Rameau's Review Archive: The Corn Maiden and Other Nightmares by Joyce Carol Oates

Rameau's ramblings: This was the first Joyce Carol Oates novel I ever read.

First posted on Goodreads November 6th 2011.

Synopsis:
Marissa is a beautiful, sweet, but slow 11-year-old. Judah, an older girl from the same school, has led Marissa to a secluded basement. Remaining an unaware hostage for days, Marissa grows weak as Judah prepares to sacrifice her to the Indian legend, the Corn Maiden. 
 

The Corn Maiden and Other Nightmares by Joyce Carol Oates


First of all, if you don't like nightmares and don't want to be scared and repulsed by the horrors ordinary people do, don't read this. Since I'm one of the slightly skewed people who enjoy reading about the darker side of the human nature, I actually enjoyed the book and most of the short stories within.

I got lost in the pain and desperation Marissa's mother felt when she found her daughter missing and her world unravelling under the scrutiny of the authorities and the public. I felt the confusion as the innocent teacher agreed to help the police only to find himself in the centre of a witch-hunt. And I even found a sliver of understanding and the pity for the kidnapper.

All this happened within the first short story and more was to come with the others thanks to Oates' writing. She managed to keep me turning the pages even when I was annoyed with her choices both for the characters and the effective writing. Somehow Oates managed to make third limited past tense seem more immediate and gripping than most authors manage with first person present tense.

The Corn Maiden and Other Nightmares is an acquired taste, and since this is my first encounter with Joyce Carol Oates' work, I can only assume the same goes for the rest of her work. It's going to take a while for me to explore this theory further though.

I received an Advanced Readers Copy from the publisher through NetGalley.



View all my reviews

Review: Children of Scarabaeus (Scarabeus #2) by Sara Creasy

Synopsis:
The crib is everywhere . . .

Edie Sha'nim believes she and her bodyguard lover, Finn, could find refuge from the tyranny of the Crib empire by fleeing to the Fringe worlds. But Edie's extraordinary cypherteck ability to manipulate the ecology of evolving planets makes her far too valuable for the empire to lose. Recaptured and forced to cooperate--or else she will watch Finn die--Edie is shocked to discover the Crib's new breed of cypherteck: children. She cannot stand by while the oppressors enslave the innocent, nor can she resist the lure of Scarabaeus, the first world she tried to save, when researchers discover what appears to be an evolving intelligence.

But escape--for Edie, for Finn, and for the exploited young--will require the ultimate sacrifice . . . and a shocking act of rebellion.



This didn’t start how I imagined it would. The confusion could have been avoided had I read the blurb for the second book, but I didn’t and I had a expectations of where Edie and Finn were going. They took a small detour to two different planets instead. Not that this is a bad thing but I had hoped to see more of the Fringe, which we never got to do.

The book starts with Edie and Finn on the run. They need to find the neuroxin, a kind of toxin that keeps Edie alive. After ensuring her continued existence, Edie, Finn, and Cat head towards the Fringe. They’re captured relatively quickly and brought back to Natesa who is still fixated on using Edie to further her own goals. Only she’s not using Edie alone. There are other children, talented like Edie, being manipulated to do their duty to Crib Colonial Unit. There’s politics, there’s human suffering, and there’s foreign intelligence. What more could you ask for?

This isn’t a trilogy, this is a story told in two parts. And just like the Song, the Children of Scarabaeus starts slowly. The first forty and fifty pages weren’t the problem for me, the struggle came later when Creasy decided to deepen the characterisations and relationships. For a while it felt incongruous with the rest of the story as logical as the development was. Instead of talking to each other, both Edie and Finn kept their secrets until it was too late to say anything. But then, luckily, the plot took over and the adventure continued.

Edie returns to Scarabaeus to finish what she started years ago and to save a handful of lives on the side. She and Finn talk, and disagree, but neither is a match for the planet. We get to see another side of Scarabaeus, barren but just as deadly as the megabiosis of the first book was.

