and marry her, is devastated. Betrayed and hurt, he reports to MI6 that "The bitch is dead now."

I really enjoyed this book, more than I expected to. I've never been a big fan of the movies, and probably would never have seen Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace if Colin hadn't been so excited about them. For the most part, the stories and action were very interesting and I had a hard time putting the book down. I especially liked the background information provided on Le Chiffre, in the form of a file provided to Bond. I was not as into the card playing, at least not at first. Some scenes of the card playing were a bit dry and I got bored easily. But when it came down to the end of the game and Bond battling it out with Le Chiffre, it was very suspenseful (a pleasant surprise). Although this was the first book in the series, it didn't seem like it. The exposition seemed like that which would be included in any of the books, to help the reader keep up. It just doesn't seem like a beginner's effort, with its tightly woven plot and well-developed characters. Fleming tied everything together incredibly well at the end.

One last thing in response to the book: I was surprised at how blatantly sexist Bond was. I've always heard that criticism leveled toward these stories, but somehow I didn't expect it to be so outrageous. I'm used to living in a time when people trip over themselves trying to be as PC as possible, so it was quite a shock to read some of Bond's thoughts on women. Mind you, it's not as though this is a main emphasis in the book but it still took me by surprise.

We watched Casino Royale the movie after I finished the book, and it stacks up very well. They added minor plot lines and background info, including a couple of insane action sequences, but for the most part the plot of the movie hews closely to the plot of the book. The information on Le Chiffre that I liked so much in the book? Gone in the movie, but somehow it worked. It made him scarier in that format, which was effective. The torture scene? Basically line for line the same as the book. Colin thought I wouldn't be able to handle this scene as he obviously has a better appreciation for how painful that particular torture method would be. Apparently I have a harder heart than he thinks I do, because it didn't really bother me in either format -- it was appropriate to the story. Although I have to say, I really don't care for the actress that played Vesper. At least they didn't cast Scarlett Johansson.

In conclusion, I recommend both -- very highly!

36. Animal Husbandry by Laura Zigman

I really like the movie Someone Like You, which is based on this book. Ashley Judd is gorgeous and charming, and her wardrobe is fantastic. Hugh Jackman is very appealing. And Marisa Tomei has never played a better sassy best friend. So I was a little apprehensive about reading the source material -- would I like it as much as the movie? What if I liked it better than the movie and didn't watch to watch it again? I actually put off reading it for a few days after I got it from the library! Shrug -- it was a little silly, but whatever.

Animal Husbandry  is about Jane, a TV talent scout who falls madly in love with and is then unceremoniously dumped by a new co-worker. After the break-up, Jane moves in with Eddie, another co-worker and post-love survivor. She is desperate to understand the why -- why did he leave, why didn't he love her as much as she loved him? Why? In order to cope, Jane throws herself in to a new theory about men and their inability to commit. She finds research to support her hypothesis that men have the same instincts as male animals -- they have the same "copulatory imperative" as well as the urge to move on to better pastures after mating, so to speak. After obsessing about her theory and lost love, she eventually recovers from the break-up and moves on with her life.

I didn't dislike the book, but I appreciate the story more in movie format for a few reasons:

In the book, there was too much foreshadowing at the beginning. The "if you'd asked me then" and "if I'd known then what I do now" portion dragged on a bit. A simple and brief voiceover at the beginning of the movie was more effective.

There is actually a lot of scientific information in this story. If you know me, then you know that this isn't really a selling point for me. Each chapter of the book began with an excerpt from a book or magazine with scientific facts about that stage in Jane's theory. To be honest, I think I only read one. So boring! I thought the use of the scientific facts that Jane uses to support the theory were used more effectively in the movie -- mainly shared in Jane's conversations. It was almost as if the theory was a character in the book, and it was a bit more secondary in the movie.

In the book, Jane commiserates with a gay male friend who is just as perplexed as she by male behavior. This character was cut from the movie and replaced with a sister and brother-in-law who are trying to have a baby. I liked this change a lot. Jane's friend in the book didn't really add very much to the story (I don't even remember his name). I really liked how in the movie, Jane is completely caught up in her "men are animals" theory, and she realizes toward the end that she hasn't given proper credit to her brother-in-law, who is good man and a very caring husband.

