The Reading Quest

Since I've decided to be in a constant readathon mode, I'm singing up for another one. Though this one is pretty cool. It based on video games and role playing.

#TheReadingQuest is a four week long challenge going from Sunday 13th August to Sunday 10th September, 2017 and its being ran by aentee @ read at midnight. There will eventually be a champion who will win a book and there also a specific Australian prize if you're located there. I'm not really in for wining (but I also love a free book). I just think this a fun idea. Here's the sign up page if you're interested.

EXP: 20
HP: 114
Level: 1









You pick a character and follow their Quest path. I have choose the Mage path, I'll probably do the Barb path if I complete the Mage despite them not touching. (This adorable art work was done by CW of Read, Think, Ponder).

TBR:
Main Quests
Mage

~A Book with a One Word Title: Girlhood by Cat Clarke, not sure if this a cheat or not but is girlhood is spelt with one word.

~A Book that Contains Magic: Heir of Fire by Sarah J. Mass. This Quest is at the same time Toppe Tomes and I was planning to read this book for that.

~A Book Based on Mythology: Antigoddess by Kendare Blake (I own this book and could not find it to read for this challenge.

~A Book Set in a Different World: The Diabolic by S.J. Kincaid

~The First Book of a Series: Geek Girl by Holly Smale

Knight (I change my mind about going to Bard after Mage)
~First Book in a Series:
- A Book with a Verb in the Title
- Book with a Red Cover (or red as the focal colour)
- Book with a Weapon on the Cover
- Book with a TV/Movie adaptation

Bard (in case I do get here & also likely to change).

~A Book that has a TV/film adaptation: Me and Earl and the Dying Girl by Jesse Andrews
~A Fairytale Retelling: Sisters Red by Jackson Pearce
~A book cover with striking typography: Who Runs the World? by Virginia Bergin
~A book translated from another language: I'm Traveling Alone by Samuel Bjork
~A banned book: There's a few I own, but one doesn't call out to me yet.

Side-Quests

~Animal Companion: Zombie Vs Unicorns by Various. How could I not choose the National Animal of my homeland. It's also on the board

I'm going leave the other sides quests to chance for now.

~Potions, book by 2+ authors: 

~Time Warp:
~Expansion:
~Multiplayer: Probably a problem here. Does a toddler count?
~Grind:
~Respawn:
~Mini game:

~Open world:

Might do videos about this as well. 

Book Review: Spot the Difference by Juno Dawson

My own acne has got worst since I started reading this book. Am I cursed now?

Sometimes beauty is only skin-deep...

Avery has always suffered at the hands of bullies, so when she's given a seemingly-miraculous opportunity to join her school's 'A-list', she grabs at it with both hands. 

But appearances can be deceiving, and soon Avery's not so sure she likes this new verison of herself.

And it's only by overcoming her fears that she can learn the true meaning of being comfortable in your own skin.  

I hate Avery. She is literally the worst and I don't think she learns a damn thing. The thing she probably meant to learn is self-awareness. Avery has a major acne problem, the painfully kind that you should seek professional medical help about (she has), she thinks this means she would be in a "freakshow", while standing next to her best friend who has what would be classified as deformity "a funny little arm". Its ablelism like this that makes me think Avery is just jerk, from the very start.

The big problem is that I think Avery is a terrible person, she might be realistic, but even when I was her age (Also she seems more 15, than 17 years old) she would never I have been someone I was friends with or want anything to do with her. She obsessed with people she doesn't like. I will admit this is something I cannot related to and just find utterly baffling. Wanting to be popular and have friends I get, but why with the people who were horrible to you. Also Pizzaface is such a lame insult. She and the antagonist of Scarlett never seem that much better than the other. Even with the pain and annoyance acne can cause, I end up having no sympathy for her due her whole attitude and personality.

Miracle cure and she popular suddenly and still a terrible person. Does the usual tropes, abandons friends, hook up with a hot boy, goes up against the evil popular girl for prom queen...I mean Head Girl. Avery abandons friends in favour of the people who bullied her, until its convenient to go back to the old ones.

This book also has some real dumb lines. During the discussion about whether Avery should take the new, experimental drug, this little exchange "No side effects; what have we got to lose?' She squeezes my hand tight. 'You, Avery! I have you to lose.' LOL. This is probably not funny to most people but I live in a house full of prescribed medication and with chronic ill people. There's like a billion steps before a drug goes to the public and no drug has no side effects.

