Monthly Archives: May 2022

A Sociological Examination of Christian Dominionism

E. J. Erichsen Tench

When people think of cults, the initial ideas may be doomsday cults, cults that end in mass suicide, orgies, and brainwashed drones.  The mainstream idea can be isolating and dangerous for survivors of less insidious and violent cults.  Left trying to find answers in a world that imagines cults only as massively violent, bizarre, and insulated, survivors of less radical cults find themselves cut off from help and support groups.  Some cults are doomsday cults, while others disguise themselves in the guise of religious movements with hundreds of members.  These such cults have a benign outside that can reach thousands of people, while a rotten inside holds sway over smaller, more tightly-controlled groups.  These more subtle cults are sometimes referred to as “new religious movement[s];” cults that “do not result from schisms or breaks with established ecclesiae or denominations,” but instead function for a time as another denomination within a larger religion (Schaefer, 2015, p. 357).

One such cult is best described by the overarching title of Christian Dominionism, a Neo-Calvinist interpretation that stresses full obedience to patriarchal leadership with the end goal of setting up a theocratic state through political activism and outbreeding the enemy (the Quiverful movement).  While some of its branches are prone to bigoted and unscientific teaching as opposed to cult behavior (such as Focus on the Family), both benign and harmful aspects of Christian Dominionism can trace their origin to an attempt by some Christian leaders to address the moral dilemmas of the 1960s.  Some of these such leaders are Doug Phillips (Vision Forum Ministries), Michael Pearl (No Greater Joy Ministries), Doug Wilson (Theology That Bites Back), James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Geoffrey Botkin (Western Conservatory) and the most influential figure Bill Gothard (Institute in Basic Life Principles).  I will demonstrate through sociological terms Christian Dominionism fulfills the requirements for a cult, or new religious movement, by focusing on five main criteria: a “Benign Outside, Rotten Inside,” a “Basis of Authority,” “Isolation,” the tools to “Establish Control,” and the need to “Maintain Control.”

Alex Jones (2009) provides an, if darkly humored, explanation of each criteria.  The first criterion, “Benign Outside, Rotten Inside,” refers to a cult leader’s attempt to structure their “cult like an onion, with the most benign and helpful features on the outside and the most controlling, kooky, and evil parts in the secret evil core.”  The success of Christian Dominionism can be attributed to this very criterion.  On the outside, Christian Dominionism presents a rational, scientific, and historical framework by which any Christian can gain the tools and knowledge necessary to influence their culture for good, starting with the church and family unit.  Through mainstream organizations such as Focus on the Family, Christian Dominionism hardly appears to be cult-like.

The Institute in Basic Life Principles (Gothard recently resigned due to his sexual scandals) offer a clearer look at the “evil core” of the Christian Dominionist movement.  Functioning under the same goals as Focus on the Family, Gothard founded the organization (originally called the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts) to “reach the troubled youth of the turbulent ’60s.  Parents obviously appreciated Gothard’s teachings as an antidote to the rebellious anti-authoritarian attitudes of the hippie culture, and soon his seminar attendance swelled, and unfortunately, so did Gothard’s head” (Sue 2008).  As his power and influence grew, Gothard developed key Christian Dominionist teachings, such as the “Umbrella of Authority,” the Quiverful movement, and a theocratic vision of the “Christian faith [as] a religion of world conquest” in a “world at war” (Wilson, 2001, pp. 104, 170).

Survivors of Christian Dominionism are most familiar with the emphasis on authority.  The appeal to an established “Basis of Authority” is the second criterion noted by Jones (2009).  Cult leaders “claim authority from a divine source, bogus scientific research [or] special knowledge.”  In addition, the “person with the most power resources is in control” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 168).  Cult leaders, like abusers, flex their authority over a group by emphasizing their power through “money, presents, trips, more knowledge, experience, a better vocabulary, and superior status” (p. 169).  This special knowledge and status has to come from somewhere; for the Christian Dominionist, the source of all authority derives not from “scientific findings” but through whoever is interpreting the Bible, “the Standard of all faith and practice.  The Scriptures, therefore, are the basis, and contain the criteria by which … to make every judgment” (Adams, 1970, p. xxi).

The Christian Bible clearly states some rules, but the Christian Dominionist movement encompasses a bizarre authoritarian bent, where (most notably) Gothard’s “personal opinions” on the Bible have risen to the “status” of actual “scriptural authority” (Veinot, 2002, p. 102).  Gothard’s abuse of Scripture “extends into medical advice (Cabbage Patch dolls interfering with the birth of children), adoption (tracing family lineage to bind ancestral demons), and other mystical elements (hedge of thorns, umbrella of authority/protection, sins of the father).”  How the Christian Dominionist leader can convince followers to hold personal opinions on the same authority level of Scripture is related to the idea of Biblically directed rules versus Biblically derived rules.  Lou Priolo (1997) notes “Biblically directed rules are those which all men are obligated to obey because God commands them in His Word. … On the other hand, biblically derived rules are those which are based on biblical principles; but which I am obligated to obey only as long as I am under God-ordained authority” (p. 36).

It is this emphasis on Biblically derived rules as determined by a spiritual authority that grants Gothard (and the other leaders) their power.  Jones’s fourth and fifth criteria will examine the cult leader’s use of control through this authority, but at the moment it is important to emphasize the patriarchal aspect of authority.  Not only are Biblically directed rules determined by only men interpreting Scripture, but Biblically derived rules are also only given authority when issued by men.  The Christian Dominionist is an inherently authoritarian patriarchal movement that teaches men are created to exercise dominion over the earth; they are fitted to be husbandman, tilling the earth; they are equipped to be saviors, delivering from evil; they are expected grow up into wisdom, becoming sages; and they are designed to reflect the image and glory of God” (Wilson, 2001, p. 13).  Women are left out of “this mandate” as it is “a masculine vocation in this world” (p. 31).  This emphasis on the isolation of women will be explored by the third criterion.

Jones’s third criterion is “Isolation.”  He notes cult leaders must “encourage separation from … family and friends.”  Relationships with nonbelievers are inherently “unhealthy” and most be “cut off” in order to ensure the spiritual well-being of cult practitioners.  This emphasis on isolation is a tactic cult leaders use to ensure members “tighten [their] bond[s]” through viewing all “outsiders as wrong.”  One survivor of a Dutch Dominionist church recalls how the “‘church dictated our entire social life, school, clubs, and acquaintances.  Friends were allowed to come home with us as long as they were from the same church’” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 54).  Jones (2009) emphasizes how even former members of the cult are not exempt from this characterization of “outside” and are treated as “enemies” once they leave.  The Dutch survivor remembers when she left the church and “‘received a letter telling me that I was damned.  My parents dropped me, too’” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 54).

In particular for Christian Dominionism, patriarchy “predominates in very narrow, sectarian ‘Christian’ practice.  As patriarchy comes to expression in the home schooling movement, there is a tendency to have an inbred, tribal approach to relationships” (Zens, 2011, p. 54).  This is especially true for daughters, whose fathers, encouraged by the “stay-at-home-daughters movements” of Botkins, ensure “young lad[ies] stay at home serving [their] father until a husband is chosen for [them] by him” (Zens, 2011, p. 45).  Proponents of this ideology “even use the word ‘helpmeet’ — a word in Scripture exclusively connected to the wife — to describe the daughter’s relationship to her dad.”  In many cases, daughters are forbidden to attend college (if permitted, they take online courses) and are instead “given ‘the tools for dominion,’ that is, kitchen and homemaking supplies.  Many home-schooled girls are not taught academics beyond the eighth grade.”  This idea ties into the Quiverful cult, where daughters must remain docile in order to accept their role as broodmares for Christianity’s eventual cultural domination.  Thankfully, not every Christian Dominionist family forbids their daughters to seek higher education.  However, children are still raised in a patriarchal structure in order to establish and maintain control of the family unit.

A cult leader’s success depends on how well he can establish control, Jones’s fourth criterion.  The methods used to establish control can vary immensely, from mandated devotionals, readings, and prayer to creating a “rigid schedule,” keeping members “active” and with “little sleep,” and controlling thoughts and emotions through “induc[ed] guilt and fear of the enemy” (Jones, 2009).  These latter examples most frequently occur at Gothard’s youth retraining camps, including his ALERT Academy for wayward males and the Hepzibah House for rebellious females.  While the Hepzibah House closed down many years ago, it was home to incredible abuse committed by staff against underage girls, including forced feedings, mandatory isolation, regular beatings, and stringent work.  Both ALERT and Hepzibah ensure the youth are kept on a tight schedule with little sleep, menial tasks, and devotions, all to ensure a rebellious spirit is destroyed.  A more mainstream, if less extreme, example is Summit Ministries in Colorado, a Christian worldview training camp for Christian high schoolers and college students.  Camp attendees (some of whom are forced to attend by parents) must conform to a regimented schedule, little sleep, mandatory seminars they cannot leave (even to use the bathroom), and are assigned physical labor as punishments for either breaking rules or not maintaining a clean dorm room (this includes picking lint off the floor).  Once youth are physically and mentally broken down, they are more susceptible to the religious teachings.  At Summit Ministries, this takes the form of biased and outright false teaching on other worldviews and religion, proponents of gay-conversion therapy, members of the radical religious and political Right, and a mandatory Bible-knowledge quiz that must be repeated until an acceptable score is attained.

In day-to-day life, Christian Dominionist leaders establish control through the appeal to authority.  Gothard developed the “Umbrella of Authority” concept to illustrate God’s use of authority for life and protection from sin.  At the top of the Umbrella is God, who ordains all authority and circumstances.  Next come Christian authorities (such as Gothard), who are the mouth-speakers of God.  Next come men fathers, the heads of the home, who have authority to lead and control and act as prophets of God in their children’s lives.  Next come wives, who have some authority over children.  At the bottom are children.  Individuals who submit to their God-ordained authority are assured blessings, while those who breach the Umbrella are no longer considered under God’s protection; they are no longer under God’s ordained shield of protection.  Christian Dominionism results in a retributive God, where curses and punishment are the natural consequences of removing oneself from under authority, but blessings and protection are offered to those who obey.

The Umbrella, while not present in Scripture, is a derived concept Gothard has used “to bring his legalistic teachings into all areas of life” (Sue, 2008).  Once a derived concept is law is made and implemented by an authority figure, disobedience now results in breaking of the Umbrella.  Laws not explicitly laid out in Scripture now become God’s laws and disobedience brings punishment.  Using the Umbrella, Gothard and other leaders gain power to control every aspect of life, including “use of cosmetics, clothing, beards, sleep schedules, homeschooling, courtship and marriage, and even medical advice.”  All “precepts, commandments, instruction, words, reproofs, discipline, and correction” derive from this “outside source imposed upon” the members (Adams, 1970, p. 100).

Once the cult and patriarchal leader’s teaching is considered God’s authority, “autonomous thoughts and actions” can be controlled (Jones, 2009).  Church and family members are taught “God’s desires are exalted over everyone else’s.  Everyone in the [unit] may be expected to sacrifice personal pleasures if God’s will requires it” (Priolo, 1997, pp. 26-7).  Personal autonomy in thought and action is restricted; instead, complete obedience to God’s will is the mandate and God’s will becomes whatever the present authority interprets it as.  “Males will necessarily be dominant in any given culture,” according to Wilson, so women are never granted spiritual authority and cannot interpret Scripture (2001, p. 24).  Since “in a scriptural worship service, both masculine and feminine elements will be present, but the masculine will be dominant, in a position of leadership” women’s interpretation of Scripture can never be personal, but must always be subject to the authority of the men in her life (Wilson, 2001, p. 95).  Women are not only forbidden from interpreting Scripture, but they are also forbidden from exercising personal authority.  “The most important message a woman hears in church is obedience” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 140).  Since “Eve was disobedient and [brought] sin … into the world,” women are considered naturally deceptive and weak-willed.

