What I Read: The Daughter of Smoke and Bone by Laini Taylor

The Daughter of Smoke and Bone is the first in a trilogy and the first I've read by Laini Taylor. I definitely want to go back and read her Lips Touch: Three Times, a National Book Award Finalist. Let me tell you, she does some very fancy footwork with the plot in this tome and it is genius. Genius! I am so glad that I went ahead and reserved the second one at the library so I can begin it immediately.

"She tastes like nectar and salt. Nectar and salt and apples. Pollen and stars and hinges. She tastes like fairy tales. Swan maiden at midnight. Cream on the tip of a fox's tongue. She tastes like hope."

This novel is about a human girl named Karou, living a sort of gypsy life, but temporarily settled in modern day Prague, Czech Republic. She has no memory of her parents or where she came from, just that she was raised by Chimaera, a conglomerate of various races of supernatural human/animal hybrids from another realm who consort with humans on the fringes of society conducting secret business to which she is not privy. She is tough, curious, and independent. She is an artist and and she has been trained in the martial arts. She's seventeen years old, but she feels older and more mature. Her character development is perfect and I at once believed that she is was teenager and that she wasn't. I was so curious to know about her past. 



Illustration of Karou by Jim Di Bartolo. Via Smoke and Bone Wiki.



"A bruxis. That was the one wish more powerful than a gavriel, and its trade value was singular: The only way to purchase one was with one's own teeth. All of them, self-extracted."

Karou was primarily raised by a Chimaera shopkeeper of sorts who deals in the business of teeth and wishes. Meaning, people will bring him teeth, both animal and human, and he pays them in wishes. Karou sometimes assists in these trades by acting as messenger and picking up teeth from various trusted suppliers around the world. Karou has no idea for what the Chimaera use the teeth even though she had witnessed some of the harvesting. One pickup assignment takes her to a market in Marrakesh, where she comes face to face with Akiva. 

"Enemy. Enemy. Enemy. The knowledge pounded through her on the rhythm of her heartbeat: the fire-eyed stranger was the enemy... She was caught between the urge to flee and the fear of turning her back on him."

The Chimaera have been in a war with angels, the Seraphim, for millennia and even though neither side remembers why they are fighting and their legends blame the others, natch, they still battle in the name of vengeance. The Chimaera think the Seraphim are narcissistic overlords and the Seraphim believe the Chimaera to be dim-witted beasts. Anyway, events are set in motion that thrust Karou to the center of this age-old disagreement. She learns about her past and the value of magic, hope, and wishes.



In one description of Chimaera they are likened to figures from a Hieronymous Bosch painting.

"...and when he turned away she experienced a sudden unspooling, like the snap of a cable and all her restraints giving way, and she couldn't bear it anymore."

Both the writing and the storytelling in this book are impeccable. The plot took some really unexpected turns, especially near the end, but they all work. It seems like a tired old trope that two people from opposing sides of a deep-seated* and ill-remembered squabble would fall in love. Star-crossed lovers, if you will. But Taylor manages to tell the story in a way that is entirely new and fresh. And heartbreaking. Actually, it is really trite to describe the story this way. There is much more to it that that and after reading only the first book in a planned trilogy I am feeling a little hesitant to define it in these terms. I felt seriously jolted at the end. Pleasantly discomforted. Is that a thing?


Text I sent to my girl Lacey immediately upon finishing.

Have you read this? What did you think? Do you like young adult urban fantasy as much as I apparently do? Care to make any recommendations? Are you excited for the movie?

*I had to look this term up. I say it all the time, but had never written it out and was unsure if the correct term was deep-seated or deep-seeded. I am inclined to use deep-seated, like an idea or feeling that is seated deep in your being. But deep-seeded makes sense too, like firmly-rooted. Thankfully, Grammarist was able to settle my deep-seated internal debate by stating that the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "having its seat far beneath the surface." Language Log has a good discussion of the confusion, humorously, in my humble opinion, citing Fox News as using it incorrectly.

P.S.: On a separate note, I learned in this book that shark fetuses will compete in the womb and cannibalize each other. I had never heard this before and thought it was morbidly, gruesomely fascinating, albeit evolutionarily counter-productive. Or is it properly Darwinian? When I told Donnie he was like, "duh, everybody knows that." Maybe if you are terrified of sharks a shark enthusiast like him. It is called intrauterine cannibalism. You can read about it here and here. In honor of my learning this new fact I will leave you with a new word for your vocab: Adelphophagy: eating one's own brother. You're welcome and I hope you have no other occasion to use it besides when discussing baby cannibal sharks.  

