The Chronicles of Narnia

Without any explanation, and off the top of my head (which are both unusual), here is my ranking of The Chronicles of Narnia.  Do you agree?

1. The Horse and His Boy
2. The Last Battle
3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4. The Magician's Nephew
5. The Silver Chair
6. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
7. Prince Caspian

In defence of Harry Potter

This link was recently posted on my Facebook wall.  I promised a blogged response, so here it is.  I suggest you read the linked article before this post, as I will be responding to the points made in the article.

First, the character of Harry is criticised for not being that good at anything except for flying and the patronus charm.  This is inaccurate.  While being academically average, Harry is good at Defence Against the Dark Arts in general, not just one charm.  The suggestion that he is only good at the patronus charm because he learnt it earlier than usual is weak, as evidence from Dumbledore's Army scenes, and the rest of books 6 and 7, suggest that he was more successful with this charm than his peers.  The author also overlooks the fact that Harry is exceptionally brave.  His bravery is probably his strongest character trait.

The author is unhappy that Harry, while not being good at much, is "touted by others as being a wonderful and excellent wizard for no discernible reason".  Two points in response to this.  Firstly, the times he is praised by many people are the times when he has done something particularly good, such as killing a basilisk, evading a dragon or escaping from Voldemort.  Secondly, a lot of the hype placed on Harry throughout the series is because he (admittedly unknowingly) caused first downfall.  It's the standard response to a saviour-hero.  Nothing that unusual, and certainly not Harry's fault.

The article says that most things that happen to Harry are due to others, and not his own skill.  This is simply incorrect.  Some things are due to the skill of others (usually Hermione or Dumbledore), but plenty of things are not.  Such as: fighting off Quirrell, killing the basilisk, driving off dementors several times, evading the Hungarian Horntail, escaping Voldemort in the graveyard, getting out of the Department of Mysteries with Hermione unconscious, Ron temporarily insane, and Neville and Ginny injured..the list goes on.  Again, many of these things come down to Harry's bravery.

Harry is then criticised for not trying hard enough in the Triwizard Tournament, and for needing help to get through it.  It should be noted that both Viktor Krum and Fleur Delacour, the strongest wizard and witch from their respective schools, needed help from their mentors.  Harry is about three years younger than them and probably gets no more help than them.

Then comes a classic issue: angry-Harry in book 5.  I've said before that, given Harry's circumstances, a little anger is not unexpected and maybe even reasonable.  He acts like a normal teenager would.  The author of the article acknowledges this, but argues that Harry is not a normal teenager.  However, the author gives no reason for this argument, but simply goes on to criticise Rowling's writing - a separate issue that gives no evidence to the debate over Harry's anger.  Hence, there is no argument that Harry is not a normal teenager. I would like to point out that (a) I don't happen to think he is a normal teenager, but the article gives no evidence for claiming that he isn't, and (b) I don't think he is sufficiently abnormal to be immune to anger!

So, that's Harry defended.  He's by no means perfect, nor is he good at many things other than flying, DADA and being brave - but since when did he have to be?  He's not my favourite character, but the accusations levelled at him in the article are unfounded.

Next, the article moves on to criticise JKR's writing.  The series is critisied for the first few books being more black-and-white with respect to 'goodies and baddies', and then introducing more grey areas in later books. The author of the article seems to find this unconvincing.  Personally, I have always found this to make a lot of sense, because, we must remember, the story is told almost entirely from Harry's point of view (in fact, in books 1-3, other than the opening chapter in which he is 1 year old, only about 10 lines are not from his point of view).  Harry is initially just a kid.  He's young.  Like most children of his age, he sees things in quite a black and white way.  Therefore it makes sense for him to see 'goodies and baddies' as fairly black and white characters in the first few books.  It should also be noted that, even when he's older, Harry is not the most logical of people and tends to jump to conclusions and hold strong grudges.  He is not a particularly good judge of character.
The comment about Hogwarts alumni objecting to the banning of quidditch by Umbridge is just baffling.  There is no indication of alumni getting involved at Hogwarts for any reason, and even if they did, by this time Hogwarts was ministry-run, under the guidance of Umbridge - I very much doubt that any alumni could have done anything about the ban.
The comments about Harry's father aren't much better - they're understandable but, like much of the article, not based on canonical fact. Yes, Harry finds out bad stuff about his dad as he grows up - but there are still people who defend his dad as generally a good guy (e.g. Remus Lupin and Sirius Black).  The revelations about Harry's dad are part of the theme of Fatherhood that runs throughout the series, and help to flesh out James' character.  That's the purpose that the author doesn't seem to notice.

