Village Books Blog

What the Heck Is Happening at Village Books & Paper Dreams?

First we should say that we're often surprised that many don't already know of the connection between Village Books and Paper Dreams—not the literal doorway, the fact that we're the same company.  "When did you buy Paper Dreams," Dee and I are often asked. Jaws drop when we tell them that we founded Paper Dreams in 1982, with the help of long-time manager JoAnne Hanesworth. Recently we've begun to integrate the two stores a bit more, though we intend that each will retain some of its separate identity. One symbolic move was the creation of a new logo that combines elements from the logos of both stores. We'll continue to use each of the individual logos, but will also use this one when appropriate.

So, now to seismic section shifts. We didn't have an earthquake, but it may feel that way to you with many sections of the store shifted around. The biggest changes have been: 

1.) a move of the cooking section to the south wall of the Paper Dreams part of the store. We did that to make the section more accessible to more folks who are interested in the culinary arts—after all, that area opens up into Drizzle, our favorite place to buy olive oil. We also have a lot of gifts and gadgets for the cooks in your life, now integrated with those cookbooks.

2.) travel books traveled (so to speak) to the area vacated by cooking. We've enlarged our offerings of travel accessories and will continue to add to that section.

3.) we've expanded the humor section and relocated it where travel accessories used to be.

4.) books of and about games have also moved to that area and have been joined by games from Paper Dreams.

5.) the area toward the back of the Readings Gallery has become a special SALE area for marked-down books as well as gift items.

6.) we've created a special section for autographed books at the edge of the Readings Gallery (take a look, there are some treasures here).

We're still in the midst of tweaking and rearranging, so please bear with us.  We promise a map, once we get some more sections settled.  Thanks for your patience and enjoy your new discoveries.

--Chuck

Book Review: The Unchangeable Spots of Leopards by Kristopher Jansma

While I'm convinced this book will appeal to many different types of readers, I kept thinking as I read it, "Boy, is this ever written for fellow writers." Any bibliophile will catch the countless recognizable aphorisms and themes about writers and writing. For starters, I feel like I've met the unnamed protagonist! Okay, maybe not him specifically, but he's a type, at times a mash-up of many, very real author cliches including: the tortured creative soul, the substance abusing writer, the author who blurs the line between truth and fiction, the writer who intertwines his self-worth inextricably from his writing, the artist entrapped in a dramatic doomed romance, the overall self-destructive creator, the virtuoso consumed by a competitive friendship, the writer who can’t write fiction but only fictionalized memoir, etc.

At first, the chapters read more like individual essays than a novel, each chapter a specific excerpt from the narrator's life. Oh, and did I mention that, in addition to being a nameless protagonist, he's quite the unreliable narrator? I went into the novel buying everything the narrator told me until his own work appeared within the story. To say his fiction is heavily influenced by his own life is an understatement. Wait. Unless his life, or his perception of his life, is actually heavily influenced by his fiction. That becomes the head-scratching question that propels the book as our narrator's "true" stories become more outlandish and he even changes the names of supposed "real" people.

The stories within a story element impressed me, especially the fact that Jansma not only wrote this amazing book but includes excepts of the narrator's writing as well, excerpts that do indeed have their own style. While I'm tempted to focus on how much writers will love this book, that's excluding all the bibliophiles who don't write not to mention anyone who likes a good enigma of a story.

--Rachel

This review originally appeared on rachelannhanley.blogspot.com.

When Do We Censor Books?

(photo credit: readthesmiths.com)

On Tuesday, Melville House posted this on Twitter:

Sure glad we're not letting children read some of these books. Now they'll never ever discover sex or violence, right? Great.

— Melville House (@melvillehouse) April 16, 2013

What a spot-on sentiment. We're living in a time when the Naked Cowboy is a celebrated New York City figure, but Captain Underpants is challenged for being "offensive".  When, thanks to 50 Shades of Grey, we can talk openly about S&M with baristas as they make our mochas (true story), but masturbation is still a no-no word. What makes one thing okay, but the other?

