The Truth About Muhammad

By Robert Spencer

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I've had this book since Christmas, and only recently gotten around to reading it.  I found it, on the whole, to be a very thorough and informative book about what information about Muhammad has been in circulation in Muslim circles, and how the Muslim world generally views their central figure.

It's clear that Spencer comes at this from an American perspective; not a religious one, but this may be for the best, as it might make the book sound simply biased if written in any other way.

It's also not as enjoyable to read as certain other books are, though for me, that's just because it chronicles so much death and deception.  I'd have felt worse if the book had left these things out.

My last complaint is solely to do with the title (which I understand is largely out of the control of the author.)  The book's title is "the Truth About Muhammad."  However, inside the book, Spencer says that he's not so concerned with what Muhammad was -really,- like, as with the way that modern Muslims view him.  That's fine, and it's a viable subject for discussion, but in that case, it's more like "the Truth About How Modern Muslims -View- Muhammad."

I understand the difficulties, of course, with attempting any sort of actual biography of Muhammad.  Unlike many other historical figures, such as Napoleon, Joan of Arc, or Jesus, we don't have multiple, early documents chronicling the events of his life, so there's never any guarantee that the information that we have is true -about Muhammad himself.-

As I said, though, this is solely a problem with the title, which gives the impression that the book's purpose is to address Muhammad, as a person, rather than its real purpose; to address what modern Islam believes about him.

The Muhammad depicted in this book, and the one in which modern Islam believes, begins as a sort of self-proclaimed prophet, repeatedly having "visions" whenever it's convenient or required to get him what he wants.  However, he must have been pretty charismatic, because he soon develops a following, and starts to become a powerful military leader in the middle east.

Through it all, Muhammad's central goal seems to be religious expediency, as Spencer outlines midway through the book; anything that advances Islam being placed first in priority.  He also seems to recognize that in order for a community of believers to be truly successful, they must have dominance, fervor and something around which to unit.  The protection of the property of his followers is another point of interest.

I have zero problems with the idea that one religion must be dominant in a society, or with the view that that religion must have fervor and something around which to unite, or even that property is a basic human right.  I believe all of those things.  Yet, I draw the line at assassinations, deceptions, breaking treaties unprovoked, and so on, all of which, according to the stories, Muhammad was guilty of.  I admit, I've been disheartened by the recent trends in the American church towards depictions of a more womanized Jesus, and I think this hesitation to depict or imply overt masculinity is a major reason for the vast loss of faith that's taken place in much of the Christian world.  However, Muhammad's many crimes against the peaceful people who surrounded him prove that it's possible to go too far in the other direction.  There's simply no excuse for breaking your word, regardless of what dangers you "suspect."

Now, all that having been said, I was very pleased with this book.  It goes over lots of the stories of Muhammad which are widely-believed in the Muslim world, and addresses just why this is a problem from every non-Muslim in the world, quoting -only- from Muslim source documents as it does so.  It's expertly done.

I also find it of interest that while, like every controversial book, it's gotten mixed reviews, many negative reviews seem to amount to "this book doesn't say what Muhammad was really like/relates stories that were later inventions."  I acknowledge this is not just possible, but likely.  However, as Spencer points out near the end of the book, that's simply not the point.

Whether or not Muhammad was -anything- like he's depicted in the stories; even if the stories had been invented less than a year ago, the point would still be that these are the things that modern-day Muslims believe about him, and when Muslims commit acts of violence, they're doing so in imitation of this believed-in figure (whether or not there's any real basis for believing any of this.)  It's the commitment to this violent version of Muhammad by modern Muslims which is the problem; not the historical origins of said version.

As I said, I was impressed by Spencer's frankness, professional way of writing, boldness and honesty.  I may have had slight scruples with minor elements of the book, but I think it's the kind of book that Americans (especially those in positions of power) need to read.

The Hobbit (Novel)

By J. R. R. Tolkien

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

Quite a number of five-star ratings have been heaped on this book, and I don't think it's terribly shocking to add mine to the pile.  However, those familiar with my somewhat critical reviews of the Lord of the Rings series may ask why, exactly, I rate the Hobbit higher.  After all, most people in the modern age tend to almost ignore the Hobbit in favor of Tolkien's later trilogy on the war of the ring.  Part of this, of course, can be attributed to the movie version, but what is it about the Hobbit that makes it so special?

