Tuesday, July 22, 2008

DragonLight 3: The Bad Points and Conclusion

All books have weak points, at least for some readers, and Donita K. Paul's DragonLight is no exception. However, the matters I'll raise probably won't be an issue for most people. (The fact that we never get the line, "Everything you always wanted in a dragon--and less!" notwithstanding. I hope that's not a spoiler.)

Non-twists. There were a few places where I expected a twist or complication, but it never arrived. It's difficult to give an example without spoiling the book, but there's a case where a simple mission has a warning attached: if anyone gets clumsy, it will foul everything up. Then the mission suddenly becomes almost a hundred times more complicated--and the dreaded foul-up never happens! It seemed a bit improbable, but the detour into disaster likely wouldn't have helped the story, which I suppose is why it didn't happen. Besides, sometimes the lack of an expected twist is a twist.

Paladin. At the end, Paladin, the ruler of the land, leads a military force that does clear the area usefully, but it then hangs around for cannon-fodder duty, even though Paladin should have been told that the battle can only be won another way. I can see clearing the path, but engaging the enemy beyond a limited point seems irrational. And Paladin's the one who usually knows what to do.

Telepathy. I can see people getting alarmed about magic and dragons, though I consider the fears groundless in this case. I'm more surprised that the constant use of telepathy apparently sparks no concern. I think fantasy is less dangerous than science fiction in this regard, because people are less likely to take fantasy seriously in real life. (Telepathy is more of a sci-fi trope, however.) I wouldn't mention the matter at all, but I have seen a lot of Christian fantasy and science fiction, both published and not-yet-published, that uses telepathy, and I want to stem that tide if I can.

There are at least two reasons why I don't think God would allow telepathy:

1. God alone knows the heart (2 Chron 6:30). This kind of knowledge seems to be a claim to deity. Thus, in John 2:25, the remark that Jesus knew what was in man is often taken as proof of his humanity. On the contrary: it proved his deity, as looking at the previous verse (24) shows: he knew what was in man because he knew all men. And while God does sometimes reveal someone's thoughts to a prophet, for example, that's more a special case. It isn't always there.

2. It would interfere with the gift of loneliness. Since the Fall, we have been cut off from each other--and to some extent even from ourselves. We read in Proverbs 14:10, "Each heart knows its own bitterness, and no one else can share its joy." Even couples who have been married a long time are making educated guesses. They cannot truly know each other's thoughts and feelings. And this is a gift. For if we could get past that primal loneliness through a purely human relationship, we would be strongly tempted to ignore God. But God is the only one who does know our hearts, so our loneliness draws us to him. We long to be known and understood. God might grant unfallen beings such a power among themselves--we may have had it originally--but not those who need the loneliness telepathy would dispell.

Conclusion. Nonetheless, in part because fantasy is fantasy, I recommend this book, though of course those new to the series should start with the first book rather than here.

Even more rollicking adventure with the CSFF Team:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Valerie Comer
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
* Beth Goddard
Mark Goodyear
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Carol Keen
Magma
Terri Main
Magma
Margaret
* Shannon McNear
Melissa Meeks
* Rebecca LuElla Miller
John W. Otte
Deena Peterson
* Cheryl Russel
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Robert Treskillard
* Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Laura Williams

DragonLight 2: The Good Points

Okay, seriously--well, more seriously than last time, which wouldn't be hard--the major strength of Donita K. Paul's DragonLight is the writing. Yes, the characters are well handled, and the world-creation is nicely done. But for me, at least, the refreshing lack of authorial ADHD symptoms were the main selling point. Viewpoints don't ricochet off the pages, and neither do the subplots. It was pleasantly unlike being accosted by a deranged, high-pressure salesman, which is how some modern fiction acts. But it wasn't stodgy, either.

I speculate that she writes so well because she started out writing something simple and market-oriented. (The literacy I'll attribute to her being a teacher in a better time.) Most writers want to do something deathless right at the start, but sometimes beginning with something very consumer-oriented strips away all the cute tricks and helps you learn to write effectively. That prepares you for the serious work.

That said, characterization is the second selling point. I find that in order for me to write effectively, I must care about and even love my characters, and that includes villains, unless I mean them to be flat. If the writer doesn't care, neither will the readers, yet I often feel that writers don't know or care about their characters. Not so here: Paul clearly knows her characters well and cares about them.

(Actually, although it sounds backhanded, I guess her primary strength is not doing anything stupid. If that sounds trivial, you don't read much.)