What are we shielding our children from in books that they aren’t seeing nightly on TV or the internet? Are we turning off the computers, TVs and radios so they can’t hear about the Boston Marathon bombings? Are we changing the channel every time a Victoria’s Secret commercial comes on? Are we monitoring what children’s peers are talking about in the corners of the playground?

I gave my 11-year-old niece my copy of The Night Circus, because I knew she would love it. A friend who recently read it asked if I was concerned about her reading the f-word in it. I wasn’t. She knows that word. My friend and I got into a discussion about swearing in young adult books. When it’s appropriate, when it isn’t. When it’s authentic and when it’s forced. What makes it okay in some books, but not others?

I don’t have a clear, concise thought on this. Do I want my niece to read 50 Shades of Grey? No (but neither do I). Do I want my niece to read The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian? Heck yeah, but not right now. Mostly because I don’t think she’ll see the value in it quite yet.

Help me out here. What lines do you draw with your children? How do you decide when they’re ready to read something like The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian? Why are we hiding books from our children when they see sex and violence all of the time?

--Lindsey

2013 Chuckanut Writers Conference

This morning, I looked at the Chuckanut Writers Conference website, and I realized that there is only 71 days left until the conference arrives!  As a member of the organizing team for the 2013 Chuckanut Writers Conference, I was struck by both how fast it seemed to be approaching and by how far away the grand weekend itself seemed.  I love checking in on the “countdown” we have on the website—it keeps me connected to what all of the day-to-day work on the details is leading towards: another conference weekend that promises to fulfill our ongoing mission of profoundly inspiring your writing life.

Past attendee Edie Dietzen of Vancouver, WA had this to say about the 2012 conference: “So inspirational, so supportive.  I will definitely be back!” The 2013 Conference promises to be even better! Our conference team has been hard at work on creating a diverse and exciting program suitable for writers of all experience levels featuring seventeen Northwest writers and publishers. Now in its third year, we are looking forward to seeing some familiar returning faces, and hoping to see some new ones, too. 

About the Conference:

The Chuckanut Writers Conference will spotlight both authors and agents, and enthusiastically invites writers of poetry, fiction, and non-fiction to join us for a varied program suitable for writers at every stage of their careers.  A joint effort of Village Books and Whatcom Community College, the conference emphasizes craft presentations, discussion, and author interaction. The two-day conference will launch at 9:00 AM on Friday, June 21, with featured speakers, panels, breakout craft sessions, signings, and a faculty reading.  The conference will conclude Saturday evening, June 22 with concurrent open-mics for the participants at venues in Bellingham’s historic Fairhaven District.

This year’s faculty are: Alice Acheson, Bruce Beasley, Jeff Bender, Wendy Call, Karen Finneyfrock, Waverly Fitzgerald, Kathleen Flenniken, Mary Hammerbeck, Thor Hanson, Gary Luke, Frances McCue, Suzanne Paola, Brenda Peterson, Naseem Rakha, Natalie Serber, Jennie Shortridge, and Garth Stein. Agents Elizabeth Kracht of Kimberly Cameron and Associates and Felicia Eth of Felicia Eth Literary Representation round-out our roster and will be hearing pitches throughout the conference.

Along with continuing our tradition of offering a variety of engaging craft-centered breakout sessions, readings, and talks from talented authors and teachers, we’ve added a few extra touches to this year’s conference that I think will help capture a very Bellingham experience for all of our attendees, whether they are from out of town or our backyard.  We will be hosting a few of Bellingham’s fine and growing food truck fleet to offer lunch on both days of the conference, and Bellingham’s own Good Time Girls will be offering a special historical walking tour to our attendees.  A little birdie told me that there is a special pre-conference event that will also be open to the public.  I can’t tell you all the details yet, but did you know that some of our conference faculty are in a band??

For more information, including conference program, registration, and the forthcoming announcement of our pre-conference event, please visit our website: www.chuckanutwritersconference.com

--Anna

Anna Wolff is a poet and teacher of writing at Whatcom Community College.

