BOOK NOOK REVIEW

"IMPRINTS"

by Rachel Ann Nunes

"Imprints," Rachel Ann Nunes' ground-breaking, envelope-pushing paranormal suspense novel, is my favorite read of the year, and proof that Nunes has upped the game for LDS authors in all genres.

Nunes is a big fan of paranormal suspense, but when the search for clean paranormal books--books a gospel-centered reader could embrace--became increasingly challenging, she decided to write one herself, and try to break a new niche in the market.

This award-winning author isn't gliding on her reputation. In my opinion, "Imprints" is her best work, proof that more great material is ahead, from Nunes, and from other authors who will benefit from "Imprints'" success. Using her considerable talent and clout, Nunes is expanding the market to a wider range of books in order to satisfy a broad hunger for clean, uplifting fiction.

"Imprints" isn't an LDS-themed book, but cautious readers who specifically choose LDS-authored suspense/romance, seeking high moral values and clean language, can comfortably embrace this paranormal book while enjoying the thrills and pace of a national best-selling read. Here's the premise:

Following the tragic death of her beloved adopted hippie-father, Autumn Rain receives a few unexpected gifts--the twin sister separated from her at birth; the paranormal ability to read "imprints," the emotions and images left behind on objects; and the knowledge that her sister also has a gift of her own.

Reining in her gift is Autumn's problem. She attempts to deal with it, and the pain it sometimes causes her, by using her ability to help victims of tragedies. Not everyone believes in her or her ability, causing Autumn to curb her inherently open, giving nature and close ranks around a few trusted relatives and friends. Paramount in her life are her sister, Tawnia: Tawnia's husband, Bret; and her best friend, Jake, the herbalist who owns the shop adjacent to Autumn's antique business. This trio--and a few objects retaining the soothing, loving imprints from Autumn's parents--are all the gifted woman has to anchor her as she comes to term with her ability and the scrutiny it brings her.
The jury is still out on Autumn's character, at least it is for a handsome detective named Shannon, who used information Autumn provided to locate a missing child. The girl was found--dead--and Shannon seemingly moved Autumn into the suspect list, as well as onto his list of informants.

Still, a pair of desperate parents come to the Herb Shoppe seeking Autumn's help. The story of their lost daughter compels Jake to make an introduction to Autumn, whose reading of the imprints left on the girl's possessions reveals cult connections. Autumn advises the family to contact the police, and soon Ethan--a gorgeous part-time P.I. with his own interest in exposing the cult--shows up at Autumn's shop, sweeping her off her logical, bare-footed feet. Consumed by multiples desires to help others, please Ethan, and to justify her ability, Autumn is swept into a world of intrigue that leaves readers pointing the finger of accusation at nearly every character in the book. You'll have a hard time walking away from this one.

And it's not just because the suspense is so tight and compelling, though it absolutely is. "Imprints" is the total package, the real-deal. Nunes' dialogue is smart, savvy, and sassy, giving each of her diverse characters powerful, compelling, and very individual, voices that endear them to the reader. The characters, particularly Autumn and Jake, are unique and adorable in their conflicted friendship, keeping you cheering as the potential love triangle expands to pentagonal proportions. I absolutely loved the book and I'm recommending it to everyone. It has national potential written into every page.

My only unresolved expectation surrounded the mysterious, accidental death of Autumn's father--the event that serves as the catalyst for everything else. I kept expecting it to be tied into this book's storyline somehow. But several "Imprints" characters have unresolved issues, and I expect that these issues, and the details surrounding this accident, are likely to be resolved, or at least explored, in upcoming "Autumn Rain" books. Yes, readers will be delighted to know that a sequel is already in progress.

So bravo to Rachel Ann Nunes--an award-winning, best-selling author of nearly thirty books--for taking a courageous leap of faith and leading out with "Imprints."

And hats off to Deseret Books and Shadow Mountain Publishing for taking a chance on "Imprints" and widening the market for LDS literature, although banking on Nunes--a solid, proven success--can hardly be considered a gamble.

Readers can pick up a copy at their neighborhood LDS book store!

WHY I LOVE AMERICAN IDOL

Hollywood has become so much more than an entertainment mecca. This piece of real estate is the epicenter of cultural and political power.