What I Read:: The Meaning of Wife by Anne Kingston: Part One

My reflection on this book really ended up taking on a life of it's own and it is incredibly long, so I decided to break it up into a series of posts. This is part one.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

I just started watching the second season of Say Yes to the Dress: Atlanta. This is a guilty pleasure and I make no apologies. I admit that I have a love for trashy reality television, but considering that I don't have cable, my viewing choices are limited to what I can get on Netflix. Also, I live in the Atlanta area and despite eccentricities that I like to think fly in the face of this fact, I am southern, born and raised. So, I like this show. I cringe when I wonder what non-southerners must think of us based on the stereotypes they see on reality T.V. Anyway, this is the headspace I was in when I chose my next book and I bought this one when I was planning my wedding. It was a new release and the timing was such that I felt compelled to buy it. Now, seven years later I am finally getting around to reading it.

Look at the cover. Provocative, right?

Wifelust vs. Wifelash

The very first thing I took issue with was her argument about what she calls "wifelust." She said that women seek to be traditional stay-at-home moms because society tells us that is what we should want and that the ability to do this is considered the ultimate status symbol in current society. Maybe if this were Stepford, Connecticut. I currently work and my husband is a stay-at-home dad. This is how things worked out best for us when we discovered we were unexpectedly pregnant. I am the breadwinner in our household and one of our entire paychecks would have gone to childcare, so it just made the most fiscal sense for my husband to stay home. This is a role he cherishes dearly and he rues the day our son starts school and he doesn't get to spend all day with him. I think we are incredibly lucky that our son gets to stay at home with one of us, but in no way does it feel like a symbol of status. Is that because my husband is the one staying home? At any rate, we had to make quite a few financial sacrifices to make this work. We don't have new cars, we don't have cable television, we live in a tiny house in a depressed neighborhood, we rarely go out the eat, we rarely buy things we don't really need. BUT these sacrifices are well worth the ability to care for our child in the way that we feel is best.

Stay-at-home dad-ing

I know stay-at-home dads are an unconventional arrangement that are becoming increasingly common in a society where gender roles are somewhat less rigid and the recession sometimes necessitates this choice. James Griffioen tells the New York Times that modern stay-at-home dads are not Mr. Moms, but rather an evolving archetype of the father as provider and I would agree with this, but this article also asserts that the family hierarchy is currently in flux. Why does there have to be a hierarchy? ABCNews reports that gender roles are reversing and that families are struggling with this development. Really? Maybe changing attitudes about marriage and gender roles in younger generations is causing Kingston's wifelust to be in flux. I consider Donnie's contribution to our family to be equally as valuable as mine and both of our responsibilities come with joys and frustrations, although I would argue that child-rearing is more rewarding that 9-to-5-ing in our case. I know he feels the same way. But I would give almost anything to get to be the one to stay home with my son. He is growing up so fast and the only time I get with him is two hours in the evening, between when I get home from work and his bedtime, and on the weekends.  I miss him and think about him all day and I resent Kingston for shaming me for feeling this way.

Next, let me just say thank goodness the idea of coverture has been essentially dismantled in modern times. Coverture is a legal construct that dictates that a woman's identity is legally subsumed by her husband's:

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: this is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything..." 

Kingston does an excellent job of explaining this load of horseshit and its eventual undoing. I will say, though, that I have been to two weddings in recent years where this idea was romanticized during the vows and both times I was appalled. Are they exhibiting wifelust by embracing these outdated ideals? Am I exhibiting wifelash by being disgusted by it? These wives promised to obey their husbands in the vow swapping of these very religious ceremonies. I even voiced my shock at the antiquity of the sentiments in these modern weddings, but my family could not relate to my opinion. I remember my step mom saying that of course the wife obeys the husband. In return, he promises to protect and take care of her. And what's worse is this idea was viewed as holy, romantic, and ideal. In 2012, some women are still treated like children in the name of matrimony. I guess I begrudgingly support their right to choose this type of relationship for themselves and I thank the brave and outspoken ladies that came before me that I don't have to.

Donnie and I on our wedding day in 2005. Look how I gaze adoringly at him while he looks at the camera. Our photographer told us to pose this way because it is a very common wedding photo pose. Now when I look at it I think it is popular because maybe people still unconsciously subscribe to the idea of man and wife. The wife is an accessory to the man.

