Stoker, Bram and Elizabeth Kostova. Dracula. New York: Back Bay Books, 2005. $10.99.
I picked up this classic horror tale recently with a gift card from my baby son (really from his mom). I've seen a couple of the movie adaptations of the book, and the concept has always interested me. It was a good exercise for my imagination.
Stoker's book is amazing as the fountainhead of so much in this genre. Unfortunately for me, the horror genre has changed dramatically from what it was in the Victorian period, when Stoker wrote. I noticed early on that I was not really affected much emotionally by the tale. This may be due, in part, to my familiarity with movies that have told the story in similar ways, but I think it was largely due to the fact that our modern culture has made horror so much more horrific. Of course, if I were really in Jonathan Harker's shoes in the early part of the book, trapped in Castle Dracula with the Count and his creatures, the experience would be terrible. I guess the imagery used simply fails to excite my modern and inured mind. That said, I was never once bored throughout the 400 pages!
One of the interesting issues surrounding the interpretation of Dracula is the extent to which the story is that of science and modernity overcoming medieval superstition, or even of West over East. This theme appears so often that it seems Stoker must have intended it. I can see how this would have been especially powerful to readers in the time of its first printing, but today the "modernity" present in the book, when thought of in this way, is often laughable. Professor Van Helsing, the symbol of modernity and logic, practices hypnotism, consults ancient superstition, and seems to believe in alchemy. This is not to say that modernity/science should not triumph over superstition but to point out that the hubris associated with any period's estimation of its own learning is dangerous. We have discovered too often that our modern ideas give way to better ideas to come and are sometimes found out to be mere superstition after all.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
A New Kind of Church
Malphurs, Aubrey. A New Kind of Church: Understanding Models of Ministry for the 21st Century. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007. $15.99
In this book, Malphurs has 2 goals: to address criticism of new-model churches (seeker, emerging, small-group driven, etc.) and to promote biblical understanding of church, culture, and change that help churches undergo the necessary changes so that they can remain active, or renew activity, in the great overall mission of the church - making disciples.
Malphurs does an excellent job of educating the reader about the fundamental issues involved in this debate. This is to be expected from a well-respected seminary professor. He is very critical of those who have been arguing vociferously against changes in church models. He criticizes their ungodly, angry way of expressing themselves as well as the simple fact that large parts of their argument are either not biblically founded or actually violate biblical teaching.
Malphurs is ultimately in favor of these new models, though he does offer some caution to them. I suppose I should clarify - he is in favor of necessary changes in the way church is done in order to reach a culture that has changed enough that large segments of it hold no affinity at all for the majority of churches. New model churches are trying to effect those changes, so he supports them.
The last chapter of the book contains a simple explanation of how churches can and should go about changing for the better. This is good, but it is essentially an advertisement for another of Malphurs' books, Advanced Strategic Planning. I guess I'll need to read that one, too.
Being in the younger generation on this issue, I was not strongly challenged by this book, though I could see how it could work wonders for hardened anti-change elements within the church. However, I seriously doubt they will read this or, if they do, give it a fair reading. Even so, I learned a great deal about leadership through this sort of model change.
In this book, Malphurs has 2 goals: to address criticism of new-model churches (seeker, emerging, small-group driven, etc.) and to promote biblical understanding of church, culture, and change that help churches undergo the necessary changes so that they can remain active, or renew activity, in the great overall mission of the church - making disciples.
Malphurs does an excellent job of educating the reader about the fundamental issues involved in this debate. This is to be expected from a well-respected seminary professor. He is very critical of those who have been arguing vociferously against changes in church models. He criticizes their ungodly, angry way of expressing themselves as well as the simple fact that large parts of their argument are either not biblically founded or actually violate biblical teaching.
Malphurs is ultimately in favor of these new models, though he does offer some caution to them. I suppose I should clarify - he is in favor of necessary changes in the way church is done in order to reach a culture that has changed enough that large segments of it hold no affinity at all for the majority of churches. New model churches are trying to effect those changes, so he supports them.
The last chapter of the book contains a simple explanation of how churches can and should go about changing for the better. This is good, but it is essentially an advertisement for another of Malphurs' books, Advanced Strategic Planning. I guess I'll need to read that one, too.
