Review: The 5th Wave by Rick Yancey

The story follows a couple narratives, the main one being Cassie, a 16 (ish, I think) year old girl. Cassie lives a normal life with her mum, dad and baby brother Sammy. She is invisible to the guy she has a crush on, worries about her hair and spends most of her time texting her best friend. Basically your standard teenager. However, her whole life gets flipped upside-down when the Mothership is seen orbiting Earth. Then the First Wave arrives - and there's no going back. We enter the story shortly after the Fourth Wave has ended. Cassie is camping in the woods, alone save for a teddy bear and a being in the dark.

When I first started reading this book I adored it. It was fast paced, exciting, you learn so much in such a short period of time and I raced through the first 60-100 pages. Cassie was a very real, down to earth character. Yancey does an excellent job of capturing the growth from girl to woman that Cassie is forced to prematurely experience (one line of the book mentions how she is worried that her supply of tampons will run out - which I loved as writers (especially male writers) tend to miss out).

I was surprised and a bit disappointed at first when the narrator changed, as it seemed a shame to move away from Cassie as she was becoming a fully fledged character. The other characters we follow aren't as well developed as Cassie initially, but they are engaging enough to sustain the plot, and I was looking forward to the point when the narratives collided.

However, I haven't only got praise for this book. One aspect of it very nearly put me off finishing it, mostly because I thought this book was better than the trope it used.

There will be sort of spoilers from this point on (concerning Cassie and Evan - both of whom the blurb of the book introduces), so read on at your peril if spoilers bother you.

-------- SPOILER WARNING ---------------------------------------------------------------

When Cassie first meets Evan, I'm ok with that. I understand that the author wanted to create a bit of romantic tension for his leading lady, and having her lusting after a guy who she's literally said a sentence to isn't the most engaging plot. When Evan kisses Cassie, that's when I get angry.

This kissing scene is described as a deeply romantic, sensual act. However, Evan essentially kisses Cassie against her will. We already know that he knows a lot more about Cassie than he's been letting on (and we later learn that he's been stalking her), and to add what can be described as sexual assault to this mix (and to portray it in a way which is meant to have teenage girls swooning) is disgusting and dangerous. I hate Evan and Cassies entire relationship - it's totally overdramatic and over the top. Whilst Zombie's relationship with Ringer is understated, natural and sweet, Evans and Cassie's is scary.

Not only this, but from the moment Cassie meets Evan most of her strength and conviction (her best and strongest personality traits) vanish, and she virtually regresses back into the teenage girl with a crush.From being such a strong female lead she turns into a girl who can't cope without her man. I thought this book was better than that, and Cassie's character was strong enough to sustain her part of the narrative. I understand why Evan was needed (from a knowledge point of view) but I don't understand why they had to be so overly 'romantic'.


This being said, the premise of the book was excellent and the execution (for the most part) was superb. I recommend reading it, so long as you can question the presentation you're given.

I gave it 3.5/5

xx

Currently Reading: Vagina: a new biography by Naomi Wolf

Body Image

TW: Anorexia, Bulimia, Eating Disorders.

(side note, Laci Green expresses a lot of these views a lot better than I do on her YouTube channel, Sex+. A couple of really good videos can be found here and here)

'Tis the season for bikinis, and lately I've been thinking a lot about body image, societies relationship to body, and my own personal relationship to both food and my body.

Body image can mean a lot of things: the way your body looks, the way society views your body and the way your body looks to you. And although this might sound the same, these can often be vastly different. For example, a person may be 20 stone, feel beautiful and love their body. However, sadly society would perceive them as ugly and fat. Equally, a person may be 8 stone and hate their body, even though society would view them as having a perfect figure. These situations are specific to weight, but when you add proportions, age and gender into the mix, this becomes an even bigger mess of opinions and generalisations.

