the invisible artist

So now I'm back for real.  I should be posting regularly again, now that I have things to procrastinate for.  I think I've had a sort of writer's overload these last two months, and just needed to take a break and enjoy life instead of writing it.  Not writer's block, no... It was more of a exhaustion.  I mean let's be real--I'm 120 pages into my story... wouldn't you be tired?  Anyways, I'm not anymore and am back with a vengeance. 

First off, I am in love with my classes this semester.  Well, three out of the four.  And, of course, the only one I want to drop is in the only one I can't.  Of course.  Ceramics may kill me--if Kappa doesn't first.  The facts were these: I have been up until five am every night this week, and for once, procrastination had nothing to do with it.  I have been making artwork for kappa, creating ceramic figurines for ceramics, drawing nudes for four hours at a time, writing like my life depended on it, and reading about empowering girls.  So yes, most of these things are enjoyable.  But most of these things also take up a significant portion of my day.

Anyways, that's enough whining, yes? I think so.  On to what really matters: literature, life, art, and happiness. 

Here is what we talked about in my creative writing seminar today: In The Reign of Harad IV, by Steven Millhauser. We also listened to the podcast, which you can do by clicking here.  It's about thirty seven minutes long, so the alternative is to read the story yourself, and then listen to the discussion that Cynthia Oznick and Deborah Treisman (the fiction editor of The New Yorker) have at the end of the audio clip. 

Read it?  Listened to it?  Unless you are my mother, father, or possibly Logan, I don't think I believe you.  I wouldn't have either.  Here's a summary (you should read it at some point though, it's very good):

In a nutshell, this story is about a miniaturist's pursuit of creating progressively smaller objects.  In the end, he is creating objects that are invisible to everyone, even (eventually) himself.  On the surface level, it is about his own pursuit of perfection, but the understated message is to every artist.  And yes, I am calling myself, as a writer, an artist.  Can we ever reach perfection?  The Master, as the miniaturist is called in the story, does, but not even he can see his own work. Could we then say, that even though we cannot see it, that this miniature world is his greatest masterpiece? 

They bring up an interesting point in their discussion on the podcast.  It is generally considered that James Joyce's masterpiece is Ulysses, and not Finnegan's Wake.  Which is albeit understandable as there are some words even in the wikipedia ariticle about Finnegan's Wake that I don't understand. The question they then pose is: Is Finnegan's Wake just too invisible for the average human to see?  We accept it as a difficult book, too difficult to be considered as great, and focus on his (also difficult) Ulysses.  We think that Ulysses is his masterpiece, but who knew what James Joyce thought?  Is art still art if there is no one there to see it? 

If I just create my novel and shove it in the vacuum of my bottom drawer (or my bedroom floor, as that's where everything else is at the moment...), is it still a work of art?  We are all searching for perfection in some field or another, but it seems like even if we reach it, there will be no one left to realize it.  No one could see his art, and there is no one really who has found the true beauty and perfection in Finnegan's Wake.  Perfection is a lonely man. 

And scene. WHOA that was a lot of philosophical things for one day.  I'm just saying, you should all read this short story, and let me know what you think about it.  It is fantabulastic.  Anyways, that's it for today, I'm sure I'll post again soon as I have much to write about.  Coming up: The Graveyard Book, The Giver, Wonderstruck, and more. 

Create something even if there isn't anyone to see it.  Be selfish.  Do it for you.  Don't worry so much about perfection.

I nearly melted when Neal Caffrey read part of Lord Byron's "She Walks in Beauty" in the most recent episode of White Collar.  To listen, visit my tumblr.

-L.R. Ogden

a little bit of salt

So.  I don't know if any of you ever watch Man vs. Food (I don't either), but he has a tactic.  Oh, I've seen one episode where he ate about ten pounds of pancakes.  His tactic is this: when he's about halfway through and doesn't think he'll make it, he'll order a little bacon.  Something salty, just so his stomach doesn't reject so much pancake at once.  Well, I think my brain is about to start rejecting so much Toni Morrison at once.  So.  I need some bacon.