Next we have the plot points that allegedly don't make sense.  Firstly, the author questions that lots of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students come to Hogwarts for a whole year for only one to compete in the Triwizard Tournament.  Two points in defence of this.  One - this is not a normal school system; no doubt they do things differently to muggle schools.  Two - this was the first Triwizard Tournament for over 200 years.  It was a massive deal.  I'm not surprised people risked a year of education for the chance to compete.
Next, the author has some questions about the prophecy which "doesn't really mean anything" - this is a crude and exaggerated way of putting it, though not entirely inaccurate, but shows a misunderstanding.  The prophecy means several things when heard in its entirety.  The interesting thing about it is that it is not a perfect prediction of the future - it doesn't bind Harry to killing Voldemort.  However, because Voldemort chooses to follow the prophecy, the two of them will eventually meet and one will die - but because of Voldemort's choices, not because of some fatalistic prophecy.  This is all explained at the end of book five.  Anyway, the authors' questions about the prophecy, and my answers, are:
So why exactly did Dumbledore and everyone keep that from Harry?  Firstly, it's Dumbledore, not everyone else - the rest of the Order don't seem to know what the prophecy is, they're just following Dumbledore's instructions.  Secondly, they don't really seem to be keeping it from Harry - Harry never really asks about it until after he's heard it.  Thirdly, if Dumbledore does keep things from Harry, it is because, as Dumbledore explains, he doesn't think Harry is ready to hear everything yet.
Why did it matter so much to make sure Voldemort didn't hear the end of it?  Because the end of the prophecy explains why Voldemort couldn't kill Harry, which is exactly what Voldemort was trying to find out.  It's delaying tactics.
If it was really that big of a deal, why couldn’t the good guys destroy the recording held at the Ministry of Magic?  The authority to do this would lie with the Ministry, who didn't believe Voldemort had returned and, even if they did, did not know the contents of the prophecy.  From their point of view, they had no reason to destroy it.
Another set of questions related to the plot: At the end of Book 5, didn't Dumbledore promise not to keep things from Harry anymore? So why did he immediately start keeping things from Harry in Book 6 about the Horcruxes? Why drag out that whole plot/discussion throughout the course of the book when he could have sat Harry down and explained things in one go?

Dumbledore kept information from Harry for two reasons.  One is explained in book six (Harry even asks this question!) - Dumbledore told Harry everything he knew for certain; from then on, it was guesswork.  The second is that Dumbledore was a master schemer.  He kept information from people all the time, you could argue he even sacrificed people for the long-term goal of killing Voldemort.  Dumbledore's character is possibly the most interesting of the lot.  Remember the whole 'greater good' thing from his youth?  I reckon he carried elements of that on through his life.

Nearly at the end now...the author disagrees with JKRs handling of deaths.  Firstly that of Sirius because it wasn't dramatic and poignant.  I fail to see how it isn't both of these.  It's in the middle of a big wizard battle, he's killed by his own cousin, having come to rescue his godson - that's pretty dramatic.  As for poignancy, I think, and I think many fans would agree, that it's one of the hardest-hitting parts of the series.  Secondly, Lupin and Tonks.  Here I have to concede the point.  I actually think the story would have been better if Tonks had lived, and I do think that Lupin should have had an 'on-screen' death (though I can see the attraction of the brutality of having it off-screen).