The way the human body is viewed has changed a lot over the course of history, particularly in regards to 'beauty' (ie, what we perceive to be the perfect body). I'm going to talk specifically about women in this post, not only because I am one so I understand society and its relationship to my body (as well as how my female friends and family feel about their body image), but also because what is considered beautiful in women is more exclusive (not only to each era but female perfect is an exclusive concept) and more widely discussed in the media (think tabloids, gossip mags and adverts etc).

So, let’s start from a sort of beginning. Being on the larger side used to be attractive and considered beautiful. If you look at any old painting of a women you'll see she is larger stomached and smaller busted than a pin up today would be. (You can see images photoshopped to more modern standards next to the originals here). There is a very simple reason for this: women who were larger were not only wealthier (they could afford fattening foods) but were also healthier (again, because they had a better, wider, fuller diet). It all came down to reproduction: you wanted the best chance that when you get a women pregnant she will give birth to a healthy child who will grow up in a well-off family.

Then something shifted in our culture. People became wealthier as a society, so they stopped looking to women whose bodies could support a family. Instead, the fashion industry became the go to for information of body type and its relationship to beauty. Since the end of the second world war, this image has fluctuated between two distinct types - the ironing board and the hourglass.

The ironing board refers to women who are tall, slim, with small chests, waists and hips, so their body essentially goes straight up and down (think Kiera Knightly).

The hourglass refers to women who are tall, slim, with larger chests and hips than waists (think Marilyn Monroe or Christina Hendricks).

You'll notice that both associate beauty with being tall and slim - this is because fashion designers produce stock sizes for their models and want to show their clothes off so they look the best. They believe their clothes look good on taller, slimmer people.

Anyway, so society fluctuated between women of these two sizes between 1920 (ish) and the late 1990s (for example, 20s flappers = ironing boards, 50s pin ups = hourglass, 80-90s androgyny = ironing boards). Now, there is a pretty decent mix of the two, often combining in a woman who had a fuller bust but a flat stomach and tiny waist (Rosie Huntington-Whitley, Jourdan Dunn or Miley Cyrus spring to mind).

So all this is going on in society, with women with these figures being placed in the spotlight, whilst women of other figures are ridiculed. This is known as fat shaming - a phrase which commonly refers to when larger women are discriminated because of their size, but I am also going to use it to describe the same effect on women who are thinner. The former type is much more common, and images of women with these figures (in particular the ironing board figure which is arguably more coveted in the fashion industry) can often end up being a trigger for mental illnesses and eating disorders such as anorexia or bulimia. Women are told that they need to look a certain way and can feel a lot of pressure to conform to these standards of beauty.

Needless to say, this is wrong and bad. Not only that, but these perceptions of beauty and many of the arguments that support them (specifically health arguments) are often false. The most important thing is that you love your body, no matter what shape or size. For the UK the average dress size is 14-16. However, women still feel the need to conform the images shown in fashion magazines depicting 'size 0' (UK size 4) models.

The fashion industry are taking baby steps to acknowledge their role in the perception of beauty in society (there is a fabulous article by a 'plus size model' here, in which she discusses the pressures of being a model and the semantics around the term 'plus size'). But they are only baby steps.

Now, most of this post has been about beauty generally. I'm going to try and articulate something I have been coming to terms with recently: my own perception of my body image and my relationship with food.

Overall, I quiet like my body. I'm about 5ft 5" and weigh somewhere in the region of 8.5 stone. On BMI charts I sit around the 19-20 marl, which is healthy for a girl my age, height and weight. This doesn't mean I'm 100% happy with the way I look though.

I am a victim of the 'flat stomach' desire. I want a flatter stomach and I know I can get one. I feel 10 times bigger than I was last summer (despite the fact that the guy I'm seeing says I haven't changed and my mum thinks I look the same) and I know I'm a lot less healthy. I've been eating more and exercising less, it's really as simple as that.

I used to be able to brush off feelings of unhealthiness, go on health kicks and feel better about myself. But this time, I've really sunk into a rut, thinking that everybody around me is so much thinner and prettier. I shouldn't aspire to be thinner. I know I'm healthy, and I know a lot of people want my body type. I also know I'm unhappy in my skin, so I want to change that. However, this feeling of general unhealthiness as for the first time highlighted to me my own relationship with food. Which is by no means as healthy as I'd like it to be. I categorize foods into good and bad. I reward myself with food, as well as deny myself it. I count calories obsessively.

