Review: Annie Leibovitz's "WOMEN: New Portraits"

 

Before visiting the exhibition at Wapping Hydraulic Power Station, London, I knew very little about Annie Liebovitz's work. Growing up with a Dad who is passionate about photography, she was a name I heard mentioned every now and then, generally not in the most positive light. But on reading about her new exhibition in the latest issue of Vogue, my Dad and I knew we had to go.

The location of the exhibition is as interesting as Liebovitz's photography. Wapping, a district on the Thames in East London, is drenched in gentrification. Originally docklands, it was destroyed by bombing in the second World War, and wasn't rebuilt until the 1980s. Nowadays, as is too often the case, the average price for a flat or house is £854,507 or £1,333,167 respectively. The atmosphere is pretty stale, quite honestly. The rich history of the area has been pretty much wiped-out, in favour for the culture of 20-something City workers and their Sunday running clubs.

As an exhibition setting, the converted Power Station is frankly, very cool. It is stripped-back, raw, and feels refreshingly honest in comparison to the studio flats that surround it. The exhibition space is in a large central hall, with exposed brick walls, big windows and high ceilings. The display is made up of 3 large screens covering three sides of a square, with the final side being a board of her photos. This board (seen above), in terms of presentation, is disappointing at best. The prints aren't of the best quality, and are just pinned in with drawing pins to the board (you can see the holes made by multiple attempts to align them along the string). The perspex sheet in front of the pictures reflects the light behind the viewer, preventing you from being able to even see the pictures along the top. The large screens, which are a slideshow of all her work, work well on the whole, and allow the viewer to really focus on each photo.

However, none of this detracts from the staggering quality of her work. Her composition and lighting is spot-on every time. She plays about with colour in a way that is always interesting and never becomes too same-y, even after viewing more than fifty of her photos. Each photo is built around the individual subject, subtly reflecting who they are in a very engaging way. Many are shot on location, which allows Leibovitz to communicate the personality of lesser known figures like Tavi Gevinson (below, 2nd) to an audience who may be unfortunately unaware of her championing of the beautiful angst of being a teenager, and refusing to apologize for it or her talent and intelligence. It also allows a more interesting look at figures such as Gloria Steinem (below), presenting her primarily as a writer, rather than her usual portrayal as a great feminist warrior (she is, of course, both).  Her studio work is equally as engaging. Often the perspective reveals much of the studio set-up, creating a somewhat meta layer, but also reminding the audience how much of construct studio portraiture is, drawing our attention back to the subject as a human being, rather than just a superficial object.    

As a feminist, I was totally in awe of how she captures women. No individual is presented the same as another, nobody is overly sexualised, and she limits cliches of femininity, without ever aping men. The uniting attribute of Leibovitz's photography, which isn't obvious at first, is her ability to capture the strength of all her subjects.

 

"Women: New Portraits" runs from January 16th to February 7th 2016, before touring worldwide.

OMG YOU'RE A FEMINIST SO I GUESS THAT MEANS YOU'RE A LESBIAN

Hey Readers!

 I plan to a general life catch-up as my next point, but for the moment I thought I would actually, y'know, write something interesting that relates to that pet belief of mine: feminism.

 There is no need for me to justify my feminism. Firstly, because the likelihood is that you are one too. Secondly, if you're not, then it's your job to explain to me why you think breaking down gender confines and liberating women is a bad thing. I tired of wasting my breath on something that seems so fundamental only to be told that I'm a lesbian.

 Which leads me quite nicely onto what this post is about (it's almost as if I planned it): this thing about feminists being lesbians. Whenever feminists are accused* of being lesbians it is almost said with some desire to offend said feminist; to imply there is something wrong with them. Do I really need to say anything else? Despite most teenagers in my generation (At least at Kent Grammar Schools and teen Feminist bloggers, because quite honestly they're the only teenagers I have regular contact with) supporting the LGBTQ community and being against homophobia, it is still massively acceptable to call a girl a lesbian with it almost being taken as read, that she will be offended. In my opinion, this is a symptom of the prejudices that still exist against homosexual women: they are either the sexual objects of pornography, or fat, angry, ugly dykes**. There is no room for individuality in the perception of lesbians.

 Going back to the issue of female homosexuality in relation to feminism, if we were all lesbians:

SO WHAT?