Once cult leaders have created a benign outside and a structured, isolated inside where control is established through authority, they must “Maintain Control.”  The fifth criterion is often the most difficult, as cult leaders must fight the “resistance [and] critical thoughts” of their members (Jones, 2009).  While the men in power in Christian Dominionism are comfortable, members can experience extreme discomfort as their autonomous thoughts conflict with the stringent legalism of their God-ordained authority figures.  Gothard and his ilk have developed techniques to subdue members by using common cult tactics, such as creating “guilt” and creating self-doubt through accusations of bitterness and “negativ[ity].”  “Critical thoughts are [presented as] evidence of crimes” by focusing on man’s depravity.  Nouthetic counselor Jay E Adams (1970) builds upon this framework, teaching that “unpleasant visceral and other bodily warning devices” are activated when a man “sins” (p. 94).  Christian Dominionist members are reminded time again by their authorities the physical and mental conflict they feel is a result of sin; questioning God-ordained authorities and rules disturbs a good conscience and results in “misery, defeat and ruin” (p. 105).  The only way to feel at peace is obedience to authority and confession.  For members of these churches who are mentally ill, the answer is the same.  Psychiatric diseases are treated as a manifestation of unconfessed sin since “God in the ordering and disciplining of his church frequently uses sickness as a rod of chastisement” (p. 109).  To this day, Nouthetic counselors deride the American Psychological Association and contend the Bible is the only mental health book required (p. xxi).

Not only does the Christian Dominionist ensure obedience through punishment of questions, but facial expressions and body language are considered accurate reflections of a sinful or righteous state of mind.  Members and children must interact or respond with the correct “verbal and non-verbal communication [that] reflect both submission to and respect for authority” (Priolo, 1997, p. 170).  Priolo includes asking “why” as a sign of disrespect, worthy of punishment (p. 131).  Children are punished by corporal methods.  The most common punishments are taken from the teachings of Michael Pearl and Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, who lay out detailed instructions for corporal punishment.  These techniques include spanking infants, purposefully testing if infants and children will obey a command, switching children with wooden switches and spanking them with wooden or metal rods, and resuming punishment if a child expresses too much pain.  The severity of the punishments and the range of physical punishment to mental manipulation vary from household to household.  Christian Dominionist punishment methods have come under more recent scrutiny since the deaths of Lidia Shatz, Hana Williams, and other children disciplined in Quiverful homes. 

For offspring raised in Christian Dominionism, legal adulthood is not recognized.  Obedience to parents is required for those still living at home, regardless of the age.  Male offspring experience more freedom while living at home, while female children are not expected to leave until marriage.  After all, not “only are these children different from one another, these differences reflect the wisdom of God, who intends for them to serve Him differently” (Wilson, 2001, p. 85).  While boys are encouraged to be visionaries and leaders, girls can “only honor God by doing whatever [their] father says” (Zens, 2011, p. 26).  Ultimately, women and daughters are forced to “repress [their] feelings, desires, and natural talents (which are not appropriate to her role), and to make these subservient to the feelings, desires and talents of men, specifically fathers and brothers” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 257).

Through these methods of control maintenance, Christian Dominionist leaders squelch critiques, “instill a fear of divine retribution or earthly punishment,” and “keep” their members “doubting” their own consciences (Jones, 2009).  It is no wonder the cult has managed to survive for decades, reaching thousands of members, and entwining itself with patriarchal Christianity, the political Right, the Quiverful movement, and homeschooling movements.  In order to break from these churches, survivors must first “overcome” a “very difficult” mindset where questioning “‘God’s appointed man’ is tantamount to questioning God” Himself (Veinot, 2002, p. 316).  Those who “recognize some signs of spiritual abuse, hypocrisy, or oppression” are conditioned to “reject this input out of fear of reprisal or condemnation for presuming to judge the leader or leaders supposedly anointed or specially anointed by God” (p. 315).  Children are especially vulnerable, as the stringent “‘obedience’” called for feels [increasingly] instinctively wrong to the youth” (Zens, 2011, p. 30).  For those who leave or who try to expose corruption, church leaders silence their voices through accusations of bitterness and sin (Adams, 1970, p. 167).

The Christian Dominionist movement fulfills five main sociological requirements for a new religious movement (cult).  While mass suicides do not occur, orgies are unheard of, sacrifice is unacceptable, and those influenced through various degrees are in the thousands, those who follow the teachings of Gothard, Wilson, and others subscribe to an authoritarian version of Christianity that traps its members in an isolated belief system built upon complete subjugation to derived patriarchal interpretation of Scripture.  With such a wide audience, church pastors and heads of homes vary in the severity of the practices, but the basic theology is stifling, harmful, and spiritually abusive across the board.  Those who, through exposure to new ideas and more moderate Christians, reject the teachings of Christian Dominionism are disowned and branded as trouble makers.  With the continual rise of the digital age and social media, survivors of this lesser known cult can now find healing and answers in Internet communities.  The Wartburg Watch, Homeschoolers Anonymous, No Longer Quivering, Under Much Grace, and Libby Anne of Patheos (among others) are continuing the survivors’ mission to educate and bring freedom to the adults and children still trapped under the Umbrella of Authority.

References

Adams, Jay E. 1970. Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Imbens, Annie and Ineke Jonker. 1992. Christianity and Incest. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jones, Alex. 2009. “How to Start A Cult.” YouTube Web site. Retrieved November 15, 2015. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBK5aKOr2Fw).

Priolo, Lou. 1997. The Heart of Anger: Practical Help for the Prevention and Cure of Anger in Children. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press.

Schaefer, Richard T. 2015. Sociology in Modules, 3rd Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Sue, Paul. 2008. The Blinding and Binding Teachings of Bill Gothard. Battered Sheep. Retrieved December 4, 2015 (http://www.batteredsheep.com/gothard.html).

Veiont, Don and Joy Veiont. 2002. A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard & the Christian Life. Buffalo, NY: 21st Century Press.

Wilson, Douglas. 2001. Future Men. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press.

Zens, Jon. 2011. No Will of My Own: How Patriarchy Smothers Female Dignity & Personhood. Omaha, NE: Ekklesia Press.

The Controversy of Gender Politics in The Taming of the Shrew vs. 10 Things I Hate About You

Hannah Moonis

From A Comedy of Errors to Much Ado About Nothing, William Shakespeare composed many comedies throughout the years. Perhaps one of the greatest comedies of his time was The Taming of the Shrew, one of his first plays. This comedy follows the tale of sisters Katharina and Bianca and their various suitors. The elder sister, Katharina, (the “shrew”) is pursued by Petruchio, a man from Verona on a mission to wed and make money. Bianca is courted by many men, but most noticeably, Lucentio (disguised as a tutor) and Hortensio (a friend of Petruchio). Through a series of events, Katharina weds Petruchio and is successfully “tamed” by her new husband. Bianca married Lucentio after Tranio, Lucentio’s servant who disguised himself as Lucentio to convince Bianca’s father to let her marry Lucentio, disguised as her tutor. All ends well for everyone and as a final test, Petruchio shows the other men how obedient his once-wild wife now was. In its modern day film adaptation, 10 Things I Hate About You, the plot similarly follows the story of sisters Kat and Bianca. In a modern day high school a new student, Cameron, arrives and immediately falls in love with Bianca. The girls’ father has a rule Bianca can’t date until Kat starts dating, which Kat claims will never happen. In order to date Bianca, Cameron must pay “bad-boy” Patrick to date her older, quick-tempered sister Kat. Though the two are quite similar in the storyline, the two tales diverge at particular parts. There are two main differences in the plots of these two stories: how Katharina or Kat is “tamed” and the role of gender politics.

The Taming of the Shrew has brought up many controversial topics throughout its long history. One of the most debated topics is whether or not Katharina’s taming was emotional abuse or merely a less violent way to control Petruchio’s wild wife. During Shakespeare’s time, beating one’s wife was becoming more and more frowned upon by society, leading many to argue Petruchio’s psychological methods of taming were more humane and gentle. Katharina is eventually “tamed” and submits to her husband. There are many theories as to what her final speech in Act 5 means; most commonly believed is Katharina is sincere and has been successfully “tamed” by Petruchio. It is unknown if they truly love each other. Quite contrary to the original story, in 10 Things I Hate About You, Patrick “tames” Kat, quite on accident, through the power of love. Only after falling in love with Patrick does she become a more calm and loving person. Though both Petruchio and Patrick pursue Katharina (Kat) for money, Patrick’s actions become much more sincere as the movie progresses. It is up to the reader to determine if Petruchio and Katharina truly loved each other in the end, or if it was simply a woman’s submission to her husband through nonviolent means.

Gender politics plays a huge role in the story of Katharina and Petruchio or Kat and Patrick. Many critics debate whether or not Petruchio’s treatment of Katharina was emotional abuse. Emily Detmer, author of “Civilizing Subordination: Domestic Violence and Taming of the Shrew,” suggests in her book the final speech made by Katharina was a result of Stockholm Syndrome, saying, “Her surrender and obedience signify her emotional bondage as a survival strategy; she aims to please because her life depends upon it.” Other critics such as David Beauregard, author of Catholic Theologies in Shakespeare’s Plays, argues Katharina and Petruchio’s relationship takes on the characteristics of an Aristotelian story and is in no way abusive, but in fact, beneficial to both parties. Beauregard believes Petruchio was acting as a light to Katharina, bringing her into harmony with her own nature, thus teaching her obedience. In the reverse, Katharina also helps Petruchio understand happiness and fortune through her taming according to Beauregard. The gender politics in 10 Things I Hate About You  is decreased in importance from the original story. Kat is portrayed as an angry feminist who finds social constructs to be restricting, hence her reluctance to date. Patrick doesn’t use relatively abusive psychological methods on Kat to make her date him. He may be motivated by money in the beginning, but over time, Patrick shows he actually cares about her, contrary to her previous notions about men. In the end, both Patrick and Kat are happier and much nicer people. Their relationship becomes a symbiotic one, much like Beauregard’s description of Katharina and Petruchio’s relationship, which is definitely not emotionally abusive.

The Taming of the Shrew is responsible for many gender role-based debates. Some say Shakespeare is warming against the cruelty of submissive techniques, even non-physical ones. Others argue Shakespeare is portraying the change in social civility as Petruchio doesn’t physically abuse Katharina. But almost everyone can agree The Taming of the Shrew is controversial. Is it misogynistic? Is it sexist? The debate continues. 10 Things I Hate About You stays largely away from the gender politics portrayed in its source material, possibly because The Taming of the Shrew offends so many people, not just women, in this day and age. George Bernard Shaw in a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette describes the play as “one vile insult to womanhood and manhood from the first word to the last.”

The contrasts between these two stories, The Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things I Hate About You, are a little drastic, the latter taking out what many critics say to be the most important part of the story: the role of gender in society and marriage and the controversial cruelty of men against their wives and women in general. The two tales seems to both send different messages to their audiences. The Taming of the Shrew portrays a woman’s role in life is to submit to her husband with blind obedience. 10 Things I Hate About You shows how love and acceptance reveal one’s true self and essentially makes you a better person.           

