Review Me Twice - The Petrosian Invitation by T.P. Keating

We always love it when we get the opportunity to review NaNo authors on this blog, and this occasion is no different.  Getting your book out there is hard (as I have discovered from the grand total of two books that I've sold), so we try our best to help out.

Keating has a very good writing style.  She knows exactly the scene that she wants to portray to her readers and how she wants them to see the situation.  While she does have the same problem as my dear co-blogger about knowing when to tone back the vocabulary, she does have a great one and I really appreciate that.

I also loved the relationship between Zoe and Sam.  You could tell they were sisters, even if you hadn't been told by the author.  They had that love/hate relationship that a lot of sisters have.  They help each other even when they don't want to, they gossip about each others lives with each other, whether that be good or bad, and at the end of the day, the genuinely want what's best for the other.

The one, rather glaring, problem that I had with this book was the pacing.  Our main characters fell in love with each other within days, and made life altering decisions within the maybe week time span that the book took place in.  It seemed that everyone in the book had impulsive personalities and that didn't seem weird to anyone.

Overall, not a bad read, and a short one at that.

What is it with vampires and sudden love? Sure, lots of book characters fall in love quickly, but it seems to happen more often when vampires are around.

I agree entirely with Cassy about the vocabulary issue. That's something else I've noticed about vampires, though... if you're writing the type of vampire who has been around for centuries, you tend to allow way more complicated vocabulary (even when it's not coming out of that old soul's mouth). But it's an appropriately-applied vocabulary (as in, our author is not using big words without knowing what they mean or how to use them).

This isn't the kind of book I could reread, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If I'm paying very close attention to a book, I don't want to reread it, because I don't feel like I missed anything (although I'm sure I did). If you're the kind of reader who sees "vampire romance" and thinks, "Nope, not for me"... you're probably right. The book delivers what it promises, so if that isn't your jam, this book isn't for you. Otherwise, it's worth a read.

Vampires, Zombies, and the American Economy

(If that doesn't sound like a fascinating post, I don't know what does...)

There is a solid correlation between the popularity of zombies or vampires and the state of the economy of the United States of America. No, seriously.

Zombies are mindless, unthinking consumers of resources (including brains) while moving in unstoppable droves.

Vampires, on the other hand, are calculating and intelligent consumers that typically feel deep guilt about their consumption.

To stretch the metaphor a bit, zombies are mindless consumerism and vampires are buyer's remorse.

In the 1960s, the modern zombie was born (thanks, George A. Romero!) and they were a huge hit. They declined a little in popularity during the 1970s, until 1978 when Dawn of the Dead and an Invasion of the Body Snatchers sequel were both released. Zombies dominated through the early to mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, vampires got back on their feet (after suffering some mockery thanks to movies like Drak Pack and Blackula) and stuck around through the 1990s. When the 2000s came around, zombies came back in full swing. Even with the rampaging bull that is the Twilight franchise, vampires only surpassed zombies in 2006, then dipped back below them until 2009.

Now, I'm not really heavily into politics and economics, but you can see the general trends matching up with the ones I just outlined.

Isn't that cool?

(Remember kids: correlation does not prove causation. But it might be interesting to poll a large group of voting-age Americans and see which they fear more - zombies or vampires - and which way they vote... Some science fair kid get on that for me.)

Favorite Vampire

I talked briefly yesterday about some famous vampires, some of which you know, some of which you may not.  Today, however, Alex and I are going to pick our most favorite vampire.

If you've read Anne Rice's Vampire series, you know about Armand and how pretty freakin' awesome he is.  He spent a lot of time with Lestat, came to really care for Lestat, but also knew when to hide things from him.  Armand kept watch over the first Vampires for centuries.  I like him because he's quiet and he LOOKS really young, but when you read about him, you imagine him older.  His demeanor is just like that.

We don't get to hear his whole story until book six of the series (aptly named "The Vampire Armand"), but we have come to know and love him before then.  He pretty much tries his darndest to keep Lestat out of trouble.