In some ways the world building in the Scarabaues books seems superficial, but I love the subtlety of it. It feels like the books only scratched the surface of a bigger world, and not only because we never get to see the Fringe worlds. I want more of everything. More of CCU, Fringe, politics, and war. Sadly, I don’t know if I ever get it.

Review: Dare You To by Katie McGarry

I got the ARC of this novel from the publisher via Netgalley free of charge – thank you very much! Of course that fact didn’t influence my review in any way.

Synopsis:

Beth Risk is…a risky girl. Small wonder – she lives with a mother addicted to drugs who constantly chooses bad guys and never hesitates to bring them home. The acquaintance with Beth means only one thing: shame and troubles. The girl herself seems to follow the steps of her only parent - she has already slept with different guys who dumped her in no time. She drinks  and smokes pot. What’s more, Beth feels responsible for her mom and sometimes intervenes when a particularly nasty boyfriend  hurts her. She seems unaware that it should be completely the other way round – mothers are here to protect their kids. Dysfunctional doesn’t even starts to cover their relationship.

One night Ryan Stone tries to pick Beth up in a Taco Bell joint. It was a dare between him and his buddies – chat that strange chick up, although she has ‘mean’ written all over her face, and make her give you her name and phone number. Ryan loses and he hates losing so he decides to try and try again – especially when Beth moves to his home town and happens to be related to one of local baseball heroes, Scott Risk.

Ryan is a high school baseball star – an excellent player, a boy from a good family every father would like to greet as his daughter’s boyfriend. When he falls for Beth, though, he meets a wall of distrust and worry. Will he be able to overcome it? Will Beth allow him to do so?

What I liked:

I am very happy to inform you that, in my humble opinion the second part was better than Pushing the Limits. Firstly I liked its heroine, Beth, far more than Echo - she was more edgy, more conflicted and dark. Secondly I liked the pacing – especially the fact that the romance between Beth and Ryan developed slowly and we were given the opportunity to know them before they actually hooked up.

I also liked how the feelings between Beth and Ryan influenced their lives – especially Ryan’s family life, not so perfect as it seemed at the very beginning.

What I didn’t like:

Firstly I might repeat my main grievance from the previous book: the chapters narrated by Ryan sometimes read as narrated by a girl. Not by Beth, fortunately, but by a girl nevertheless. They were better than Noah’s chapters from the previous part but still not persuasive enough.

The author kept Beth’s silent admirer and companion, Isaiah, from the first book and created something almost like a love triangle. Keeping him was fine, love triangle – not so much. That ‘almost’ word saved the novel but honestly, how many times a girl must say ‘I love you like a FRIEND’ so the boy gets the message? Especially that from the sneak peek included at the end of the ARC I know Isaiah is going to have a book on his own and he is going to fall in love with a different girl. How it is supposed to work? No idea.

Some fragments of the novel felt a bit overlong – I admit I did skim over such scenes as girls’ bonding and adjusting to new school or arguing with friends over some trust issues or baseball-speak of Ryan.

I mentioned earlier that I liked Beth…yes I did, most of the time. Still there were moments when she felt too clean and almost too innocent for such an experienced character.

Final verdict:

A nice YA romance (sic!) which I requested on a whim and started reading without expecting anything good at all. It proved to be quite decently written, with interesting characterization and characters which made sense. I hope the third part will be even better although I am not a big Isaiah fan.

Review: Nothing Lasts Forever (Die Hard #1) by Roderick Throp

Synopsis:
This bestseller was the basis for the blockbuster film "Die Hard" starring Bruce Willis. 

High atop a Los Angeles skyscraper, an office Christmas party turns into a deadly cage-match between a lone New York City cop and a gang of international terrorists. Every action fan knows it could only be the explosive big-screen blockbuster Die Hard. But before Bruce Willis blew away audiences as unstoppable hero John McClane, author Roderick Thorp knocked out thriller readers with the bestseller that started it all.