Bibliography

Detmer, Emily. “Civilizing Subordination: Domestic Violence and the Taming of the Shrew.” Shakespeare Quarterly 48.3 (1997): 273–294. Web.

Junger, Gil, dir. 10 Things I Hate About You. Perf. Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles. Touchstone Pictures, 1999. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare: The Taming of the Shrew. Mumbai, India: Wilco Publishing House, 2005. 224-47. Print.

Cinderella

Tarah Leake

Written by (among others) the Brothers Grimm, the story of Cinderella has survived for decades. About one hundred twenty-five years later, Disney produced a film based on the Grimms’ tale. Today, Cinderella presents a beautiful princess who marries a charming man and lives happily ever after. However, this story is not to be taken casually; rather, the telling of Cinderella’s family, trials, and outcome holds intrinsic educational value for the real world. In both versions, characters demonstrate inverse and similar characteristics, themes of humility and judgment transpire, and symbolism is apparent.

After her mother dies of ailment, young Ella is lost in a world with her dreadful stepsisters and stepmother. She is treated awfully and forced to sleep by the fireplace, covering her in cinders and deriving the nickname, “Cinderella.” Even after this, Cinderella remains humble and grateful for what she does possess. The stepsisters and stepmother, on the other hand, are selfish and arrogant. In the Grimms’ tale, when Cinderella’s father goes to a fair, he promises to bring back gifts for the girls. The stepsisters request dresses, pearls, and jewels. Cinderella, however, simply asks for the first branch that knocks off her father’s hat. This demonstrates Cinderella accepts her life and is not concerned with obtaining carnal, materialistic desires. When the stepsisters are preparing for the ball, Cinderella helps them with their hair and dresses instead of focusing on herself. This shows maturity, because the stepsisters would never help Cinderella prepare for the ball; they treat her like a slave, and yet she still offers up her assistance.

The stepmother is conceited and demanding. She places her personal satisfaction above others’ needs. She marries Cinderella’s father, not because she loves him, but rather she loves his money. She does everything in her power to eliminate competition for the prince’s hand in marriage; in her mind, forcing Cinderella to stay home and do chores confirms the choosing of one of her daughters. This shows the stepmother recognizes Cinderella’s elegance and feels threatened by it. Disney makes a point of highlighting the stepmother’s extreme jealousy of Cinderella’s beauty and her hatred of the young girl. The Grimm Brothers demonstrate this hatred by the stepmother’s constant attempt at the humiliation of Ella. When Cinderella asked if she could go to the ball, the stepmother reprimanded her for even considering going to the ball looking as vile as she does. The stepsisters assumed their mother was trying to help them; however, once again the stepmother was conceited and wanted her daughters to marry the prince so she could be recognized and respected. The stepmother was also quite demanding and cruel in both stories. According to the Grimm Brothers, the stepmother poured lentils into the hearth and told Cinderella she must pick all of the lentils out if she desired to go to the ball. In Disney’s story, she forced Cinderella to cook all of their meals, do their laundry, and clean the house. Even with how dreadful she treated Cinderella, Cinderella never disrespected her. Not only was the stepmother demanding of Cinderella, but even to her own daughters. In the Grimms’ tale, when the messenger arrived with the golden shoe looking for the owner, the stepsisters’ feet were too large. The mother was so determined to have her daughters marry the prince, she forced them to cut off parts of their feet so the shoe would fit, finishing with the cruel demand to swallow the pain. This is far removed from anything Cinderella would do especially to her own children. This shows, yet again, the inverses of characters’ morals in this classic.

Along with these varying morals and aspirations, two major themes are scattered throughout the story: sacrifice and judgment. Self-sacrifice was seen with the stepsisters when they brutally removed portions of their body in order to be accepted by the prince, which proved useless in the end. Cinderella made self-sacrifices by choosing to be humble and respectful to her stepmother and by choosing to help the stepsisters with their dresses rather than make her own. This theme pairs perfectly with Christ’s words in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The second major theme is judgment. The stepsisters’ hearts were full of arrogance and conceit, and they were judged accordingly. The Grimm Brothers describe the haunting event where the stepsisters’ eyes were plucked out by the bird on Cinderella’s shoulder during the wedding. Judgment is not always bad, simply a conclusion based on one’s choices. Cinderella was humble, kind, and a servant to others and was ultimately rewarded for her actions. The Bible often announces the rewards of humility and kindness; James 4:10 says, “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.” Proverbs 22:4 explains the wages of humility are riches, honor, and life. This is applicable to eternal life as well: Matthew 20:16 says, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” In the end, the sacrifices and responses of Cinderella were judged accordingly, and she was granted a beautiful life and husband. The stepsisters and stepmother, however, who desired only to please themselves, paid the ultimate price in the end.

The use of symbolism is frequent in both versions of Cinderella. In many ways, Cinderella represents a Christ-like attitude. She was rejected and terribly punished in her own home, yet continued to serve others with love, willingness, and humility. Christ also came to the world to serve others and demonstrate love and humility even when persecuted. When the stepsisters arrived at Cinderella’s wedding in the original, they desired to befriend Cinderella so they could share in her wealth and recognition. They attempted to beg Cinderella for forgiveness, however, Cinderella ignored the sisters, and the once beautiful girls lived in pain and blindness the remainder of their lives. This is symbolic of people in the world who choose to neglect God’s word and live out their carnal desires. When the bird removed the sisters’ eyes, Proverbs 30:17 comes to mind. It reads, “The eye that mocks a father, that scorns an aged mother, will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley, will be eaten by the vultures.” Just as Cinderella ignored the sisters, so will Christ ignore the evil on the Day of Judgment. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 reads, “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” Matthew 7:23 reads, “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” Another example of symbolism is the likeness of Cinderella’s relationship with her stepsisters to the Biblical story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Luke 16:19-31 describes the story of how a rich man mistreats poor Lazarus. When both men die, the rich man calls up to Lazarus from Hell and requests just a drop of water to quench his thirst. Likewise, in the story of Cinderella, the stepsisters were tormented by their judgment and sought refuge in the very individual they disgraced. The final demonstration of symbolism is the false promises of the stepmother. Three times the stepmother promised Cinderella permission to attend the ball as long as she completed her tasks.  Each time, however, Cinderella was met with rejection and disappointment. This represents how Satan can promise individuals their innermost desires in exchange for something else; however, he never fulfills his agreements and many are left disappointed like Cinderella.

Although written during different centuries and varying in minor details, both the Grimm and Walt Disney versions share similar values and lessons. Cinderella is often regarded as a light-hearted fairytale with the classic happy ending; however, when truly analyzed, it outlines many real-life applications of consequences and judgment, humility and reward, and biblical symbolisms. Cinderella showed humility and respect in the presence of cruelty and arrogance. The stepsisters chose selfish desires over good morals and were judged accordingly, spending the rest of their lives as cripples. The stepmother was the epitome of jealous hatred and conceit, the opposite of Cinderella’s gentle nature. Elements of the story symbolize the rewards God honors the humble with, judgment upon the wicked, and deceitful promises of the Devil. Cinderella is not simply a fairy-tale for children; rather it is comprised of moral lessons that individuals of any age can benefit from.

Bibliography

BibleGateway.com: A Searchable Online Bible in over 100 Versions and 50 Languages. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.

“Cinderella.” Grimms’ Fairy Tales. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. <https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/grimmtmp/016.txt&gt;.

“Cinderella’s Story — Disney Princess.” Disney Princess. Disney Entertainment. Web. 22 Nov. 2015. <http://princess.disney.com/cinderellas-story&gt;.

The Depiction and Ideals of Women in Fairytales

Melissa Yeh

In the classic stories of the poor maiden girl who turns into a princess, or the frail, beautiful girl rescued by the prince, the typical archetype takes a particular form paired with specific attributes.  Fairytales build characters to inspire children, as the female protagonists become a role model to young girls.  For these protagonists, the usual stages of the their life are the good girl, the good wife, and the good mother.  Their behavior sets an ideal in beauty and innocence, usually remaining passive in nature.  This leads to their dependence on other characters.

Fairytales are designed to leave an impression on children.  They are designed to teach children how they should behave regularly each day.  Through the interactions of the characters, a framework or model is created to shape the belief system of the child at a young age.  At the same time, the journey the characters go through present a sense of life; they invoke curiosity, “their spirit of wonder,” as well as a growing anticipation to know the outcome.  The natural response of the child is to root for poetic justice and to have a desire for a sense of adventure, all woven into the child’s imagination, creating a lasting impression.  The characters themselves express a range of emotions, attitudes, and feelings.  These include heartfelt love, compassion, faithfulness, and tenderness; the hero figure promotes justice and resolve but also carries virtues such as mercy and diligence.  The characteristics the female protagonist holds also impact the reader at the same level.  Her standards and attitude toward not only other characters but also herself leave an impression and provide an example to the child.  Eventually it leads to developing ideas about family life, what priorities should be determined, and the most important values in life.  However, these personalities have constantly changed along history from the moment they were first written.  As history changes, the standards people uphold also change.  This paper only analyzes how the original fairytale descriptions and plots depict women.   The fairytales reflect the behavior of ideal women in a different time frame, while expressing fantasy and teaching moral lessons to children.

When describing the gender ideology of the main female character, the components can be divided into three highlighted stages in her life: the good girl, the good wife, and the good mother (Erum para. 10).  Not every fairytale covers each stage, yet recurring aspects in different stories build the model of the ideal character.  The good girl stage is the most frequently seen in fairytales.  The stereotype promotes qualities where the young girl is obedient, submissive, and gentle.  Take Cinderella, for instance: she begins with a perfect life with her father and mother, and tragedy befalls her; her mother becomes ill and passes away (Beust & Hale 74).  Her response in significant as she proceeds to continuously listen to instruction and prays to God daily.  Her submissiveness withstands the torment the stepsisters and stepmother put her through.  She remains humble and diligent, never complaining and waiting patiently.  Obedience is emphasized; Cinderella is rewarded for hers through a supernatural agent.  In the Charles Perrault version (and the Disney version), her anguish of being unable to attend the ball is answered by the appearance of a fairy godmother (Beust & Hale 76).  She gives Cinderella a beautiful gown, a coach, and glass slippers.  In the Brothers Grimm version, Cinderella runs to the tree by her mother’s grave, where a white bird flies by to drop anything she wishes for.  In this case, the bird drops a gold and silver dress.  On the other hand, a famous example of disobedience is Red Riding Hood.  Her mother specifically tells her to stay on the path to her grandmother’s house.  As the story goes, she strays off the path and as a result, gets eaten by the wolf.  As children do, Red Riding Hood learns from her mistake, knowing not to repeat it in the future.  The second time another wolf appears she ignores him to avoid his evil intentions (Beust & Hale 315).  Another part of the typical responsibilities the good girl has is taking care of household chores.  She has this expectation, which is meant to influence readers, being young girls, to have the same expectation.  Cinderella worked morning until night; she carried heavy pails filled with water, cooked meals, and washed the floors (Beust & Hale 75).  Snow White was expected to cook food for the dwarves, make their beds, wash, sew, and knit; the home is her responsibility (Beust & Hale 304).