I think the big problem is there is that the 85 pages doesn't give much room for a arch or character development.The ends comes off as having ran out of room, then wrap up for a happy ending with half arse lesson learned.

Overall, I give this 2/5 stars for jerkarses. I know Juno Dawson is capable writer and has wrote things with real depth. But I don't know what with this or the ableist mess of "All of the Above".  Though, this is too an ableist mess. But hey at least I wasn't personally attacked for no reason. If I hadn't came across Dawson's short stories, I might be calling it quits on her. That being said, neither of the solo works that I have read by her are what she praised for. I will read another work by her. I probably won't buy any more of her books till then (which would be the responsible thing for the majority of authors on my shelves). Probably one of her horror effects.

On a random note, I saw the film 'Wish Upon' (2017) on Monday, and it reminds me a lot of this book. The way some characters are written and weird wants they have. 

Book Review: The Upstairs Room by Kate Murray-Browne

Ignoring clear signs of a haunting is bound to get you into trouble.

Eleanor, Richard and their two young daughters recently stretched themselves to the limit to buy their dream home, a four-bedroom Victorian townhouse in East London. But the cracks are already starting to show. Eleanor is unnerved by the eerie atmosphere in the house and becomes convinced it is making her ill. Whilst Richard remains preoccupied with Zoe, their mercurial twenty-seven-year-old lodger, Eleanor becomes determined to unravel the mystery of the house’s previous owners – including Emily, whose name is written hundreds of times on the walls of the upstairs room.

This book is about a haunted house, but its not a horror book. It more about the characters and the effect that the house has on people.

The point of view changes amount the adults of the house. Its feel more like the women's story though.We have characters lives mirror each other, but made different choice. It was an interesting exploration.

The writing is third person, with focus point of view changing every chapter (I think). I enjoyed the writing style.

The ending is very anti-climatic. It was the natural conclusion of the book, but if you're ghost fan you might be a tad disappointed. This a character driven so the plot isn't really focus,

Overall, I give 4/5 stars for annoying neighbours. This is a odd match of a haunted house story with character study where choices lead you. I enjoyed it, if you into character stuff and more about the stain a haunting would have on the inhabits, this is the novel for you.

I got this book for Review from Netgalley and its being published by Picador on 27 July 2017.
 

Pain.

My mysterious illness has been replaced by joint pain. I got prescribled Paracepmal so that what I be taking for it.

Book Review: Into the Water by Paula Hawkins

Why talk to your family about any of your personal issues?

In the last days before her death, Nel called her sister. Jules didn’t pick up the phone, ignoring her plea for help.

Now Nel is dead. They say she jumped. And Jules has been dragged back to the one place she hoped she had escaped for good, to care for the teenage girl her sister left behind.

But Jules is afraid. So afraid. Of her long-buried memories, of the old Mill House, of knowing that Nel would never have jumped.

And most of all she’s afraid of the water, and the place they call the Drowning Pool . . .

Paula Hawks has returned with about a pool, a drowning pool and the river that leads to the pool, the town next to the river, and I guess the people in the town. The follow-up to her popular debut, The Girl on the Train (reviewed). I am glad that this book wasn't titled The Girl in the Pool or do I immensely regret that it wasn't. It would probably be called The Girls of the Waters. Pool just sounds like holiday fun, rather than murder and death.

This novel is told in the point of view of a cast of  (over ten) characters. Jules, sister of dead Nel is probably the focus, but there is no clear protagonist. Most these characters are unlikable. All of them are, some of them are despicable. It was fine, but it was quite a detached affair. The pool was the focus, but also didn't feel like personification location. It was more just a lot of shit has gone down at this part of the river. It's conspiracy of a town, who cares about people's sad little lives and horrible personalities. There were attempts at redeeming, but I didn't care enough about these characters to care. Except for the few I wanted to die. This was more about the plots, which fine in a thriller especially when you are juggling so many characters to tell a story.

There are some similar plot motifs from Hawkins début, you argue repeating themes if you felt like it. There is several mysteries going on. The discovery of Nel's body in the river is the starting point, but its a track so we loop around a lot. Nel herself was interested in the drowning pool's history and mysteries, writing a book about them (which we do get excepts from), therefore pissing off the locals because everyone needs a motive. There is obvious red herring. There is some stuff in the plot that makes no sense, I mean people make no sense.

