HOOD, by Stephen Lawhead, A No-Spoiler Review

Last fall, I needed to restock my Little Free Library, so headed to the local Goodwill to see what sci-fi, fantasy or dystopian fiction they had on hand. (My LFLibrary is filled with these genres only). I did find some great treasures, including this Stephen Lawhead book that I had never heard of. I began reading it sometime in the winter and got hooked. I knew of Lawhead because of reading the Pendragon Cycle sometime in my 20s. HOOD is book one in the King Raven Trilogy

HOOD is the first book in a trilogy that follows a character based on the Robin Hood myth/legend.

Short Review of HOOD

I highly recommend this novel. Here’s why:

  1. Stephen Lawhead (author of The Pendragon Cycle…a version of the Arthurian Legend) is an accomplished writer who knows how to capture the voice of medieval and pre-medieval Brits. 
  2. His world-building feels rooted in history, authentic
  3. The language engages…everything from the quirky colloquialisms, to the names of characters
  4. The characters are well developed, even the evil ones, and draw you into their world of struggle and heroism
  5. Woven into the story are Christian themes and prayers, which some won’t like, but I absorbed as authentic 
  6. Rated PG (for medieval violence, think swords and bow and arrow…but no graphic sex or sexual violence)

The Longer Review:

If you’re reading this novel, I recommend flipping to the back of the book and reading his essay: Robin Hood in Wales? It’s past the epilogue (don’t read the epilogue or you will spoil the story). 

In this essay, Lawhead discusses why he sets HOOD in Wales, playing with the idea that the legend of Robin Hood had been around and circulating through the British Isles for a very long time before the general population associated him with Sherwood Forest. Here is a bit of that essay:

It will seem strange to many readers, and perhaps even perverse, to take Robin Hood out of Sherwood Forest and relocate him in Wales; worse still to remove all trace of Englishness, set his story in the eleventh century, and recast the honourable outlaw as an early British freedom fighter. My contention is that although in Nottingham, the Robin Hood legends found good soil in which to grow, they must surely have originated elsewhere. 

The character we now know as Robin Hood can be traced as far back as the early 1260s. By 1350, the Robin Hood legends were well-known, if somewhat various, consisting of a loose aggregation of poems and songs plied by the troubadours and minstrels of the day. These poems and songs bore little relation to one another. The first written references to  and carried titles such as “Robin Hood and the Potter,” “Robin Hood’s Chase,” “Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford,” “the Jolly Pinder of Wakefield,” The “Noble Fisherman,” “Robins Whood Turned Hermit”… 

So, Lawhead poses the possibility that Robin Hood (or Rhi Bran Hud, as he is called by his Norman enemies) is a deposed Prince/King who is rallying his people to push back against the Norman Invasion? He fights a guerilla war with long bows and hides in the wild forests of the March, attacking and tormenting the French who cannot defeat this clever and courageous rival.

A comment about the Christian themes in this novel. The church and state are intermingled throughout Europe during this time in history. The Norman Kings are closely aligned with church. In 800 CE, Charlamagne is crowned by the pope as the Holy Roman Emperor. Kings are seen and dubbed as God’s holy vessels to lead the people. The church holds much power in this system and therefore becomes the vehicle for distributing blessing but also horrible injustice. Lawhead has been careful to look at source material as he weaves church and state together in his books. He also doesn’t sugarcoat the evil that was perpetrated by the church.

If you can enter into the world Lawhead has created and withhold judgment, realizing how different most of Europe was from the Post-Modern West, you can begin to understand something of the mindset of those who lived in this time period. Why did kings, for example, pay the church from their own treasury to atone for their sin of killing enemy soldiers and potentially damning them to hell? Why did priests go out with fighters to give them last rites before a battle? Reading Lawhead will put some of these questions into context. The link between the church and the king cannot be understated in a book that is attempting to portray authentic medieval culture.

Therefore, when I read HOOD I felt like I was reading historical fiction. It’s a kind of escape into fantasy, but not quite. Lawhead is so fluent in the language and history of this time period in Britain, that he transported me back a thousand years. This is an aspect of world-building that felt extremely enjoyable to me, which is why I recommend this book to readers of all ages. 

Writing Facial/Body/Clothing Descriptions, A Study of PD James and a Few Other Literary Giants

 

Upon reading PD James’ The Children of Men, I could not resist doing a little study on facial/body/clothing descriptions, how good writers both use description to reveal the narrator’s (the observer’s) character as well as the character being observed. James writes in a literary style, so instead of poking around my science fiction, I wanted to reach further back into my education to my English major readings for the Stanford Creative Writing Program and recently gave a short workshop with a few writer friends to compare how a few masters handled physical character descriptions. One thing I notice about young writers is their reticence to give a good paragraph to describing a character, instead, the temptation is to put little bits here and there, including in quotation tags.
“George is not my REAL father,” Buddy said, furrowing his dark brow and smirking.
These facial tics in quotation tags are very tempting. Unpracticed writers often use them to do the heavy lifting of filling out character description, even thinking them economical. I would argue that one good paragraph is a better way to go at it, and ultimately more satisfying for the reader. Below will be a number of examples. First, PD James, then Faulkner, Joyce and Trevor. All the examples come from the books above.

Click if you’re looking to read a review of PD James’ The Children of Men.

PD James was a great and popular writer. She was fluent in a particularly upper crusty British style, but could also write gritty stuff (one has to when writing about murder). She also knew how to tell a great story. She used facial descriptions in The Children of Men to transport the reader into her created dystopian world, relying heavily on them to reveal character. Descriptions carried two loads in the novel.

