Instant Recognition, the books you know by reputation ONLY

I’m postponing the second part of my review for Kaaron Warren’s Walking the Tree for some reflection on me as a reader and possibly hear your opinions.

Instant Recognition: The books you know by reputation ONLY

Today’s topic arose, when I posted an artwork inspired by One Flew over a Cuckoo’s Nest and found myself talking about recognizing the title [much like a trademark], but admitting my ignorance about the contents of the actual book:

Personally, I’ve not read the novel nor do I have any idea what’s it about [it was in the commentary under the image that I learned it involved an antagonist nurse]. This novel along with many others to be frank bring instant recognition, when I hear their titles, because I’ve grown up hearing their titles thrown into conversations – I think One Flew over a Cuckoo’s Nest is even the name of a late talk show in Bulgaria, but that was renamed, so I maybe fabricating memories. But as it happens, I know nothing about this book.

I think I’ll call this phenomenon a ‘reader’s blind spot’, avoiding the term idiot being used in direct connotation with my name. Truth is that I do know things about Cuckoo’s Nest like for instance how it has been filmed into a successful movie and is one of those novels that simply must be read. Or so say people.

I’ve extensive blind spots pretty in pretty much any genre. For instance, I may play along and gag around how GRRM is competing with The Bold & The Beautiful in the category ‘When will it end?’. I can nod my head knowingly at how Jordan used to describe clothes and fabric. I can cheer Jim Butcher for being a force in a largely female dominated genre. How the Left Hand of God was a disaster. But poke me about what goes on inside those and I will shake my head.

I think what contributed to building such a false sense of familiarity with hundreds of books I have yet to read is the Internet: online reviews and Twitter. I poke my head in and it’s a storm of name slinging. Most of the time things don’t register, but sometimes titles and authors stick without me knowing anything else other than second-hand information, hype [with brand new releases] or nostalgia [I grew up on GRRM; Pratchett introduced me to fantasy, etc.].

I don’t know whether to consider this a ‘serious’ issue that I have to address or warn of, but it is something interesting to ruminate upon. I know my shortcomings [not reading fast enough], so I won’t come off as an idiot in actual conversation [evasive small talk 101: Say ‘indeed’ to stop a person from speaking].

HOWEVER, I’m curious. Has this happened to you? Which are the books you know by reputation only? Newer ones? Older ones?

[Twitter Talks] Do you like happy endings? Yes or no? AND why?

In theory, I should've presented an installment for Beyond the Wordcount, but life is funny when it decides to act up. I've rescheduled and that installment will come next Sunday, while I gather a whole new group of Tweeps to help me with the current installment of Twitter Talks. I don't mind at all, because this question has been on my mind a lot:

Do you like happy endings? Yes or no? AND why?

Technically, these are there questions, but I wanted Twitter to be more involved. To answer my own question... No, not really. The greatest cliche in the history of storytelling [be it by mouth, by written word or currently by movies] is the happy ending. Of course, when I say happy, I think the extreme, idealized happily ever after that your Mary Sue and Gary Stu deserve, where all the subplots and main arc are resolved and all the people that deserve good things to happen to them live gloriously, while the villains are crushed. Good wins. Evil loses. It's too idealized for my own taste. I need the battle scars. The lost battles. The broken hearts. The not-so-pleasant, but still passable endings. If you get in a fight and come out the winner, you still get bruises to show that you were in the fight. In the goody, goody happy endings... eh, it's all back to square one. It's why I enjoy reading twisted stories lately.

I wanted to test the waters and see, if I could find more supporters. BUT I guess I did not:

@Rhube: Happy endings.Been thinking about this recently.Oddly, I don't like to write happy endings,but I think I prefer reading them. Not always, but often. I dunno.

@Pallekenl: I only enjoy happy endings in a book if they fit the story (so not tacked on) and because they give this warm fuzzy feeling :D

@Hagelrat: love the cozy feeling of a happy ending but if the book doesn't suit it then it ruins the story. So depends on the book a lot!

@Susi_Sunshine: depends...I can live with not so happy ending if it has the promise of HEA [Happily Ever After] but mostly me likes those. Depends on genre. In romance it's a must but in others it's not all a requirement for me.

