Audiobook Review: The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

Title: The Handmaid's Tale
Author: Margaret Atwood
Narrator: Claire Danes
Publication Date: January 1, 1985
Publisher: McClelland & Stewart
Add to Goodreads

Offred is a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead. She may leave the home of the Commander and his wife once a day to walk to food markets whose signs are now pictures instead of words because women are no longer allowed to read. She must lie on her back once a month and pray that the Commander makes her pregnant, because in an age of declining births, Offred and the other Handmaids are valued only if their ovaries are viable. Offred can remember the years before, when she lived and made love with her husband, Luke; when she played with and protected her daughter; when she had a job, money of her own, and access to knowledge. But all of that is gone now...

I have heard about this book for years, but never actually felt compelled to read it. When I found an audiobook and discovered that it was narrated by Claire Danes, I decided it was finally time to take the plunge! I had no real idea of what to expect, only that it was supposed to be pretty shocking. I came away extremely confused.

This is probably the hardest book ever to review and rate because it seems like everyone loves it. I didn't. Maybe because it's 2015 and it takes a lot to shock me? I don't know. This book was just a big confusing mess that was honestly kind of painful to get through. There were times when I had no idea what was going on, when the narrator would jump back and forth in time or go off on some random tangent. It was difficult to keep up and, honestly, really hard to believe. I know this is fiction and I know there has to be a level of suspension of disbelief, but this book asked for more than I could give.

Since everything that could possibly be said about this book is already out there, I'm just going to focus on a couple things. My biggest issue with The Handmaid's Tale is the idea that this society even exists. I think the biggest strike against this book is that Margaret Atwood set it in a recognizable time and place. If this had been a dystopian novel set in the distant future, it would have been a lot easier to accept. But asking me to believe that Offred lived in both "normal" America and in this completely insane dystopian society? I just can't.

Could something like this ever happen? I really doubt it. But IF it did, it would not happen in a matter of five years or so. People would never accept it. Husbands would not just roll over and allow their wives to be taken and used. And even more obviously, women would NOT allow themselves to be used in this way. I've read other dystopian fiction where children were raised in a cult-like setting and grew to accept completely insane lifestyles. But society as a whole could not be taken from modern America and thrown into this. The Handmaid's Tale doesn't do nearly enough to justify these circumstances. The fact is, society is not nearly as terrible as the author seems to imply. We are actually living in the most peaceful times in history. Certainly, we will not end up like this, at least in the very near future.

I wanted to love this book so much! Most of you probably know that I'm a huge fan of dystopian fiction. But The Handmaid's Tale was just ridiculous. Maybe in the 80s people were shocked by this. And if Margaret Atwood was aiming solely for shock value, perhaps she hit her mark. But as a cautionary tale, this really fell short for me. I'm not down with books that only exist to scare people, and I feel like that was this one's main goal.

---

°o°  Notes on the Audiobook  °o°

It's Claire Danes. Does anything else really need to be said? Claire Danes is a fantastic actor and she's a great voice actor as well! I'd love to listen to anything else that she narrates!

Paper to Popcorn #3: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets book vs. movie

//DISCLAIMER: JK Rowling is no longer reviewed or promoted by Cornerfolds.com following her repeated transphobia//

Welcome to Paper to Popcorn! Paper to Popcorn is not be your typical book vs. movie comparison. The focus is on retellings, although there will be some features of movie vs. the source material. Each chosen book/movie combo will battle it out in a showdown to prove which one is the best on its own merits. Posts will feature reviews of both the film and book, rating scales, a brief outline of differences between the two, and characters, and ultimately a victor will be chosen.

This week I'm featuring Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets book vs. movie

The Book

Title: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Author: J.K. Rowling
Publication Date: July 2, 1998
Publisher: Bloomsbury Children's Books
Pages: 360
Add to Goodreads
Review for book 1

All Harry Potter wants is to get away from the Dursleys and go back to Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. But just as he's packing his bags, Harry receives a warning from a strange, impish creature named Dobby - who says that if Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts, disaster will strike.

And strike it does. For in Harry's second year at Hogwarts, fresh torments and horrors arise, including an outrageously stuck-up new professor, Gilderoy Lockheart, a spirit named Moaning Myrtle who haunts the girls' bathroom, and the unwanted attentions of Ron Weasley's younger sister, Ginny.

But each of these seem minor annoyances when the real trouble begins, and someone--or something--starts turning Hogwarts students to stone. Could it be Draco Malfoy, a more poisonous rival than ever? Could it possibly be Hagrid, whose mysterious past is finally told? Or could it be the one everyone at Hogwarts most suspects... Harry Potter himself.

