"The Shack" (plot spoiling)

A friend handed me this book by William Paul Young with the caution that a few things are "out there," but on the whole it's a very good book that will help me understand the Trinity. I read it on the plane trip home from Montana.

From the back of the book: " Mackenzie Allen Philips's youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandonded shack deep in the Oregon wilderness. Four years later, in the midst of his Great Sadness, Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend. Against his better judgement he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world forever."

***Plot Spoiling Ahead!***

At the shack, Mack finds God in three physical persons. The Holy Ghost is a floaty shimmering lady, Jesus is a non-handsome man, and the Father is a big black lady. I don't question that the Father could reveal himself to someone like that if he chose to, but I found that this was really just the first step of the book's journey to watering God down and making him chummy.

I liked that part of the book's focus was to show the need for an intimate personal relationship with God. I liked that the other part of it's focus was on forgiveness. But my hackles raised over the portrayal of God as being perfectly harmless. A buddy-buddy who wouldn't hurt a fly. Take this phrase used by him in one of Mack's first interviews with "Papa," (that's what Mack is asked to call God), when Mack unleashed some anger about why Missy got murdered. "Mack, I'm so sorry. I know what a great gulf this has put between us..." "Honey, there's no easy answer that will take your pain away. Believe me, if I had one, I'd use it now. I have no magic wand to wave over you and make it all better. Life takes time and a lot of relationships." That was sympathetic and affectionate, but where's GOD? All-powerful, righteous and sovereign? Imagine God going to Job and saying, "I'm sorry about all your problems, but life takes time and a lot of relationships." ?!?!?! It don't work! Another place, Papa states that he doesn't punish sin. Sin is a punishment of itself. Ahem, excuse me?! What exactly happened to Sodom then? There are more theological errors in the book, and another blatant one that made me gasp was that in the book, Jesus wasn't alone on the cross. The Father and the Holy Ghost were there with him, helping him. He cried, "Why have you forsaken me?" but he wasn't really forsaken. He just felt forsaken. What? So now we are taking scripture and saying, it wasn't like that, he just felt that way? No, that's what made the cross so agonizing, and the cost so high; Christ became sin for us, and on the cross HE BORE THE FATHER'S WRATH!! Not the Father's comfort. There is also a very low view of the church in this book. The church is represented as man's institution, and a rote practice in which God takes little pleasure. This directly contrasts with the scriptural image of the church as His bride. The final thing I'll bring up is that throughout, God is such a servant. Yes, Jesus was a servant, he washed the diciples feet, but to show us how we should then live. In the book, The Father takes constant delight in doing everything for Mack, treating Mack like royalty. It rubbed me backwards. It smelled like a ploy to make people feel good. The whole view of God in "The Shack" is shrunken, dragging him down to a mold that tickles peoples fancies (I see God's depiction as a lady a strongly feminist gesture, despite differing excuses in the book), and can fit into our understanding. Well, Elizabeth Elliot once said that if God were small enough to understand, he wouldn't be big enough to worship, and that's exactly what happens in "The Shack." "Papa" is small enough to understand, but not big enough to worship.

Jane Austen

I read Pride and Prejudice first at age 12. That was just the kind of thing I did. I am a homeschooler, and my mom began teaching me to read when I was five. She always bragged about my reading skills, and I took pride in reading books that were supposed to be over my head. I usually didn’t understand them on the level they were meant to be understood, but I could grasp the story. Since Pride and Prejudice was a rather long and boring story in my 12-year-old opinion, I didn’t bother reading anything else by Jane Austen. Most people were awed enough by my having read Pride and Prejudice, anyway. However, when I was 13, I watched the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (and that was before the Keira Knightley version was filmed) and decided to read the book again.

By age 14 I had begun to understand the nuances of human interaction enough to be enthralled by Austen’s amazing descriptions and understanding of her characters. They didn’t just come to life, they leapt off the page and turned my world into theirs. I didn’t stop with Pride and Prejudice, I read all her works, and I finished them all too soon. I watched the movies, but couldn’t enjoy them unless every detail was as she’d described it.