I'd also like to touch on a couple of false negatives. To begin with, there's the magic. I admit that makes me nervous: we are no longer in a more innocent age when purely literary magic was recognized as such. Even though they had their dabblers in the Black Arts, it wasn't mainstream, and there was typically nothing occult about magic in children's books at least.

Someday I need to write about the varieties of magic in literature, but for now the important term is technological magic. This is magic as simply an alternative to science and technology--in fact, it has its own kind of technology. Back in my D&D days, this was how my friends and I viewed magic in the game: no occult background, just a different kind of tech that you could use for gadgets.

Of all the types of magic in literature, tech magic is the safest and easiest. At a deep level, it's also the least likely and realistic, but for fiction or games it works well. (If you want to do something epic and timeless, it doesn't work that well: it would completely louse up The Lord of the Rings, and it's one of the things that separates LotR from all the wannabes.)

Anyway, if you're paying attention, you soon figure out that the magic in DragonLight is technological. For one thing, Kale can look at a magical effect and figure out how it works. You can't do that with occult magic. Also, no one invokes spirits or magic words. (This is also important from the standpoint of imitability: when magic can be imitated, as magic words allow, it can plant seeds that will turn occultic later. The magic in this story doesn't seem at all imitable.)

To sum up: any kid who reads this and goes into witchcraft was already headed that way. He also probably didn't like the book or the magic: I predict that this won't appeal to such people.

I'm also mildly surprised, as I noted in my interview, that no one seems to quibble about the use of dragons. (Maybe someone on this tour has: I haven't had time to check.) While I don't agree with Bryan Davis' arguments for the biblical cuddliness of dragons, I think there is a possible argument from Psalm 104:26. Since God formed the leviathan, which all cutesy modern whitewashing aside was a dragon, not a whale or crocodile, then we may conclude that dragons, like snakes, started out good. That's all the argument you need: the same was true of human beings.

Even more rollicking adventure with the CSFF Team:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Valerie Comer
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
* Beth Goddard
Mark Goodyear
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Carol Keen
Magma
Terri Main
Magma
Margaret
* Shannon McNear
Melissa Meeks
* Rebecca LuElla Miller
John W. Otte
Deena Peterson
* Cheryl Russel
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Robert Treskillard
* Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Laura Williams

Monday, July 21, 2008

DragonLight 1: Intro

Donita K. Paul's DragonLight is the conclusion of her "DragonKeeper Chronicles" series. Since I haven't read the earlier books, it was a bit confusing to jump right in, but at least there are a cast of characters in the front and a glossary in the back. I'd still suggest starting with the first book.

Anyway, after a lot of unpleasantness, relative peace and niceness have been restored to Amara, which sounds as though boredom will ensue. Not so. After a bracing bit of pest control, Kale (Heroine, Dragon Keeper, Light Wizard, and Woman With a Secret Even She Doesn't Know About) discovers that her husband is taking her off on an extended date that could get them both killed. He sure knows how to show a lady a good time.

The date involves a quest to discover a lost colony of extra-smart dragons, which leads us to ask

1. If they're extra-smart, how come they got lost, and en masse yet?
2. If they got lost anyway, did they perhaps have a good reason, so they should be left alone?

However, Bardon (Kale's Husband, Knight, Spouter of Wisdom, Sufferer of Cooties on Steroids) has discovered a group of people living together in regimented conformity and led by a group who think they're God's gift to God. (Thereby proving that even the Almighty enjoys a gag gift on occasion.) Bardon thinks fast: they haven't sued him, so they aren't lawyers. They haven't pulled a spreadsheet on him, so they aren't accountants. That means they must be either cultists or members of MoveOn. In either case, they are a threat to the realm, for they will eventually leave their commune and clog up the airports.

He reports the matter to Paladin ("Pal" to his friends), who immediately recognizes the grave fashion risk involved and orders Bardon to find an "expendable sucker" (royal jargon for "hero") to infiltrate the group off-camera. (This is, after all, a family-friendly book.) But he also orders Bardon to go ahead with the working date, knowing that there's nothing as romantic as stumbling onto a whole colony of misplaced dragons.

However, the trip has barely started when the true evil rears its head--and no one has the wit to realize it but the reader. It begins with Regidor, one of the smart dragons--yes, the same kind as the lost guys: they sent him out for pizza and he couldn't find his way back. Anyway, he has invented a small forerunner of a TV or at least a Video iPod. Faster than you can say, "And now a word from our sponsor," a group of dinky black dragons shows up and starts annoying everyone. (The book blames this on some ancient legend about a humungous dragon with a kind of psoriasis--a poor cover story.)