Next, we have the accusation of JKR being inconsistent.  The examples used are 'Why don't wizards always apparate instead of using other methods of transport?' and 'Why don't they use time-turners and veritaserum more?'.  The apparition question is answered several times in the books - not all wizards can apparate, not all wizards like apparition, apparition is risky (splinching).  Time-turners are so dangerous as to be practically illegal.  The question shouldn't be 'why they don't use them more?', but 'how was Hermione allowed to use one?' - this was clearly an exceptional situation for an exceptional witch.  Veritaserum?  To be honest, I don't know.  This may well be a plot hole.  But in a story this complex, plot holes are guaranteed to appear occasionally.  Having said that, I am sure JKR would be able to answer this question, given the amount of background information she knows.  In fact, a quick internet search reveals this quote from JKR on the very first hit:
Veritaserum works best upon the unsuspecting, the vulnerable and those insufficiently skilled (in one way or another) to protect themselves against it. Barty Crouch had been attacked before the potion was given to him and was still very groggy, otherwise he could have employed a range of measures against the Potion – he might have sealed his own throat and faked a declaration of innocence, transformed the Potion into something else before it touched his lips, or employed Occlumency against its effects. In other words, just like every other kind of magic within the books, Veritaserum is not infallible. As some wizards can prevent themselves being affected, and others cannot, it is an unfair and unreliable tool to use at a trial.

Sirius might have volunteered to take the potion had he been given the chance, but he was never offered it. Mr. Crouch senior, power mad and increasingly unjust in the way he was treating suspects, threw him into Azkaban on the (admittedly rather convincing) testimony of many eyewitnesses. The sad fact is that even if Sirius had told the truth under the influence of the Potion, Mr. Crouch could still have insisted that he was using trickery to render himself immune to it.
So that's that settled.

The final criticism in the article is of the length of the last four books. The author cynically suggests that this was because editors didn't want to drive away the by-then very successful writer that Rowling was. No evidence for this. And, to be fair, the books are awesome. I'd rather the first three be longer than the last four shorter.

So there we go.  My defence of the Harry Potter series against whoever it was who wrote that article.

Prophecy - part 2

A few months ago I wrote about the theme of prophecy in my two favourite series of books, Harry Potter and The Belgariad.

The summary is here:

“In The Belgariad the prophecy is a conscious personality, one of two destinies, trying to set things up to its own advantage.  One of the two prophecies will be fulfilled, and one will not.  If Garion’s prophecy is fulfilled, things will look very different from what will happen if it is not fulfilled.

In Harry Potter, the prophecy is a prediction that may or may not be fulfilled.  The fulfilment or otherwise determines the fate of many characters.  In a way, the only difference is the consciousness of the prophecies.  In both stories, characters can choose to follow the prophecy or not, but the fact that The Belgariad’s prophecy is conscious means that it has much more of a direct say in what happens.  This is paralleled in Harry Potter by the character of Dumbledore, who knows the prophecy and helps Harry deal with it, giving him advice and instructions.  The combination of the spoken prophecy and the character of Dumbledore combine to have a similar role to that of the conscious prophecy in The Belgariad.”

A friend read the post and suggested a follow-up post comparing prophecy in these two series and Christian prophecy.  So here are a few thoughts.

In the Belgariad, the Prophecy is conscious, rather than just a message given by someone to someone else.  It guides its own fulfilment, though another prophecy is working against it for the opposite outcome.

In Harry Potter, the prophecy is a message rather than a character.  Like the Belgariad prophecy, it was given at a certain time through a certain person (Trelawney), but, being non-sentient, it cannot work towards its own fulfilment.  Dumbledore takes the role of guiding characters towards the fulfilment of the prophecy, acting like a chess grandmaster, much like the consciousness of the prophecy in the Belgariad.

