The BookFetish Blog

This is another venture between Silver Screen Capture and TheBookFetishBlog. I’m reviewing the book, Stephen is covering the movie, and then we’re talking about them together.

Dave Eggers did something in The Circle that not a lot of authors do for me: he gave me a main character I simultaneously wanted to slap and strangle, while also wanting to know how the plot plays out.

From the Publisher’s Summary:
When Mae Holland is hired to work for the Circle, the world’s most powerful internet company, she feels she’s been given the opportunity of a lifetime. The Circle, run out of a sprawling California campus, links users’ personal emails, social media, banking, and purchasing with their universal operating system, resulting in one online identity and a new age of civility and transparency. As Mae tours the open-plan office spaces, the towering glass dining facilities, the cozy dorms for those who spend nights at work, she is thrilled with the company’s modernity and activity. There are parties that last through the night, there are famous musicians playing on the lawn, there are athletic activities and clubs and brunches, and even an aquarium of rare fish retrieved from the Marianas Trench by the CEO. Mae can’t believe her luck, her great fortune to work for the most influential company in the world—even as life beyond the campus grows distant, even as a strange encounter with a colleague leaves her shaken, even as her role at the Circle becomes increasingly public. What begins as the captivating story of one woman’s ambition and idealism soon becomes a heart-racing novel of suspense, raising questions about memory, history, privacy, democracy, and the limits of human knowledge.

The premise is good- At The Circle, connection and transparency mean everything. Isn’t it selfish to not share wonderful experiences with people who can’t do those things?  If you know you are being watched, would you choose to behave differently? Is it so much to give up a little privacy if we can take the chance of a kidnapping or terror attack to near zero? Wouldn’t it be great if we knew exactly how our politicians conduct their business? No more backroom deals.  Yes, but…  And that’s the crux of The Circle. Where is this line drawn?  What is the point where giving up individuality and privacy is worth it to serve the greater good? When does electronic connection- and its associated validation and judgement- become as important as real life relationship? And what does this mean for our future?

The fact the I’m writing a blog post that I hope gets read, liked, and shared at the same time that I’m talking about the dangers of caring too much about this kind of validation is not lost on me.  What is lost on me is the choices Eggers made in writing this book.  He takes an intriguing idea, but leaves so many plot holes and implausibilities that the potential of the book is lost.  There are a couple of character arcs that lead to a WTF moment when someone’s true identity is revealed and you remember his previous actions. There is a nefarious underbelly to The Circle, and we are given nuggets of warnings about it, but the sense of urgency about reigning it in just isn’t there.  That could be Eggers’ point- that by the time we see the danger, too many things are set in motion to see a way out from it- but if it is, it could have been handled better. The book is worth reading if it makes you think, but its one I would recommend with reservations.

Now here is the Q and A between Stephen Michael Brown and me about the book and film.  Minor spoilers so consider yourself warned.

What was the biggest plot hole for you?

Ashley:Ugh! There are a lot! This is going to be a bit spoilery, but here goes: That Kalden was Ty (a founder of the company) and he randomly chose a newbie to the organization to show “deep secrets” to and weakly recruit Mae to try to take down the Circle- oh, and that he banged her in a company bathroom. Consensual? Yes. Grounds for a massive sexual harassment case? Also Yes.  The movie left out some very graphic scenes that I skimmed over in the  book, but that were important to show Stenton’s real personality. His vision of The Circle is the one we most need to be concerned about, and that is completely left out of the movie.

Stephen: To me, it was a series of unfulfilled plot potholes – from Hanks’ surveillance speeches that seemed oblivious to moral implications, to tours of underground tunnels to nowhere, to a framed love story that I didn’t even know was happening. This director, who incidentally made a very wonderful film called The Spectacular Now, did a very poor job focusing in on what he wanted the viewers to care about.

What did you miss in the film that you hoped was fleshed out in the book?

Stephen: I found Emma Watson’s character to be bland, seemingly defanged from what was presented in the novel. Without sufficient background characterization or motivation – or even evolution to grow or change, there really wasn’t a driving force or momentum here. In fact, I felt the film was lacking both protagonist and antagonist. Dare I say it felt lost a bit in the cloud.

What stood out as the biggest flaw from the book to the movie?

Ashley: Annie’s character was very, very different in the book. A Scottish actress couldn’t tell the story of Book-Annie. By not giving movie-Annie a comparable backstory, movie goers don’t really understand Annie’s downward spiral.  She’s a harbinger in the book- in the movie, she’s just haggard.

What worked well?

Stephen: I liked the logo for The Circle, the depiction of the headquarters campus and the way text messages popped up around the characters. The film brought up some pretty heady concepts to botch them so royally in terms of script and direction. History may look more fondly on the film as its predictions come true. Heck, some of the events straight out of headlines happened a bit just last month. It’s a prescient tale, just told in a fairly predictable and pedestrian style. In this same genre, I recommend Gattaca.