@editormum75: Yes, but more importantly, I enjoy RESOLUTION in book endings. [I have to add here that I agree, the ending of a book can sometimes not be the actual resolution and what I mean in my question is the resolution aspect. Slippery-slope of defining a novel's anatomy.]

These are the outright happy ending supporters. Nothing wrong with happy endings, when they are done right and there are too many attempts that end in the saccharine territory for my taste. But when done right, my oh my, it's goosebump Nirvana.

The majority of the answers, however, just show sophisticated book lovers are, understanding how certain books demand certain endings that are foreshadowed right in the beginning and reinforce what the reader felt in the beginning.

@cjhillrwb: solid endings. Doesn't matter happy or sad as long as they are solid and make sense with no huge leaps to get there.

@laurenbeukes: I like an ending that's true to the book. Tragedy is potent, happiness can be more so, if it's not a Hollywood afterthought.

Then I receive the most thought provoking answer in the bunch:

@thefourpartland: It depends on the writer. No from King or Erikson, yes from Eddings or Lackey. Because of the style of the author. It's possible to tell which ones are suited to happy endings. I'd never expect it from King.

The idea that the author's style, strengths and weaknesses determine what sort of ending rings true [and what the reader will enjoy] despite the story demands. I guess that this makes sense. I don't think that King, who writes the creeps will make a Happily Ever After enjoyable or as empowering as someone who usually writes hopeful stories does [Lackey, I guess, I'm not much for the hopeful stories]. It certainly is food for thought and I do beg your comments on this.

Share what you feel.

As a final tease, here is a tweet that is not a direct answer to the question, but worth paying attention to.

@ghostfinder: The ending is less important than the journey.

The Pedophile Guidebook: Free Speech, Censorship and Boundaries

Amazon failed or better yet humanity failed. As you may have learned there is a pedophile guide book available for the Kindle called: The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure. Personally, I'm nauseated that such a book exists and that it has been published and is distributed through the biggest book-selling website and that there are people who rate the bashing reviews as not at all helpful. I'm horrified that a person would go as far as advise how to 'love' children 'safely' and I want to go Nazi on this book and burn it had it been a physical book.

It's a fact that most pedophiles are pedophiles at heart and a large part of them are too afraid to act and remain latent. But a guide that promises to make it all safe by 'establishing rules for adults to follow' will most definitely prompt those who fantasize to act. Maybe I'm exaggerating and this is the paranoia of watching too many criminal shows, but I think that this is crossing a serious line. When people conceived the idea of free speech, I'm pretty sure that they did not see this one coming. Curtis Silver phrases this better than me:

The Kindle e-book titled The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure crosses the line of free speech, spits in our face and then crosses back over the line. Everything that is happening here, with the existence and sale of this book is protected by free speech - unless a crime has been committed by the author. That is yet to be proven.

AND what makes me so darn angry is the fact that this is free speech, no matter how twisted and corrupted and demonic.

If I demand that the book be banned, then I become one of those people, who rile up hate and aim it at books. I mean, Banned Books Week was founded as an awareness event to promote the freedom of reading... Wouldn't it be hypocritical to demand this certain book to be banned and still preach how books should not be restricted nor access to controversial ones? Yes, I do hate that this guide exists, but I'm talking about the principle, the big picture.

When this broke out on Twitter, I've read these opinions:

@JohnKlima: even if I don't agree with what a book is about, I can't advocate censorship; we don't get to chose what the 1st Amend protects

@tn_tobias: Freedom is about making choices, not taking them away. I understand your frustration. Sometimes humanity lets you down. Censorship begets censorship.

Sadly, they are right as far as the principle goes. Once we censor something, then it will be a lot easier to censor something else the next time some other controversial book pops up.

I'm pissed off that this books exists and I'm pissed off, because if I demand to censor it, I betray the principle I stand behind. If I don't demand something be done about this book, then I betray the values I have been brought up with.

In this situation I feel so helpless.