In Christianity, prophecy is a message from God, given through a person.  Like the Harry Potter prophecies, is it not conscious and can take no action.  While Harry Potter prophecies seem to be predictions of the future, Christian prophecy is not necessarily.  In Christianity, prophecy is a message from the all-powerful character (God), rather than being the all-powerful character itself (as in the Belgariad), or having the all-powerful character act on its behalf (Dumbledore in Harry Potter).

This can be summarised in the following table:

	Belgariad	Harry Potter	Christianity
Consciousness of prophecy	Yes	No	No
Given by	Itself	Unknown	Deity
Given through	Human	Human	Humans
Given to	Group of humans	Everyone, via the Hall of Prophecy	Humans
Enacted by	Itself	Very powerful human	Deity

Christian prophecy is more similar to the Belgariad, because the Prophecy in the Belgariad is basically a god, who speaks to humans.  In Christianity, God speaks to humans, but the prophecy is the message, rather than God himself.  But the difference is only one of terminology.  In Harry Potter, there is no god, and the prophecy is the message.  Dumbledore plays part of the role of God in Christianity and the Prophecy in the Belgariad in terms of guiding humans to fulfil prophecy.

Prophecy

This post is about the theme of prophecy in my two favourite series of books: The Harry Potter series, by JK Rowling, and The Belgariad by David and Leigh Eddings.  This will contain spoilers, so if you haven’t read the books but intend to, you have been warned.

Harry Potter

In Harry Potter, Harry lives the first 11 years of his life with his Aunt and Uncle because his parents die when he was a child.  He was told they died in a car crash.  On his 11^th birthday, he discovers that they were actually killed by Lord Voldemort.  He later learns that the only reason Voldemort killed them was that they were protecting their son, Harry, who was Voldemort’s real target.  It is not until Harry is almost 16 that his headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, told Harry the reason Voldemort wanted to kill him in the first place.  Dumbledore tells Harry of a prophecy that was made about a year before his birth:

The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches…born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies…and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not…and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives…the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies…

As Harry and Dumbledore discuss, the prophecy means that one of Harry and Voldemort will kill the other.  However, Dumbledore is very clear that the prophecy is not to be viewed in a fatalistic way.  As Dumbledore explains, one of Voldemort’s. spies overheard the first half of the prophecy as it was made.  Voldemort believed that Harry was born with the power to vanquish him, and therefore set out to destroy him while he was only a baby.  In fact, the prophecy did not specify that Harry himself was the child in question – Neville Longbottom, a contemporary of Harry’s, also fulfilled the requirements of being born at the end of July to parents who had defied Voldemort three times.  But crucially, Voldemort singled out Harry, who he thought to be a greater threat.  The result was that because Harry’s mother died to save him, the curse that Voldemort used on Harry did not work.  Harry was ‘marked as Voldemort’s equal’ by the scar that the curse left behind.  He had ‘power Voldemort knows not’ because of his mother’s sacrifice, which gave him unique protection against Voldemort and which he would not have had if Voldemort had not attacked him.

Voldemort had not heard the second half of the prophecy, so did not realise that in attacking Harry, he would hand him the weapons necessary to defeat him.

All of this means that if Voldemort had not chosen to attack Harry, Harry would not later be in a position to defeat Voldemort.  It was Voldemort’s personal choice that fulfilled part of the prophecy.

Sixteen years later, Dumbledore impresses on Harry that Harry himself now has the choice to continue to fulfil the prophecy.  Harry can choose to ignore the prophecy if he wishes.  There is no destiny that forces him to choose one course of action or another.  However, unfortunately, because Voldemort continues to follow the prophecy, he continues to hunt Harry, so in the end, it is likely that one of them will kill the other.  But not because of the prophecy.  Because of their choices.

The prophecy does not dictate what will happen.  As Dumbledore explains to Harry, there are many prophecies that have been made and never fulfilled.  Although this is not explained explicitly in the books, it seems that some wizards, such as Voldemort, view prophecies as things which must be fulfilled, whereas others, such as Dumbledore, do not.  The interesting thing is that after all Dumbledore’s insistences that the prophecy only describes one possible future, rather than dictating the only possible future, in the end, Harry and Voldemort do end up battling to the death.  But not because the prophecy forces them to do it; rather, because they choose to do it.