Now, I am considered a social black sheep in my family in some ways and my marriage experience was very different from this. My husband and I got married seven years ago at an old historic hotel in middle-of-nowhere, Georgia. My dad did walk me down the aisle, because I love him and wanted to share that quintessential experience with him, but no one gave anyone away and Donnie and I exchanged vows to be equal partners and best friends. I also was very clear with our Justice of the Peace that I wanted him to pronounce us husband and wife, not man and wife. Kingston discusses how Gloria Steinem, who famously said "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," chose to use the term "partners" throughout her marriage ceremony when she did eventually marry at 66 because it is the more egalitarian option. During our rehearsal our Justice of the Peace said, "Oh, are you a fire breathing feminist?" Well, yes. Of course I am. I felt that fact was irrelevant, though, because I thought my beliefs were more mainstream for my generation than they evidently are. Also, we wanted to be married our way without judgement, coercion, or snark, which is why we hired a Justice of the Peace, but after all, this is the south.

This is one of my favorite photos from our wedding. So arty.

Kingston says that there was a shift in the 1960s and women could now marry of their own free will: "Love, not legislation, is the new exacting master." Because there still has to be a master, right? I would argue that while women are choosing to marry later in life than in the past, or choosing not to marry at all, there is still extreme social pressure to marry in our 20s. I think the frustration women feel when this doesn't happen is what fuels the popularity of books, films, and television programs about single women searching for Mr. Right (Sex and the City, Bridget Jones Diary, The Bachelorette, etc). I suppose this supports her idea of wifelust, but I'm not convinced women are so much lusting after wifehood as we are boxed in by the heteronormative social construct that tells us this is what we are supposed to have. Millie Kerr writes in The Atlantic that single people should get to have weddings too because milestone celebrations are reserved for couples. Is this veiled wifelust? It does highlight the idea that being married brings a woman social validation that she does not otherwise have. Jenn Levya writes that while marriage affords women social comfort is really is just a misogynistic status quo and we as a society need to develop new, more egalitarian support structures for one another. I agree that marriage should not be held up on a pedestal to which nothing else can compare. Also, it should be more inclusive. But Levya and I are two very different kinds of feminists because she goes on to say that even though she is a feminist she does not have to support other women's decisions to marry, specifically, "I'm not interested in privileged white women making choices." Ouch. Feels like wifelash to me.  

Spy Magazine cover (1995) ridiculing Hillary for daring to have figuartive balls via Fading Ad. We'll save the discussion for how offensively transphobic this cover is for another day. 

Finally, Kingston discusses Hillary Rodham Clinton as a wife who has been both celebrated and vilified. She is the embodiment of wifelust vs. wifelash. When she and then-governor Bill Clinton first came on the national scene she was the loving wife of a powerful and successful man. Wifelust. During her husband's presidential campaign she competed in a cookie bake-off with Barbara Bush. How quaint. How dutiful. But this was after she commented that she chose her career over the choice to "stay home and bake cookies." Then she was scorned for presenting herself as an autonomous spouse with the ability to dictate presidential policy because she was expected to remain a secondary counterpart to her husband. Wifelash. Kingston asserts that she was celebrated for ultimately "standing by her man," when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Evidently that is what a good wife would do. Wifelust. I was only 16 at the time, but this is not how I remember it. I remember hearing people sneer about how weak she was for staying with him in light of the infidelity. People reported on the matter in 1998 and while they recognized the difficult situation Rodham Clinton was in, they still said:

"everyone wonders how the First Lady—or for that matter any intelligent woman who doesn't need a man for financial security—can tolerate indignity so complete that she has been caricatured in a Claymation bout with Monica Lewinsky on MTV's Celebrity Death Match."

I even remember thinking at the time that she should leave him for embarrassing and disrespecting her like that and thinking that was the progressive, feminist, and correct mindset to have. Wifelash. My older self is more able to discern nuance and gray-area and I realize that it was politically expedient for her to stay. It seems evident now that the choice was calculated and ultimately in the best interest of herself and her family. Kingston's book was written in 2005 and here we are in 2013 where Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and Bill was the democratic darling of President Barack Obama's 2012 bid for re-election.   

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

Edited 03/20/2013: I have decided not to write anymore on this book. Once I said I would it seemed really daunting and I don't want to write a treatise on modern marriage. I just want to put this book behind me.

