Nights & Weekends: Bootlegger's Bride

Many thanks to Margaret Marr at Nights & Weekends for her review of Bootlegger's Bride...

Ms. Kindall takes an age that, at first glance, doesn’t seem all that interesting, and she weaves an unforgettable, un-put-down-able story. I’ve grown to love the vintage age through this author’s skillful imagination. She brings every aspect of the 1920s to life—the sights, the sounds, and even the smells. She writes her characters almost as if she’s lived among them and knows exactly how they would act or react in different situations.

Bootlegger’s Bride is the fourth in the Legacy of the Celtic Brooch series. Thirteen authors were handpicked by The Wild Rose Press to put their imagination to work and write a story around the heirloom. If you collect all thirteen stories, you get thirteen chances at winning an actual Celtic Brooch. Now who says number 13 is unlucky? And if the rest of the stories are as good as Marty Kindall’s Bootlegger’s Bride, you’ll have a pleasurable trip collecting all of them.

For the full review, click HERE.

I finished it!

Like the rest of the English-reading world, I've been working my way through Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Sometimes listening to the fantastic Jim Dale, sometimes reading the actual book (and, I admit, sometimes both at the same time), I made it through in a week!

I thought it was brilliant! For entertainment value, this has everything. Love, danger, friendship, death, mystery. There are probably lots of little plot holes or dangling threads that I can't see because I'm still bearly-eyed from reading, but then I'm not one to go digging if it's not obvious. I only know I was completely entertained.

Here's a couple of my favorite quotes (I won't say who from or where they appear):

"Wands are only as powerful as the wizards who use them. Some wizards just like to boast that their are bigger and better than other people's." Snark. The tone of this story was that they are now entering the adult world, and there was quite a bit of humor like this to break the tension.

"Maybe Gryffindor didn't take the sword. How do we know the goblin version of history is right?" I like that one because it's something I teach--just because someone says so doesn't make it right.

If you want to discuss, send me a message :)

Return to Normalcy

Wow, I feel like I got hit by a Mac truck these last couple weeks! We'd been understaffed at work and started the quarter with few hands on deck, which meant more work for all of us. We pulled together and pulled it out, but I don't ever want to to do it again!

I have totally gotten out of my writing rhythm, sidetracked with the interview, movies, road trips, and, of course, the new Harry Potter (I'm on chapter 19 and enjoying every twist and turn). Next week, I head for a few days in sunny Ft. Lauderdale. Work related, but some much needed down-time, too.

All in all, no news is good news! I've been surfing Shelfari, like many other writers, so feel free to add me. My user name is mkindall.

Movie Reivew: HP-V

I'd been waiting all week to see this...and believe me, I could have used a distraction! I avoided any reviews from 'official' sources and friends so I could go in with an open mind. I haven't read the book in a couple years, so my memories of all the details are not so sharp--which I've found is the best way to see these movies. HP movies will never do justice to the books. They can't. If they keep to the overall plotline, tone and spirit of the book, I'm good.

I'd consider this the weakest of the movies, but I did enjoy it. I felt that things weren't fully explained (like what the Order of the Phoenix actually is) that would have helped the plot. Having said that, this was probably the easiest of all the plots to understand--so maybe they oversimplified it too much?

What you get--the same great characters, both primary and secondary. The Delores Umbridge character was perfectly played, as are the other character actors. You get the same kinds of special effects you're used to, but the last 30 minutes of the movie are especially packed with the spectaular stuff. I understand from my animation-addled friends that the last 30 are also done in 3-D. Some I-Max theatres will be playing it that way, so check it out!

I give it an A-.

Movie Review: Transformers

I'm a little too old to remember the TV show or the animated movie, so the reason that all men from 25-31 were foaming at the mouth to see this flick was too far beyond me to even comprehend. But, since my new movie buddy is a former employee of AMC cinemas and has these free passes...I threw in!