I have read a bunch of books since we last met, blogosphere.  A bunch.  In this bunch o' books was: The Graveyard Book, Room, Beloved (as I realized the day before yesterday I never actually read anything but the sparknotes... damn.  You know, I fool even myself sometimes), and a bunch of stories from The Chronicles of Harris Burdick.

But right now, I feel like talking about Room (because secretly, I have to write a paper about craft on it, so this will actually be sneaky productive).  Now, I loved this book.  Absolutely loved it.  True, the premise is a little disturbing, but when you've watched as much Law and Order: SVU as I have (and unless you've seen every episode, trust me, you haven't), things like that tend to be a little less rough to read about.  But even if you aren't used to reading about rape and women being kept in boxes for years on end, this book is a great read.

Okay, so let's be real.  I wrote this roundabouts two months ago, and then never posted it.  I would like to say that writing about a paper I needed to write made me stop and think, huh, maybe I should actually write the paper instead of writing about writing it.  But, more likely than not, that didn't happen. Probably I watched an episode of Modern Family or something, and then stayed up until three in the morning doing other more productive things.  I am still going to post it, however, because I think it's hilarious.  I also think I'm going to finish my thoughts about Room, for those of you who are interested, as I did end up writing a paper about it.

Things I liked:
I absolutely loved that it was told from the perspective of Jack--the five year old son of the mother and her rapist. Honestly, if it were not for this fact, I would not have been at all interested in reading it.  Indeed, it made the creepy premise a little easier to digest and far more intriguing than if his mother told it.  My creative writing advisor is always telling me that characters don't have to know shit, but the readers have to know everything.  In other words, the readers need to feel like they know more than the characters.  Obviously, Emma Donoghue does a great job with this, due to the simple fact that Jack knows only what is in Room.  For example, he sleeps in Wardrobe and counts the squeaks of mattress as he falls asleep.  While for him, this is like counting sheep, we as readers know full well that it is far more sinister and much more illegal.

Sorry that was a creepy example.  He also received a toy truck from Old Nick (as he refers to his mother's rapist), and cannot understand why his mother doesn't want him to play with it.  He just likes it because it's a toy, but we as readers know that his mother is uncomfortable with the idea that Jack might like Old Nick.  She doesn't want him to have a relationship with her rapist, but Jack can't understand that.  Especially because he thinks he can communicate with Dora the Explorer by writing on pieces of toilet paper and flushing it down the toilet.  It was also interesting to discover half way through the novel what he meant by "getting some."  Let me give you a hint: sometimes he gets some from the right, and sometimes he gets some from the left, and we as readers understand how... well. How socially unacceptable that is.

What I am iffy about:

It's hard to say where the climax of the novel is. It seems to me that it is when they escape from Old Nick, but that comes at about the halfway point.  The rest of the novel is falling action and focuses on their assimilation into normal life again.  While that is still interesting, it felt almost as if the book were uneven.  She also brings up a lot of issues in the second half of the novel, and I feel like they could have been delved into much farther.  Maybe what I'm saying is that they could have been two books--one about the escape, and then one about how they, and especially Jack, dealt with the real world after being imprisoned for so long.  It almost felt like it was too easy for Jack to accept the real world.  And yes, I realize I am contradicting myself a bit here, but you know, that's just how it goes.

All in all, I hope they don't make this into a movie.  Although I would probably still go see it, even though it would be creeptastic.

Stay tuned for post number two!

Go out and explore the amazing gobsmacking wondrous glorious gigantic world!  Don't enclose yourself in the room called Chicago or home or America.  Explore!  Adventure! Discover! Find the beauty in every little thing!

I once rapped "I Like Big Bucks and I Cannot Lie" for a seventh grade speech when running for treasurer.

-L.R. Ogden

how the hell am i going to do that?

Yesterday, I went to the last of Denison's Beck Lecture series, which are a series of talks given by writers from different genres and all walks of life.  What made this lecture so much more important is that it was given by Peter Grandbois, my fiction writing professor from last fall (and a creative writing professor in general).  He just wrote a new book called Nahoonkara, which sounds amazing.  He talked about how he has written fiction, creative non-fiction, flash fiction, novellas, and stage plays.  It was he who said, "If I don't think, 'Now how the hell am I going to do that?' before I start writing, I just don't have any fun."  And currently, I ask myself that question everyday.

