Eretzel 5: Hope and Change

As a matter of being the first with breaking news, I thought I'd take a moment to mention that William McGrath has made a slight change in Eretzel, naming one of the Antichrist's sillier minions (and Minister of Finance) Lrak Xram as a tribute to the President's program to make the US look more like Europe. (Burning banlieues, anyone?)

Now, for me this raises a few questions. As I noted earlier, while the President has disturbing ideas and traits, his scariest feature is his astounding enthusiasm for abortion. He is now on the verge of re-opening an unnecessary line of research involving embryonic stem cells--unnecessary not only because there is no known benefit from such research, but also because the cells can be obtained in innocent ways, without killing. This move further cheapens and commodifies human life--and for nothing. It is this shedding of innocent blood that could take our country past the point of no return.

That said, McGrath's concerns about the effect of Obama's policies are well-founded. For example--

Murray the Alchemist: Are you trying to turn this into the conservative version of a PBS special? Let's talk about the important thing--the cover-up!

Ansric: What are you doing back here? I thought the League of Superheroes sent you over to Frank Creed to blow up the One State.

Murray: He's got picky rules about not blowing up cities. I mean, I don't mind blowing people up one at a time, but you don't get the really good fireballs that way. And you're still not dealing with the important change.

Ansric: If you mean the claim that "Lrak Xram" is too obvious and hard to pronounce, I'll agree with the first part. It's not that hard to pronounce, though. It's just a pity that McGrath didn't spell out the "x": then he would've had "Skram," which is easier to say and a bit more amusing.

Murray: You can pronounce the thing?

Ansric: Maybe it's because I've studied Russian, but yes, I can say it. Can't you?

Murray: One of the reasons I became an alchemist was so I wouldn't have to say stuff like that. You could turn into a cabinet nominee or something. But what really bugs me isn't this change. He got rid of an explosion in an earlier version!

Ansric: Because it didn't work right. You complained about that yourself.

Murray: Yeah, but he didn't fix it! I always say, "Any explosion you can walk away from--

Ansric: Is a good one?

Murray: Is a dud! I mean, a real explosion will hurl you several feet at least. I've wound up in another kingdom a few times! That's the kind of excitement a book needs. If the Anakim had just blown up Antiochus and his buddies, they would've gotten away with it.

Ansric: Somehow I doubt it, but it might've blown Lrak's name right. But I guess all this--and I'm back to politics, now--proves that if you want real "hope and change," the magic phrase isn't "Lrak Xram" but "Maranatha!": Come, O Lord! Maybe if we had more people saying that, the country might endure. As it stands, though, Eretzel provides a warning that unfortunately many will ignore.

Don't ignore Eretzel or the tour! For more information, check out the following this week:

Eretzel 4: League of Super Readers

(In case you wonder where the first three installments got off to, they're here, here, and here. You should've been paying attention.)

For today's installment, I thought it would be appropriate to ask the League of Superheroes what registered geeks think about William McGrath's Eretzel, since it's a bit of a he-geek novel. We'll also have Rod Davies' dad along to make sure the testosterone level is high enough.

Ansric: So, Mr. Davies, you read Eretzel yourself?

Mr. Davies: 'Course I did. I wouldn't give Rod trash to read, so I thought I'd see what it was like.

Ansric: Good book, then?

Mr. Davies: Yeah, it's kind of like Tom Clancy before he got politically correct. But McGrath is a Christian--I mean a real Christian, not one of these wimpy "sorta" Christians where you gotta guess a lot--and he's doing swords and stuff, not the high-tech gear Clancy's into.

Ansric: Anything else?

Mr. Davies: I think McGrath could whip Clancy's--

Ansric: Let's watch the language.

Mr. Davies: "Rear end." Is that okay? Do I have to hold my pinky out too? 'Cause back in the old days, I'da held out another finger and said it the way I wanted.

Ansric: I appreciate your restraint. So apparently it's manly enough, and I guess the geeky stuff wasn't a problem either.

