In Which We Discuss Battle Royale

This is a repost of a review I wrote quite a while back.  I've really improved as a writer and a reviewer since then, and I'll probably tackle the book again once I get around to re-reading it.  Until then...

I'd wager it would be difficult to find someone who hasn't heard of Battle Royale, what with the manga series and films. The book easily tops them all, and it's amazing that it's taken so long to be translated into English and actually released. My copy was imported from America, and other UK readers might run into similar problems.

In a land strictly controlled by the government, where you can be killed on the slightest whim, the American imperialists are the enemy, and rock music is strictly monitored due to its rebellious nature, maybe the BR program isn't such an odd idea.

The BR (Battle Royale, naturally) Program was inspired by the practice of the same name in popular wrestling. As explained in the prologue, a Battle Royale is a wrestling match consisting of any number of fighters, only one of whom can win. Some people may begin by joining together, to take out the others, but this doesn't change the fact that they must turn on one another eventually. This results in unexpected matches, most notably between members of tag teams, who would not normally fight against one another. Koushun Takami has run with this idea in his novel, using the idea of alliances and friend against friend to good effect. The themes of betrayal, and the idea of how close friends really are, how much you really trust the people around you, are striking because they're so plausible. Put in this situation, I can imagine acting in a very similar way, for the same reasons as the characters, and the whole idea of someone giving in to animalistic desires due to something so basic and primitive as fear and their own safety is handled with skill.

Within the novel, the government of Greater East Asia has decided, in its infinite wisdom, to bring the Battle Royale practice of pitting people against each other in fights to the death, into schools, the reasons for which are numerous and utterly fake. Every year, fifty third year middle school classes are selected for participation in the Program. For those unfamiliar with the Japanese school system, they are around fifteen years old. It's about control. The Government of Greater East Asia will result to any tactics to keep its citizens in the dark and under control, through any means necessary, and if elements of George Orwell's 1984 come to mind, you're not far off.

These school children are taken, under the guise of a study trip, to a deserted area, usually a small island, where they are given randomly selected weapons, ranging from various guns through sickles, hatchets, bow guns, knives, darts (complete with dart board) hand grenades, boomerangs and bullet-proof vests, and ordered to kill one another. Metal collars track their locations and status (dead or alive). These collars are triggered to explode if no-one dies within 24 hours, if someone attempts to either remove the collar or escape from the island and the game, or if the wearer is caught within a forbidden zones.

The forbidden zones are sections of the island which are off-limits, and more and more of them are announced as the game goes on. This forces students to move around. preventing anyone from simply hiding until the game is over.

The book follows one class which is partaking, involuntarily of course, in the Program. This group is notable for many reasons; mostly because one member of it is actually a survivor of a previous Program. Forced to retake his third year, the luck of the draw has resulted in this strange fluke.

The class consists of forty-two students, which perhaps goes some way to explaining why the book resembles a house brick. The narrative doesn't follow every single student, of course. Several die early on, while others stray onto the page halfway through, with only a short summary of their past before they are shot down. Or stabbed. Or strangled. Or blown up. There are a number of options.

Although, at the beginning, the reader may feel a sense of panic at the long cast list, somehow Koushun Takami has managed to give each of them at least a vaguely unique history. Some of the more fascinating characters include Kazuo Kariyama, Mitsuko Souma. Noriko Nakagawa, Shinji Mimura, Hiroki Sugimura, Shuya Nanahara and Shogo Kawada.

One of these characters was born without emotion, due to an accident, and so decides to play the game properly based on the toss of a coin. Another had an eccentric uncle, who taught him an awful lot about the world outside Greater East Asia, computer hacking, and explosives, skills which come in very handy. Yet another has her own reasons for expecting the world to do its worst, and her reasons for following the philosophy of the best defence being a good offence are sadly believable. Then there's the couple, not mentioned in the above list, who commit suicide early on, knowing that only one of them can survive. I won't say that the characters are free of stereotypes - Kazuo's hair wouldn't be out of place in any manga, and was closely replicated, unintentionally of course, in Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. Hiroki is the very image of a tall, dark brooding samurai, Heathcliff meets Gambit, a comparison which explains my growing affection for him. Then there's the rebel punk, the rocker, the class clown...yet these stereotypes are in the characters looks more than their personality, and add to the book rather than detract from it. All of these fascinating characters are explored to a great extent, something which I feel makes the novel even better. There are a number of interesting ideas and themes to explore, and Takami has skimped on few if any of them. The book is lengthy but fascinating and absorbing.