I now would like to randomly point out that a teacher having a relationship with a student is criminal offense under the The Sexual Offenses Act 2003 unless that student is 18 then it's a grey zone of probable firing (though can still be charged for). The teacher if caught would be put on the sex offender register. I can't imagine a way a teacher would not know that. (Once again if you're under 18 years old, don't trust people who are immediately interested in you sexually who are two years older than you. There is something wrong with them and I have not been proved wrong in this. Girls are not that maturer than boys, this is a myth that I won't get into a rant at the moment).

I listen to this on Audio book, with David Weyman, Imogen Church, Rachel Bavidge and Sophie Aldred. Like I said there is tons of character, so these actors just jump around a lot and characters have more than one voice actor, I guess the choice of having more than one came from them knowing it would make money and The Girl on the Train leading its self so well to having more than one voice actor and does gave the best distinction by actually having different voices to change to, especially as some characters are real minor and forgettable. They were all fine, we got a vast range of British Accents, though I did think Welsh which this book is definitely not set in Wales. It set in middle England or upper England. I don't know enough about English motorways or remembered the town's name to see if its a real place. Hours from New Castle or something. 

Overall, I give this book 4/5 stars for missing jewellery. This novel kept me interested is what I want from Mystery Thrillers. While different from her debut (which is should be), it is of the same level as her last novel. Once again if you like thrillers and the idea of this plot, gave it a go.

Book Review: A Girl Called Owl by A.J. Wilson

When Monster High runs out of Monsters...

It's bad enough having a mum dippy enough to name you Owl, but when you've got a dad you've never met, a best friend who needs you more than ever, and a new boy at school giving you weird looks, there's not a lot of room for much else. 

 So when Owl starts seeing strange frost patterns on her skin, she's tempted to just burrow down under the duvet and forget all about it. Could her strange new powers be linked to her mysterious father?And what will happen when she enters the magical world of winter for the first time?

A glittering story of frost and friendship, with writing full of magic and heart, A Girl Called Owl is a stunning debut about family, responsibility and the beauty of the natural world.

This novel sounds like a cool concept and then you realise it about 13 years old. To be honest, I think making the protagonist thirteen years old was a mistake, it feels like she should be fifteen for some of the storyline. Her maturity is not of a fifteen year old (though she probably maturer side of some of the 15 yrs old found in YA) but is of a 13 yr old so she is written well in that sense. Parts of the storyline do match, but there was just a lot dancing around the birds and the bees.

The story seems to get lost a bit, then I started analysing the chosen villain and how the conflict makes little sense. I feel like it was added as a second layer because there wasn't a natural villain to push the plot and character development along. Might have worked better without the forced conflict. Some of the chosen mythology was just kinda odd to throw in without explanation. Like it took from Arthurian Mythology for some reason, whilst being based in fay with some own invention I believe (google shows nothing).  I now would randomly like to point out that May used to be the first month of summer, and any Queen associated with that month that is an old myth would be a Summer Queen, and therefore next to Autumn already. Basically, I would have liked more thought, or explanation of thought behind the mythology. There was suggestions to things that would have been interesting, but were just intriguing mentions.

There were important female characters in this book, but they're literally sat back and let the male ones rule the roost (for majority). Owl does have a girl best friend, but she was not there to add to plot/action as she is human.

The characterisation was consisted and decent for our main characters. But a certain important character's characterisation filp-floped so much that I for sure thought he had to be a different character. There is no explanation for this.

The romance is this book is very mild, but clearly hinted at. There's also weird vibe from it, because I have no idea how old this guy is next this thirteen year and I feel like there has to be two years at least with plot stuff, so that just humanly wrong (if you are 13 years old, please stay away from people two years or older than you. There is something wrong if they are interested in you romantically. This rings true till twenty basically) or he is immortally a thirteen year old and so is she so that might just be tragic. This could just me thinking way too much about the plot.

Overall, I give this book 3/5 stars for accidental freezes. In writing a review of this book, I have probably thought too much about this stand alone book than it was ever meant to be thought about (if there is a sequel, it will lose points, if you say the end, then its the end). Its charming, middle-grade book, that I probably wouldn't recommend past that age, but for that age sure.