The next stage the female character encounters is the good wife (Erum para. 17).  She is subordinate to her husband and passive.  This does not mean she is unhappy; she is perfectly content with her life and never complains.  Shortly after, she enters the stage of being a good mother (Erum para. 18).  The goal in her marriage is to give birth to healthy children.  In Sleeping Beauty, the king and queen long for children.  The queen especially feels shame for being unable to bear a child.  When they receive the princess, they are overjoyed (Beust & Hale 272).  Rapunzel also has the similar situation where the king and queen desperately want a child.  The mother figure is symbolic toward a good household.  Cinderella’s godmother was helping and caring toward her (Beust & Hale 76).  The absence of a good mother disrupts the harmony of the household.  In Hansel and Gretel, when the good mother dies, the loss affects their lives, as their stepmother wants to leave them to starve in the forest (Beust & Hale 202).  The cycle starts from the good girl to the good wife to the good mother who parents another girl, so the cycle restarts.

General characteristics a female protagonist has are beauty, grace, honesty, and forgiveness.  Another underlying message is it is a prerequisite for a lady to attract a gentleman.  Snow White is known as the “fairest if the land” according to the fairytale; her beauty invokes jealousy especially in the evil queen (Beust & Hale 300).  At the same time, it saved her from the huntsman sent to kill her.  It also influences the reaction of the dwarves, no anger when she was in their home, and the prince who never even talked once to her.  For Cinderella, her stepsisters tried to guarantee she would not go to the ball, to eliminate the competition for the prince’s hand in marriage (Beust & Hale 78).  Even at the ball, she catches the attention of everyone around her.  Specifically her small feet define her femininity and no other girl could fit into the glass slippers (Nanda para. 7).  Masculine traits were less desirable.  Another major characteristic is her passive roles.  She mainly waits patiently for the male lead to come and rescue her from her life.  She is submissive and self-sacrificing as a wife and then a mother.  Rapunzel is stuck inside her tower.  Sleeping Beauty is immovable under her spell.  Cinderella must wait until the prince finds her with the other glass slipper.

These characters teach a lesson, each reflecting that of the women and ideals in the time periods of when the original plots were written.  They define beauty and what is attractive; the move in grace in peaceful manner.  They represent the shape of a role model for young girls.

Bibliography

Beust, Nora E. and Jeanne Hale. Mostly Magic. Eau Claire, WI: E.M. Hale, 1958. Print.

Erum, Tazreen. “The History of Gender Ideology in Brothers Grimm’s Fairy Tales.” The History of Gender Ideology in Brothers Grimm’s Fairy Tales. Academia, n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

Nanda, Silima, Dr. “The Oxford Companion to Fairy Tales.” (2002): n. p. Valleyinternational.net. IGNOU. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

Summer Reading 2015

Christopher Rush

Hello, friends.  Welcome to Volume 5!  Pretty exciting stuff.  As indicated the last time we were together, a good deal of the past summer was spent board-gaming and not much of it was spent reading.  Caverna, Le Havre, Lords of Waterdeep, Bohnanza, Mage Wars, Keyflower, Nations: The Dice Game, Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small, Chinatown, and probably a few others were played for the first time and several more times after that.  In this sense, it was a good summer.  I even got to take a day to play a four-person game of Through the Ages, currently my favorite board game.  Part of the fun of that day was listening to some ’70s-era Beach Boys albums  all the while, which was part of the inspiration for a forthcoming article this season.

Even so, I did manage to squeeze in some time for a few books here and there — almost none of them on my proposed reading list or the books I started years ago and really need to get back to someday.  Since a lot of you are, understandably and correctly, eager to know my reactions to every book I read, I added a few books I read before the summer began, just for giggles.

There you have it — a good deal of my summer reading (with a bit of springtime reading sprinkled in for fun).  I read a few Star Wars books I will include next issue, and I finally got the gumption up to read the Chronicles of Prydain again for the first time in donkey’s years, and they have held up unsurprisingly well.  I will also include my reviews for them next issue.  They certainly deserve more than just terse book reviews, possibly a series of papers, but we’ll see how the time goes in the months ahead.  You never know what the kids are going to write about, or what analytical mood will strike me in the close of 2015.

Certainly some more intentional discussion should be given to many of the fine games we have been playing this year, especially the games mentioned at the outset of this collection of reviews.  I did play some wargames with Dad over the summer, don’t get me wrong: we worked through the Battles of the Ardennes quadrigame, and we had a nice time dabbling with the Crimean War during their visit in late July.  Recently we have reenacted the battle of Raphia as well.  Naturally, I lost most of those games, but a decent amount of good times were had all in all.  I don’t mean to give you the impression I’m losing the fire for historical conflict simulations — that’s not the case, indeed, but boardgames have come along way since Milton Bradley’s heyday (where, apparently, most of the population of Summit Christian Academy still resides), so it’s time you were made aware of the delights out there.

Anyway, that’s all another story.  Enjoy those pumpkin-spice flavored everythings for a few more weeks, friends.  Christmas bells are on the horizon!  Until then!

Two Books that Have Nothing In Common (Other than I Read Them in the Summer of 2015)

Christopher Rush

In Love with Norma Loquendi, William Safire ⭐⭐⭐

That was a whole lot of Safire, that’s for sure.  It was good, but the heft of it all gets to you somewhere in the middle and you realize why people would read this day by day in the paper (or week by week — it’s not really clear, since it was published at a time when everyone just knew it, very unhelpful for posterity) and not all in one lump sum.  His cleverness and facility with language are enjoyable, certainly, which is likely why he had the various positions in society he held for so long.  Sadly, much of it is rather dated, especially the political entries, which may be a significant drawback, especially to people younger than me (which accounts for most of the world’s population, apparently).  Many of the entries deal with people whose time on the world stage ended almost 25 years ago (I was about to type “15,” but, yeah, well…), so their currency has dwindled.  How many Secretaries of State from the 1980s can you name?  Exactly.  Many names rang the tocsins of long-distant memories, but that’s about it (not to be confused with “toxins”).  Some may enjoy this for the response letters included, hearing from such used-to-be-famous people such as Jacques Barzun, George Carlin, Colin Powell, Mrs. John Steinbeck, and others you may or may not recognize.  I enjoyed many of the linguistically-driven entries, of course, being me, and I’m glad I read it, but it’s a total package that today may be slightly less than the sum of its parts, no disrespect intended to Mr. Safire who is today, years after he died, still far more intelligent than I am.


Goldfinger, Ian Fleming ⭐⭐⭐

Most of the book deserves a 2.5 stars, perhaps maybe just 2, but the intensity of the last few chapters and the double-ending motivated me to round it up a bit.  The book is mostly dull.  There’s a lot of watching Bond do fairly simple, almost routine things: he’s driving, he’s golfing, he’s checking out a house, he’s doing office work.  Yes, there’s a patina of tension and suspense and intrigue, but it’s also very rough going for much of the middle.  Once again Bond is the big hero thanks to a good deal of coincidence, happenstance, and luck.  Also, his attitudes are far less admirable in this than in Doctor No (which gets too much flack for this issue): he’s quite a bit racist and misogynistic in this one, and Fleming’s take on Ms. Galore and her “turn” to Bond at the end is likely rather cringe-worthy (and not just because “it’s the 21st century”).  Yes, Tilly Masterson does help bring about her own demise, but Fleming also transmogrifies her from a competent, intelligent woman to a panicky dolt just before her end, which was disappointing.

The eponymous character certainly steals the show, especially in the latter half of the story.  We don’t necessarily want Goldfinger to win or get away, but Fleming does present him as a worthwhile opponent for Bond (who has apparently become very famous and even his secret code number is recognizable all over America, which seems a bit detrimental to a secret agent!).  His self-made empire is nearly impregnable, especially with his second-in-command, Oddjob.  The resurgence of Smersh doesn’t really add anything, especially since most of us would prefer SPECTRE instead of Smersh, but there it is. The real highlight is certainly the end, and the pacing helps make it even more impressive (even if it is a tough slog to get there), especially in the way it ends twice.  The double ending helps us forgive the almost outlandishly fortuitous nature of how Bond single-handedly (sort of) crumbles Operation Grand Slam (thanks to the timely nature of the airport cleaning service and the uber-fortunate travel plans of Felix Leiter).  The real ending is top-notch Bond (other than the Ms. Galore stuff), even, ironically, in the way he has to become totally unlike himself (as he’s had to do that for most of it) to get the job done.  The psychological component of whether Bond is responsible for all the Fort Knox deaths or not (could he have done more?) is also a refreshing component to this mid-career Bond adventure.  Does it completely erase all the flaws?  No, not at all, but it does salvage the entire work well.

Book Reviews: Three Books Purporting to be Christian Scholarship

Christopher Rush

Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, Mark A. Noll ⭐⭐

This was supposed to be the year I focused on reading good books, books I knew I was going to enjoy, the high-quality books I haven’t gotten around to yet that would make my life much better.  Yet here we are.  This really isn’t that good of a book, no offense to Mr. Noll or his family or friends or publishing team.  Diction-wise, I have no clue for what audience this is addressed: even for a book that’s supposed to be a tier or two above the usual common level, it’s such an ungainly use of language reading it is too difficult to either enjoy or be challenged by it.  Most of the book feels like Mr. Noll is trying not to say “here are three books I’ve read recently, so I’m working my book reviews into a sort of analytical book” or something to that effect.  It suffers from an absence of cohesion and unity, despite the purported attempt to apply “Christian-minded scholarly enthusiasm” (not his term) to various branches of human intellectual endeavor.  In one section, we are led to believe the hero is classical Creeds and Confessions (nothing wrong with that), in another B.B. Warfield (nothing wrong with that, either), and in another the hero is Peter Enns (no one is sure why).  Despite the generally fine subject matter upon which Noll treats, the absence of coherent and meaningful (and useful) interaction makes the work as a whole unhelpful and unnecessary.  As usual, Noll refers us constantly to other things he has written, as if his oeuvre is the only one worth exploring.  Yes, he has a decent suggested reading list at the end, but that only underscores the frustration of “why am I reading this book when I could be reading them instead?”

For no clear reason, Noll wants us to shove Theology over to make room for post-Darwinian evolutionary schema.  He doesn’t want us to understand one in light of the other (though he pretends to say that sporadically) — no, we are to make sure Theology moves out of the way for whatever Science has to say, ensuring we interpret the Bible to accommodate science.  Hmm.  Likewise, especially almost 5 years later, we can quite easily dismiss his apologetic for Peter Enns (again, no offense to the Enns family and circle of friends) based on what all involved have done recently.

Finally, Noll rides his 1-trick pony of “the state of Evangelicalism” with a half-hearted attempt to show “well, you know, when I wrote that book 20 years ago I guess I didn’t do any significant research about what Evangelical schools, churches, magazines, or enterprises were actually doing, since most of my book was based on observations of people I met one Thursday night at a Bible study.”  Again, that is not a direct quotation, but that is the impression we get from his epilogue (which was also not a wholly new creation for this book, but a twice- or thrice-warmed over reworking of an earlier article recycled every 5 or 10 years).

I don’t know what purpose this book serves for any portion of the Christian community.  If any facet of contemporary Christianity still thinks “we shouldn’t think or use our brains for Jesus,” this book certainly won’t address that problem.  Nor is it a helpful “here’s what to do next now that you’ve embraced thinking as an avocation.”  Skip it.


