The Semi-Fictional Non-Fiction Truth About Memoirs

I hate memoirs and non-fiction. I think I've mentioned that I don’t read non-fiction. However, I love a book based off of a true story—based off of, but not completely true, making it not non-fiction. When authors write something based off of a true story, some of the time they write about their lives or experiences but they sensationalize whatever it is they’re writing to make it sound cool and appeal to an audience. This is still fiction, even though it’s based off of someone’s life or experiences.

There’s a reason memoirs aren't very well liked by the average community, especially teenagers. They have nothing exciting to them. James Frey wrote A Million Little Pieces as a non-fictional memoir about his life and experiences. The book was very exciting and had lots of compelling events in it. It became a best seller because of its tremendous sales and good reception. Too bad it was fake. Frey sensationalized multiple events in his book. Wikipedia—though it isn't the most credible source—describes A Million Little Pieces as a “semi-fictional memoir.” How is that a memoir though if it’s semi-fictional? That means part of it isn't real. Memoirs are non-fiction pieces that describe one’s life. So if a memoir is semi-fictional then it didn't happen in that person’s life. So, it’s not a memoir.

All of this is just one more big reason I don’t like memoirs. It won’t be good or exciting if it isn't sensationalized and fake. This would make it not a memoir. 

Labeling Casino Royale

There are some books out there that people have a hard time putting them into one specific genre. And, while I do believe a book cannot be placed into one, single genre, they all have the one general, non-specific genre it belongs too. They say Harry Potter is fantasy. Star Wars is science fiction. They all have the one obvious genre and there really isn’t anymore that they need to be. I think if you leave it to that one specific genre then that is ok. I think Twilight is a romance. Others say it’s a romantic drama or a paranormal romance or gothic romance. Why do we need all of those tags? It’s a romance. Why keep adding words at the beginning or end?

                That’s why I like James Bond novels. They have one distinct genre—espionage. James Bond novels practically invented espionage books. When people think espionage novels they think of James Bond. Casino Royale is one of the most classic examples of espionage. It’s a top secret, confidential, dangerous and risky spy mission. Some may argue that Casino Royale could be a romantic suspense novel because of Bond’s relationship with women but that isn’t the main point of the story. Its James Bond, the spy. 

Genre Labels

Genre labels are very necessary. It’s the same thing with all these book covers and what is so important about them. If we didn’t have book cover or genre labels we wouldn’t know what we are reading. I’m not going to want to read something if it’s just a blank cover and I don’t know what kind of book it is. There’s no advertising at all.

It’d be like if you saw a commercial or preview for a movie. If it just showed you the movie title and showed a picture or scene of a character and then just said “go see this movie” then you aren’t going to have any interest in it whatsoever. You don’t know if it’s a comedy, horror, action, chick flick or whatever.

I don’t find it distracting. I mean there are labels, like non-fiction, that will turn me away from books. But that’s because I don’t like non-fiction. The genre labels help us to define what we like and dislike and what we want to read and don’t want to read. I’m sure there are people out there who see non-fiction and want to go read that book.

Book covers and genre labels are very similar things. They mean different things to different people and attract different audiences. Without them we’d be lost and all our interest would be based off of nothing. 

REVIEW 2: Casino Royale

Finally! Bond is finally being Bond and there is action and drama on every page. The book is night and day. I said in my first review of part one of the book that it was slow and lots of background details. It was necessary and it was worth it.

                One of my favorite things I’ve ever read in a book is the scene where Bond plays Le Chiffre in a game of baccarat and everything depends on the game. It is very confrontational and Fleming does an excellent job of creating tension within the scene. Because this is a blog that focuses on books made into movies, I want to point out that the tension Fleming creates on the pages is harder to create on the screen. I will watch the 2006 version of Casino Royale when I’m done with the book. But I can predict that Hollywood doesn’t get it done the way Fleming does. And this is an advantage books have. The author can take pages and pages to create the tension of a scene that takes a minute in a movie.

                One thing I love in a story is when the ‘inevitable’ hero fails. Bond loses the baccarat game which leaves him bankrupt. He has to report that he failed the mission, until he gains help from a CIA agent who give him an envelope full of money. And all of a sudden the story is going back in forth and each chapter the tension spikes and then ends with a twist. My favorite kind of story.

Don't Judge a Book by Its Cover...Especially if There Isn't One

I hate boring book covers. They don’t tell me anything! Especially the book covers that are very generic and look very old fashioned. Those turn me away from the book immediately. The Harry Potter covers are extremely creative. They make me want to read the book. But The Sense of An Ending by Julian Barnes has an awful cover, depending on which one you look at. The cover with a gray background and an egg doesn’t interest me at all. The one with the dandelions might have interested me. If it weren’t for my English teacher, I would have never read this book, based off of its boring and generic cover. A book that targets middle school kids or 5^th or 6^th grade kids that has an uninteresting cover would be Loser by Jerry Spinelli. This is the age where kids start to judge books before they read them. And a solid green cover with the word ”loser” at the top, won’t appeal to that age group, if anything it will just hurt their feelings. The Hunger Games. To this day I have not read the book. Seen the movie, not read the book. But when people first started telling me that I had to read it, I wouldn’t. I didn’t have any clue at all what it was about. I kid you not, for so long I thought that this book was a heartwarming story about overcoming obesity. I swear! Cause the cover doesn’t offer much. A solid black cover with a circley-arrow thingy in the corner. It’s exactly like the egg on The Sense of an Ending cover. It offers nothing about the story. And I hate those kinds of covers.  