A dozen heavily armed terrorists have taken hostages, issued demands, and promised bloodshed all according to plan. But they haven't counted on a death-defying, one-man cavalry with no shoes, no backup, and no intention of going down easily. As hot-headed cops swarm outside, and cold-blooded killers wield machine guns and rocket launchers inside, the stage is set for the ultimate showdown between anti-hero and uber-villains. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good fight to the death. Ho ho ho! 





I grew up watching action films with my Dad just as I grew up reading Harlequin novels with my Mum. Until I got older and broke out of the predetermined genre preferences, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson—before his descend to cray cray—were my childhood. Die Hard is one of those films I knew by heart and that has stood the test of time better than most. So, when I saw that the book that had inspired Die Hard was available on NetGalley I had to jump on it.

Nothing Lasts Forever was first published in 1979. Die Hard came out in 1988. The book focuses on Joseph Leland, a World War II veteran, retired cop, private detective, terrorism expert, and a security consultant, who just gave up flying his own place seven years earlier. Leland is divorced, widowed, and a grandfather of two. He never liked his son-in-law but has patched up his relationship with his daughter after he stopped drinking and is on his way to see her now. John McClane is a youngish married cop from New York on his way to see his estranged wife and two children for the Christmas. And he just happens to be afraid of flying. Both land in L.A., get a limo drive to a high rise and are in the middle of a phonecall when the shooting starts.

As I said, I knew the story going in. There wasn’t a slightest chance that Thorp might surprise me with a plot twist, brutality, or gore. What surprised me was how Thorp filled the pages between the action scenes. Where Bruce Willis fills the solitary scenes with muttering and talking to himself, Leland in the book recounts his personal history. He reminiscences the war as he maps out the empty floors between 32nd and 40th. He laments over his failed marriage, his slightly skewed priorities in life, and friends he’s lost in the war and since the war. And there’s no question of which war he’s talking about. These passages could have easily been mind-numbingly boring but they’re not. They give Leland the room to think and the reader the feeling of time passing. And unlike John McClane, Leland is markedly in pain. He’s weary, tired and struggling each step of the way.

For all the details that the filmmakers changed—characters, relationships, making the company a Japanese conglomerate instead of an American oil company called Klaxxon (I’ll give you a minute to let that sink in)—I was more surprised to see the things that they didn’t change. From bare feet to the safe full of money, from the people thrown out the building to the explosions aside from snapped necks and led poisonings, it’s all there.

This book really is the bare bones of the film.

The film improved on the pacing and mixed some things up, like the bazooka attack happening much earlier in the film than in the book, but it also took a few steps in the wrong direction. Die Hard is a sexist creation and I’m not just talking about the unnecessary scene with a bare-chested woman or the titty pictures plastered on a service tunnel wall. I’m talking about female terrorists. The book has several, the film has none.

The motives and over all causality in the book is much more complex than it is in the film. Aside from the brothers, what motivates the terrorists and Hans Gruber especially is pure greed where as in the book Little Tony the Red has ideological objections to Klaxxon’s dealings in Chile. As the book focuses on Leland alone, it’s natural that the film adds to the character gallery—all additions men—and deepens a characterisation or two, but I would argue that what Al Powell does in the end of the book is far more complicated than any sob story told over the radio could ever be—and possibly worth an essay of its own.

For all their similarities Die Hard and Nothing Lasts Forever are two different creations that work well in their own mediums despite their flaws.


I received a copy of this book from the publisher through NetGalley.

Rameau's Review Archive: Song of Scarabaeus (Scarabaeus #1) by Sara Creasy

Rameau's Ramblings: This was one of our Scoundrel reads for Blodeuedd's blog and thus doesn't only qualify as a second opinion but as a third.

Originally posted on Goodreads on February 14th 2013.

Synopsis:
Trained since childhood in advanced biocyph seed technology by the all-powerful Crib empire, Edie's mission is to terraform alien worlds while her masters bleed the outlawed Fringe populations dry. When renegade mercenaries kidnap Edie, she's not entirely sure it's a bad thing . . . until they leash her to a bodyguard, Finn—a former freedom fighter-turned-slave, beaten down but never broken. If Edie strays from Finn's side, he dies. If she doesn't cooperate, the pirates will kill them both.