The Past as Pilgrimage: Narrative, Tradition, and the Renewal of Catholic History, Christopher Shannon and Christopher Blum ⭐⭐

I admit wholeheartedly from the beginning a significant percentage of my low rating may come from simply not being a member of the intended audience, which seems to consist mainly of fellow Catholic historians.  The final paragraph in the conclusion attempts to include the rest of us as the audience, but it is insufficient and too late for a meaningful embrace of us non-Catholic historians.  My disappointment with it, though, is not driven by not being a member of the target audience, but more so because the promises made on the book’s covers are not fulfilled by the pages within those covers.  They don’t truly “argue for the compatibility of faith and reason in the study of the past.”  That thought is mentioned a couple of times, yes, but it is not a major focus in a way to mention it on the cover.  Likewise, we are told by the back cover “[t]heir argument seeks to foster a conversation about the ways in which Catholic historians can integrate their faith traditions into their professional work while still remaining open to and engaged with the best of contemporary, non-Catholic thinking and writing about history,” yet this, too, has percentage-wise little to do with the book.  Yes, they do mention those ideas, indeed, but it is not a significant area of focus.

So what is the book about?  The beginning is about lesser-known saints and their stories, which is fine, but no attempt is made to explain things about them for people whom the book purports to be outside of Catholic historians.  We are not given enough reason to understand what is being said about these saints or why they should be principle characters in whatever this book is supposed to be about.  Indeed, the diversity of topics and lack of coherency throughout the book is a significant deterrent to recommending, following, or even enjoying the book.  From this we are led through a perplexing series of “here are some historians who may or many not be Catholic with whom we may or may not agree” sketches.  One gets the impression Shannon and Blum are trying to reassure us they are knowledgeable about the field of historians, yet they communicate that knowledge in a way as to make their comments and intended message muddled and outright lost.

Further into the book, we are deluged with “members-only” terminology, distancing those of us who are neither Catholic nor post-graduate study card-carrying historians.  Again, this would have been more acceptable if the book didn’t purport to be more inclusive than that.  It turns out to be more like minutes of an invitation-only meeting: either you know what they are talking about (and whom) or not — no explanation or context are given.  This is all the more bizarre, considering they seem at times to be arguing for the writing of history more accessible to the people as a whole, whether Catholic or not!  This book may be a call for that sort of thing, but it certainly is not an exemplar of it.

Adding to the perplexity, the authors even specifically mention in a not-too-veiled derisive way their disapprobation for “popular” historians such as David McCullough.  Which is it, fellows?  Should history reach a wide audience or not?  Can it cross religious “boundary” lines or not?  I’m more bemused by this book than encouraged or refreshed, which is highly unlikely their purpose.  Adding to the frustration, Shannon and Blum end up being all-too-typical “read all the other things we’ve written” authors, as the final two chapters of the book are redressed papers previously published (and thus as ill-fitting to the book in hand as the Thane of Cawdor’s robes on MacBeth) and many footnotes encourage us to read more about this diverse topics mostly out of works these two have published elsewhere.  What purported to be something fresh and meaningful ends up being typical tenure-track recycled self-referential palaver, made all the more disheartening by their own claims of disapprobation against that very same practice.

The solution to all this, apparently, is for Catholic historians to return to guilds instead of endlessly churning out degree-ed, unemployable History majors.  No insight is given as to how the guilds should function, where they should function, what their purposes should be (beyond the amorphous “make it all better” sort of idea).  Even the cautions against unhelpful historical practices such as Postmodernism are diluted by notions such as “well, we can still learn something from their ideas, though” or some such conciliatory talk.  On one hand, we are apparently to uphold fine examples such as Bossuet and possibly Cardinal Newman, but on the other we are to avoid “Victorian” models.  Wasn’t Cardinal Newman in the Victorian era?  It’s a confusing, muddled book that can’t decide what its purpose is or its audience is … and if it does, it certainly was not clear to me (and I read it).  I very much wanted to enjoy it and be refreshed by it, but those didn’t happen.  Feel free to respond differently to it.


Seeing Beauty and Saying Beautifully: The Power of Poetic Effect in the Work of George Herbert, George Whitefield, and C.S. Lewis, John Piper ⭐⭐

I have now read four John Piper books in my lifetime.  If some country doesn’t make me their king soon I will have lost all faith in civilization.  Perhaps you are wondering initially why the generous rating of 2 entire stars instead of the usual 1, or perhaps you are wondering why I even bothered to read yet another John Piper book when so many alternative life choices are available.  Well, I’m an incredibly generous person, let’s get that straight, plus it was a gift more for the subject matter than the author, I’m sure.  So I read it.  I read it quickly and relatively effortlessly, but that’s to be expected from most of Mr. Piper’s oeuvre, I have come to believe.  The second star: because he quotes so many outstanding poems by George Herbert, the book gets a second star — but it’s not a very good book, at least the parts generated by Mr. Piper.  The quotations from Herbert, Whitefield, and Lewis are certainly top-notch, and the worthwhile portions of the book, but that’s about it.

Once again Mr. Piper confuses “sheer repetition” with “proving and supporting one’s point.”  Though this is fortunately a comparatively short book, most of it is redundant.  Piper quotes an author toward the beginning of the chapter, then a few pages later he quotes the same passage, acting as if it is new material we have never seen before.  At times in the following chapters, the same earlier citations will briefly reappear often without warrant.  Later, in the wholly unnecessary conclusion, the same passages are referenced yet again and the same observations about them rehashed.  The conclusion of the book is of the same caliber as junior high book reports whose conclusions are copied-and-pasted from their introductions, yet lacking the trenchant insights often found in such material.

Early in the book Mr. Piper wants us to believe his main purpose is about “seeing and saying and savoring,” but he never explains what those mean in the book in any meaningful way, as is his wont.  He says that slogan again and again, never supporting it, never cogently defining it, always effectively assuming we know what he means.  Of course, we do, making the entire book unnecessary.  Mr. Piper spends an inordinate amount of time talking about what he is not talking about, as if there is a single Christian alive today who could possibly be under the impressions “Saint Paul is not a fan of eloquent words, and the Bible hates poetry.”  Where he gets the notion those need refuting is beyond me, but then again so is the reputation of Mr. Piper as a quality communicator of needed ideas.  I don’t mean that as negatively as it likely sounds, but it’s been a strange day and I am rather perplexed by the people who think this is a good book.  It isn’t.

Most of the chapters dedicated to the three not-silent Swans are biographical sketches.  Mr. Piper spends comparatively little time drawing conclusions from the lives and works of these people.  He does it a bit, to be fair, but most of the book is information that doesn’t really help whatever point he is purportedly making coupled with irritatingly-recycled snippets and quotations without apparent purpose (as, I freely admit, I have already indicated).  Not terribly surprisingly, Mr. Piper defeats some of his own purpose by claiming the main thesis is “poetic effort,” but then he has to modify it with “well, George Whitefield wasn’t a poet, so his ‘poetic effort’ was more like ‘skilled sermonizing’” (or something to that effect).  He can’t even generate a unifying device that binds the three subjects together without apologizing for it and transmogrifying it multiple times.  I don’t get it. Read the poems of George Herbert.  They truly are some of the best the world has ever been given.  Read the sermons of George Whitefield, even if they are theatrical and emotionally-driven.  Read the works of C.S. Lewis (your suspicions of Mr. Piper in choosing Lewis so he could rehash stuff he’s already said multiple times over the last forty-some years instead of drawing our attention to someone “new” we should know about are likely well-founded) — we all know we should do that.  This book, however, will not tell you anything you need to know or can’t get from some other more coherent, enjoyable source.

Book Reviews: Eight Fantasy Works on Four Different Worlds

Christopher Rush

The Wheel of Time #3: The Dragon Reborn, Robert Jordan ⭐⭐⭐⭐

WHY DO THESE “HEROES” NEVER TELL EACH OTHER ANYTHING?!?  That said, I really liked this book.  It could quite easily be my favorite of the whole series, though I’ll have to read 11 or so more books to find out for sure.  The series really gets going with this third installment, which, I admit, is rather a misleading thing to say, since Book 1 (The Eye of the World) ends with this heavy ominous sense of “this marks the beginning of the end of the world,” but over 1,000 pages and two books later, “the end of the world” is still slowly building, chapter by chapter, month by month.  It has been a few years since I read Book 2 (The Great Hunt), but Mr. Jordan does a great job of recalling to our mind the major events and characters from the previous installments (though mainly the ones that affect the current novel — some significant supporting characters/happenings may be overlooked if consequences don’t directly affect the book in hand), so I could quite easily get back into the main flow of it all.

One element I really enjoyed is the almost complete absence of Rand, our main “hero.”  It’s not that I dislike Rand, but he is in a very bizarre place now, still coming to grips with whether or not he is The Dragon Reborn, what that may mean, what he’s supposed to do, what that means for his friends (are they even still friends? can you be friends with the Destroyer of the World?) — and leaving him out of the spotlight until he gets to a spot of truly significant and interesting movement, letting us spend time getting to know the ever-expanding cast of supporting and other top-tier characters, really is a highlight of the book.  I liked how his presence was more felt than seen, as the main core of focus characters are tracking and following him, so we see the effects of Rand’s progress to the next big event, which, when he returns and does his thing, is pretty exciting.

Another enjoyable aspect of the book is the dearth of negative things.  It does have the requisite Trolloc attack toward the beginning, a couple of sad minor character deaths, and Nynaeve and the girls get roughed up toward the end, but on the whole it’s a generally positive book.  Perrin has some rough moments, sure, but I’m pretty sure it will get worse for him later.  Thom is still suffering from his loss from Book 2 (quite reasonably), but he adjusts as the book develops.  Mat, finally, is an interesting character again, after being mostly sick and dying and irritating for much of The Great Hunt (if memory serves). He is finally back to health toward the end of the book, and he gives us some very humorous moments.  That is part of the enjoyment of this book: it has genuinely funny moments throughout, which will likely be few and far between as the seriousness of the time and events increases.

Not everything in the book is enjoyable, but it is far better than much (if not most) of the criticism against it warrants.  I was told over a decade ago it was around this point in the series it gets a bit more sexual, and that is true.  Mr. Jordan does tend to add unnecessary sexual comments here and there (and there’s more in Book 4, from what I’ve read so far), which is disappointing and unnecessary, but hopefully that will go away soon.

The main irritation for me was the continuing commitment of these heroes not to tell each other anything, as I mentioned at the beginning.  Moraine is certainly the most guilty of this, but her taciturnity is developing into an interesting part of the other characters’ growth.  These Two Rivers characters are no longer the simple, backwaters hicks she found and rescued at the beginning of Book 1: they have grown and developed in the intervening months, and she can no longer bully and control them, though she would not likely consider herself doing that.  The real irritating thing about everyone’s silence is the basic fact they are all supposedly united against the Shadow, you’d think they’d pool their resources and confide and help each other out, but no — they all keep to themselves, they all carry their own burdens, they all stop trusting each other bit by bit.  A bit irritating, not because it’s badly written (which some people think, for no good reason) but simply because we want these heroes to get their acts together and knock off the silliness.