The Belgariad

The Belgariad is a less well-known series of books, so perhaps requires some introduction.  Written by David and Leigh Eddings, The Belgariad is a five book fantasy series starring Garion, a simple farm boy who gets caught up in a quest to fulfil a prophecy that will decide the fate of the universe.  The series has a slightly more ‘epic’ scale than the Harry Potter series, though I would class it as heroic fantasy rather than epic fantasy.

Since childhood, Garion has experienced an audible voice in his head that knows what he is thinking,  is often described as ‘dry’ and certainly seems to possess a personality and a sense of humour.  The voice accompanies Garion for a while, sometimes giving him advice or instructions, and then at last reveals exactly what it is.  Firstly, the voice explains to Garion that originally the universe had a single purpose, a destiny.  Then something happened that wasn’t intended, and from that point on there had been two possible fates of the universe – one good and one evil.  The voice in Garion’s head is the consciousness or awareness of one of these fates.

Later, the voice directs Garion to a document which is the record of one of these prophecies and which states:

Behold, it shall come to pass that in a certain moment, that which must be and that which must not be shall meet, and in that meeting shall be decided all that has gone before and all that will come after.  Then will the Child of Light and the Child of Dark face each other in the broken tomb, and the stars will shudder and grow dim.

It turns out that Garion is currently the ‘Child of Light’ (a title that passes from person to person at times), he embodies one of the prophecies and has to reset things to how they should be.  A converging point is coming, after which only one of the two prophecies will continue to exist.  Garion has a task to do, and if he succeeds, all will be right.  If he fails, then chaos and destruction will follow.  As a result of this, everything that exists will become a part of whichever prophecy prevails.  Everyone has two possible destinies – for some people, the differences are small, for others, they are enormous.  The universe, and the prophecy, has been waiting for Garion for millions of years.

So how does this work out in the story?  How does this conscious prophecy interact with other characters?  As already described, sometimes it talks to Garion and instructs him.  Sometimes it speaks through Garion directly to other people.  It is able to influence and manipulate other people directly – it is not restricted to being inside Garion’s head.

This sounds quite all-powerful, but it must be remembered that there is an alternate prophecy of equal power working against the prophecy in Garion’s head.  And there are certain things that are forbidden or impossible, even for the prophecy.  The prophecy itself argues that the very term ‘prophecy’ is misleading, as nothing is said about which prophecy will win or lose, and nothing about the future is certain – there are two possibilities for everything.  The confrontation between the Child of Light and the Child of Dark is going to happen, the whole universe is rushing towards it, but no-one can predict the outcome.

One of the most interesting moments comes when a throwaway remark from a minor character causes an event that changes the course of the story.  It is discussed that the throwaway remark might have been the only reason the minor character was born in the first place.  As one character comments, ‘the prophecy leaves nothing to chance’.  The prophecy does everything it can to make things ready for the final confrontation, but in the end, no-one knows what will happen until it happens.

I must admit that I am not as expert on The Belgariad as on Harry Potter.  But as far as I can work out, the role of the prophecy is to direct events so that the crucial characters are ready for the confrontation when it occurs – that they have had the right experience, they know what they need to know, and they are in the right places at the right times.  The prophecy cannot do anything, but it influences people as necessary to make sure everything is ready, and the alternate prophecy is doing exactly the same.  Another important point is that the major characters on the ‘good’ side are aware of the prophecy and are cooperating with it, they are not merely puppets.  The prophecy cannot force anyone to do anything, but it influences where it can.

Comparing the two

In The Belgariad the prophecy is a conscious personality, one of two destinies, trying to set things up to its own advantage.  One of the two prophecies will be fulfilled, and one will not.  If Garion’s prophecy is fulfilled, things will look very different from what will happen if it is not fulfilled.