I honestly think that the way people ignore the Hobbit may have something to do with its difference in tone from the Lord of the Rings.  The Hobbit contains stronger fantasy elements, such as being attacked by a horde of giant spiders, burned almost to death by a dragon, or having boulders thrown at you by the giants in the mountains, and yet, it treats them all perfectly casually, whereas later books would have felt the need to explain these strange happenings.  The Hobbit only explains things like this when they're unique, even for Middle Earth.  It doesn't take itself as seriously as LOTR did, which actually added to my appreciation of it.

It's a story about a small, peace-loving fellow named Bilbo Baggins, and how he goes on an exciting adventure with the old wizard Gandalf and thirteen dwarves; refugees from the Lonely Mountain, which is now inhabited by the ferocious dragon Smaug.  They have many adventures before, after and during their incursion into the mountain, and Bilbo gets to show his mettle as a burglar, a fighter and a treasure-hunter.  There are tragedies and battles over the course of the book, and eventually, Bilbo becomes more of a man, and receives honor, riches and the suspicion of his friends and neighbors for doing something so "unexpected."

The goblins, the spiders, the elves, the dragon, giants, Beorn, the dwarves and so on and so forth.  It was good, clean fun, and I loved it all.  Men factor into this book, but not nearly as much as in the Lord of the Rings, so by and large, this book is about fantasy in its purest form; fantasy people going on an exciting adventure, learning lessons about themselves and their world, doing incredible things, meeting interesting people, and finding themselves well-rewarded for all their hard work.  It's the essence of the fantasy story.

Even Bilbo's job as a burglar rarely leads him into doing anything questionable.  Yes, he sort of stole the Ring, but Gollum wanted to kill him, so it was his only means of survival.  Defending one's survival is enough of a reason to justify this.  The same can be said of the meals he stole in the elf prison.  The treasure they took from Smaug was really theirs anyway, so it wasn't stealing, as much as taking what was rightfully theirs, and as for the Arkenstone...

The Arkenstone.  That's an aspect of the story I found puzzling.  Bilbo does eventually justify this by ransoming his share of the treasure in exchange for it, so I guess it's just fine morally.  Still, I did find it something of an interesting moral dilemma when I first read this book, which, I guess, just makes the story even better, when you think about it.

I also found the battles exceptionally-good and well-written.  They were described about as well as in later works, but I found them more interesting, on the whole, because of the way the movements and actions of the enemy forces were described.  They're the sort of battles that one can actually picture in their mind.  Not myth-making battles, like the Shelob fight from the Two Towers, perhaps, but certainly very believable ones once the fantasy elements are taken for granted.

It's really hard to write a story about a hired thief who never really does anything morally wrong, and yet, under analysis, the Hobbit seems to be just such a book.  A rare and special type of book indeed.

The Lord of the Rings (Novel)

By J. R. R. Tolkien

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I'm essentially writing this review to summarize my thoughts on the series as a whole, and its overall quality.

I was very pleased with it; the heroic main characters, the veiled allegory for sin embodied by the ring, and the fights and struggles, which, while they sometimes seemed a bit slow, and sometimes seemed to skim right over the important parts, were, in just enough cases (like the Shelob fight,) exciting and well-done, and delivered a very thrilling experience.

I'm not as enamored with scenes of armies of men fighting as Tolkien seems to be, but I appreciate a good fantasy epic as much as the next guy, and that's what this story really is.  Too many men for its own good, in my mind, but still just enough presence by wizards, orcs, elves, dwarves, and especially hobbits to keep it all interesting and involving, despite some dry bits.

I can't really see much of anything about this story that would give people moral problems.  Even those with very extreme religious hang-ups (such as myself) will have a hard time finding anything to raise issue with.  There's magic in the story, but not in the "strongest guy wins" sense, which makes many modern pieces so problematic.  There's great evil, but it's always rendered as just as vile and repulsive as evil really is.  The main characters are small and weak, which only increases the excitement over how things turn out in the end.  After all, beating an enemy isn't all that exciting if he's weaker than you are.  Nobody likes a bully.

