Recasting The Time Traveler’s Wife … Or Not

August 21, 2009

Well, the results are in, and you have all spoken: no recasting of The Time Traveler’s Wife! I have to confess, I’m surprised. Especially that Indiana-Jones-years Harrison Ford got NO VOTES, because come on ladies, is he not the exact rumpled-professor Henry type? Apparently not. I bow to your superior numbers!

Rachel McAdams 6 (35.3%)
Alicia Witt 4 (23.5%)
Rachel Weisz 3 (17.6%)
Amy Adams 2 (11.8%)
Blake Lively 1 (5.9%)
Zooey Deschanel 1 (5.9%)
Eric Bana 9 (52.9%)
Clive Owen 5 (29.4%)
Hugh Jackman 2 (11.8%)
Matthew Goode 1 (5.9%)
Other Option… 0 (0%)
Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones years) 0 (0%)
Eric Dane 0 (0%)

Recasting The Time Traveler’s Wife

August 14, 2009

The other night Paula, Jenny, and I got into how much we loved The Time Traveler’s Wife, (how excited we are that Audrey Niffenegger is coming to TKE!) and how torn we were about going to see the movie. Our major hesitation is, I think, one that’s quite common: the actors picked for the characters didn’t match our internal “casting.” And, if the actors don’t pull off their roles, it could forever taint our memories of the books!

Which, of course, got us arguing about who should have been cast as Henry and Claire. (Gomez and Charisse also don’t quite match up for me, but I’m less bothered about supporting characters in general, somehow they’re easier to over-write for me.)

We put together a list of our favorites, and now we’re wondering if they match anyone else’s. So take our survey and help us recast Time Traveler’s Wife! We’ll post the results next Friday, August 21st.

An Embarassment of Riches

March 28, 2008

I use that phrase a lot when I talk about many aspects being a bookseller — the piles of ARCs you receive, the abundance of interesting people to talk to on a daily basis, the books you are surrounded with, the authors you meet … I’m sure you get the picture!

Something in particular brought it to my attention today — an emerging booksite called Goodreads. I’ve been a member for a few months now, but have really only just started taking advantage of all the neat features they’ve built into it. It’s mostly for cataloguing what you’re reading, and sharing recommendations with friends. But Goodreads will also tell you, for example, what the most popular book is this year, or who on Goodreads has the most books, or what the least popular book is this week, or any number of other intriguing things.

Now, you might think, what does that really tell us? After all, it’s only the people on Goodreads who are providing data. But today I was surprised at the telling nature of one particular search I ran — the “most read books this week”. Care to guess what they are? I’ll give you the top 10:

1) Eat, Pray, Love
2) Water for Elephants
3) A Thousand Splendid Suns
4) The Other Boleyn Girl
5) The Kite Runner
6) Atonement
7) Three Cups of Tea
8) The Road
9) The Time Traveler’s Wife
10) Eclipse

This is just fascinating to me, mostly for the unexpected books that are on there. Eat, Pray, Love is not much of a shocker, nor is Three Cups of Tea. Other Boleyn Girl, Kite Runner, and Atonement are all movies, so that makes sense. Eclipse, well, Stephenie Meyer has announced her tour (call us now for tickets! You know you want to come! 801-484-9100) for The Host, and Breaking Dawn will be released in August (at our magnificent midnight release party, which you also won’t want to miss).

The Time Traveler’s Wife? What? Anyone care to shed some light on that one for me? And Water for Elephants? Didn’t the hype on that one die off a couple months ago? And the real shocker in this is, I haven’t read them yet!!! Which brings us just to the “embarrassment” part of the title … The fact that they are still showing up on a top ten list means that I need to get myself in gear, go back to the library, and add them to my ever-growing READ US NOW pile.

The upshot? Goodreads is great for discovering those books that not only are getting good feedback, but that are standing the test of time as well. That, and embarrassment and riches do indeed go hand in hand.

P.S. The attack of the emoticons — I cannot get that to stay an 8 and a ). I guess I will just have to chalk one up to teh internets!