In Harry Potter, the prophecy is a prediction that may or may not be fulfilled.  The fulfilment or otherwise determines the fate of many characters.  In a way, the only difference is the consciousness of the prophecies.  In both stories, characters can choose to follow the prophecy or not, but the fact that The Belgariad’s prophecy is conscious means that it has much more of a direct say in what happens.  This is paralleled in Harry Potter by the character of Dumbledore, who knows the prophecy and helps Harry deal with it, giving him advice and instructions.  The combination of the spoken prophecy and the character of Dumbledore combine to have a similar role to that of the conscious prophecy in The Belgariad.

One of the main themes in Rowling’s books is that of fate and choice and she is clear to make the point that characters are able to make choices.  The Harry Potter books are anti-fate.  The Belgariad, on the face of it, seems more pro-fate, but reading carefully I see that it is not.  To me, the prophecy in The Belgariad is very like some views of God.  He will speak to people, try to reason with them and give them advice, even instructions, but he will not force them to do anything.  He is like the chess grandmaster who can see the big picture of the game of life, can predict the opponents moves and is ready with an infinite number of counter-moves, but when it comes down to it, he lets people make their own choices.  Very like the character of Dumbledore.

There are also Christian parallels in the Harry Potter ideas of fate and choice.  Harry is clearly a messianic figure and just like Jesus (and Garion), he finds himself to be the potential fulfilment of a prophecy, but the prophecy does not force him into any particular course of action – he chooses his path for himself.

Harry, Garion and Jesus are all the subjects of a prophecy, they all have roles in saving the world in some way, they are all guided by seemingly omniscient characters (Dumbledore, the conscious prophecy, his Father), and they all make their own choices about how to live their lives and how (and even whether) to fulfil the prophecy made about them.

Twilight

I read the Twilight Saga this summer. I wanted to know what all the fuss is about. Now I've read them, I'm still not sure what all the fuss is about.

I guess they're easy to read, which helps with the whole popularity thing. There's kissing and fighting, so maybe something for everyone?

But generally, I found the series unfulfilling, disappointing and unconvincing, mainly for the following reasons.

1. 
   
   The classic vampire mythology (coffins, stakes etc.) is dismissed as (I quote) 'all myth', allowing Meyer to set up her new 'sexy vampire' mythology. This is convenient but flawed, because now I could write a book about vampires and dismiss classic vampires and Meyer's vampires as 'mythology' and write that real vampires are actually made of jelly and smell of lavender, and actually prefer a diet of lettuce and rubber. That Meyer shows such disrespect for the fantasy/horror genre mildly insults me, and I'm not even a particularly ardent fan of that genre. Compare with (inevitably) Rowling, who takes the original mythology of ghosts, werewolves, dragons, sphinxes etc, and applies it to her stories, while maintaining the integrity of the original myths.
2. 
   
   The story centres around the relationship between Bella and Edward, which is fine – it's basically a romance story. Not particularly my thing, but that's ok. But their relationship is portrayed as so perfect! When they're together, they never seriously argue, or if they do it's written in a very light-hearted way. Also, Bella's descriptions of Edward focus on his 'perfect, godlike body' and 'flawless, angelic face'. Only once that I can remember does she describe what she likes about his character, and that is only when someone directly asks her. This is all both vomit-inducing and unrealistic, and basically emotional pornography.
3. 
   
   The story, while easy to read, is mostly slow paced. For large sections, nothing actually happens. There's no pace or excitement, which is a bit of a problem for novels that try to mix the genres of romance and fantasy. Only for a few chapters part way through book 4 was I really gripped, and that was possibly because the focus was off the two rather boring lead characters and on Jacob, who is way more interesting but gets much less page time.
4. 
   
   Several times, questions were set up and kept me pondering, and then never actually answered. For example, the question of exactly why Bella smells so good to both Edward and James is set up in book one, as though it will be revealed later and will form a vital plot point or twist. In fact, it is never revealed. This is very disappointing. Again, contrast with Rowling, who sets things up in one book and reveals their importance 4, 5, 6 books later.
5. 
   