Almost 1984 meets Lord of the Flies, the gore in Battle Royale can sometimes be a little much. The description of someone's eyes being literally gouged out is particularly horrendous. The writing is occasionally stilted, which, in fairness, could be attributed to translation issues.

Still, none of the flaws detract from the book as a whole. A great novel, deserving of its fame.

In Which We Discuss Things in Welsh

Dw i wedi dechrau dysgu Cymraeg yn Hydref. Dw i ddim yn iawn dda. Ond, brofais yn darllen E-Ffrindiau. Mae'n Lois Arnold gan, ac yn ysgrifenedig mewn Cymraeg. Mae'n cynllunio ar gyfer dechreuwyr.

Yr oeddwn yn synnu i ddarganfod y gallwn i ddarllen. Mae'n ysgrifenedig yn e-bostiau rhwng dau dysgwyr Cymraeg. Mae Ceri yn byw yn Ne Cymru Newydd, a mae Sara yn byw yn Ne Cymru. pob un e-bost yn cynnwys adran geirfa, am eiriau yn y darllenydd mae'n bosibl na fydd yn gyfarwydd ag ef. Mae'n ddefnyddiol.

Dw i'n mynd i aros yma, oherwydd nid oes gennyf yr eirfa i barhau.

In Which We Discuss the Return of Sexism

So, my reservation came in quicker than expected. It seems that the library did go ahead and buy a new copy.

Walter brings up some very interesting points in the book. The first half, on which this post will focus, brought up quite a lot of thoughts, for me. It focuses on the hyper-sexual culture prevalent today, and how this is evidenced through the media and our environments. The second half, which I'm currently only halfway through, focuses on the difference between male and female brains - or rather, the lack thereof. Walter brings up many overlooked studies which contradict the odd anomalies which do show a difference between male and female brains, and which have been lauded by the media.

I should probably make clear at this point that most of this post is based on ideas sparked off from Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism, and does not necessarily represent Walter's views. Rather, it represents mine. It's also going to be very rambly and not very clearly expressed, because I'm rather tired, and have only a vague idea of what I want to say. Onwards!

One thing that Walter discusses is the new fashion for unemotional sexual experiences, which is celebrated as freedom. Sex is celebrated as purely physical enjoyment, as showcased by Sex and the City, and BBC3's new take-off of it, Stanley Park. Walter feels that this has lead many young girls to separate sex and love, and to give up on the idea of finding one partner to spend their lives with.

Just to be clear, I'm not of the opinion that everyone should pair off. Some people are perfectly happy being alone, or in polyamorous relationships, or something else that I can't think of since it's midnight. But, another thing that Walter brings up is that we can't seem to let people make vastly different choices. That is, when young marriage was the norm, those who chose to remain unmarried were ridiculed. Now that a variety of sexual experiences is the norm, those who differ, for instance, by choosing abstinence, are also ridiculed. Real choice would mean the freedom to save yourself until marriage, or to have many sexual experiences, or to choose something in the middle, without being judged for it.

Walter also discussed pornography, and the effect that the internet has had. Internet pornography is far more prevalent than any other kind, and has meant that far more people are exposed to far more images. Walter discusses the effect this has had on modern sexuality, with many people focusing on how sex looks, rather than how it feels, or how kinky it is, especially with such programs as Sex and the City discussing it in such detail, and treating a huge variety of experiences as the norm.

This reminded me a lot of my first ex.

We were both virgins when we met. Part of the reason I had sex with him in the first place was because, it seemed to me that, it would be normal to have a lot of sex when I was older. So, with my high sex drive, I used that idea as justification. That is, one day it would be normal, so why not start now?

He was absolutely awful in bed, but he was convinced that he wasn't. He had eight inches, and could hold back for hours, both of which convinced him that he was god's gift to women. It was the worst sex I've ever had, and I put up with it for a year and a half because I didn't know any better.