Being in the younger generation on this issue, I was not strongly challenged by this book, though I could see how it could work wonders for hardened anti-change elements within the church. However, I seriously doubt they will read this or, if they do, give it a fair reading. Even so, I learned a great deal about leadership through this sort of model change.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Mutations and Increasing Genetic Information - An Analogy
A good friend recently put forward the genetic mutation that causes Down's Syndrome (a doubling of the 21st chromosome) as an example of a mutation resulting in an increase in genetic information. This is important because such increases in genetic information are vital if evolution as it is understood today has really occurred (the genome of a bacterium is far smaller than that of a higher animal, such that genetic information must have increased over time if some past bacterium evolved into today's higher animals). In addition, Intelligent Design advocates routinely argue that no such increases of information do occur, essentially destroying the premise upon which the evolutionary process is based.
There may be other examples of supposed increases of genetic information, but I believe I have a metaphor and an understanding of information that thoroughly refutes this one example (Down's Syndrome).
Imagine a library with thousands of books, all original, no duplicates. This is similar to the genome of a human, though really less extensive. Now, the Down's Syndrome duplication is like receiving a second copy of one of those books. At first, this does seem like an increase in information, since you now have more pages, more words, and more letters in the library. But this is deceptive. It is deceptive because information is not in essence a matter of numbers and letters but of meaning. Having two copies of John Calvin's Institutes (one of the larger works in my own library) or Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat (a very short work) does not increase the total meaning contained in the library. As you read the two copies, you cannot learn anything new from the second that you couldn't from the first. In fact, unless you have some sentimental affection for the duplicated book, you could easily see how the duplicate is a problem for the library, taking up space better used for some other original work.
Now, an evolutionist might argue that the duplicate could evolve into another new book. He may concede that it may not contain new information, but argue that it does contain the building blocks for new information. Surely, Calvin's Institutes contains enough letters and words to create Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat. The problem is this: according to evolution this must occur in a non-directed process. I could arrange the Institutes into any number of shorter works myself, but that is a completely different thing. Also, this supposition results in innumerable steps in between the Institutes and the Cat in the Hat that are gibberish, which we do not see in the genetics of any creature, but we should because this process should be on-going. Finally, this process could only create books shorter than or equal to the original, so that more complicated forms and functions cannot derive from less complicated ones, contrary to evolutionary theory.
I can think of other problems with this example of increasing genetic information, but I believe that the above argument is sufficient to reject it. What say you?
There may be other examples of supposed increases of genetic information, but I believe I have a metaphor and an understanding of information that thoroughly refutes this one example (Down's Syndrome).
Imagine a library with thousands of books, all original, no duplicates. This is similar to the genome of a human, though really less extensive. Now, the Down's Syndrome duplication is like receiving a second copy of one of those books. At first, this does seem like an increase in information, since you now have more pages, more words, and more letters in the library. But this is deceptive. It is deceptive because information is not in essence a matter of numbers and letters but of meaning. Having two copies of John Calvin's Institutes (one of the larger works in my own library) or Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat (a very short work) does not increase the total meaning contained in the library. As you read the two copies, you cannot learn anything new from the second that you couldn't from the first. In fact, unless you have some sentimental affection for the duplicated book, you could easily see how the duplicate is a problem for the library, taking up space better used for some other original work.
Now, an evolutionist might argue that the duplicate could evolve into another new book. He may concede that it may not contain new information, but argue that it does contain the building blocks for new information. Surely, Calvin's Institutes contains enough letters and words to create Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat. The problem is this: according to evolution this must occur in a non-directed process. I could arrange the Institutes into any number of shorter works myself, but that is a completely different thing. Also, this supposition results in innumerable steps in between the Institutes and the Cat in the Hat that are gibberish, which we do not see in the genetics of any creature, but we should because this process should be on-going. Finally, this process could only create books shorter than or equal to the original, so that more complicated forms and functions cannot derive from less complicated ones, contrary to evolutionary theory.
I can think of other problems with this example of increasing genetic information, but I believe that the above argument is sufficient to reject it. What say you?
Monday, February 02, 2009
The New Answers Book
Ham, Ken. The New Answers Book: Over 25 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible. Green Forest, Ark: Master Books, 2006. $14.99.
The New Answers Book is produced by Answers in Genesis, a Christian group that holds to a Young-earth creationist perspective, researching and teaching in order to promote that perspective. I've seen a couple of their videos and have always found their stuff to be interesting, even compelling at points, and well done. The founder of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, is the editor of this book and one of the article authors. The book is a YE creationist attempt to answer the objections raised against that view by others.