The minor issues that I do raise with this story primarily have to do with the very slow pacing of the story overall, and the way the narrative seems to lose its focus somewhat during most battles.  I think that Tolkien's main point during a large part of this story was to encourage people to see the beauty of this world he's created, which is an effort I can't raise issue with, though it ramps down the excitement somewhat.  I feel the movies struck a slightly better balance between beauty and excitement in their pacing, but the books were still a lot of fun to read, and I reccomend them very strongly to anyone who still believes in the fight between good and evil.

The Lord of the Rings Appendixes

By J. R. R. Tolkien

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5

Finally, after finishing the last of the six "books" of the Lord of the Rings, there is a selection of appendixes at the back.  The appendixes provide some backstory for some of the races and characters, some information on the languages, cultures, family trees, etc, of Middle Earth.

Unfortunately, this section gets even drier than most of Tolkien's other writing; particularly when he discusses languages and historical records.  Still, it's not without it's high points, providing some history for Aragorn and Arwen, as well as some interesting stories about the dwarves and their feud with the orcs, and about the man after whom Helm's Deep was named.  There's also a passing reference to the Silmarillion, which I may also undertake one day.

Still, many of the characters in these parts of the story are vain, prideful, thirsty for revenge, and generally act out of self-centered motives, but they all suffer losses appropriate to their vices.  The only reason I even bother to bring this up is that there's no Gandalf-like central hero in these parts of the story; nobody to show how things should be done right.

The point and a half down in enjoyability come almost entirely from the fact that the appendixes read like an encyclopedia.  The content is very entertaining, but the format is not.  I don't feel there's any point in disguising that.

The Return of the King; Book 2

By J. R. R. Tolkien

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

The second "book" of the Return of the King chronicles Frodo and Sam as they complete their journey through Mordor, and bring the ring of power to Mount Doom, where Gollum attacks them again, just as the ring finishes corrupting Frodo.  Both Gollum and he ring fall into the fires, but Frodo and Sam are rescued by Gandalf and the Eagles, and Aragorn's forces finish mopping up the enemy once the ring is destroyed.

After that, there are several subplots involving Eowyn and some of the other minor characters.  Eowyn casts aside virtually all of her previous character development, and becomes "more of a woman," for Faramir, but I actually consider this a relatively minor fault in the writing, despite Eowyn's large impact on the story so far.  Arwen appears again, just in time to marry Aragorn, but barely gets two lines of dialogue in doing so.  I much prefer her depiction in the movie, but this isn't really a weakness in the book; she's just a very minor character here.

Finally, they all part ways, and before the main characters depart the land forever, there's a plot about a brief war in the shire, between a band of "ruffians," commanded by Saruman, and the shire hobbits he's been enslaving with what essentially amounts to socialism.

In my opinion, the final battle of the book was a bit anticlimactic for a final battle, but not a bad little plotline by itself, and even fairly amusing.  I was always somewhat disappointed that the major conflict is resolved a third of the way into this book, after which everything else seems like a step down.  Still, it never really upset me all that much.  I wasn't really bothered by any of the things I've just described.

The only thing about this book, and indeed, this book series that ever really angered me was the message, near the end, of good things passing away and the world moving on without them.  Many of the ideas and concepts contained in this book are friendly to the Catholic ear, but this is not.  Only evil things will come to an end.  Good things continue forever, and without a better understanding of the Gray Havens, and its relationship to Middle Earth, the message of these segments can come off as "if you've already done a lot to help people, just go off on a vacation overseas somewhere."  For good Christians, the fight doesn't end until you're dead, and even then, it doesn't really END end, it just takes a different form until the final judgment.  The ending of the Lord of the Rings always bothered me for this reason, ever since I was a child, and it does to this day.

Still, it's a good book overall, and a very compelling story of trial, danger and loss.  It was just as good as I remembered it being, and I hope you'll enjoy it too.

