Deathly Hallows Trailer

Dh Preview One - The most popular videos are a click away

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: A Harry Potter Knock-Off Worth a Second Glance

Let me start by stating the obvious: on the surface, the Percy Jackson series appears to be just another pathetic Harry Potter knock-off. The characters and settings are similar in several instances throughout the series, and perhaps most evident in the first book, The Lightning Thief. The writing is definitely juvenile, which I suppose is to be expected with a series written for the late elementary, early middle school crowd; however, I really anticipated a growth and maturity of the writing style as the series went on. Riordan has nothing on Rowling here. The series is also rife with references to current culture, dating it in a way the almost assures the series will have a hard time lasting through the ages or becoming any sort of classic. Each book assumes a bit that you may or may not have read its predecessor and repeats plot elements from previous books. I could really spit at the number of times I had to read that Percy, “like most heroes [demi-gods],” was ADD and dyslexic. Ok, you’ve said this in book one, and explained (falsely) how dyslexia works, I don’t need to hear the same explanation EVERY time Percy has to read a sign. Back to the comparison with Rowling, the reader may hear Harry’s destiny repeated from time to time, but not verbatim, and usually with new information, or a different twist. As for character development, Percy and his cohorts age chronologically about four years over the course of the five book series, but their maturity levels stay about the same. Even though their lives are in danger from challenge to challenge, book to book, the self-evaluation and personal growth is limited. A 16 year old Percy has almost nothing in common internally with a 16 year old Harry. If the characters could address each other, Harry would probably tell Percy to “Grow up.” Perhaps we’d do better to compare Percy Jackson with Percy Weasley at the same book numbers. There just doesn’t seem to be as much at stake for the demi-gods and I don’t have nearly the same pathos for them as I did for Harry and his pals. A good writer would make me feel and sympathize with his or her character’s stuggles on a much deeper level than Riordan does.

So what about the second glance I mentioned in my title? As a literature teacher who appreciates the period of antiquity and the early Greek and Roman mythology, I see value in a series that introduces young readers to these myths. I teach Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid in tenth grade, and I would love for my students to come in with prior knowledge that goes beyond The Children’s Homer. Riordan refreshed my own memory about some of the stories I allude to in my classes. While as a huge fan of Harry Potter, I think my son may have some issues with Percy Jackson, I will encourage him to read the series just to get a handle on the mythology. I’m not suggesting we adopt polytheism here, but these myths permeate much of literature throughout the ages and they are important to out understanding of some of the greatest novels and epics of our time. For this reason I say read Percy and enjoy a little “mind candy.” Don’t expect it to be more than it is, but take the good and let your children (or yourself) run with it.

Dracula:The Un-dead…a sequel better left in the grave

As a devoted fan of the original Bram Stoker novel, I was hopeful that a descendent of the author would have finally produced the perfect sequel to Dracula. What I found instead is a horrifying travesty that surely has Bram rolling over in his own grave. Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt profess to having the ambition of finally writing the novel Bram himself would have penned. Dacre claims to be salvaging the family name and the original creation, which lost its copyright protection in the United States almost from its inception. I believe he was taken for a ride by his co-author, a screenwriter named Ian Holt, who thinks of himself as a huge Dracula fan. Truly, Mr. Holt simply saw an incredible opportunity to give a “new” twist to all the vampire drivel on today’s bookshelves by using the Stoker name. Devotees like myself would surely scoop it up, but why not also throw in some story elements that would appeal to fans of Twilight and the Anne Rice novels as well?

What are my specific complaints with the novel? Just about everything between the front and back cover. WARNING: There will be plenty of plot spoilers coming up shortly. First, let me say that I did take the time to read Stoker and Holt’s perspectives on why they made some of the changes they did. I read these essays before diving into the story so I shouldn’t have been so appalled. Didn’t help. Our faithful band of heroes, minus Quincy P. Morris, is turned into the most heinous of misfits. Jack Seward is a morphine addict who has lost the respect and trust of his former associates and is considered a raving lunatic. He turns out to be quite sane, but bites it in the first couple of chapters with only a posthumous chance of redemption. Jonathan Harker is a drunk who has become estranged from both Mina and their son because he cannot get past Mina’s eternal youth and the romantic liaison she shared with the Count. Arthur Holmwood is still in love with Lucy, but married to a woman he rescues from poverty, and has traveled the globe seeking out dangerous task after dangerous task hoping to join Lucy in death. He has completely disavowed any ties with his friends and goes by Lord Godalming exclusively. Van Helsing? Old, crazy, and being followed as a suspect in the Jack the Ripper crimes. Really??