I went with trepidation to see the “new” Pride and Prejudice movie starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen. I was certain they couldn’t possibly have done Austen’s work justice, but I was wondering how horribly it had been butchered. At the conclusion, I determined that it completely destroyed Jane Austen's story; it had been turned into just another sappy romantic movie that wasn’t for intellectuals, but for females who needed something to watch while they sipped sodas, munched popcorn and devoured chocolate.

But then, on April 1st, 2009, the worst disgrace of all was released. “Pride and Prejudice and ZOMBIES?!?!?!” I screamed, “ZOMBIES?! Really?!?!?” How could anyone so maliciously disgrace Jane Austen’s most popular novel by mixing ZOMBIES in with her classic, genteel story? Some of my friends read it, and tried to tell me about it, but I couldn’t listen.

That’s when I declared myself what I have been, and always will be: A loyal Jane Austen devotee.

Austen’s stories are not romantic stories; they are studies of human character. She understood people, and she describes the reasons behind her characters’ behaviors clearly. So clearly that you realize you’ve seen the same behavior in people that you are around, and your vague feeling about their motivations is exactly explained by Austen’s gently mocking narration.

The very first sentence of Pride and Prejudice is the well-known line “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man of good fortune must be in want of a wife.” Out of context, that first sentence appears to be Austen’s own view of single men of good fortune. But the very next sentence reads, “However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering the neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.” If you do not instantly comprehend the sarcasm overflowing from Jane’s pen, then you don’t deserve to read another word of her book.

Jane Austen did not write flat, surface stories, like many novels are today. There’s the story, and then there’s the development of her characters, the intricacies of the plot, and her own sardonic explanations of the way life was “supposed to be.” And yes, they all contain romances, because romance is a big part of living. And the hero and heroine get a happy ending because it’s supposed to be entertainment… and what good is entertainment if you end up sad? But the point of the story is not the romance; the point is seeing Lizzy overcome her prejudice and Darcy overcome his pride. Or watching Emma learn the problems with matchmaking, Catherine growing up and Elinor trying to take care of her family after her father's death. And that is what makes every Jane Austen worth reading at least 3 times.

~Lizzie

"Fairest," by Gail Carson Levine

I was so excited when I found this book at our county library, since I really liked the author’s “Ella Enchanted” and her collection of “Princess Tales.” In most, if not all of her books, Gail Carson Levine’s style is to take a well known fairy tale and build a slightly twisted but still recognizable story around it. I know, that’s nothing new! But I think she does it well. Pretty obviously, “Fairest” is her take on Snow White.

But it wasn’t anything like it! Okay, there’s a magic mirror. And the bad Queen Ivi is obsessed with being fairest. Maid Aza, our heroine, is considered by others and even more so by herself, ugly. Her dream is to be beautiful. She’s nuts about it. In the end of the book, she realizes that outward beauty is not what’s important, and that’s the moral of the story. The plot had great potential! But I don’t think the author spent quite enough time on the work. The character development of everyone except Aza was rushed, as was the romance part. I didn’t feel like I knew the prince at all! What’s more, Aza herself was so petty about her personal appearance, (until the end), that I didn’t get to like as well as I was probably intended to.

But despite those short comings, I did enjoy the book! I was disappointed by said short comings, and the lack of Snow-White-ness, but it held my attention. I would recommend it as a fun read, nothing deep but something to devour on a rainy day, or on a trip as long as reading in the car doesn’t bother you. One really cool thing about the book is that it invents a little society with neat ways and customs, which adds a lot to the book. I don’t think you’ll be sorry you read it, as long as you don’t make my mistake and expect it to be like its mother fairy tale. THERE ISN’T A SINGLE DWARF! So tragic. :P

Marley and Me

I watched this a couple of weeks ago, on DVD.  My guess is that most everyone has already seen it, but I am going to write a review anyways, whether you like it or not.  It just took a while to get the time to do it, and then figure out exactly what I am going to say.  Actually, I'm still not sure exactly.  Oh, well.  Here goes nothing!

WARNING: MANY, MANY SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!