Anyway--on to more critiques.  In the past few weeks, I have finished the last two books in the Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins, The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman, and Chasing Redbird by Sharon Creech.  I recommend all of these.  But let's start with Mockingjay.

I know I have said in previous postings that these are not my favorite books.  They aren't.  But I couldn't put them down.  I read the last one in a day.  What does that mean then?  Well, I have decided it means two things.

1.  My devotion to Harry Potter leaves very little room in my heart for a new series.
1.5.  It is not as good as Harry Potter.
2.  My writer self is getting in the way of my reading self. In other words, reading like a writer is getting in the way of reading like a kid.

So, here are my issues, now that I've finished.  Also, beware there are MAJOR SPOILERS.  STOP READING LOGAN!!!

1. The first book was by far the best one.  It had the best plot, believable twists, and great tension.  The second book... well.  All that happened was they escaped.  They didn't go back into the arena until over halfway through the book and then they were saved rather quickly and without much drama.  And calm down--yes I realize there was a lot of drama in that they were trying to kill each other, but I mean relatively speaking.  They didn't have any problems with the Capital, which I find to be a little hard to believe.  They should have had to fight off some other people.  Making her pass out is a bit of a cop out.

2.  I was more upset for the cat than I was for Prim.  Here is what I think happened--all of this is tied back to the Gale/Peeta issue.  Instead of giving Katniss a decision to make, Collins needed to make it for her.  She made Gale into a heartless war monster who created weapons.  Weapons that most likely destroyed her sister.  Which, again, I am annoyed by, because there should be no debate between Team Peeta and Team Gale.  She tried to do it, but then chickened out.  She didn't want to break his heart.  At least in Twilight, it was Bella's decision.  (And you know I'm super annoyed when a sentence starts "at least in Twilight... I hate those books.)  So, to get her character out of a sticky situation that would actually give more insight into her developed sense of self, she has Gale ruthlessly take down a mountain and trap people inside. Not to mention he is the one that devised the weapon that destroyed her sister.  At the end, there is no possible way she could be with Gale.  Team Gale no longer exists.  It never should have existed in the first place.  But back to my first sentence.  Well, I'll make this another point.

3.  I don't give a flying monkey's ass about Prim.  Don't care about her one iota.  Why?  Because apart from hearing about her from Katniss, we hardly see her.  She is just the mother's helper in the second book.  She has one scene in the third where we get to know more about her.   I understand that killing her off was necessary for Katniss' anger problems to continue, but I really had no other emotion than, "Oh Lord, Katniss is going to lose it."  There was never even any mention of, "But I did it all for her... It all seems pointless now."  Cause that would be a logical reaction.  But no, she had to die so that Katniss could never stay with Gale. Also, I think Collins knew the readers wouldn't care, because what does she do?  She introduces the cat into the picture.  As I said, I'm more sad when the cat is lonely at the end than when Prim dies.  The poor cat.  Not the poor Prim.  The cat is a device.

4.  At the end, when all of the surviving victors are sitting around the table with Coin, Katniss says she wants there to be a last Hunger Games with the powerful people's children.  I honestly do not understand.  She was fighting to get rid of the games.  You don't believe me?  Well, looky here:

"Was it like this then?  Seventy-five years or so ago?  Did a group of people sit around and cast their votes on initiating the Hunger Games?  Was there dissent? Did someone make a case for mercy that was beaten down by the calls for the deaths of the districts' children?  Then scent of Snow's rose curls up into my nose, down into my throat, squeezing it tight with despair.  All those people I loved, dead, and we are discussing the next Hugner Games in an attmept to avoid wasting life.  Nothing has changed.  Nothing will ever change now.
    I weigh my options carefully, think everything through.  Keeping my eyes on the rose, I say, 'I vote yes... for Prim'" (370).