Overall, the book is an excellent resource for understanding the YE creationist perspective on the available scientific data. This perspective is built upon a serious reading of Scripture, particularly Genesis chapter 1-11, using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. This reading is one that attempts to treat the Biblical text within its own linguistic setting (e.g. - reading poetry and narrative differently because they have entirely different uses in the Bible) and historical setting. This view is the one taught, by and large, by my own seminary and many other conservative theological institutions. The key here is that YE creationists first accept the Bible as true and authoritative and then take their view to the science, resulting in very different theories concerning everything from DNA to the geologic column and even light from distant galaxies. The alternative, common among moderate and liberal theologians, is to accept current scientific dogma (e.g. - the universe is 14+ billion years old and all life evolved over that period) and then read the Bible to figure out how to fit or bend the text to agree with the science. At least to me, the YE creationist view of science-theology makes more sense.
The best articles were: the two dealing with dating methods by Mark Riddle, the one concerning catastrophic plate tectonics and the flood by Andrew Snelling, that by Jason Lisle about distant starlight and the age of the universe, and the article about defense/attack structures in plants and animals by Andy McIntosh and Bodie Hodge. All of these were highly scientific, interesting, and vital for a YE view to stand up to scrutiny.
The problems with the book are mostly those of structure. Since the articles were written independently, there are frequent instances of repetitious information. However, one should expect this out of a source book like this one. The weakest article was the one by Ham answering the question, "Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?" The article does well to point out many quotes of Jesus dealing with other elements of Genesis 1-11 as literal/historical facts, but he then goes further and tries to show that Jesus was speaking in several Old Testament passages that specifically refer to creating in six literal days. While I still think these passages are germane to the question, since God does not contradict Himself within the Godhead, I would hesitate to make Jesus the speaker in the Old Testament unless there is a lot of clear evidence.
Finally, as you might be able to tell, I have a great affinity for the YE creationist view. It seems to me that creationists and evolutionists (and all those who hold to naturalism) are each simply choosing their ideological (one might say theological and still be quite correct) commitments and then interpreting science or the Bible accordingly. To me, as a Christian, it only makes sense to remain committed to the Bible, the authoritative and inspired and inerrant Word of God, and then approach science than to accept what science (the majority dogma known collectively as science) says and then approach the Bible. Throughout this book, the various authors repeatedly point out the dangers in accepting a compromise view of Genesis 1-11: it opens the entire Bible to the charge of fallibility and irrelevance and ultimately undermines the salvation wrought by God in Christ Jesus.
The New Answers Book is produced by Answers in Genesis, a Christian group that holds to a Young-earth creationist perspective, researching and teaching in order to promote that perspective. I've seen a couple of their videos and have always found their stuff to be interesting, even compelling at points, and well done. The founder of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, is the editor of this book and one of the article authors. The book is a YE creationist attempt to answer the objections raised against that view by others.
Overall, the book is an excellent resource for understanding the YE creationist perspective on the available scientific data. This perspective is built upon a serious reading of Scripture, particularly Genesis chapter 1-11, using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. This reading is one that attempts to treat the Biblical text within its own linguistic setting (e.g. - reading poetry and narrative differently because they have entirely different uses in the Bible) and historical setting. This view is the one taught, by and large, by my own seminary and many other conservative theological institutions. The key here is that YE creationists first accept the Bible as true and authoritative and then take their view to the science, resulting in very different theories concerning everything from DNA to the geologic column and even light from distant galaxies. The alternative, common among moderate and liberal theologians, is to accept current scientific dogma (e.g. - the universe is 14+ billion years old and all life evolved over that period) and then read the Bible to figure out how to fit or bend the text to agree with the science. At least to me, the YE creationist view of science-theology makes more sense.
The best articles were: the two dealing with dating methods by Mark Riddle, the one concerning catastrophic plate tectonics and the flood by Andrew Snelling, that by Jason Lisle about distant starlight and the age of the universe, and the article about defense/attack structures in plants and animals by Andy McIntosh and Bodie Hodge. All of these were highly scientific, interesting, and vital for a YE view to stand up to scrutiny.
