Favorite Book Cover

Out of all the book covers in the world, we're picking our favorites today.

My copy of Raw Shark Texts by Steven Hall does not have this cover, but I love this cover. In this book - bear with me here - there are creatures, made of thought and information, that eat... thought and information. It's a little trippy as a concept, but the book is incredible and original and I love it. The fish (the thought creatures are all modeled after sea creatures) manifest through text, sort of (it's hard to explain) so this is a very fitting cover. Beyond the (only) image on this cover, I also like the font of the title/author (usually I don't like them being the same, but the use of space between them and different sizes makes it work for me) because it reflects the jagged, uneasy feeling you get while reading the book. (I don't think it's necessary for novels to state "A Novel" as a subtitle, but at least it isn't obtrusive here.)

You should know that my reasons for liking the cover of this book are incredibly, incredibly girly.

I really liked the big pink foofy dress.  I would LOVE to own/wear a dress just like that.  I have this obsession with big skirts and old fashioned dresses like in Gone With the Wind.  I constantly kept seeing this book in the library (along with the other books, below, that featured big, poofy dresses.)  And while I realize that they are historically inaccurate (the first book takes place in 1899), if we've learned nothing else from this blog, we know that cover art very rarely matches what the book is actually about.

Look at these dresses.  Who WOULDN'T love these dresses?

 



Even the text is awesome.  It's cursive and elegant and very old fashioned and fits amazingly with the BIG, POOFY DRESS.  And I put off reading this book for a long time because, per the description on the inside flap, I got the feeling that the dress was going to be the best part of the book.

I was right.  The book was a huge let down (even more so than I anticipated.)  It was incredibly predictable and not well researched, not to mention the author had an obsession with Lord & Taylor (I don't know; maybe she doesn't have the money to shop there?  So her characters must?)  Not to mentioned, the book sends out HORRIBLE messages via subliminal text (IE. Being an independent woman means you're a bitch and a slut.  How nice.)

But this post is about COVERS and, honestly, even after knowing the book is terrible and not really worth the read at all, I can't help but look at the cover every time that I go to the library.

Painted Eggs

Since we're reading a book about painted eggs this week, I figured I should probably give you a clue as to what those painted eggs are and the tradition behind them.

Egg painting goes back a LONG time (think pagans) and, as usual, Christianity adopted the idea into their religion (because they wanted to convert a ton of people, so they kept a lot of pagan traditions.  It's why Christmas is in December as opposed to April, when Jesus was really born.  It's because Christmas coincides with the winter solstice.)

To this day, most nationalities have their version of the "painted egg" (don't YOU decorate your eggs at Easter?)  Slavic nations are no different, painting eggs beautiful colors for the Easter season.

For these particular eggs, they don't really paint so much as they "write" on the eggs.  A stylus is taken, dipped in hot wax and then the wax is drawn or "written" on the eggs to form a design.  Then, the eggs are placed in a dye-bath.  The wax helps to retain the color and, eventually, the wax is melted off to leave nothing but beautiful colors and patterns.

Sometimes, the eggs are big/thick enough to have the patterns actually carved into the surface, leaving a lot more texture.

Faberge Eggs are an extreme version of the Slavic art of egg painting.  They're extravagant eggs made by the House of Faberge, mostly for the rich (because no one else could afford them.  In fact, that's still true to this day).  The eggs were covered in gold and jewels, making them incredibly extravagant (though, incredibly beautiful).  The most famous of these eggs were made for the Russian Imperial Family, the Romanovs.  There were 54 eggs total made for the family, 42 of them surviving to this day.

 

Crazy extravagant, aren't they?

Author Bio: Patricia Polacco

This week, we're reading Rechenka's Eggs by Patricia Polacco (it's actually the only picture book we're reading this month.) 

Polacco was born in 1944.  She lived in three different towns in Michigan until 1949.  Her parents were divorced when she was three and each parent went back to their respective parent's home.  Polacco would live with both sets of grandparents year round (mom during the school year, dad during the summer.)

Because of this, she says it's why there is so much child/old person interaction in her books.  It's a subject that's near and dear to her heart and reminds her of her own childhood.

Pretty certain this is her as a senior in High School (It looks like a senior photo.)

Polacco had a lot of trouble learning when she was in school and actually, didn't learn to read until she was 14 years old.  It was around that time that she learned she had dyslexia, the reason for her poor grades in school.  Eventually, she majored in Fine Art and got her PhD in Art History.

Polacco is a little more rare for an author, because she did not start writing books until she was in her forties.  Before writing children's books, she actually restored art for a living.  Her family is Russian, Ukrainian and Irish, all cultures that are very rich in story telling.  She had been hearing stories all her life, until one day, she decided to write them down.

A much more current picture of her.  I have to admit, she has aged well.

Currently, she is living in Union City in Michigan (a place she LOVED as a kid when she lived there for a short time with her grandparents.)

She's got a great website, Facebook account, and a Twitter account. (Not bad with the technology for a 69 year old woman.)

Answers to First Lines Post

Special Sunday post!  Ok, it's just the answers to my Tuesday post, but it's exciting nonetheless.  How many did you know?  Which ones did you get wrong?  Let us know!