But Edie's abilities far surpass anything her enemies imagine. And now, with Finn as her only ally as the merciless Crib closes in, she'll have to prove it or die on the site of her only failure . . . a world called Scarabaeus.

Cover art by Christian McGrath. 


Song of Scarabaeus by Sara Creasy


It’s really difficult for me to improve on what’s been said about this book already. Just go look at Anachronist’s or AH’s reviews and you can consider yourself fully informed.

For me, the difficulties in the beginning of the book weren’t due to the language fitting for science fiction. I could adjust well enough to cyphs, tecks and streams, but I objected to the undefined acronym jargon. Throw BRAT’s and CCU’s at me all you want but tell me what they mean—Biocyph Retroviral Automated Terraformer and Crib Colonial Unit respectively by the way. It’s one of the first Finnish lessons about analytic writing I remember from school: Define your acronyms. I imagine something similar has been taught to native English speakers around the globe.

I appreciate that Creasy was avoiding infodumping by revealing these critical details later within the story. I appreciated the full on immersion to the world-approach but I do think she took it a step too far with the acronyms. For everything else it worked just fine. The fresh angle on familiar scifi concepts such as terraforming and cyborgs as well as the limited third person voice from Edie’s point of view kept the story focused on the events and gave just enough clues about the other characters for me to fill in the rest. Active imagination does have its perks.

Being someone as close to anti-musical as it is possible for a human being to be, I loved Creasy likening coding to composing. Edie talks about making notes and creating harmonies like a true virtuoso would. It was just another aspect of interconnectedness this author utilised.

In her review, Anachronist mentions the episodic nature of the adventure. While I can see why she would, it didn’t bother me at all. It felt like the natural rhythm of someone who needs to rest between periods of extreme activity. She also mentions the romance being practically non-existent and it being a compliment, and I have to agree. What evolves between Edie and Finn feels organic and real, and the obstacles Creasy sets for them towards the end are enough to feed the UST (Unresolved Sexual Tension) hungry readers for a long time.

New Adult, Old Tricks

 (Photo credit: Blue Train Books)

Have you heard about that New Adult category of books, being created practically before our eyes? Other terms for it include: Upper YA, Crossover Fiction, and Mature YA. How did it start and what is it about? 

New-adult Fiction or post-adolescent literature was first proposed by St. Martin's Press in 2009. Allegedly St. Martin’s Press editors wanted to address the coming-of-age that also happens in a young person’s twenties.They wanted to consider stories about young adults who were still finding their way in building a life and figuring out what it exactly means. NA characters are often portrayed experiencing: college, living away from home for the first time, military deployment, apprenticeships, a first steady job, a first serious relationship, etc. Other common themes in NA are identity, sexuality, race, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, bullying, empowerment, familial struggles, loss of innocence, fear of failure, etc. - I suppose that list gets plots of most of the books, if not all of them, covered pretty thoroughly. Here you can find a list of most popular New Adult positions (fromGoodreads) and check just the first page, it is more than enough ;p.

Now you have to admit those topics aren’t exactly new so why publishers think we need a new category of books? That is the question and the answer is as old as the publishing business or perhaps even older – money.

 I still blame in the first place "Twilight", with the horribly skewed version of the alluring nectar of forbidden love it presented. I know, Twilight itself remains  firmly in the YA paranormal romance realm but it was a step toward the NA direction. Stephenie Meyer has achieved a lot, earned a lot and her mind-boggling success undoubtedly inspired other authors and the whole publishing world. For example an author I love to hate, hiding under the pen name of E.L. James, as her "50 Shades of Grey", a cheesy, kinky juggernaut, is so obviously modelled on Twilight. It spawned in turn "50 Shades"-themed bondage classes and single-handedly boosted the book industry (which should be nevertheless thoroughly ashamed of themselves). The book series once dominated the number one, two and three spots on the New York Times Bestseller List (New York Times, shame on you, your bestseller list doesn’t exist in my universe anymore). 50 Shades books are still not NA positions but the success of the series, like that of Twilight, definitely helped to create the NA phenomenon - it showed you can create a certain market niche and then make it brimful of curious readers. And line your pockets nicely in the process. It was too tempting not to try it.