I feel that there should be some boundaries [even if that is selfish of me as far as the Bigger Picture is concerned]. I feel that as society we are entitled to protect the moral integrity intact and I think that encouraging child molestation is a bit too much and a bit too illegal.

Your thoughts?

[Twitter Talk] Series: Do you dive in OR do you wait?

I have a complicated relationship with series. Series tend to never ever end, unless we're talking about trilogies, which are predestined to come in three. I, on the other hand, tend to forget my own birthday. I know the date, but whenever it comes, it's a surprise for me. The other thing the series do is that it takes a while for the next installment to pop up, which does not mix well with my memory. You can sense where this is going...

Anyway, recently, I decided that I wanted to immerse myself into the FULL epic fantasy style of life aka mammoth series of individual books that can be used as weapons. But because of my memory I've always restricted myself and waited for a series to come to a conclusion before I dive in. This supposedly defies the very LAWS and CREEDS of being a bibliophile [yes, I like to think in extremes] so I wanted to see whether there was anyone else like me.

The question: Do you dive in a series or wait patiently for it to end?

Turns out that people are unanimous:

@ManOfLaBook: I dive into a series. It's exciting to wait for the next book. BUT - I must start from book 1 even if it's from 20 yrs ago

@Pallekenl: Depends, but usually I dive in. I always try to hold off, but I always give in too!

@murf61: I have a bad habit of reading the first in a series then losing interest. Usually buy 1st on release, which could be why

@chiddle84: Dive in, waiting is too tough...

@shadowflame1974: I have to read the latest and then IMPATIENTLY wait for the next one.

@Rhube: Dive in! Every time. Miss out too much, & how do you know it;s worth the wait? Plus, sometimes waiting heightens anticipation.

@cybermage_se: I dive in

I seem to have asked a very stupid question, but I wanted to find out whether I was not alone in my ways of restriction. The answer is more than obvious, but I welcome anybody else who would like to share his/hers view on the matter. Next week I promise to keep the questions a bit more controversial.

[Twitter Talks] Guilty Reading Pleasues

As an early teen I had an impressive amount of time during the summer, because I usually spent it in our summer house far enough from the city to have no cable TV and computer, not to mention an Internet connection [not that at that time I had Internet at home either; I was introduced to that drug a lot later]. I had all that time and not much else to do, so I read and read and read.

At that time I knew I was into fantasy. I bought books with muscled men with swords and trademark bikini-clad women [Sword & Sorcery was my thing back then], the god-awful Pratchett covers and comically drawn monsters. I owned it. Chin up, embarrassing retro cover in hand and all that jazz.

That continued until I entered a specific hormonal summer and learned all about shame. I overdramatize a bit, it would have been a rather awkward situation for me had I needed to explain exactly why that book I was reading had a shirtless Fabio and a distraught young woman in his arms as cover art. So all the historical romances I bought [not that many to be honest] were wrapped up with newspapers and when completed, stacked in the lowest drawer in the house, where nobody looked for anything.

From then on I've lived through shorter periods of shame [when I entered the world of the comic book adventures and then paranormal romances]. Once you became self-conscious about what you read, I have to tell you it's hard not to feel a bit guilty whenever someone raises an eyebrow. Though personally I'm more annoyed that the person shuts down and plain refuses to hear why I enjoyed the books...

I turned to Twitter to seek what other people thought about guilty pleasures. I asked the following: Which is the book you feel most embarrassed about reading and why?

I got three detailed answers:

@kingrat says Mission Earth, because I was young and easily swayed by brightly colored covers. Also, Writers of the Future made me think he was legit.

@ShennandoahDiaz says probably Twilight, oh and Dr. Phil's book but I was recently "divorced" with a kid and claim temporary insanity!

Then there is @yagrrb who picked Flowers in the Attic by V.C. Andrews. The combination of incest and arsenic donuts is fascinatingly grotesque!

I have to add that Twilight does not surprise me as an entry. I knew it would be a must. It is the perfect guilty pleasure book [one which I would have to find a bunker to hide in, if I ever decided to read it].

Then the following answers all trend towards the romance [maybe the spicier kind]:

@readinasitting I reviewed a book earlier this year that I didn't want to take out in public. It was a bit suggestive!