First load carried, character description gives a visual of the character being described. A description of a new character aids the reader as he/she enters the scene and tries to make sense of person being drawn. The reader needs to see the people and the place. Second load carried, character descriptions give the reader a sense of the narrator’s personality. The reader makes judgments about a narrator’s reliability, his/her fairness or prejudices because what details are notable to one person, are not necessarily notable to another. We all know this instinctively. You and I can sit on a park bench and observe the same person for three minutes, go on to describe completely different details about that person. By far, the best way to think about this in writing is to look at how the masters do it.

I took this project on because PD James caught my attention with her colorful and interesting character descriptions. 

These are just a handful of examples. All James’ examples are from The Children of Men, the final four will be from Faulkner, Joyce and Trevor.

Theo is the narrator, also the main character in James’ novel, The Children of Men

After each example, see if you can answer the question:

  1. What do you learn about this character being described?
  2. What do you learn about Theo?

Jasper (minor character, one of Theo’s older colleagues, a mentor of sorts): He was the caricature of the popular idea of an Oxford don: high forehead, receding hairline, thin, slightly hooked nose, tight-lipped. He walked with his chin jutting forward as if confronting a strong gale, shoulders hunched, his faded gown billowing. One expected to see him pictured, high-collared as a Vanity Fair creation, holding one of his own books with slender-tipped fingers.

Sir George (minor character, Theo’s uncle and father to the current leader of Britian): But Sir George puzzled my mother. I can still hear her peevish complaint: “He doesn’t look like a baronet to me.” He was the only baronet either of us had met and I wondered what private image she was conjuring up—a pale romantic Van Dyck portrait stepping down from its frame; sulky Byronic arrogance, a red-faced swashbuckling squire, loud of voice, hard rider to hounds. But I knew what she meant; he didn’t look like a baronet to me either. Certainly he didn’t look like the owner of Woolcombe. He had a spade-shaped face, mottled red, with a small, moist mouth under the moustache which looked both ridiculous and artificial, the ruddy hair which Xan had inherited, faded to the drab colour of dried straw, and eyes which gazed over his acres with an expression of puzzled sadness. But he was a good shot—my mother would have approved of that.

Julian (major character and love interest): But at the end of the row was a figure he suddenly recognized. She was sitting motionless, her head thrown back, her eyes fixed on the rib vaulting of the roof, so that all he could see was the candle-lit curve of her neck.

Her hair, dark and luscious, a rich brown with flecks of gold, was brushed back and disciplined into a short, thick pleat. A fringe fell over a high, freckled forehead. She was light-skinned for someone so dark-haired, a honey-colored woman, long-necked with high cheekbones, wide-set eyes whose colour he couldn’t determine under strong straight brows, a long narrow nose, slightly humped, and a wide, beautifully shaped mouth. It was a pre-Raphaelite face. Rossetti would have liked to have painted her.

Old Martindale (minor character/colleague of Theo’s): who had been an English fellow on the eve of retirement when he himself was in his first year. Now he sat perfectly still, his old face uplifted, the candlelight glinting on the tears which ran down his cheeks in a stream so that the deep furrows looked as if they were hung with pearls.

The old priest at St. Frideswide (minor character): He came close and glared at Theo with fierce paranoid eyes. Theo thought that he had never seen anyone so old, the skull stretching the paper-thin, mottled skin of his face as if death couldn’t wait to claim him.

Rolf (major character, Julian’s husband): He had no doubt which one was Julian’s husband and their leader even before he came forward and, it seemed, deliberately confronted him. They stood facing each other like two adversaries weighing each other up. Neither smiled nor put out a hand.

He was dark, with a handsome, rather sulky face, the restless suspicious eyes bright and deep-set, the brows strong and straight as brush strokes accentuating the jutting cheekbones. The heavy eyelids were spiked with a few black hairs so that the lashes and eyebrows looked joined. The ears were large and prominent, the lobes pointed, pixie ears at odds with the uncompromising set of the mouth and the strong clenched jaw. It was not the face of a man at peace with himself or his world, but why should he be, missing by only a few years the distinction and privileges of being an Omega? His generation, like theirs had been observed, studied, cosseted, indulged, preserved for that moment when they would be male adults and produce the hoped-for fertile sperm. It was a generation programmed for failure, the ultimate disappointment to the parents who had bred them and the race which had invested in them so much careful nurturing and so much hope.

When he spoke his voice was higher than Theo had expected, harsh-toned and with a trace of an accent which he couldn’t identify.

Miriam (major character, the midwife): The woman was the only one to come forward and grasp Theo’s hand. She was black, probably Jamaican, and the oldest of the group, older than himself, Theo guessed, perhaps in her mid- or late fifties. Her high bush of short, tightly curled hair was dusted with white. The contrast between the black and white was so stark that the head looked powdered, giving her a look both hieratic and decorative. She was tall and gracefully built with a long, fine-featured face, the coffee-coloured face hardly lined, denying the whiteness of the hair. She was wearing trousers tucked into boots, a high-necked brown jersey and sheepskin jerkin, an elegant, almost exotic contrast to the rough serviceable country clothes of the three men. She greeted Theo with a firm handshake and a speculative, half-humorous colluding glance, as if they were already conspirators.

Gascoigne (minor character): At first sight there was nothing remarkable about the boy—he looked like a boy although he couldn’t be younger than thirty-one—whom they called Gascoigne. He was short, almost tubby, crop-haired and with a round, amiable face, wide-eyed, snub-nosed—a child’s face which had grown with age but not essentially altered since he had first looked out of his pram at a world which his air of puzzled innocence suggested he still found odd but not unfriendly.

Luke (major character, father to the child):The man called Luke, whom he remembered Julian too had described as a priest, was older than Gascoigne, probably over forty. He was tall with a pale, sensitive face and atiolated body, the large knobbled hands drooping from delicate wrists, as if in childhood he had outgrown his strength and had never managed to achieve robust adulthood. He fair hair lay like a silk fringe on the high forehead; his grey eyes were widely spaced and gentle. He looked an unlikely conspirator, his obvious frailty in stark contrast to Rolf’s dark masculinity. He gave Theo a brief smile which transformed his slightly melancholy face, but did not speak.