So if you asked me what New Adult books are about I would say: in a nutshell it is about merging the former young adult themes with erotic fiction. In other words the publishers want to lure people who liked novels as children and teenagers, offering them something better-fitted to their more mature tastes. Buying and reading erotica? Some people would still consider it a social taboo. Buying and reading New Adult? Not a problem – it sounds almost posh, almost respectable, with that dashing, naughty flavor some appreciate so much, and it promises content that actually makes sense, a real plot in which those steamy moments are just inserted here and there like raisins in a bun. In fact, after having read some of New Adult positions I must admit I found these books a bit like the old Harlequin romances, just set in modern times, with younger characters, many of whom are in college, coming of age and often exploring their sexuality. Think Smut Fiction with some window dressing so it looks respectable and…kind of new, at least to me (I've never read those pesky Harlequin but I've heard STORIES).

Of course I am sure there will be plenty of fans and several book sellers who might disagree with such an assessment. They claim New Adult covers a wide range of themes and issues, not focusing solely on sex. That’s why some view New Adult fiction as only a category of literature—meaning, it gives readers general content expectations, but it does not dictate strict, genre-based criteria. Typically, a novel is considered NA if it encompasses the transition between adolescence—a life stage often depicted in Young Adult (YA) fiction—and true adulthood. The fact is that it rarely (if at all) avoids the description of sexual encounters so if you ask about the main difference between YA and NA here it is – the later features more hot scenes, often described in great detail and covering the whole gamut of preferences.

Let me also quote here the explanation offered by one of the NA authors, Cora Carmack, why this category/genre should exist at all. Carmack thinks we're only just now hearing the term "New Adult" because:

...the world is a very different place than it was when YA first became an accepted genre. It used to be that many people got jobs straight out of high school, and only some people went on to college. And usually those who did go to college were more financially and emotionally dependent. Now, it has become the norm to go to college, and for young adults to remain in contact or even dependent upon their parents for years after graduating high school. College is the new high school, and as such that "growing up" phase has been stretched to include a few extra awkward years.

Hmm… with all due respect that sounds like waffling to me. Authors have been writing about the transition from childhood to adulthood and those ‘extra awkward years’ like forever. Jane Austen, anybody? Some of her characters, like Anne Elliot from Persuasion, definitely prolonged their ‘forming years’ quite a bit. The Sorrows of Young Werther ? (damn that Goethe, he was good – have you noticed how he sneaked that ‘Young’ into his title?) Girl Interrupted? The Dangerous Liaisons? Maurice? Fanny Hill? Gosh, I can even quote here some stories straight from the Bible and they would most definitely qualify for being New Adult– for example the first part of the life of David who later became one of the most prominent kings of Israel. All of them share one basic feature: they present a newly emancipated person on the cusp of discovering themselves, where they fit into life, what allowances they will make, and how they relate to others. Unrequited love, forbidden love, friendship, committments, leaving your old family behind, real-life challenges - you get everything there as well.

Let's be honest and let me get to my point: those are marketing gurus who really need "New Adult" fiction to be a stand-alone category or genre, not readers. They want the millennials to believe it is a bespoke literature segment created to fit their unique needs. So what the content is hardly new and often presented in a very crude, sometimes even amazingly tacky voice? As long as you believe it is good and you are prepared to pay extra for the ‘novelty’ factor they are going to do cracking business.

Take into account the fact that this new category is intended to be marketed to mostly female readers ages 18 to 30. Quite coincidentally that particular age group is considered to be the most lucrative as it consists (but is not limited to) readers who are already active on the job market at least part-time so have a larger disposable income than, say, your average primary and secondary school student. They have money, they want to have fun and they don’t want to be limited in any way. Ready for harvest.

