Final review and exam/final

The extraordinary tale of, "the Mummy's Curse," is revisited and spun into a whole new tale by the gothic angel, Anne Rice. Full of magic, thrills, and a hint of love, The Mummy or Ramses the Damned is spell binding and enticing from beginning to end.

Set in 1914, an eager Lawrence Stratford discovers the resting place of Ramses, the greatest king Egypt had ever seen. Confusion erupts since Ramses was thought to have been found long ago and was supposed to reside in Cairo Museum. Stratford appears to be on the verge of the greatest archeological find of this century until his untimely death only moments after uncovering the body of Ramses. His daughter, Julie, takes over reluctantly the family business while dealing with the grief of losing her father and suspicion of Henry, her cousin, for the murder of Lawrence. But that isn’t all. Her relationship with Alex Savarell, Viscount of Summerfield, is quickly withering and Julie doesn’t know if that’s a good thing or not; especially since she’s just met Ramses the Great, known as Reginald Ramsey in this Edwardian society. And still, there’s the growing public fear of the Mummy’s curse, set ablaze by the media. “Heiress defies Mummy’s curse,  ‘Ramses the Damned’ to visit London,” is what every paper in England reads and sparks everyone’s curiosity to get a look at the mummy. Sadly, that cannot happen since Ramses is immortal and has awakened from his slumber. Slowly consequences slide into play and everyone knows the King of Egypt has returned along with his queen.

This novel flows in Anne Rice’s beautiful yet antique style of writing details these events in that elegant style we’ve come to know and love. Phrases like, “The figure stopped. It moved to the blinds. Edward stood stock-still in the chilly darkness. He watched Ramsey peer out at the sky, and perhaps at the great web of stars flung out over the roof tops,” dribble throughout the book, filling the reader with glee each time he or she stumbles upon one of these hidden gems describing the fabulous life and times of Julie or Ramses or even Henry.

His dark motives are quickly providing destruction for more lives than one and begin to drive the characters to new places, new limits, and new levels of panic. The theme of terror only Anne Rice can produce seeps into the pages because of Henry’s mad obsession for proving Ramses to be a monster. “Henry himself was in a silent rage. He glared at her as if he meant to strangle her with his bare hands. And she glared right back at him, thinking coldly, You killed my father. You would have killed me.”

The novel is definitely a strong one. Filled to the brim with marvelous description, a quick plot, and wonderfully developed character, even Lawrence, who died by the end of the first chapter, The Mummy or Ramses the Damned is a high quality book. There are very few weaknesses in the book. Any plot hole possible has been addressed at some point in the book and stitched together, leaving a flawless tale earning five stars by all who experience it.

Books you should read if you don't want to be eaten by monsters

Super mega awesome foxy hot book trailer

Ramses Meets Batman

Ramses has been brought back to life and has to relearn the society and it's ways. He's been thrust into a complicated and unfamiliar world. He knows nothing except who he loves and that he's willing to go to any measures to protect her, even if it means breaking a few laws along the way. Much like the famous Batman.

Batman is your typical hero. Undercover and hidden from sight in the plainest of ways. He must struggle to help his friend eventhough she loves another. He devotes himself to 'his city' working tirelessly to rid the city of his enemies.

He ignores the world and its laws to save Gotham City over and over again until the citizens begin to revere him as a villian. This is like when Ramses begs Julie to allow him to kill Henry because Henry killed her father and tried to kill her. The two characters blatent disregard for rules is striking and yet justified because they're willing to commit these crimes in the name of justice, in the name of the law. It's an internal struggle between good and evil over something simple as a girl or a city. Something that drives them and resembles a 'life source' of sorts. At a point in both the book and movie, the two characters are subjugated as the villian and the very essense of their love pulses against them and they must struggle to react without creating a disaster in and upon themselves.

It may be argued that each character chooses a bad way to 'save' what they love, considering Batman actually fails and Julie pretty much leaves Ramses and believes him to be insane, but they made these choices out of love and out of love they rise from the ashes to push forewards and pursue their dreams and that's what makes a true protagonist in my eyes.

nonfiction is truth so don't call it nonfiction if it's a lie

Nonfiction is a true completely acurate story. That's it. No exceptions, unless your some form of book god. Highly unlikely if you ask me. It's the legitimate definition of nonfiction and there's no way around it. If you begin to fabricate details and jepordize the authenticity of a memoir of piece of work you're creating then it becomes fiction or some other sub-genre. This all may seem harsh but if I'm reading a nonfiction book, I expect it to be such and any less of the truth would make it seem false.

