Review: The A-List by Zoey Dean

Y'all know I love trashy rich people stories. Gossip Girls, Crazy Rich Asians; I live for them. I even watched Rich Kids of Beverly Hills and the Real Housewives series. If your novel has the rich and elite doing stupid fucked-up shit, I guarantee you I will eat it up like a spoon.

Which is why I finished this novel, even though it's so "meh" and "boring." The only reason why I chose this in the first place is because a writer at Buzzfeed told me that if I like Gossip Girls I should read this book. Buzzfeed's book recs can be a bit iffy (The Mortal Instruments series are not one of the best YA series ever, Buzzfeed) they've done me solid with The Wrath and the Dawn before so I decided to give this book a try. And it's just so meh.

The prose is grammatically-correct and very simple, but not in the Hemingway kind. In fact, because it is so simplistic, it's  insipid. As a result, the characters are flat. I wish I could say that the characters are inconsistent, because that would mean they have personality in the first place. Anna can be interesting, but she's just boring. Sam and Cammie are cliches. Dee is practically useless. Ben...I don't even know. The good thing is, it's so short that I could finish it before the boredom really gets me. If this book is more than 500 pages like Fatherland I would've dropped it. That's how boring they are.

Look, I read trashy rich people stories for a reason: to gawk at them. I like watching the rich and powerful making a fool of themselves; it shows that they are still human, like us plebes. Not to mention, the sheer escapism of imagining you have an eight-figure trust fund and a closet full of designer clothes. i read these kind of stories to feel entertained with the thought of someone throwing a glass of 2004 Dom Perignon at someone's face. The A-List does the opposite. I feel no entertainment at all when I watch these kids smoke a joint or do a mass skinny-dipping.

That said, I will so read the next installment if I have the time lol.

Review: Since You've Been Gone by Morgan Matson

Emily's life is shattered when she finds out that her best friend, Sloane, suddenly disappears. It's kinda freaky. Her house is empty and she doesn't answer her calls or texts. Emily's a bit of a recluse before Sloane comes along, so Sloane's disappearance shakes her pretty badly. She belatedly realizes that she has no friend whatsoever beside Sloane, which means she will have to spend the summer alone. However, a letter from Sloane arrives one day. It has no return address or a "hi", just a list of things that Emily should do. Somehow she manages to convince herself that if she does everything in the list, Sloane will magically come back like a genie. So she sets out to do so.

Since You've Been Gone is a typical YA coming-of-age story. Emily is a reclusive girl who finally gets to open up and acquire new friends while doing quirky things. At first I really hate this girl, because she acts like a 10-year-old child instead of a 17-year-old girl. I mean, I'm a recluse who only has like four friends in high school too, but this girl really grates my nerves. Her outlook in life is so child-like and she virtually can't do anything without Sloane telling her to do. She's also incredibly naive. I'm okay with an innocent, naive protagonist, since this is YA we're talking about and all their protagonists tend to be in the "good girls" category, but Emily's childlike-ness is so overtly childish. I feel like I'm reading a story about an elementary school child instead of a high school girl. Even the girls in Jacqueline Wilson's novels have more maturity and they're supposed to be in junior high.

But it gets better as the story progress, although Emily remains annoyingly innocent halfway into the book. Maybe because her initial childishness is so exaggerated, her character development is so satisfying to me. In fact, I grow to like, and even love Emily. I sympathize with her, and I get her fears of being left alone in the world. Though, I find it hard to understand why Emily, an American teenager who shops vintage clothes and goes upstate for flea markets, does not know who Lykke Li and Arcade Fire and Death Cab for Cutie are. "I Follow Rivers" is a pretty big hit for someone like Lykke Li's stature and Arcade Fire is a freaking superstar in terms of indie artists. Hell, even the mainstream knows who Arcade Fire is. I mean, she's into 80s music.

I like the female friendships in this novel. Too often the cool, popular girls like Sloane would be the Mean Girl (tm) but it's not the case in this book, which I find refreshing. The friendship between Sloane and Emily is very sweet and is not poisoned by an undercurrent of "frenemy-ness" that usually makes you wonder why these girls are friends in the first place.

I would've given this book a four star, if it were not for the INCREDIBLY stupid conflict in the end that feels tacked on. And by "incredibly" I mean not even letting the other party finish his sentence. I feel like we could've saved several pages if that freaking party is allowed to finish his sentence. It's stupid and unnecessary, so it gets a one star downgrade. Overall, I think Since You've Been Gone is good and refreshing, light enough for a quick read. Though not the best YA I've ever read, I'd recommend it for anyone that's looking for a good contemporary YA or a palate cleanser after a heavy read (I'm looking at you Lolita).

Review: Henry V by William Shakespeare

This is, by far, my favorite Shakespeare play yet. While A Midsummer's Night Dream is delightfully absurd and Much Ado About Nothing is a laugh-riot, Henry V is both inspiring and thought-provoking. 

It is all thanks to the title character himself, the King Henry V. He is a good commander and king, presented a shining paragon of chivalry and virtue, yet simultaneously his character is opaque. Prince Hal, the wastrel heir to the throne, has seemingly grown up to be King Henry V, the shining star of England who successfully laid waste to the fields of France. King Henry V is heroic, just, and honest, everything a good King should be. 

But is he really? 

Quoting from another reviewer, from my point of view, good ol' King Henry V, Harry Plantagenet, Prince Hal of Eastcheap, is an "amiable monster, a very splendid pageant." He is, in trope-speak, obfuscating stupidity. From the first scene, where the Bishop of Ely and the Archbishop of Canterbury persuades the King to reject a bill appropriating their church property in exchange for spiritual support for the French invasion, we can see his ingenuity. The King is dawdling, as we learn from the Bishops, on where he stands for the bill. Is he dawdling because he is politically inexperienced, or is he bidding his time, knowing that the Bishops would come to him with the pretext needed for his invasion?

And for a patriotic play about war filled with jingoism, there are some highly critical passages here: the scene of Harry, incognito, speaking with Michael Williams, a common soldier, about the nature of kings and his subjects. The fate of Pistol and his friends. In the end, we are left with the fact that for all of the sacrifices made, for all the soldiers that have given up their lives so that he can rule France, it will be all for naught; France will be lost forever by his son Henry VI