TMST: Bookish No-No's

TW: This post briefly discusses assault/violence in point 2. 

Whoops, I'm a little late getting this post out, but it was one I was definitely interested in doing, so I figured better late than never!

Tell Me Something Tuesday is a weekly feature hosted by the lovely Rainy Day Ramblings, and currently assisted by a team of bloggers, Roberta @ Offbeat YA, Karen @ For What It's Worth, Berls @ Because Reading Is Better Than Real Life, Jen @ That's What I'm Talking About, and Linda @ Book Girl of Mur-y-Castell.

6/21/2022 What are book no-nos that make you figuratively want to toss a book across the room?

1) When everyone (or the two leads, in the case of a romance) has a quirky name. Nicknames, sure, that's fine (ex. The Divergent series - Tris and Four don't bother me only because they are nicknames, but they drove me insane before I read the books and learned that). Or, if for some reason it is part of the plot, I am okay with it, but otherwise? Please stop.

2) Characters experiencing sexual assault/violence that is described within the book. I know that these types of situations are real, and I don't think we should cover up their existence to make people comfortable, but I find it far too upsetting to read these situations described in full detail, and often cannot handle books that do this. If it is mentioned for a moment without description really, I can manage...but my imagination is far too vivid to handle much more than that.

3) Short, choppy dialogue that is formatted oddly. You know those books that don't use quotation marks, and poorly define their characters' speech? And then they also try to mimic conversation, but it ends up being extremely choppy? Yep, this is one of my largest pet peeves. 

4) Very short chapters of no purpose. A short chapter can be an extremely useful and effective writing tool. It can be used to briefly peek into the mind and eyes of a character who is otherwise "off-screen" in the book. But here's the thing: it has to be for a purpose. Some writers just do this for dramatic effect, and it often feels just like a space filler to me. Or, if you write a short chapter that is only about a page without any revelation...this just feels like something you refused to let your editor get rid of.

Spencer (2021)

I watched Spencer a few months back, and am just getting around to cleaning up my review now - whoops!

imdb.com

I'm going to start this off by saying right away that I have conflicting feelings regarding this movie. When I was asked if it "was good" I found that I couldn't answer it properly. However, did I like it? I would have to say no. It absolutely had some strong merits though, so I want to go over both sides. This is mildly spoiler-y, but considering it's based on the life of a real person...it's more just spoiling aspects of the filmmaking style.

Things I didn't enjoy:

The dinner soup scene. Honestly, I get that this was supposed to be artsy and a depiction of her feelings rather than accurate, but I disliked watching it, and don't think it added anything to the movie. It felt out of place and absurdist to me.

Rather than feel compassion or understanding for Diana, in general I just found that she seemed, well, unreasonable and overwhelming. That isn't to say that I felt this way through the whole movie (as there were "unreasonable" moments that made 100% sense as a viewer), but there were a lot of things where I just found her to be incredibly unlikeable because of her actions.

The self-destruction. And I don't mean specifically the emotional frustration or anything, but the self-inflicted injuries and such that happened. I couldn't tell because of how it was shot if these things were supposed to be taken as "real" or as artsy moments like the dinner scene.

What I liked:

Kristen Stewart did a great job. I think she got the look and essence right of Diana and absolutely think she deserves praise for it. Several of her mannerisms felt really right, and I was so impressed and surprised. I've liked Stewart in the past for several roles, so I knew she was a solid actress, but usually I find biopics (especially involving figures like Princess Diana) are more like caricatures than strong acting.

The costumes were fantastic, and they brought the whole thing to life perfectly. Every person was dressed in just the right way, from their more simplistic attire (like Diana's pink top and jeans) to their dinner finery.

I like that we didn't get a regurgitation of the exact same story. We got a snippet of a few days, and this allowed the story to focus on different aspects than we usually get on Diana's life. Because this shows a really emotionally tormenting portion of her life, we get to see both the good and the bad. Many depictions of Diana show her as entirely lovely and just insecure, but this allowed the audience to see a more multidimensional person.

I appreciated that the movie starts by saying that it is a "fable". It's always been a pet peeve of mine that biopics act as though they are completely factually accurate, when we don't know what most closed-door conversations were - we can only imagine.

-------

Have you seen Spencer? How did you feel about the more artistic take on this period in Diana's life? Do you tend to watch biopics, or avoid them?