 

The Art of Reading: Multiple Books vs. One at a Time

All bibliophiles have at least one thing in common: the love of books. Still, as I'm reminded every time I talk to another reader, that doesn't mean we express our affection for the written word in exactly the same way. I'm referring to how we read.

This post's theme: multiple books versus one a time. How many books do you read at once? Only one from start to finish before you pick up another? Or do you juggle two or three depending on your mood? More than that?

My perspective on this has changed over the years. In the past, I only ever read one book at a time. When I met people who mentioned they had three books sitting on their bedside table, I couldn't quite wrap my head around this. At the time, it seemed to me that surely their focus suffers for juggling so many different stories at once. However, after a few years of encountering numerous people who read multiple books at once, I gave it a try. I'm a convert! In fact, I unleashed something and now I can have upwards of ten books at once that I'm actively reading. (My boyfriend complains that having a beside clock is pointless if the clock is blocked by a tower of books.)

The only disadvantage I see to reading more than one book is the split focus. Of course, after actually trying it, I find that's not nearly as much of a problem as I anticipated. Certainly, if one book finds itself overlooked for weeks while I'm switching off between four others, then I do struggle a bit to recall where I am and what has happened so far. However, as long as I make sure to read at least, say, one chapter every week or two in each individual book, that seems to be enough to keep me plugged into the story.

The advantages? Numerous. The first thing I noticed when I switched from reading one book at a time to reading multiple is how many books I read as much as tripled. Before, if a book wasn't holding my attention, I would crawl on through for up to 1-3 months. Now if a book isn't holding my attention, I set that one aside for now and pick up something I don't want to put down. This way how much I read is limited more by how much free time I have rather than whether or not my current book is a winner.

I also really enjoy the flexibility. In particular, I read a lot of very dark fantasy. I love how brilliant authors can teach me something by how they handle sensitive subject matter, but sometimes I just need a break from violence, betrayal, tragedy, etc. For example, I tore through Kate Carlisle's Bibliophile Mysteries series at a point when I needed something light to milk away the darkness. (They did the trick very well, by the way.) By reading multiple books at a time, I can look at what I'm reading and select whichever best fits my mood at the moment.

Along the same lines, some books are more portable than others. Gorgeous collectible editions and personally inscribed books are examples of ones that I don't like to move away from their safe perch by my bed. Yet I like to read when I'm on the elliptical or when I'm out and about on a rainy day. With multiple books on my bedside table, I can leave the ones I want in prime condition behind and take smaller or less coveted books with me when I leave the house.

Last it's nice for people with short attention spans. Some are surprised to learn this about me, since I do read a fair amount, but I hardly ever read very long in one sitting. I rarely read longer than an hour at a time and I'm even content to steal snippets of ten to fifteen minutes here and there rather than settle down all day with a book. In fact, I’m quite baffled by people who can sit down and read one book straight through. However, I have found something odd I enjoy doing: settling down all day with multiple books. I circle through them, reading one chapter at a time from each. Somehow switching between different stories holds my attention better than fixating on just one!

What about you? Do you read only one book at a time or do you like to juggle multiple? How many books can you have going at once? What do you like or dislike about reading multiple books at a time?

--Rachel

This post originally appeared at rachelannhanley.blogspot.com/

Guest Blog Post: Amy Stewart, "Remembering Joseph Dombey"

Amy Stewart is the author of Flower Confidential, Wicked Plants, Wicked Bugs, and now The Drunken Botanist: The Plants That Create the World's Greatest Drinks. She's the co-founder of the blog, Garden Rant, and a contributing editor to Fine Gardening magazine. She will be at Village Books on Friday, March 29, 7pm.

 
(photo credit: Delightful Eye Photography)

Anybody who read Wicked Plants knows that I have a dark side. A surprising number of botanists who discovered the plants we drink today met with rather dreadful fates, and I could not resist telling some of those stories. One of them was Joseph Dombey, a French botanist who went to Latin America in 1778, only to find himself stuck there in the middle of Peru's civil war. Then he had to deal with an outbreak of cholera and a shipwreck before he finally got to Spain with this collection of plants that represented years of hard work and near-death experiences. Imagine how hard it would have been to keep a plant alive on board a long ocean voyage in those days. But somehow Dombey did it, only to find out that customs officials wouldn't let his plants through. Most of them rotted and died in a warehouse when he got to Spain. Lemon verbena, a woody herb with incredibly fragrant leaves, was one of the few to survive.