Even without a frame of reference, I LOVED IT! What you get: A-C-T-I-O-N! And surprising humor. They pull off a really nice mix of serious and funny. Shia LeBeuf (that has to be his real name, because who would make it up?) does a great job in the lead. With the action comes all of the digital animation. These google-eyed males informed me that some of the working models had well over ten thousand moving parts. Thirty to forty hours could be spent on a single frame of animation. So basically, the movie had to go (pardon me) balls to the wall so it could recoup all the cash spent making it, and it does.

What you don't get: a fresh, unpredictable plot with all the loose ends tied up. It's canned, staged, even a little campy with the teenage romance, but hey--it was really fun to watch! I give it a B.

PS - there was a discernable lack of blood, gore, and cursewords. Only the 'bad robots' killed humans, and then you just saw the body. I was really struck by the tame language, so if you have kids, it's a pretty safe bet.

Historical Bias?

If you believe that journalists are unbiased in reporting the news, please raise your hand.

I don't know anyone who believes this today. In general, everyone knows that Fox News has a conservative slant, while PBS leans the opposite direction. These people are supposed to report the facts, yet the public realizes that in their reporting, there is (at the very least) inherent bias. Word choice, delivery, tone of voice, expression...where did they get their information and through what lens are they viewing it?

One of the things I teach my students is that historians take no such pledge. They are supposed to be biased, to try to convince people of one thing or another. That's why there's a thesis statement. Information to support or debunk historical positions can be found and used, and twisted in some cases.

One of the toughest classes I ever took was an undergrad course in historiography. The history of history deftly daught by the chair of the department. While there was a lot of memorization and whatnot, the idea behind the class was that dependent upon the era in which a book was written (what was going on in the world at that time?) the background of the author (did they have a stake in the argument?), and whether they were indeed refuting another sourse...there's a bias. In my class, we Google the author of the textbook and see his background, his possible biases based on his other works and areas of interest. I give my students the opportunity to see where I come from, to ask questions of me and my background before they trust me to give them knowledge. The other teachers love it when that practice filters into their classes, lol.

Everyone has a filter, not-so-rose-colored glasses through which they see the world. A book may be filled with historical research, but rest assured that there's a point to it, and you can probably find a counterpoint as well. In the age of easily accessible information (internet, Wiki) we'd do well to double-check sources if, indeed, it's a crucial piece of information to your otherwise fictional story.

The Hollywood-ization of History

I'm a movie fanatic, and of all the movies out there, my DVD collection is filled with representations of history. Glory, Apocalypto, Gettysburg (fake beards and all), Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Malcolm X...the list is endless. Hands down, my favorite flick the past year has been 300.

Here's a shocker. They're not all true. Tomes have been written about what Hollywood does to history. In some cases, it's a lot like the bias discussed with history books. Depending on the time in which a film was made, and who wrote, directed, starred in and produced it, you can tell a lot about a movie.

In a media-driven age, films often have a heavier influence than books. If you can see a two hour movie about the 54th Massachusetts, why read all the boring books, right? This is an uphill battle for a teacher, because students will not necessarily question movie facts seved with hot buttered popcorn in the theatre. They're taken at face value, assimilated, and regurgitated as fact. Debunking film mythology--or adding value to it--has become a hobby. One of my assignments is to watch a movie based on historical events and then tell me what was right and wrong about it. The idea is to question what you see.

I make it sound all bad. It isn't. 300 came out while I was teaching the ancient history segment of my World Civilizations class. The creator, Frank Miller, comes right out and says it's not historically accurate (see my review for why). Yet it made people curious, and I can't argue with that. If seeing a movie "based on a true story" makes you dig into the facts to find out more, that's something I can get behind.

Storytelling through film or written word is a similar art in a variety of ways. While you shouldn't believe everything you see/read, using history as a backdrop, using historical characters to enliven a story, being inspired by acutal events can be add wonderful touches of authenticity to the story.