He'd gotten his ideas about sexuality from pornography. Pornography which taught him that his size was only to be desired and enjoyed. That hard, rough sex was enjoyable. That bitch was an appropriate epithet. That hours of hard pounding was what made good sex (it isn't, if you're wondering). He also saw oral sex as being a matter of dominance, and refused to perform it as it was "beneath [his] dignity".

We finally broke up after two events. Firstly, I got my first vibrator, and realised what I'd been missing. Secondly, I was pestering him for sex (I've always had a high sex-drive, and since I wasn't getting anything out of it, I became incredibly frustrated) and he said, with a sigh, "all right, you can suck me off if you really want to". He didn't seem to see a problem with that, at all.

He's not the only person I've known with those ideas of sexuality, stolen from pornography, and unrelated to real women. A few weeks ago, a few teenagers decided to hit on me at work. They promised me that they could go for hours, and asked if I'd ever 'gone black'. I wondered why they thought that good sex lasted for several hours (sometimes it can, of course, but more often than not, that becomes very painful).

A coworker, on hearing about my new relationship, also asked if I'd ever 'gone black'. I told him that I had, that it was painful, and that it was not an experience I cared to repeat. More seriously, I told him that it had hurt.

He replied "but that's good!"

It's interesting, this idea of male dominance that that people are getting from pornography, along with the idea of black male dominance/bruality.  That was also a theme in American pornography in the last century, the corruption of white by black, according to this essay by Lisa Sigel. There's a curious and disturbing link to violence, and the idea that women enjoy this, that it's all about stamina and timing.

My new relationship, as mentioned above, comes with fantastic sex. Not because it involves a huge variety of positions. Not because it lasts for hours (I lose track of how long it lasts). Because it's obvious how attractive he finds me, and how I find him. That's not because either of us look like porn stars or models - we're both human. And that's part of what makes it good, too. Because we're human, and we like each other, and we're attracted to each other, and we understand each other, and we share a great deal of the same kinks. Because we care about each other, and because we're interested in one another, as people.  Because, in short, there's affection, and desire, and affinity, and fun.  Because it feels good, not because it would necessarily look good to anyone watching.

Great sex for a camera isn't the same as great sex in your relationship. That's the point I wanted to make.

On a similar note, Walter commented that emotionless sex was something that had become more prevalent in our society, to the point where some young women were rejecting romance and relationships in favour of the next warm body, under the idea that this is normal, this is freedom, this is what they should be doing.

Walter also focused on the rising trend of women who work in the sex industry, as lapdancers, or prostitutes, or glamour models. This is normally celebrated as free choice. However, women who choose not to partake in the hyper-sexual culture, who choose to do other things than go out drinking, or who dress more sedately, are often mocked. I've been told that, as a 21-year-old, I "should" be out drinking every Saturday night. I've been told that "everyone does it" regarding one-night stands. When dressed in a t-shirt and jeans, I've been asked, scornfully, "are you a boy?". Choice also refers to the ability not to partake, without being mocked or derided. It's about being able to deviate from the norm. Simply changing the norm (from a woman's body being the property of her husband to being the property of everyone else) isn't an improvement.

Female politicians, too, are judged more on their looks than their male counterparts. It's become normal for comedians or other media-producers to discuss their sexual desirability, rather than their politics. Women are, in many ways, judged solely on their looks, and deviations from the norm are punished, by men and women alike.

There are little girls who aim to be glamour models, or WAGs - that is, their ambition in life is to be someone's Wife or Girlfriend.  Haven't we moved on from that?

Another issue I wanted to cover, which I think I touched upon earlier, was the way in which sex work is becoming normalised and glamourised.  Yes, I am in favour of women having the choice to do what they want with their bodies.  I am in favour of the aid that legislation would theoretically bring to many women.  But, while we're on the issue of choice...

Well, every choice is a cost/benefit analysis.  In this hyper-sexual culture, it's perceived as more normal to work in the sex industry, or to dress or behave provocatively, so that all goes on the benefit side.  The downsides are the possibility of rape - even books which focus on the positives, such as Miss S's Confessions of a Working Girl, include the lady in question being raped - of violence, and the fact that you are selling your body.  Previously, although perhaps less so today, there is the fact that the lady in question has less chance of finding a future partner.  There is the fact that they are selling their body.