@HiHighHigher Yikes, I have a whole 'Naughty' bookshelf in my closet, stuff I don't want my kids pulling off the bookshelf

It's funny really that people feel awkward to read about love [granted it's not very explicit like some books I have read]. Our culture celebrates love. From McDonald's I'm Lovin' It to 90% of modern mainstream music about relationships to almost 90% of all mainstream movies that simply have to insert a bit of a romance. Isn't it bizarre that the readers, who enjoy reading about love [the shared, the tragic, the forbidden, the passionate] feel as if they need to keep that them to themselves. But maybe it's the sexual undertones, which is also prudish considering that modern commercials are short softcore porn.

It's what the @booksmugglers say [though Ana is proud of whatever she reads]: Don't think so, dude I read and review romance remember? I am embarrassed by some of the covers but I own it. *grin*

Last but not least, I have an interesting opinion from @misskubelik, who is, of course, very right. She says:

I don't feel embarrassed about reading anything. Why would you? Librarians, writers, reviewers, etc. should tell ALL readers there's nothing embarrassing about ANYTHING they choose to read. From Goosebump books and comics all the way to James Patterson and romance novels. There's NOTHING embarrassing about reading, because, as a rule, we shouldn't be embarrassed about pleasure and leisure activities - and *that's* what reading should/can be.

The way I had planned this post was to gather people, who enjoyed a novel secretly. The sort of forbidden fruit, the rush of reading in secrecy the way little boys browse through their fathers' Playboys or girls browse through their mothers' wardrobes. A secret pleasure known only to you. Something innocent.

But after Angie's last comment, it has left me thinking WHY I'm guilty and WHY I allow something as fun as reading be invaded by guilt. Why do we say things like 'I wouldn't be caught dead reading that'? Is it because we are sure we will not like a book or because we know what the mass will think of us, if seen reading on a bench or in the bus or on the plane?

Thoughts anyone?

The Case of the EMBARGO or Shouldn't Bloggers be Ethical?

Book reviewers have not been restricted to any rules. We ride the Internet and nobody can restrict the Internet, hell yeah, freedom of speech and self-expression. We can do a lot that can only happen on the Internet, but is that an excuse to forgo all ethical behavior? Shouldn't we at least consult to some set of ethical guidelines?

Case in point is the Embargo on the latest Wheel of Time novel. Bloggers, who have been lucky enough to receive an ARC of the novel, have been asked to keep to quiet till November the 2nd, the official release of Towers of Midnight. Now, considering that this is a series with massive cult following, which can be best described as the Trekkies of fantasy, it's obvious why an embargo has been issued. After all, people have patiently waited and no matter what the opinion, it's bound to spoil the experience for the others.

Now, Amanda has covered the crux of the issue in her post called EMBARGO:

My opinion is that embargoes are only given on few books - and bloggers should follow the rulings given. If a person breaks embargo, they should have their privilege stripped. It is a matter of ethics - the same as when people sell ARCs, even when asked not to by the publishers. I am angry that this is likely to go unpunished.

She is courteous to not give names, but the majority of us know that the wise guy behind this stunt is the mighty Pat from Pat's Fantasy Hotlist, who is notorious for such stunts. I am not surprised that he just could not hold it in, bend the rules and leak some of his 'thoughts', which is so not a review, even partial at that. But whatever, I mean the man is ambitious to see his blog grow.

HOWEVER, this begs the following questions:

Isn't this an example on why we should have some courtesy and do what has been asked of us? Selling ARCs, breaking such an embargo, selling autographs?

AND

Is what Pat did ever going to get punished?

I'm not going as far as to say that we need official regulations, but seriously, whenever you as a book blogger receive an ARC you are trusted by the publisher. Although it's so very often as a straight business transaction aka we give you the book and you promote it via your review, fact is that there are so many books and an impressively larger amount of reviewers wanting it.

If you get picked by a big publishing house with a book with such high celebrity status such as the Towers of Midnight, then the publisher has trust in you to remain ethical and hold off from reviewing until November the 2nd. If you don't then you betray that trust, which although earns you extra hits and controversy, effectively gives you a bad name, which may or may not reflect on the public opinion regarding the group you represent - I may be going a bit too far here, so I will stop.