The Plot:

Owen Wilson plays John Grogan, a married man who was not prepared for his new wife's ticking biological clock.  To hold off Jennifer Grogan's (Jennifer Aniston) longing for a child, John takes her to go pick out a new puppy at a local farm, as suggested by John's bachelor, womanizing friend Sebastian (Eric Dane).  The puppy they end up taking home was the "clearance puppy", the one who was significantly cheaper than all the rest.  They soon learn why.  The dog, Marley, has behavior problems from the start, and grows into a very large, completely untrained Labrador Retriever.  Meanwhile, John, a reporter, gets a job offer at his local Florida paper - his boss offers him a column, believing his writing style to better fit that of a columnist.  John slightly reluctantly accepts, but soon learns to love his new position and uses Marley as the inspiration for many of his pieces.  After a while, the Grogans resolve that they are ready to have children.  Unfortunately, their first success ends in a devastating miscarriage, but soon Jennifer becomes pregnant again, and gives birth to a baby boy named Patrick.  They go on to have two more children, Conor and Colleen.  There are many difficulties at first, a lot which Marley seems to be at the bottom of, and throughout the beginning there are fights and avoidances and everything you could expect to find any couple going through.  One day, John gets a job offer at a paper in Pennsylvania, and after discussing it with his wife, they uproot and make the move to a big, old house on a beautiful piece of land right outside of the city.  There John truly grows into a family man, even when he is put down by his old friend Sebastian when he runs into him one day on the way back from work.  But, as all dogs do, Marley is getting old.  After years of destroying everything in sight, making as much noise as possible, romping around uncontrollably, and all around being the "world's worst dog", Marley is slowing down significantly.  After a repeated case of Marley needing surgery, John finally makes the decision that his beloved family dog must be put down.  Marley is, and the family mourns, knowing that Marley has a special place in their hearts and has made a big impact on their family, for the better, even if he was, as John called him, "the world's worst dog."  

What I liked:

It was realisticly written.  I found out just now, doing a little research to remember the people's names, that the movie is actually based off of an autobiography of the same title, by the same John Grogan.  Jennifer Aniston actually did not annoy me too much with her acting.  I liked how it pushed the idea of family and purposefully made John's friend Sebastian's way of life look unfulfilling and purposeless, unlike most Hollywood films, which do just the opposite.  

What I didn't like:

I did not really like, in the beginning, how John Grogan had just gotten married, and here he was trying to manipulate his wife into waiting a year or two to have kids!  And it worked!  And everyone was fine!  I really, really detest that Sebastian guy...what a loser.  First of all I am quite adament about couples talking about "when to have children" before getting married so that there is no misunderstanding, and secondly, I really hate it when guys are portrayed like that.  It is the norm, possibly, but that kind of gives the impression that it is manly to want to still be independant and not tied down after marriage, and that is not the case.  There are guys who agree with me....right?  

And another thing.  This movie, though PG-rated, contained way more sexual implications than it should have, dialogue and otherwise.  Sure, it was all between a husband and wife, but that stuff should still be kept between married people and not broadcast for the entire non-married population to see, especially kids that parents thought they were bringing to a family movie.  Fortunately, I watched this with my grandma, screening it before everyone else in my family, who, from my oral reviews, have decided not to watch it.  Still, it was too much than even a simple scene or two that could be fast-forwarded; it was prominent in the plot and kept coming back.  

The last thing I did not like about it was that it contained a bit of crude humor here and there, some not appropriate for anyone under the age of 15 or so.  I know the screenwriters just threw it in there for a few easy laughs, so it bugged me.  

My Overall Impression:

It made me laugh at most of the "right" parts and definitely did a good job a drawing tears. Altoghether a very well done film, really.  I just did not find it as appropriate for a family audience as I had hoped, as I had gone into Blockbuster that afternoon looking for something that would specifically allow me to watch it through without having to keep my hand on the remote the entire time and fastforward half of it, and I thought that "Marley and Me" was the ticket.  It would have been fine, I think, had it not been so littered with sexual innuendos and whatnot.  A real tear-jerker, though.  If you don't want to be sad and/or cry uncontrolably, don't watch it.  :)

  

“Death From the Skies! These Are the Ways the World Will End”, Philip Plait, Ph.D.

Yes, this is still Jos– I have just lost the last two letters of my online name. Please call me if you find them. The explanation for the change is on my profile.