The Return of the King; Book 1

By J. R. R. Tolkien

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

This is the third book of the Lord of the Rings, and like the first two, is divided into two "books."  Spoilers for the next three paragraphs.

The first book chronicles how Pippin and Gandalf ride to Gondor, and Theoden of Rohan does the same with his army, responding to Gondor's call for aid.  Aragorn and his friends head for Gondor as well, but they take a different and more dangerous route; known as the Paths of the Dead.

Pippin becomes a guardsman of Gondor, and soon finds that Denethor; the steward of Gondor, has gone mad with despair, and ordered the execution of both his son Faramir and himself.  With the help of Gandalf, he moves to rescue Faramir from the mad steward.

Arriving in time for battle, King Theoden is slain, and his daughter Eowyn; disguised as a horseman, faces off against the Nazgul king; the second in command of Mordor.  Aragorn moves in with reinforcements, but even when they win the battle for Gondor's gates, they still have to make one last, suicidal attack against Mordor if they want to distract Sauron from the real prize; the ring of power.

The characters and meanings to be found within them are numerous and intriguing.  I could spend an hour discussing the meaning of Denethor's madness, Eowyn's motives, Aragorn's plans, Gimli's shame and the role of Gandalf in it all.  It's a beautiful story with a lot of very strong plot points.  However, for enjoyability, I can't give it a perfect score, and there are two reasons for this.

The first is that, as I've said, I'd rather be reading a story about fantastic things and strange beings.  This half of the book is largely concerned with the actions of men and armies, and the deployment of troops, which isn't as much my thing as the battle at Helm's Deep was.  This is a purely personal issue, however.

The real problem is that the book drops too many names, and uses them too often, not really assigning substantial characters to most of them.  Some characters, like Beregond; have interesting stories told about them, but just weren't considered important enough to be in the movie, while others, like Halbarad, Ghan-Buri-Ghan, Imrahil and about a dozen others are essentially names without any clear stories behind them, except to fill up space in lists of names of warriors who defended Gondor valliantly.  Certainly, real historical records might take this tack, but in fiction, it's acceptable, and expected, to stick to the story in question.  I felt that this weakened the narrative, rather than strengthening it.  These are the only reasons, in my mind, for taking issue with the first half of the book, however.  On the whole, I really enjoyed it.

The Two Towers; Book 2

By J. R. R. Tolkien

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

The second book of the Two Towers chronicles the journey of Frodo and Sam across the lands outside of Mordor; the cliffs, the marshes, and the crossroads, where after discovering that traveling through the black gate isn't an option, they meet the Gondor captain Faramir.  He finds out about the ring, but refuses to try to claim it, or take it back to Gondor with him.  Instead, he lets the hobbits go on their way again, towards Cirith Ungol; where a tremendous spider lays in wait for them.

Over the course of this book, the hobbits meet and befriend Gollum, who, for a while, guides them towards Mordor, but ultimately betrays them in the hopes of getting the ring back.  The book ends with a climactic fight between the giant spider Shelob and Sam; struggling to protect the life of his best friend Frodo.

I honestly think that this book is the best I've read so far, out of the first four.  It has tension, which doesn't really let up at any point during it, and the final battle against Shelob is one of the best in the book series.  I was also very impressed with the strong relationships between the characters of Frodo and Sam, and the constant development of the character of Gollum throughout the book.  His character in particular is both amusing (at times) and also an interesting illustration of what happens to a person mired in, and addicted to grave evil; how they develop when shown kindness, and how easily they betray when tempted again.

I found Faramir to be an interesting character, in a sense, although many of Tolkien's human characters seem to ring a bit hollow to me, perhaps because I personally prefer stories of the fantastic, while he seems enamored with humans (a major thread in LOTR, at any rate, though less in the movies than in the books.)  Faramir doesn't really suffer from this, however, because he has the chance to develop relationships with Frodo, Sam and Gollum, and to show what kind of man he is by the choices he makes.  Because all this effort was put into him, I find him to be a well fleshed-out character, and a boon to this book, rather than a drag.