Book two picks up just as Harry is preparing to return to Hogwarts. His summer has been miserable with the Dursleys and he hasn't heard from his friends in months! Miserable and lonely, Harry meets a new character who I'd honestly forgotten was such a nuisance early on - Dobby the house elf. Thus begins the delightful second chapter of Harry Potter.

I. Love. These. Books. Honestly, I could end my review there, but I won't. Harry Potter is such a rare exception to my usual reading preference! I don't usually care for humor in books. You might think that makes me cold hearted, but I just really prefer other aspects of books more than jokes and silly situations. But what J.K. Rowling does with this series blends humor along with mystery, action, and adventure so seamlessly that I found myself laughing out loud on multiple occasions throughout the Chamber of Secrets and being totally charmed by it! Her writing is so unique and amazing!

Hermione is much more likable in book two, thank goodness. She is still a little goody two-shoes for my taste, but her redeeming qualities far outweigh the annoying ones. At least she breaks a few rules this time! Harry continues to learn more about himself and his connection to Voldemort, which is really interesting to read the second time around, knowing what will happen later on and being able to piece it all together. Ron continues to be a hilarious character who I always feel a little sorry for (hopefully he gets a new wand soon)!

Ginny, though... I know that she grows a lot through the series, but good grief she's dumb in this book. I can't help feeling that she acts much more immature than Harry, Ron, and Hermione did in their first year at Hogwarts, but maybe being the baby in the family will do that to a person. Professor Lockhart is so repulsive! I was right there with Ron and Harry gagging every time the man opened his mouth! Rowling definitely has a gift for bringing characters to life! As always, Dumbledore makes me smile and Draco makes me cringe... I could go on and on about all the other characters, but I'll stop there.

Reading this book again makes me wish (again) that I had read them as a child - before seeing the movies. Even though I had forgotten a lot of the details, I can't imagine what it would have been like experiencing the story for the first time by reading the books with no clue about what the Chamber of Secrets was! If, like me, you missed out on this one as a child, I highly recommend you give it a try now! You'll regret waiting so long.

Characters	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Setting	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Writing	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Storyline	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Cover	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Overall Rating	1/5	2/5	3/5	4/5	5/5

The Movie

Title: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Director: Chris Columbus
Actors: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Release Date: November 15, 2002
Runtime: 161 minutes
View on IMDB

Youthful wizard Harry Potter returns to the screen in this, the second film adaptation of J.K. Rowling's wildly popular series of novels for young people. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) return for a second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, where Headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris), Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), and Hagrid the Giant (Robbie Coltrane) are joined by new faculty members Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh), a self-centered expert in Defense against the Dark Arts, and Sprout (Miriam Margolyes), who teaches Herbology. However, it isn't long before Harry and company discover something is amiss at Hogwarts: Students are petrified like statues, threats are written in blood on the walls, and a deadly monster is on the loose. It seems that someone has opened the mysterious Chamber of Secrets, letting loose the monster and all its calamitous powers. As Harry, Ron, and Hermione set out to find the secret chamber and slay the beast, speculation is rife that one of the heirs of Salazar Slytherin, the co-founder of the school, opened the chamber as a warning against the presence of "mudbloods" (magic-users of impure lineage) at the school -- and that the culprit may be fellow student Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets featured Richard Harris' second and final appearance as Headmaster Dumbledore; he died less than a month before the film was released in the United States.

The Chamber of Secrets has always sat in the middle of the scale for me as far as Harry Potter movies go. I do feel like it adds a lot of information to the overarching plot of the series, so it's very important in that sense, but the film itself is just... strange somehow and I can't quite put my finger on it. They do retain a kind of whimsical child-like quality that I attribute to their being directed by Chris Columbus, and I think that's okay since the characters are only twelve at this point.

One area I faulted The Sorcerer's Stone was its cinematography, mainly in the CGI department. Luckily, by 2002 they seem to have worked out a lot of the kinks, although it's by no means perfect. There are some awkward Dobby moments where he's very obviously not actually standing on anything. Quidditch has gotten a huge upgrade and no longer looks like a video game and the basilisk was very convincing! There were some pretty terrible CGI aspects though - the spiders come immediately to mind. I still can't quite figure out, though, why the graphics aren't of higher quality, especially considering Lord of the Rings was being released around the same time and holds up MUCH better than this. But it's still a huge improvement over the first movie.

The actors also seem to improved some in the year from the first film's release. Daniel Radcliff, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson are still really overacting, but it is toned down a bit from The Sorcerer's Stone. Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy) is one of my favorite love-to-hate actors in The Chamber of Secrets. He's so despicably bad that I can't help but give him high marks! (See what I did there?) As always, Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith are my absolute favorites, at least at this point in the series.