 Why is there this implication that if all feminists were to be lesbians, it would somehow make our ideas invalid? In no way does the gender of the person that you sleep with affect the quality of the ideas that you have. Simple. All that does if affect the personal relationships you have with another person on a superficial level. One would never get away with saying "Well this idea is mainly held amongst straight people, so it must be the best way to structure a society", so why can the reverse be so acceptable? 

Source

Gwendolen

*I completely get the issues with this word in this context and I would normally avoid using it, because the notion of 'accusation' is so homophobic, however for the purpose of this sentence I'm sticking with it as I feel it serves to emphasize my point fairly well. 

**Basically the point above

An email to Cecily

My slightly edited email to Cecily. NB She is having a Latino National Evening the Sunday that I leave after my visit to her (GAHHHH)

Damn. I do like my Latinos. Gutted to be missing this event.

But at least I get to spend a weekend with my favorite Latino of them all.

And no, I don't mean you.

Eek. I am becoming a fan of short syntaxes standing as isolated paragraphs. I think it's a pretty good representation of how I'm thinking at the moment. I'm so fricking tired. Everybody is; in one music lesson, the teacher said to her class ten minutes in "You can't be bothered to do this lesson, I can't be bothered to teach. Just go and relax. You guys can have a free, and I can have one too". The last two days at school, I have attempted to do work, but always have just seem to find myself sitting on a chair in the common room attempting to sleep. It's like I've been on the verge of tears all week. Not because I'm finding in particularly hard or stressful, but (why can't the English language have a word like 'sondern') rather I'm just so exhausted. Yesterday I felt so down in away I haven't felt before since coming to my new school (but I realised with horror how much I remember feeling it at our old school) and lots of people commented on it. But I bought myself some chocolate buttons and discussed feminism and sex (in an unsexual way) with J-- for half an hour. And then G-- and his girlfriend joined us and discussed how fun sex is. Which was a bit awkward. Because. Well. It's G-- and his girlfriend, and although we are all exposed to their semi dry-humping in the common room everyday, the thought of them actually being naked with their gentiles stuck together is just not that appealing. And going back to the tears thing, there's some other stuff (shitty teenage crushes*) that I've been thinking about too much.

I just want to come to Wales and see you. I am very very very much missing you. R-- I have really been drifting apart lately and so it can sometime feel like my only really good friend at school is F--. Sure, I have loads of friends and people that I get on really well with, and I never technically need to be alone in a free (if I wish it to be so). I guess I just miss having a good few people that I can have a range of conversations with. For each person, I only seem to be able to have one kind of conversation; for some it's deeply intellectual, for others the standard banter. I miss being able to have someone where I can have a whole range of conversations with. I do have that with F--, but as we were both saying, it's nice when you have that history with person, which neither of us (although I at least should) have what with being at new school.

 We've got our exam timetables, and a planner for the rest of the year, which is about the same size of a timetable, that has one decent sized box for everyday between now and the beginning of the summer holidays, and it fits on one size of A4. It's made me realise how close we are to leaving school. I really don't want to. I really love education. And. Oh shit. I don't want to be ready to leave school. I think that's the scariest thought. For my entire life school has been this safety blanket, a place which I know I will enjoy and excel at. But over the next year, school will cease to be the lovely warm duvet just after you have woken up, but rather the duvet you have after you have lain in until after midday, and it's hot, sweaty and uncomfortable. I don't want to experience that.

A hail storm has broken out with the odd bit of thunder and lightening. Talk about over dramatized pathetic fallacy.   

Sorry for the length/angstyness of this email.

I don't know why I apologised because I know it's the type of thing you love.

xxx

*Whose only remedy is Girls' Aloud

Strictly's "Historic" Final

Hey Readers,

 For those who do not leave in the UK or/and are not sixty-five year old ladies at heart you may not have watched the Strictly Come Dancing 2013 Grand Final. Well, if you didn't you certainly missed out on a vital piece of our history.

Let me explain. Here is a picture of the finalists from this year:

Source

Abbey Clancy, Natalie Gumede, Sophie Ellis-Bexter  and Susanna Reid all had the supreme honor of being able to compete in Strictly Come Dancing's first ever all-female final. I mean just wow. The first ever all-female of Strictly Come Dancing that there has ever been in the entirety of human history. I'm just amazed I've been able to live through such a significant event in women's liberation.

I hope you are noting the sarcasm.