For this reason, I give the second book of the Two Towers a perfect score.  I'm very impressed with it, and I look forward to finishing the story.

The Two Towers; Book 1

By J. R. R. Tolkien

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

The Two Towers is the second volume of the Lord of the Rings, and like the first, it's divided into two "books."  Spoilers for the next three paragraphs.

The first book covers the further splintering of the fellowship, as Merry and Pippin are carried off by a band of orcs, which have just killed the warrior Boromir.  Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas pursue them towards Isenguard, but soon discover that all the orcs were killed by the horsemen of Rohan, and the hobbits escaped into Fangorn.  They pursue them, but eventually, find Gandalf; alive and dressed in white, who tells them that the hobbits will be fine.

Indeed, Merry and Pippin are alright; having befriended a monstrous tree-being named Treebeard; leader of the ents.  Soon, the ents are going to war with the wizard Saruman, who sent the orcs into their land.

Gandalf and the others, however, travel to Rohan to muster their horsemen against Saruman's remaining forces.  There's a battle at Helm's Deep, and a confrontation with the wizard Saruman himself to endure, but ultimately, it's only a foretaste of the tremendous conflict to come; with Sauron, and Mordor.

The themes of good and evil are perhaps a bit less pronounced during the Saruman arc, but not by much.  It's pretty clear that he's the bad guy from the start, and this story delves much more into the specific things that evil does to a person who was once good.  The face-off scene between Saruman and Gandalf is, in my opinion, quite possibly the most complex and magnificent scene in the entire book; showcasing the true differences between the two, and the difference between minds accustomed to good, and to evil.

I also found this book just a bit more exciting than its predecessors, though I won't say it was perfect.  The parts with Treebeard moved rather slowly, and at times, it became difficult to tell who was responsible for what evils.  I also found the ents just a tiny bit threatening; not in terms of being scarey, but because they reminded me of modern naturalists.

Still, even on those terms, anyone trying to use ents as an analogy for naturalism would be basically shooting themselves in the foot, because there's no serious comparison of the sort that could be made.  Ents are intelligent, and trees aren't.  If trees were intelligent, they too would have civil rights, and naturalists would be out of a job.

I also feel I should say a few words about the battle at Helm's Deep.  I really enjoyed reading it, and liked the way it was resolved.  In fact, I'm sort of not sure which I like better; the movie version or the book version, and up to now, I've liked the movie version of most Tolkien battles better.  Maybe it's just that this is the first battle he actually took time to dwell on and describe.

On the whole, I was very pleased with this book, and like the others, I reccomend it to those with patience and good reading skills.  It was a pleasure to read.

The Fellowship of the Ring; Book 2

By J. R. R. Tolkien

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

The second "book" of the Fellowship of the Ring chronicles how the ring arrives at Rivendell, a council is held to determine what to do with it, (and to provide some much-needed backstory,) and Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry set out again from Rivendell, alongside Aragorn the Dunedain, Legolas the elf, Gimli the Dwarf, Boromir the man and the wizard Gandalf.  The party travels through the underground realm of Moria, the woods of Lothlorien, and down the river Anduin towards the fork in their path, where they must decide where to take the ring; to Gondor; city of men, or to Mordor, where it can finally be destroyed.  As they move on, party members begin to fall away, until finally, the fellowship is splintered, with only Sam and Frodo left the guard the ring itself.  Most of the fellowship members are either dead or in mortal danger by the time this book ends.

The humor of the first half of the book is replaced here with high adventure, although some sections feel a bit tacked-on (such as the showboating of many of the characters during the attempt to cross Caradhras.)  Additionally, the stay of the fellowship in Lothlorien feels neither humorous nor thrilling.  I honestly found it more strange than anything else; strange in a good way, but not really all that engaging, compared to the passing through Moria.

It's odd to say that the strangest place in the second half of the book was also the least intense, but that's how Lorien came across to me.  I thought that the whole second half of the book was a great deal more interesting and exciting than the first half, if only because of the lethal enemies that get introduced right off the bat, but in terms of overall story quality, I'd rate them about the same.  The point of the narrative is never really to set a mood or dwell on how the characters feel, which is probably for the best on some level.  When there's evil to deal with, personal feelings really don't matter.