I discovered this book while reading the author's blog, and promptly borrowed a copy from the library. I have now finally gotten around to writing about it. Without further ado, I present the first review of a nonfiction book on the Homeschool Review… [according to my spellchecker, ‘homeschool’ is not a word, but ‘homeschooler’ and ‘homeschooled’ are. What gives? (More spellchecker gripes below.)]

Background Info:

Death From the Skies! was written by Dr. Philip Plait, aka the Bad Astronomer, and published in fall of 2008.

Subject Matter:

The book deals with the ever-cheery subject of the destruction of the world due to cosmic events. Asteroids, Gamma-Ray Bursts, Supernovae, and other such fun items. All presented with a somewhat jovial air, in an easily accessible style. (Jovial might not be the right word, as Jupiter doesn’t figure much. :) Each chapter begins with a little fictional piece that shows what happens in the event that is being dealt with.

My Notes:

I just love end-of-the-world scenarios. They’re very interesting to contemplate, and make for some interesting novels. (I like me my post-apocalyptic science fiction — there isn’t much in the way of post-apocalyptic nonfiction stories to be had, thankfully.) I enjoyed this book immensely. I will probably get it out of the library again some time soon, assuming you lot don’t beat me to it.

Some of you are thinking, “That is a science book! It will be full of sciencey [sp? my spellchecker doesn’t like it and doesn’t have any helpful suggestions] stuff which I don’t understand! I’m not reading it.” Fear not! For Dr. Plait is not just good at science — he is also good at writing. Unless you make a conscious effort to not understand, any homeschool student of the age most of my readers are should be able to understand quite well. And you can always use a good reliable encyclopedia to fill in any gaps. ;)

I Didn’t Like: (This goes for Dr. Plait’s excellent blog also)

Dr. Plait is an evolutionist. I am fine with the evolutionist part – I just take everything with a pinch of salt. Certain people may have a few issues with the science in here, because he uses Hubble time as the age of the universe, like the majority of astrophysics. I agree with that, and I am not going to discuss it here. This is a review. I just want you to know that what I am fine with science-wise may not sit well with you and this should be taken into account. This goes double for his blog, which I read and enjoy. (And often disagree with.)

Conclusion:

It’s a good book, I enjoyed it immensely. Some people may take issue with some of the science; the majority I found to be sound. Enjoy.

If you have already read this book, make sure to say what you thought of it in the comments below. If you read the book, feel free to come back and add your tuppence worth. [There we go again! That spellchecker doesn’t think ‘tuppence’ is a word.]

PS- I have tagged this as "Death From the Skies", without a '!'. This is because this particular piece of punctuation is forbidden in tags, which I discovered after 5 minutes of wondering why Windows Live Writer refused to upload this post. I hope this piece of useful information saves someone 5 minutes in some way or another.

“The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare”, G. K. Chesterton

For those of you who don’t know, I like old books… this is less of a review and more of a go-read-this-book-now-or-else directive. Actually critiquing the work of such masters is beyond my ken. :-) Since this book is out of copyright, you can get it as a free eBook here, or if you prefer, a free audiobook here. If you don’t like eBooks (like me), you can print it off, get it from the library, or even actually buy a copy.

Background Info:

The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare was written by G. K. Chesterton and first published in 1908.

Plot Intro:

Gabriel Syme, a poet, arrives in Saffron Park (a town, not a park), and gets into an argument with the resident poet, Lucian Gregory, about the meaning of poetry. Gregory becomes irritated with Syme after Syme says that Gregory is not a serious anarchist. Gregory then takes Syme to the secret headquarters of the “serious anarchists” to prove him wrong.

My Notes:

Unfortunately, my little intro gives you no idea of the premise of the story; but to give you an idea of the premise of the story, I would have to ruin the first three chapters of the book, and that wouldn’t be fun for anyone, least of all me. Just go read the book. There’s mystery, some very funny moments (despite the title), and allegory to spare.

I Didn’t Like:

Well, this is one of my favorite books, but there are a few little gotchas. The main one is that there is some language (the usual; “bloody”, “damn”, “hell”, and a few variants; nothing worse than that) [was I supposed to put stars in those? It’s not like I’m using them, but I’m not sure what the convention is.]