I think the point I'm going for is that, when things like this are normalised and glamourised, can girls really make an informed decision?  When it is insisted that finding this okay is normal, that it's fun, that it's what lots of women do happily, it can be very hard to go against the grain.  Walter commented on the fact that, in these books, Confessions of a Working Girl and the infamous Belle du Jour's The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl, there's an underlying thread of unhappiness, of women fooling themselves.  Other books, like Call Me Elizabeth, which is presented as less happy in the first place, also includes the theme of rape and violence against female sex workers.

Women who work in lap-dancing clubs, too, are pressured to go further than they want to.  If one girl in a club does, the others are also pressured to do so - because otherwise, they're going home with nothing.  Lapdancers aren't paid a flat wage - they pay to rent the stage, and keep whatever they make in tips and dances.  Sometimes, this is a negative figure.

Incidentally, there's a fascinating blog on LJ, written by a lady who works as an exotic dancer.  She finds the experience very positive, and has the support of her bosses and coworkers in following the rules. 

More later maybe, I'm tired and forget where I was going.  I think I covered most of it.

In Which We Discuss June 2010

A record of the books I've read this month;

Number	Name	Author	Dewey	ISBN	Date Began	Date Finished
1	Death: The Time of Your Life	Neil Gaiman	---	---	1/6/2010	1/6/2010
2	Teen Movies: American Youth On Screen	Timothy Shary	---	---	1/6/2010	19/7/2010
3	Bedlam's Bard	Mercedes Lackey and Ellen Guon	---	---	Back in February	7/6/2010
4	Make Money, Be Happy	Carmel McConnell	332.024	---	8/6/2010	12/6/2010
5	Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway	Susan Jeffers	Prescription 24 (I have no idea what that means, but that's what it says).	978-0-09-190707-5	12/6/2010	16/6/2010
6	Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism	Natasha Walters	305.42	978-1-84408-484-5	16/6/2010	20/6/2010
7	E-Ffrindiau	Lois Arnold	---	978-1-84851-105-7	19/6/2010	---
8	The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray	Chris Wooding	WOO, teenage	0-439-99452-7	20/6/2010	23/6/2010
9	The Noughtie Girl's Guide to Feminism	Ellie Levenson	305.42	978-85168-683-4	21/6/2010	24/5/2010
10	The Myth of the Money Tree	Collette Dowling	332.02401	0-00-638821-3	24/6/2010	4/7/2010
11	Snow	Orhan Pamuk	---	0-571-21831-8	24/6/2010	17/9/2010
12	The Collector	John Fowles	---	0-224-01705-5	25/6/2010	19/7/2010
13	The Book Lovers' Appreciation Society	Various	---	978-1-4091-1737-7	29/6/2010	9/7/2010

I'm going to split this into monthly posts, and then put it all together next year.

This month, I thought of including the Dewey number and ISBN.  The Dewey number's in case I fancy reading something on the topic in future.  The ISBN is just me being anal.

In Which We Discuss Telling Liddy

Anne Fine's novels are usually aimed towards children or young adults (you know, what we used to call teenagers). Telling Liddy is one of her few books aimed at adults.

Published in 1998, Telling Liddy was dramatised on Radio 4, and this post is going to contain spoilers for it.

I said, SPOILERS.

Got it? Right. I'm going to start with a reiteration of the plot, since you need to know quite a bit of it in order to understand where I'm coming from. It's even better if you've read it before.

Telling Liddy focuses on four sisters, the Palmer sisters. Heather, an Ice Queen who works in finance, Bridie, a social worker, Stella, a housewife, and the titular Liddy, the youngest.

The sisters are close, much closer than most families. Every weekend is taken up with something or other. The narrative mostly focuses on Bridie, whose husband Dennis is often feeling neglected. Her two sons, Toby and Lance, are scarcely mentioned throughout the first half of the book - it's all about the Palmer sisters.

Stella is the one most often left out of the group. Although she's invited to everything, the others don't tend to "just drop by", with Stella. For years, she was the unnoticed one, the one who never really did anything special. Then she came into her own and bloomed as a housewife.

