The Sci Fi Catholic Yak Module
I'm not sure I've ever read a more thorough review. This is very informative. I agree with a good many of your points, but I still think this will do well. Women will enjoy it (I think) because I imagine what I conceive as "winy" tendancies are the very things that will endear this woman to female readers.
Thanks for sharing such a thorough insight.
God Bless,
Daniel I Weaver
www.danieliweaver.com
If it had "winy" tendencies (in that people at least got sloshed during Feast) it might appeal to this woman; if it consists of "whiny" pages and pages of "Oh, I'm so unhappy in my dull home life, I wish I could have an adventure"/"Oh, I'm so unhappy in this new world, I wish I was back home", then all things considered - no.
Is Susan really a Rhusican? After all, if they can drive people insane simply by talking to them, and if she talks to people by quoting chunks of self-help babble at them... 
Wow. Like Daniel said, a very thorough and well-thought review. Now I need to say that I wish I hadn't read it...
The reason being I need to write my own review, and I don't like being influenced prematurely by other reviews. However, I think I may have been pulled one way by positive reviews from Mir and Becky, so maybe today you balance them out!
Anyway, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who had a hard time slogging through it. I don't think I could stand a sequel either. Well, I don't know that my review will match the punch of yours, but again, thanks for the thoughtful and thorough review.
Jason
Hello, my name is Karen and I'm an incurable optimist. *grin*
I responded to your post on my blog. It's the second post on the page, if you want to see if I damaged your reputation or anything.
Thank you for making me think harder.
DG, I agree that you've put a lot of time and thought into your review. Thing is, you obviously come at it from a worldview that doesn't value women or the Bible in the same way Hinck does. Those will have to be areas we "agree to disagree," I think.
The area I think you completely missed was trying to make this series a science fantasy. It is clearly fantasy with a science fantasy flavor, as The Legend of the Firefish is clearly fantasy with a pirate flavor.
In that vein, you try to force science fiction rules onto a fantasy. In fantasy, the author gets to decide how things work, the reader suspends belief and goes along with it. There is NO need to give scientific or historical explanations. They fought with swords and calvary because they did. We don't need to see why they retained those fighting forces even as they developed their weapons technology.
The deus es machina you mentioned is one of the hardest things to handle when a writer is trying to show God's intervention in the world. Of course it looks like deus because it is!
Also, I think you read too fast. The lost tribes were foreshadowed. You missed it, I'm afraid.
Still, your review is thoughtful--makes me think that One Of These Days we'll have to have a theological discussion. 
Becky
Your review is very thorough. You are very well read!
I have not read the book so I cannot comment.
I like both fantasy and science fiction and read them regularly. Like Becky, I was a little confused about the rules of science with fantasy.
HOWEVER, I'm not one that really thinks about that either. Usually.
Good review, DGD!
Becky, I agree that the lines between fantasy and sf are blurry. I'm not one of those hard sf fans or writers who thinks everything has to come back around to real science. However, both science fiction and fantasy must work with ground rules. If no rules are established, absolutely anything can happen and then the story is uninteresting. Even if it's meant to be straight-up fantasy as you suggest, it certainly duped a long-time sf/fantasy reader (namely me), suggesting again that its universe is basically incoherent. I don't mind if plastic swords become real, but there must be a reason.
As to your suggestion that I don't value women or the Bible, I object and object strongly. I love both the Bible and women, including sword-wielding women. In fact, the sword-wielding woman is one of my favorite fantasy tropes and I will have a short essay on it up tomorrow. But there are rules of good storytelling to think about here, and using the Bible to fix everything or having a miracle fix everything or putting a sword in a housewife's hand and having her go all Ninjitsu without any explanation breaks those rules.
And yes, the lost tribes got a brief mention before their appearance (I didn't miss that), but they were never introduced and we met none of them. Their sudden arrival was a complete and completely unbelievable surprise.
DGD, I've really appreciated your candor in previous posts. And as most have pointed out, you are clearly well-read. Perhaps, that's one of the problems here. I suspect that because you have read so much and have given so much thought to the "rules" of genres, archetypes, and such, that there are certain things, you just can't get past, and so you find it nearly impossible to appreciate the good that is actually there.
I'm also more than a little bothered by the sarcastic, if not condescending tone of your critique. I realize, of course, a lot of unintended emotion can be read into a text, but from your opening tagline:
White American suburbia + swordfighting = really bad science fantasy.
