Were-Hunters

I'm a huge fan of the were-hunter segment of the whole "Dark Hunter" society created by Sherrilyn Kenyon (my latest obsession, obviously). First, the question of "what came first" has been answered (they're the bi-product of an ancient king's attempt to legnthen the life of the Apollites without taking human souls) (and this is another reason why I like this series--the same question is ansered for the vampires). Second, it's kinda hilarious that they "imprint" on their Fates chosen mate, but since the Fates are the Fates, there's no creepiness where someone "imprints" on a child (stupid Twilight)--it's always at the most fortuitious time (or so I suppose given my limited examples so far). So you can know someone your whole life and not know that you're their mate (though I think sex has a lot to do with this; I think I read that they have to have sex then wait for the mark to form) and feel free to curse the Fates if it's someone you couldn't help yourself about (poor Panthers in heat :-( ).

But that's just another great thing about this idea--there are 2 branches of each animal (human to animal and animal to human) who don't get each other at all. They've been taught to hate and kill each other for offenses that both sides perpetrate: who kills indescriminately, the "humans" or the "animals", for example. I've recently become fascinated by the notion that to kill ruthlessly is "animalistic", but in reality, animals do not kill out of spite or revenge--they kill to eat or to protect themselves. There may be one or two alternative examples (not including rabies infections), but generally, you aren't going to have a grizzlie bear stalk a human for destroying it's homeland. Because it invaded the homeland and took away all natural food sources, maybe, but not for the specific reason that it wants it's land back. Anyway, the were-hunters are just a great example about how prejudices spread through poor communication and lack of education--if you meet either side you learn that they aren't the abominations that the other proclaims.

Edit: And I now demand a new status quo when it comes to werewolves. Look, wolf/dog sex is weird in that their penis actually expands to lock itself inside the female for as long as 30 seconds. I was watching a nature documentary the other day about wolves and some of the other wolves wanted to stop the female and male from mating--after the swelling had started. So there were 8 or so wolves fighting while 2 of them are literally locked together butt to butt (I have NO idea how they were able to twist around like that but it had to have been painful)--I cringed when they almost ran around both sides of a tree--that would not have ended well. So. Given this information, I love the fact that Kenyon added in this detail (she really does celebrate the differences between the were-animals that live within her world). And I'm now disappointed whenever I read about were-wolves and the guy pulls out immediately after sex. I like the conversation Vane has with Bride about it--he's forced to cuddle after sex which, as a woman, I find totally hot.

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

I honestly thought I was going to hate this book. My 12th grade English Lit teacher introduced it as the book most likely do be disliked by the guys in the class. Now, as you've probably read my "review" of the Twilight "saga" you know that chick books aren't really my thing. Yes, I like a bit of romance, but I want it to be secondary--to complement the plot and to explain some of the inter-character relations, but NOT to drive the story as Twilight does. So, when I heard that this would be a chick book I was a little leery.

But I was pleasantly surprised. This book definitely deserves "classic" status. It's again one of those books that everyone should read, especially if they themselves wonder why they can't relate to the people around them. There is definitely a character for everyone in this book and I'm curious as to who readers best relate with.

I personally thought this book to be a pretty easy read, but I have a friend who found it difficult (i.e. boring--I've found the two go hand in hand). To this I will say that there is no way on Earth for me to know whether someone will like or dislike a particular book. I mean, I hated Heart of Darkness the first time I had to read it and quite enjoyed it the second time. My general rule of thumb for any book is to pick it up every 5 years or so--the change in perspective you get from age will change the way the book will read, possibly even making a book that you hated in high school interesting.



I just watched Becoming Jane (2007). I thought it was extremely good and, at least in the context of Pride and Prejudice, it makes sense, whether or not it's historically accurate. It's so sweet and sad...I highly recommend it, especially if your complaint about the ending of Pride and Prejudice was that it was too good to be true.