Also, it sets a bad role model for new bloggers, who try to emulate what to them seems as the fastest way to get to the top.

Besides, it's not that hard to do. You just keep your mouth shut. Simple as that really. If we can't on our own follow some simple instructions out of respect for the labor that not only the publisher, but Sanderson [in this case], has put in the novel, then I do think that individuals should be sanctioned. It's only fair and you will have to agree that we need a bit of fairness on the web.

So what do you think, am I painting the apocalypse or should Pat just have done the right thing?

Some Reviewers Suck: Will this be a Progressive Tendency?

It seems as though these days it's a reviewer-smash-reviewer-with-a-keyboard world as posts have been cropping up, questioning the quality behind reviews. Okay, I'm referencing to just two posts, but the timing is perfect to discuss crap reviewers/reviewing.

Stomping on Yeti reacts to a review, which to him sounds as if it's a book summary and not a review. To illustrate his point, Patrick even color-coded the review, which confirms his story. I know I'm biased, but I think that he is right about this one. He says:

Now, I typically wouldn't quote whole articles verbatim but it's necessary to illustrate my point. By color coding for Opinions/Reviews, Facts about the book/author, Summary of the book, and Quotes it should be very easy to see the breakdown of this so-called review. And this is being extremely generous when labeling review statements. And I understand why Tor is promoting the article - it's basically an elevator pitch stapled to an outline of the first five chapters. But to call it a review?

Jonah, the owner of Worlds of If, has accused several of the more recognizable SFF reviewers of poorly doing their job, because he felt as if their reviews of "Way of Kings" is more about the plot rather than anything else. Though I am surprised that Larry got involved in that one as Larry is one of the outside-the-box guys, although he quotes a lot. Anyway, Jonah says:

A book review should give me something more than brief plot synopsis or some personal reaction to the selected book. If you’re going to give me a novel review, give me some specifics from the book, tell me something about other related novels in the genre, and make sure that the arc of your piece goes beyond the novel currently under review.

Whether Jonah is right or not about the book reviewers he lists, is debatable, but what he's saying is fundamentally true. This question of what reviewing should be and what a reviewer should focus on has come up, discussed until we have all turned blue and forgotten until it pops up again.

I'm not headed that way. It's not why I'm raising this. The question is whether even after all the talk, we still fall in this trap. Do we let the summary dominate and high-jack the review, thus making us suck at what we do?

Yes, we do.

I also think that we over-generalize as well. We summarize our thoughts and to a certain degree we all sound the same, because we approach reviews from the same angle. I admit to thinking the same of my work [if I was exceptional, then I would have been listed somewhere along the way], though I'm trying to think outside the box.

Just to avoid accusations that I'm senselessly trying to aggravate people. Here are the reasons behind my statement:

1) We are busy. Check Twitter to see how many books we read and how many reviews we post and how regular we are, given our stressful daily background. Relying on the summary is one heck of a coping mechanism to meet the daily quota.

[I also think that we want to stay busy, because running a blog right now is competitive and we all fight for the attention of the publishers. I have done that. I try not to do it, but it does happen from time to time. Bloggers are getting pushier and that affects the quality of what we do. We have a saying in Bulgaria to illustrate that: 'the fast bitch bears a blind brood'.]

2) We believe readers have a maximum of words, after which we lose them. The too long, didn't read syndrome. So we downsize to keep it manageable for readers, because we want to have readers to discuss the book with. Keeping the wordcount low means that we have a lot less space for a lot of the things we want to say and we over-generalize.

3) We have a cult towards the brand spanking new and another one for getting to the bran spanking new as fast as possible.

Seriously, I think that the big boom of review blogs has lead to this. We're too many and we tend to tackle the same books.

It will take a serious revolution in the way things are done, in order for complaints like these to stop coming up. Until then the majority of us, myself included, will suck.