...to your opening paragraph: "According to Alberto Manguel in A History of Reading, Henry Miller claimed that James Joyce’s Ulysses is best read in the toilet. If so, then Sharon Hinck’s The Restorer is best read in the bubble bath. And with a total of 477 sluggish pages to get through, I burned the midnight aromatherapy candles to ensure you had this review on time."
...I think the subtext was pretty clear. I would expect such language and subtle contempt from a secular reviewer, but not from a friend in the faith. You can be critical and be critical with love. Sure, urge us all on to better writing. Tell use where plotlines could be stronger or where improvements could be made. Even point out where our theology might be flawed. But do it with love.
And while you definitely had fun denegrating the intended audience, what with bubble bath, aroma therapy, and other cracks, it didn't seem like you were willing to seriously recognize the intended audience of the work. The Restorer is not the hardcore SciFi/Fantasy book of the Century. But The Restorer IS an invitation for a lot of new readers--for whom fantasy is foreign--to come in and look around the genre. Soccer moms and moms in general don't usually get into fantasy or sciFi. Excepetions, of course, but not as a rule. I know more than a few ladies who can't get into fantasy because it's just not "real." But I guarantee, these ladies will find Susan Mitchell very real. They will finally find a fantasy with a character who seems to embody much of what they've felt.
The Restorer is also a window into the soul of a believer, and not just women. The Christian experience is full of struggle and doubt. Do you have any idea how many people you alienate when you call Susan's introspection "whining?" Ouch.
And finally, I disagree with your assessment of Scripture as a cure-all in The Restorer. Scripture is truth. You use truth to combat lies. That's what The Restorer does. If the Rhusicans can utter poison words, it makes sense that another being could utter antidote words. I like the analogy. I also LOVED that Susan's character had a limited knowledge of Scripture. She had wandered into the trap that so many of us do--thinking that knowing the Word is great for Sunday Sch
"But The Restorer IS an invitation for a lot of new readers--for whom fantasy is foreign--to come in and look around the genre. Soccer moms and moms in general don't usually get into fantasy or sciFi. Excepetions, of course, but not as a rule. I know more than a few ladies who can't get into fantasy because it's just not "real." But I guarantee, these ladies will find Susan Mitchell very real. They will finally find a fantasy with a character who seems to embody much of what they've felt."
Is the purpose of sci-fi and fantasy writing to entice specific cultural groups to embrace sci-fi/fantasy?
Histor
This blog regularly features humor, and no sharp sarcasm was intended, but the reviews I put up are honest. I thought the novel was awful and I said so. That's an opinion, not an immutable fact, but I think I have reasons for it. Criticisms of my criticisms so far seem to be asking that I lower my standards when a book is explicitly Christian. My answer is no. I would have given the same kind of review to a non-Christian book of this quality. Authors and publishers are welcome to target any audience they wish, but they should do so with good literature.
"In fantasy, the author gets to decide how things work, the reader suspends belief and goes along with it. There is NO need to give scientific or historical explanations. They fought with swords and calvary because they did. We don't need to see why they retained those fighting forces even as they developed their weapons technology."
Fantasy writers may break the laws of science and history, but they must not make stupid characters. When I have tanks and cavalry, and my enemy attacks with cavalry, I will counter with tanks, since they are tough, scare horses, and have plenty of firepower to gun down cavalry charges. If I repond with cavalry, the reader may safely assume I am a madman, and beg my lieutenants to mutiny against me.
As for dei ex machina, those are simply too convenient to the writer for the reader to enjoy. There may be exceptions, but I can't recall any.
Histor
Nice through review! While I did not agree with your opinion of the book, I believe this was well written because it was backed up with a lot of facts. You just didn't say it was awful, you throughly explained why you did not like it! I really respect those who are able to truthfully write their opinions of something and back up with facts as to why they formed this opinion.
I appreciate your high standards of writing. I think I fall into agreement with Becky and Wayne on this one though. You were perhaps a bit too harsh.
Not that you shouldn't have pointed out the problems with the book as they are several. I too saw the deus ex machina overused, had difficulty with the femininity of the main character, and if my wife is any indication, what we males call whining is actually out-loud introspection and commiseration.
I don't think this book will appeal to men, or those who read some of the more philosophical wsci-fi/fantasy works. It's more of a good natured romp, with a hero who learns a little, grows a little, but ultimately isn't successful on her own merits.
Sounds a lot lime my own life. Anyway, you had good points couched in rough language, and I think your good points will be missed by fans of Sharon.
Still a very through review, and I think it might become an archetype of some of my own as I improve in my own critical analysis.
DG,
I understand that you value the Bible and women. Take a look again at what I said: Thing is, you obviously come at it from a worldview that doesn't value women or the Bible in the same way Hinck does. Operative words: in the same way.