Dombey went on to have more bad luck on his next expedition and eventually died in prison. How do you come up with a drink for a guy like that? I picked a classic cocktail called the Last Word and renamed it Dombey's Last Word. It's a rather grim name for a cocktail, but the drink is lovely. You can also make your own lemon verbena syrup for cocktails like this one by heating equal parts sugar and water on the stove. When the sugar is melted, turn the heat off and throw in a big handful of fresh lemon verbena leaves. Let it cool for about an hour, then strain it to get all the bits of plant matter out. Store it in a jar in the fridge and use it up quickly — which shouldn't be a problem!


Dombey’s Last Word  (p. 175)

In honor of Joseph Dombey, a twist on the classic cocktail the Last Word. This version replaces Chartreuse with a more overtly lemon verbena-flavored liqueur and substitutes the lime for lemon. Given the political turmoil that he found himself in, it seems only fitting that this cocktail combines ingredients from three countries that were also in constant upheaval: England, France, and Italy.

½ ounce gin

½ ounce Verveine du Velay

½ ounce Luxardo maraschino liqueur

½ ounce fresh-squeezed

lemon juice

1 sprig fresh lemon verbena

Shake all the ingredients except the lemon verbena sprig with ice and strain into a cocktail glass. Rub a lemon verbena leaf around the rim of the glass and garnish with another leaf. If you can’t find Verveine du Velay, green Chartreuse is a fine substitute.

Interview with Ellis Jones, 'The Better World Shopping Guide'

This blog post originally appeared at Rachel Ann Hanley.

Since receiving his doctoral degree in sociology from the University of Colorado, Boulder, Ellis Jones has focused all of his energies on bridging the gap between academics, activists, and the average citizen. A scholar of social responsibility, global citizenshi,p and everyday activism, Dr. Jones continues to teach and give presentations across the country on how to turn lofty ideals into practical actions

RH: How was The Better World Shopping Guide born?

EJ: Originally, in graduate school, I got together with a couple of my colleagues and, instead of working on our dissertations, we started working on a better world handbook. We wanted this to be a comprehensive resource about “What can I do to make a difference in the world?” for individuals to act on a wide range of issues and use in their every day lives. Two of the pages in that four hundred page book were dedicated to rating corporations when you go shopping. “Which ice cream do you buy when you want to shop more ethically?” etc. Those two pages got more feedback from readers than any of the others, so I decided this mini handbook might be worth pursuing. When the first edition came out I started creating a larger database to get at this question of who are the good guys and the bad guys and how can we make the world a better place. I took publically available data and pulled it together and tried to translate it into A to F grades.

RH: Do you suggest readers do their own research into companies in addition to using The Better World Shopping Guide?

EJ: I want them to double-check my work for sure. I want to encourage people to go out and dig in on their own, but (and this is a big but) I’ve always been frustrated when I hear other people suggest it’s important to be an ethical shopper like “Oh, just go do your homework.” I have a PhD and this is my area of research and this is difficult, time consuming work. I can’t imagine trying to navigate this as the average consumer. The idea of “Oh, just go do your homework.” makes me wonder “Why is this all on the shoulders of consumers?” This information should all be provided. There’s no way that consumers can do enough research or enough homework to wrap their heads around this particular challenge. This is massive. This is not some kind of clean slate that we’re working off where we don’t know anything, we come in and do homework, and get some information. Some big companies have huge budgets to create images that are a combination of fact and fiction to persuade consumers that they’re more ethical than they are. Consumers are bombarded with information that points them in a thousand different directions. When people make it sound like “Oh, just go do your homework” like this is doing a crossword puzzle and you’re done, that’s wrong. I want to say, “Yes, always do your homework, always follow up with your own research.” In the book I provide a list of 50 websites for researching, but the idea that a consumer could - even with something as simple as Coke versus Pepsi - that they could go home and Google that on their own and then have a firm understanding after a few hours is ludicrous. It’s very daunting. I feel a lot of sympathy for the average person and that’s part of why I’m as dedicated to this work as I am. I think we should have this homework done for us and we should go into shopping already wielding these tools.

