Book: Lola, a Ghost Story

“Jesse sees dead people, monsters, demons, and lots of other things that go bump in the night. Things that no one else can see. No one except his ailing grandmother — a woman who used her visions to help those living in her small town. The same rural community in all the scary stories Jesse’s heard as a child. Man-eating ogres in trees. Farmhouses haunted by wraiths. Even pigs possessed by the devil. Upon his grandmother’s passing, Jesse has no choice but to face his demons… and whatever else might be awaiting him at Lola’s house.“

If one was to judge a book by its cover, you would say that this book isn’t scary at all. And you would be right. Because I don’t think the intent behind this book was to scare. At any capacity. Which makes me wonder–what exactly was the purpose behind Lola: A Ghost Story?

The story is nice. Unfortunately, it’s just that– Nice. It’s not groundbreaking in any way. Nor is it very original.

It’s a story designed to pull at the heartstrings, but only manages a few tugs before giving up.

It’s a story that sets up a world it has no intention of visiting again.

But it’s very likeable. Which, I think, has more to do with the art than the actual story. Because looking back at it now, asking myself what I liked in the book… I’m drawing a blank.

Well, that’s not true. I really liked the art. The story though, I feel, was a wasted opportunity.

Writer Torres sets out to tell one story, a visit to the Philippines mitigated by the death of the title character: the grandmother. It weaves stories about said grandmother to tell the reader how special she was. But the actual story happens at present, at the wake her grandson from Canada is forced to attend. And his story doesn’t really connect with the grandmother save for the fact that they share the same gift: the ability to see visions–and talk to dead people.

Something we don’t really get to explore much.

We get teases of it, sure. And the actual story does deal with one ghost. But juxtaposed with the more fantastical stories about the grandmother–the main plot falls flat.

And then we get to the ending with its vision of the future.

Closing the book, I had to ask–what was the point of the ending? And then, as I type this, I followed this up with, what was the point of the whole story? Is it about acceptance? About destiny? About faith?

Whatever the story may be about, it remained unclear and unrealized.

But the art was really nice.

Of course, I could be looking at this the wrong way. Someone out there might have been able to discern why this book is good. So let’s see what other people said about the book:
One Metal
Comic Book Resources
Kat in Books

Book: Tomb Keeper

“After the near-disastrous attempt to exorcise the Manila Film Center, Fr. Nilo Marcelo and the spirit communicators vowed never to set foot in there again. But what followed after was a revelation that compels them to return for one final visit. And armed with fresh knowledge about his old adversary, Bishop Miguel Agcaoili leads them back to a fateful confrontation.“

On the one hand, Tomb Keeper is infinitely better (in writing and pacing) than Tragic Theater. For the uninformed (which, I’m guessing is many) this book is the sequel to the much-maligned (by me) debut novel by G. M. Coronel. But although I have written that it is better than Tragic Theater, that doesn’t mean that this book is actually any good.

Honestly, I don’t know why I picked the book up. Maybe I was curious if the author did improve, or maybe (deep inside) I wanted to know just how author Coronel would clean up the mess that was Tragic Theater‘s ending. Spoiler alert: he cops out.

In Tomb Keeper, G. M. Coronel flits to and fro two different periods of time: one during the Spanish era, and the other in the year following the events of the first book. I think he mentions somewhere the exact date, but all I know is that it is set in the year prior to the opening of the Amazing Philippines Theater, a theater group that featured transgendered performers. And was managed by a Korean businessman.

Anyway, sorry for going off on a tangent. Where was I? Ah, yes– two time periods.

For me, the Spanish era component doesn’t really add anything to the story. I thought it would. I really thought it would provide answers and not just waste time. I was wrong. It’s just filler. On the plus side, this is better filler than Tragic Theater‘s long prayers (and answers) that take up so much space, but also add nothing to the story.

And speaking of fillers, there’s a chapter in the book that reads more like a travelogue than actual plot movement. I don’t know what the author was thinking, writing about delicious mangoes in the middle of a horror novel, but again it adds nothing to the story. It distracts and detracts. And the person dealing with the mangoes isn’t even the main character– Or was he?