What I Read: The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern

Confession: I didn't finish reading Ender's Game and I returned it to the library. Also, I had to pay $10.80 in library fines because it was so late. This is not an insane amount of money, but at $0.10 per day, it means my book was 108 days late. You guys, do not abuse the library. Take your items back on time and pay your fees promptly. Do as I say, not as I do.

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

"Trespassers will be exsanguinated."

I got this book for Christmas from my sister-in-law who understands my love of books AND magic. I also have a not-oft expressed love of sideshows, so this one was the trifecta being a book about magic and circuses. Not circuses in the three ring, sad animals sense, but rather the romantic, 19th-century magician sort. The traveling circus in this story has no travel itenerary and just shows up under cover of darkness, thus adding to its mystery and the curiosity of local townfolk. And the magic is real even though great pains are made for it to appear as expertly executed illusion. The circus is the venue for a secret challenge between two magicians who have been groomed for the exhibition since childhood. They each manipulate the circus and add components to the best of their abilities, but neither quite understands the rules of the game or how a victor will be determined, just that they were magically bound to the competition by their mentors and must participate. 

"I have always been nocturnal."



Via Antique Helper

Via Encyclopedia of the Exquisite

Via Isis' Wardrobe



The two magicians create tents for the circus with fantastical presentations (like the Cloud Maze, the Ice Garden, and the Pool of Tears) and, over time, they fall in love as they admire one another's skill and imagination. They eventually begin creating exhibitions for each other. I love all the acts in this circus, but my favorites are the living statues. I first heard of them when I started listening to the Dresden Dolls and read a now forgotten article stating that Amanda Palmer made part of her income as a living statue named the Eight Foot Bride, which is an icon in Harvard Square. The living statues in this story are very romantic. One is a lonely woman holding a solitary rose. One is a snow angel. My favorite is a couple entwined in an embrace, but not touching, just moments before a kiss. The reader can feel the energy sparking between them in the author's description and it is incredibly moving. I love the artistry of creating a character that doesn't move, yet intrigues passersby. I could never do it myself because standing that still and moving so slowly would make me crazy for my lack of patience. 

"I prefer to remain unenlightened, to better appreciate the dark."



Amanda Palmer as the Eight Foot Bride via Wikia

My other favorite part of the circus is the Fortune Teller. Her character, Isobel, is integral to the operation of the circus for several reasons, which I won't go into here so as not the spoil the story for someone else, but I loved the scenes where Isobel did tarot readings for herself and other characters. It is not necessary to know anything about tarot to enjoy the story, but I did find myself Googling what different cards meant and it was clear that the author carefully chose how the cards would fall, so to speak. Also, tarot cards are really beautiful works of art and after reading this book I added the classic Rider-Waite tarot deck to my Amazon.com wish list. I don't really believe in fortunes, but I do think the mythos surrounding fortune telling is fascinating. I would love to have my fortune read, but the only places I ever see that do that are crummy little houses with neon fortune teller signs in the window and that is not the experience I want. Isobel does her readings in a black velvet tent with a beaded doorway and she wears a black veil to add an extra air of mystery. The descriptions of her reading are darks and laden with psychic energy.

"That man has no shadow."

Via Amazon

I talked to my hairstylist about this book as she is an avid fantasy reader and she said she tried to read it, but was unable to finish it. How can this be? She couldn't quite remember why, but said she remembered feeling like nothing was happening. My friend Laura had a helpful perspective about this when she said that people appreciate different things about how a story is told and I think that has to be the case with this one. I will admit that the action is slow, but as the story built I felt a growing sense of curiosity and anticipation that I really enjoyed. The scenes are beautiful and lush and Morgenstern's attention to detail in creating the imagery is impeccible. By the time the two magicians figure out the rules and terms of the challenge, every move they make has dire and far-reaching consequences and this is when the story really takes an exciting turn. What I loved about this story the most is how it made me feel and this is summed up quite eloquently in a passage at the end of the book:

"Someone needs to tell those tales. When the battles are fought and won and lost, when the pirates find their treasure and the dragons eat their foes..., someone needs to tell their bits of overlapping narrative. There's magic in that. It's in the listener, and for each and every ear it will be different, and it will affect them in ways they can never predict. From the mundane to the profound. You may tell a tale that takes up residence in someone's soul, becomes their blood and self and purpose."

Via Wikipedia

And, shocker, a movie is currently in development. Will I see it? Yes, I will. Have you read this book? What did you think?