RH: In The Better World Shopping Guide, there’s a list of the top 10 things for shoppers to change to have the most positive impact. Bank is number 1. Why is which bank we choose so important?

EJ: If you go back to the original edition, that list hasn’t really changed. Bank as always been number 1. When I did my original investigation into this research, the financial institution is the one I found most obscure, most cloaked in secrecy. Most major banks are graded between C and F. They’re institutions that aren’t very accountable or transparent and often can’t answer fairly simple questions about where the money is invested. When you don’t have accountability it creates a space for very irresponsible behavior. There’s this incredible correlation between the most socially and environmentally irresponsible banks and those that receive the most bailout money. This is the ultimate illustration about why we need to be responsible as consumers, because if we don’t hold these institutions accountable they will come back and bite us.

Recently, I heard that since the bailouts have happened the system has not changed significantly and that if this crisis were to happen again we would do the exact same thing. The banks know we will bail them out, because we don’t have a lot of choices. When you have a bank, that bank basically has access to your dollars and they may look like they’re sitting in your account, but they’re actually being invested all around the world; while you’re eating and sleeping, that money is going out to change the world. If the money is being used for some problematic activity, that’s your money that’s causing havoc in the world. If you invest in a responsible bank, that money’s being used to make the world a better place. It doesn’t get more black and white than that. We’re constantly earning money and spending it and the bank is just the place we hold it. It is a pain to change your bank, but if you do it once you more or less don’t have to think about it afterwards and now that money’s being used for better. Those ripple effects will take place for the rest of your life.

RH: I read an article once that suggested people don’t change their habits even when they learn indisputable proof about a company’s human rights or environmental transgressions, because to make a positive change shoppers first must accept the guilt that they’ve been, by extension, supporting such practices by shopping there. The article went on to advise: Don’t feel guilty for, in the past, supporting a business with unethical practices of which you were unaware, but do feel guilty if you continue shopping there even after learning this new information. What are your thoughts on this?

EJ: I don’t agree with the advice, but I agree with the study. Everything I see shows that if people find out about a company, they won’t necessarily switch to a better company or boycott the bad company. It’s not that people are lazy, but that people are complicated. Consumers never buy based on a single factor. They’re always trying to balance a number of factors. They’re trying to consider price and quality and a wide range of other things such as taste and their needs. Socially responsible shopping or ethical consumption is just one other factor strung into the equation. In some ways these studies are far too primitive. It’s too simplistic. People might not buy from a good company, because the products are too expensive or they’re still not convinced a company is really as bad as they hear or they don’t know how it relates to companies in the same category.

To be honest, I don’t think people should feel guilty. It brings up cognitive dissonance. If we realize we haven’t been the best father or daughter or partner or shopper, suddenly we have to struggle with that and we don’t like to do that. I don’t think it’s about guilt or that it’s black and white. Here’s what I do and recommend: I recommend people think about improving their overall ethical profile. I like to call it your shopping GPA. If you take all the items you bought in a particular year and average the grades, what would your grade be? You’re not going to go from a C student for the last x number of years to an A student tomorrow. It doesn’t work that way. You work your way up. If you’re a C student, you challenge yourself to be a B student. My goal is to be a B+ shopper and I don’t think I make that goal all the time. I don’t think we should be unrealistic here. No one is an A shopper. So it’s not about being perfect; it’s about being better. For me that’s not as much about grappling with guilt as thinking about trying to do more good in the world. Sometimes the option is between a C and an F company and you buy a C. Or sometimes you’re in a Walmart with your family, because your family loves Walmart and even within Walmart there’s a spectrum of better or worse products. It’s still not optimal, but we try to make the best choice available.  We take in account our budget, tastes and needs, and our ethical stance. It’s about putting those things together and coming up with the best choices available.