Heather is the one who really doesn't care. She attends just as many events as the other sisters, but seems to keep herself emotionally distant. All her relationships are with married men, another symptom of her refusal to get close to anyone.

Finally, we get to the youngest, Liddy. Flighty and spoilt, her home is in as constant a change as her mind. She buys furniture on credit, tiring of it before it's paid off and having Heather bail her out. She's just so sweet and charming that nobody minds.

Liddy has two children, Daisy and Edward, from her first marriage. No one's entirely sure of what happened there - Liddy's husband simply left one day. Still, the entire clan rallied around her, and Liddy has a new relationship now - with George.

The story opens when Stella tells Bridie something she's heard about George. Something rather unpleasant, involving a a trial for child molestation. The charge was decided to be "non-proven", but Bridie still feels that Liddy ought to be told, despite Stella's attempt to swear her to secrecy. She's rather dismayed to find out that Stella's known for over three months at that point. She's even more disappointed in her sisters when she realises that Heather has known for almost as long.

Caving to her sisters' desire not to rock the boat, Bridie decides to take Daisy and Edward out, separately, and exercise her social workerly skills on them. Satisfied that they are not being molested, she agrees not to tell Liddy - unless she and George decide to get married.

Liddy and George announce their engagement a few months later, and Bridie reminds her sisters of their deal. She and Heather make the call from Heather's office, feeling that anything else would be too big of a deal.

Liddy decides that her sisters must be lying and that Bridie must be to blame, despite her not having said anything on the call. Bridie grows ever more frustrated with her sister's refusal to even attempt to be fair - especially when she finds out that Stella is Liddy's new best friend. And that Heather has managed to dodge the blame as well.

Furious and frustrated, Bridie eventually calms down enough to make another decision. If her sisters don't stand up for her by the wedding, and if Liddy doesn't being talking to her again, she'll never talk to any of them again.

Bridie's puzzled over their reactions, though. She can understand Liddy being self-centred and spoilt enough to blame her, but not why Heather and Stella would go along.

Finally, with a little help from her coworkers, Bridie figures it out. Liddy - and the rest of her sisters - believe that she already owes Liddy something. Since Liddy, after all, stayed silent after the affair with Dennis which broke up her first marriage.

Upon learning of that, Bridie is almost surprised that she manages to forgive her sister and her husband. She's been a social worker for several years, after all, so she quite understands how hard it must have been for Liddy and Dennis to stay silent and not break up her marriage as well as Liddy's.

This realisation leads Bridie to a much more relaxed, and calm, conclusion. Namely, that her sisters are bitches. Especially when she realises that Stella made the whole thing up.

On the same trip in which she discovers Stella's little exercise in creative writing, Bridie also finds out George's real secret - his previous marriage and his daughter by another woman. She's even able to find the perfect wedding gift for her new brother-in-law - a picture of his child painted by the next door neighbour.

Stella and Heather are initially confused by Bridie's seeming forgiveness- that is, until they realise what the wedding gift shows - at which point, they begin trying to convince Bridie to tell Liddy, having, apparently, learned nothing.

The story ends with Dennis intending to leave Bridie, because of "what she's become" - conveniently ignoring the fact that it's almost entirely due to what he did that she's no longer a sweet, innocent girl who sees the best in people.

It's hard to know how to categorise this book. I think, in many ways, it reinforces Bridie's initial thoughts on secrecy, that it tears a family apart - proving that she was right all along, even though she didn't know. But, then, she's punished for that. Then there's the fact that cutting herself off from her sisters comes with many benefits for her relationship with her husband and sons, although at least part of that comes from Dennis' relief at being away from Liddy.

In many ways, my sympathies lie entirely with Bridie. Her husband and sisters treat her horribly, and then blame her for her reaction. The only characters who really seem to deserve her are her sons, who, fortunately, she ends up spending a lot more time with. I don't believe that Dennis, for instance, deserves any sympathy whatsoever - pretty much everything that happens to him, he's brought entirely upon himself, without ever accepting any of the blame.

I think what's interesting about the book is that no one's really likeable. Nothing's fair.

I'm going to leave it at that now, since I'm feverish and cranky.

