Book : The Last Storyteller

(Image from C/W Mars Catalog)

The Last Storyteller : a Novel of Ireland by Frank Delaney is a perfect example of how excellent storytelling can make terrible characters, meaning that they are not particularly nice or sympathetic people, interesting and worthy of reading about. 

     **SPOILER ALERT: reading farther may spoil the book**

This book is the conclusion to the Ben McCarthy Trilogy, following Delaney’s other books, Venetia Kelly’s Traveling Show (2010) and The Matchmaker of Kenmare (2011).  Admittedly, I almost decided to not read this book since I did not particularly like the first two.  I think that the love story of Ben McCarthy and Venetia Kelly is just a little too weird for me, what with them meeting because Ben’s father abandoned his wife and their family farm to follow Venetia and her traveling show around like a lovesick puppy, Ben and Venetia getting married when Ben was eighteen and Venetia was thirty-two, and then Venetia being kidnapped by her own father and loosing all contact with Ben for twenty-five years because they were both too stupid and immature to do anything about it for twenty-five years!  In The Last Storyteller in particular I started to get very sick of how stupid and ridiculous both characters were being, to the point where I was almost disappointed at how neatly and happily their love story ended. 

Fortunately, Delaney’s writing is so beautiful and powerful, especially during the many legends and lore that are told by various characters throughout the book, that this is still a worthwhile book to read.  The first two books are not particularly interesting beyond perhaps some commentary of the political atmosphere at the time in Ireland, but The Last Storyteller has much to offer in terms of lessons about love, life, and the importance of the art of storytelling.  This volume really chronicles the transformation of Ben McCarthy into a traditional, itinerant storyteller and as such touches upon a wide variety of tales to showcase various pieces of the Irish spirit and human nature on a broader scale.

While I would argue that Delaney’s first novel, Ireland (which I spoke of in an earlier post), does a better job of really encompassing all of Ireland’s history in its stories, this book contains a better master class in the art of storytelling with a better example of how everyone can apply storytelling to their own life.  One piece of advice that is repeated throughout the trilogy but is featured at the end of this book is the idea that “One day you have to tell the story of your own life… and perceive it as myth.  When you can do that – that’s when you’ve finally grown up” (p. 365).  Delaney’s own mastery of storytelling really shows through when he is able to finally take this character through his own story, thereby displaying how even a non-heroic person can still be the hero of their own tale and how being able to approach life through the lens of a storyteller can give a very different perspective to both wonderful and troubling events.

On the whole, this book is similar in focus to Delaney’s first novel, Ireland, with its focus being on the art of storytelling and its importance to history and culture.  However, whereas Ireland featured storytelling for its ability to capture and convey the history and spirit of an entire nation, The Last Storyteller features the ways that storytelling can heal on a much more personal level.  It is also a really great example of a story about not-so-likable characters that is told in such a way that you cannot help but like the book anyway. 

Delaney, F. (2012). The Last Storyteller : a Novel of Ireland. New York: Random House. 

Book: Terminal Freeze

(Image from C/W Mars catalog)

Terminal Freeze by Lincoln Child is a very good novel that is actually a little difficult to talk about without giving too much away.  Set in Alaska’s Federal Wildlife Zone, it follows a team of scientists on an expedition to study the effects of global warming as well as gather information about the ancient ecosystem of the area.  One day while gathering samples, the team discovers a creature in the ice that challenges their scientific knowledge and wreaks destruction upon the entire expedition.  Although it has all of the elements of science fiction, and would actually be a fantastic basis for a movie, the story does not get weighed down in the science but instead is mostly suspenseful, with a slow development of the plot that keeps interest up throughout the whole book.

     **SPOILER ALERT: reading farther may spoil the book**

My favorite part of the book has to be the monster and the fact that there is no clear answer as to exactly what it is or where it comes from.  The descriptions of it start off as very vague but even as they get more detailed, it is still difficult to picture exactly what it looks like because it is a creature so ancient and outside our realm of understanding, whether you take the scientific or the spiritual view of its origins.  But like every good monster, it is based in some reality, and at its most basic, I pictured the creature as being an extra large version of one of my best friends’ cats, which is black and part Maine coon with large, bright yellow eyes (see picture below).  And just because it is never explained what the creature is, it does not mean that it cannot be killed, although in no ordinary way.

My friend's cat, Cash. This is what I imagine the monster to at least partially look like.