How does that make you feel?

More and more, I feel the tug and rip at old American values as actors, writers and producers define what they perceive as a "new" America, the "new" American family, and her "new" American values.

They're good. I'll give them that. The message is subtle, delivered carefully a spoonful at a time so that even when it doesn't quite taste right, we become too addicted to stop sampling.

Appalling as it sounds, they made a movie about a battered wife who finds solace and comfort in the arms of a married man, and they did it with such tenderness and justice that the viewers found themselves cheering the characters' betrayal and the destruction of the man's innocent, unsuspecting family.

ABC filled its evening slate of youthful programs with shows built around controversial themes and plot lines that don't resemble the average American family I know. So how do they market it? As the "new" American family.

And this is why I love American Idol. A few times over the course of the show, the judges have been stunned by the viewers' choices. Head judge, Simon Cowell, actually admitted once that they, the panel of judges, really don't know what America wants. I couldn't have agreed more.

To a great extent, Hollywood tells us what we want. But once a week, we tell them. And sometimes we prove that the average American is not the sheep they perceive us to be.

Not too baaaaad.

ADDICTED TO HOLLYWOOD

There is no question that the Hollywood establishment has pumped millions of dollars to fight passage of Proposition 8. Perhaps more upsetting is the influence they've peddled to voters, using their status and star power to influence voting and to persuade their fans, (might I say, the electorate) to vote "the Hollywood way".

I've already addressed how deeply saddened I was when one beloved celebrity went on the Jay Leno Show to issue a tearful plea to "stop the hate", her reference to the individuals who are fighting to protect the traditional understanding of marriage. I still can't understand why protecting the meaning marriage has held since the beginning of time is considered a hateful act. I wonder if anyone else would have seen it that way if Hollywood had not named it so.

I don't want to force anyone to do or believe anything. Free will is a sacred principle. But neither do I want to be coerced to call something right when I believe it is not, nor do I want to be forced to legally expand my definition of the traditional, historic, God-given meaning of marriage for fear of legal recrimination.

What happened to the separation of Church and State?

Hollywood exerts far too much influence. By painting the controversial with humor or victimization, what was controversial becomes sympathetic, until after seeing it frequently enough, it becomes the norm. Then, like the frog in the pot, we become deadened to the danger.

When a manufacturer produces something harmful or even possibly detrimental to my family, I don't buy it. When a vendor treats me poorly, I don't give them my business. When an institution betrays my trust, I withdraw my support.

In my mind, Hollywood has done all of the above, yet we give them our patronage. We fill the very treasuries they use to beat down our values.

I wish we could exercise the moral strength to boycott Hollywood--to consider our money as sacred as our votes. We wouldn't surrender our sacred vote to a candidate whose values undermine ours, so why do we turn a blind eye to the agendas of actors and production companies whose goals are so controversial?

I wish we would form an aliance, refusing at the very least, to pay ticket fees for movies or buy products from companies whose ads feature stars who openly, brazenly push these efforts. I wish we'd throw our support to those actors who bravely stand for truth and goodness, sometimes at the risk of their careers.

The next time we stand in line to buy a theater ticket or to rent a movie, let's remember that we're casting some of the loudest and most powerful votes available to us. And let's be wise.

"W"

The hype is already begining and shooting is barely begun on Oliver Stone's new biopic, "W" about George "dubya" Bush. One reviewer had this to say about the cagily-timed film:

"He's not just courting it, he's grabbing controversy by the lapels and giving it a big wet smacker."

"W" is expected to be the most controversial look at a President for many reasons. It's biting content notwithstanding, the timing of the film may be more critical than any single clip or sound bite. First of all, it's Stone's first film intended to dissect a living president. Second, the film will be released this fall while he will still be our acting president and commander-in-chief for several more months; but the third, and perhaps the most calculated aspect of the film yet, is that it is set to be released weeks before the election and at the absolute height of the campaign frenzy.

I can tolerate a level, un-romanticized examination of a living president. As public figures, every word, every outfit, every expression and decision is examined, critiqued and dissected before the world. But this hints at being more evisceration than examination. Is it legal? Yes. Is it ethical? Is it right? Recall that what is legal is not always ethical and moral. John Adams warned us of this when he stated:

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

So we have the right to say, and write, and direct many things, but that right was intended be governed with the wisdom and ethics of a morally-guided people.