I got this book for review off NetGalley and Macmillan Children's Books.

Book Review:The Miniaturist by Jessie Burton

If they had only kept it in their pantaloons.


There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed...

On an autumn day in 1686, eighteen-year-old Nella Oortman knocks at the door of a grand house in the wealthiest quarter of Amsterdam. She has come from the country to begin a new life as the wife of illustrious merchant trader Johannes Brandt, but instead she is met by his sharp-tongued sister, Marin. Only later does Johannes appear and present her with an extraordinary wedding gift: a cabinet-sized replica of their home. It is to be furnished by an elusive miniaturist, whose tiny creations mirror their real-life counterparts in unexpected ways ...

Nella is at first mystified by the closed world of the Brandt household, but as she uncovers its secrets she realizes the escalating dangers that await them all. Does the miniaturist hold their fate in her hands? And will she be the key to their salvation or the architect of their downfall? Beautiful, intoxicating and filled with heart-pounding suspense, The Miniaturist is a magnificent story of love and obsession, betrayal and retribution, appearance and truth. 

This book was hyped way too much for what it is. A bad historical fan fiction, I listen to the audio book version of this from the library. I wish that meant I hadn't spent money on it and I haven't but I'm pretty sure I brought the ebook version at one point because voucher.

I'm not a big fan of historical fiction, except for Victorian Britain (that more to do with the insanity of the Victorians and the secret, weird stuff they got up to). I probably made a mistake in looking up the person this book is sort of based on. Sort of, in not all attempt to tell a possible story about the person with that name in history; the Petronella Oortman that did own a cabinet doll house and married Johannes Brandt. She was a rich widow, not impoverished upper-class teenager. The real Petronella sounds interesting. 

Not sure where the hype came from, because it originated from the Publishing world before the novel got this cool cover. The cover is fabulous and does deserve the hype. The novel in no way does. I think the setting of Amsterdam and some of the subject matter is what could sparked people's interest, but I had real hard time getting to the core of those subjects. The plot is actually dumb and depressing at the same time. This book needs plot re-haul. There something of an interesting story there, but things were set up and abandoned. If only one of the social justice plots had been taken, then maybe they would have been time to the explore the Miniaturist and not this thing where even the main character doesn't have time to think about it. The Miniaturist character was interesting but very little was done with it. I ran out of things to say that ain't big plot spoilers and there are sites that have done recaps.

I went on these recaps sites because I was super bored, but also intrigued. If this wasn't an audio book or if I had found something more interesting to listen to, I would not have finished this book and I would have not lost nothing or gain anything from doing that.

The character of Nella is boring. There is very little personality, she is a very Mary Sue with her 17-year-old peers. The reason this is not a YA book because it’s too boring to have any chance of keeping a teenager interested, also there is semi-graphic sex. There was attempt of character development, I could tell this was meant to be a coming age story for Nella. However, Nella was just unpleasant when she did show personality and dumb. I didn't like or enjoy any of the characters.

In terms of historical fact, it's as depressing as it should be. Women having no real option but to marry, and people are prejudice against the different. The fact that this book is so depressing is another reason I don't get the hype. There is also no real romance. Maybe because it is so different from most narratives about the past is why so people got behind it, but looking at reviews I don't see anyone truly love this book. The characters a very modern in the way they behaviour as well, but I don't know much much about Amsterdam past society structures.

The writing style was borderline modern poetic with random Dutch words in. I pick up no decent style from it, nor enjoy what we given. Burton might just need time and practice to developed her voice but right now there's nothing unique. Very bland, sometimes verges on purple prose. 

The audio book narration was bad for something read by the writer. Jessie Burton reads her own words without passion. I know she an Actor, so perhaps that's the issue with her reading that she did it like someone else work or this book is too boring for even the writer to convince me.

Overall, I give this book 2/5 stars for public sexcapade. This is Jessie Burton’s Debut so I won't be closing door to her but I don't know if I would bother with any more historical fiction from her. I do know her next novel is set (at least partly) in the last century. In theory this is a good, interesting book, but the execution needs development. I generally just don’t like historical fiction, nor weird fanfiction about real people, so this book was probably never going to be for me.

 

A Gay Villian in a Disney Film. How bold of you?

