Broken Angel 03: Weak points and Conclusion

And now, the part I hope no one's been looking forward to: the weak points of Sigmund Brouwer's Broken Angel.

The first strong negative I encountered was strong enough that had I been reading the book for myself, not as part of a tour, I would have dropped it. Chapter Two is largely Hobbesian, being nasty, brutish, and fortunately rather short. It is also gratuitous: I don't believe any unique and vital information lies therein, so I'd advise others to skip it. It mostly details how obnoxious Mason Lee is.

I've already mentioned that Theo's virtual disappearance later in the story annoyed me: he was an intriguing character and should've been retained. I'm sure Brouwer's a good enough writer to have done so without diminishing the more important characters.

There is also a careless plot hole toward the end of the story, in which some people with very important information apparently aren't going to be debriefed, much less interrogated. If they were, it would undermine the grand scheme that had been running the whole time. But how could a proper tyrant not take the time to break out the thumbscrews?

But the main problem I had was the handling of fundamentalists and Christianity in general:

Outside, most people knew that decades ago, the religious fundamentalists lost the ability to transform society when they became a political movement. Their boycotts and protests became so commonplace, any outcry against anything beyond the narrow range of what they saw as biblically acceptable was dismissed as a knee-jerk reaction. Once Appalachia was established, there was no one Outside who opposed liberalism and humanism. (p. 172)

There is some truth to this. We do tend to yell about things that don't matter or aren't even true, such as the various myths that are e-mailed around. And we often act as though political solutions existed for spiritual problems, so that outlawing abortion (for ewxample) would make it disappear. We should invest ourselves more in spiritual tactics that form the infrastructure for any permanent solution.

However, there are also some misperceptions of the sort that secular sources, through laziness, ignorance, and plain bigotry tend to spread. For example, there is already some disaffection with the idea of spiritual change through political means, and it's been there for a few years now.

Also, "fundamentalists" are not a cohesive group, and American Christians in general have no theocratic inclinations, so the "Appalachia Solution" simply wouldn't happen. When CNN likens Christian fundamentalists to Islamic fundamentalists and tries to demonstrate that fundies want to fly outsized KJVs ("with Thompson Chain-reference Machine Guns!") into buildings, they forget that most of the things fundies support and oppose aren't even mildly theocratic. Even some atheists are pro-life, for example, and many non-Christians support such common "fundamentalist" concerns as action against religious persecution.

[Brief Digression] This is why the idea that public prayers or displays of religious symbols could somehow lead to "an establishment of religion" (i.e., the founding of a state church) is ridiculous. It is impossible to establish most any religion in the abstract. Establish Christianity? Okay, what kind? Catholic? Orthodox (which kind, again)? Coptic? Don't even get started with "Protestant." Even if you're trying to be open-minded, what's Christian? Are Catholics? Pentecostals? What about Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? To mean something, it pretty much has to endorse one group above others, a priniciple that will lead to an ever-tighter circle. Any action or display that does not specifically give one denomination an edge over others cannot establish that denomination and therefore the religion of which it is part.

On the other hand, sometimes it's hard to tell what's "narrow" and what's important. For years, Catholics were about the only ones who realized that abortion was important, and whether homosexual marriage is critical or trivial depends on who you ask. When I was in high school, a teacher asked whether we would be willing to go to war. One student said it would depend on the war: for an important one like WWII, yes; for Vietnam, no. But one of the reasons we were so late getting into WWII and let so many innocent people die was that most people were convinced (to use modern terms) that "the war in Europe" was just a Vietnam!

So on this point, I'd say, pray about what is important and what God wants you to do; then do it. Seek spiritual solutions, but also remember that laws represent our standards. If our law allows something, at a deep level, we do too.

A related point is "the kingdom of the cross" versus "the kingdom of the sword" (p. 182). This isn't just a crock, it's a slanderous crock. The idea is that Christians try to force belief on the unwilling. Historically, there have been some cases of this, though it's far less frequent than current mythology claims. Someday Brouwer is going to find himself in the company of a multitude he has blithely condemned without bothering to comprehend. It will be interesting to see his response.

Now, it is true that our strength comes through weakness, and grasping power leads to defeat. However, the Clan uses its own amazing cleverness to concoct the scheme that underlies the plot (a scheme that again would not actually survive routine questioning) and derives its protection from homicidal outlaws. So for them to look down on others seems a shaky move at best. It's also mildly amusing that they don't seem to be directly involved in evangelistic outreach: they help place people Outside and shelter others from the Appalachian cult. But mostly they remain cloistered in their caves.

Brouwer can be very subtle, and I'd like to think this is reverse psychology: that he is actually arguing against the Clan's hypocrisy as much as anyone else's. It's not impossible, but it leads to a kind of relativism: the Christians are no better than the unsaved, so what's the point?

Conclusion. In spite of these points, Broken Angel is a very engaging book, and the problems are a small part of the whole. I'm not sure how many readers will even notice them, unfortunately. So as simple fiction, and more, as a craft exemplar, it is worth reading. It sets up strongly for a sequel, I think, and I hope that will be even better.