Will the fact that this film, intended to make our standing president appear buffoon-like and immoral, affect his ability to conduct business with other nations? Will a world who already thinks of us as the Great Satan be affected by seeing such a characterization of the man who leads our military and citizenry? Canwe afford this self-parasitic behavior? Only time will tell.

This was clearly intended to be far more than a biography. This full-feldged political advertisement, right before the election and during the most politcally charged weeks of the campaign season, is political calculation at its most blatant. Particularly well-calculated to lampoon one man's already assailed legacy, I have no doubt it will also serve as a distorted carnival mirror in the hands of those who seek to label candidates and their policies as mere reflections of the sitting president being destroyed via celuloid. And just in time to influence those undecided voters at ballot time.

Some will argue that this is the essence of the guaranteed right to freedom of speech. And it is. But it is just as clearly the well-calculated attempt to herd star-struck sheep. I have previously spoken out about the political maneuvering of Hollywood. (See 3/14/08, "A Possible Consequence of our Media Binge.) We build their storehouse of power and influence every time we buy a ticket and fill their pockets. Choose ye wisely.

A Possible Consequence of Our Media Binge

Over the past two and half decades, our boys each played competitive sports. During that time, we've found ourselves in the regrettable position of disagreeing with a ref a time or two. Interestingly enough, my husband enjoyed a stint as an IABO official, during which time he too became the sorry recipient of the same unpleasant treatment. This diverse point of view drove one critical point home to us—that despite the drama in the stands, or the feelings that may arise within themselves, the referees' duties were to fairly represent the efforts of the players on the field or court. The refs' interests or attitudes should never affect the outcome of the game.

Now we are involved in a contest with far greater consequences than a game—a contest where the outcome will affect individuals, communities, nations and the world. I speak of the current U.S. Presidential race.

I believe the media is and has always been the referee in the political process, but their increasingly visible biases worry me. Now we have stations that the public can identify as “liberal” or “conservative”, “left-wing” or “right”. When I was a child, I thought their duty was to be unbiased and to report, not interpret the news. Now, with a mere mention, or lack thereof, a political candidate can be promoted, demoted, or all but eliminated from the public radar, negating the process of a free election. “Out of sight” can mean “out of mind”.

I regret the process of exit polling and early predictions. I know the media reached a "voluntary agreement" not to release their predictions of a winner until after the polls close, but leaks occur in their effort to "be the first" with the news, and as a result, some voters can feel politically neutered, discouraging their participation altogether.

And the media’s influence is not confined just to the news corps. I am increasingly appalled by the extreme influence we allow the entertainment media to exert on our political process. What does it say about our voting constituency when the endorsement of an actor or musician, most of whom are no more politically savvy than any other citizen, (and who, in many cases, are far less), can draw a voting block's support by throwing his popularity and fortune behind a candidate? Should we be appalled that a candidate’s appearance on MTV, playing a sax, could create a sudden rise in his popularity among young voters? Or that voters are more likely to tune in to see a candidate share some lively banter on a late night talk show than will faithfully watch the network broadcast of a debate on issues and credentials?

But entertainers are business people, just like the corporate giants who endorse and support candidates. . .

Fine by me. Let’s hold everyone who uses their power and money to steer the ship of democracy by influencing elections, to the same standard of scrutiny. And let’s personally judge the candidates not only by the issues and standards they claim to revere, but by the issues and standards their publicly-embraced endorsers appear to cherish. When we do our homework and check to see where a candidate stands on the issues that matter to us, let’s also ask ourselves whether their high profile supporters reflect the values or issues that are important to us and to our families as well. Let’s judge the candidates by the money and company they keep. We do it when they accept PAC money. Let’s do it when they accept Hollywood, or media, or any other money!

It’s our own fault if we fail in this. We are the consumers and the voters. We still control the referees. But if we allow the news to erase a candidate by failure to cover him or her, or if we, like sheep, follow the gleaming smile of our favorite star of Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone instead of our conscience, then we have allowed the refs to affect the outcome of the game.

And remember how all encompassing that outcome might be.