Readers are introduced to a new character in the vampiress Countess Elizabeth Bathory. I suppose we should sympathize with the history she tells of her loveless marriage and perhaps we are supposed to understand how it leads her into a life of homosexuality and brutality. Still, most readers I hope will be horrified by the way she ravages young woman after young woman (turns out she is truly Jack the Ripper). Now, I know you’re wondering, if Bathory is the obvious new villain, and the original band of heroes are, well, less than heroic, who is going to save the day? Maybe Quincy Harker, Jonathan and Mina’s only offspring? He spends the majority of the novel whining about his parents and trying to enlist the help of their original cohorts. Mina? She’s certainly a contender with her superhuman strength given to her by her bloodswap with the Count and the mind link she shares with Bathory from another bloodswap with the Countess. But no, Mina is too torn between her motherly love for Quincy, her dutiful love for Jonathan (or at this point, his memory), and her undying passion for Dracula (yes, you read that correctly). So by now you’ve undoubtedly guessed who the true hero is…yes, it’s Count Dracula himself! Of course, he was never truly the villain; he was only trying to track the true demon, Bathory. He’s a good vampire, after all, and only bit Lucy out of famished desperation, Mina out of love and devotion. Sounding a little Edward Clullenish yet?

As I’ve written here before, the vampire is supposed to be evil to the core. The original vampire tales were about evil versus purity and the ensuing fight to protect the purity at all costs. Dracula: The Un-dead strays from the original in more ways than I can count and becomes just another sell-out. The good news? There’s a new vampire gateway drug that may take some of today’s focus off Twilight.

Cool as...Stupid?

I’ve been pondering the question of “When did stupid become cool?” and I realize that it’s not a new phenomena, but really, I continue to be surprised as watch bright students become complete idiots all in an effort to fit in. I’m not recommending that we all become pocket protector toting nerds, but I do think that if God’s blessed you with a brain you should use it to the utmost of it’s ability. Maybe it’s because stupid gets so many laughs in our entertainment world. I’ll admit, I laughed out loud (not lol-ed) at the movie The House Bunny, but it was more at the absurdity of how one person could be so “vapid.” Still, what are we teaching our children today when so many T.V. shows and movies celebrate the airhead, or mentally challenged jock? What would the world be like if stupid truly ruled?

We’d still be listening to vinyl, and would never have heard a CD, let alone an MP3 file played on the latest iPod Touch. We wouldn’t be watching our favorite sports teams complete in the vivid clarity of high definition television, not to mention our favorite movies in insane detail on our Blu-ray players. I wouldn’t be sitting here typing this missive on my conveniently portable Macbook connected wirelessly to the internet at the same time my husband surfs the web on his laptop across the room. We would still be stuck conversing over land line telephones, or heaven forbid, using snail mail instead of IMing to our hearts content and clogging up every cell tower around. Facebook, myspace? Sure it’s where all the coolest members of society can post embarrassing pictures of themselves and risk unemployment, but it took a geek to program it all in the first place. We have plenty of geeks to thank for the fact that our smartphones allow us to be completely accessible 24/7…I can text, email, IM and, gasp, audibly talk to anyone anywhere anytime thanks to that wonder of technology.

And that’s just the “fun” stuff. I also have to give props the intelligencia for the fact that my son’s seizures are reasonably controlled through medication. Many of us have loved ones who have been cured from cancer and are really thankful that some men and women decided to put their brains to good use in medical or pharmaceutical schools. What about the protection we take for granted every day? Leaving our personal feelings about war aside, I’m pretty sure most of us would admit we sleep better at night knowing someone is watching over us using the latest military intelligence.

So next time someone you know is tempted to become stupid just because it’s cool, remind them that McDonald’s can always use another fry cook.