Ashley: It does make you think. We are quick to share big parts of our lives on social media, but that doesn’t mean that we really know each other. And we like streamlining a lot of things- touch ID to log in to applications. Tapping our phone to pay for things in a store. Emoji’s to show if we are happy or sad. Any number of things made easier by technology and connection, and that can be a wonderful thing. But we don’t stop to think on where the sharing, the streamlining, the data collection, should stop. If that part of the story makes us think more about what our future could be, then it is worth reading.

Margaret Atwood’s dystopian The Handmaid’s Tale is indeed a classic. I read it years ago but didn’t remember much of it. With the Hulu series coming up, I decided to re-read the book before watching the series. I’m so glad I did because I don’t think I fully appreciated the insidiousness of the story on my first reading.

For the uninitiated, The Handmaid’s Tale’s publisher’s summary is below:

Offred is a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead. She may leave the home of the Commander and his wife once a day to walk to food markets whose signs are now pictures instead of words because women are no longer allowed to read. She must lie on her back once a month and pray that the Commander makes her pregnant, because in an age of declining births, Offred and the other Handmaids are valued only if their ovaries are viable.

Offred can remember the days before, when she lived and made love with her husband Luke; when she played with and protected her daughter; when she had a job, money of her own, and access to knowledge. But all of that is gone now….

Funny, unexpected, horrifying, and altogether convincing, The Handmaid’s Tale is at once scathing satire, dire warning, and literary tour de force.

So, how did I react when reading it? I was struck by how very timely it is for this part of our history. While I’m no conspiracy theorist, and while The Handmaid’s Tale projects an extreme outcome, we are not far off some of the mentality that lead to this society.

“It was after the catastrophe, when they shot the president and machine-gunned the congress and the army declared a state of emergency. They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time (174).”  

The Sons of Jacob manipulated the country, creating destruction and fear of another whole group of people, in order to take control.  Where else have we heard that recently?

The crux of the story is the theocratic Gilead run by the Sons of Jacob, where gender roles and castes are distinct and rigid. Legitimate marriages, those of one woman and one man who had only been married to each other, never divorced, are the most highly regarded. Women who do not fall into this category may be designated “Unwomen”, women  defined as “Sterile women, the unmarried, some widows, feminists, lesbians, nuns, and politically dissident women: all women who are incapable of social integration within the Republic’s strict gender divisions. Gilead exiles unwomen to “the Colonies”, areas both of agricultural production and of deadly pollution. Joining them are those handmaids who fail to bear a child after three two-year assignments. (wikipedia)”

Or they may be a Handmaid, the surrogates who get pregnant and have children for the Wives.  It is their only worth. But it is a practical need, not salacious.  The birth rate has declined. Pollution has led to birth defects and non-viable babies. Many of the Wives and Commanders are unable to have children on their own.  Those Commanders and Wives who rank highly enough receive a Handmaid.  The Handmaid belongs to the household. Her own name-her “before name” is irrelevant. Her names becomes her home: Offred, Ofwarren, Ofglen.

The ick factor is big in this one, folks.  When Offred is in training to become a Handmaid, the class harshly rebukes Janine, who, in the Before world, had been gang-raped at age fourteen, and had an abortion. Whose fault? Her fault, the class chants in unison. “Men are sex machines” later in the class.  The Handmaids dressed in neck to ankle dresses, and head coverings that obscure their faces, expected to look down, not make eye contact.  The women need protecting.  It is almost absurd as you read it, until you realize that this thinking is quite prevalent among some groups in the  US today. You can read about it here, here, here, and here for just a few examples.

This is what Atwood does so well. She picks out a few things, things that may appear innocent on the surface, and shows how insidious they can become.   You feel Offred’s desperation, her longing for freedom, her resignation to her fate, her desire to survive. While only a flashback in the narrative, Atwood shows how easily fear leads to complacency. The population has been taught to fear Islamic extremists, so when the Sons of Jacob execute their coup, there is a ready made group to blame. In the aftermath of a tragedy, it’s easy to look to others for guidance, to give away a few freedoms for the “safety” of all and the “greater good”.

With The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood gives a perfect example of what can happen when these attitudes are taken to an extreme.  It is a quick read, and at times an uncomfortable read. But more importantly, it is a necessary read.

When I was younger, I used to be that girl. The one who carried a book practically everywhere I went so that if I had a few minutes, I could read a few pages.

When I was too young to drive, but had to along on errands, I would sit in the car and read while Mom ran in and out of various shops.

I’d steal any few minutes I could to read.

Now, when I can carry hundreds of books with me on a device scarcely larger than my mobile phone, I don’t take it with me.  When I have a few minutes, I scroll through Facebook or Twitter. I take a turn in a few  of the seventeen games of Words With Friends I perpetually have going.

I want to go back to being “The Girl with the Book”.    Even when carrying smaller purses, my Kindle can fit in there.  When I read ebooks, it is usually on my iPad, so  I’m charging up the Kindle now.  I plan on taking it with me.  Letting Facebook and Twitter and Words With Friends sit quiet for a bit.  Take a few minutes out and read more pages in one of my current books. What about you?