The Beauty and the Beast remake is officially bullshit. The set design and costumes look questionable in the trailer. The CGI looks better in the 25 year old film they remake. Also there's way too much of it, there are forest in real life, and if not why not just pirate the ones from the original. Hell, they original tigs that came out the first try might look better (some obscure B&B production reference). They is also no trace of the soundtrack in the trailer which makes me think one of the main cast can't actually sing, can they? If that thriller music bullshit in the film's actual score, then you gone fucked up. The one thing Beauty and the Beast did not needed mess with was it soundtrack.

Well, actually I think it would be nice to have the Beast's song 'If I Can't Love Her' in a film, that debuted in the musical. The Beast having his own song makes sense. The rest of the Beauty & Beast Broadway musical only songs can be left (this does not include Human Again as it can now be seen with the rest of the film. Also they will messed that up so badly). Besides that addition, the original scores and songs are masterpieces that stand legacy as the last music of the Great Howard Ashman (its his last complete work, he started work on Aladdin but sadly not much of anything made it into the final film, it just the way animated film process works at Disney).

Which is maybe why the gay thing should make you angrier than you already are. We're being promised a gay moment in the remake and its not Lumaire kissing Cogsworth's on lips instead of the checks like in the original scene after the Battle. I also love how almost everyone has been secretly shipping Lumaire and Cogsworth all this time (out of interest I tried to find Fanfiction, there's some but none of it looked good). Even if not a romantic couple, I like to imagine them still bickering past retirement by the sea.

No we getting a gay sidekick of the villain that was originally just for comic relief. Who ever came up with this idea is clearly not queer in anyway? You would think, but Bill Condon is gay man. Because even people who ship Le Fou and Gaston (these shippers exist because all ships exist on the internet because people are strange beautiful creatures) would not sing praises of someone making a villainous character. The Le Fou is sidekick but he does manage to do fuck-up shit by himself.  It's not creative. It almost every villain ever.

Disney is pack full of villain characters that read gay already, because they queer coded and Le Fou wasn't really one of them once you ignore the hero worshipping he does for Gaston (though, he is gay enough to start a musical number to cheer up Gaston, but that is stereotype). Ursula was model on a dragqueen (one of the reason she the best) and the male villains are majority queer-coded, even the ones that are sexually threatening to the main female character still sort of have this. (Jafar, why did you even care about Jasmine once you had the genie?) Disney is not the only one guilty of this, but guilty they are. There is tons of stuff about queer-coding online in general and with Disney in mind. They can probably explain it better than me.

The next thing is Le Fou is going to be in love with the straight Gaston (he could be autoromantic, but then that would leave everyone in the cold). They is no way that gonna be requited unless they have a complete overhaul of the characters and fuck that. Villains should have justifications for what they doing, but it doesn't need to be justifiable to the audience. I like having sociopathic villains who care about themselves. Maleficent was ruined by her film. She was the Mistress of Evil fighting some bad arse fairies, turned into a victim that faced up against idiots who couldn't look after a baby. Though, it would be amusing to see them fuck up Gaston by trying make him likable after having attempt to blackmail Belle into marrying him when he had no concern over where she had been the past few months. Even if you thought Belle's father was crazy, wouldn't you start to worry when no one had seen her over a month (I feel B&B has to happen over at least month, but no clear time line besides the seasons changing). She probably dead in the woods and Le Fou has died in the snow.

Le Fou blindly follows Gaston. That's just sad. Very sad. Why would anyone be happy about this? Having a gay villain in love with a straight person is not a watershed moment, it go fuck yourself  moment you queerbaiting arsehole, Bill Condon. The amount of self-gratitude in telling people about this before the movie has came out proves that it nothing but a marketing tool to get people who ain't going to see another CGI monster that Disney has thrown out. Even if actually Le Fou kisses another man, it means nothing because he a villain sidekick in a live-action remake. It's not a Disney animated film that I'm going to show my kids. It's not a main character. Its not a character we're meant to root for. It's the same bullshit that the queer community has been putting up for years. You don't get congratulate yourself till I see a Princess kiss another Princess. Not till the hero of the story is the one that out and proud. Disney specially is making coming of age stories, the stories of LGBTQA+ have these quality. You have to brave to be yourself, because even now people will torlant you, the way you were born, but they will still chip away at you with 'harmless' comments or do shit like this. This doesn't make me happy, it upsets me that you would do this and bring Howard Ashmen into this. A gay man who died of disease that was ignore until it was pandemic, until it start to effect straight people.