The problems with the book are mostly those of structure. Since the articles were written independently, there are frequent instances of repetitious information. However, one should expect this out of a source book like this one. The weakest article was the one by Ham answering the question, "Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?" The article does well to point out many quotes of Jesus dealing with other elements of Genesis 1-11 as literal/historical facts, but he then goes further and tries to show that Jesus was speaking in several Old Testament passages that specifically refer to creating in six literal days. While I still think these passages are germane to the question, since God does not contradict Himself within the Godhead, I would hesitate to make Jesus the speaker in the Old Testament unless there is a lot of clear evidence.
Finally, as you might be able to tell, I have a great affinity for the YE creationist view. It seems to me that creationists and evolutionists (and all those who hold to naturalism) are each simply choosing their ideological (one might say theological and still be quite correct) commitments and then interpreting science or the Bible accordingly. To me, as a Christian, it only makes sense to remain committed to the Bible, the authoritative and inspired and inerrant Word of God, and then approach science than to accept what science (the majority dogma known collectively as science) says and then approach the Bible. Throughout this book, the various authors repeatedly point out the dangers in accepting a compromise view of Genesis 1-11: it opens the entire Bible to the charge of fallibility and irrelevance and ultimately undermines the salvation wrought by God in Christ Jesus.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Science's Blind Spot
Hunter, Cornelius G. Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism. Grand Rapids, Mich: Brazos Press, 2007. $14.99.
This book is an excellent "thinker." I often had to re-read portions so that I could more fully understand and I found myself, my assumptions, challenged in a very positive way. I urge anyone interested in science, an aspect of science, to read this book. Below, I will first try to deal with Hunter's arguments and then go one step further in some analysis of my own.
Hunter's thesis is that, by requiring that science can only ever provide natural/material explanations, it has created a blind spot such that, if the data ever pointed to a non-material explanation it would be missed. Nowhere in the book does Hunter try to prove that non-material explanations are necessarily present, but he does argue that science should reject the adoption of a priori assumptions, such as the requirement that all explanations be material, in favor of following the date wherever it leads.
To illustrate his point, Hunter shows the difference between empirical science (fact-based, experimentation, repeatable) and rational science (theory-based, not repeatable or experimental, dogmatic). His clear example is of two biologists, one studying how nerve cells work and the other studying the evolutionary descent of some animal species. The one involves lab experiments all over the world, while the other involves historical fiction and supposition based on thin data collected from paleontology and similarities between organisms. It is clear that these two types of science are vastly different, the rational sort not conforming well at all to common definitions of science.
Interestingly, Hunter does not blame this intellectual requirement that all explanations be material on atheism, as I've often thought. He calls that a bad mistake committed by many Christians in scientific debates. Rather, he argues that naturalism (what he calls theological naturalism) arose during the Enlightenment because of theological concerns. These relate to the problem of evil, human freedom issues, and a disbelief in an intervening God, not from a disbelief in any god at all. Theologians and scientists looked at the world, its suffering and apparent lack of meaning, and felt that God could not be responsible for all of this. This group, many of whom were deists (names include Burnet, Kant, Leibniz, Darwin, etc.), therefore, posited that God does not intervene in the world but has created natural laws sufficient to explain all that exists. Thus, science should only ever look for natural/material explanations because, according to their theology and not any sort of science, that was all there could be. Essentially, they felt the need to get God off the hook for evil.
This has great bearing on the Intelligent Design debate, since ID scientists argue that the date points to a designer while evolutionists argue that it points to purely material causes. According to Hunter, it may be that evolutionists can't see the design implications because they have decided before examining any data that it can't exist.
Hunter definitely holds to the principle of parsimony, which is that when a natural/simple explanation fits the data it is unnecessary and undesirable to look for a more complex, non-material one. However, when material explanations fail to fit the data, non-material ones can and should be considered. He argues that, in the case of evolution, the material explanation fails in key ways to adequately explain the data.
As my own contribution, I would like to point out that theological liberalism, like that which opened the door to deism and theological naturalism, leads people to reject the God of the Bible in favor of some other god derived from philosophy and human reason. When this occurs, it should be no surprise that concepts based off of the nature of this new god do not work well in the real world. This is why the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of the Bible as so important. Interestingly, if people are worried about the problem of evil, the Bible actually addresses that subject already in a way that shows that God bears no taint of evil but is actually at work to redeem those who brought it into creation.