Okay... So.  Here is what I think.  A) It was not a necessary plot twist.  B) It makes zero sense.  It just goes to show that she has learned absolutely nothing from everything that has happened.  I don't care if she wanted revenge and is depressed.  She would NEVER want this revenge on children. Her kid sister just died--why would she want more of that? She's known capital people who she's liked.  She would not want revenge on the children.  For Prim, she'd just want revenge on Snow.  She would not want revenge on children. Of course, she gets revenge on both Snow and Coin.  But she would not have said yes. I would actually LOVE to hear other people's interpretations of why she would want another hunger games, because it actually makes no sense to me.  SHE WOULD NOT WANT REVENGE ON CHILDREN!!

5.  This entire book, Katniss doesn't actually do anything.  And by saying that, I mean that she makes nothing happen.  Sure, she is on TV rallying the troops, but let's be honest--they would have won the war at the exact same time if she were taken out of the story.  Even her fake mission is fruitless, as the real rebels come in and win it without any of their help.  I'm serious.  Re read it.  She does nothing except go on a stupid photoshoot which leads to a fake mission which gets Finnick killed. What?  AND she for some reason is then really blood thirsty and kills a random woman in her home. What?  Let me also point out that she hadn't really done much killing at all.  In the second book, I'm pretty sure she killed no one.  She killed a few in the first book, but it nearly killed her to do that. So how does she all of a sudden shoot a woman in the heart and not feel the slightest amount of guilt or pain?  I will give her that she kills Coin.  That is the one thing that, without her, would not have happened.  I think that Collins spent too much time on the "propos" and not enough time on having her main character drive the narrative of the novel.

6.  Why do they let her off for killing Coin?  Why not have her take the stand and be present for the trial?  Why not give her something to do?  Again, she is just a pawn in the plot, instead of actively defending what she did.  

So those are my major issues.  But, all that said, I couldn't put them down.  They are good books with a strong female protagonist.  Which you all know I like.  And frankly, I cannot wait for the movie--let's be honest, I'm going to like looking at Gale and Peeta, and who knows?  I may even end up on team Gale.  Although it's likely that I'll be on Team High King Peter the Magnificent forever. 

All those books I've read in the past two weeks have something in common.  Death.
Read a book, and death will bring you to life.
Well, look at that.  That was quite profound. Maybe I should write a book.  Now, how the hell am I going to do that?

LR Ogden

my suspicions have been confirmed

The suspicions I am referring to are, of course, that all my favorite children's literature authors not only know each other, but get together for tea parties on a regular basis. It's true. It really must be, as I am excited beyond belief to receive an invitation for said tea party. I would also enjoy going to a British tea party with all my favorite British authors as well, but that is neither here nor there. What is here is The Chronicles of Harris Burdick, a book that my dad bought for me when we went for a very yummy dinner at Easton. (The Northstar Cafe, if you must know, where they give you a free wine tasting as you are waiting in line. A nice effect, as I didn't really want to pay the 14$ a glass for my favorite wine. I got a free taste. Perfect.)

So, if you know me, there is usually an author's name following the name of a book. There is a suspicious lack of author name up there, if you'll notice. This is because this book is a collection of short children's stories by SO MANY GREAT AUTHORS. I will list them for you here, and help you out with what they've written, cause you all probably are not as in sync with the children's literature circle as I am. And no, I am not counting you, mother.

The Chronicles of Harris Burdick is by

Sherman Alexie, who wrote The Absolute True Story of a Part Time Indian, and the movie Smoke Signals (which was adapted from one of his short stories).

M.T. Anderson, who wrote The Astonishing Life of Octavian Nothing, Traitor to the Nation, volumes I & II, among others. I haven't read these, but I really want to. Here is a link to his website, which is actually pretty cool.

Kate DiCamillo, who wrote Because of Winn-Dixie, The Tale of Despereaux, and The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane. I know I love Because of Winn-Dixie, and The Tale of Despereaux was just turned into a movie. It's on my list of books to read immediately.

Corey Doctorow, who has written nothing I've heard of, but I'm sure he's great.