We're still not into the "war" parts of the lord of the rings, exactly, and Tolkien seemed to have enjoyed skimming over smaller battles in his books.  The more I read, the more I'm struck by just how much better the pacing was in the films.  The books are just as good and entertaining, of course, but they're entertaining in a more high-fantasy, intellectual sense, rather than stressing mood, excitement or drama.  Though the story is almost identical, the book and movie versions of the Lord of the Rings are really very different from one another in tone and pacing.  Me, I like both, but not on the same day.

The Fellowship of the Ring; Book 1

By J. R. R. Tolkien

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

My intention, at this point, is to move on and review the Lord of the Rings.  I may review the Hobbit as well, at some future time, but for now, I'm going to review the series that sprung from it, and I'll review each "book" of it separately.  There are six in all.  Two are found in the first volume, two in the second, and two in the third.  Apparently, Tolkien originally meant for the books to be divided into six volumes; not three, so I'm taking him at his word, and that's how I'll review them.

The first "book" of the Fellowship of the Ring chronicles how Gandalf and Frodo discover the identity of an evil ring, and set out on a quest to get it out of Frodo's neighborhood (the Shire) before it can do any real harm.  That is, Frodo and some of his friends set out on said quest, but they need to do it without Gandalf, who has some other things he wants to check up on.  They expect Gandalf to reappear and accompany them, but he fails to do so, and in the end, they need to leave the shire without him.

During the first book, the hobbits leave the shire and have some adventures, encountering several strange things in the world outside.  Elves, an evil willow tree, a very powerful singing man named Tom Bombadil, some undead called wights, a bartender named Butterbur, and a ranger named Aragorn.  In the early parts of the book, not much happens to really excite or hold one in suspense.  I got the impression that Tolkien was trying to ease readers into his adventure book.  However, once the hobbits get to Bree, and meet Aragorn, things start to pick up.  They wander in the wilderness with him and quickly fall under attack by black riders.  Luckily, they meet an elf shortly after that, who gives Frodo his horse.  Frodo then needs to ride quickly to the ford, in order to get away from the black riders.

The scene at the end of this book, with Frodo in a sort of standoff against the black riders was really something; especially compared to the rest of the book, which was more whimsical and fun than suspenseful and exciting.  If all you know is the Peter Jackson movies, you may be surprised by how far the action and suspense were amped up in the movies (though, in my opinion, to great effect.)  Still, when I said that this book was whimsical and fun, that was exactly what I meant.

Many points in this book are just plain fun to read.  The adventure of the hobbits through the old forest, and their many songs and such while still in the shire were amusing and fun, and it was enjoyable to hear some of their stories about odd lands and strange people, as well as find out what happened to many of the characters from "The Hobbit."  If I had to pick just one character, however, who truly embodied the overall whimsy of this first book, it would definitely be Tom Bombadil; perhaps one of Tolkien's most interesting and powerful characters.  He's so powerful, in fact, that it's very hard to feel threatened with him around, and he dances in and out of scenes like a fairy in some children's tale.

That having been said, I think that most children would have a hard time sitting still for the whole story.  Some of Tolkien's descriptions get a bit lengthy, and children (unless they're very good and have been raised away from television,) would have a tough time with that, as much as they might like the subject matter.

Lastly, I should bring up my reason for reviewing these books in particular.  Tolkien was Catholic, and his writings reflect a Catholic view of the world; where evil and good are both refreshingly-clear, and evil attacks from both inside and outside, hiding in the smallest and seemingly most innocent things.  The ring itself seems both like a beautiful piece of jewelery and a fascinating source of magic power, but it's also small enough that people wouldn't normally think of it as being capable of so much harm.  There could not be a more perfect allegory for sin, which toutes itself as satisfaction for vanity, greed, the craving for power, and yet, often seems like it's no big deal.  Just one little sin.  No one would ever know.  Then suddenly, you're wounded almost to the heart by it, just like Frodo nearly was.