Yet, the mistrust issue is what helps separate this series from what many mistakenly think is basic Fantasy stereotyping.  The Wheel of Time intentionally uses familiar ideas and characters (that’s the point!), but it is not typical: Mr. Jordan crafts it all in palpably distinct ways.  Rand is not “the hero who can do no wrong.”  In short order, his childhood friends can no longer trust him, because he may very well be The Dragon Reborn, a great hero of old who may very well defeat the Dark One and save the world, but he is potentially someone who will perhaps slay all those close to him and destroy the world while saving it.  That’s no Aragorn.  The Aes Sedai are here to help, right?  But the Reds are willing to destroy even our heroes, and the Blacks are aligned with the Dark One, and Moraine … well, whose side is she really on?  Lan would not be with her if she were truly bad, definitely, but if she is fighting for good, why does she keep everything secret?  Why does everything have to be done her way?  The Amyrlin Seat, likewise, gets the opportunity to show off her strengths in this book.  The Aes Sedai are no Bene Gesserit knockoff.

The prophecies and hints and dreams and things may get a bit tedious and tiresome, but a positive spin on them shows there are bigger and bigger things ahead, another distinction from lesser fantasy series.  One of the other interesting, distinct aspects of this is how long we stay with each narrative group.  Many times at the end of certain chapters, we think “oh, that was neat, where are we going next?” and then the next chapter is following the same group two seconds later.  Basically, we follow each group until that group is about to leave whatever town it is in, so the narrative jumpcuts are fewer.  This series really delves into the details of these characters and these events.  That’s certainly part of why it is so long, and why it may turn off so many, but if you really want a series that gives us a great deal of time with the characters, this is that series.  We are with them far longer than we think we will be, but that should appeal to fans more than it should irritate.  The only irritating thing is we switch points of view when things are really about to explode, saving the big explosions (literally, in this book) for the slam-bang finish … which Moraine then says is small potatoes compared to what’s coming next.

As I said, the sense of Doom and Destruction hangs heavy, but somehow Mr. Jordan gives us slow, steady progress from key moment to key moment.  Most of the books seem to be primarily progressing to the slam-bang finish, but you can’t overlook the important foreshadowings, character developments, introductions of new characters, love-relationship progressions (they all have to get married sometime, even with the destruction of the world looming), humorous scenes, returns of forgotten friends and foes … there’s a lot going on.  For its humor, its mostly-safe story-line progressions, the growths of the characters (certainly not as quickly as we may want), this was a very good book in the series, and it will likely propel your interest even further, easily overcoming the feeling of “oh no, 11 more!”  Tish and pish.  This is a very enjoyable series and is getting better all the time (so far, yes).


The Wheel of Time #4: The Shadow Rising, Robert Jordan ⭐⭐⭐

Pacing, pacing.  This book has a lot of words in it, and while that may be a deterrent to some, it is worth it if you like the series, which is a bit of a tautology, I admit.  The Shadow is definitely rising in this one: the bad guys make some significant and somewhat surprising strikes throughout — it’s not nearly as funny or happy as the previous book, though significant positive things happen as well.  Book three ended so well, most will likely be frustrated by the beginning of this book: instead of continuing the general positive feelings from where we left off, most of the characters find ways to get mad at each other and fakey sequel/20-minutes-left-in-the-Romantic-Comedy discord that is totally nonsensical and only irritates the patient audience.  Unlike the 15 minutes it takes Romantic Comedies to resolve that (about two minutes before the credits role), it takes TWoT about 350 pages (or more) to resolve the initial character silliness (in this instance, about 650 pages).

Some very sad things happen in this book, especially things to Perrin and the good Aes Sedai.  Irritating things happen with some of the supporting characters, especially Gawyn and Galad (but definitely Gawyn: he does some mind-boggling things in this one, totally destroying an interest we had for him).  Mat makes a slight return to Irritating Mat, in that he could have finally spoken his mind/heart and told Rand things and such, but of course he doesn’t, and while he does some fairly semi-heroic things, he still is waffling, which is fairly irritating (more so with the absence of the humorous moments we so enjoyed in book 3).  Rand, likewise, does some irritating things, but this is probably the most enjoyable book of him so far, as he grows in acceptance of his role, identity, and such (even if he, too, is too tacit about things — none of these “sure, we’ll save the world!” heroes communicate nearly enough).  The ending duel this time around is different enough to be engaging, as it propels us all down a new path (as usual).

What were the positives of this?  We learn more about the Aiel, who are becoming far more significant than we thought a book or two ago; great movement occurs in the White Tower (not positive, certainly, but it is definitely significant change); Perrin finally finds love; Mat and Rand are slowly coming around to heroism (in their own ways, naturally); old characters come back and are helpful; the ladies are growing in their Aes Sedai skills (finally); and though I don’t necessarily like it, it’s “positive” for the sake of the grandeur of the book we have some different enemies now (some may not like it, saying “why wouldn’t all the humans just team up and stop the Trollocs and Dark One?” but life isn’t like that now).  Another interesting aspect of this is the glimpses into the past of the world, as misty and unclear as they were (they used to have rocket cars?).

This is worth the lengthy trek.


The Dragon King #2: The Warlords of Nin, Stephen R. Lawhead ⭐⭐⭐

I wanted to give this a higher rating, in part because it has a lot of impressive surprises and fine moments, but I couldn’t quite bring myself to do so, so let’s call this a 3.5 rounded down, howabout.  Instead of picking up where we left off from the first volume, Lawhead skips us ahead 10 years, which is more helpful than not, except that many of the characters don’t give us the impression they, too, have aged or matured in 10 years.  Quentin, our hero again, is more mature for much of it, though he does go through his existential crisis for awhile over whether he is really hero material, which is a bit annoying, and you can guess where he finally ends up (even though we don’t get a whole lot of evidence to support his heroic nature, just his basic decency).  Most of the other characters seem 10 years younger: Durwin, Theido, Toli, and Ronsard don’t seem to have aged at all.  Durwin, especially, is far feistier than he used to be.  Only Biorkis, really, has seemed to age.  He, and King Eskevar, who has more withered than aged, but that is tied in to the main plotline.  King Eskevar is an intriguing part of this book: we didn’t see him all that much in the first one, but we feel we know him well, and when this book starts, he is basically at death’s door, not because he is weak but because he loves Mensandor (the country) so much and can feel his country’s pain.  This is one of the positives of the book, but it is also a weakness, because while many characters say they are aware of Eskevar’s psychic connection to his country and its pain, they also seem to forget it and just think he is weak and crazy by the end.

The main storyline is the world’s great despot (of whom no one has heard), Nin, has arrived on the shores simply because he, like locusts, loves to conquer and absorb everything.  He is considered a god, he has thousands under his command, and 4 main warlords who rule over 4 sub-armies.  We only meet 1 of them, briefly, though we are given a glimpse of all of them early on.  They are all very terrifying and impressive, but most of the suspense of this mighty army’s slow march to Askelon (the main capitol) is narratively distant from these 5 villains.  Lawhead does a fine job of making them powerful and dangerous, almost Borg-like in their unstoppability, but, then, like “Best of Both Worlds, pt. 2,” the good guys have to win out so they just do.  Because.  That is one of the main irks of this: after 200 pages of slow-building menace and destruction, with 20 pages left we think “this must be part one,” but suddenly it’s all over and we’re wondering what happened.

Some of the other irksome aspects of the book are the dropped storylines: we spend some time with the Dekra ruling council early on, giving us the impression this old mighty town and its fate is connected to the story, but soon we never see them again and all the action takes place elsewhere.  Similarly, Biorkis is somehow defrocked and excommunicated from the priesthood, which is a really big deal, considering they seem to be the only main priests in the entire continent, but no mention is ever made of the fact bad people have now taken over the nation’s priesthood — and it wasn’t even a necessary plot point to get him from the monastery to the castle.  He could have just as easily been visiting the castle without the other components (it was like early Discworld books without the humor).  All of these ideas are fine, but considering they never go anywhere or get resolved, especially considering so much time is spent on other things that could have easily been trimmed (like the protracted mining scene so late in the book), it’s a bit annoying.  Likewise, a big deal is made (almost in an attempt to give Eskevar something to do in the middle of the book) about the other lords and rulers joining Eskevar’s ride against the onslaught, and when some lords don’t join the fight (a bit sketchy why some wouldn’t join up — it’s a bit forced, I felt), Eskevar is all upset, naturally, and they ride out to meet the enemy … only to retreat the same day and come right back to the castle!  All that hemming and hawing about needing to ride out and attack, and nothing. (The passage of time among the three different character groups toward the end is also irksome and unwieldy.)

Perhaps the weakest aspect of the book is its treatment of the female characters.  In the first book, Queen Alinea was a ball of fire: active, witty, together, all despite the fact her husband was a captive and potentially dead.  Here, after 10 more years of peace and happy marriage she likely shouldn’t have gotten, she is a wreck.  Now, her husband’s death is imminent, and her emotions are valid and true and all that, but she comes across as weak and soppy throughout, which was a disappointment.  Additionally, Lawhead brings in another new character simply because “Toli needs a girlfriend,” not really for any other plot reasons.  The seemingly necessary plot movements Princess Esme brings in the beginning are soon erased because all the info she brings is also brought more meaningfully by other characters.  The female characters midway through the game have lost all luster and identity.  A bit of a shame, since the first book and the beginning of this one had real women characters.

On the whole, it was good, though the many flaws (and Lawhead’s “medieval language” style is in full bloom, like pollen) prevent it from making it great.  It has impressive things, as I said: Lawhead does things in here you wouldn’t expect in book 2 (a book 3, maybe, but not a book 2).  The book gives us insight into the fact there is a whole rest of the world out there beyond this country (a world with many cultures and nations, apparently).  Quentin’s faith becomes substantial here, finally (what was he doing for 10 years?).  Other people come to a genuine faith in The Most High God in believable, subtle ways (Lawhead again does a fine job of working faith into it smoothly and realistically and not heavy-handedly).  It has flaws, as I enumerated, it drags on for quite a bit in the middle, but it has some very impressive and exciting scenes.  It has humorous and warm moments early on.  It has very touching moments toward the end.  It probably deserves at least a 3.5 after all.  This series has impressed me a lot more than I thought it would thus far.


The Complete Fighter’s Handbook, Aaron Allston ⭐⭐⭐

Considering what this is, for what it was intended and such, this is a fairly helpful resource.  It’s not “literature,” so giving it 3 stars doesn’t mean I think it’s a better “book” than others I’ve given 2 stars (necessarily), but for a supplement on making your AD&D fighters more interesting, experienced, and “realistic,” it’s a very good resource.  Obviously if you are not interested in playing AD&D you aren’t going to look for this, and obviously if you are not playing as a fighter in your AD&D experiences you aren’t going to look for this either, but if you fit the (rather small) niche, this is for you.  Likely you already have it or had it, so it’s not going to be a surprise to you in that sense, either.  Among the more helpful aspects of this are the additions of fighting style proficiencies, weapons and armor for geographic fighters (such as samurai), and fighting techniques and specialization ideas (especially helpful for those actually role-playing as a fighter, not just silently soloing modules like I do inside my imagination).

I was pleasantly surprised by the affability of the author/narrator/voice whomever who is occasionally directly addressing the reader, in that so many times we are encouraged “if you don’t like this part, don’t use it; if you like it, use it.”  I suspected it would have a stricter attitude to some things like “if you want to use this, you have to then add this, that, and this,” but there’s none of that.  It’s really a collection of potentially helpful/interesting ideas to make the gaming experience better for those who want it.

I may be somewhat chronologically mistaken about this, but I believe this originally came out toward the beginning of the 2E resource glut (from that magic time of around ’89 to ’97 or so), so the proofreading/editing attention did not seem a high priority, especially toward the end of the handbook (which certainly doesn’t help the general perception of the public toward AD&D players), but these things happen (especially in the 2E resources glut).  On the whole, though, it’s a fine resource for pre-3E AD&D fighters.