Jules Feiffer, who 1) is a man, and 2) illustrated The Phantom Tollboth by Norton Juster. Plus, he wrote a book called A Room with a Zoo. Awesome.

Stephen King, who is Stephen King.

Tabitha King, Stephen King's wife. That's right, they're both writers. Damn. How cool would it be to live in their house? Although it may be a tad creepy... Stephen King's novels are a little frightening at times... But still. I bet their bookshrine is awesome.

Lois Lowry, who wrote The Giver, which is one of my favorite books of all time. If you've not read it, READ IT NOW so as to prevent further wreckage of your childhood that is almost over. It's not over yet, you see, if you haven't read this book. Also, I have found out two things: one, they are making a movie of The Giver, which should be pretty cool, and two, there is a third book in The Giver trilogy that I haven't read--WHOA did I just get excited for this. (The second is called Gathering Blue and was published in 2000, seven years after The Giver.) She also wrote the Anastasia Krupnik series.

Gregory Maguire, who's name I'm not sure how to spell because all the letters are always capitalized. How annoying. He is most famous for Wicked. The book that the musical was based on.

Walter Dean Myers, who wrote a bagillion books, but none of which I recognize. But he was mentioned in one of Sharon Creech's novella's, as an author a boy admires. (Sharon Creech wrote Walk Two Moons and Chasing Redbird. We like her.)

Linda Sue Park, who wrote A Single Shard. 

Louis Sachar, who was my favorite author growing up--before even J.K. Rowling. He wrote Wayside School is Falling Down, Sideways Stories from Wayside School, and more importantly, Someday Angeline, Dogs Don't Tell Jokes, and Holes. All amazing books. If you haven't read these--what are you doing? Why are reading my blog??? Go read those books instead. Complete your childhood.

Jon Scieszka, who wrote The Stinky Cheese Man and other Stupid Tales, and The True Story of the Three Little Pigs with Lane Smith. Which, if you remember Logan and Mira, were some of our favorite picture books growing up. At least they were some of my favorite.

And, last but not least, Chris Van Allsburg. He is an author and an illustrator, made famous by little books like, Jumanji, or The Polar Express, or Zathura. And not to mention The Mysteries of Harris Burdick. 

So basically, A LOT of the authors I loved as a child are in this book. Oh, and Lemony Snicket wrote the introduction.

Anyways, on to why this is awesome. This is metafiction, baby. This book is set up with the story presented in The Mysteries of Harris Burdick, which is just a series of images and captions, along with an introduction saying that Harris Burdick dropped these off to an editor, and that he would be back the next day with the complete stories and more pictures. Only he never came back, so all the editor had were these pictures. So what Lemony Snicket presents in his introduction (posted below) is the idea that Harris Burdick has, in fact, been hiding amongst his cohorts and has given his writings to various authors in children's literature to publish as their own. AWESOME.

Why is this awesome? Because Harris Burdick is a fictional character. The drawings are Chris Van Allsburg's (and they are quite beautiful, actually). What this book does is present a mystery in the fictional world that the reader cannot immediately distinguish from the real world. I even had to do some research before I was sure it was all made up. But here's the greatest part: it is a massive conspiracy amongst my favorite authors. I mean, WOW. Seriously, just watch this video--it is amazing.



Also, I have to say, I'm really loving reading short stories for children. You don't see that very often. Generally, children's books are either picture books or chapter books. This is a nice break. I may have to try a few of my own.

Anyways, try and pick up a copy of this book--I've only read three chapters so far (look forward to another blog post once I finish), but I absolutely love it. It's rather interesting to read new work by some of my favorite authors. And it's especially interesting now that I'm 21 and rather critical. I'm telling you--stay posted for my thoughts. Also, I only posted what I think is the most well known of each of the above author's works.  They have all written much, much more.  Google them all, I say!

If I could create my own tea party with anybody I wanted, I would invite J.K Rowling, Marishka Hargitay, Louis Sachar, Lois Lowry, Philip Pullman, Brian Selznick, Eoin Colfer, and hey, why not--High King Peter the Magnificent.