 

1. 1984 by George Orwell
2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by JK Rowling
3. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
4. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
5. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
6. Beloved by Toni Morrison
7. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
8. Moby Dick by Herman Melville
9. Ulysses by James Joyce
10. Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Patterson
11. The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
12. Pride & Prejudice by Jane Austen
13. A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens
14. The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis
15. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
16. Dante's Inferno
17. The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner
18. Don Quixote by Cervantes
19. 2001: A Space Odessy by Arthur C. Clarke
20. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
21. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
22. Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk
23. The Stranger by Albert Camus
24. Little Women by Louisa May Alcott
25. Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
26. Genesis (The Bible)
27. Charlotte's Web by E.B. White
28. Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman
29. Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
30. The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle by Avi
31. Their Eyes are Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston
32. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
33. Thank You for Smoking by Christopher Buckley
34. Lord of the Flies by William Golding
35. Matilda by Roald Dahl
36. Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare
37. Madeline by Ludwig Bemelmans
38. The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
39. The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger
40. Peter Pan by J.M. Barry
41. Winnie the Pooh by A.A. Milne
42. The Princess Bride by William Goldman
43. The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett
44. A Little Princess by  Frances Hodgson Burnett
45. The Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe
46. The Time Machine by H. G. Wells
47. The Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
48. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
49. Uglies by Scott Westerfeld
50. American Gods by Neil Gaiman

By Its Cover: Le petit prince

Even if you've never read the book, you've probably seen the cover. (At least, you did yesterday, if not before.) It hasn't really changed in the 70 years since it was published.

That is, of course, the titular prince on the cover, and he's standing on his planet (which is to scale... it's actually very small). Most versions of the cover have a blue background to make it clear that he's in space, on his little planet.

It's a fairly direct and literal cover, and I'm cool with that. I think the hat/boa picture might make a better cover (see my review in yesterday's post) but this is still fitting.

I don't have much to add to Alex's critique.  Mine had the blue background that she speaks of.  Also, I like the font.  It's very whimsical and this is a whimsical book.

Review Me Twice: Le petit prince by Antoine de St.-Exupery

As I mentioned yesterday, I read this book in French for this review. It takes considerably longer (for me, anyway) than reading it in English, but I like being able to keep the phrasing intact. Most of it is still beautiful in English, but you can read a grocery list in French and make it sound lovely, so it's just that much better.

This book is a classic for a reason. I think some of that can be attributed to the nostalgia factor, because a lot of people read this as children (it is, after all, a children's book). But I also love the ideas in it.

Let's take the first few pages as an example. You may have seen this picture before?

It's the first drawing in the book, and the narrator tells us that he would show this drawing to people and ask them if it scared them, but nobody could see why they should be scared of a hat. When the little prince sees it, he says he didn't want a drawing of a boa eating an elephant (which is, of course, exactly what it is). The whole book is full of stories from a perspective like this, and it's beautifully child-like but profound at the same time.

I am probably one of the very few people who didn't read this book as a kid (or if I did, I don't remember it.)  And I did read it in French the first time I ever read it (it's pretty much the standard book that High School French students read because it's easy and short but is still difficult to read for us English learning French readers.)

The book is beautifully written and very poignant.  St.-Exupery is reminding us that, as adults, we're too serious.  We forget the things that are actually important, as opposed to the things that really aren't important at all (Numbers is something that's mentioned.  Adults gauge everything by numbers and by its worth.)

It's also kind of a fun and fancy free book.  It's a little on the ridiculous side (a small "Prince" drops down from his planet, that he left because he had been fighting with an overly vain flower.)  It's just the kind of things that kids would find funny and love, so if you still find it funny then there's a good chance you're still a kid at heart.

My Bottom Line 4 out of 5

Translating and Reading

This is a quotation from this week's review book, Le Petit Prince by Antoine de St.-Exupery. As you can see... it is in French.

I am reading the book in French to do this review, but I have read it in English before. These are two very different experiences.

First, it takes longer. I have a B.A. in French, but I don't practice very much, so I've gotten pretty rusty, and even reading this children's book takes considerably more time and effort than reading it in my native tongue.

There are vocabulary words that I knew well in high school and college, but I have to think hard about (or look up) now. There are also some I may have never learned. The same goes for sentence structure (but more on that in a minute).

So, let's use this quote as our example for reading in a foreign language.

On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.

It means, in a rough translation,

One can only see well with the heart. The essential is invisible to the eyes.

I didn't need to look up any of the words in these two sentences, but let's pretend I didn't know the word "yeux." I would go to my favorite translation dictionary and type in "yeux." I find this:

Based on the context of the rest of the sentence, I can probably guess that the first choice, "eyes," is correct. But when you're translating, you have to consider the other possibilities, and you have to think, "Could he mean spies? Or maybe he meant globules of fat? Probably not..."

It's time- and energy-consuming, but necessary in order to make sure you get the right meaning.

Another thing that can take some time is dealing with sentence structure. In French, if you want to make your verb negative ("I do not eat") you put "ne" in front of it and "pas" after it ("je ne mange pas"). To say "only" about your verb ("I only eat apples") you put "ne" in front of it and "que" after it ("je ne mange que les pommes"). Clearly this is a difference construct from English, and it can make the native-English-speaking reader think at first that the sentence is going to be negative. (I made that mistake when I first glanced at the quote, and I was confused for a second.)

Beyond taking lots of extra time, translating while reading affects understanding. First, you have to get  each word translated. Then you have to make sure they're in the right order. You also have to look for idioms or colloquial phrases you might not be familiar with, and figure them out. (For example, "avoir le cul borde des nouilles" literally means to have your butt stuffed with noodles... but to the French, it means to be lucky. Idioms!)

Once you've taken care of all of that, you can finally stand back and look at what you've translated, and then apply understanding. The quote above is quite lovely, but when you're focused up-close and detailed, you see "one" and "only" and "sees" and "well"... so on until the end of the quote. If you don't stand back after the translation is done, you just have sentences. If you do, you have deep, beautiful meaning.