I felt that the movie explained Jane's obsession with the theory better. Eddie is appalled by her research, and demands to know why Jane can't just let her ex go. She replies that if the theory isn't true, then men don't leave all women -- they just leave her. It's a fairly powerful moment, which I think the book was lacking.

The main difference between the book and the movie lies in Jane's relationship with Eddie. In Animal Husbandry, Eddie and Jane are roommates and friends, somewhat united in the battle to recover from their break-ups. At the end of the book, they have managed to heal somewhat and move on with their lives. In Someone Like You, Eddie and Jane are roommates and friends, somewhat united in the battle to recover from their break-ups. And at the end of the movie, they fall in love. I admit, I prefer the romance of the movie to the reality of the book.

In the end, I think the story is better told in the movie format. Or maybe I just prefer that version of the story, I'm still not sure. I am relieved that I will still want to watch Someone Like You occasionally, I really do like it a lot. Colin watched it with me after I was done reading the book, and he claims that he liked it. I'm waiting to read his review, though. He's a little behind on posting movie reviews on his blog, so I'm not sure how long until that will be.

17. Derby Girl by Shauna Cross

Colin brought this book home from the library one day and proceeded to breeze through it, oftentimes chuckling. His obvious enjoyment annoyed me to no end, as I was in the middle of An American Tragedy and basically hating life. I had to check out Derby Girl for myself, especially because we were both obsessed with seeing the movie adaptation, Whip It, as soon as possible. Not only did the trailer look awesome, but we got to attend a promotional event at a roller rink by our apartment and see Drew Barrymore in person (she is TINY). We even stole a poster on our way out. Yay!

Derby Girl is the story of Bliss Cavendar, a blue haired, indie-rock loving misfit struck in the tiny town of Bodeen, Texas. Her pageant-addicted mother expects her to compete for the coveted Miss Blue Bonnet crown, but Bliss would rather feast on roaches than be subjected to such rhinestone tyranny. Bliss' escape? Take up Roller Derby. When she discovers a league in nearby Austin, Bliss embarks on an epic journey full of hilarious tattooed girls, delicious boys in bands, and a few not-so-awesome realities even the most bad-assed derby chick has to learn.

(BTW, I picked up the official plot summary because I was a little daunted to sum it up myself. I wanted to do it justice, and nothing I wrote came out right.)

I was not surprised to learn that Cross is a screenwriter. The novel seemed to follow the arcs of a movie, if that makes sense. It was a quick, enjoyable read. I think that this book is technically aimed at "young adults" (read: younger than me) but I found it to be very relatable. The all-consuming passion for a new project, the heady excitement of a first boyfriend, the sobering realization that you've neglected your best friend in the world and she has every right to be pissed -- who hasn't experienced some of those highs and lows at some point? I especially liked how Bliss' relationships -- with her friends, boyfriend, parents -- were realistic. It would have been easy to make the Cavendar parents one-dimensional and unsympathetic, but instead Cross fleshed out enough details to really show the many layers of complicated parent-child relationships. Yes, your mom can be overbearing and exasperate you, but she can also comfort you after the fall-out from breaking the cardinal rule -- Never date a boy in a band!

I only have two complaints about the book, but even those don't really take away from it. For the record, I wish that the rules of roller derby had been explained. Come on, let's have a little exposition! Some of us have never seen the sport in action. Also, Bliss fit pretty neatly into this indie girl mold. When she noticed that everyone had on Converse shoes at a party in Austin and felt relieved that she hadn't been able to buy a pair because the trend was obviously becoming passe, it bothered me. If you're truly "indie" what do you care about the trendiness of your shoes? Although to be fair, most 16 year olds are dying to fit in somewhere, regardless of how unique they proclaim to be.