I can't wait for my invitation. I will be invited to the literary teas, and the children's books picnics, and the Young Adult stories brunches.  Just you wait.

L.R. Ogden

a note about narnia

There is a good possibility that I am in love with High King Peter the Magnificent.  Sexy, chivalrous, charismatic, loyal, blond... and he has a great nose.  I'm just saying.  I like his nose.  Now let's move on to literary business.

I know that I've talked about Narnia before on my previous blog (the beloved i will live my life as a lobsterman's wife), but let's talk some more.  While I watch the movie.  And skip all the parts High King Peter the Magnificent isn't in.  In my writing class today, my professor mentioned how the writers of today are being so greatly influenced by cinema.  And I think that is very accurate.  The line between book and screen has been blurred over the past few years.  Just take Harry Potter.  The books and the movies were so closely linked.  I know for a fact that one designer used silver sheets to decorate Grimmauld Place, and J.K. Rowling in later books described the exact fabrics used.  She took something from the set and it made its way into her books.  If that happened with a bit of shiny fabric, I'm sure that other things, like character traits and habits made it in as well.

But that isn't what I'm here to talk about.  That's a whole other can of worms, actually, as that is referring to the cinematic generation of an author's work who is still in the process of writing more material.  Most books that are turned into movies these days have already been written.  But it is true--I think scenes and books in general have become much more action driven.  Scenes are being written as if meant to be on screen.  Just take the Hunger Games.  I will bet any amount of money that Suzanne Collins had the movie playing in her head when she was writing.  She created a very commercialized book that had every aspect of teenage drama imaginable.  The teenagers were quite literally killing each other while being rather hormonal.  Now, I'm not saying this is a bad thing (the commercializing, not the killing--that's not good).  I'm just pointing out how, really, I don't think writing will ever be the same.  Not with our generation surrounded with media of all sorts.  There is no way that we, as writers, can avoid it.  We do need to procrastinate, after all.

Now, on to Narnia.  Sorry, that was a bit of a long sidebar.  Here is something I would like to point out: this book (and the movie) is all about the power of innocence and childhood.  In both The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe and Prince Caspian, all the good guys are either children or animals.  True, the dwarfs in Narnia are technically adults, but they are the size of children and act rather childishly throughout the book.  Even when the Pevensie children "grow up" in TLTWTW, they don't really.  They just run around talking how children think kings and queens should talk, saying things like, "Yes, let's go hither," and other things I cannot remember because I just gave my book to Lena. C.S. Lewis had this thing about life, where he thought that once you grew up, you were damned.  Once you grew up, that was it.  Original sin takes over and well, you might as well just give up, cause you won't make it into heaven.  Susan doesn't, and all she wants is nylons and lipstick.  And probably a boy.  And that really isn't much to ask, now, is it? No.  No it isn't. The message: stay a child forever.

Don't worry, I would get into Narnia.  I have a wall devoted to Harry Potter and rather intense discussions about Narnia and Hogwarts and the Hunger Games and... well.  You get the picture.  Plus, I have discovered that I like that Nickelodeon show, iCarly.

Anyways, it's two thirty and I still have to clean my room for my daddy, who is coming tomorrow!  Hooray!

Being a grown up is for sissies.  Start a Quidditch Team.  Run around campus and scream "For Narnia!" and then growl like a lion.  Reread your favorite children's book.

For Narnia!
-L.R. Ogden

the invention of hugo cabret--and perhaps a new literary genre

I don't know how many of you have heard of this book by Brian Selznick, but it is absolutely wonderful. You should all try and get a copy in the next week and spend a few hours (although it shouldn't take more than two) reading it with a cup of hot tea and perhaps a crumpet. Actually, make that some crepes, as this is set in France. Seriously--I don't care how you get it, just get it. I got my copy by convincing my mother to buy it "for the family." I then stole it and brought it to college where it is on my bookshrine (otherwise known as a bookshelf). And really, I do not think I can part with it, because I am in love.