The Grand Duchy of Karameikos, Aaron Allston ⭐⭐⭐

We can all agree, I believe, all of our reviews for these 2E supplement-type things can begin with the basic caveat of “within the limits of its purpose and intended audience….”  So feel free to think that at the beginning of the rest of my 2E resource reviews (if any more are forthcoming).  This rather intriguing idea for a resource line (as so many of the 2E Golden Age Glut resources were) gives us great detail about the families, organizations, ins and outs, and other whatnots of Karameikos life.  Those who may think the creative team has spent way too much time making up this sort of thing for people who don’t really exist are certainly not going to pick this up anyway (or, likely, any other work of fiction), so there’s no need to be bothered by that.  Since most of my early AD&D experiences were in Mystara (though I didn’t know First Quest was Mystara at the time), this peals that nostalgia bell loudly and crisply.  If there are any drawbacks to it, it is the lack of references to the novels featuring Mystara/Karameikos and these characters, though it’s possible none of those were written when this came out, so that may be more of an anachronistic drawback.  It does list the modules featuring Karameikos, which is rather helpful, but it does highlight the potential frustration in that there weren’t more Mystara “official” Karameikos modules at the time, yet it is also one of the highlights of the time: instead of dictating everything that was acceptable to be done in this world, DMs were rather free to take these interesting NPCs with interesting relationships and intrigues and do what good DMs did/do — create and be imaginative.  True, someone’s Karameikan campaign could clash with what some future story or module did with the characters, but that would be easily remedied by a good DM.  For the players, this module doesn’t have too much other than backstory and NPC info, but it does provide some helpful stats on character generation for Karameikan native characters.  This is, I believe, the shortest of the Gazetteer entries, and perhaps the broadest, and thus also perhaps the most helpful.  I liked it.


The Castle Guide, Grant Boucher, Arthur Collins, Troy Christensen ⭐⭐⭐

Probably should be 2.5 stars, but I rounded up just because I wanted to be more generous to this, in part because of all the really lousy stuff I’ve been reading lately (in the year I was to read mostly good stuff; oh well).  Coming at a time when AD&D 2E was flooding the market with seemingly non-stop manuals, worlds, modules, accessories, and everything else, we see with this part of the problems of so much content being generated so quickly by so few.  The first 75% of it (or more) features at least 1 typo per page.  It gives us the impression “proofreading” was not a high priority.  I don’t want to be too harsh on this point, having published more than my share of accidents and oopsies, but I wasn’t charging $15 for my hastily-edited material.  The tone at the beginning, likewise, gives us the sense we aren’t supposed to be taking this all that seriously.  And while that is certainly true, we shouldn’t take RPGs very seriously, indeed, the tone at times dances between “yeah, it’s just a fun game, take it easy” and “you are into this? you weirdo.”   I know that’s not the intention, certainly, but even with the HQ mandates of getting things out quickly, the creative staff should certainly be respectful enough to the audience and consumer.  Still, it’s not terribly frequent, and it gets much better a couple of chapters in.

I wanted to rate this higher, but structurally it ends up being far less helpful than it should have been.  If ever a handbook/guide needed appendices of “here are all the ‘how to design and build an AD&D castle’ charts and diagrams we gave you” charts and diagrams, this was certainly it.  But no such appendices exist.  Thus, in order to find the particular kind of idea, design, material, weather, whatever you want, you have to skim and skim and flip through and flip through and dig and search and almost end up reading it again.  It’s not very user-friendly.  The charts are sort of helpful, and it is certainly replete with ideas on castle building (morale of construction workers, weather/terrain/calendar effects, magic item assistance, and much more), but the sheer absence of helpful structure and accessibility is counterproductive and ultimately destructive to the enterprise.
The main drawback (if what I just said wasn’t the main drawback, which it actually may be) is the voluminous amount of material discussing not really Castle Design and Building but “Castle Destroying.”  So much of this volume is a lengthy follow-up to their Battlesystem … system, one gets the impression the design meeting went something like “Chief, we have too little Castle Design info to make it a full volume, and we have too little Siege Warfare Supplement for Battlesystem to make it a full volume,” to which Chief said, “Put it ’em together, doesn’t matter if they are for different audiences.  They’ll buy anything.  It’s 1992.”  (Ah, that was a magical time, indeed.)  Truly, two halves of this present guide are for two different purposes and two different audiences, but here they are combined into one less-useful-than-one-would-hope-it-would-be volume.

The sample castles are likewise not as helpful as you might think, unless you basically copy one you like, but it does have a lot of good ideas you might not otherwise have thought about.  And that’s why this should get at least 2.5 stars, typos and (very lengthy) irrelevancies aside.  It gives you a great deal of DM creative castle building context and ideas without giving you the sense of “you have to do this a certain way or you are doing it wrong.”  It still gives you, DM or player, really, a good deal of control.  I would certainly have liked far less Battlesystem stuff and far more “here are ideas on how to design and build a good castle,” but it does give some good historical info, plenty of good (if terse) ideas, and at least one decently helpful sample castle.  Could have been better, but it’s better than nothing.


Guards! Guards!, Terry Pratchett ⭐⭐⭐⭐

This was a much more enjoyable entry than Pyramids, which was a welcome relief for me.  The humor is more constant, even though it is slanted to a few kinds of jokes and patter toward the end.  Some of it is ambiguous and a bit confusing (why would a two-foot swamp dragon court a 6-storey regular dragon successfully? and why would that suddenly solve everyone’s problems?), but one of the general traits of Discworld is things just sort of happen because they need to happen (and sometimes it’s up to us to turn that trait into a treat, sometimes Sir Pratchett does that for us).  Here we are introduced to some more likable characters (in their own Discworld way): Sam Vimes, Carrot Ironfoundersson, especially, though other readers may like other characters.  Finally we have some interesting time with the Patrician, whether we agree with him or not, giving us a peek into what makes him tick.  I don’t know too much about the later books (since I haven’t read them yet, mainly), but I vaguely know a lot of these characters come back, which is a welcome change from the parade of spotlighted characters who never return or may be mentioned briefly in passing three novels later.  The Villain-of-the-Novel follows many of the same in his spot from previous books, so there is a growing amount of sameness in these books, but the rest of the book is so fast-paced and enjoyable, especially Vimes’s growth/rebirth (interesting how the book starts off giving us the impression Carrot is going to be the new focus, but then Vimes takes over and that works out rather well), so overall it’s a very enjoyable read (despite the saltiness).  Is this the first appearance of CMOT Dibbler?  I dunno, but it’s a good book.


This is the egregiously over-priced and over-sized version I read.

Eric, Terry Pratchett ⭐⭐⭐

More Discworld?  Hooray!  Rincewind’s back?  Double-hooray!  Rincewind is enthralled by a promiscuous 14-year-old-boy?  Um … boo.  Overt Faust parody?  Well, okay.  At least this is short, I suppose.  Poor Josh Kirby, gets some credit for something in some places but not in others.  The litany of Discworld books tells us Josh Kirby was partly responsible for this book, but nowhere in the printing of the book itself is that contribution acknowledged.  Either HarperCollins is getting lazy in their old age, or some alternative scenario to make this hypothetical dichotomy workable.  Speaking of HarperCollins, their latest batch of printing editions of Discworld books is pretty horrendous.  The size is taller than the older editions, which is ludicrous in itself, the font is comparatively gargantuan, and the prices are so high I thought it was published on Mir.  $7.99 for barely 100 pages of an over-sized paperback?  Disgusting.  Making it worse, whomever is in charge of the back cover write-ups for these Discworld novels either hasn’t read the books or doesn’t care about presenting things accurately and meaningfully, or likely some combination of those two.  The back cover for Guards! Guards! was especially execrable. Eric, as a book, is clever at times but generally tedious, though that, too, is saved frequently by the rapid pacing of the book and its general shortness.  It’s great to see Rincewind, especially for so long in the book, but Eric is annoying, the parrot is super annoying, and the obvious Faust parody gets too heavy.  Yes, I know that’s the whole point, but still, it wears thin very quickly.

At least earlier printings had more self-aware cover art.

Somehow, though, Sir Pratchett makes it worthwhile as a whole, and it was enjoyable (mainly, though, because it was such a fast read).

Book Reviews: Three Children’s Fantasy “Classics”

Christopher Rush

Peter Pan, J. M. Barrie ⭐⭐

Peter Pan is a big jerk.  The narrator is a bigger jerk, though.  What did Barrie mean by “heartless”?  Does he mean “cruel and thoughtless”? or did it mean something more gentle to him?  Are we supposed to be amused by Peter and his antagonism to mothers, especially since the narrator seems to present mothers as part of “the problem” anyway? or are we to shake our heads at Peter and Wendy and John and Michael and encourage our own children to grow up “the right way”?  I didn’t like this book all that much, and my daughter didn’t like it either, though we disliked it for different reasons.  She was disappointed Jake and Cubby and Sharkey and Bones weren’t in it.  I was disappointed because of the violence, the indecisiveness of Barrie’s narrator (or Barrie himself) as to which side is being presented as the “proper” side, and how repetitious and tedious it was.  This is probably a “classic” because of the “ideas of Peter Pan and Neverland,” not the actual content — which is fair, since that is likely why people are enthusiastic about Allan Quatermain.  The movie versions have salvaged both of these “classics,” rescuing the worthwhile ideas buried under the morasses of tendentious Victorian rambling.  And don’t get me wrong, I am an ardent enthusiast of quality Victorian writing: Tennyson, Arnold, Newman, Ruskin, et cetera, et cetera.  Certainly the list of great Victorian writers, authors, poets, critics could go on for dozens of entries.  But Peter Pan the novel is not very good.  Children are presented as idiots.  Parents are presented as idiots.  The narrator is too cynical for his/its own good.  Now we know.

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, L. Frank Baum ⭐⭐

 As with Peter Pan, the reading of this American Classic was a bit disappointing from this side of childhood.  My daughter seemed to enjoy it well enough, which was fine, and she wasn’t scared by the Wicked Witch’s demise (primarily because she made me tell her what happens to her before we started the book), which was another nice aspect of this reading.  The book, however, is chock full of cynical asides and unhumorous commentary.  The characters are monolothic and shallow.  Dorothy is not impressive as a heroine.  The Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and Cowardly Lion just magjickally get their own kingdoms to rule just because.  There’s nothing “wonderful” about the Wizard: he has his people just as enslaved as the Witch does.  Plus, the plot is very dull — the events are more disconnected than the adventures Huckleberry Finn has.  I acknowledge this is all for the benefit of children, but it seems almost antagonistic to children to give their imaginations such shallow fodder upon which to feed.  Perhaps if the ideas were developed longer instead of meeting such diverse characters for five pages then never seeing or hearing about them again, the discordancy of the work may have been ameliorated, but oh well.  It’s basically the literary version of an episode of Sesame Street: every five minutes something new and flashy with very little time to explain, ponder, digest, evaluate.  Sure, you’re thinking “children can’t do that!”  Not if we treat them that way, that’s for sure.  Am I saying this is a bad book?  Not really.  It’s just one of those books with lots of interesting potential, but it has no desire to develop any of the intriguing ideas.  If the children are supposed to do that themselves, great, but why read this book, then?  I know, I know: it’s a classic.  We should all love it.  Better still, love the idea of it, and then shake your head with irritation at all the cynical moments.