Of course I'm speaking in overgeneralizations. I am not resorting to name calling other than to quote the two posts. Most importantly I'm theorizing as to WHY people [readers, other reviewers] accuse us of sucking and why that is probably right. Hopefully, there will be no hard feelings. I doubt it, though.

[Beyond the Wordcount] Kaaron Warren on Botanica

This Sunday a new feature debuts on Temple Library Reviews. I had the idea back during my hiatus, when I thought I wanted more [because I do always want more in any regard] from the authors I enjoyed. I wanted an insider on how novels are created. I also realize how much effort, research and inspiration is involved behind a novel-length work, which is there on the pages, but the reader, well at least the average reader, doesn’t see how the wonders are created. What the reader sees are the pages and the words. So my intention is to take the reader beyond the wordcount and introduce him to the authors’ adventures in the land of writing, research and publishing.

My first guest is a personal favorite of mine, Kaaron Warren, whom I asked to write on the creation of the island named Botanica from her novel Walking the Tree [review by me to follow next month]. If you follow Kaaron around the Interwebs, then you will know that Botanica was inspired during her stay on Fiji and this is exactly this story that I wanted to learn.

---

My novel, Walking the Tree tells the story of the people who live on Botanica, a large island almost completely filled with an ancient tree.

I live in Australia, and while I’ve spent many days at the coast in my life, this is not the same as living on an island. You couldn’t walk around Australia, unless you had half a lifetime.

So when we found out we were moving to Fiji for three years, I knew that this would help me write the book. It would give me an understanding of what it’s like to live on an island, and what it’s like to circumnavigate that island.

We stayed on a number of small islands while we were there. Our favourites are the less ‘multi-national’ type ones, like Cagalai (pronounced Thangali), Leleuvia and Naigani (pronounced Naingani). The first two were easily circumnavigated, and there is something very fulfilling about walking the whole way around an island.

Pretty islands

I used this feeling in the novel. Most of the young women who set out from their home communities in Walking the Tree stop along the way, and make a new home. They live there for many years but then many of them are compelled to walk back to their birth communities.

I already knew I wanted this to occur, thinking about the many people around the world who live elsewhere but then feel a great desire for ‘home’ after many years. But circling those islands gave me a sense of how it feels to complete the circle, and how it would feel not to complete that circle.

Whenever we stayed on an island I took many photos and notes of how the water looked, the sand, the vegetation. I felt the sense of isolation and I understood that the people who live on the islands are not often compelled to leave. Again, it’s the sense of completeness, of being whole, you feel when you live in such a place.

One experience I had which made it, mood-wise, into the novel, was the time I was abandoned for less than 30 minutes.

We’d gone out to the deep sea for snorkeling. It was a small boat, with about 15 passengers. The boat dropped us variously about the place, and we drifted, and the boat drifted too. At one stage, I felt that even if I called, he wouldn’t hear me.

But he knew what he was doing, and we were all collected.

The Boats

On the way back, he stopped to let us climb onto a very small island, maybe 100 metres in diameter. I think he said there had been families living here once and there was small evidence of that; some rusty tin cans, a deeper hole right in the centre of the island. My friend and I, fascinated, looked in detail at the things left behind, as did another couple of people.

When we looked up, we were the only ones still on the island.

The boat was taking off with everybody else on board.

“We’ll come back,” the driver called. One man onboard held up a fishing line.

“Fishing!” he said, which explained nothing.

The Deserted Island

There was no shelter on the island; none at all. We had water bottles, which were almost empty. There was no vegetation bar some stringy bushes. It was really, really hot.

The four of us sank into the water to keep cool, and we kept calm by talking about how we would build a fire, how we’d catch fish, how we’d find water, if, you know, this was real and we had been abandoned.

It was 30 minutes before they returned. The arrogant fisherman had nothing, which meant we had to drive slowly home for him to find fish. We were sunburnt and thirsty.

That experience, that sense that I was alone and that there was nothing else in the world; that, I used in the book as well.

Un:Bound Book Group

Have I mentioned lately how much I love our host Harry? He's so completely darling he's allowing me to flog my wares here and i'm diving straight in.