Why is this book so amazing? you ask. Well, look up there at that title. New literary genre? you say. Pshh. What a load of old tosh. Not so, I say, because what this man has done is integrated words and illustrations in possibly the coolest way I never thought possible. It is not a picture book, par say, as picture books generally have images that correspond to the writing on the page. What Selznick has done is to tell his story half in illustrations and half in words. So here is why I find this so incredibly awesome:

1. What a BRILLIANT way to get kids to read. I know that there are kids out there who can't stand to read and get frustrated when they are forced into reading chapter books--because come on--there are no pictures! And I also know there are kids who try and jump into books that are too long and complicated for them, just so they can boast they've read it as they hold up a book bigger than their head. This books solves both of those problems. Kids who are tentative to start chapter books will LOVE it because so much of it goes by in pictures and they will be encouraged when the pages start to fly by. It creates the illusion that they are fast readers which, even though it might not be true, can only help to boost their confidence as readers. And yes, every kid likes to boast about the longest book they've read, and this book, at over 500 pages, is thicker than almost all of the Harry Potter books. HOLY MOLY.

2. He didn't just write it, he drew it. The illustrations are absolutely phenomenal. It really is amazing how easily and creatively a story can be told with no words, and just pencil drawings. It also shows visually (at least to a person, like me, who is thinking about how to tell a story) how stories begin. We watch the moon set over the glowing city of Paris, then see the sunrise over a Paris train station. We then follow Hugo as he runs through the station, looking behind him to make sure he's not followed. Just from the pictures, we know that he's done this before. We can tell that the old man is suspicious just from a look in his eye. So, just from the images in the beginning, we have discovered the setting, characters, tension, and conflict.

3. The first words in the book are: "From his perch behind the clock, Hugo could see everything." And it comes on page 46. Just from the beginning images, we know how Hugo got to his perch, what he's looking for specifically, and that he has clearly been to this perch before.

Honestly, I cannot rave about this book enough. True, it's mostly because of his use of craft, but the story is pretty great too. Here is one of my favorite quotes (though most of my favorite quotes from this book are pictures):

"As I look out on all of you gathered here, I want to say that I don't see a room full of Parisians in top hats and diamond silk dresses. I don't see bankers and housewives and store clerks. No. I address you all tonight as you truly are: wizards, mermaids, travelers, adventurers, and magicians. You are the true dreamers" (506).

5. They are making it into a movie. Of course they are. While I do think that the movie version will cause it to lose a lot of it's charm (as it is not only his words that they are cutting out, but also his images), this trailer looks fantastic. I have to say, I'm actually excited to see it. Because as much as I will miss the pictures (and the act of reading), I'm pretty sure what he has done in writing and drawing this book is lay out the movie plan (there is a word for this but I cannot, for the life of me, remember what it is). Maybe, then, because he has literally drawn it out, the movie makers will stay true to what is in the book.



How come we don't ever talk about moonset and moonrise? And why is moonset, apparently, not a word?
L.R. Ogden

damn plotholes

Here is what just happened to me:

I was cruising along at about 50 wpm (words per minute), when all of a sudden my tire was completely blown to smithereens and my auto-creativity came to a schreeching, stomach-ache making, terribly sudden stop.  Ladies and gentlemen, I have hit a plothole.  Quite a large one, actually.

Here is the issue that will make sense to almost no one:

Charlotte's family knows where she is.  In my head, that worked because they had collaborated with Emmilina's family and looked at their credit card bill, noticing that they were on this train.  Only Emmilina's family cannot yet know that they are gone, as the police have only Charlotte's picture.  Conundrum.  And, of course, my story is technically due in.. one hour and seven minutes.  And probably less by the time I finish this post.

So HOW DO CHARLOTTE'S PARENTS FIND HER?  Without the help of the Maqueri's?  Can I just go on and deal with this later?  Like have them have noticed that she had been talking about Montana a lot? Ohhh struggles...

So, I think I will just deal with it later.  God I am tired.  Tune in later for some great butterbeer/pumpkin juice/firewhisky recipes.  They were all very good.

I used to LOVE broccoli with ketchup,
L.R. Ogden