Like with the first movie, I had some problems with the way this one was translated onto the screen and felt like some things were left out that didn't necessarily need to be, although I can appreciate time restraints. Overall, though, I felt like it was adapted pretty well. The music was obviously perfect, as it will remain throughout all eight films!

Movies one and two are probably the lowest on my list if I were to rank the Harry Potter series, but they're necessary to get to the really good ones. Just as twelve year olds experience growing pains, so did the films have to work through their issues in the early years. They're still fantastic, magical films and you should see them if you haven't already!

Cast	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Cinematography	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Screenplay	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Performances	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Music	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Overall Rating	1/5	2/5	3/5	4/5	5/5

Noteable Differences

• In the book Harry eavesdrops on Lucius Malfoy doing questionable business with Borgin, but this is not in the movie. 
• There's a crazy train chase scene where Harry almost falls to his death in the movie that is not in the book. 
• Several scenes with Professor Lockhart are left out of the film.
• Nearly Headless Nick has a huge "death day" celebration in the book, but it's completely left out of the film. 
• Professor Binns, the ghost teacher of History of Magic, is not in the movie. 
• In the book, the potions book Hermione needs for the polyjuice potion is in the restricted section (because it contains such dangerous potions) and they need a note from a teacher to check it out. Hermione also steals ingredients from Professor Snape. In the movie the book is in the main library and it isn't said how the ingredients were acquired. 
• Only Harry and Draco duel in the movie, but in the book all of the students are paired. 
• In the book Professor Lockhart throws a big Valentine's Day party to boost morale and Harry receives a singing Valentine, but this is left out of the film. 
• Throughout the book Ginny acts very strange and jumpy, but in the movie she acts mostly normal. 
• The size of the basilisk is greatly exaggerated in the movie. 
• In the book the statue of Salazar Slytherin is full size, but in the movie it's only a (really weird) head. 
• The basilisk fight is a lot less dramatic in the book than in the movie. 
• The way Dobby receives the sock from Lucius Malfoy and is freed is slightly different in the movie. 

The Bottom Line

While the book is pure magic (just like it's predecessor), the movie has always seemed like it was (only very) slightly off somehow. Perhaps it would be more exciting for a child watching it for the first time. The bottom line is I don't love Chris Columbus' directing style and the movies definitely get better with director number two. Because of that, combined with still-iffy CGI and semi-ridiculous performances from our child stars, the book comes out on top, yet again!

Paper to Popcorn #1: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

//DISCLAIMER: JK Rowling is no longer reviewed or promoted by Cornerfolds.com following her repeated transphobia//

Welcome to a brand new Cornerfolds feature! Paper to Popcorn will not be your typical book vs. movie comparison, or at least that is not all it will be. Each featured book/movie combo will battle it out in a showdown to prove which one is the best (at least in my obviously humble opinion).

Each will feature what are essentially mini-reviews of both the film and book in question, a brief outline of differences between the book and film adaptation, will rate the two on the basic (but important) aspects of setting, plot, and characters, and ultimately a victor will be chosen.

The Book

Title: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Author: JK Rowling
Publication Date: June 26, 1997
Publisher: Bloomsbury Children's Books
Pages: 332
Add to Goodreads

When a letter arrives for unhappy but ordinary Harry Potter, a decade-old secret is revealed to him that apparently he's the last to know. His parents were wizards, killed by a Dark Lord's curse when Harry was just a baby, and which he somehow survived. Leaving his unsympathetic aunt and uncle for Hogwarts, a wizarding school brimming with ghosts and enchantments, Harry stumbles upon a sinister mystery when he finds a three-headed dog guarding a room on the third floor. Then he hears of a missing stone with astonishing powers which could be valuable, dangerous - or both. An incredible adventure is about to begin!

These new editions of the classic and internationally bestselling, multi-award-winning series feature instantly pick-up-able new jackets with huge child appeal, to bring Harry Potter to the next generation of readers. It's time to PASS THE MAGIC ON .

There is something magical about Harry Potter that I really can't understand. I never got to read it as a child for... reasons. But I did FINALLY get to watch the movies starting in late 2006. Then, in 2011, something amazing happened... I read the series for the first time and fell in love. I've never quite understood re-reads though and I never thought I'd give Harry another glance other than having as many gorgeous editions as possible lining my shelves. But then something worked itself loose in my noggin and I changed my mind. Thus began the great Harry Potter re-read of 2015.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is magic. I know that's pretty cheesy to say about a book that's literally about magic, but I don't know any other way to describe it. As I was reading this book I thought to myself (on several occasions), "How did J.K. Rowling think this stuff up?!" And reading it for the second time is even better because you can see how intertwined everything really is all the way through book seven.