Other CSFF posts:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Keanan Brand
Jackie Castle
Valerie Comer
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Janey DeMeo
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Mark Goodyear
Andrea Graham
Katie Hart
Timothy Hicks
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Carol Keen
Magma
Margaret
Shannon McNear
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Nissa
John W. Otte
Ashley Rutherford
Hanna Sandvig
Chawna Schroeder
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Sean Slagle
James Somers
Donna Swanson
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Laura Williams

Broken Angel 02: The Good Points

Anyone who saw yesterday's post about Sigmund Brouwer's Broken Angel probably got the impression I'm not keen on it. That's not altogether true: most of the story works really well, and most readers will likely have no problems with it. Tomorrow I'll cover the areas that bothered me. But there are also some good points, and a few of them are unusual.

1. Fact-checking. I doubt anyone else will mention this one: "Cars don't explode when they burn... That's just a myth." (p. 170) They don't automatically catch fire and explode when they crash, either. Brouwer has all these facts right, which tells me his idea of research isn't watching a lot of videos. It always helps me to know that a writer has done some actual homework. (Anyone who has followed this blog very much knows that silliness about explosives is a pet peeve of mine.)

2. Characterization. This covers a lot of ground, but I mostly mean that the characters and their actions are believable. You can't predict their moves, but neither can you consider them random or forced. (I deplore writing where a character's only apparent reason for doing something is because the writer so decided.)

3. Setting-up. One of the signs of a true hack is pulling some gimmick out of thin air at the last moment. A half-hearted hack will set up such a gimmick in advance, but with plenty of "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" so that only the truly clueless will fail to see what's happening. A pro can set up something so subtly that you don't even realize it until he triumphantly pulls it out at the proper moment. Brouwer is very good at setting up. An apparently random detail or incidental action will eventually turn out to be critical. If you're a writer, you ought to read this book just to get an idea of how to handle one of the most challenging tasks in the fiction business.

For that matter, he can even get away with some almost ex-post-facto setting up, as when Outside lawman Carson Pierce reveals that he has outwitted villainous bounty hunter Mason Lee's attempt to conceal his location: you don't see it happen, but it matches the information from the time in question quite well and is exactly right for all the characters concerned.

4. Storytelling skill. I mentioned yesterday that Caitlyn's peculiarity is easy to figure out. That would be a fatal error for most writers and most books. Here, however, the story is compelling enough that the mystery isn't necessary. Just as fans knew full well Anakin Skywalker was going to don the helmet eventually, it's getting there that's the draw. In fact, I'll spoil my own suspense slightly by admitting that I'm going to recommend this book especially for writers who need a good example.

Tomorrow, I'll explore a few problem areas. In the meantime, see what the rest of the CSFF tour has to say:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Keanan Brand
Jackie Castle
Valerie Comer
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Janey DeMeo
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Mark Goodyear
Andrea Graham
Katie Hart
Timothy Hicks
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Carol Keen
Magma
Margaret
Shannon McNear
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Nissa
John W. Otte
Ashley Rutherford
Hanna Sandvig
Chawna Schroeder
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Sean Slagle
James Somers
Donna Swanson
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Laura Williams

Broken Angel 01: Intro

Sigmund Brouwer's Broken Angel is set in the relatively near future, at a time when the Appalachian area is a country unto itself run by a quasi-Christian theocracy that uses high-tech surveillance to maintain order while limiting regular citizens to lower tech and illiteracy. The outside world apparently hasn't much Christian influence, so it's developing some nightmares of its own.

Enter Caitlyn and her dad. She has some kind of deformity or mutation; if you haven't figured out what it is within a couple chapters tops, you aren't trying. Anyway, the two are on the run from some really grumpy guys with guns and hounds: here they are, thirsty in Appalachia, only to find Appalachia Cola is only a myth. So they take it out on the nearest single parent with a mutated daughter. Haven't we all done that?

Okay, maybe not.

But we also get to meet Mason Lee, a bounty hunter who wishes Hannibal Lecter were real so he could get his autograph and then give him a noogie. And break a few bones, maybe. It's a male-bonding thing. Mason soon discovers that he can ignore the "or alive" part on Caitlyn's wanted poster, which can only mean Somebody Down There likes him. He just wants Caitlyn to open up to him, and he has a knife that should help.

But the characters aren't all obnoxious. Caitlyn, now bereft of her father figure, who thoughtfully opted to play with the dogs in her stead, soon encounters a little-brother figure. He's an intriguing geek wannabe in a land without geeks. His name is Theo, but after being really important for several chapters, he practically disappears. I can't help thinking his last name is MacGuffin. (Technically he's only the first cousin of a MacGuffin, there to fill in until the actual hero shows up.)

Instead of Theo, we get someone more in Caitlyn's age range for her to bum around with as she seeks--well, who knows what. No, wait--it's the Clan. No, not the guys in the sheets; these are the guys in the caves, which are a lot roomier and don't show the dirt as much. The Clan are the true Christians who actually read the Bible and don't go around forcing their views on others, so everyone else can go to Hell unimpeded.