To read it in its entirety, click here.

What Is Speculative Fiction?

This post originally appeared on Rachel's blog. You can read more of her writing, including book reviews, at http://rachelannhanley.blogspot.com. If you write Speculative Fiction, we host a writing group the 2nd & 4th Tuesday of each month at 6pm. Learn more about our Spec Fic / Sci Fi Writing Group.

For those of you already familiar with the term "speculative fiction," you should know this post won't be breaking any new ground. Rather I'm going to define "spec fic" for anyone who doesn't know what it means. I think of "speculative fiction" as part of our society's vocabulary now, but frequent conversations remind me that isn't the case. So for anyone befuddled whenever they hear this term or - gasp! - thinking as they read this post, "I've never heard that term before," here's a definition:

Speculative Fiction: an umbrella term for the more fantastical fiction genres. This, of course, includes both science fiction and fantasy, but speculative fiction also encompasses everything that slips through the cracks.

Consider The Art of Racing in the Rain by Garth Stein. The story's told through a dog's perspective. Not fantasy. Not science fiction. However, Stein does explore past human experience and tiptoe away from reality with his anthropomorphized dog. Thus, speculative fiction. The term also works well for The City & the City by China Mieville. There's no doubt that's an unusually constructed world, but Mieville leaves the exact workings open to reader interpretation and I came up with many possible theories, some which might put the book in fantasy and others in science fiction. Therefore, speculative fiction might be a better word, because it implies the fantastical without specifying magic or technology roots. Along these lines, Justine Larbalestier's book Liar might be fantasy, but also remains open to interpretation. The protagonist's a self-declared compulsive liar, so the fantasy twist could be nothing more than another lie. Calling the book fantasy might be misleading to anyone who doesn't buy her fantastical claim, but speculative fiction addresses the possibility of a supernatural element.

It's also nice for everyone who lumps science fiction and fantasy together in conversations. Those two genres are very, very different, opposite ends of a spectrum really, but if you're making a point about SF&F as a whole, consider inserting "speculative fiction!"

Feel free to add onto my definition! Or list other examples of books that are neither science fiction nor fantasy, but could be considered speculative fiction.

When a Book Steals Your Heart

When I was 18, I became friends with this guy, Todd. Todd was a riot. He would have bonfires and invite the most random people. He was one of those guys who invited people to his parties, not based on their relatability, but rather their differences…then he would sit back and watch the mayhem happen. Todd often did things to get reactions. One night he played a 45-minute video he filmed of a statue on a turntable with a cacophony of sound serving as the soundtrack. It was often hard to tell if he was being serious, or just seeing how long we’d put up with his hijinx before we called him out on his nonsense. Aside from a ton of laughs, Todd gave me one of my most treasured gifts. He introduced me to Leo Buscaglia’s book, Love. “This is one of the most powerful books on human connection that you’ll ever read, Linz,” he told me as he handed me his copy (to borrow, of course).

I took the book home, read it, and fell in love. No, not with Todd, with the book. Leo Buscaglia’s childlike wonder and approach to life appealed to me. Rather than seeing others as dangerous, or as encroaching, he saw other people as friends, comrades. And his acceptance of others was immediate, rather than wait-and-see. I’m told that at his events, he hugged people. Everyone. In my mind, Leo Buscaglia was just an oversized child, never losing innocence, never gaining cynicism. Can you imagine that? How wonderful that would be?

Every few years, I pull out my copy of Love and flip through it, reminding myself to connect with others, when I’m feeling like all I want to do is crawl inside myself. The book has given me the courage to strike up conversations with strangers when loneliness surrounded me. It’s called me out when I’m being too judgmental of others, or myself. And it’s reminded me to open my heart when I’ve wanted nothing more than to keep it closed.

Valentine’s Day, this day that’s awash with hearts and romantic love, where the divide between “those who are with someone” and “those who are not” is so prominent, take a moment to show appreciation to someone in your life, even if it’s a complete stranger. And for pete’s sake, go hug someone!