It reminds me of the term "teenager," which, crazy as it might seem now, didn't even exist until the mid-20th century. Today, teenagers are a consumer group worth about $200 billion. Youth became a sought-after commodity but it didn’t happen overnight, the whole process was rather an evolution than a revolution – it needed some generations to solidify. Today, with the digital publishing and the Internet connecting most of the world, it will be definitely something more dynamic.

Will marketers be able to pull the same trick with kinda-youth? It seems they're certainly going to try – compartmentalizing the market has never been a mistake so far. Before you go to your favourite library and shop for a New Adult novel ask yourself a question, though: what do I really need to read?

The idea of this essay was implanted in my silly brain by Bloddeued and Rameau helped me with the editing and supported me morally on Twitter - thank  you very much, girls, I owe you and you rock!


My sources:

 http://naalley.blogspot.com/p/about.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/emerging-adult-book-genre-puts-smut-fiction-bestseller/story?id=18550587#.UWvCJqLTrDU

 http://jezebel.com/5960942/new-adult-fiction-is-now-an-official-literary-genre-because-marketers-want-you-to-buy-things

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New-adult_fiction

 http://dearauthor.com/features/letters-of-opinion/new-adult-its-not-about-the-sex-but-dont-be-afraid-of-the-sex-either/

http://www.goodreads.com/

TV Series Discussion: House of Cards season one (chapters 1-13)

A short synopsis and the cast list (from Wikipedia) so everybody knows what exactly we are talking about:

House of Cards is an American political drama series developed and produced by Beau Willimon. It is an adaptation of a previous BBC miniseries of the same name which is based on the novel by Michael Dobbs. The entire first season premiered on February 1, 2013, on the streaming service Netflix.

Main cast:

Kevin Spacey as U.S. Representative Francis "Frank" J. Underwood, a graduate of the fictional school "The Sentinel" (which is made to strongly resemble the real life school The Citadel, a military college) and Harvard Law School, a Democrat from South Carolina's 5th congressional district and the House Majority Whip. He often breaks the fourth wall to speak directly to the viewer. His name is derived from The Right Honourable Francis Urquhart MP, the protagonist of the BBC version and the novel version of House of Cards.

Robin Wright as Claire Underwood, Francis' wife. She runs the Clean Water Initiative, a non-profit that often gets mixed up in Frank's political scheming.

Kate Mara as Zoe Barnes, a reporter for The Washington Herald (later Slugline). Desperate for a break, she makes a deal with Frank for insider information.

Corey Stoll as U.S. Representative Peter Russo, a Democrat from Pennsylvania's 1st congressional district. Russo becomes loyal to Underwood after Underwood threatens to expose his alcohol and drug addiction.

Michael Kelly as Doug Stamper, Underwood's Chief of Staff, abettor and confidant.

Ana: Rameau, you introduced me to this series - where and when did you hear about it? What made you watch it?

Rameau: Rachel Maddow show. It was some time last year when I was watching the show for the 2012 election shenanigans and the commentary, when she mentioned Kevin Spacey’s remake of the 1990 British miniseries House of Cards coming out in early 2013. A curious being that I am, I researched the subject, found the books, and the original miniseries. Then I waited until the remake had come out and I waited a bit longer.

Ana: I see, so it wasn’t completely a spur-of-the-moment decision, like: ‘hey, there’s a new series about high -profile Washington politicians, let’s watch it!’ Because I have to admit I would never started the series if not for two things: Kevin Spacey and your recommendation. Now I think I definitely owe Rachel Maddow as well.

Who was your favourite character (and why Frank Underwood ;p) ?

Rameau: No, it wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment decision but the decision to watch the original, four part miniseries was. And you know me so well. I think I loved Frank Underwood because of how Kevin Spacey portrayed him. I loved his relationship with his wife—although I have my gripes too—and I loved the history they created for him. The character and the show reminded me of American Beauty in many ways and I can’t say that didn’t help to endear me to the character.