However, although I view the ring as an allegory, it's important to note that the allegory is far, far subtler than the ones used by C. S. Lewis in the Chronicles of Narnia.  In fact, I think that's the greatest strength of this series.  Lewis' allegories didn't interfere with the storytelling much in later books, but in Tolkien's writings, they hardly even seem like allegories half the time.  The real strength here is in the world view that the books have; the correct world view.  That there is good, and evil, and all types of people are somewhere along one of those roads, no matter how normal or odd they may seem.

Some might raise issue with the magic that gets thrown around in this story, and the other stories in this series, but it's important to remember that the "magic" in this tale is fantasy-magic.  It bears no real similarities to the real thing.  How can I tell?  Because of the world view of those who use it.  In this book, the heroes are, for the most part, outmatched and on the run from their enemies.  Evildoers are very strong, and the good are very weak, but nonetheless, they go on a quest to triumph over their much stronger adversaries.  The mentality of the weak prevailing over the strong runs directly contrary to the philosophy of the real occult; which always stresses the selfish pursuit of greater strength.  So long as this mentality is present (victory in weakness,) any talk of "magic" in these books is not dangerous; just a harmless fantasy element.  This is why I consider this book so good, overall.

The minor imperfections that I spot early on are simply that the pace starts out a bit slow, and doesn't really pick up until over halfway through.  Still, a patient reader shouldn't have any trouble getting through them, and even appreciating the sheer amount of detail that Tolkien put into this work.

Unplanned

By Abby Johnson

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

This is one of those books that's been circulating through large sections of the Christian community, just like every book with even a smattering of a pro-life message, so I felt that I had to read it, even though I really prefer to review things that claim to be specifically Catholic.  This didn't, doesn't and isn't.

It's essentially the memoires of a former abortion clinic director out in Texas for Planned Parenthood, and her eventual choice to change sides, and as memoires go, it's really well-written.  It makes an effort to draw you into the story with the "sneak peek" format of the first chapter, and doesn't get bogged down with irrelivent side stories, or anything else that would make it hard to continue reading it.  All this, and it shows the journey away from the dark side by one woman, and just why she was there to begin with.

It also serves the important purpose of reminding us that on both sides of the fence, things are a lot more complicated than we usually think they are.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that one side of the fence is evil by its nature, and the other isn't.

I think that Mrs. Johnson wants us to see the good in people on both sides, and I appreciate the sentiment, but...  Well, she doesn't really dwell on the true good in people.  She mainly just talks about how they felt.  Feelings are good things to have, of course, but they're not good things to put first in our lives, and I know a lot of people (men and women) who made their worst mistakes when they did that.  At several points in the narrative, we hear Miss Johnson describing how she dismissed people's claims because of how she felt, or how she was afraid that other people would feel, and that's no kind of way to live your life, much less search for the truth about it.

The most important thing in life isn't being nice and not hurting anyone's feelings.  It's being noble and doing the right thing.  I think she realizes this now, but the book still has a few soft spots in it along these lines.

The grade I give this book is due to what I perceived as a very mild attempt to defend the view of "be nice > be good," a view which has, I think, done major damage to our society from both sides of the fence.  Still, it's not obtrusive, and is, as I said, very mild.  Besides, she makes the right choice in the end.

Only one sentence in this book really upset me.  It was later on, when she was talking about the protestant community that kicked her out for working at Planned Parenthood.  She said something like "I respect the rights of a church to decide who gets to attend, but there must be a better way to handle these things."

As a Catholic, these words bother me, because first off, I don't think that any degree of politeness would have blunted the blow of being forced out of a ecclesial community all that much for her, and secondly, because in the Catholic Church, we have something called Canon Law, which we have to obey, no matter how bad it makes us feel.  Yes, there are times when the situation that we're in makes us feel bad, and we may blame our feelings on the people who gave us the news, but we can only make things so easy without abandoning the Truth of God.

I pose this question to anyone out there; if you were charged by Canon Law 915 to prohibit a person from receiving Holy Communion because you knew that they were obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin, how would you break the news to them, and would you be able to find a more polite way than the one Miss Johnson was on the receiving end of?