Now I know this is ridiculous. I know that if I acted on many of my food feelings I would end up becoming seriously unhealthy, and part of me worries that it's only because I've got my mum feeding me that I eat proper sized portions at all (too bigger portions in my eyes, but I eat them because she gives them to me).

This has been a huge realisation for me. I've started to do more exercise and eat more regularly (ie, cutting out snacks and eating larger meals). So that feels better. I've also started to go for walks more regularly, to get myself up out of my computer seat and into the fresh air, which always makes me feel healthier anyway. I'm going to try not to worry about my tummy in my bikini on holiday, and sort out any issues I have afterwards.

So, mostly I'm feeling good. However, society and its relationship to the female body is still hugely flawed. I might do another post this week on ownership of the female body, because as I've said it's something I've been thinking a lot about recently.

Best Wishes, 

xx

If you suffer from any of the issues mentioned, and would like to talk about it, you can visit your local doctor, visit http://www.youth2youth.org.uk/common-problems/self-image/ or http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anorexia-nervosa/Pages/Getting-help.aspx

Review: The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid

People have been recommending Mohsin Hamid's work from all sides, so when I saw this in the library I thought I'd pick it up*. Let's just say the recommendations were wholly deserved - I really enjoyed this book.

* As an aside I have very conflicting views on libraries so hopefully I'll do a discussion post on that in the near future (along with all the other posts I've promised, sorry!).


1) It's premise really intrigued me - being addressed directly and so specifically was really interesting. This was particularly fascinating as I found I really did not like the person who was being addressed - and the uncomfortable situation this puts the reader is in just <emotivearmmovements> good. Really good.

2) The narrator is very eloquent yet very bare at the same time, which created just stunning reading. The book is written as a very one-sided conversation, and it really felt like you were sitting down listening to someone tell you about their life. This could be boring, but when the narrator has lived such a rich life it's very interesting.
3) It's surprisingly tension filled - the moment at the end (which I shall not reveal) may not be entirely shocking (due to the hints laid down in the novel) but is very very well executed.
4) I read it in two chunks (the first 3/4 in one sitting, and the last 1/4 this morning) but because of the style of the book I'd really recommend trying to read it in one sitting. It's only 200 pages long, so it really doesn't take that long to get though if you can set aside a couple of hours.

5) It picked up some very interesting points about how we (or specifically how Americans - although it applied to most Western nations) judge people based on appearance. And how (again Americans, but us Brits do it too) completely misinterpret situations when the issue of terrorism is brought up.

6) The love story in this raised some very interesting questions about what rape is and what an abusive relationship is. If you don't mind a spoiler I'm going to put a little discussion at the very end of the post, so don't scroll down if you don't want to know.

Yeah. So, I think that pretty much sums my feelings on this book up. Highly recommend it. I gave it four sunbeams.

Happy Reading!

xx

---------------------------- SPOILER ZONE ----------------------

There is a moment in this book where the narrator has sex with the girl he is in love with. She appears to have feeling for him too, but is definitely not an active participant in the intercourse. When the narrator realises that she isn't getting involved, he, albeit begrudgingly, stops. I found this very uncomfortable to read, as to me, this was clearly a rape. She did not want to have sex with him. However, as you see everything through the narrator's eyes, it became very muddled in my mind. There is a second sex scene, which to my mind is also rape, although the girl is an active participant. The narrator abuses her mental fragility in order to get what he wants. Which, as I've said, constitutes rape, or at the very least an abusive relationship. Once again, because we see everything through the narrator's eyes, we can see that he wants to make her happy. However, we can also see how much he is manipulating his own thoughts. His rationale may be her happiness, but his motive is very much his own fulfilment.

I just found this interesting. If you want to contribute to this discussion (particularly if you’ve read the book) please leave a comment!