That is one of the great things about this story; even though it raises many questions, especially about what the creature is and where it came from, those questions do not impede the progress of the plot, so the story still feels complete and has a satisfactory ending, even though those questions are never answered.  When the creature’s body mysteriously disappears before they can examine it, along with the other problems such as the storm and the blood red Northern Lights, it is clear that the problem of the creature has been resolved for now, even if none of the scientists can satisfactorily explain what happened or how to prevent another such incident from happening again in the future.  There is a scientific explanation, a spiritual explanation from the local Tunit tribe, as well as a more outlandish explanation given at the end by the three main characters who survive, but there is little discussion or evidence to support one story over the others.  I really like that about the story because sometimes having all of the answers and having everything neatly categorized and explained takes the fun and thrill out of the story.  It is highly reminiscent of The Snow Child by Eowyn Ivey, even though Terminal Freeze is more science fiction than magical realism. 

On the whole, Terminal Freeze works so well as a novel because it focuses on telling the story of what happens to this scientific expedition once the creature is released, rather than trying to contextualize and explain away everything that happens.  There is a perfect mix of science, suspense, and action that allows for the story to move along without getting bogged down in the debate of science versus religion.  The story is also written in such a way, that it really keeps the reader involved and engrossed in the story.  Even the open-endedness of the story lets the reader decide for himself or herself, if they so choose, how to interpret what the creature is and what really happened.  It is an excellent example of writing that walks the line between science fiction, mythology, and suspense in a way that works only to keep the reader interested rather than lost in any one genre.

Child, Lincoln. (2009) Terminal Freeze: A Novel. New York: Doubleday.

Movie: Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)

(Image from IMDb)

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) is an awesome movie adaption of a classic folktale!  If I sound rather enthusiastic about that, it is because before watching it, I honestly did not think it was going to be any good.  There have been many movie adaptations of fairytales and folktales lately and most of them are not very good, (e.g. Mirror Mirror, Snow White and the Huntsman), so I was cautious about this movie.  The emphasis in the previews on the CGI and battle sequences did not help anything, because they made the movie look like it was going to be just another stupid summer blockbuster type war movie with giants as the opponents this time.  Even having Ewan McGregor (one of my favorite actors) and Nicholas Hoult (some one I like just a little bit more after almost every movie I see him in) as the stars did not make me overly enthusiastic about it because the previews genuinely made it look so mindless and trite.  But right from the very beginning I was actually quite impressed with the story and enjoyed the large majority of the film.

**SPOILER ALERT: reading farther may spoil the movie**

The opening sequence was a masterful introduction to the story and I love how they drew upon many different elements from other traditions and stories to really ground the movie as part of a plausible legend.  By calling the kingdom part of Albion, it instantaneously places it within England, which is where the tradition of “Jack tales” comes from, while leaving it as part of the more mythical history of England.  The presence of the monks also helps it blend into the almost Arthurian, medieval tradition of English folktales.  The fact that the monks were trying to find a way to climb up to God’s kingdom, and thus developed the magic beans that could grow beanstalks tall enough to reach heaven, is a classic trope that can be found in mythologies from around the world.  Even the way these facts were presented in the movie, being part of a folktale told to Jack and Isabelle as children, helped make it a solid foundation for everything else that happened in the rest of the movie.  There really was not anything that happened in the movie that did not make sense because the world was so well established in the opening sequence.

As for how the plot of the movie was developed, I really liked how Jack and Isabelle were paralleled so closely, making it clear that they were perfect for each other from the very beginning.  It was obviously highly reminiscent of Aladdin and Jasmine from Disney’s cartoon film Aladdin (1992), but it did not feel trite and silly; it was cute and worked to set them up as equals in spirit. 

However, I do take minor offence at the way they made Jack and Isabelle equal in reality by having Jack step up as king of the giants.  It is a very minor issue because I understand and appreciate that they wanted to show that Jack and Isabelle were equal in every way by the time they were married, but I think they missed a huge opportunity to complete Isabelle’s storyline of proving that she was ready and capable to assume the throne.  By the time Jack ultimately defeats General Fallon, the two-headed giant, he had already proven his worth as a nobleman and king’s guardsman, as Elmont recognized by giving Jack the coat of arms off his armor.  Taking that final step and putting on the crown of the king of the giants was unnecessary to Jack’s character development.  Instead, it would have been wonderful to see Isabelle step forward and assume the responsibility of king of the giants, thus fulfilling her role as King Erik’s heir and proving to her father that she is ready to be queen without having to be married first.  As I said before, though, it is only a minor issue because I appreciate that they did give Isabelle a much more active role than usual for a princess in a fairytale and they were trying to stick to the traditional storyline of the common boy needing to prove his worthiness in order to marry the princess.