Because I would hope you would all agree that the fact this final was all-female is, well, rather meaningless. As a feminist, I'm all for women being more prominent in our every day lives. However hearing Tess Daily squeal with delight as four women flounce about on stage, hold hands in smiley manner while a roared on to stage to Here Come the Girls, I can't help get a little bit angry.

Celebrating the achievements of a particular gender is only important when they are in a system that is engineered against them. A quick bit of research shows that Strictly Come Dancing is not an example of this system. Every final up until now has been mixed, with the the combinations of MMF and FFM both appearing five times each, and five of the eleven winners have been women. So Strictly isn't exactly a system engineered against women. What it is, is an example of is probability. In fact of all the years this one was most likely to be an all female final as their were more female celebrities than male ones.

So, no Susanna Reid. This is not a "historic" final, as you called it. The gender ratio in this final is nothing to get excited about. However it could have been a note-worthy final if gender did not come into it at all. If we could value the quality of the final based on the ability of the competitors* and not their chromosomes (as it has been in the past) then maybe this all-female final would have been something to get excited about in terms of the feminist movement.

While I was considering this, a question popped into my head: What would they be saying if this was an all-male final? I posed this question to my Dad and he was of the opinion the BBC wouldn't have been made such a big song and dance about it for fear of coming across as sexist. Oh the irony. That, or they would have been exactly the same, and used it as a chance to break out the male stereotypes instead of the female stereotypes.

Before I finish, I would like to say that I am not a feminist being picky and not being happy with anything and seeing sexism everywhere. I'm a feminist who is tired of gender still being such a thing because it only drives sexism further (that is a post for the future I'm sure). Especially when gender has nothing to do with it, as with Strictly. Where gender does matter, on the other hand, is in politics, or in pay gap or in any other way where men or women are systemically discriminated against. But not in Strictly Come Dancing**. 

Gwendolen

*On this note, Susanna and Sophie should not have been in the final. It should have been Ashley and Richard.

**The overall representation of gender on another hand is something that might be worth blogging about, however I'm simply talking in terms of gender ratios.

International Feminism

Hey Readers!

 I was spending this morning having a browse on the Der Spiegel when I came across this article about the feminist group Femen.

 I like hearing about feminist movements in other countries, I find it both oddly comforting and upsetting.

 I just find it annoying that feminism is having to go to such extremes (and as the article points out, extremes that are being ignored) in order to basically say that sexism is wrong. Pretty much every other progressive movement that promotes equality in the 21st century gets good press and support. But feminism doesn't. It just goes to show that feminism is still definitely relevant and is still a cause worth fighting for.

Gwendolen

I think I should be Education Secretary.

Hey Readers!

 As you may have been aware from my last post, or if you live in England and have any exposure to the news/facebook, you will know that on Thursday many teenagers got there GCSE results. I'm pretty happy with mine.

Stereotypical happy, smiling, pretty blonde girl receiving results. [source]

 But of course, the Government isn't happy. Which isn't surprising considering that the GCSE curriculum is often mind-numbingly dull and patronising, filled with exam technique and little room for learning really great and interesting things for the sake of learning. It really is time for a re-think in regards to what we're learning. But hold up – this is the Government. They don't care that school is a place for learning and exploring knowledge, they're obviously exam factories where the only mark of how good they are is the number of A*s  achieved, and if this number isn't at some target imposed by people who left school long, long ago and don't what it's like to be a teenager in the 21st Century, then clearly something is very wrong. Naturally, the only way to deal with this catastrophe is a continual fiddling with exam system and grade boundaries.

 I'm not saying that grades aren't important – they definitely are. But how much does that A* I achieved in Drama really tell you? Does it tell you about my passion for the subject? All the hours I put in reading drama books and plays? Does it tell you about how my political beliefs and understanding of world was slightly altered? At the end of the day, does it even tell you if act or do lighting? The majority of the population will have no idea about what is involved in doing GCSE drama and so realistically an A* will mean nothing, other than that I reasonably good at the subject; a subject which most people don't take seriously, nor understand the sheer amount of hardwork and commitment involved.