--Lindsey

Do You Need to Like the Protagonist to Like the Book?

This is an excerpt from Rachel Ann Hanley's blog. You can read the original post in its entirety here. Check out Rachel's book picks over at villagebooks.com.

How many of you readers out there have had the following conversation?

You: Did you like that book?
Friend: No, I hated the main character.

It's surprised me over the years to discover how many people cannot invest in a story with an unlikable protagonist, even if that's the author's intent. It pains me, to be honest! As a reader, I can think of so many brilliant books that don't rely on a lovable protagonist to hook readers. As a writer, I ensure all my characters have flaws of some kind, and do have a few lead characters who will doubtless rub someone or other the wrong way...yet I hope their shortcomings are essential to the story.

It brings to mind a conversation I had in an art gallery this summer. I visited New York and the Guggenheim. As I turned my attention to the very first piece I passed, a stranger came up to me, leaned over, and whispered, "Do you like it?" Before I could answer, she added in a very serious, skeptical tone, "Now be honest." What immediately popped into my mind was something I had heard someone else say at a conference: "the point of art isn't to like or dislike it." We often think in those terms, but they're simplistic. In terms of visual art, like and dislike often refer more to aesthetic. For written arts, we usually mean "liking" as a measurement of enjoyment. Except there's more to art than that. To the woman, I joked, "I wouldn't put it in my living room, but I'm glad it's here in the museum." If by like, she meant, "Is it pretty?," my answer would be no. However, other factors still appealed to me and made me think and I'm glad I saw it. Art isn't always about simple enjoyment, but sometimes about pushing ourselves out of comfort zones. Steering the focus back to literature, I can think of books that I didn't like - perhaps because the story's too scary for me, or there's a depressing ending, or vivid, gory scenes - but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad book. Rather that, when it comes to tastes and preferences, this book falls outside what speaks to me. Stephen King is a great example. His work, especially the strictly horror stuff, doesn't appeal to me, but I nevertheless consider him a fantastic writer. If we're talking straightforward enjoyment, I didn't like Wintergirls by Laurie Halse Anderson. It's about a girl with an eating disorder...and it's depressing and discomforting. However, if we stretch our definition of "like" wider than enjoyment, I loved that book. It's thought-provoking and well-handled, in particular with how Anderson zeroes in on Lia's consuming obsession with a number on a scale and forcing that number lower, lower, lower.

Returning specifically to protagonists, though, no, I don't need to like the protagonist to like the book. What I need is to be invested in the story, and, while an endearing lead character can do the trick, there are other ways to catch my attention. Yes, unlikable protagonists can ruin a book for me, but whether or not I like the protagonist isn't equivalent to whether or not I like the book. So what's the difference between an unlikable main character who doesn't taint the entire story and one who makes you set that book down permanently? My answer is abstract and challenging to measure, but it often comes down to what I interpret as the author's intent. Obviously, I could be mistaken, but I usually get a sense for protagonists meant as satiric characters, or those that we're expected to resent or dislike a little while still investing in their struggles. The problem comes when I suspect the author's blind to her protagonist's faults and expects her readers to actually love this horrid character. Be they a Mary Sue ideal or utterly off-putting with too many faults to list, I need to feel like the author formed the protagonist this way for a reason.

Of course, I have read books in which the protagonist did turn my opinion against the book. In young adult literature specifically, I've also been turned off by a couple of books in which the teenage protagonist doesn't feel like a real person but like an insulting stereotype of what the author thinks teenagers are like. Additionally, I struggle with stories in which there's a significant gap between what I versus the protagonist find romantic. Unless overtly satiric and well-handled, I resent books in which the main character's attracted to behavior that strikes me as abusive or obsessive rather than romantic.

Your turn. Do you need to like the protagonist to like the book? Why or why not? Can you think of books you loved even though you didn't like the main character? Books you hated because the main character is so awful? Characters you still liked despite a few traits/actions you didn't?