RSS

Monthly Archives: January 2010

Literature Commentary: The Lost Books

I’ve been a fan of Ted Dekker’s books for a long time – a VERY long time. His novel “Showdown” was certainly one of the most powerful and influential books I’ve ever read – and his loosely-connected “Circle Trilogy” (“Black”, “Red”, and “White”) was a magnificent tour de force on par with the best of Lewis or Tolkien. However, since then, the quality of his books has seemed to deteriorate somewhat (with the exception of the dramatic “Adam”). Novels like “Skin” and “Kiss” just don’t have the page-ripping suspense or emotional intensity of his earlier works. When I learned that Dekker was diversifying into the young-adult market with his “Lost Books” – a series of six volumes set in the universe of the Circle Trilogy – I was eager to see whether they’d rise to the level of his prior trilogy.

Unfortunately…no.

The books follow four young people from the Middle Village (these books take place between “Black” and “Red”) as they attempt to help Thomas of Hunter save the people of Elyon from the barbaric Horde. Johnis, the primary character, is an impetuous-but-good-hearted leader. Silvie, his love interest, is a warrior-princess with a special talent for throwing daggers. Billos is the renegade of the group – the one who’s not afraid to suggest using dark forces against darker enemies. And Darsal, Billos’ closest friend, is a hardened-but-ultimately-compassionate female lead.

The story’s primary conflict revolves around the seven original Books of History – blank books that contain the power to affect reality (i.e. words written in the books play out in the actual world). The four youths’ goal is to recapture the Books from both the vengeful Horde forces and the demonic Shataiki bats that control them. Their adventures span six volumes (Chosen, Infidel, Renegade, Chaos, Lunatic, Elyon) and two universes.

The first four books are pretty good. Johnis, Silvie, Billos, and Darsal fight Horde, Shataiki, and their own darker sides as they engage in a desperate search for the ever-more-elusive Books of History. “Chaos” concludes with a smashing confrontation between good and evil, very reminiscent of the best moments of the Circle Trilogy. If the “Lost Books” had just called it quits then, I probably wouldn’t be writing this review.

But “Lunatic” and “Elyon” proceed to ruin the entire sextet.

For starters, the plot has nothing to do with the Books of History – rather, it seems to be about some sort of amulet that grants the holder power to control the evil Shataiki. I don’t know where this whole plotline came from, but it feels like something pulled from “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” or one of the really bad BIONICLE comic books. Deep spiritual significance flies out the window, with worn-out tropes taking its place

But that’s not all. Johnis – formerly a paragon of heroism, leadership, and courage – is abruptly possessed by a “Leedhan”, a half-Shataiki-half-Horde creature of unearthly beauty, who just happens to be a vampire. It’s a tacky way of capitalizing on the “Twilight” craze and has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the series. (Nowhere else have we even heard of a Leedhan). And we’re never really given any convincing explanation for why Johnis allows her to possess him, either. It’s a poorly written, badly conceived finale to an otherwise promising young-adult series.

I’m a bit leery of the whole universe-hopping concept – first of all because of its “Matrix”-derivative nature, but also because young-adult fantasy has a tendency to deteriorate rapidly when there are too many dimensions to keep track of. One needs look no further than Bryan Davis’ disastrous “Oracles of Fire” series to understand what I’m talking about. Not only were the books theologically questionable and poorly plotted, but the number and rapidity of the dimension-hopping excursions made the end of the series borderline incomprehensible.

And sadly, the final two “Lost Books” aren’t much better. The universe-crossing was relatively limited in both the Circle Trilogy itself and the first four Lost Books – but Dekker’s attempts to link the Circle Trilogy with his “Books of Paradise” (“Showdown,” “Saint,” and “Sinner”) have mostly fallen flat since then. The muddled monstrosity that was “Green” attempted to reconcile the two sagas, but settled for an ambiguous, cop-out ending. (Along those same lines, the similarity between the names of the Lost Books’ main characters and the children in “Showdown” (Johnis = Johnny, Billos = Billy, Darsal = Darcy) are never fully explained.)

From a worldview standpoint, there are some considerations.

First, I want to make it clear that I am still a fan of Dekker’s work. His book “Showdown” was truly transformative in helping me make my faith personal, and the Circle Trilogy has had the same effect on many other readers. However, his books have recently taken a turn for the worse, in my opinion.

There’s not a whole lot of love given to organized Christianity. There’s a lot about a “relationship” with Elyon (God/Jesus), but not very much about how to walk in His steps. Organized religion is portrayed as an oppressive, unpleasant force that exists solely to judge and condemn. A reliance on “love” and emotional response is held up as the pinnacle of Christianity.

But our faith is supposed to be more than just a euphoric sensation. We need to understand what we believe and why we believe it – not just relying on what we “feel” in a moment of spiritual ecstasy. Dekker’s approach to faith, while well-intentioned, is not practical in a world where our beliefs are under attack from all sides.

There is also a morally problematic element running through the series as a whole – the character of Billos/Billy. It is never clear whether Billos/Billy is a hero or a villain – he appears to be an enemy in “Showdown” and “Green,” but takes on the role of a heroic figure in “Sinner” and “Renegade.” Personally, I found it disturbing that Billos/Billy’s allegiances were never clear – it led to some very morally murky situations, especially in “Sinner,” when I was never sure whether to be rooting for Billy or against him.