 Contrastingly, my "useful" A* in ICT will tell them almost nothing about what I actually know about computers. Does that A* say that I can write a line of code, or design a half decent looking page on a website, or do an IF statement in excel? I would love it if I could. Instead that A* means that I am fully qualified in taking screenshots. I can honestly hardly remember anything I learned, meaning that I realistically I am no better a candidate than somebody without GCSE IT in applying for a job. And what if I could remember something? How about I put it like this: if science is supposed to inspire us to become astrophysicists or chemical engineers, then the ICT course is clearly designed for us to spend our lives in an office doing admin.

 I'll admit that in the sciences we do usually learn useful things. However when you look closer and compare to other subjects you begin to realise that there is a political agenda at play. We have to learn almost continuously about the environment. I understand and completely agree that the environment is one of the most important issues we face as a species, but by the time we have had it shoved down our throats in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geography, Languages and even Religious Studies (all of which are compulsory or highly popular subjects), it just becomes boring, and my mind switches off the moment it is mentioned. We're just going to loose interest. It will loose it's power to shock. And while I sit there writing about how a Muslim would feel about recycling, I look towards our politicians and see very little action being taken. It's time we stop learning the theory, and start implementing it.

  When students are still leaving school without achieving "5 A*-Cs including Maths and English" it is clear that the priority should not be on how hard it is to gain certain grades, but creating a curriculum that is more engaging than mobile phones or bunking off school. One which can engage teenagers no matter what their background is. One that can challenge and stretch every pupil, top and bottom. One which is worth more than an A*.

Gwendolen

On the stagnant nature of modern art

Hey Readers!

 All has been quiet on the Gwendolen blogging front... And for that I apologise, just a rather entertaining music festival got in the way.. Sorry bout dat.

 ANYHOO, I was planning to do a response to a statistic that I read in the paper in relation to plain cigarette packaging, but then I thought Meh, that's a bit depressing; why not do something on art instead? Conveniently, my family and I (minus my brother, he was taking his first driving lesson and surprisingly no deaths have been caused) went off the to Jerwood Gallery in Hastings. 

Botticelli: beautiful but standard

 As one should always do on entering a gallery, we headed straight to the restaurant and had a rather enjoyable lunch (I had roasted Mediterranean vegetables and humus), and we began to discuss the role of the Tate, as it is now one of the biggest art 'brands' in England. I personally have very few problems with having a 'brand' of art galleries, as surely giving more people access to art is a good thing? Of course this only works if people want to go to and actually see the art, but when they turn up they may only see one type of art if it is only being provided by the Tate. And, most likely, this will be conceptual modern art.

 Lack of variety immediately strikes as a bad thing, yes? But when you think back at all the
celebrated eras of art, such as the Renaissance, there doesn't appear to be much variety either (although time does act as a filter); it's just a continuous supply of beautifully realistic paintings of religion, mythology and the rich people who actually commissioned the art. So maybe it is just natural that there isn't that much range within art.

 But why do we seem to have such a stagnant state of affairs in art? You just have to take a day trip to Florence (because we can all do that) to see the continuing popularity of this form of art, and equally just going to Tate Modern shows that modern art is equally appreciated. So surely it's not just giving the mob what they want?

Mission Drift: just part of the varied and accessible puzzle of modern theatre

 When compared to drama, the story seems quite the opposite. Considering the range of forms that drama can take – theatre, film, television and now even video games – it should come as no surprise Eastenders, Travelling Light, The Birds, Singin' In The Rain, Glee, The Princess and The Warrior, Mission Drift, Harry Potter, Downtown Abby, Saw and so so so many more; all of which are
that we can have
different. It doesn't take an insider to see and understand the range of drama that we continue to have.
 

Bog standard modern art

 The key difference, however, between drama and fine art: money. I'm no expert, but I would be very surprised to find out that fine art makes anywhere near as much money as drama. So how can an artist make money? Large interest and collectable status. How does the artist gain these? How does the artist gain these? Usually controversy. How does the artist do something controversal? 'Push the boundries'. We now have the problem that every artist has decided to push the boundaries in the same direction, resulting in this stagnant art. Maybe it's time the artists stop pushing boundaries, and wander back in the original world of beauty.

Gwendolen

Look at the baby!

Hey Readers!

 As I'm sure anyone in the Commonwealth is aware of, Kate Middleton has had her baby! And do you know what, I am happy and I am celebrating on the inside (I have no real facilities in my house). GASP! A feminist could be happy about a royal birth?