REVIEW 1: Casino Royale

Bond. James Bond. It's not what you'd expect when you read it. The movies is all about "I'm Bond. James Bond." And shooting, and explosions and James Bond not looking away from the explosion cause he's James Bond and that's what he does. The movies tend to go through the plot and the set up of the mission pretty quickly and get to the action. The book is really drawn out and everything is set up very precisely and slowly and everything has a different back story to it that Ian Flemming gives every detail about, which is what makes him such a great writer. But when you see a few '007 movies you expect a lot more action.

While the action is picking up and the book is moving a lot quicker now, the opening chapters can get pretty dry. It's all back story and there is not a lot of dialogue, another thing you wouldn't expect. You'd expect a lot of dialogue and witty catch phrases. Instead it's very detailed description of every character. And it gets pretty confusing because the descriptions are written in spy lingo like you would read them out of a file cabinet. And there is a lot of that kind of writing that can get pretty dry. Casino Royale is also set in France. So there is also a lot of French dialogue and French description that can get pretty confusing.

Overall, I like reading James Bond action. It's different from the movies because it's all slowed down so you can picture every angle and every part of the entire action. Unlike in a lot of action movies where all the action happens so fast and all at once. Although I have seen other James Bond films, I have not seen either Casino Royale films. Nor have I decided which one I will be viewing to review for my book to movie comparison. 1967 or 2006?

Best and Worst to Big Screen

Hollywood has a lot of cool special effects and a lot of money. Their technology is very advanced and makes a lot of the imagery and action in books look extremely cool. Example: The Harry Potter Series. Some people would rather read books and some would rather see movies. Most girls would rather read The Hunger Games for its inspiring literature, adventure and romance. Most guys would rather see the movie because they'd rather watch Jennifer Lawrence in a black dress with fire coming off it than read about the adventures of Katniss Everdeen. But in the end each fan is always thrilled or extremely disappointed with what Hollywood did to their book. So here is my Top 3 best and worst film adaptations.

Best Adaptations:

 3) To Kill A Mockingbird

 

Although, as I've stated in this blog before, I hate To Kill A Mockingbird I thought the film adaptation was spot on. I didn't think there was a thing wrong with the plot or characters and it was perfectly adapted for film. 

2) Jurrasic Park

Most people don't know that Jurrasic Park was a novel that came out in 1990 and was adapted into one of the most well known films of all time by Stephen Spielberg. The plot stays very consistent with the book the entire time while incorporating and creating a prehistoric world of dinosaurs in modern day with the power of Hollywood's special effects.



















1) Moneyball
Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game was originally written by Michael Lewis in 2003 about the Oakland Athletics and their bold general manager Billy Beane. The book discusses much about how the economic and financial side of baseball works. The first half of the book mainly focuses on the general aspect of baseball economics then focuses on the 2002 Oakland A's and Billy Beane's unique strategy at making a run in the post season despite being the poorest team in baseball and no superstar ballplayers.
The movie focuses on Billy Beane and how he got the A's to the post season despite being the poorest team in baseball while offering insight into baseball economics. And would an audience rather see a baseball team make a Cinderella run in the playoffs while learning a little on the way or read about baseball finances with a Cinderella sports story thrown in?













Worst Adaptations:

3) The Great Gatsby
Although the plot wasn't to inaccurate the poor acting skills and slow, uninteresting settings and effects ruined F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Even if Hollywood keeps the plot great, they can't ruin it by not adding the effects and excitement that movies were created for.







 












2) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
I am a huge fan of Harry Potter and was absolutely horrified when I walked out of the theater the first time I saw this movie. Much like my number one worst adaptation, the movie cut very important and key scenes from the book. The book has a very epic battle in the astronomy tower after the murder of Dumbledore. But the movie has absolutely no battle whatsoever and barely any action scene at the end. The movie also adds a scene when death eaters destroy the Weasley's home, which is not present in the book. The film is good overall, but because the plot is so twisted it belongs at number two.
















1) The Rum Diary
In my previous post I tore apart and ripped the film of The Rum Diary to pieces. In terms of plot and characters the movie was garbage. Johnny Depp was great in it. But the film just doesn't even include one of the most important characters in the book! In fact, it even replaces that character with a whole different character and that character marries another character who is married to a different character in the book and the whole story just gets screwed up and twisted. Not to mention it does a very, very, very poor job of following the plot in the book or even any real consistent plot in the movie.