This isn’t to say that the Lost Books are somehow spiritually subversive – they’re not. The last two books are badly written, and there are a few questionable swipes at the organized Church, but overall the message is strongly Christian.

Other objectionable content? There’s some violence (nothing gory or severe) and occasional mild sensuality (in temptation-related contexts), but nothing else that should preclude Christian parents from giving the books to their teens. There are a few “dark” moments (especially in “Chosen” and “Chaos”) but they’re counterbalanced by scenes of self-sacrifice and heroic renewal.

Should you read them?

It’s up to you. They’re certainly not Dekker’s best work, and your time would almost certainly be better spent reading his fast-paced “Circle Trilogy” or the emotionally devastating “Martyr’s Song” series. They’re substantially better than Bryan Davis’ “Dragons In Our Midst” and “Oracles of Fire” quartets, but they’re definitely not “literature” on the level of the “Chronicles of Narnia.”

VERDICT: 6/10
A mediocre effort from one of Christian fiction’s best authors.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on January 22, 2010 in Fantasy

 

Movie Review: “Sherlock Holmes”

I’ve been a big fan of Sherlock Holmes for a long time. I’ve read most of Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic mysteries and seen some of the old movies. Thus I was quite excited to hear that a new movie adaptation (starring Robert Downey Jr. of “Iron Man” fame) was in the works. Despite the rather bizarre trailers that originally suggested an unpleasantly “alternative” take on Holmes, it’s received acclaim from critics for its wit and vitality. So far, I’ve heard nothing but praise for it from my moviegoing friends. So, all things considered, is it worth your time?

It’s good. But it’s not great.

The plot follows Holmes (Downey) and Watson (Jude Law) as they combat the mad occultist Lord Blackwood (played effectively by Mark Strong). As the movie opens, Holmes and Watson disrupt a ghoulish ritual and apprehend Blackwood, who is hanged shortly thereafter. But it soon becomes clear that Blackwood walks the earth again…has he risen from the dead with the help of dark powers? As they pursue Blackwood and try to unravel his nefarious scheme, Holmes and Watson are joined by Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) – Holmes’ love interest and the only woman to have ever outfoxed him. The trio is drawn deeper and deeper into a web of danger and conspiracies that threatens all England.

It’s a promising story that starts off well, but never really transcends the limitations of its genre. The movie is filled with the same brand of high-octane action found in movies such as “Van Helsing” and “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” – well-choreographed and cinematically splendid, but lacking a true emotional core.

And that is perhaps the biggest flaw in “Sherlock Holmes.” There’s plenty of dry wit and fast-paced adventure, but not a whole lot of character development. Whether you loved it or hated it, “Avatar” successfully elicited an emotional response from its viewers – in large part due to the time spent fleshing out its protagonists. In contrast, “Holmes” grabs the viewer from the beginning and never lets go, relying on action scenes and brilliant one-liners rather than on strong characters.

Most notably, the ironic-romantic relationship between Irene and Holmes could have been handled far better – Irene doesn’t get enough screen time, and when she does put in an appearance, her lines come off flat rather than flirtatious. To compensate for these deficiencies, director Guy Ritchie throws in more and more fights and chases, which paradoxically detract from the merits of the film as a whole.

On a more positive note, Downey is perfectly cast as Holmes – while he doesn’t smoke a meerschaum pipe or wear a deerstalker hat, his deductive abilities are on full display. Through occasional slo-mo sequences narrated by Holmes, viewers get a unique look into the brilliant detective’s calculating mind – especially fascinating considering that most of Conan Doyle’s original stories were told from Watson’s point of view.

Along those same lines, the near-constant repartee between Holmes and Watson is what gives the film its undeniable charm, making “Sherlock Holmes” worth watching just for the humor. There are some really great “quotable” lines, which I won’t spoil here…suffice it to say that they’re eminently memorable.

I am pleased to report that objectionable content is practically nonexistent. One scene (shown in the trailer) contains mild crude humor, and there’s a fair bit of punching and kicking, but practically no bad language or innuendo. (Much of the suggestive-looking footage shown in the trailer was not included in the actual film). The movie is rated PG-13, but it probably could’ve gotten away with a PG rating.

To try and read a complex worldview into this movie would be pointless. It’s a shameless, unapologetic action film devoid of true philosophical underpinnings. There’s nothing in here that would either keep Christian viewers away or attract them.

So, to see or not to see?

Don’t go to “Sherlock Holmes” expecting to see a deep, provocative meditation on human nature, sin, or man’s place in the world. This movie is about laughs and thrills – and it’s good for an afternoon’s entertainment. It’s not good enough to watch over and over again, but it’s probably worth seeing once (especially considering that a sequel involving Professor Moriarty is in the works).

I preferred “Avatar.” But maybe that’s just me.

VERDICT: 7/10
A blend of good action, acting, and wit marred by a lack of emotional depth.

Normalized Score: 3.4

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 1, 2010 in Thrillers