Mr. Davies: He's a manly geek, anyway. Kinda like my brothers--they could do all the explainin' and still use your face for a mop. But like I say, McGrath has better values than that. It's the kinda thing I want Rod to read, especially since he's got that Titan suit.

Ansric: That's a good segue to Rod and the others. Comments?

Rod/Titan: I like the geek/macho balance. Some of the theology seemed a bit weird, but Tom's dad says there's nothing harmful there, just unusual.

Mr. Davies: The guy is a bit confused about the end times. We're supposed to be out of here when the Antichrist shows up.

Tom/Darklight: Dad said there was a mix of old and new ideas. The oldest teaching about the Tribulation is that the Church goes through it. In the Bible "tribulation" practically always means "persecution of the Church."

Allen/Tachyon: Which is why the Church has taught that all along.

Mr. Davies: Well, Tim LaHaye knows his stuff, just like McGrath knows the technical stuff.

Allen/Tachyon: And could whup up on LaHaye too, I bet.

Mr. Davies: Just like I got authority to whup up on any smart mouths. That bit still stands, you know.

Allen/Tachyon: Yessir.

Charlie/Micromegas: This is why we don't discuss Bible prophecy that much.

Tom/Darklight: It's also why Dad scheduled our trip to the Grand Canyon so we'd miss the eschatology festival at Rod's church. He wasn't happy when they rescheduled and we came in on the last half of it anyway.

Allen/Tachyon: And it scarred you so much that you had all the prophecy references in League of Superheroes, which began almost two months later.

Ansric: Putting eschatology on hold, what about the book as such?

Allen/Tachyon: It was an interesting mix of Protestant and Catholic. He doesn't beat up on Catholics like a lot of Protestants, but he's definitely Protestant. We believe in the Body of Christ, with everyone in his place. Protestants like the lone wolf idea, which is like having an arm or a leg wandering around on its own. But maybe this is a good way to bridge the gap. The Dante stuff at the end was kind of cool for a Protestant, though I have to admit Tom knows more about that than I do.

Tom/Darklight: It's like the eschatology--a mix of old and new. I don't care for some of the new stuff, but if it makes a bridge so modern readers can appreciate the older teachings, it's a good thing. I'm for anything that can get people to stop and think--or start to think--without messing up their theology.

Charlie/Micromegas: There was a bit more emphasis on human action than on the power of God, but from the ending, I think that will change. We tend to lead with our fallen nature anyway.

Ansric: Closing remarks?

Mr. Davies: It's not for wimps. That's the problem: there are too many wimps out there who are too lazy and scared to read it.

Ansric: And your advice?

Mr. Davies: Advice is for wimps too. I'd just say, "Read Eretzel, or I'll use it to whup your--"

For more information, check out the following this week:

Eretzel 3: Gripes and conclusion

And now the dreaded gripes about William McGrath's Eretzel.

Moor and Simon. As I mentioned yesterday, I would've liked to see more of this odd couple, though McGrath needed to spend time developing the Anakim instead. It's a good trade-off, I suppose, but I still hope for more of the Moor/Simon show next time. On the other hand, we will have more of the Anakim next time, and they do grow on you, so to speak.

Details, details... I've mentioned the exposition, and again, it doesn't bother me on the whole. It works best when it's short, as when a remark about architecture or local custom arises in passing. But some of the longer passages could have been abbreviated. For example, I think I could've handled the digression about steel in roughly half or even a third the space. I would've lost some detail in the process, but the main points would've remained. And if I weren't a geek myself, I would prune even more.

There's an outtake from Disney's Snow White where the dwarves build Snow White a bed. It's a good scene, showcasing their craftsmanship, but it never went beyond the basic animation stage. Why? Disney said that he wouldn't keep anything unless it advanced characterization or plot. The scene contributed to the dwarves' characterization, but it more or less duplicated some other scenes in that regard. Now, that one scene wouldn't have made much difference either good or bad, but once one such scene is allowed, others will follow.