The old innkeeper (minor character): She was older than he expected, with a round, windburned face, gently creased like a balloon from which the air has been expelled, bright beady eyes and a small mouth, delicately shaped and once pretty but now, as he looked down on her, restlessly munching as if still relishing the after-taste of her last meal.

Carl Inglebach (minor character): He looked—was probably tired of being told so—like a benign edition of Lenin, with his domed polished head and black bright eyes. He disliked the constriction of ties and collars and the resemblance was accentuated by the fawn linen suit he always wore, beautifully tailored, high-nicked and buttoned on the left shoulder. But now he was dreadfully different. Theo had seen at first glance that he was mortally ill, perhaps even close to death. The head was a skull with a membrane of skin stretched taut over the jutting bones, the scrawny neck stuck out tortoise-like from his shirt and his mottled skin was jaundiced. Theo had seen that look before. Only the eyes were unchanged, blazing from the sockets with small pinpoints of light. But when he spoke his voice was as strong as ever. It was as if all the strength left to him was concentrated in his mind and in the voice, beautiful and resonant, which gave that mind its utterance.

Officer Rawlings (minor character): Rawlings, thick-set, a little clumsy in his movements, had a disciplined thatch of thick grey-white hair, which looked as if it had been expensively cut to emphasize the crimped waves at the side and back. His face was strong-featured with narrow eyes, so deep-set that the irises were invisible, and a long mouth with the upper lip arrow-shaped, sharp as a beak.

 

Aren’t these descriptions delicious? Some might feel PD James goes overboard, but I found myself drawn in and fascinated by the language and the visuals. Each person held a unique place in my mind as the story grew toward its climax.

Just to get a small taste of a few other masters…consider Faulkner, Joyce and Trevor

 

A Rose for Emily from Collected Stories by William Faulkner

“They rose when she entered—a small, fat woman in black, with a thin gold chain descending to her waist and vanishing into her belt, leaning on an ebony cane with a tarnished gold head. Her skeleton was small and spare; perhaps that was why what would have been merely plumpness in another was obesity in her. She looked bloated, like a body long submerged in motionless water, and of that pallid hue. Her eyes, lost in the fatty ridges of her face, looked like two small pieces of coal pressed into a lump of dough as they moved from one face to another while the visitors stated their errand.”

Lo! From Collected Stories by William Faulkner

“And now the President and the Secretary sat behind the cleared table and looked at the man who stood as though framed by the opened doors through which he had entered, holding his nephew by the hand like an uncle conducting for the first time a youthful provincial kinsman into a metropolitan museum of wax figures.

Immobile, they contemplated the soft, paunchy man facing them with his soft, bland inscrutable face—the long, monk-like nose, the slumbrous lids, the flabby, café-au-lait-colored jowls above a froth of soiled lace of an elegance fifty years outmoded and vanished; the mouth was full, small, and very red. Yet somewhere behind the face’s expression of flaccid and weary disillusion, as behind the bland voice and the almost feminine mannerisms, there lurked something else: something willful, shrewd, unpredictable and despotic.”

Two Gallants, in James Joyce’s Dubliners, a short story collection.

“Corley was the son of an inspector of police and had inherited his father’s frame and gait. He walked with his hands by his sides, holding himself erect and swaying his head from side to side. His head was large, globular and oily; it sweated in all weathers; and his large round hat, set upon it sideways, looked like a bulb which had grown out of another. He always stared straight before him as if he were on parade and, when he wished to gaze after someone in the street, it was necessary for him to move his body from the hips.”

Kinkies, from William Trevor: The Collected Stories.

“In the police station the colours were harsh and ugly, not at all like the colours there’d been in Mr Belhatchet’s flat. And the faces of the desk sergeant and the policewoman were unpleasant also: the pores of their skin were large, like the cells of a honeycomb. There was something the matter with their mouths and their hands, and the uniforms they wore, and the book in front of the desk sergeant were torn and grubby, the air stank of stale cigarette smoke. The man and the woman were regarding her as skeletons might, their teeth bared at her, their fingers predatory, like animals’ claws. She hated their eyes. She couldn’t drink the tea they’d given her because it caused nausea in her stomach.”

There is no perfect way to describe a character, but one learns from the greats. In the case of Faulkner’s A Rose for Emily, one gets a sense of the character being observed, but also a certain judgment by the narrator, a disdain for Emily. And physically, the reader can “see” Emily…her age, weight and height, the fact she is (or was) a person of means.

In the story Lo, one sees the shabbily dressed visitor to the President, but he is a man not to be pitied, as the description closes with the more sinister. This story is fiction, but based in history. George Washington and his aide are the narrators. The quirky man they are describing is Native American, who is requesting a trial for his nephew for the murder of a white man on Chickasaw land. It’s an interesting story, not what you might expect. 

In Two Gallants, one sees Joyce’s fluency with language and characterization. To describe any human as having a large, oily and globular head is startling. In fact, it’s almost inhumane the way he continues to describe the hat looking like a bulb growing out of a bulb. This narrator either holds Corly in utter disdain, or the details are meant to hint to the reader that Corly is an unkempt, yet arrogant (given his tendency to “parade”) loser. 

In William Trevor’s story Kinkies, can you tell this character has been drugged? There is a sharp paranoia in her descriptions of everything and everyone she sees. Clearly, she is not well and potentially needing help, but the reader can’t imagine her receiving that help in her state of mind. 

As a writing exercise, take an image of someone you do not know…an online image is fine…and pen a paragraph about this person. Use these words to steer your description and see how different the observations flow from your pen.