Director Bill Condon on Howard Ashman: 'Specifically for him it was a metaphor for AIDS. He was cursed and this curse had brought sorrow on all those people who loved him and maybe there was a chance for a miracle and a way for the curse to be lifted. It was a very very concrete thing that he was doing.’ Where did you get this info from? Even if you read this in the film, why would you make the character called the Fool, gay as means of honouring him? Why would you do that to him? He wrote lyrics (apparently, dad was an inventor because he wanted to write an inventing song for him and that does sound cool), he did have massive effect on how the film turn out, he's key figure in the Disney Renaissance but that story was there. Several people mounded it. He was actually honoured in the 10th Adversary by the inclusion of Human Again, a song cut for the pacing of the song. His actual passion project was Aladdin which he never got to finish.

Also if the Beast is called Adam in the film then I going to find you and hit you over the head with creepy Mrs Potts and her monstrous offspring. Serious, what the fuck is up with the art direction in this film? Don't worry, Stephen Chbosky, I'm just going to make you eat copies of your slightly ablelist book instead. I know in studio films no one person is responsible, but I'm blaming you two for now because even if wasn't your idea, I have enough issue with yous not to feel guilty about it. Serious, director Bill Condon you should have stayed quiet till the film was out, then responded to people's criticism. Frankly, I think the only reason you brought Ashman into this is so people can't critize you for this. But your wrong but because I will criticize more now.

"And that’s what has its pay-off at the end, which I don’t want to give away. But it is a nice, exclusively gay moment in a Disney movie."
Gay for Disney or actually gay. Because here's the thing no gives a fuck about Le Fou at the end of Beauty and the Beast. What happened to him? Who cases after he had a pair of scissors in his arse...for FUCK SAKE, Condon you're gay how do you think this a good idea? I don't know what I expected of someone who directed two Twilight Films. Is it drugs? Is it mental health? Do gays past a certain time in media, forget what actual representation looks like? Do you know what Queerbaiting even is? Is still Queerbaiting when there's actual Gay on screen (apparently)? Why do middle-aged gay men kept doing stupid shit like this to us? Would Disney only agree if was Le Fou in a scene that could be easily cut for homophobic countries without issue? Is it between him and the guy who got arse lit on fire? Why makes this film even more unwatchable?
In summary, I don't think the film looks good and I have a long arse list as to why. The casting: Emma Watson is typecasting herself; the beast is 21 years old, not forty old looking 34 yr old; Josh Glad is not likable; Gaston has not been eating a dozen eggs since he was a lad and Mrs Potts face is at the side of teapot. One of those is a joke, guess which one. Maybe this Lumaire and Cogsworth will be good if I shut my eyes.

I will be probably dragged to this film, and I will hate watch it so I can I send a list of improvement Disney has to make for it to be a 'watershed moment'. (Condon, are aware of the phrase "past  the Watershed" as in the time children are expected not be watching tv so lets show the adult stuff now as in not appropriate for kids. If either way, bad use of words). Though, literally just give us a kiss between two good characters to start with. Doesn't have to be the protagonist. Like if you had Lumaire and Cogworths be a romantic couple, we would have been cool. Not the person whose name translated to the fool.

To be honest, I use to have fantasy about how I would do live-action version of B&B, but mostly mine would have been live action, not CGI to death. There are forests Disney. I know what European Forests look like. Built sets look cooler than computer ones. I can tell the difference and you have the money for both the cost of renting the space and the building of the an actual set. I know cause I've seen Pirates of the Caribbean. You built a dock twice. The cave with the treasure was a massive set. They could be hiding the cool sets, but those woods definitely are fake and terrible looking.

Okay, I need to stop before I point out that making main characters look horrifying is not a good way to make them likable. Throw Chip out the window, Emma Watson, before he steals your soul. Oh, wait I just did. Oops.

Farewell, I will write again next week where I discuss the Scottish notion to threaten violence with no real plan to do it even if given the opportunity. If think I swear a lot this post, remember that Howard Ashman wrote a song with lyric: "I'm a green mean mother from outer-space". Maybe that metaphour for AIDs too Condon and I mean just that song. The rest of the musical is clearly "Not to feed the plants". Ashman was very clear on that.  Now I'm going to Listen to a "A Friend like Me" and cry.