Vampires as Bedfellows

Asked to think of Dracula, what image comes to mind? Is it a tall, pale man with dark hair, a cape, and extra large incisors? Is it sparkly seventeen year old? Is it an effeminate Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt? Go back a little further and maybe you think of a clan of teenagers jumping off the Santa Cruz train trestle. I have a feeling both Bram Stoker, author of the original Dracula, and John Polidori, friend of Mary Shelley and author of The Vampyre, the original vampire story, are both rolling over in their graves over the modern vampire.

What began as an entity to be feared, an entity completely evil with no redeeming qualities, has become overly romanticized by today’s culture. Arguably the most famous “count” in history, Dracula is ruthless in his pursuit of fresh, human, most often female, blood. In Stoker’s novel it takes the unifying of five gentlemen to redeem the accursed wife of one. Mina represents all that is pure and holy until she falls victim to Dracula, and along with these five heroes, she studies, strives, and seeks for a way out of her predicament.

Fast forward 100 years or so and the vampire has become a seducer in a whole new way, one that is not always rejected by those he wishes to conquer. Anne Rice gives us Lestat, a sympathetic character whose bloodlust is woven together with a romantic intensity into story after story. Stephanie Meyer gives us the Cullen clan, an altruistic, “vegetarian” group of young vampires who only bite humans as a last resort to save their lives. Walk into any bookstore today and it would seem that vampire novels have become the new Sweet Valley High.

What’s the big deal, you say? It’s just good, fun, entertainment, right? My worry is that it’s just one more indicator of a society gone amuck. What was supposed to be inherently evil and despised and fought against with every fiber of our beings has been romanticized and accepted and taken to bed. I’m not just talking about the vampire here. Our culture has become desensitized on multiple levels as is evidenced every time we turn on the TV.

So if you truly want to call yourself a fan of the vampire novel, try honestly picking up one of the originals. Let yourself be freaked out by the undead like we really should be. Enjoy the banding together of communities against what threatens purity. Appreciate the mystery and challenge of hunting down the offense and destroying it. If Bram Stoker’s a little dated for you (and no, I don’t mean the movie), try out a modern read that actually adheres to the spirit of the original: The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova. Finally, someone who gets the point.

The Language of Love

So it’s been trendy in Christian circles for the last decade or so to identify yourself with one (or two) of five “love languages”. A love language is the mode by which a person both gives and prefers to receive love to and from those around him. The whole system was popularized by this Gary Chapman guy back in the 1990’s and since the first vapid book was such a success, we now have not only the original title, but editions for couples, singles, children, teenagers, of God, of apology, etc. First off, let me say this craze was a little weird in our family because my husband spent his teenage years at Chapman’s home church and knew the guy “before he was famous.” Seeing someone you knew growing up become a guru of anything is a little strange. Kind of makes you wonder if you were an unsuspecting guinea pig all those years…if you were being observed as part of some larger experiment. Of course it doesn’t help the weirdness that the original book was given to us by my well-meaning mother-in-law who bought into the hype hook, line and sinker. In our house the quickest way for a book to make it to that box for the used bookstore is for my mother-in-law to give it to us. Any validity for whatever the book teaches is immediately called into question.

That said, I thought I would comment on my own journey with the languages. I thought I was over it, but then just this week the subject comes up when I had to fill out a parent questionnaire asking what my child’s love language is for his new teacher. Really, I just wanted to write something quippy like, “We don’t actually believe in love in our family” but I didn’t want to appear rude, so I’ve been thinking about it instead (still haven’t written anything on the questionnaire).

Briefly, the five languages are gifts, acts of service, words of affirmation, quality time, and touch. I was first pigeonholed into believing my language was gifts. Sure, I like to buy things for people, and who doesn’t like getting a well thought out gift, but what was really my motivation here? I grew up with a father who had a hard time showing any kind of affection and was more comfortable giving me money or telling my mom to get me something. If we fought, I could pretty much guarantee there would be a twenty waiting for me at my breakfast plate the next day to make up for it. My mom at least took the time to pick something out for me and now that they are divorced Christmas goes something like this…from dad: a check for me, a check for husband, a check for son; from mom: individually wrapped gifts and stocking stuffers in all the right sizes and colors. Is it any surprise I tested high in gifts for my love language? It’s how I was taught to receive love in an otherwise dysfunctional home. I learned to love gifts I order to survive.