Unless you are not allowed to read books with swear words in them, go and read this book now. If you’ve already read it, you are of course encouraged to post your take on it in the comments.

Inkheart by Cornelia Funke

Inkheart has recently been made into a movie, and it sounds like an interesting plot: a man who can read characters out of books and into our world discovers his talent when he accidentally reads two bad men and one "good" man into our world. And thus the battle between good and evil begins.

I didn't like it.

The plot idea is good, but I don't like the author's style that much. Her simile's don't make sense, and all of her characters are annoying. Including the hero, his daughter and other "good guys." The story is WAY too long, by the middle of the book I was ready for the good characters to die, ANYTHING to end the endless story! And when it finally did end, it was a sudden, unsatisfactory ending, which obviously is supposed to have the sequels the author has written. I don't know if I'm going to bother with the next two books. The good news is that the movie has a chance of being better than the book it's based on (which hardly ever happens with GOOD books).

Also, the book is written in a style that seems to be for children (8-12 in my opinion) but at the same time is way over their heads (and also kind of scary in places). I don't recommend it for anyone.

However, just in case you want to read it and form your own opinion:
There are a few cuss words but otherwise it's clean.
There is no mention of God, but the "bad guys" spread stories about the devil to help with their cover.
There is a abandoned church used by the bad guys as a meeting place. They painted the walls blood-red and put a throne (of sorts) for the main villain in place of the altar.
There is a mention of witchcraft, although no signs that there are any real witches or magic (other than the magic of reading characters out of books, anyway).

But in spite of all that, I plan to see the movie if I ever get a nice, inexpensive opportunity. The movie will likely be shorter, and since I expect it to be something as cheesy as Eragon or the Spiderwick Chronicles, I probably won't be disappointed.

~Lizzie

"The Legend of the Seeker"

Note:  There have been seventeen episodes released.  I, however, have only seen the first ten and this review is based on them.

This is a new TV series, (premiered last November), that is a bit like a “Princess Bride meet Lord of the Rings.”  Magic plays a significant role in it, so stay away if you can’t stand the unrealistic!

My impression:   It is very well acted, and the plot is appealing.  Richard Cypher is a young, (very handsome of course!), farmer boy who’s happy world gets shattered when he simultaneously learns that he is the one spoken of in an ancient prophecy, (to be the wielder of the Sword of Truth, to seek out and fight evil wherever it is found, and to ultimately kill the tyrant of the Midlands, Darken Rahl); and that Darken Rahl is sending an army to kill him.  Richard is joined by an old wizard named Zeddicus and a lovely young Confessor named Kahlan, (kay-lin), who are to aide him in his quest against all forces of evil.  As a Confessor, Kahlan’s touch can make anyone confess the truth and do whatever she bids. 

Richard and Kahlan are thoroughly likable and their characters are very well developed!  You feel like you really know them.  Zedd is generally very amusing, but some of his doings are going to show up in my “don’t like” list below.  Warning:  THIS THING IS ADDICTING!!  You get so attached to the people, and each episode is so exciting, that you get… quite frankly… addicted.  There is also humor sprinkled throughout, along with touches of romance.  I assume it’s a PG rating; there is blood but not in excessiveness.  I don’t recall any foul language.  It was filmed in New Zealand, so the scenery is awesome!

What I don’t like:  First, the morality in the fantasy world portrayed is rather loose.  Your nose isn’t rubbed in it, but there are occasional references to “so-and-so’s lover.”  Also, Zedd was apparently quite a ladies’ man in his younger days and in one of the episodes, a woman shows up claiming that he has a son which leads to some awkward conversations.  Secondly, in the first scene in which Zedd appears, (poor Zedd, sorry to pick on you buddy but it can’t be helped), he lacks clothing.  It’s dark, and at first all you see is a silhouette and you can’t really tell, and when he turns around he’s shielded with a, umm, chicken, but it’s still rather shocking if you aren’t expecting it!  At least that scene is very brief.