The picture above is from the "Queen of the Damned" movie with Aaliyah.  While the movie was kind of terrible, Armand was cast well (as opposed to Antonio Banderas, who was cast as Armand in Interview with a Vampire.)

I've never seen the original Fright Night, but I love the 2011 remake. Charley (Anton Yelchin) suspects his new neighbor Jerry (Colin Farrell) of being a vampire, so he seeks help from his old friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and Las Vegas magician Peter Vincent (David Tennant... in leather pants). It's just as ridiculous as it sounds, but I can't help but love it.

Famous Vampires

Since this week were reading The Petrosian Invasion, a book about vampires, I decided to give you a list of the more well-known vampires.  Most of them are literary vamps, but some aren't.  All of them are awesome.

What kind of blogger would I be if I did not include the most famous vampire of them all?  Bram Stolker's Dracula is really what put the vampires on the map.  He's the first vampire that comes to everyone's mind, the first to make it to the big screen, and the first that has stood the test of time.  And while the heroic speeches in the book get a little out of hand, Dracula is still a dangerous thing to behold.

I've mentioned Anita Blake on here a few times.  Jean-Claude is the vampire that she just can't seem to shake.  He is absolutely besotted with her, and is continually trying to woo her.  Unfortunately for him, Anita is an independent woman who has killed more than a few vampires and wants to separate herself from the monsters as much as possible... and that certainly doesn't include dating one.

While Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt may be pictured, Anne Rice's Lestat and Louis are the ones that have stolen our hearts.  Lestat is on a continual quest to gain more power, to push the envelope of the vampire society, while Louis, well, just wants to go back to being human again.

Unless you were dead in the '90s (or in an extreme state of vegetation), you knew about Angel, our heart-throb of a vampire with a soul.  He was sweet and wonderful and OH SO TORTURED!  Not to mention, when he got his own spin off show from Buffy, provided us with the best clip ever (and pretty much sums up the whole show in one minute.)

Who is your favorite vampire?

Favorite Series

This week's review book, I Am Number Four, is part of a series called Lorien Legacies, so we're choosing our favorite series, which is a really difficult choice for each of us.

My choice is the Harry Potter series, which you heard each of us weigh in on back in April. I chose HP because I consistently liked all of the books, even though the tone changes drastically from Sorcerer's Stone to Deathly Hallows. It does so gradually, getting a little more serious with each book.

I also love HP because it feels like you know these people. Like you could just strut right up to the Burrow and Molly Weasley would sit you down and make you lunch. As fantastic and magical as the story is, it feels more real than a lot of books out there.

And as much as I want to agree with the rest of the world and say that we need more HP books, I think the series is a good length. It spanned Harry's adolescence, told the story that needed to be told, and didn't overstay its welcome. (Though I'm convinced that this is partially because anyone paying attention within the first few chapters of Sorcerer's Stone knew there would be exactly seven books, so we knew what to expect all along, at least length-wise.)

I have a million and one series' that I've read over the years.  And there are a TON that I love (Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, The Hungers Games.  The list goes on.)  But there's one that I really adore, and has actually been around awhile.

I know there's a lot of controversy over The Vampire Diaries.  And, to be perfectly honest, I haven't read past book six (The Vampire Armand.)  But, they're REALLY good, those first six book.  We already know my feelings on book five.

If nothing else, you should read the first three books.  You grow so attached to Louie and Lestat (ESPECIALLY Louie.  I LOVE Louie.)  You really get a great feel for the characters and Rice makes you fall in love with characters in such a short amount of time.  It's uncanny and takes a lot of talent.

I know that she kind of got a little crazy and a lot religious, but there's a reason that The Vampire Chronicles sold so well and are still a big deal, almost 40 years later.

(A side note: I am unaware as to why we didn't have a vampire tag before today.  Goodness knows we've talked about them enough.)