He is a kind of anti-hero though - a man who manipulates as he breathes and also somebody who perhaps never knew the meaning of the word ‘altruism’.

I’d go further than that. I’d say he’s closer to a villain than an anti-hero. He’s unapologetic and he gets what he wants and he wants power.

Still he can be your best bosom buddy - if it fits his goals at the moment.

Which would be villainous behaviour straight out of a Machiavellian handbook for politicians ;)

I was surprised how close and distant at the same time Frank was to Claire. On the one hand - sheesh, they say each other such things as the names of their extramarital interests, that was impressive. Nobody makes a row, nobody throws a fit of jealousy. On the other hand...when Claire needs Frank the most he just balks at helping her because it is not supporting his main objective. What do you think?

That’s the part I didn’t like of this incarnation of the show. In the BBC version it felt like Francis Urquhart’s wife was the brains behind the operation and he her hands, the puppet whose strings she pulled. Of course the length of that show didn’t allow them to develop her character fully and this could just be wishful thinking on my part, but I really wanted to see Claire being the kind of wife who truly is the master of the operation.

A Lady Macbeth, right?

Right. Instead they chose to develop her character in a different direction that takes her away from Frank and sets their desires and goals in a clashing course. In my version the non-profit would have been nothing more than a hobby for Claire and a convenient way to make connections outside the Congress.

How about you? What would you have changed about the show?

I would change Zoe Barnes. It really pissed me off that the one and only thinking female character (and I am speaking about the main cast here) was made into a journalistic prostitute. I did hope that her relationship with Frank would stay as it began. As it was, it seems a woman can make a career only if she has a man to support her (speaking in the most general terms).

I agree. It did stay the way it began in the BBC series but in that, Mattie Storin’s fate was quite different.

Then that boyfriend of hers was added and it made me even more confused - the series sometimes tended too much towards emotionally challenged YA drama.

It made me think they wanted to keep Kate Mara on the show but didn’t know what to do with her character. Probably because of what happened to Mattie.

What do you think of the little romance of Doug and that second prostitute, the one who doomed Russo? I did hope for something more here and got...nothing.

I hope they take it slow. I want to see it evolve, especially since she’s going to figure out what happened to Russo, but at the same time I’m afraid where they’ll take it next.

Do you think Frank will really become that vice-president or will his prize slip through his fingers again?

I hope he does. In the BBC series Urguhart did become the Prime Minister and I can’t really see what good it would do for Spacey and friends to repeat season one with having Frank start from scratch again. No. Underwood needs to rise and he needs to rise to the top before he falls.

If he falls.

I quite agree - failing again would bring a sense of anticlimax and it might be boring. Oh...we haven’t even touched the dialogue Frank leads with the viewer - a very personal dialogue. How did you feel about it?

I’m not a fan, but I understand why it’s done. He’s a villain and he needs to explain himself to the viewer because he never ever gets to explain all his motivations to anyone else. Which, wouldn’t be a problem had the writers handled his relationship with Claire differently.

If it showed anything clearly, it was the fact that Frank didn’t trust completely even his beloved prize wife. If you play Machiavelli, you are playing a game of solitaire.

True enough. I would have still preferred a power duo. Do you know what I find disappointing? The inescapable downfall after Claire finds out what really happened to Peter Russo.

You mean you are sure she will leave Frank if/when she finds out the truth? I don’t know. Perhaps. Still she seems to be such a cold-blooded, selfish woman. He might hold her on a very short leash.

No. Not leave him, but become utterly disillusioned, again, and start actively working against him. The more I think of this the more I think it goes against her characterisation. They’re going to try to turn her into a goody two-shoes.

Claire is definitely too weak to confront Frank and win. Another series without a single strong woman.

So are you in for the second season?

Right now I would say yes, I am. But give me a year and ask again. How about you?

It is a cautious yes as well. I like Kevin Spacey enough to give him a chance to say something more about those ugly politicians I love to hate. Perhaps it will pay off.