This book is an excellent "thinker." I often had to re-read portions so that I could more fully understand and I found myself, my assumptions, challenged in a very positive way. I urge anyone interested in science, an aspect of science, to read this book. Below, I will first try to deal with Hunter's arguments and then go one step further in some analysis of my own.
Hunter's thesis is that, by requiring that science can only ever provide natural/material explanations, it has created a blind spot such that, if the data ever pointed to a non-material explanation it would be missed. Nowhere in the book does Hunter try to prove that non-material explanations are necessarily present, but he does argue that science should reject the adoption of a priori assumptions, such as the requirement that all explanations be material, in favor of following the date wherever it leads.
To illustrate his point, Hunter shows the difference between empirical science (fact-based, experimentation, repeatable) and rational science (theory-based, not repeatable or experimental, dogmatic). His clear example is of two biologists, one studying how nerve cells work and the other studying the evolutionary descent of some animal species. The one involves lab experiments all over the world, while the other involves historical fiction and supposition based on thin data collected from paleontology and similarities between organisms. It is clear that these two types of science are vastly different, the rational sort not conforming well at all to common definitions of science.
Interestingly, Hunter does not blame this intellectual requirement that all explanations be material on atheism, as I've often thought. He calls that a bad mistake committed by many Christians in scientific debates. Rather, he argues that naturalism (what he calls theological naturalism) arose during the Enlightenment because of theological concerns. These relate to the problem of evil, human freedom issues, and a disbelief in an intervening God, not from a disbelief in any god at all. Theologians and scientists looked at the world, its suffering and apparent lack of meaning, and felt that God could not be responsible for all of this. This group, many of whom were deists (names include Burnet, Kant, Leibniz, Darwin, etc.), therefore, posited that God does not intervene in the world but has created natural laws sufficient to explain all that exists. Thus, science should only ever look for natural/material explanations because, according to their theology and not any sort of science, that was all there could be. Essentially, they felt the need to get God off the hook for evil.
This has great bearing on the Intelligent Design debate, since ID scientists argue that the date points to a designer while evolutionists argue that it points to purely material causes. According to Hunter, it may be that evolutionists can't see the design implications because they have decided before examining any data that it can't exist.
Hunter definitely holds to the principle of parsimony, which is that when a natural/simple explanation fits the data it is unnecessary and undesirable to look for a more complex, non-material one. However, when material explanations fail to fit the data, non-material ones can and should be considered. He argues that, in the case of evolution, the material explanation fails in key ways to adequately explain the data.
As my own contribution, I would like to point out that theological liberalism, like that which opened the door to deism and theological naturalism, leads people to reject the God of the Bible in favor of some other god derived from philosophy and human reason. When this occurs, it should be no surprise that concepts based off of the nature of this new god do not work well in the real world. This is why the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of the Bible as so important. Interestingly, if people are worried about the problem of evil, the Bible actually addresses that subject already in a way that shows that God bears no taint of evil but is actually at work to redeem those who brought it into creation.
War Since 1945
Black, Jeremy. War Since 1945. Contemporary Worlds. London: Reaktion, 2004. $24.95.
I have read Black's Eighteenth-Century Europe, so I should have been warned about his style and the sorts of conclusions he comes up with. Unfortunately, I had forgotten that his book was the driest and most difficult of those I read for my Christianity in the Enlightenment class.
Black's goal in this book is to remind the reader that there was much else going on in this period (1945-present) than just the Cold War. Additionally, he wants the reader to see that most of the conflict has been non-Western, more specifically non-American, in order to warn us off of any Euro- or Ameri-centric understanding of warfare. He makes the cogent point that, if the USA is to be considered the foremost military power, then all others must be fundamentally different, making study only of American military forms and methods inadequate and misleading.
Much like the other book of his that I've read (he's written many more), this book, at less than 200 pages, is far too short to cover such a broad topic in anything more than surface facts. This serves to marginally inform the reader but detracts considerably from the book's readability.
The most interesting fact I learned from the book is that there was actually a war fought in Central America over a soccer match (the Football War of 1969 between Honduras and El Salvador)! Of course, it was really more complicated than that, but come on!
I have read Black's Eighteenth-Century Europe, so I should have been warned about his style and the sorts of conclusions he comes up with. Unfortunately, I had forgotten that his book was the driest and most difficult of those I read for my Christianity in the Enlightenment class.