Arrogant:

Grieving:

Insecure:

Cagey:

Expectant:

THE CHILDREN OF MEN, A No-Spoiler Review of the novel by PD James

If you’re a person born before 1990, you’ve probably seen the film Children of Men, based on the novel by PD James. I recommend this novel, that falls within the boundaries of science fiction, without reservations. This book is rated PG and appropriate for young adults. The rating is due to adult themes and some violence. I’m guessing it would make a great audiobook…especially if you enjoy listening to British voice actors.

The Short Review. Why read when you can watch the film instead?

  1. I recommend you do both! I loved the film which adopted the premise of the book, but the novel is unique and interesting in a different way
  2. Beautifully written
  3. Decent tension and a mystery to solve
  4. Subtle ideas about Christianity (Anglicanism in particular) that only partially made it into the film

 

The Longer Review

Phyllis Dorothy James, Baroness of Holland Park, was a much beloved writer of primarily detective novels. Her first was published in 1962. It was later in her career, in 1992, that she wrote THE CHILDREN OF MEN. While this book is not exactly a detective novel, James unrolls the story with a similar template. She tells the story from the perspective of one man, Theodore Faron. Theo, as he is mostly called in the novel, is a fifty-year old professor of History at Oxford University. More importantly, the backdrop or the world in which he is living is aging and sterile. In the story (all set in England), no one has had a child for over twenty-five years. 

The story opens with Theo’s journal entry about the violent death of the “last born” child on earth. 

Early this morning, 1 January 2021, three minutes after midnight, the last human being to be born on earth was killed in a pub brawl in a suberb of Buenos Aires, aged twenty-five years, two months and twelve days. If the first reports are to be believed, Joseph Ricardo died as he had lived. The distinction, if one can call it that, of being the last human whose birth was officially recorded, unrelated as it was to any person virtue or talent, had always been difficult for him to handle. And now he is dead. 

This book was an interesting read for me as a writer for a couple of reasons, one of which is the wobbly point of view part-way into the novel. First person journal entries in chapter 1-5. At the beginning of chapter 6, Theo grapples with his journal writing as a task in his overly-organized life that gave him no pleasure. So, in this chapter, Theo is still the primary “voice” of the story, but now telling the tale in 3rd person. In chapter 7, he’s back to a journal entry, therefore first person, and in chapter 8 and from here on out, the tale is a close 3rd POV, all from Theo’s perspective. I don’t think the average reader is disrupted by these slight shifts because Theo is still the storyteller. I noticed mainly because novice writers will sometimes shift like this accidentally and most editors would discourage these shifts. James pulls it off because of the “journaling” aspect of the beginning. I think she is using this to show Theo’s passivity. He observes and writes, but does not act. By chapter 8, he has fully made the decision to be a part of the story, not just an observer. He acts as a character in the unrolling narrative and will continue to do so until the end. 

Another aspect of James’ writing that I enjoyed were her vibrant descriptions of faces and clothing. Long descriptions seem to be Theo’s favorite way (James’ favorite way) to judge/describe character. Of course, given the descriptions are coming from Theo, they also tell the reader about him. Regardless, I found myself enthralled by some of the descriptions, their length and detail…like this description of Jasper, a minor character and one of Theo’s older colleagues. 

He was the caricature of the popular idea of an Oxford don: high forehead, receding hairline, thin, slightly hooked nose, tight-lipped. He walked with his chin jutting forward as if confronting a strong gale, shoulders hunched, his faded gown billowing. One expected to see him pictured, high-collared as a Vanity Fair creation, holding one of his own books with slender-tipped fingers.

Here is Miriam, a midwife and one the primary characters in the second half of the novel. 

The woman was the only one to come forward and grasp Theo’s hand. She was black, probably Jamaican, and the oldest of the group, older than himself, Theo guessed, perhaps in her mid- or late fifties. Her high bush of short, tightly curled hair was dusted with white. The contrast between the black and white was so stark that the head looked powdered, giving her a look both hieratic and decorative. She was tall and gracefully built with a long, fine-featured face, the coffee-coloured face hardly lined, denying the whiteness of the hair. She was wearing trousers tucked into boots, a high-necked brown jersey and sheepskin jerkin, an elegant, almost exotic contrast to the rough serviceable country clothes of the three men. She greeted Theo with a firm handshake and a speculative, half-humorous colluding glance, as if they were already conspirators.

Science fiction is not always well-written in the literary sense, so it’s a pleasure to read a book like THE CHILDREN OF MEN, with literary flair on top of a good story. 

Regarding the Anglican tidbits. I am a practicing Anglican as of 2018, so I was keying into the references. Theodore (whose name means God-lover) has a distant relationship with the faith of his people, but the reader encounters him coming more alive to this faith even as he moves toward more actions. In the world in which he is living, taking risks and acting, symbolize hope. Hope for a future is what the whole world has given up on. No science and knowledge has been able to solve the problem of humankind’s infertility. The idea of extinction and of God’s abandonment of his creation are stark in Theo’s understanding of the world. There is a beautiful moment, later in the story where a prayer is given from the Anglican book of common prayer over a dead friend. 

Theo does the reading.

At first, his voice sounded strange to his own ears, but by the time he got to the psalm the words had taken over and he spoke quietly, with confidence, seeming to know them by heart. “Lord, thou hast been our refuge: from one generation to another. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made: thou art God from everlasting, and world without end. Thou turnest man to destruction: again thou sayest, Come again, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday: seeing that is past as a watch in the night.”

Theo has awakened to the religion of his youth. It will play a large role in how he manages the final chapters of this gripping story. 