 I know that the feminist community is going to explode with "It's just a baby, blah blah, thousands of
others will be born today" (some of the first posts I saw when I woke up this morning) as well as a load of people in the UK will. But I would just like the chance to say that I feel this baby should be celebrated, not despite feminism, but because of it.

 The only time I ever here about fetus/baby/pregnancy related news is in regards to either abortion, premature births or single parents. Which, let face it, aren't the happiest of things. But for once we are celebrating a healthy baby, born to two loving parents with a supportive family. That is one of the most natural yet precious and underrated things that can happen. As a feminist I feel this is what we should be aiming for every child to have (although one loving parent is often as good as two), and this serves as a reminder as to why access to abortion is so important.

This is going to be one attractive King

 Also, the gender: can people please shut up about the gender. The whole point about the legislation that meant an older sister would not be overtaken by a younger brother in the race to the throne is that the gender no longer matters. BAM! Isn't that what we kind of believe of as feminists? So for feminists disappointed that the baby isn't a girl, just remember that this is the first prince who will become King because he is a royal, not because Prince William so kindly donated a Y carrying sperm when he and Kate cuddled in a special way one evening, which is just as good as a girl not becoming Queen because of her XX. Wanting a girl so that we can have a Queen is equally as bad as wanting boy to become King, in my opinion.


Thirdly, there is no escaping that this child will become a cultural icon. He will grow up to become our King and in doing so a symbol of our culture and heritage. However he will not grow up to be our ruler and ever have any real power; that will be left for our elected politicians. And honestly, who prefers David Cameron to the Queen?

Gwendolen

P.S. Congrats to everyone who had a child yesterday as well, I hope you enjoy your royal care package!

It's 00:13 and I can't get to sleep

Hey Readers!

 I think the title essentially says it all.

 It's ridiculously hot for England in July and my room has become a sauna. Therefore I'm stuck with my eyes wide open and the inability to get to sleep.

 But it may not just be the heat. It probably has something to do with the fact my friendships are kind of stressing me out at the moment. I was going to write a blog post on this earlier, but I couldn't get the wording right, so I wrote it on My Non-Awkward Adolescence instead.

 For those who haven't read that post (shame on you) I talked about how my adolescence hasn't exactly been what it is made out be, and I also talked about how it has become built around friendships. My friendships are super important to me, as these are a group of people that just get me, and that I am able to just be a teenager around - or at least, my version of being a teenager. But lately they have been a number of issues rising to the surface or just bubbling away underneath that have just made everything a bit... Crap.

 I know that the likelihood is (and no matter how much I wish it wasn't) in a weeks time, the dynamics of friendships would have changed a lot. I really hate that. It's not that I'm scared of change, I just liked how they were before. When I forgot that people weren't 100% honest with how they feel. When I forgot that people weren't always 100% honest in any case. When I forgot that people can be two-faced.

Ok, maybe two-faced is a little extreme, because I think within our group people have always been completely honest, but just maybe not to the right people.

In fact the reason I think I don't like it is because I'm not the type of person to be involved in the drama. Sometimes it feels* as if everybody has something special going on with them. That you're either ill (mentally/physically), or there's a family breakdown or some other crap is going on in your life that makes you feel just a little bit special. I've never really had that. And as wrong as it sounds, I've kind of wanted it. I've wanted to be the one that people are interested in. Or the one that people roll their eyes at when I do an improvisation that turns into a suicide story because of course I would do something on suicide. Or the one that has counseling every Thursday, and sometimes I want this especially because sometimes I just want to be able to talk to someone. But no. I'm pretty 2D. I maybe have one thing (which I have only ever told one person about) but it's such a non-thing I'm like 2.1D

 Maybe the reason that I'm stressed is because I want to be the girl that everyone is stressed at. Because when I'm 74 I don't want to look back at my youth and think "Oh yes, I was a lovely straight forward girl, with her one non-thing" I want to think how interesting I was because I had something wrong with me, because the true horror of being a teenager in the 21st Century is that depression makes you an interesting person and nothing can appear truly wrong with you unless you self-harm.

 Well my midnight incoherent ramblings have been brought to a rather depressing end.  

Gwendolen

*I stress that it feels, not that it is

P.S. Now it is 10:59 and I can think a bit more coherently. Yes, it did get a bit over-dramatic at the end, and what I really meant to say was that so many things have become romanticised that really shouldn't be, and that people going through them wouldn't wish it on anyone. However I have a very normal life and to me there does appear to be something special and interesting about and no matter how wrong I know it is, I kind of want it.