I cannot think of one thing to complain about in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and you can rest assured it isn't nostalgia talking. This is just good storytelling, plain and simple. The characters are sympathetic (even Hermione later on, although she starts as a nightmare), the world building is spectacular, and I was totally sucked back into the world of Harry Potter from page one. And can we take a second to appreciate these awesome new UK covers? The artwork is absolutely gorgeous!

Knowing now how amazing these books are makes me really sad that I never got to experience them from a child's perspective. Despite that, I am so glad I DID get to read them as an adult and I have finally discovered what everyone loves so much about re-reads! I can't wait to pick up book two!

Characters	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Setting	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Writing	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Storyline	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Cover	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Overall Rating	1/5	2/5	3/5	4/5	5/5

The Movie

Title: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Director: Chris Columbus
Actors: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Release Date: November 16, 2001
Runtime: 152 minutes
View on Rotten Tomatoes

The best-selling novel by J.K. Rowling (titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in England, as was this film adaptation) becomes this hotly anticipated fantasy adventure from Chris Columbus, the winner of a high-stakes search for a director to bring the first in a hoped-for franchise of Potter films to the screen by Warner Bros. Upon his 11th birthday, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), who lives in misery with an aunt and uncle that don't want him, learns from a giant named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) that he is the orphaned son of powerful wizards. Harry is offered a place at prestigious Hogwarts, a boarding school for wizards that exists in a realm of magic and fantasy outside the dreary existence of normal humans or "Muggles." At Hogwarts, Harry quickly makes new friends and begins piecing together the mystery of his parents' deaths, which appear not to have been accidental after all. The film features alternate-version scenes for every mention of the titular rock. Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, John Cleese, and Fiona Shaw co-star.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is nearly as magical as it's book counterpart. Nearly. It has all the elements that make the book so magical and it's obvious that J.K. Rowling had a hand in the development of the film adaptation. While there were changes from the book, there were none that really changed the story or struck me as really major. Overall, this is a fantastic book to movie success!

Unfortunately, while it is a great movie, it is one that really has not aged well at all. There are two main things that took this movie down a notch.

The first is the cast. Let me get this out of the way first: the actors who were chosen to play each of these characters are absolutely perfect! Because I know it gets better, I can confidently say the casting was perfect while the acting sucked. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) and Emma Watson (Hermione) are completely terrible! I can't even say which was worst because they were both so bad. Rupert Grint (Ron) and Tom Felton (Draco) were the best of the first years, in my opinion! On the other hand, every single one of the older actors was fantastic! Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and Alan Rickman (Snape) were the highlights of the movie!

The other major issue with this film is the CGI. It's abysmal. I know this movie was made nearly 14 years ago, but I can't imagine that people back then didn't notice how fake certain scenes looked, especially on the big screen. Examples that come to mind are the troll, the quidditch match, Fluffy, the centaur, Voldemort's face... Basically everything that was a creature or in the air.

The Sorcerer's Stone soundtrack, however, is just amazing! I'd say it's almost as good as the soundtrack for The Lord of the Rings trilogy... almost. The music works perfectly in each scene and the songs get stuck in my head for days every time I watch this!

Overall (as I've said already) this is a great book to film adaptation! I'm sure I would have loved it if I had seen it when I was 13, when this movie came out. Despite its flaws, this movie is the must see first film in a must see series!

Cast	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Cinematography	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Screenplay	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Performances	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Music	Terrible	Just okay	Pretty good	Really good	Amazing!
Overall Rating	1/5	2/5	3/5	4/5	5/5

Noteable Differences

• Harry goes straight to school after meeting Hagrid in the movie, but in the book he goes back home with the Dursleys for awhile first. 
• In the book Dumbledore is portrayed as a really eccentric (honestly really strange) man, but in the movie he's shown as a much more serious professor. 
• Conversely, the Bloody Baron is terrifying in the book and everyone is afraid of him, but the brief glimpse of him in the movie makes him seem really goofy. 
• Peeves, the castle poltergeist, is absent. 
• In the movie it's only Harry's parents in the Mirror of Erised rather than his whole family. 
• In the book Harry, Ron, and Hermione take Hagrid's dragon up a tower to be rescued by friends of Charlie Weasley, but this is left out of the movie.
• Ron goes to detention with Harry, Hermione, and Draco instead of Neville. 
• In the movie there's only one centaur (Firenze) instead of including Bane and Ronan. This happens to be the one centaur from the book who is friendly rather than cynical. 
• In the movie Harry, Ron, and Hermione fall through the Devil's Snare instead of climbing out of it and Hermione defeats the plant with sunlight instead of fire. 
• Quirrell's skin blisters in the book when Harry touches him, but in the movie he turns to stone. 