Anyway, the good guys assemble a team:
Kale and Bardon, Specialists in Romance and Surviving Bad Stuff (almost redundant);
Regidor, Specialist in Wandering Way Off and Saying, "Can You Hear Me Now?"
Gilda, Regidor's wife, Specialist in Making Others Want to Survive so They Can Kill Her Afterward;
Sir Dar, Specialist in Cooking and in Talking People to Death;
Brunstetter, Specialist in Being Tall and Jovially Killing Things;
Toopka, Specialist in Being Cute Yet Mysterious;
Sittiponder, Specialist in Babysitting Toopka and in Not Being Deceived by Appearances.

(And a cast of thousands.)

Will they find the missing dragons? Will the cult find them first and bury them in tracts? Will someone turn out to be a Catholic who's read Bel and the Dragon and therefore knows an amusing way to dispatch a psoriatic pseudo-saurian?

What do I look like, a blabbermouth? Read the book, already!

Even more rollicking adventure with the CSFF Team:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Valerie Comer
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
* Beth Goddard
Mark Goodyear
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Carol Keen
Magma
Terri Main
Magma
Margaret
* Shannon McNear
Melissa Meeks
* Rebecca LuElla Miller
John W. Otte
Deena Peterson
* Cheryl Russel
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Robert Treskillard
* Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Laura Williams

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Donita K. Paul Interview

I usually just review books, but I thought I'd break over and do an actual interview. But first, an overview based on the interview:

Donita Kathleen Paul was born November 20, 1950 in Lawrence, KS to Arthur Norman and Elnora Evelyn Foster Paul.

My father was an industrial, mechanical, and civil engineer. If WWII hadn’t interfered, he would have had a doctorate. Instead, he designed airplanes that wouldn’t fall out of the sky, even when riddled with bullet holes.

My mother taught and taught teachers how to teach for the Methodist church. My mother was a farm gal who furthered her education through fiction. She had an astounding vocabulary, a knowledge of many cultures, and ended up being a world traveler.

I had three older brothers, David, Stephen, and Jon. That meant there was a brother to hold my feet, one to hold my arms, and one to tickle.

Every one of us and many of our extended family were storytellers. Swapping tall tales at a family gathering was normal. One of my brothers was an oil executive and went to cocktail parties all over the world. He was known for what amounted to a stand-up comedy routine about his perception of his childhood. If you ask other members of the family, these accounts were fiction, or fictionalized truth, or out and out fabrication. At his funeral, his business associates were astonished to meet his seemingly normal family.

I graduated from High School in 1968. University of Houston in 1973 with a BS in Elementary Education.

I taught elementary grades in public and private schools until I retired in 1996.

Married, divorced, with two children.

(In case anyone wonders: I asked about all that because I couldn't find it online. And I'm nosy.)

The regular interview questions:

I was mildly surprised that you never commented on using dragons. Despite Bryan Davis' arguments to the contrary, the Biblical image of dragons is overwhelmingly negative. I can think of only one positive reference--Psalm 104:26. Do you consider this an issue? (For what it's worth, I can think of a possible defense; I just wonder about your views.)

I do not think the use of dragons is an issue any more than talking teapots or bears of very little brain. This is fiction!

I use many elements in my story to be allegorical. With all allegories, you must be careful not to carry them too far. They represent something that they are not. The minor dragons represent gifts God has bestowed on people: healing, music, ability to read and retain, providing light in the darkness, to name a few.

When the characters sit down for tea or a meal, that is allegorical as well. It signifies resting in the Lord and refueling from His Strength.

Why don’t I get called on the carpet for tea?

A dragon is a symbol for something evil in the Bible.

A fish was a fish until the symbol evolved as a sign for Christians.

A cross was a symbol of shameful death.

I have dragons who are good and some who are not.

The business of the Principles is also puzzling. I admit I haven't read the earlier books, just the last one for an upcoming blog tour, but it's almost like the local Bible consists only of Proverbs and the Psalms. Is there more?

The principles are mostly from the Proverbs. In DragonSpell there is mention of a story of how Wulder rewarded the generosity of the urohm people. And at another time, someone says that the Tomes are filled with guidelines for life and the history of how Wulder has worked in His creation. My intention was not to rewrite the Bible, but to use principles from Scripture in a fictional setting. Hopefully, the reader picks up on Truth that applies universally.