Frey and Mortenson both created wonderful books but in no way are they concidered nonfiction in my eyes. They contain false information which makes it regular fiction. This is no way affects the impact the book should have; it simply clarifys the category the book falls under and protects those who write and publish and such.

I don't really think David Shields' comment about blurring nonfiction and fiction holds any promise. We read nonfiction to gain knowledge and if you then read a book containing fabrication then you're not reading fiction, the truth is simply being altered to serve another purpose and I don't think that's justified in the long run. You're lying to many many people and decieving to make money. Besides blurring truth and fiction seems like it would land us in a load of trouble like highschool gossip does. Books should be above that, the're better than the lies they are becoming.

Literary Fiction versus Genre Fiction

First off, I disagree completely with the whole genre/worthy technique. I see where it is relevent when discribing the plot but certain genres can be placed mainly based off of opinion; the teacher may think In Cold Blood is an extremely artistic account of the murder of a family where as the student may think it' simply a horrific tale of insanity. While the book may be written in an exquisite manor the lesson may not be as effective if the reader doesn't connect with the book on some level. Where as if you take a 'popular' book that many people actually enjoy reading that uses literary techniques and creates a masterpiece out of simple words. So, no I do not think a genre makes a book 'unworthy' to be used in a school's curriculum.

Popular works I think can accomplish greatness. It will definitely take a delicate touch to achieve this but yes popular can be great and to consider a book less artistic based solely on the audience it reaches is very biased. In some cases this can be true *cough cough Twilight cough cough* but other books that I've read such as Living Dead Girl or Impulse are incredible and definitely could be taught despite their popularity.

Another issue entirely would be who decides a books level of writing. In my opinion people with degrees and who know what they're talking about should decide but I think the public should have some say in it as well. Writing to me is categorized in many different ways and forms and shouldn't have decisions made by a specific minute group, it should be decided by a vast range of people and change as the times change. Writing can always be improved like most things it can never be perfect and if we treat it like it can be we will never allow it to reach its full potential.

Filmifying the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

There would be several challanges for the book to transfer to the screen since you're in space the majority of the time. The background overall wouldn't be too difficult, but getting it to look legitimate like they were moving instead of looking like a simple green screen could've proven to be a pain. Especially since the planets they visit are so unique. It'd be exedingly hard to capture the beauty without overdoing it and making it appear cheesy. Also certain special effects such as the act of getting onto the spaceships might be tricky to gain with special effects. The background parts for the the guide explaing the importance of things such as towls and how Zaphod Beeblebrox became president.

There are many essential scenes but these are the I find the most important were.
1. when Ford "kidnaps" Arthur and explains 'oops I'm an alien.' (not actually said but you get the jist) This scene explains pretty much the entire story of how they must flee the planet to avoid being blown to bits. This sceen could be done in many ways but the movie would mostly fail with the absense of this sceen.
2. The sceen where mice undermine and rule everything. The overall point of the movie would fall and if not properly explained, would make very little sense. It's a interesting scene which helps explain the plot and journey through space.
3. When they are thrown off the ship after being forced to listen to vogon poetry. This particular moment shows the pure evil of the vogons and also allows the book to begin in the sense that Ford and Arthur are saved and begin to travel the universe with Zaphod and Trillian.  Arthur is incredibly shocked to see Trillian since he met her at a bar and then she left him for some random man and disapeared. This introduces a bit of a love interest/triangle.

Tree scenes that could be cut are:
1. The majority of the flashback pretaining Zaphod's Precidency and the ship theft. While the theft of the ship is important it doesn't need such a large amount of time and is a little insignificant.
2. Some of the definitions given by the Guide are a little extravigent and wouldn't translate so well to film. It'd be purely voice over and get a little boring. Plus some of the descriptions would get rather boring and only waste time in the movie.
3. Trillian would be a character that could be cut from the movie. She's a very static character and doesn't add very much to the book. She could easily be replaced with a ship function or a robot. Besides all the purpose that she surves is navigational assistance and helping to work the ship.