This isn't to say all exposition is bad. There are two types at least that are good, even mandatory. First, there's the kind that explains a scene. (This is related to advancing the plot.) A number of the passages in Eretzel come under this heading: unless you understand the political and social dynamics of Eretzel, a lot of the scenes won't make any sense. The second is to establish that the author knows what he's talking about. Thus there's a scene where the interpretation of the Koran comes up, and it goes a little longer than some may like. But it's necessary to show that McGrath does in fact understand the issues involved. Otherwise he'd be just another ignorant pontificator. And it may also help the reader understand the topic in greater depth.

A few non-issues that are sure to arise...

Violence. You want it, you got it. Even if you don't want it, you got it anyway. I don't object to violence as such, just to gore and gratuitous mayhem. The violence here is neither gory nor gratuitous, so it's not a problem for me at least. Your mileage may vary.

Theology. Some of the ideas presented are non-standard, though they will seem so mostly to someone with a very provincial viewpoint. Do I agree with all of the points made? No. But I think a reader can learn from them, and since Evangelicals in particular tend toward intellectual inbreeding anyway, some new blood could be a good thing, especially if it leads to actual thinking.

Preachiness. I've observed before that calling someone preachy often really means, "Hey, how come he's got a spine and I don't?" Are there preachy bits? Yes. But the question here, as for violence, is, "Are there gratuitous preachy bits?" The answer, on the whole, is no. In a way, it's the Antichrist who comes off sounding preachy, which is just fine. The Dante-esque tour of the Afterlife has more-or-less preachy moments, but they are reasonable: the nature of the scene demands it and would feel strangely empty without it.

Conclusion. Eretzel is an improvement on Asulon, and the next installment will likely be even better. It's the kind of book I know I'll refer back to in years to come, not the sort I'd read a maximum of once and chuck. So buy Eretzel and read it. It will probably do you good to try something different.

Eretzel 2: Good points

William McGrath's Eretzel has several positives, but I'll start with one of the lesser ones:

Action. Lots of it. Most of it involves fighting, but there's a certain amount of running for one's life as well. This isn't extremely important for me, but it should be a consolation to many others, because the truly important feature of Eretzel is

Intelligence. Lots of that, too. And yes, that does mean some exposition. Now, if you're a geek, it's interesting exposition. But I think it's fairly interesting even if you aren't, and it's fairly brief as well. I reflexively distrust anything that's all action all the time, as a review later this week will mention. So given the action level, a little expository breather now and then is useful. Mens sana in corpore sano and all that: we need balance. Nor is the exposition purely geek material. Some involves the art of war, relationship issues, and theology.

Mythopoeia. Go ahead; work that word into your next conversation. In a way I'm cheating with this point, since it is closely related to the previous one, but myth-creation is culturally important, and we've been outsourcing to dubious sources lately.

It wouldn't be quite accurate to compare Eretzel (or Asulon for that matter) to Lord of the Rings; Tolkien did synthesize elements from British, Nordic, Greek and Roman culture and mythology from a Christian perspective, but he did so on a rather limited canvas--Middle Earth was a dinky place, really. And he regarded the Story as the end rather than as the means. Lewis, meanwhile, was less coherent in his adaptation of mythology--and Tolkien consequently despised the Chronicles of Narnia--but he knew that the STORY behind the Story, like the Christ behind the Christian, was the big deal. (The Narnia stories also had a far broader canvas, including England in two rather different periods, Calormen, and the islands. It even included different periods for Narnia proper beyond anything in LotR.) That's why, LotR's magisterial qualities aside, Tolkien was being a twit in putting down Chronicles of Narnia. In Eternity, we will find Lewis' work far more highly regarded than Tolkien's.