Overall:  The good outweighs the bad!!  All the episodes made so far are available for free watching at legendoftheseeker.com.  They do have commercials, but only like 30 seconds worth every now and then.  That is where my siblings and I watch them.  There aren’t grand earth shattering lessons to be learned from “The Legend of the Seeker,” but its theme is good against evil and good always wins! 

"Day of the Triffids", John Wyndham

Background info:

Day of the Triffids was written in 1951 by John Wyndham Parkes Lucas Beynon Harris, under the pseudonym John Wyndham (taken from his ample supply of middle names). This was the first book that he wrote under this pen name. Just so everyone knows, John Wyndham is my absolute favorite science fiction (SF) author, and I have enjoyed all of his books (and short stories) that I have read so far.

Plot Intro:

The book is set in England, at an unknown date (probably in the future). It begins in London, where the main character William Masen is hospitalized, with his eyes bandaged over. During this time, a strange green meteor shower occurs, which leaves everyone who saw it blind. This causes a mass panic and disorder.

Masen soon meets up with another sighted person, named Josella Playton. The two decide that they have a better chance of surviving if they stick together.

They soon join up with a larger group of sighted people who plan on re-building society.

At the beginning of the story, a species of plant called the Triffid is introduced. Due to its usefulness, it is planted and farmed all around the world. Triffids are carnivorous, mobile plants with whiplash poison tongues. When the populace in general is struck blind, the triffids escape and begin to feed off the blind people.

My Notes:

I love Wyndham's books. Of course, one has to bear in mind that he has a naturalistic point of view, so I would take any ideas with an extra pinch of salt. (Yes, of course you can get ideas from SF...) He writes well, the story has a plot, the characters have character, and so on. The plot is developed well, and you are always wondering if the main characters will actually survive (because, while in a series we can say "Dr. Jackson is mentioned in the blurb for the next episode, he's still going to be around at the end of this one", this is not so with a book. While many authors prefer not to kill their main characters, some don't mind killing them off), creating suspense... which we all love.

Of course, I could do an actual literary analysis, but that would be spoiler city, and it would be an essay. So I shall say this: the book is awesome, well worth the read, assuming that you don't hate post-apocalyptic SF and light romance.

I Didn't Like:

• Wyndham's books are restricted in my household (i.e., you need to be at a certain level of maturity before you're allowed to read them.). These books are written for adults, but are probably milder than some of the things you'll find in the YA section in your library. If you are eight, don't go read this book, and if you do, don't mention me to your parents... please?

• The word 'hell' is used several times (as a swear word).

• Yes, there is some romance in the book, but not a great deal, for those of you who avoid such things.

• Christianity is represented as old-fashioned, inapplicable, and a unreasonable in the circumstances.

• Several minor characters commit suicide.

• The portrayal of the triffids is somewhat disturbing. This is mainly in hindsight, since I read this right after The Lord of the Flies, which is very disturbing to say the least... but that's another review, of course.

All these warnings aside, an excellent book. Just keep it away from your 13-year-old little brother.

"Kiss" by Ted Dekker

I admit, the title made me arch my eyebrows and give it a questioning look. "'Kiss'?? Really, Dekker? This better not be a sappy romance." It isn't. Although there is a bit of mild kissing (but nothing more).

I read this book, in spite of the title, because I've read some of Ted Dekker's books before, and I really like his style. This book was no exception, and possibly my favorite of his so far. The plot was fantastic, the mystery quite mysterious and the characters engaging and real. His writing style makes the story come alive for me, more than any other author I've ever read. I can SEE the places, his characters; everything is so real, it could have been a movie.

I can't say more, because any information would spoil the story. All I can say is, don't let the title fool you, this is an amazing book. Do yourself a favor and read it!

~Lizzie

The Introductory Post

I decided to start this blog because I did so many reviews on my personal blog that I figured they merited their own blog. And I also thought that some of my friends (or even people that I may not know!) would like to contribute as well. Since this is The Homeschooled Review (title subject to random and witty changes), to be an author you must be currently homeschooled, a homeschool graduate, or homeschooled at some point in your life. Please send me (or post in the comments) an example of your writing. Please use correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. no txt tlk plz!!

Welcome to The Homeschooled Review!

~Lizzie