Whip It is a great adaptation. We had the good fortune to go to two (two!) free screenings. The tweaks they made from the novel both set it apart and enhanced it. I think Drew Barrymore definitely has a future as a director if she wants it. You could tell there was a solid and consistent creative voice at the helm. The casting was dead on -- Ellen Page totally embodies Bliss and her alter ego Babe Ruthless and, let me tell you, that girl can skate. Kristen Wiig is hilarious as Bliss' mentor, Maggie Mayhem, who is supportive but doesn't hesitate to give Bliss a reality check when needed. Andrew Wilson killed it as Razor, the derby coach. This role was beefed up from the book, and it totally worked. His scenes were among my favorite. Juliette Lewis was born to play Iron Maven, captain of the Holy Rollers and Bliss' arch rival. I was a little sad that they dropped the line "Never date a boy in a band!" from the movie; it worked so well in the book, but the depiction of Bliss and her first boyfriend Oliver still worked without it. My only real complaint? They explained the rules of roller derby -- one or two too many times. Come on, I'm a savvy movie-goer, I can keep up! It's not a major complaint, though; I mostly thought it was funny after the book didn't explain the rules at all.

By the way, did you know that Stryper is a real band? I don't know very much about the history of Christian metal bands, so when I read about Bliss' favorite Stryper t-shirt in the book, I assumed it was made up. It wasn't until after the first free screening that Colin set me straight. He has a dark past and so is more knowledgeable about such things.

16. Julie and Julia by Julie Powell

I heard about this book when it came out, and it sounded vaguely interesting. I would see it on my mom's bookshelf and briefly consider reading it, but never did. And here's why: I'm not a foodie. If you know me at all, you probably know this by now. I don't watch the Food Network or try fancy dishes at restaurants, and I certainly don't cook for the enjoyment of it. Also, my mom could never really teach me how to cook. She's an amazing cook, and was a successful caterer for many years. People really look forward to eating at our house. But she's an instinctual cook -- she doesn't need a recipe to tell her how much of an ingredient will be just right. She just knows. But in this area, I take more after my dad. I need a list of directions that spells out for me exactly what to do and when. I don't know when to substitute one thing for another, and I don't like to deviate from what my directions tell me to do. So, this book just didn't seem quite right for me, and I never picked it up. Until I saw the movie. The trailer for Julie and Julia was so good, and I was seduced. Colin and I went to see it on a random Thursday night, and had such a good time. It was utterly charming, and funny, and a tiny bit magical. Having blogged about a project before and currently, I totally got the Julie part of the story. And so, I decided that I had to read this book finally.

If you're not familiar with the story, here's a brief synopsis:

In 2004, Julie Powell was a frustrated secretary approaching thirty, living in a small apartment in one of New York City's outerboroughs, who was looking for some kind of meaning and purpose. Her husband suggested that she start a blog (not quite as popular a pastime then as it is today) and after some consideration, she settled on the Julie/Julia Project. Her mission? To cook each of the 524 recipes in Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking in one year. The book Julie and Julia is adapted from Julie's blog, and rounds it out with anecdotes about her childhood, friends and co-workers.

Admittedly, expectations were high. And not met. See, I loved the movie. This story really worked for me in that medium. And it didn't really in the written word. Here are some of the reasons why:

I wanted to read a memoir about Julie's project, more so than about her life. I don't care about the time that she discovered her parents' copy of The Joy of Sex. The movie focused on this particular year in Julie's life, while the book did not.

As previously stated, I am not a foodie. Reading about the recipes and the process of making them wasn't riveting for me. I enjoyed the scenes of cooking in the movie more; seeing the cooking done simply worked better for me.

I liked how the movie cut back and forth between Julie and Julia. It was interesting to see what Julia was going through and relate it back to what Julie was doing. In the book, Julie includes some stories about Julia and her husband Paul but freely admits that she made them up. I thought that was kind of weird. (Although in the post-James Frey age, it's nice to note that she was upfront about it.)

Julie in the book? Not that likeable. When I asked my mom if I could borrow the book, she asked me if I was sure. In her opinion, all Julie did was whine the whole way through. They definitely toned that down in the movie. Seriously, Amy Adams as Julie in the movie? Love her! Want to hang out with her! Cute as a button.

I saved one of the more important reasons for last. In the book, Julie doesn't really explain what Julia meant to her until the end. She does kind of tie it all together when writing about Julia's death and how she felt about it. But in the movie, it's clear right from the start that Julia Child meant something to Julie. The project meant something to her. I really didn't get a sense of Julie's passion about her project in reading the book, and by the time I got to the end it was almost too little, too late.

That's not to say that Julie and Julia is not a bad book, per se. But for me, the story was better told in the medium of film. They were able to better tell the story that I wanted to hear.