THE OA. A No-spoiler Review

On NETFLIX’s suggestion, I started watching THE OA. I should research shows before I start, because after watching season one, I looked online and saw that the series was canceled after two seasons. The story had been intended for five. The first episode aired in 2016, so a while ago! THE OA was written by acclaimed Iranian filmmaker, Zal Batmanglij and Brit Marling. who also stars as the main character, Prairie Johhnson.

THE OA, streamable on Netflix is a scifi-paranormal story set in suburban Michigan (mostly). I’ve watched the first season so far…THE OA is rated R for nudity and though it is a minimal amount of sexual content, it is full frontal nudity. With that said, this story potentially appeals to the young adult audience. Many of the characters are in high school or in their early twenties. 

First, the Short Review…

4 Reasons to Watch

  1. THE OA draws the audience in through character(s) and builds tension through mystery
  2. A number of interesting and atypical characters
  3. THE OA explores the intersection of the metaphysical and the spiritual by focusing on life after death
  4. There is a fairytale-like quality to the storytelling that many will appreciate

2 Reasons to Skip

  1. THE OA was canceled after two seasons. The writers had envisioned 5, so it ends on a cliffhanger
  2. This story tries to tackle “a story within a story” and is mostly well-done, but feels forced at times

The Longer Review…

There is much to appreciate about an ambitious story like THE OA that attempts to unearth human longing for the spiritual. I found THE OA to be gripping in how it asks questions about redemption while exploring the role of miracles in that redemption. However, the exploration is unsatisfactory when the overall story gets cut off by a platform like Netflix. The story arc was written for five seasons, the viewer only got 2. I call this phenomena, the Firefly conundrum, named after the much acclaimed scifi series, Firefly, whose cancellation was pre-streaming service.

Similar to THE OA’s cancellation, Firefly’s production was halted due to not enough eyeballs watching or what the television industry then called low “Nielsen ratings”. The show’s devoted fans were anywhere from perplexed to enraged by this cancellation, but what can you do? Ironically, interest in the series surged even as it was cancelled such that when it went to DVD, sales were so good, the producers realized they had made a mistake.

It was too late to go back and recreate all those episodes. Instead, the film Serenity was the attempt to bring the story to a close. Diehard fans felt that if the Fox network had been willing to take that extra risk and continue making episodes, Firefly might have become a franchise on par with Battle Star Galactica or even Star Trek.

Netflix is not the first or the only platform that cancels shows midstream, but I wonder if their current business model, where they suggest shows to people like me knowing the story has been truncated, creates bitterness in its subscribers. It’s like they keep loaning me novels and then stealing them away when I’m part way through. Pretty soon, I stop taking novels from them and become more careful. In the worst case, people like me leave Netflix until they decide there is a show ready in its entirety, then subscribe for a time. Or, subscribers take fewer risks and reject watching new/untested productions which means fewer of these interesting and new stories get made.

In this scenario, the indie film people, the new and fresh storytellers suffer as do those hungry for something different. The audience gets more of the same old ideas and drivel, that which is tried and tested, but not necessarily exciting and experimental. It is the age-old question about the arts and profit. Profit is a reality in Hollywood. Netflix does have to pay its bills (and shareholders), but taking fewer risks in stories means I’m more likely to stop subscribing at some point. I haven’t gotten there yet, but I might.

 

OKJA, Your Next Family Movie Night? My No-Spoiler Review

OKJA, directed by Bong Joon-ho, written by Joon-ho and Jon Ronson (from a story by Joon-ho) is yet another example of Korean film genius. This film is set in a speculative future (despite the film’s timestamp of 2007)…the scifi aspects of the story have to do with genetics. First, the short review.

6 Reasons OKJA Will Delight

  1. Streamable for free on Netflix, family friendly (I would rate it PG-13 for violence)
  2. Although there are Korean characters who only speak Korean (therefore, yes, you’ll have to read subtitles), much of this film is either visual narrative or the characters speak English
  3. Action-packed
  4. Funny and Heart-warming (the creature created for this film is cute and compelling)
  5. Thoughtful perspective on the food industrial complex
  6. With the child protagonist on a grand chase/adventure and with compassion at its core, this story feels like Studio Ghibli in all the best ways

Longer Review

Lately, when I look for something interesting and fun to watch, I gravitate toward Korean filmmakers. Why? They are some of the best storytellers around and Netflix is committed to working with them/putting their work out to the broadest audience. Moreover, Korean filmmakers don’t seem fixated on US/European political issues, which bore me these days. OKJA does touch on the industrial food complex…a global reality that is political. In particular, OKJA explores how meat is produced and processed for broad human consumption. But don’t let that stop you from watching this interesting and entertaining film. I think the questions that arise from the film are worth thinking about for every person on Earth, whether a vegetarian, vegan, or an omnivore. Kids watching this will also feel the implications of our “appetites”. It’s not a bad thing to help our youth understand that meat actually comes from creatures who live on this Earth with and among us. That’s a worthy conversation to have with our future leaders who will likely make choices for all of us about how we are to care for planet and creatures.

With an all-star cast, both Korean and US born actors inhabit this film. Stars like Tilda Swinton, Steven Yuen (The Walking Dead, Minari, Nope), Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine, The Batman, The Fabelmans), Yoon Je-moon (The Man Nextdoor), and Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler, Donny Darko) inhabit this universe. The protagonist, Korean actress Ahn Seo-hyun, is fantastic as the stoic caretaker of OKJA. She is the studio Ghibli-styled determined child who will not give up on her friend. This story is as much about loyalty and friendship as it is about food politics. I loved OKJA and I hope your family does too. 

 

THE LAST OF US, A No-Spoiler Review of the First 3 Episodes

THE LAST OF US, an HBO Max series is streaming now, but the release of episodes is drip…drip…The third installment arrived on Sunday (1/29/23) and now, like old fashioned tv watching, the audience waits a week, and so on. It’s an interesting choice that some streaming services have made, to hook viewers over a long period and keep them paying the monthly streaming charge. Does it work? I’ll comment more on that in the longer review. 