Un:Bound has a book group, picking a book to read over a two month period. GeekMonkey, ChooChoo and I are the main core of regular readers and we will let you know each book we pick here so you can join in the discussion on the forum.

To get things moving we have already read the first book The Go Go Girls of the Apocalypse and we are now ready to choose our April/May book.

Each two months we will pick a book, read it in the first month, discuss it and then in the second month we will post the key comments and thoughts here. The forum can contain spoilers.

There are also plenty of opportunities for general book talk so come and get involved.

So here are our brief thoughts on the Go Go Girls of the Apocalypse by Victor Gischler

All in all the team were surprised that a book with such a silly title wasn't funnier. We didn't warm to the lead character much at all and we thought the assumptions about how humanity in general and especially women would deal with the apocalypse were a bit stupid.
It was quite well written, fairly entertaining, we like the sidekick character but we were bored with all the drinking and puking. There was no conflict in our views on this book. It's perfectly readable but doesn't deliver what it leads you to expect.

We will announce our second book choice soon.

Top 10: Female Hotness in Spandex, Leather and Superpowers

A while back I had the pleasant request to post an article from AskMen.com about a top 10 rank list of the hottest female vampires to hit the screen ever. Up until know I never thought of ranking anything, but if AskMen.com can do it all the time, it’s time to kick butt here on this stage as well. So I turned to the one thing I loved so much and could rank, hot women in spandex or leather with super powers. However I knew that not all people would read so much comic books and I decided to cast a Top 10 of actresses to portray either a heroine or villainess in a big screen movie. The criteria is recognition to the public, actual hotness and the ability to portray the role.

10. Mina Harker: Victorian Vixen. Movie: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Actress: Peta Wilson.

As you have seen Mina Harker is definitely not dressed in leather and she doesn’t portray the typical superhero. She is just a different species, but featured in the comic book series and the 2003 motion picture, Mina Harker, created by Bram Stoker for “Dracula”, is a Victorian age savior of the world from evil. What made me feature her was the play mostly. Peta Wilson does a striking job switching from a reserved and polite lady and a very violent vampire. Who doesn’t love a chick that can scale walls, fly and call a flock of bats.

9. Elektra: Spiky Red. Movies: Daredevil & Elektra. Actress: Jennifer Garner

The concept of a woman in smoking red or black as it happens leather and fork weapons is hotter than hell itself, since you get a mega pack. She can stab, pierce, slash and whirls around and around, which gives a pretty good visual on how hot her body is. Jennifer Garner did quite the show kicking ass, but I thought her character was way underdeveloped. Plus there was that stare like a wounded animal, which crashed the style of Marvel’s most lethal and cold blooded assassin. It’s true you simply can’t bear to hurt a woman looking like she has lost her newborn, but it’s very untypical for such a character.

8. Mary Embray: Um, the Immortal version of Ms. Marvel? Movie: Hancock. Actress: Charlize Theron.

Mary Embray doesn’t exist really outside the movie Hancock as a character, which is kind of sad. The comic book universe might have used her. This position is an exception from the rules for this rank list, mainly because a woman lifting a truck, because a superhero hobo is running on her last nerve is sexy. Charlize Theron manages to portray the superhero woman’s scorn and thus earn her spot on number eight.

7. Invisible Woman: Transparent and Hot. Movie: The Fantastic Four 1&2. Actress: Jessica Alba

Jessica Alba should have played the female version of the Human Torch, because she is smoking. I have to admit that she has enough sex appeal to give away to the needy. She even played the character right, but the ass kicker of Sue is under question here. Being invisible is cool and so are force fields, but it saddens me to see that in general she is just sweet and defensive, when all her talents can be used in such violent ways. Referring to the force fields that is. Yes, that may be so, but Sue is devised to be the American Sweetheart in the superhero world, the reason Jessica is stuck on spot number seven.