For that matter, has there been an Incarnation, or is that handled differently? Or has it perhaps not yet come up?

I admit to steering clear of recreating Christ. I feel Lewis did that with Aslan. He did it well, and I don’t feel the need to try to capture the essence of the Greatest Story in my fiction. Maybe God will impress upon me at a later date to do so, but I have no inclination now.

The Dragon Keeper Chronicles are about the Christian walk, how a person relates to God through acceptance of oneself, relationship to others, and glorifying the Creator in all he/she does.

There is no salvation message. As it turns out, it has been an evangelical tool in that readers have said to me, "I didn’t know being a Christian was like that. I’m going to learn more about Christianity."

That is gratifying, but certainly is not my work, but that of the Holy Spirit.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Faithful Are the Wounds of a Friend

Some people ask why I give the negatives in reviewing a book. I usually observe that a uniformly positive review is essentially an unpaid advertisement, and readers don't trust someone who only gives one side. (I doubt they like someone who only gives negatives, for that matter.)

But some people also bring the idea that giving negatives for a Christian book is unchristian or even damaging to the Gospel. The reasoning here evades me on several counts.

1. The only reason I can think of for giving uniformly positive reviews is precisely to increase sales. Such reviews will give the impression of a must-buy book without any discernible flaws. That will encourage sales, but it will also be a lie: all books have problem areas. Acknowledging this is a service to both the writer (who may improve the writing) and the prospective reader (who may intelligently weigh pros and cons). As the saying goes, "We report; you decide." I will not lie.

2. Similarly, I can't accept the idea that acknowledging negatives is not Christian. In Proverbs 27:6 we read, "Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses." (The title for this blog entry is from the more poetic King James rendering.) So the problem is that I am not the writer's enemy, or I could "multiply kisses" with a uniformly positive review. As the writer's friend, I may occasionally inflict a wound, though never in spite or anger.

3. It is also wrong to claim that disagreement will somehow prevent the spread of the Gospel. It's like claiming that peace is always better than disagreement. Yet in an abusive household, there may be a sort of peace (the abuser is never contradicted) that is contrary to the Gospel. The triumph of the Gospel comes not through a deceptive peace but through the godly handling of strife. Thus, someone who never has any trouble is not as strong a witness for Christ as someone who undergoes great trials yet faithfully proclaims Jesus as Lord by word and deed.

Paul wrote the Corinthians, "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval" (1 Cor 11:19). What did he mean? That you could identify the really godly people because they were always on the right side of a disagreement? No. Compare Romans 14:1-15:9. (Look it up: it's a bit long to post here.) The way you show you're approved is not by being in the right; it's by responding lovingly to disagreement.

You see, unsaved people have seen appeasers and phony peace before; they won't be impressed. But if they see people who can disagree in a loving, godly fashion, that's very unusual. People flock to oddities, so they will want to see it and know how we can love one another even in the midst of disagreement. They will know we are Christians by our love--real love, not the false love of appeasement.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Chenoa's Spiritual Journey 3: Bad Points and Conclusion

In explaining what I take to be the problems of Becky Dice's Chenoa's Spiritual Journey, I must note that problems need more clarification than strong points do. So this section is usually going to be longer than the section on the strengths.

1. Culture. I don't believe there's a completely good or evil culture, so one of the jobs we have (especially missionaries) is to identify what's good and bad, nurturing the good and uprooting the bad. For example, in general American culture there's a glorification of personal liberty at the expense of personal responsibility and interpersonal relationships. We also idolize sports and entertainment figures. We respect life by having handicapped parking spaces, but we support abortion.

There is no monolithic Indian culture. The various tribes and nations differ dramatically from one another. However, in general Indian culture emphasizes respect for the elderly and for tradition (good points), strongly believes in a spiritual world (neutral), and accepts or even encourages magical and necromantic activity forbidden by Scripture (bad). (In case you wonder, I grew up in Alaska, where this problem is a big deal: Natives there always have to choose between their traditional spirituality and biblical ways, and I've seen the choice and its consequences played out many times.)

The business about the Great Spirit bothered me because I'm always uncomfortable when someone talks a lot about God but not about Jesus. There is a definite difference between Chenoa's parents and her grandparents: the parents are evidently Christians, while the grandparents give no such impression. The grandparents' belief is like that of people who talk about The Man Upstairs: they believe in a God, but the connection with the biblical God is unclear at best. Yet it is the grandparents who define the spiritual landscape.