In Which We Discuss May 2010

A record of the books I've read this month;

Number	Name	Author	Date Began	Date Finished
1	How Math Can Save Your Life	James D. Stein	3/5/2010	4/5/2010
2	More Sex is Safer Sex	Steven E. Landsburg	4/5/2010	10/5/2010
3	The Adoption Papers	Jackie Kay	5/5/2010	5/5/2010
4	Tickling the English	Dara O'Briain	8/5/2010	10/5/2010
5	Rich Dad, Poor Dad	Robert T. Kiyosaki	10/5/2010	12/5/2010
6	How to Stop Worrying and Start Living	Dale Carnegie	12/5/2010	July
7	How to Win Friends and Influence People	Dale Carnegie	13/5/2010	July
8	Secrets of the Millionaire Mind	T. Harv Eker	13/5/2010	3/5/2010
9	Confessions of a Working Girl	Miss S	19/5/2010	20/5/2010
10	Telling Liddy	Anne Fine	20/5/2010	21/5/2010
11	The Logic of Life	Tim Harford	21/5/2010	7/6/2010
12	Red As Blood	Tanith Lee	23/5/2010	---
13	Endless Nights	Neil Gaiman	25/5/2010	25/5/2010
14	Legally Blonde	Amanda Brown	31/5/2010	11/6/2010
15	Death: The High Cost of Living	Neil Gaiman	31/5/2010	31/5/2010

I'm going to split this into monthly posts, and then put it all together next year.

In Which We Discuss Midnight and My Sister Jodie

I read My Sister Jodie a few weeks ago, and I just finished reading Midnight now. This post will contain spoilers for both.

I said, here be spoilers.

No one here who doesn't want to be? Good.

My Sister Jodie tells the tale of two sisters, Pearl (the younger) and Jodie. While Pearl is the traditional tiny, frail, protagonist, Jodie is terrifyingly dark. Although Pearl worships her, she is frightened of the games Jodie plays and the stories she tells.

Midnight tells the tale of a brother and sister, Violet (the younger) and Will. While Violet is the traditional tiny, frail, protagonist (although, strikingly, with black hair), Will is terrifyingly dark. Although Violet worships him, she is frightened of the games Will plays and the stories he tells.

Jodie's relationship with her parents is fraught. While her mother is fairly meek, old-fashioned, fussy, and willing to go along with what her father says, Jodie's father doesn't understand her at all, and disapproves of her actions. This leads to much tension between them.

Likewise, Will's relationship with his parents is fraught. While his mother is fairly meek, old-fashioned, fussy, and willing to go along with what his father says, Will's father doesn't understand him at all, and disapproves of his actions. This leads to much tension between them.

This is where the plots being to branch off. Shortly before the book began, Will and Violet learned that Will was adopted. The way in which this was discovered is a further source of tension in the family.

In My Sister Jodie, when their parents gain new jobs as the cook and caretaker of a boarding school, Jodie and Pearl are given free places. Although Pearl soon settles in and even makes a new friend - her first, if I recall correctly - Jodie finds it more difficult. She flirts with Pearl's new friend, and makes friends with the headmaster and his wife, but otherwise is alone. Although the small children worship her, her own classmates think she's weird.

In Midnight, a new girl arrives at Violet's school, Jasmine. She and Violet become friends - a first for Violet. Will, on the other hand, is a loner, although he is admired by many of the girls, in his year and below. Will and Jasmine share a mutual attraction, although Violet is oblivious to it.

At the end of My Sister Jodie, Jodie dies. Shortly afterwards, a new sister is born, May.

At the end of Midnight, Violet finds a box in the attic containing photos and other information about baby Will. The original baby Will. After he died (cot death at three months), their parents adopted the second one, the Will that Violet had always known.

This isn't intended as a criticism - I enjoyed both novels. I just thought the similarities were interesting, as were the differences. As I see it, the key differences are when the original brother/sister died - at the beginning, or at the end - and their gender.

I also particularly liked the character of Casper Dream. I got the impression that he thinks very little of himself. With millions of fans, he still holds a place in his heart for his first. He still holds on to old memories. I wonder if his creativity stems from holding onto old pain and reopening old wounds? He doesn't seem to have moved on with his life at all, not in the short parts we see of him. Although, that being said, it is possible that he knows this, and relegates that pain purely to his creative life, leaving the rest of it free and unblemished.