I know it wasn't a Catholic Church she was kicked out of, but it could have been.  The lesson we need the learn isn't just that we're wrong about abortion, or birth control, or divorce.  The lesson we need to learn is that it's not always about how we feel.  Some things are bigger than our feelings.

I enjoyed myself somewhat, while reading this book, and I'm going to grade it rather well.  It may not fully answer all the questions it poses, but it does at least answer some of them, and that's more than you'll find in most books of memoires nowadays.

Juno

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5

Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5

This movie was an unusual case.  It's a movie about how a young, immature, teenage girl discovers she's pregnant after spontaneous sex with a young, slightly-more-mature, teenage boy, and how she copes with it.  She contemplates abortion at first, but ultimately, chooses adoption instead.  It amazes me that the movie's plot can be, on the surface, so pro-life, and still not be something a good Catholic can really enjoy.

I say "on the surface" because actually watching the movie takes work.  Juno herself is an unpleasant and unresponsible girl, with a decidedly critical and pessimistic view of the world around her, and it shows, because the movie is narrated by her inner monologue.  Still, this alone wouldn't be enough to ruin the film.  If I tried to count all the movie protagonists who start out foolish and irresponsible, and learn some important lesson by the end of the film, which turns their life around, I'd be too busy to make another post for the rest of my life.

The problem is in the specifics.  You've probably heard that this movie contains profanity.  That's a whopping big understatement if I ever heard one.  This may be one of the most vulgar films I've ever seen, and as of right now, it's proof that they'll never give a movie an R rating for cursing alone.  I usually don't mind a little cursing in movies for the sake of realism, but this didn't feel realistic at all.  It felt over-the-top.  Maybe that was intentional.  Maybe they were trying to get a laugh that way.  I don't know.  I just know it didn't make me laugh.  The cover of the DVD claims that it's a comedy, but it didn't get a peep of laughter from me, so I sort of assumed that was a misprint.

This movie, to its credit, tries to tackle all the hard sexual subjects of today; teen pregnancy, abortion, divorce, and so forth, but through it all, there's no real talk of honor or ethics, much less religion, and it seems to arrive at only about half the answers to the questions it poses.

Nobody comes out and says "what you did was wrong."  There's no sense, from any of the characters, that their actions brought about consequences and they should take responsibility for them; just a mass of emotions over things like fingernails, body shape and lust.

This sense of things being unfortunate, but never bad or wrong pervades the whole movie.  When Juno has sex out of wedlock, she's never told it was wrong.  When she decides against abortion, she never expresses that she thought it was wrong.  When the couple who plans to adopt her child decide to get a divorce, once again, that horrible word "wrong" never dares to rear its ugly head.  Even when the husband in that couple... acts unfaithfully, Juno never tells him that he's wrong to do so.  No one does.  Pish-tosh.  It just isn't done.  We don't say nasty words like that at the country club.

Juno herself demonstrates many instances of poor judgment and simple bad morals early in the film, and never really seems to learn her lesson about them later.  In one instance, she expresses inner disgust over her boyfriend's mother being overweight, and in another, makes a comment that sounds almost like a plug for gay adoption.  Bringing these things in, and failing to talk about whether they're wrong or right is simply a cop-out, and honestly, we deserve better.

Ultimately, the strengths of this movie are found in the boyfriend, who, though shy and weak-willed, seems to genuinely care about Juno and want what's best for her, and in Juno herself, who gradually learns to appreciate that kind of love; the kind that involves making sacrifices.  It would be a mistake to say that these are not strengths.  They certainly are.

However, the particular phrasing of the lesson that Juno learns is something like "someone who loves you for who you really are," and this is a humanist moral lesson; not a Catholic one.  Love, by the Catholic definition, has nothing to do with who the person you love is, and everything to do with the person doing the loving.  It's a one-sided decision to do what's best for the other person, regardless of what kind of person they are, or how you may feel about them.

Ultimately, I think that "Juno" might serve well as a ecumenical vehicle to guide wayward souls towards a better means of thinking, and as movies go, it doesn't stink, but if you're already a strong Catholic, don't waste your time on it.