Really, if you asked me how I like to be loved, I’d say it depends on the day. If I’ve had a really crappy day at work, I want words of affirmation. From my son I like hugs because that’s usually what he likes best…but mostly/only from me. Acts of service? I think I would take someone doing my laundry for me any day of the week, but I don’t feel unloved if it doesn’t happen. Quality time depends on the person I’m spending it with and how long it’s been since we’ve hung out. Sometimes it’s top on my list, sometimes I don’t have a spare minute to spend with even those I love best. Oftentimes the best way to show me love is to let me have time all to myself, or to let me sleep. Can sleep be a love language? What about food? Chocolate works a lot of time with me.

So back to my son’s questionnaire…I think I’ll just put Latin. It’s a romance language after all and in his Harry Potter obsessed world, it’s the one language besides English he actually understands.

Naming

In the second book of her Time Quartet, Madeleine L'Engle stressing the importance of Naming. Until a person or object is named, it cannot truly take on the qualities that make it what it is: the qualities that make it unique and original. Of course, it would be a rare find indeed these days to find someone named with originality. We name our children and our pets after someone or something that has meaning to us. Do the children and pets take on the quality then of the object for which they are named? Do we impress on them some great characteristic or ability by simply giving that name? Probably not, but there lies the free will of human (or animal nature).

Authors have things a little different. When they create their characters, they can impress upon them these characteristics and abilities just by giving these paper people certain names. If one is to create a whole other world, naming of all kinds of elements becomes significantly important. Take for example J.K. Rowling and the names she chooses for her characters, and some of her buildings and locales. Many readers may pick up on the witty appropriateness of names like Sirius Black and Remus Lupin. Let's name our mangy black dog animagus after the most prominent star in Canis Major, the "big dog" constellation. Or let's give our favorite professor who turns into a werewolf with every full moon a moniker that allies him with one of Rome's famous twins raised by wolves, and the Latin form for wolf or wolf-like. Minerva McGonagall? Roman name for the goddess Athena...wasn't she known for the qualities of wisdom and warfare? I think good ole Minerva certainly lives up to her name time and time again, and certainly in the final installment of the series.

Then there are the names that may be a little more ironic like Regulus Black. Now we have a Death Eater, former member of Slytherin House, named for the brightest star in Leo, the constellation of the lion. Perhaps with the Black surname we could hazard a guess at a meaning of "blacking out" the bright lion. Really, isn't Griffindor House represented by a form of a golden lion (ok, golden griffin, but close, right?). Then we hear Reg's whole story and realize in the end he "sees the light" and works toward the same goal as other Griffindor grads.

Of course, some of the name references are a little less obvious, but none the less appropriate. Tom Riddle's mom, Merope? I'm taking a wild stab here, but could it be appropriate that she's so named because, "In the Pleiades star cluster, only six of the stars shine brightly, the seventh, Merope, shines dully because she is shamed for eternity for having an affair with a mortal." Seems awfully coincidental if not part of a greater plan.

I've already mentioned Sirius Black in terms of namesake, but there's also a correlation with alchemical process. In alchemy, a subject that bears some mention in Rowling's novels, the process of purification, of creating a "philosopher's stone" whether real or metaphorical, takes place in three stages: a black, a white, and a red. So what, you say? Well, we already have Sirius, a character who dies at the end of what many would say is the darkest, or "blackest" books of the series. Where's the white, or rather, who's the white character? Albus Dumbledore, of course. Albus is Latin for white. When does Albus have the most influence on our protagonist? In the sixth book, the one that follows the death of Black. At the end of this book, what happens? Spoiler Alert...Dumbledore dies, white stage over. Finally, the red stage? Hmmm, let's consider Rubeus Hagrid. Yes, rubeus means red in Latin, and while our lovable half-giant thankfully does not die, he does carry Harry through and into the red stage of the work allowing him to finish his process of purification. (I owe much of this knowledge to John Granger who has written volumes on the Potter books, and can be found at the Hogwart's Professor website).

So, is what L'Engle says true? Or was Shakespeare more accurate in his famous love story, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet.” Pay careful attention next time you pick up any work of literature, and remember that naming isn't limited to characters. Then you decide!