If Tragic Theater‘s Annie was a flawed (and unlikeable) main character, Tomb Keeper suffers from having an ensemble cast with no clear lead. We jump from one character to the next at the drop of a hat, not for the sake of the story–but for the sake of having a page-turning cliffhanger. While it works for the most part, it’s more annoying than satisfying, especially when you learn at the end of the book that there really aren’t any answers to be had. That reading Tomb Keeper, much like the exorcisms in the book, is nothing but an exercise in futility.

Obviously, I didn’t like the book. But maybe, somewhere in the vast space of the internet, someone did? Let’s check out its page at Good Reads.

Book: A Thief in the House of Memory

“Dec hasn’t seen his mother for six years. His memories of her lie shrouded in dust, preserved in their old family home which now stands empty. Dec senses that his father is harbouring a secret, but he can’t prove anything. Then he makes a horrific discovery, and suddenly the house is alive with ghosts of the past. Could Dec now learn the elusive truth about his family?“

For the longest time, I was on the fence on whether I should buy and read A Thief in the House of Memory. I highly enjoyed Tim Wynne-Jones’ The Survival Game, so I thought I’d enjoy this one too. And you can hear the “but…” a mile away.

Reading the back cover, I was expecting mystery and intrigue. And I did get them, in a way, but A Thief in the House of Memory is more family drama than mystery or intrigue. It’s just one boy’s way of coping with being abandoned by a mother he thought loved him very much, while being cared for by a father who is afraid to get too close with another person again–even if that person was his son. Ooh, runaway sentence. Which kind of fits, since I’m reacting to a story about a runaway mom.

Yes, I did feel a little let down. This, by no means, means the book is hack. It’s very well-written, and I love how the author explores the issue of abandonment through our main character Dec. I was just disappointed because I was expecting more mystery and more intrigue. I think if the synopsis had been better written, and wasn’t so misleading, I would’ve enjoyed the book more.

Which brings me to a complaint about book synopses in general. Who writes them? Who approves them? Because I’ve read too many wonderful books that were referred–but I wouldn’t have touched had I based on the synopsis alone. And A Thief in the House of Memory is hardly the first book I’ve been disappointed with because the synopsis lead me to expect a different story than what was given. And let’s not forget the Journey to the Center of the Earth book that used a different set of names, from the ones used within the novel.

I wish publishers would pay more attention to the book synopses.

And since my reaction to A Thief in the House of Memory got hijacked by my gripes about synopses, here are a few online reviews I found about the book:
A Series of (Un)Fortunate Reviews
TeenReads.com
Quill and Quire

movie: charlie st. cloud

back in august, i read the book THE DEATH AND LIFE OF CHARLIE ST. CLOUD and i liked it enough that i was looking forward to watch the movie. so i did.

after a few months of waiting, CHARLIE ST. CLOUD is now showing in theaters. i wish i could say it was worth the wait.

first, a recap: CHARLIE ST. CLOUD is the story of charlie, a young man who blames himself for the death of his younger brother sam. he makes a promise to his younger brother that he will never let him go. and he never does. until he meets a girl named tess. and then charlie begins to wonder if there’s something in life he’s missing.

this premise remains in the movie, but for some reason, it doesn’t feel like the same story.

i have this belief that books and movies are separate things, even when they have the same story. i like to pretend that this is so, so that i don’t get disappointed when the movie fails to meet my set expectation. for the most part this works. it didn’t work with CHARLIE ST. CLOUD.

that’s because the movie wants to tell the exact same tale as the book–but it changes a lot of small details that it doesn’t live up to the original story. now, these changes doesn’t really matter if you compare the book and movie side-to-side. the movie’s main plot, of charlie having to choose between life and death, is still the same as the book’s. but because of these changes, the movie feels disjointed, with a lot of superfluous scenes.

one. in the book, charlie and tess are high school classmates, but they only meet again when charlie accidentally disturbs tess at her father’s grave. in the movie, charlie and tess have three other chance meetings before charlie accidentally disturbs tess. it really shouldn’t matter, but these three scenes feel too much like a set-up. which they are. but they’re really not needed as you don’t care much about tess until after that disturbance at the graveyard.

that, and the fact that the change in first meeting also affects how their story ends.

two. in the book, tink is a caring friend who would do everything to help tess. in the movie, you don’t even feel his presence. in fact, an opportunity for drama is missed when they degrade tink’s character from charlie’s foil, to a plot device that would get charlie pushing to search for tess.