Happy Friday! Happy Reading!

A few years ago, after a couple of needlessly tedious airline passenger interactions, I wrote The Bitchy Traveler.  Thankfully, it’s been a few years since I’ve felt the need to  rant about poor behavior, but this afternoon at The Fox to see The Bodyguard (which was wonderful, by the way), has warranted a post.

It’s really simple, folks. And these things should go without saying, but clearly, many people have missed the memo, so here goes.

First, BE ON TIME.  I know a bridge collapsed but that was four days ago and has been on the news pretty much 24-7 since then, so it really isn’t an excuse today.  When you buy your tickets, you are choosing a date and time to attend. This is even conveniently printed on your tickets, so you can double or even triple check.  You live in Atlanta. You know to plan for the unexpected. You can google ways to get to the Fox and where to park.  There really isn’t an excuse for being thirty or more minutes late to a show. When all the rest of us have managed to make it on time, it’s really distracting to us to have to accommodate you finding your seat in the dark after we’ve become engrossed in what is happening on stage.  It’s rude.

Second, TURN OFF YOUR DAMN PHONE.  This is not a new thing, people. TURN IT OFF. I heard at least six mobiles trill during the show. You know how many I should have heard? One.  The one on stage that was part of the plot. You know this. Put it on silent, vibrate mode, airplane mode, or just plain off. And this includes texting. I don’t care how discreet you think you are being,  it is distracting to people around you, takes away from their experience, and is, again, just plain rude.  If you absolutely MUST check texts because you are on call or afraid it is the babysitter, then find a way to do it unobtrusively (I suggest an inexpensive smart watch if that is in your budget).  I did not pay for my tickets to be distracted by the light of your phone, and I respect you too much to distract you with mine.  Also?  Don’t take pictures and video of the shows. Note to the guy directly in front of  me and the guy three rows ahead of me. You were more obvious than you thought, and I cheered to myself when the green laser got you to put away your phone.

Third, DON’T GET UP TO LEAVE AT THE CRITICAL MOMENT OF THE SHOW.  The show today closed with an emotional, wonderful song. And the lady four seats down (and a few people from a few rows ahead of us) just HAD to get a jump start on the exit procedures and get up during this part of the show.  It was an inconvenience and distraction to all of us trying to enjoy these last few minutes of the show and be in this emotional moment.  And, it is RUDE.  Stay to the end. Respect the performers enough to do that.

Look, we’ve all paid good money for these seats. And things happen- I get it, there are one-off cases. But a lot of this is self-centered behavior where you are thinking only of yourself and not of anyone around you.  It’s a case of bad manners and it can be avoided.  Be more respectful to your fellow audience members and the performers. If you can’t do that, find a video and watch it at home.

My friend Karen lent The Royal We to me to read, so I expected to enjoy it because she had liked it. What I didn’t expect was to be drawn in and have such an emotional connection to the story.

“American Rebecca Porter was never one for fairy-tales. Her twin sister Lacey was always the romantic, the one who daydreamed of being a princess. But it’s adventure-seeking Bex who goes to Oxford and meets dreamy Nick across the hall – and thus Bex who accidentally finds herself in love with the eventual heir to the British throne. Nick is everything she could have imagined, but Prince Nicholas has unimaginable baggage: grasping friends, a thorny family, hysterical tabloids tracking his every move, and a public that expected its future king to marry a native. On the eve of the most talked-about wedding of the century, Bex reflects on what she’s sacrificed for love — and exactly whose heart she may yet have to break.”

This is no schmaltzy romance novel. It has a surprising depth to it. One thing that I really liked about it is that Bex and Nick’s relationship progressed in an authentic manner. They started out as friends and it took them both a long time to admit deeper feelings.

I imagine most readers will think of Catherine and William as they read The Royal We and I imagine there are some similarities.  Cocks and Morgan capture well, I think, the pressure of someone born the heir must experience. Their life is to a large extent predestined.  There’s no asking “what do you want to be when you grow up?” because there is o only one answer, Monarch, whether or not you actually want it.

And then imagine someone not at all accustomed to the public eye, whose every move becomes a subject of intense scrutiny. You’re marrying the person, yes, but you are also marrying the institution of the Monarchy.

Throw into that a deep love for the other person.  That is, I think, what struck me most with this story.  I believe Bex and Nick were deeply, irrevocably, in love with each other. They were each other’s person.   And that is the premise of The Royal We. And we get to read their story.  We get to see the high points and the low points. We get a heartbreaking moment. We get WTF moments. We get “Girl, what are you THINKING?!” moments.

I enjoyed reading The Royal We.  I teared up more than once.  I laughed out loud.  I felt the characters were authentic and relatable, even the person behind the title.

My only real complaint with the book is that the ending is ambiguous.  I know what I want to happen. I know what I think might be more likely to happen.  I’m wondering if it is a set up for a potential sequel some day?

If  you like chick lit or  romance, I think this is one you should definitely put in  your to-read queue, especially with spring break and summer vacations coming up.