If you’re a gamer, you probably know that the heart of this story is based on the video game, The Last of Us, an action-adventure survival horror game franchise created by Naughty Dog and Sony Interactive Entertainment. The series is set in a post-apocalyptic United States ravaged by cannibalistic creatures infected by a mutated fungus in the genus Cordyceps. The game is rated R for violence and some sexually explicit scenes. At this point, 3 episodes in, the series is probably between a PG-13 and R rating, for violence. 

For Educators: In biology class, give the gamers among you a treat by validating their hobby and teaching a lesson at the same time. Show the first 2 episodes (that’s all you’ll need) to discuss the nature of a fungus.

Is THE LAST OF US worth watching and perhaps more importantly, would you pay for an HBO subscription for this series alone? I recommend this series, with reservations. Short and long no-spoiler reviews will explain why. 

The Short Review…Yes, watch

  1. If you love end-of-the-world zombie stories, this one has a couple of new twists to love
  2. Cool monsters and fast unlike the mostly ambling creatures in The Walking Dead 
  3. Well casted (also, actors with talent that aren’t in every other show you’ve seen)
  4. If you play this game/love this game…it’s a new and perhaps fun way to interact with the world

The Short Review…Meh…don’t watch, or perhaps it’s too early to tell

  1. Overall and so far, this story feels less compelling than The Walking Dead or even Cormac McCarthy’s novel The Road, which I just finished reading. You’re better off spending your time reading or watching something else.
  2. Beware of attaching to key characters because the chances of them dying are really high (for many viewers, I realize this is a plus)
  3. In episode 3, spent a lot of time with a couple of characters who seemed peripheral to the heart of the story. If more episodes are like this one, not sure if I’ll want to keep watching
  4. Lastly, this series alone would not warrant paying for an HBO Max subscription. However, overall HBO content for science fiction, fantasy and dystopian viewing is decent. For example, you can stream DUNE Pt 1 and I loved Station Eleven, a mini-series based on the novel. Click to read my review of Station Eleven. Those are just a couple of examples of HBO’s excellent content. 

The Longer Review

The Last of Us game in numerous iterations, has received critical acclaim and has won awards, including several Game of the Year recognitions. As of January 2023, the franchise has sold over 37 million games worldwide. Strong sales and support of the series led to the franchise’s expansion into other media, including a comic book in 2013 and this television adaptation. So…there is a built-in audience for the series, THE LAST OF US.

That’s a good thing for HBO, but from game to screen…has it ever been done well? I’m not an expert on this one, but I can’t think of a really great film or series that emerged from a game. Pretty good or fun shows…like Tomb Raider…those I could cite, but great? I don’t think so. Does anyone want to counter me here? This series has potential to say something new about the post-virus world, or in this case, post-fungus world (not a spoiler by the way…scene 1 of the series shows a scientist surmising about what would happen if a certain type of fungus evolved and could take over the human brain/body.) 

In three episodes, the viewer gets a sense of one post-apocalyptic region in the US, an area around Boston. There is an allusion in episode 1 and 2 to world-wide catastrophe. There is a huge time jump between 1 and 2. The outbreak takes place in 2003 in episode 1. The rest of the series looks like it will take place 20 years later in 2023, with flashbacks to fill in the gaps here and there. The fungus shows up first in Jakarta, Indonesia…but we learn in episode 3 that the fungus probably went global simultaneously because it was in the food supply, in something like flour or sugar. That idea is unique, moveover, the zombies are weird and fast and hard to kill (bullet to the brain seems to do the job, similar to other zombie narratives). The fungus infested monsters are portrayed in a fuller way in episode 2. 

In the era of binge watching, it’s possible a series such as THE LAST OF US will draw in fresh consumers to HBO streaming, but my guess is it won’t. The buzz that drives everyone to want to watch Stranger Things, because of the “event” of binging the entire season and sharing that experience with millions of fans, that is absent from the HBO and other streaming services’ business model. FoMO associated with binge watching fuels the marketing machine for Netflix. Millions are driven to want a subscription. Some buy, maybe thinking they’ll pay for a short time, and wind up staying longer or forever. Others do pay for one month and then quit…which is better for Netflix than those who use or steal a password to get their fix. 

I am feeling a little frustrated by the drip…drip model. I don’t binge all in one day, but I like to watch the same show night after night. I hate waiting a week. It’s probable I will lose interest or get fixated on another show. I can’t be alone on that. So, if you’re a binge watcher and you think you might like this series, you might wanna wait for another couple of months so you’ll have more content. Subscribe to HBOMax in May, an you’ll have a whole lot of Game of Thrones: House of the Dragon and perhaps the first season of THE LAST OF US

THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH, A Review with Minor Spoilers

The third and final science fiction novel written by CS Lewis, THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH, is touted by some as a fantasy novel. I hesitate to go deeper to explain why that might be, for fear of spoiling, but let’s just say that the story takes place on Earth, not in space, and one of the key characters who acts in a miraculous and decisive way to defeat the enemy, is a wonderfully fantastical character.

As I have talked with friends who have read all three, I get different answers about which is the “favorite” in the trilogy. There are individuals who love Out of the Silent Planet. I personally like it for its length…it is as short as a novella and a tight little narrative. Others love Perelandra. I appreciate Perelandra, but there are portions where reading was a chore. For me, THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH is the true novel. It is my favorite of the three.

The Short Review: 5 Reasons I Recommend THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH

  1. Compelling main character(s) both grappling with interior life, particularly with identity and faith
  2. A rich setting, a modern academic world and progressive (Lewis’ words) university leadership that feels creepy, yet familiar
  3. An amorphous and terrifying villain, well written and historically relevant
  4. In the midst of the horror, a comedic twist that feels like a Shakespeare switch-a-roo
  5. A companion novel to 1984. Many minds in this era of the 20th century understood the tyranny of government control. Lewis and Orwell were cut from that same cloth. Warnings that are relevant today and always.