6. Storm: Sizzling. Movies: The X-Men series. Actress: Halle Berry

Halle Berry has an affiliation to superhero roles as it would seem by her incarnation as Storm and Catwoman, Patience Phillips. However seeing that Catwoman is Selina Kyle, I voted in favor for the white haired mutant. One of my favorite characters ever created I was disappointed to see her role in the X-men movies reduced. The plot centered more around Jean Grey, so it’s understandable that most characters would be underdeveloped. However even if the role was small and not as power boosted as I would have liked, Halle Berry handled the task formidably. Her position here is cemented with the CGI scene with the cluster of tornadoes, which blew my mind away. I would wish her fly and do the human lightning rod gig as well, but may be another movie.

5. Lady Deathstrike: The Adamantium Manicure. Movie: X2: X-Men United. Actress: Kelly Ann Hu

Okay, so she had no back story in the second movie and all she did was come on the stage, shred Wolverine to pieces and then die by his hand. That really doesn’t earn much points for actor skills, but considering her role Kelly Ann Hu portrayed a mindless killing machine with ice cold beauty and as we have seen over the years Asian woman, who know martial arts are always a force to be reconned with, especially when they have blades protruding from their finger tips. As far as the character is recognized I am not sure whether there is a major uproar around Deathstrike, but I am sure the movie boosted her a lot. Number five is well deserved.

4. Mystique: Scally but Fun. Movies: X-Men series. Actress: Rebecca Romijn

The X-Men universe offers a great choice of women with power rather than any other comic book series. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Ironman and so on have always been valiant knights saving their Louis Lanes, Marry Janes and what not. So most naturally the X-Men movies will provide a decent number of characters involved. Mystique is one of them. Rebecca Romijn promises an unforgettable performance, which leaves you with open mouths. Mystique is known to be a Machiavellian, but Rebecca’s bitchier vixen with reptilian behavior take on the character Mystique takes on a new level of evil ass-kickery. Her character in the movies is controversial since she is deadly, ruthless and yet loyal, which brought her end in the third movie. And Rebecca was hot in her demise.

3. Jean Grey: Quantum Physics in Leather. Movies: X-Men series. Actress: Famke Janssen

Jean Grey is limitless power and as much as I telekinesis the saint aspect of her personality is not that compelling. However when the Phoenix came into the game and suddenly Jean Grey was all red and pyrokinetic, I was ecstatic, because Jean killed around five billion people in the comic book, while in the movie she turned schizophrenic and joined Magneto. I fancy heroes turning villains and thanks to the CGI team Famke aced the transformation and did unspeakable things. For this third place is secured for her. The red leather outfit couldn’t replace the missing flames in the movies, but gave the much needed villain aura.

2. Liz Sherman: Inferno Tempered. Movies: Hellboy 1&2. Actress: Selma Blair.

Liz doesn’t have a fancy name, doesn’t wear spandex, isn’t Marvel, yet she managed to land a place so high on the rank list. The Hellboy movies definitely made her character recognizable, although slightly modified to the movies’ needs. Liz is one of the few women pyrokinetics and her usual melancholy self mixed with a short temper for contrast make her a ticking time bomb. Selma Blair resembles Liz physically and has the voice and facial expression to breathe life to how Liz should be felt by people. She is most notable for her self-ignition, where she becomes something like a human torch which explodes to a nova. Spectacularly handled in the movies so far, which makes Liz hot, both literally and metaphorically speaking.

1. Catwoman: The Latex Kitty. Movie: Batman Returns. Actress: Michelle Pfeiffer

Let’s first start with the costume, which although resembles the comic book version is latex, tattered and screams insanity. Catwoman has never been so deranged and unpredictable. Michelle nailed the part. Playing, when your body is denied any freedom by the tight almost vacuumed suit, is a feat on its own and then incorporate the trademark metal cat claws, the whip, the feline movements and add instable behavior. In the DC universe Selina Kyle is a human with no super powers. She has to rely on herself to succeed and for a woman with a cat obsession to avoid most attempts to be captured by Batman, who has fancy gadgets, makes her the ultimate masked woman in leather to ever appear on the big screen. Thus number one is for her.

A Side Note: I would have personally enjoyed if movie makers decide to add the Scarlet Witch, Sister Grimm, Poison Ivy (ignoring the Uma Thurman catastrophy), Emma Frost and Harley Quinn in future projects. I am sure that those movies will be blockbusters, because people love a scantily clad woman with super powers.