   Most of the story is written first person from Bella's point of view. A short section is from Jacob's POV – this is a really nice change but unfortunately comes across as gimmicky because it is the only other POV used and is relatively short. If the books had had several POVs, or if Jacob's POVs had been more like 40-50% of the series, it would have worked. Written as it is, it doesn't.
6. 
   
   There are so many deus ex machinas! For example, how the two alpha's discover they can communicate, how Nessie can communicate to Bella and not get stopped by Bella's shield, and, the massive one, how Jacob imprints on Nessie (disgustingly and unconvincingly convenient) – I thought Meyer was having a laugh and was about to say 'only kidding, that would be stupid!'
7. 
   
   By the fourth book, the series had become something of an X-men ripoff. Every other vampire has some sort of superpower (the origins of which are disappointingly not explained) and all the talk is of how to combine the powers to win the battle and how to take out the enemy vampires with key powers etc, etc. All very well but painfully unoriginal.
8. 
   
   There is no payoff at the end of the story, no climax. Everything is set up nicely for a big confrontation, and then they all say sorry and go home! No-one even dies (well, only one minor character who we've never actually met before and therefore have no attachment to). An incredibly weak ending.

Overall, a big disappointment. Ok, so I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I also wasn't expecting to be so continually disappointed and bored. It seemed as though some author somewhere had written some really good books, and I was reading some trashy fanfiction based on them.

Reviews such as 'Move over, Harry Potter' are at best laughable and at worst blasphemous, and I side with Stephen King, who said "the real difference between J.K. Rowling and Meyer is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer, and Stephenie Meyer can't write a darn.  She's not very good."

The Shack

If you haven’t come across it yet, The Shack is a novel by William P Young, which has been top of the NY Times bestseller list for about 6 months and is well within the Amazon top 100.

It’s a story about Mack, a father of four, set about 3 years after his fifth child, Missy, was brutally murdered and her body left in a shack in the wilderness.
Mack receives a note from ‘Papa’ (his wife’s favourite name for God), inviting him back to the shack for a meeting. Although not particularly religious, Mack decides to return to the centre of his Great Sadness. There he meets God, in all three of his/her forms. Most of the book is about Mack’s conversations with Papa, Jesus and Sarayu (the Spirit) and his process of healing and forgiveness.

The book covers a huge range of theological topics but probably centres on the problem of suffering – Mack finds that he cannot trust a God who allowed his 4-year-old daughter to be killed.

The reaction this book has received reminds me of that received by Steve Chalke’s The Lost Message of Jesus a few years ago. Some people have been revolutionised by it, and Eugene Peterson, author of The Message, says it’s as good and important as The Pilgrim’s Progress. Other people slate it completely and hold Young as a heretic.

My reaction?

Well, I think it’s quite good. It certainly says a lot of good stuff in very clever ways, and it made me view certain aspects of God’s character and my faith in new ways. If you haven’t come across some of its teaching before, it could probably change you completely. I had come across a lot of it before, but there was still new stuff there which interested and challenged me. I would definitely recommend it because it will almost certainly broaden your thinking about God, teach you new things about him and feed your relationship with him.

Having said that, of course he is a heretic. Yes, the book is good, but yes, there’s also heresy in there. But so what? I doubt there’s ever been a book written (Bible excepted) that doesn’t contain some heresy. People, chill out a bit! Books are written by humans, they’re going to have errors in them! But that doesn’t mean all books are worthless! This book (and Chalke’s) are really good and well worth reading. Neither book is perfect, so you have to read them carefully, take the good stuff, and dismiss the misleading bits.

The problem is, it’s harder to do this with a novel than with a normal theology book, because a novel such as this can be very subtly misleading. But I guess that’s part of the fun.

Seriously – The Shack is a good book, and I’d definitely recommend it. Not everything in it is spot on, but most of it is safe. Enjoy!