For me, the young married couple, Mark and Jane, makes this story compelling in a way that is unique among the three novels in the trilogy. Jane is a crucial player and well developed. In the previous novels Lewis did not present the reader with a compelling female lead who was relatable. The Perelandra Queen is wonderful, but otherworldly. Jane, in this book, is utterly relatable. Her discomfiture with domestic life, her struggle with a husband who is caught up in his own professional world, felt deeply real. Mark is also real. Lewis highlights his hubris and insecurity, showing the reader how one might choose to align oneself with a horrific community. Mark’s longing for belonging, his hope for recognition are powerful human motivators and have the capacity to diminish the moral spine, especially if that spine is wobbly (as Mark’s is). Despite Mark’s poor choices, I got the feeling that Lewis, like the deity he knows and loves, has not given up on this lost soul. When Mark sinks low enough and faces the worst of himself, there is a promise of redemption.

THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH is a story with complex layers. The deeper conversation about nations and their “haunting” is a topic I will not cover in this review, but in case you’re wanting to understand more, an article in The Imaginative Conservative called America’s “Logres”: The Mythology of a Nation helped me muse on what might be the American Haunting. That conversation is a crossover of the spiritual and the literary and takes the reader deeper into the mind of CS Lewis and those who were writing in like spirit, JRR Tolkien being one of those writers.

PERELANDRA, A Review

PERELANDRA is the second installment in CS Lewis’ space trilogy. Below is my no-spoiler short review, but the longer review that follows the image of PERELANDRA’s cover, will contain spoilers…beware. This is not a children’s book, but I recommend this novel to all ages who like the story. For all readers, taking the time to discuss after or along the way will deepen philosophical and theological understanding. 

Link to OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET for a review of the first book in the trilogy.

5 Reasons to Read PERELANDRA, A Classic Science Fiction Story

  1. One of the more unique portrayals in literature of paradise and/or a pre-fallen world
  2. Beautiful CS Lewis prose
  3. The ideas are put forward clearly and by someone well acquainted with 20th century ideas
  4. Finally…a strong female character (there were none in the first novel)
  5. Read all three to make sense of what Lewis was trying to accomplish in the longer narrative arc

3 Reasons PERELANDRA is My Least Favorite of the Trilogy

  1. There are so few characters and the villain does not arrive until about 1/3 of the way into the book
  2. Not a lot of drama…there is a slow build and eventually, high drama, but it takes the novel a while to arrive (see #1)
  3. A lot of speech-making in the final pages. Interesting ideas, but coming at me in my least favorite non-dramatic package
Cover illustration by Kinuko Y. Grant

The Longer Review (With Spoilers)

While PERELANDRA is my least favorite of the three books Lewis wrote in the scifi genre, it does have its merits. 

For one, anyone who has read his Narnia books, knows how well CS Lewis puts his imagination on the page. He has the ability to create a world both strange and fabulous and took on a bold task to put before the reader a paradise, a pre-civilization and pre-fallen planet with only two human-like people. Basically, he created an Eden. And how would one write this in a convincing way?

This excerpt, one of many examples…just gorgeous.

Now he had come to a part of the wood where great globes of yellow fruit hung from the trees–clustered as toy-balloons are clustered on the back of a balloon-man and about the same size. He picked one of them and turned it over and over. The rind was smooth and firm and seemed impossible to tear open. Then by accident, one of his fingers punctured it and went through into coldness. After a moment’s hesitation, he put the little aperture to his lips. He had meant to extract the smallest experimental sip, but the first taste put his caution all to flight. It was, of course, a taste, just as his thirst and hunger had been thirst and hunger. But then it was so different than any other taste that it seemed a mere pedantry to call it taste at all. It was like the discovery of a totally new genus of pleasure, something unheard of among men, out of all reckoning, beyond all covenant. For one draught of this on earth wars would be fought and nations betrayed.

Elwin Ransom, a professor of philology, is the narrator here. He was also the protagonist in Out of the Silent Planet. In this excerpt, he is telling his tale to a fictionalized version of CS Lewis after returning from his mission to the planet Perelandra. Ransom was sent to Perelandra by the angelic ruler of Mars (Malacandra). The reader is acquainted with this ruler from the previous book. In Out of the Silent Planet, Ransom is kidnapped and brought to Malacandra. That is where he meets Oyarsa, the ruler of Mars. Oyarsa does make an appearance in this novel, as does Weston, one of the academics who kidnapped Ransom in the first story. Weston, the primary rival to Ransom, acts as the tempter in this narrative. He does this not by his own cleverness and strength, but by something more frightening. Weston has given himself over to the bent angelic ruler of Earth, Satan. After Weston arrives on Perelandra in his space vessel, Ransom comes to understand his mission, that he has been sent to thwart the bent Oyarsa by thwarting Weston. 

In the story, Weston is an academic with the worst intellectual vices; hubris combined with a flamboyant humanism that borders on narcissism. Tragically, he falls under a true evil in his search of spiritual answers to the mysteries he experienced on Malacandra. Weston’s journey into evil reads like something out of a horror novel (or the Bible).