The crowning achievement (pun intended) of the movie has to be the ending.  As much as I loved the opening for establishing the plot of the film as part of a legendary tradition, the ending really brought everything together in the best way possible.  Not only to bring it full circle by having Jack and Isabelle tell the story to their children, in a mirror of the opening, but to carry it further throughout the years, with all of the different voices overlapping and changing little details until it sounds much more like the traditional story of Jack and the Beanstalk that is so well known today.  Overlaying that auditory transition through time with the images of the crown changing hands and being refashioned over the years into the current crown jewels really ties everything together, but the addition of the young boy who bears a resemblance to the evil Roderick leaves it slightly open to a future, modern day sequel/retelling.  In fact, my mind immediately jumped to a crossover AU with the BBC series Sherlock, since the young boy also bears a resemblance to the show’s Moriarty, who steals the crown jewels in the third episode of the second season. 

Overall, I was very surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie and how successful it is as a retelling of such a classic and beloved folktale.  It has a great mix of action and plot, making it enjoyable as a stand-alone movie, but also fits in very well to the larger tradition of Jack tales that have been growing and evolving over the years.  

Book: The Snow Child

(Image from C/W Mars Catalog)

The Snow Child by Eowyn Ivey is a wonderful adaptation of a Russion fairy tale by the same name.  Taking place on the Alaskan frontier in the 1920's, the book recounts the tale of a childless couple, Jack and Mable, struggling to revitalize their relationship.  After the night of the season's first snowfall, when Jack and Mable make a snow girl with all of their longing for a child of their own, they begin to see a young girl running wild through the woods with just a small red fox as her companion.  This almost supernatural girl, Faina, who is more at home in the winter wilderness than inside a cabin, changes the lives of Jack and Mable, as well as their neighbors' the Bensons, with her unique vitality and refusal to join what little society can be found on the Alaskan frontier.

One aspect of this book that makes it particularly successful is the fact that it is set firmly in the genre of "magic realism."  According to Dictionary.com, magic realism is defined as "a style of painting and literature in which fantastic or imaginary and often unsettling images or events are depicted in a sharply detailed, realistic manner."  Unlike most fairy tale adaptations that, largely by necessity, place the story firmly in a world of magic and fantasy, The Snow Child maintains a realistic tone that keeps the reader constantly guessing what is real.  Since I read this book as part of a book club, it was very interesting to hear the realists be disappointed in how unrealistic certain aspects were, while those who enjoy fantasy literature were disappointed in how realistic the whole story ended up being.  The genre itself adds an unsettling aspect to what would otherwise be a rather straightforward story about the harsh realities of life on the Alaskan frontier.

The story is also successful in its expansion of the fairy tale in order to more fully address real-life problems.  While the basic fairy tale in largely about love and loss, with the snow child being a blessing to an older, childless couple before she inevitably dies in a somewhat tragic manner, the book is able to enrich the story with more details and thus discuss other problems that cannot be examined in a short tale.  For me, The Snow Child is also about what it means to be a woman.  So much of the story revolves around Mable and her efforts to find her place as a wife, a woman on the Alaskan frontier, and as a mother to the mysterious Faina, who is unlike any other young girl.  Mable first has to find her identity as a childless woman both in society and within her marriage, which changes drastically when she and Jack move to the Alaskan frontier to escape the social pressures of their families.  In Alaska, Mable struggles to define herself as one half of an equal partnership with her husband on their farm, especially in comparison to their neighbors, the Bensons, and the vivacious Esther Benson, who becomes Mable's best friend.  Once Faina appears, Mable must take on the challenging role of mother to a child who largely refuses to be coddled and taken care of, as most children would want to be.  Faina herself defies most definitions of femininity by living by herself in harsh climates, hunting and trapping better than some of the male characters.

Overall, The Snow Child is a successful adaptation of a fairy tale into a novel; it makes excellent use of the fairy tale premise to explore deeper issues of life such as marriage and what it means to be a woman.  The fact that is based on a fairy tale slightly outside of the more common Western traditions (such as the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen), makes it even more interesting.