Your opening, with the bubble bath joke and the line about "a serious case of homemaker ennui" makes it pretty clear that you are not on the same page as Hinck is.
Even saying her character whines about the perfect life shows a lack of awareness as to what a homemaker's life is all about.
I wonder if you would think it so perfect if all you did day in and day out for about 15 years was changing diapers, cleaning up spills, making lunches, etc. Would you NEVER wonder if there was more to life? If somehow you missed your purpose?
It seems some of the male readers "get" that. Maybe it takes having experienced something of equitable value (or non-value). I don't know.
Becky
You're right, Becky. I misinterpreted your comments. As for the bubblebath joke, that was really meant to be a joke, but let me add, I really did read this novel in the bath.
My phrase "a serious case of homemaker ennui was meant to capture exactly what you describe: the feeling after spending years in aforementioned tasks that something is missing.
I called her life "perfect" because she's a middle class wife with a good husband who loves power tools and good children who aren't on drugs or pregnant, not because I thought she ought to find this life exciting. As I said, I found her home life pretty boring, too. Just to add something I should have said from the start, I like the book's basic premise. It's an old premise, but Hinck is approaching it from a unique angle and if it were better handled, it should work.
I said that Susan was whining not because she's upset about her transport to a sudden universe, but because she's upset for 300 pages. I understand that transfer to an alternate world is a rough experience, but the reaction to it can't go on forever. I know of strong female characters who balk at the "call to adventure," but they don't balk for that long.
DGD,
Just so you know, I really like this discussion. It's pushing me to think, especially about writing and portraying characters.
First, I don't equate boredom with questioning purpose in life. You're right, though, that people who are eking out a living or who are enslaved, don't have the luxury to question their purpose for being.
Or do they? Maybe they wonder more than anyone what it's all about, why they exist. I don't know. Be that as it may, I don't see that as the same as boredom at all.
Boredom you solve by going to Magic Mountain or by taking up skydiving. There was a real problem at the core of Susan Mitchell, one that I think guys relate to just as much as women do: what am I doing that Matters?
As to the whining, I've seen whiny characters in lots of Christian fiction. What's more, I wrote a book with a whiny character--until my crit group convinced me they couldn't stand him.
I've been working and working to get him not to whine. It's hard to show internal conflict, though and not have the character come across as if he's grousing.
And if you don't want the internal conflict to magically be solved by page 25, there has to be some extension of his problem.
Anyway, I understood what Hinck was doing and quite honestly it didn't bother me.
Still, I'd be interested in your thoughts about creating internal conflict (without whining).
Becky
"I've been working and working to get him not to whine. It's hard to show internal conflict, though and not have the character come across as if he's grousing."
First off - I'm not a writer. I'm still in high school, for that matter. But I think having a character vacillate in his spoken opinions, act indecisive, and suchlike may portray indecision.
I think having a character vacillate in his spoken opinions, act indecisive, and suchlike may portray indecision.
I think those are the things that make a character come across as whiny, Histor. (Thanks for weighing in on the discussion). But when experiencing internal conflict, the very nature of it means he doesn't know which way to go. I suspect the "act indecisive" is the key, though. If he debates, then acts, it might not come across as whiny.
I'm still learning.
Becky
You know who was a big whiner?
Hamlet.
Man, that guy could whine. I'm surprised we haven't just thrown that one out of the Shakespearean canon.
My biggest problem with Susan was not her reaction to showing up in an alternate universe. My biggest problem was her almost complete failure to moderate her views until the book's very end. Even then, she was rushing home to check on the kids as soon as the adventure was over. I know that's an understandable thing to do, but let's look at it from the angle of the monomyth: if you have a big "refusal of the call to adventure," you should balance it with a big "refusal to return" at the end--and then force the character to return anyway. Susan ran off as soon as she could, suggesting her time in Lyric didn't change her much. Then came the setup for the sequel, which made it worse.
Part of the problem too was that she reiterated her wish to go home on almost every page and often twice a page (I know because I kept track). That's too much; I get it already.
Vacilating characters who aren't utterly dislikable to the reader are tough. My first recommendation is to watch Spirited Away fifty times and see how Miyazaki handles it. One of the ways he handled it was by seamlessly and, more importantly, quickly maturing his whiny protagonist and ending the whining. My biggest beef with Susan Mitchell isn't that she whined, but that she was still whining when the novel was nearly over. By that time, she should have been tougher, more adapted to the alternate world. Maybe she should have even had frightening lapses where she forgot her past life on Earth or something.
Commenting by HaloScan