So we have a dream in which Chenoa's deceased mother, in spirit form, enters Chenoa. No. Mom is with Jesus, not tucked away inside Chenoa. I'd suggest an exorcism myself, because it's a safe assumption that something other than the mother was trying for entrance. In fact, the whole matter of the parents' death, besides its predictability, points in a New Age or occult direction. It's the major sticking point I have with what is otherwise a good story.

A closely related matter is the uncritical acceptance of all things Indian, which is as reckless as an uncritical acceptance of all things American (Jewish, Black, Chinese, etc.). I got the impression that "practicing" Indians such as the grandparents were saved by their culture, which is every bit as silly as saying that someone is Christian because he is an American.

2. Morality. Dakotah, the Indian boy Chenoa's interested in, is way over the line both physically and spiritually in his "romantic" actions toward Chenoa. He puts serious moves on her when she is unavailable because she isn't saved, and no, being in love doesn't excuse it. We already have kids who are pushing the line; they need examples of peers who have better control and more respect for the one they supposedly love. They also need examples of people who refuse to pursue even an attractive unsaved person, which in the real world ends badly just under 100% of the time.

Dare to be counter-cultural on romance!

3. Race. The preoccupation with race annoyed me, though it fits with the emphasis on Indian Culture (whatever that may be) being invariably right. Chenoa is strongly bigoted, and even Dakotah's sister Marie has to observe that her own crush is the best-looking White boy in school.

Now, I know that racism exists, and perhaps all this leads up to a point where Chenoa and the others confront their bigotry. But it's unpleasant in the meantime.

Conclusion. So am I opposed to the book? No. I just think a different target audience would be better. Instead of young adults, I would pitch this toward those who want to understand the "Reservation mindset." That would include anyone wanting to work with or simply understand what could be called "practicing Indians," as distinct from those who have assimilated and simply consider themselves Americans. As such, this would be a good read for adults and even (with supervision) older teens. For that matter, as racism is universal, it would be good for understanding that aspect of fallen human nature, regardless of the specific race.

Such stories can be very useful. As a "cradle Christian," I have little understanding of those who grew up outside God's grace. It revolutionized my life years ago to see, of all things, the Beatles film Yellow Submarine on TV because it (especially through the song "Eleanor Rigby") gave me a good look at life without God. Chenoa's Spiritual Journey could have the same impact for someone else.

Some other blogs on the CFRB tour:
Cathi Hassan's at Shoutlife
Rebecca Wire
Laura Davis
Queen of Convolution (Caprice Hokstad)

Monday, July 7, 2008

Chenoa's Spiritual Journey 2: The Good Points

For me, the main selling point of Becky Dice's Chenoa's Spiritual Journey is its portrayal of what could be called a "Reservation mindset." There are good and bad aspects to that, and I'll detail some of them tomorrow. I'll also come back to this in my conclusion, which will be unlike any I've posted before. For the moment I'll just note that it brings an honesty to the work that is both disturbing and refreshing: Chenoa is not a particularly likeable person, and there are features of her background that probably contributed to that. This is the first installment of a series, so there may be more commentary on these topics in later stories.

There is also the fact that Chenoa is ultimately unable to come to terms with her new situation apart from God. She goes more and more out of control over time, and in the end only God can save her.

Some other blogs on the CFRB tour:
Cathi Hassan's at Shoutlife
Rebecca Wire
Laura Davis
Queen of Convolution (Caprice Hokstad)

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Chenoa's Spiritual Journey 1: Intro

Becky Dice's Chenoa's Spiritual Journey is about Chenoa Fawn Gray Owl, who initially lives with her family in Whiteriver, Arizona, on the White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation. Her father, a doctor, decides to move the family to Ohio for the sake of Chenoa and her four-year-old brother River. Chenoa resists the move; she has hardly ever been off the reservation and isn't interested in connecting with White People.

Unfortunately, not too long after the family arrives in Ohio to visit family friends Douglas and Barbara Ream, the kids wind up orphaned. Worse yet, the Reams are White People, and they are honor-bound to adopt Chenoa and her brother!

There are some bright spots, however, most of which involve a handsome Indian young man, though he has a psychotic girlfriend. (He seems to attract psycho admirers.) He is also a Christian--not the first Chenoa has met, but the only one (including her parents) to actually affect her spiritually.

The focus of the story is on how Chenoa eventually begins to adapt to her new surroundings and foster parents with God's help.

Tomorrow, as usual, I'll explore the good points of the book.

Check out the other CFRB blogs for more.
 
Powered by WebRing.