Magic realism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Magic_realism (accessed: May 3, 2013)

Ivey, Eowyn. (2012). The Snow Child. New York: Little, Brown, and Company. 

Movie: The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

(Image from IMDb)

Wow... I am so sorry I am so bad at this blogging thing. And actually, just to prove how terrible I really am at it, I'm actually trying a new format, meaning that instead of writing about The Cabin in the Woods (2011), I recorded a video of me talking about it. I will admit that sometimes I just find it a lot easier to talk about things out loud instead of taking the time to write it all down, edit it, rethink about it, and edit it some more before finally posting.

Anyway, on to the video! *SPOILER ALERT* I do talk about some pretty major plot points and the ending, so if you don't want to know what The Cabin in the Woods is all about, maybe you don't want to listen to the video. Also, be warned that the video is approximately 20 minutes long.

In summary: I hate horror films, which means that I should not have watched The Cabin in the Woods, even though everyone told me that the story was interesting enough to make it worth watching all of the blood, guts, and gore. Everyone lied. Above all, The Cabin in the Woods is a horror movie without a particularly strong plot. Even though it attempted to deal with issues from mythology and folklore, it mostly left me with a lot of questions that never seemed to be addressed. I would love to hear from others who have seen the movie about what you thought of the plot, particularly whether it was interesting enough to you to make it worth watching again.

PS Also let me know if you want me to keep making videos, or go back to writing things out!

Movie: Immortals (2011)

(Image from IMDb)

To be completely honest, I am not entirely sure where I should begin discussing the movie Immortals (2011). I suppose I should preface it by saying that I have only seen it once and refuse to see it again (at least in theaters, with only a slim chance of watching it again on DVD). I have no idea what happened to my sensibilities, since I thought that being a Classics minor had pretty much shocked everything from my system. However, I am so completely repulsed by the character of Hyperion and the torture he inflicts on his own army, not to mention his enemies, that I cannot imagine watching this film again; I almost had to walk out, I was so disgusted.

**SPOILER ALERT: reading farther may spoil the movie**

Anyway, on to discussing the actual content of the movie. I went into the theater understanding that this movie does not attempt to tell any particular story from Greek mythology, but instead is drawing characters and pieces from it to tell a “new” story. I do not feel that it managed to tell any story well, however, since I am still baffled as to many of the characters motivations. I of course understand that Theseus wants to kill Hyperion for murdering his mother and razing his village, but I do not understand Hyperion’s motivation for wanting to create as much destruction as possible on his quest to find the Epirus bow and release the Titans in order to kill the gods. I also fail to understand who the gods are (other than the obvious Zeus, Poseidon, and Athena) since they were never addressed directly. More to the point, none of the gods (except Poseidon) had appropriately defining weapons or symbols to identify them; Zeus did not have his thunderbolt, Athena did not have her spear and shield, and I do not know of any god who fought with a hammer in Greek mythology. Looking at the character list is not very helpful either, since the names listed do not necessarily make that much sense for the six gods who play a role. I would have liked to hear more about the war the gods had with the titans, why there are so few gods, and why they are forbidden from interfering in the action on penalty of death. The choice to make the gods not actually immortal is an interesting one as well and I want to hear more about the consequences of that for the order of the universe, especially since the movie put so much emphasis on the idea that every man’s soul is immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine. I did not feel as though that aspect, which lies at the very heart of the movie, was well fleshed out and understandable.

For not being the story of Theseus as we know it in mythology, the movie still does a decent job of keeping enough reminders in the story. Theseus still hooks up with Pheadra (although not a daughter of Minos) and she gives birth to their son Acamas. They even managed to cleverly work in the story of Theseus and the Minotaur, which is the only part of the movie that I actually liked. It was a very different take on the creation of the Minotaur (since he was actually just a human wearing a bull helmet), but it worked very well as one episode in the larger battle against Hyperion’s army.

However, the presence of these reminders of the original story beg the question, why did they choose Hyperion, who in mythology is a titan of the sun, as the mortal king who tries to get revenge on the gods? Why not choose the figure of King Minos, who is actually part of the original story of Theseus? Perhaps having too many figures from the myth would cause academics to rip it apart as failing to tell the story properly, but a more complete reimagining of the story would have been better than what was very poorly pieced together in the film.