All of which is to say that McGrath's work is more like Lewis' than like Tolkien's. (Actually, it's somewhat like Fénelon's Adventures of Telemachus, but who reads that these days? Read it in French, if you aren't a wimp!) It may also be usefully compared to Rowling's Harry Potter series. One of the things that bothered me about the Potter books was their emptiness, their shallowness. They remind me of an old cathedral that still has much beautiful art, but has stood empty and dead for generations. She uses Christian symbols, but she seems to have no clue what they mean at a deep level. In fact, she reminds me of Mr. Sensible from Lewis' The Pilgrim's Regress: met before the pilgrim's conversion to Christianity, Mr. Sensible appears to be a mélange of philosophies and ideas, but on the Regress proper, seen from a spiritual perspective, he and his house are quite invisible. The angelic guide explains that Mr. Sensible was a mere patchwork of ideas he did not himself understand, so there was really nothing of his own to see.

McGrath, on the other hand, seems to understand his sources, especially in terms of their Christian underpinnings. So there are worshippers in this cathedral, and the art looks better as a result.

THE ANAKIM! THE ANAKIM! (That's vaguely funny if you've gone very far in the story.) Although we don't have a lot of the Moor/Simon byplay from Asulon (some, but not as much as I would've hoped--see my gripes list tomorrow), we do have the Anakim, who are literally larger than life. There are technically other characters as well, but most of them are eclipsed by the big guys. It was probably good planning on McGrath's part to keep them and the other major characters apart much of the time, because the Anakim would probably win. They are so powerful that they're the ones chosen to put the hit on the Antichrist. Why not? They'll beat up Rema itself while they're there. But there's more to them than just steroids on steroids; they're plenty smart, and they have some non-violent interactions that are quite touching. Simon says they're the essence of a true man blown up beyond the human scale, and he's not kidding.

Probably the strongest performance is Gath's. He's the eldest, and I can't help thinking he's related to Moor. (In fact, if Moor said "Shazaam!" he'd probably turn into Gath.) Unlike his brothers, Gath does not follow God. Oh, he knows God is there, but he doesn't like him for tossing Father Anak out of Heaven. Will Gath ever get his spiritual act together? Will Moor, for that matter?

Morality. Daniel's relationship with Rachel is unapologetically pure, and the idea sneaks in that a real man waits while mere wimps tumble into bed. Not everyone is so virtuous, and there are some good bad examples with realistic downsides. As a rule, if a guy pushes his girlfriend into sex, he'll tend to disappear when she gets pregnant. The points are made subtly enough that I doubt most readers will notice.

Tune in tomorrow for a list of gripes--not just mine but some I'm sure others will have, including a few I consider bogus.

Eretzel 1: Intro

What can I write about William McGrath's Eretzel that hasn't already been written? Quite a lot, actually: it's still a fairly recent release. For what follows, you may want to refer to my earlier review of Asulon, the first part of this three-part series. You can read Eretzel without Asulon, but it won't make as much sense.

Plot Daniel and friends decide to head for Eretzel, Rachel's homeland, while Nasty Work is afoot elsewhere, especially in Rema (Rome). In addition to Moor, the cynical swordsman, and Simon, the miracle-working priest, we now have the Anakim, seven of Daniel's larger-than-life uncles, and various of Rachel's kin as well. We also add some villains. Lots of them. Several will leave the story in a bag, however.

The story takes up where Asulon left off, on board ship where Daniel is now trying to patch things up following an apocalyptic lover's misunderstanding. We also encounter ample evidence that the Anakim Are Weird. Oh, and there's the preparation for Eretzel proper, which does involve a little exposition. Then we head into Hierosolyma proper, where Daniel meets his greatest fear and challenge: future in-laws.

Well, okay, there are also sword-swinging loonies and others who Don't Play Well With Others, and a false Prophet is setting Eretzel up to be invaded and generally squished like a bug. So Daniel and friends must outwit a truly humungous amount of evil.

Will they succeed? Of course not--at least not without divine assistance in the form of Simon's knowledge of God, a Dante-esque mythic experience Daniel somewhat falls into, and the legendary Sword of Fire.

Along the way we encounter adventures in Heaven and Hell, a dwarven lecture on steel-smithing, and even a subplot about a man torn between being an honorable warrior or a deserter in family life. And there are a few scenes that will probably bug your eyes out a bit, as well as a few good laughs.

Tomorrow we'll look at some of the especially good points of the story.