The Bottom Line

Though not by much, the winner of this competition is clearly the book! The movie is excellent, but seems to take on a much lighter tone than the already light tone of the book. I love that the books (and the movies) get darker as they go on, but I'm not sure why the filmmakers felt that they had to change the personalities of Dumbledore, the ghosts, and leave out the less savory characters of Peeves and the rest of the centaurs in the Forbidden/Dark Forest. Perhaps by leaving out these darker elements a larger audience was reached by the film. While the movie is a great representation of the book, both are excellent on their own as well. 

Book Review: The Giver by Lois Lowry

Title: The Giver
Author: Lois Lowry
Publication Date: April 26, 1993
Publisher: Laurel-Leaf Books
Pages: 179
Add to Goodreads

In a world with no poverty, no crime, no sickness and no unemployment, and where every family is happy, 12-year-old Jonas is chosen to be the community's Receiver of Memories. Under the tutelage of the Elders and an old man known as the Giver, he discovers the disturbing truth about his utopian world and struggles against the weight of its hypocrisy. With echoes of Brave New World, in this 1994 Newbery Medal winner, Lowry examines the idea that people might freely choose to give up their humanity in order to create a more stable society. Gradually Jonas learns just how costly this ordered and pain-free society can be, and boldly decides he cannot pay the price.

The Giver is set in a future society which is at first presented as a utopia and gradually appears more and more dystopic, so could therefore be considered anti-utopian. The novel follows a boy named Jonas through the twelfth year of his life. Jonas' society has eliminated pain and strife by converting to "Sameness", a plan which has also eradicated emotional depth from their lives. Jonas is selected to inherit the position of "Receiver of Memory," the person who stores all the memories of the time before Sameness, in case they are ever needed to aid in decisions that others lack the experience to make. As Jonas receives the memories from his predecessor—the "Giver"—he discovers how shallow his community's life has become.

My brother has been trying to get me to read The Giver for years. It's one of his favorite series and I've heard him talk about it over and over but, for some reason, just never got around to picking it up. If I had to guess, it's probably because it's a classic and I don't usually love those.

I should preface this review by saying that I saw the movie first. I know, I know. But I did. The movie was actually pretty good! I really did enjoy it... until I started reading message boards and realizing how different it was from the source material. That is why I decided to finally read it and I'm really glad I did!

The Giver is definitely a heck of a lot different than the movie that was recently released. Honestly, I did enjoy some of the changes in the film and I can totally understand why they were made. I really am not sure if the book could have been translated exactly to screen. But I digress.

The book opens with Jonas as he prepares to get his assignment - his job, essentially. Much is revealed about the workings within the community he lives in. There is a huge focus on precision of language, sameness, and honesty, to name a few. It quickly becomes very obvious that this is a community run by very strict guidelines that are never -not- met. Jonas, however, is a questioner. Though he feels guilty, he doesn't do everything exactly the right way and sometimes sees strange things. This starts to make sense to Jonas once he is given the assignment of Receiver of Memory.

The previous Receiver (now the Giver) explains a great many things to Jonas through memories. Jonas learns of how things were before the world became the way it is. He learns about colors and pain and love. But these things that previous Receivers were content (or not) with are not enough for Jonas. He always wants to know more and asks all the why's.

I greatly enjoyed the characters in this book, although they were obviously very strange. I liked Jonas a lot simply because he was not content with what he was being told and he wasn't content with the way the world had become. The Receiver, though sometimes gruff, had the feeling of a grandfather who was concerned and wanted his grandson to have (know) everything. Fiona and Asher were also interesting characters, though I would have liked to have known more about them.

The story of the Giver is very imaginative. It made me laugh at times and it also made me cringe at a few moments (okay, more than a few). The only downside for me was that I didn't feel like I knew enough. Like Jonas, I wanted to know more! And this book left me with more questions than answers. I guess that the remaining books share a little more about what may have happened, but I feel like The Giver itself was abruptly ended and needed more explanation.

Back to the film, I liked the touches of romance that were only very briefly hinted at in the book, though I did like how the book explained more about how romance within the community worked. I also felt like the book did a better job with their assignments since Asher's especially seemed a little ridiculous in the movie. And while the movie's landscapes seemed a little far-fetched, I did like that it was better realized, while the book left pretty much everything completely to the imagination. Overall, I liked both the book and the movie for different reasons and I'd definitely recommend both!