Aren't principles keen?

They deplore violence, yet they have the good fortune to be ringed about with homicidal loonies (not in the Clan themselves, of course) who kill off any door-to-door salesmen and Jehovah's Witnesses who might otherwise disturb the Clan's tranquility.

Talk about good neighbors. The Clan evidently returns the favor by not pointing out that it isn't nice to kill people, especially in sadistic ways.

So anyway, Caitlyn and her retinue are off to visit the Clan for Reasons Undisclosed. Meanwhile, plot and counterplot, point and counterpoint, counter and countercounter are swirling around, as dead people manage to get a whole lot better, true allegiances are revealed, and in general no one is what they seem except for the less-imaginative ones who are exactly what they seem.

Tune in tomorrow for the strengths of the story. Meanwhile, check out some
other posts on the subject that probably are what they seem:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Keanan Brand
Jackie Castle
Valerie Comer
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Janey DeMeo
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Mark Goodyear
Andrea Graham
Katie Hart
Timothy Hicks
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Carol Keen
Magma
Margaret
Shannon McNear
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Nissa
John W. Otte
Ashley Rutherford
Hanna Sandvig
Chawna Schroeder
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Sean Slagle
James Somers
Donna Swanson
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Laura Williams

Chion: A Genuine Fake Review

This month CFRB is doing Darryl Sloan's Chion (also available as a free download here). Even though I did read the book, I still decided to do a quasi-fake review for reasons I'll explain later.

The genuine plot (no fakery here) involves the idea that snow has been somehow altered into superglue. I grew up in Alaska, so I'm not too impressed: we generally talked about getting "snow that sticks" in October, and it would be there until at least late April. In Chion, the snow sticks to more than wickets and is impervious to heat. No one seems to think of throwing salt on it for some reason.

Anyway, I'm writing a Genuine Fake Review for two reasons: first, I didn't think I'd have time to read the book, so I promised the others that I'd settle for a GFR, despite all their threats and pleading to the contrary. I'm pleased to say, however, that the book is not the usual several hundred pages of bloat some writers like to turn out. Second, even after reading the book, I thought there was something missing. You see, we never get an outright explanation of how the snow went bad.

(MINOR SPOILER!) Though terrorists are strongly suggested for the role, none shows up. I mean, sure the story's set in a small Irish town (specifically Portadown, Irish for "portajohn"), and all the important terrorists are off schmoozing in London and Dublin and chatting with Obama on the phone. (He immediately chides them for their "over the top" practical joke.) But they could still drop a sock puppet with a sign that says, "Greetings, Infidels! My name is Achmed, and I'll be your terrorist today!" After all, the main reason jihadists would have for sabotaging snow would be to disarm all the kids who would pelt them with snowballs, for which the jihadists have little or no natural defense. But if no terrorists show up, we might as well blame it on pixies or something. So...

Jamie stiffened. "Do you hear that? It must be another helicopter!"
Tara looked out the window. "No, it's... By Jove!"
"Buy gum!"
"What?"
"It's cheaper. Seriously, have you priced Jove lately?"
"Look! It's a flying oil well! And it's dropping a guy on a camel!"
As the two watched, the camel's hump popped open, deploying a chute. Moments later camel and rider landed in an oily heap just outside the window. How convenient.
"Allahu Akhbar?" the rider asked.
"Isn't that an exclamation?" Jamie retorted.
"No, I'm offering you one of our new Allahu Akhbars. It's like a nutroll, but with more oil and nuts. We're diversifying."
"But why are you even here? Why aren't you in a larger town?"
"Two reasons: first, when this is written up as a book, I believe the author will set the story here in Portadown."
"Ridiculous."
"Second, we forgot to build a portajohn on that fershlugginer flying oil well, so I was kinda stuck."
"You're also stuck here: you landed right in the snow."
"Not so: if you listened to your boffin explaining how this works, you would have noticed that he said a solid is required for the snow to stick. The camel's feet and undercarriage are covered with oil, which isn't a solid. So there." The camel promptly lost its footing again.
"Are you sure that's practical?"
"I have a better idea: I'll call in the guy who fixed the snow for us. He can unfix it for me."
A small man pinged into view, covered in icicles. "Don't tell me: you forgot to cover yourself with oil as well as the camel."
"It makes me slide all over."
"I know. It's great fun to watch."
Jamie decided the dialog had been hijacked long enough. "Wait! You're Jack Frost, aren't you? Why'd you help the terrorists?"
"I got bored nipping at people's noses and decided to glue them down instead. Just a change."
But then Tara, forgotten by pretty much everybody, ran to the window and tossed some salt at the sprite. "Season's greetings, Jack!" she called.
Faster than you can say, "I'm melting! Melting!" Jack and the snow disappeared.
The rider glared at the ground. Then he shrugged. "Anticlimactic, but as long as we're here, anyone want some cheap oil?"


Instead of the usual string of related blogs, we're using buttons now. I apologize: I originally liked the idea, but now I find they aren't shiny. Try them anyway.