I should probably stop watching these videos

-->

Source

Hi Readers!

 Currently I am preparing for what will probably be my two hardest GCSEs (Maths and History) and the two exams I really want/need an A* in, and therefore I won't have too much time post. So instead I'm posting a per-prepared blog written when 'Their Harangues & Their Fancies' was still an embryo of an idea.

I’m an atheist*. And yes- I do have my issues with religion; namely, their approach towards those who don’t believe what they believe. So, it maybe wasn’t the best idea to start watching videos on YouTube of religious believers addressing atheists- like this one.

 Before I start, the reason I got onto these videos was just a tad hypocritical of me. I was actually watching some clips of a comic at the Global Atheist Convention in Australia last year, whose set was compromised of a lot material that slated religion. Although I accept that to an extent, it does show a pretty disrespectful view towards religious believers I would like to point something out: he was talking to a room of atheists. He wasn’t trying to change their views. He wasn’t insulting the people his view was aimed at. Plus he did it in a way that is sure to win points with me (no matter what your arguing- pretty much)- he did it in a positive way. As in, he celebrated his atheist beliefs instead of just saying what bad people Christians, Muslims, Scientologists etc are.

 Then, for some stupid reason, I thought it would be a great idea to watch some clips of religious people of a multitude of faiths addressing atheists. And, let’s just say, I got quite angry, and for one main reason: if you’re going to have a debate, do your flipping research first. One question that came up time after time after time was “If God doesn’t exist, what was there before the Big Bang?”. This simple question can supposedly disprove Atheism. It can disprove my own personal belief that there is no God or supreme being.  Let me just focus in on those last two words: Big Bang. Oh yes, the good old Big Bang Theory- er, what? What’s that little word at the end there? Theory? Oh what… something that hasn’t yet been proved and is near impossible to prove but for the moment it’s the best idea we have? The Big Bang theory is only a suggestion, based on the evidence. And it’s a theory that is constantly changing and I think I’m right in saying that many more scientists are moving towards the ‘Big Crunch’.

 However the real answer is that honestly, I don’t know. I never will. Because of physics, the very laws that govern the Universe. We can’t physically ‘see’ before the Universe, we can only speculate.

 But do you know what? WHO CARES? I believe what I believe. I don’t expect anyone to read this blog written by a teenager with only basic knowledge and suddenly decide to leave the faith they have held all their lives. I have atheist view because I feel it just makes sense for me. Out of everything I have seen deciding not to believe in a God just works with me, but if something happens and I can’t not believe in God then I will.  I am able to evolve my beliefs, and to respond to everything I learn in order to have a more informed view of the world.

 And this is my major gripe with religion: they can’t be wrong. Science is all about disproving each other, it’s a rather competitive and nasty world actually. But religion is set in stone. Which is why it’s so awkward to try and modernise it, because frankly it’s not. So don’t try and tell me that an idea that is only slightly related to what I believe is wrong, please make sure you have done your research. Because quite frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Gwendolen

*If you want to make any assumptions on what it means to be an Atheist, essentially it means 'lack of belief in God'. It's nothing more than that, and atheists can believe whatever the hell they want about anything else, but they just won't believe in God. That's the definition I like to use.

Book Review: ‘The Fault In Our Stars’ by John Green

'The Fault In Our Stars' by John Green- original image here (if you want to read the book, the author and vlogger, John Green, has done a reading that features on this page)

 A couple of evenings ago I finished Jane Eyre, and before continuing where I left off with Stringer's 'The Origin of Our Species' and going onto a book about an Ancient Greek war as prep for next year (and fun), I decided it was probably time that I read a 'light' read; by which I mean the books any sixteen year old girl probably should be reading. Therefore yesterday evening,  I asked my Mum if I could look through her bookshelves, when she suggested I read 'The Fault In Our Stars', a Book Club book from a few months ago. Part of me was like 'Awww... Come on girl.... It's a book about cancer... Find something less cliche' and the other part was like 'Girl, it be very late, none of the books you chose are going to be life changing, just go with it'- and so I did.