Similarly, the choice to use the Sibylline oracle is an interesting one, because although the title of Sibyl belonged to many different prophetesses of Apollo, it was primarily associated with the Sibyl of Cumea who played an important role in Roman history. The Greek equivalent (and predecessor) was the oracle at Delphi, which Apollo was very protective of. Despite Zeus’s prevention of the gods interfering in the affairs of mortals, Apollo would have been perfectly justified in going after Hyperion with a plague or shooting him from afar for destroying the Sibylline monastery if Apollo was really itching for the fight that all of the gods seemed to be. Above all else, the gods were justified in mythology for taking out those who dare to defile their temples and priests/priestesses.

Overall, I was not thrilled with this film. The story is too thin and lacks enough internal logic to make up for the truly grotesque violence. If they really wanted to tell a story about the immortality of the soul and the relationship between humans and gods, there is a lot more they could have done with the story to make those issues clear.

For more information on Greek mythology please refer to the following.

Morford, M. P. O and Lenardon, R. J. (2007). Classical Mythology (8th ed.). New York; Oxford University Press.

Show: Curiosity episode 01 pt. 2

I apologize for taking so long to post this, but here is the second part to my discussion of the first episode of the series Curiosity, which addresses the question, did God create the universe?

Where science seeks to be a universal, measurable and quantifiable explanation of how our world works, religion steps in where science cannot reach to explain those things that cannot be measured by science. The big questions such as who/what created the universe, who/what created us, and our purpose on this earth cannot be answered with cold, hard, scientific fact. Any answer to those questions, by necessity, crosses into the realm of religion and personal belief. The big bang theory is just one more story among many others that can be used by people to explain why we are here.

Most creation myths are cosmogonies, narratives that describe the original ordering of the universe based on observable facts and contemporary ways of thinking. They describe a cultural group’s sense of its past and significant relationship with the deeper powers of the surrounding world and universe, traditionally through symbolism and metaphor (Leeming & Leeming, vii). Just because science has given us a new way of viewing ourselves in relation to the wider universe, it does not mean that there cannot be alternative perspectives on how we came to exist as we are. Science and religion are perfectly capable of existing side by side in people’s perceptions of the world, especially when they believe in an ultimate reality that can transcend science (Leeming & Leeming, vii).

Over the years, science has not actually been able to contribute much more than religion in terms of understanding the ultimate origins of the universe. Leeming & Leeming (1994) credit Philip Freund and other cosmologists with pointing out that “many creation theories of modern science are marked by the myth of a ‘beginningless beginning’… a pre-creation universe in which something existed as a basis for the form eventually taken by the cosmos” (“Creation in Science”, p. 61). In Hawking’s story, this is the singularity that is created from nothing and spontaneously explodes to create the universe.

While the “beginningless beginning” may not sound like much of an explanation for the creation, it can have a profound effect on beliefs about why humans exist. The clearest evidence that Hawking’s program is at its heart just another creation myth comes from his own concluding statement, where he extrapolates the effect of not having a creator god.

We are each free to believe what we want. It is my view that the simplest explanation is, there is no god. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; there is probably no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that I am extremely grateful.

For Hawking, his belief in science as the ultimate guide for the way the universe works means that humans have no explicit purpose, but were instead an accident, a natural consequence of the progression of matter over time. The laws of nature are an impersonal, unconscious creator that cannot care about or interfere with what it has created.

The assertion that there was no god that created the universe, however, does not necessarily exclude the possibility of a god that created humans, as Hawking claims. There are many creation stories in which the gods that create humans come along after the world is created. Take the Greek creation myth the Theogony for example, which says that Gaia, the earth, was spontaneously born from chaos, but went on to create the Titans who yielded the Olympians, of whom Zeus was instrumental in the creation of woman (man had been spontaneously generated somewhere in the midst of the story). Other stories have the creation of the universe and the creation of man as having little if anything to do with each other, because the earth is often a given before the creation of people, such as in many native American stories.

If Hawking had truly set out to explain the Big Bang Theory as scientific fact, then he could have easily left his concluding statement out and still had an engaging explanation of a scientific concept that is sometimes difficult to understand. However, since the purpose of his program was in fact to answer the question, “Did God create the universe?” Hawking needed to tell a story, not present scientific fact.

For more information on creation myths from around the world and their commonalities, please refer to:

Leeming, D. and Leeming, M. (1994). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. New York; Oxford University Press.