Black's goal in this book is to remind the reader that there was much else going on in this period (1945-present) than just the Cold War. Additionally, he wants the reader to see that most of the conflict has been non-Western, more specifically non-American, in order to warn us off of any Euro- or Ameri-centric understanding of warfare. He makes the cogent point that, if the USA is to be considered the foremost military power, then all others must be fundamentally different, making study only of American military forms and methods inadequate and misleading.
Much like the other book of his that I've read (he's written many more), this book, at less than 200 pages, is far too short to cover such a broad topic in anything more than surface facts. This serves to marginally inform the reader but detracts considerably from the book's readability.
The most interesting fact I learned from the book is that there was actually a war fought in Central America over a soccer match (the Football War of 1969 between Honduras and El Salvador)! Of course, it was really more complicated than that, but come on!
Friday, January 09, 2009
The Children of Húrin
Tolkien, J.R.R., Christopher Tolkien, and Alan Lee. Narn I Chîn Húrin: The Tale of the Children of Húrin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. $15.99.
This delightful journey through early Middle Earth was light years from the difficulties of The Silmarillion, Tolkien's great work that covers the entire history of Middle Earth from its creation to the end of the Third Age, and helped make clear many of the references to older times found in The Lord of the Rings. Christopher Tolkien (J.R.R.'s youngest son and the protector of his literary work) has taken various writings that his father had left unfinished and, with some editing and a few instances of gap filling, provided us with a whole tale from the First Age of Middle Earth.
This story is not a happy one, but is a tragedy of the highest degree. It bears some similarities to other well-known, ancient tragic works. As such, while the story is satisfying in itself, I am glad that it is coupled with Tolkien's happier works of Middle Earth.
For one only familiar with the LOTR and The Hobbit, the biggest characters have already been introduced. Morgoth is the great enemy, and Túrin, son of Húrin, is the tragic hero. These are each in direct, though distant, relation to the great characters of the LOTR, such as Elrond and the elven lords, Aragorn, as well as Sauron.
Much like The Return of the King, this book has several helpful appendices. The most interesting, especially for those interested in literature, is Christopher Tolkien's explanation of how the present book descended from various prose and poetry of his father.
On the negative side, it is easy to feel the uncompleted nature of J.R.R. Tolkien's original work. Unlike The Hobbit of the LOTR, the details here are often spare. One doesn't get a good mental picture of the land or cities that Túrin visits, which was never a problem with his other works. Also, at times, the story seems to run on too quickly. I believe that the tale, had it been completed by Tolkien himself, could easily have been 2 books of much greater length than this one. That said, the story is still quite good.
While the tragedy contained in this book is the work of Morgoth, the lesson of humility can still be learned from what happens to Húrin's family.
This delightful journey through early Middle Earth was light years from the difficulties of The Silmarillion, Tolkien's great work that covers the entire history of Middle Earth from its creation to the end of the Third Age, and helped make clear many of the references to older times found in The Lord of the Rings. Christopher Tolkien (J.R.R.'s youngest son and the protector of his literary work) has taken various writings that his father had left unfinished and, with some editing and a few instances of gap filling, provided us with a whole tale from the First Age of Middle Earth.
This story is not a happy one, but is a tragedy of the highest degree. It bears some similarities to other well-known, ancient tragic works. As such, while the story is satisfying in itself, I am glad that it is coupled with Tolkien's happier works of Middle Earth.
For one only familiar with the LOTR and The Hobbit, the biggest characters have already been introduced. Morgoth is the great enemy, and Túrin, son of Húrin, is the tragic hero. These are each in direct, though distant, relation to the great characters of the LOTR, such as Elrond and the elven lords, Aragorn, as well as Sauron.
Much like The Return of the King, this book has several helpful appendices. The most interesting, especially for those interested in literature, is Christopher Tolkien's explanation of how the present book descended from various prose and poetry of his father.
On the negative side, it is easy to feel the uncompleted nature of J.R.R. Tolkien's original work. Unlike The Hobbit of the LOTR, the details here are often spare. One doesn't get a good mental picture of the land or cities that Túrin visits, which was never a problem with his other works. Also, at times, the story seems to run on too quickly. I believe that the tale, had it been completed by Tolkien himself, could easily have been 2 books of much greater length than this one. That said, the story is still quite good.
While the tragedy contained in this book is the work of Morgoth, the lesson of humility can still be learned from what happens to Húrin's family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)