The Marvelous Land of Oz, L. Frank Baum ⭐⭐

Once again the “ideas” of Oz are more important than what actually happens in the story.  I certainly don’t fault Mr. Baum for going in a slightly different direction, though that direction becomes rather similar to what we’ve already seen before too long.  Once again a young person meets some bizarre characters, and they go on a trip to someplace only to turn right around and go somewhere else then turn right around again and go back to where they started.  This time, the purpose of the journeys are far less significant than in the first book, the political satire is so sexist it couldn’t even be funny back in the day, and the characters are poor imitations of the original crew (including the returning characters, yes).  Then the super-big-surprise twist at the end, which, blah blah blah, is as predictable as it is banal and uncomfortable. It does have a few humorous moments, but the inexplicable anger of the wooden horse, especially in his antagonism with Jack and others, the puns and such of the Woggle-Bug, the nonsensical wish scene and jackdaw scene (why not just wish to be back where they want to be?), the whole Jinjur stuff and the Jellia Jamb stuff … this book is more tedious than enjoyable (for grown-ups … kids may still like the weirdness of it all).

Book Reviews: Six Nero Wolfe Offerings, Rex Stout

Christopher Rush

Curtains for Three ⭐⭐⭐

Another enjoyable entry in the Nero Wolfe/Archie Goodwin legacy (it will be difficult to find one we don’t like, I’m sure).  The three short adventures for me got successively less enjoyable, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t good.  The first story, “The Gun with Wings,” was very enjoyable and one of the more detective-engaging stories.  By this I mean sometimes as the reader we aren’t all that interested in the resolution to the mystery or murder or whatever the issue is — our main interest is time with Wolfe and Archie and seeing how they wrap it up, regardless of how it wraps up.  This story, though, with the murder weapon’s ability to change places multiple times, is so refreshingly different as a problem Wolfe is needed to solve and we really want to know the answer — especially when we think we get the answer but, like Archie in the book, become incredulous when Wolfe says we are only halfway to the solution!  It was a very good story.

“Bullet for One” was less enjoyable, but perhaps that’s only because of how engaging the first story was, not because it is a dud itself.  It has its irritating moments, especially when some nobody cop takes umbrage with Archie: even with their “hijinks,” you’d think the police force would appreciate Archie and Wolfe by now — it’s almost as irritating as Gotham policeman never trusting Batman (or Hogwarts kids not believing Harry from like the third book on), but it doesn’t drag out at least.  It was a decent story, I suppose.

“Disguise for Murder” has always perplexed me, and finally reading it hasn’t alleviated any of that perplexion.  The main twist, which I shan’t mention here, never seems all that believable to me, which hinders my enjoyment of this story.  The resolution scene likewise seems rather bizarre and far-fetched and … bizarre.  Here’s a dangerous murderer, who has killed two people, almost kills a third, comes close to killing Archie, but with a snap of the fingers the murderer is stopped and overcome and ba-ba-boo it’s all over.  Shrug.  The Hutton/Chaykin version of this is somewhat different, connecting as it does to another story in the series, but some of those differences are improvements, especially the “For the police there will be no sandwiches!” line, one of my favorites, which is not in the book version.  Still, it’s a Nero Wolfe/Archie Goodwin story.  It’s worth it.


Triple Jeopardy ⭐⭐⭐

I want to go with 3.5 stars, but the system won’t let me.  Technology hasn’t gotten to the point in 2Q 2015 enabling us to give partial stars on Internet book review Web sites, much like the inability to indent paragraphs on Web sites.  I say that for the sake of posterity, when this review will be read, mainly for its historical commentary interest.  The three stories in this collection are diverse and bring unusual moods to the audience (different “feels” to the stories, which I say as a plurality of “feel,” not in the inane way many people seem to use it in 2015 — again, a comment for historical flavor).

“Home to Roost” was likely the most obvious Rex Stout-influenced story (at least it has been so far), in the sense of his personal antagonism against Communism (Socialism, really, or Marxist-Leninism if you prefer) driving the story overtly.  It is a fairly dry story, but that shouldn’t be taken as a derision.  It’s fairly straightforward without any wholly unusual scenes in some stories, if memory serves, but again that’s not a slight.  It’s a good story driven by the political flavoring and an exciting twist of a conclusion/solution.  It may seem dated today, with the necessary acceptance of all sorts of worldviews (even if you don’t agree with them) except old-fashioned ones that are true, but most likely the people who read good older books aren’t swayed by that sort of nonsense and will likely agree with Wolfe/Stout on this one.

I was fairly familiar with “Cop Killer” thanks to the Hutton/Chaykin series, even though that was one of my least favorite episodes, likely because of the weird photography of it, but it was still enjoyable to read.  It almost drags on a bit too much by the end, feeling like Archie makes one too many trips to and from the barbershop where most of the story occurs, but it does have a few very enjoyable moments that make the story remarkable and make up for the pacing, especially the “the purpose of the front room is to keep the killers” jibe against Cramer, but he sort of deserves it for still not trusting Wolfe or Archie.  The ending is atypical, in that Wolfe leaves his home to conclude the case for which he is not getting paid, and while the conclusion makes sense it is based on things we don’t really know and seems a bit of a stretch, even for Wolfe, even though reading it when knowing how it ends enables us to see a lot of the clues Stout gives us more overtly than usual.  One other drawback of this story is the lowdown way Archie treats the non-paying clients: it’s one of those stories in which Archie seems far harsher than we want him to be, especially since Timothy Hutton is far nicer in his version of this story.  Wolfe, too, is nicer in the TV version, especially in the denouement: in the book version, Wolfe is reluctant to help the refugee couple; in the television version, Wolfe eagerly assists them in citizenship, knowing his own hardships of being a refugee.

“The Squirt and the Monkey” is one of those stories I really tend to dislike — anytime guest stars or whoever come along to the episode or story and don’t like the main characters we always root for or intentionally make things difficult for them are stories/episodes I usually despise.  This is definitely one of those stories, in which Archie is set up by a few people to take the fall for murder (with his own gun, no less), but the speed and unusual nature of the story (again, the “feel” of it) overcame for me my usual dislike, and I really enjoyed it.  While we can always rely on the “well, we know our heroes are going to fix it by the end” standby, that doesn’t always make the experience of that novel/story/episode more palatable.  Somehow, this time it did, perhaps because Archie gets his own gun back so soon.  Another irritating aspect of this story was again how nonsensically Cramer treats Goodwin: you’d think he wouldn’t do this nonsense, even with the legitimacy of the charges, but I guess Cramer really takes a deep-seated umbrage to the frequency of Wolfe and Goodwin solving his crimes.  I would think he would be more grateful for the capturing of murderers, but he is eager to take any legitimate opportunity of making things difficult for Wolfe and Goodwin, even if it irritates us almost as much as it does our heroes.  Still, the unusual nature of the story makes it very enjoyable, especially with the very atypical maneuverings involved in the revelation of the murderer.  Is it the monkey?  Read it and find out.


Murder By the Book ⭐⭐⭐

Another enjoyable Wolfe/Archie adventure, and that’s, as usual, all we want.  The premise is rather distinct this time: people who have read a manuscript are getting murdered … but Wolfe and Archie have to figure out if that is truly the motive, who did it, and who wrote the book itself — a very intriguing mix.  It may remind diverse readers of The Shadow of the Wind and The Name of the Rose, but it’s not nearly as huge as those.  It also features some victims’ family members more than usual, which one might think would detract a bit from it (not to sound heartless), but it ends up adding to the whole, especially at the shocking (perhaps “stunning” would be more accurate) finale.  This entry suffers a bit from a rather protracted trip of Archie’s to California, and the unusual nature of that is more detracting than refreshing.  Also, Archie makes some awkward remarks about a married woman throughout implying he’d be happy if she lost her husband so he could go after her (after she just lost her brother!), which isn’t nearly as pleasant as Archie’s usual banter.  Still, it’s a good solid entry all in all.  It has a good number of twists and surprises (but you were going to read it anyway, weren’t you?).


Prisoner’s Base ⭐⭐⭐

This is certainly among the saddest of the Wolfe mysteries, mainly because of who is killed (not because it mildly irks Archie’s and Wolfe’s consciences).  Because it starts off on such a sour note, especially for Archie, it’s a bit more difficult to enjoy this one, since no one is having much fun.  It starts out with some humorous moments, but just as on the Galactica, you know if people are smiling and laughing for more than a moment, some bomb is going to explode somewhere, which is effectively what happens here.  The “humor” at the beginning is one-sided, puts Archie and Wolfe at an impasse, and results, perhaps somewhat circuitously, in the death of a prospective client, leaving everyone grumpy and out for their kind of vengeance.  It’s a decent mystery, with Wolfe and Archie desperate for clues and information for most of the book, but some of the twists are a bit of a stretch and only make the book sadder (more death of a character we like, making Archie even grumpier).  One highlight of this, even in Archie’s misery for the last half of the work (his guilt, his imprisonment, and so on), is the positive presentation of the police.  Archie, in his multi-faceted desperation, works alongside Cramer and Stebbins, and we see them both presented very competently and positively, which is good, since we don’t want to conceive of them as hopeless without Wolfe’s help.  Stebbins and Archie even have a friendly lunch.  The TV version of this adventure made an interesting choice of trimming out some supporting characters, which curtailed some of the sorrow from the book.  Another fine entry, though more sorrowful than even Wolfe on the run.


The Golden Spiders ⭐⭐⭐

Another of the sadder Nero Wolfe stories, this one is also among the more frustrating, primarily because an innocent boy is killed and Archie and Wolfe don’t feel all that bad about it.  Wolfe’s dander is up more because people get killed who have been to his house (bad for business) more so than because they are people who are killed.  This was so far my least favorite (at least within working memory) mystery, in part because of their strange attitudes, the slow pace of the investigation at times, and the general neglect of the poor boy’s mom after her first appearance.  Plus, the whole thing hinges on the implausible scenario of only one pair of earrings in the entirety of New York City in the shape of spiders, which may have been likely at the time but is so foreign to present experience it’s just strange.  Things just seem off for most of this, as in the scene with Archie, Saul, Fred, and Orrie all together overcoming some torturers: Archie is willing to see how much Fred can take before jumping in to save him!  A bit off-putting.  It has its fine moments, of course, as all Wolfe mysteries do, but I wouldn’t recommend starting here for first-timers or anything.


Three Men Out ⭐⭐⭐⭐

This was a very enjoyable collection, though I can’t explain too much why I thought so.  It’s not that the mysteries were superlative or incredibly extraordinary, but for some reason (perhaps the period in my life in which I read them) this was a refreshing group of stories.  The first story about the dangers of upsetting extended family in-laws was the least sparkling of the group, but the bizarre twists during the story, especially Archie tricking Wolfe into coming to the scene, make it different enough to be enjoyable.  The second story, similarly, is another impressive mix of little movement in the story, a whole lot of Wolfe talking to people, Archie appearing at the wrong place at the wrong time (as is his wont), and a very clever twist that would be more frustrating to us ignorant boffs were it handled/presented by a lesser writer.  The extended red herring throughout (especially the way it builds and builds upon itself as we become more aware of it) was definitely an enjoyable misdirection.  The final story is a strange mix of baseball skullduggery and a wholly atypical scene of genuine danger, with Archie really shining on his own, though likely in ways in which we may not approve.  This was a very fine mix of unusual stories that really sparked well with me.