 You may have realised that I had a little bit of bias reading this book. For one thing, I find the whole 'teenager with cancer, fighting her disease, finds more to life than she thought, blah blah blah' over done and boring. I kind of just want to yell at all the authors that by churning out this cliche, they are suggesting that life is better with cancer, in which case I might just go a give my money to a different charity, which is both good and bad at the same time. On top of this, I had just spent my evening reading a brilliant article in Vogue, 'Single Minded' by Hadley Freeman, in which she discusses life as a thiry-something single woman, and how there is this expectation that she must have a boyfriend and how she is apparently not worth anything without one. Within the article she discusses how many books with a female protagonist are mainly about 'getting the guy' and that they are almost entirely relationship drive. At the time I just nodded, but didn't really take in the full scale of her truthfulness until I looked on my fairly comprehensive-book-shelf-for-a-teenage-girl and realised that I don't have any books (including classics and other intelligent books) that have a female protagonist and aren't relationship driven. So when I opened 'The Fault In Our Stars' I was actively looking out for cliches and relationship driven story lines, and at the same time desperately hoping they weren't there.

 Now you have a fairly comprehensive back story to my reading of this book I can actually get on and review it. Essentially, as I may have already suggested, 'The Faults In Our Stars' is about a girl suffering from cancer. Her cancer is terminal and unlike the readers, the last thing she could possibly expect to do is fall in love and actually enjoy her life. Spoiler alert: she does. Quiet honestly, that is the story summed up rather well. Like most books about teenagers with terminal diseases.

 Hold up- there was something different about this one... It was intelligent? The relationship was mutually independent? She had a pretty normal relationship with her parents (honestly- if teenage books reflected our lives accurately, you would think it was some great human feat to not argue with your parents every other chapter)? The twist in the plot was actually unexpected? This is a very well written book. Which is no surprise considering the awards Green has won and his rather good YouTube Channel that my brother introduced me to. It was also a quick read- 312 pages in less than 24 hours baby!

 But yeah... It was entirely relationship driven. Essentially if she hadn't met this guy, then she wouldn't have been able to experience all of this great stuff and y'know enjoy life, because everyone knows no girl can smile until some hot guys wanders into life. Even when ACTUAL SPOILER SO I WILL JUST DO SOME DOTS AND SAY IT IN MY HEAD .......................... she still defines herself by him and he is needed to give her worth.

 Ok- maybe I'm being a bit mean here, and if I was studying this book for my English GCSE, then I guess I would say Augustus (the love interest) is tool to represent how Maslow's hierarchy of needs (pictured below) is essentially wrong:  despite not really having much of the second layer, she achieves everything else (via a guy. Seriously- explore the whole concept of 'best friends'. They can be pretty fun to). Suggesting that at the end day our relationships really are what keeps us going. Dang my low level analysis has just brought me back full circle.

 To conclude, if you want a good read on a lazy summer afternoon, then I would recommend 'The Fault In Our Stars'- it is intelligent, deep and funny. However, I can't enjoy it, because I'm me. And I had just read an article of Vogue that by chance was about women and relationships in literature. And I don't really like books about cancer. So rather annoyingly I'm going to give this book Three Stars. 

Ok. That's harsh. I'll give it Three and Half.

 

Gwendolen

P.S. Something that I did find intriguing is how British all these characters sounded, although Green made it clear they were all American....That did, I admit, add slightly to my enjoyment... Hmmmm.....

Welcome

Welcome Readers! (we're optimistic- it's highly likely that should be in the singular)

Let us introduce ourselves. We are Gwendolyn and Cecily.

If you immediately recognise those names from The Importance of Being Earnest, we already like you, probably (if you don't, shame on you, shame on you). Our names aren't actually those, but we liked them for several reasons that will probably be mentioned in a later post, possibly about how great Oscar Wilde is.

We want to blog pseudonymously because it holds a certain intrigue, and we like intrigue.

We decided on the name "Their Harangues and their Fancies" because you are likely to see harangues, "speeches or pieces of writing characterised by strong feeling or expression; tirades", on this blog as it is a way of us exploring what we think of things and, yes, having an occasional rant (in an amusing or interesting way, of course). "Fancies" as in things that we like. You will see lots of those. Plus who doesn't enjoy a fancy/eloquent/pretentious name?

We really hope you stick around or string along or tattoo our URL to your hand... So hopefully, until next time!

Au revoir,

Cecily and Gwendolyn

PS. Just to show how long we have been planning this, here are some conversations of ours (note the dates):