three. in the book, tess can see sam. and sam even gives his approval for charlie to start dating tess. and this is the biggest “small” change they had done in the movie. because in the movie, sam doesn’t like tess. and we don’t even get an inkling that tess can see sam.

now, for you spoiler-phobes, that’s something they already showed in the trailer. so technically, it’s not a spoiler. technically. take from that what you will.

back to the point i was making.

by making sam not like tess in the movie, you make charlie unlikeable when he starts choosing between sam and tess. sure, a person should always choose to live in the present and not the past, but that doesn’t make tess look any better when she “forces” charlie to pick between her and his dead brother.

the conflict in charlie is more real when charlie has to choose between the brother tess likes, and the girlfriend his brother likes. neither one will want the other gone. and charlie knows that whoever he picks would live with the fact that he picked him/her over the other. it’s a heavier conflict. because both choices affect each other.

whereas in the movie, the choices are of different worlds: one in the world of living, the other in the world of the dead. which one would you pick? it’s not a hard decision, right?

so yes, i have serious issues about the movie. and there i was thinking zac efron was perfect for the role of charlie st. cloud. it’s too bad that he played a different version of charlie.

the death and life of charlie st. cloud

“When he was a boy, Charlie St. Cloud almost perished in a car crash that killed his little brother, Sam. Years later, Charlie is still trying to atone for his loss. It is only when he meets Tess Carroll, a captivating, adventurous yachtswoman, that he is faced with a choice — between death and life, the past and the present, holding on and letting go. The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud is a romantic and exhilarating novel about second chances and the liberating power of love.“

i don’t know about exhilarating, but i sure found the book a very enjoyable read. this is my first ben sherwood novel, and i wasn’t sure what to expect. and what i got was an easy-to-read book with a simple story that has a lot of heart.

to be quite honest, i wouldn’t have picked this book up had it not been for the movie of the same name. i saw a link to the movie’s trailer in one of the blogs i frequent, and i was intrigued with the plot: a young woman becomes interested in a mysterious young man who used to be one of the most popular kids. now he is a loner, and he always disappears at a certain time of the day. he is charlie st. cloud. in the trailer, we learn that charlie got into an accident when he was younger, and he still lives with the blame of surviving while his younger brother died.

sounds simple enough, right? well, here’s the gimmick: charlie st. cloud is also still living with the ghost of said younger brother. and this younger brother is making him hold on to the promise that they will never leave each other.

my description of the movie’s trailer might already be colored by what i have read of the book though.

it’s a wonderful story about the love for family, for the familiar — and the discovery that maybe there’s something more. and it takes a young woman’s love, and plight, to change everything.

as with most novels, all is not what it seems with either charlie and the woman he falls in love with, tess. and though you do see the twists and turns as soon as the first foreshadowing hits the page, you don’t really mind. THE DEATH AND LIFE OF CHARLIE ST. CLOUD delivers a solid story of hope and, as the blurb said, second chances. and it is through the characters interactions with one another that the book becomes better than other books.

in the author’s notes at the back of the book, he thanks so many people who helped him in his research. and i think, i could be wrong, but i think that it’s because of these people that ben sherwood was able to create whole persons for his book. you don’t get a lot of time to introduce them, and you certainly can’t devote so-much-pages for supporting characters, but through their actions and their dialogues, you see the fullness of each character he introduces. these are the people who you might pass by on the street.

it does feel a little voyeuristic — and not just because the book also deals with ghosts who watch what happens to their families after their death.  but because it is written so personally, that it’s as if you’re reading into someone’s diary. or watching these people as their lives unfold through a one-way glass. but without this feeling of familiarity with the characters,this voyeurism,  i don’t think the book would’ve worked.

with this book in particular, it is important for the readers to be as all knowing as possible. it is important for the readers to know certain things the main character doesn’t know. so we could root for him, so we could feel for him, and in one instance, just so we can see how people make stupid choices when there’s something more important to be done.

i really enjoyed the book, as you can probably tell. now, i’m worried of how the film will turn out. i respect zac efron, who will be playing charlie st. cloud, as an actor. more so after the whole HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL thing ended. so i’m not worried so much about the main lead being likeable enough, or what-not. i’m worried though that because zac is way younger than the character of charlie in the book, it might mean the screenplay would have a lot of changes from the original material.

definitely though, i am looking forward to see the film version. let’s see if, at least, they were able to maintain the emotionality of the book.