“Idiot,” said Weston. His voice was almost a howl and he had risen to his feet. “Idiot,” he repeated. “Can you understand nothing?…This is the old accursed dualism in another form. There is no possible distinction in concrete thought between me and the universe. In so far as I am the conductor of the central forward pressure of the universe, I am it. Do you see, you timid, scruple-mongering fool? I am the Universe. I, Weston, am your God and your Devil. I call the Force into me completely…”

Then horrible things began happening. A spasm like that preceding a deadly vomit twisted Weston’s face out of recognition. As it passed, for one second something like the old Weston reappeared–the Old Weston, staring with eyes of horror and howling, “Ransom, Ransom! For Christ’s sake don’t let them—” and instantly his whole body spun round as if he had been hit by a revolver-bullet and he fell to the earth, and was there rolling at Ransom’s feet, slavering and chattering and tearing up the moss by the handfuls…

I was in my thirties the last time I read PERELANDRA and I did not remember how clearly this Weston character gives himself over to evil. Nor did I remember that Ransom comes to the realization that he will have to destroy Weston in hand to hand combat if he is to defeat him. 

That Ransom believes he must assassinate his rival provoked my horror. Moreover, the scenes of his battle with Weston are brutal. Lewis does not hold back on that reality, but the idea of this existential battle brought to mind Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Lewis might never have known Bonhoeffer personally, but the ideas Bonhoeffer was writing about and preaching about (in Hitler’s Germany) were likely familiar to him…as they were to every thinking Christian of the time.

Bonhoeffer, while struggling to be a faithful clergy member under Nazi rule in Germany, came to terms with the idea that it was in fact a righteous or just act to kill a man who had fully given himself over to evil. That is why Bonhoeffer was executed in the end, as he played a role in an assassination attempt against Hitler. Below is an excerpt of a sermon on Colossians 3:1-4, a sermon he gave most likely after he had made the decision to collaborate with a part of the resistance determined to assassinate the Fürher.

“Instead, and precisely because our minds are set on things above, we are that much more stubborn and purposeful in protesting here on earth… Does it have to be so that Christianity, which began as immensely revolutionary, now has to remain conservative for all time? That every new movement has to blaze its path without the church, and that the church always takes twenty years to see what has actually happened? If it really must be so, then we must not be surprised when, for our church as well, times come when the blood of martyrs will be demanded. But this blood, if we truly have the courage and honour and loyalty to shed it, will not be so innocent and shining as that of the first witnesses. Our blood will be overlaid with our own great guilt.” (DBW 11, 446) (Schlingensiepen, Kindle Location 2427)

Bonhoeffer’s words evoke the idea that a conservative church is potentially an anemic one. His mention of our great guilt in the sermon I took two ways. One, the church is guilty when it does not act (or waits too long) to stand up to evil. Two, if it does join the revolutionaries, it potentially falls under the guilt of questionable acts. When evil can only be defeated by an act that lays outside of the norm of Christian ethics, there is plenty of guilt to go around. However, Bonhoeffer did not shrink back from taking on that guilt for what he (and history) thought to be the greater good. Moreover, his writings on this remain strong pillars in just-war theory and the Christian struggle with realism versus pacifism.

Lewis travels a similar line of reasoning in this novel and it should not surprise the reader that when the character Ransom leaves the planet Perelandra, he leaves having accomplished his task, but with a wound on his foot that refuses to heal this side of heaven. 

OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET, A No Spoiler Review

OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET, by CS Lewis came about as a result of a coin toss between JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis in the 1930s. The understanding between the two men; one side of the coin would mean writing a science fiction novel, the other side would mean writing a time travel novel. The coin was tossed, Lewis was assigned the scifi novel. Tolkien was assigned the time travel novel. Tolkien never wrote his. Lewis did, published in 1938, twelve years before Narnia. In fact, he wound up writing three books of science fiction. OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET, which I will review here, was the first. This story is sophisticated, but there is no reason a YA reader or a very learned middle grade reader cannot take on this story. For educators thinking about assigning this book to a young person, a solid discussion on the story would make the experience a profound one.

The Short Review: 4 Reasons to Read OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET

  1. Superb writing and because this is CS Lewis, when you’re finished reading, your brain will have expanded
  2. Scintillating ideas that awaken the conscience…Plunge yourself into the mindset of a WWI veteran and a brilliant observer of history and soak in Lewis’ crucial critique of pre-WWII Europe
  3. Absorb Lewis’ Christian concept of God/Creator…the beauty and the moral implications
  4. Gain a vision for the power of fiction (imaginative science fiction in particular) as a way to change hearts and minds.

A Few More Details:

When Lewis and his friend and colleague, JRR Tolkien, both veterans of WWI, decided to toss that coin, they had been musing together about the sad state of fiction. They believed that the godless universe theory unleashed to some degree by Darwinists and proponents of the Hegelian superstate/superman, was giving rise to real beliefs (like eugenics which both understood as dangerous and evil) inside academia and government. More troublesome, these theories were making their way into fiction and infecting the broader population through story.

Americans fought in WWII and helped to defeat Hitler, so my nation (I am a US citizen) often forgets how the eugenics movement in the US was accepted and backed by some of our highest state actors, like President Woodrow Wilson. We in the US forget, maybe conveniently so, that we too were traveling on a similar road as the Nazis. This is how pervasive these ideas were and back in that day, they were considered progressive. It turns out, anything can be labeled progressive. A cautionary and hopefully humbling reminder to us in the 21st century.

Marxist ideology was also suspect in Lewis’ eyes. Both Marxism and Fascism preached an exercising of power where the end justifies the means. That idea was an abomination to Lewis and Tolkien, the rejection of which made its ways into the Lord of Rings trilogy, as it did into all of Lewis’ writings. As Christians (Lewis, an Anglican, Tolkien, a Catholic), they challenged the idea that the state has permission to sacrifice an individual for some greater good, not without that individual willingly giving up her/his life, soldiers willing to fight to defeat the existential enemy of a free state being one example of this proper sacrifice, something both of these men witnessed first hand.

In regard to reading OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET, knowing a little 20th century history and philosophy definitely helps the reader enter into the world of Elwin Ransom, the hero of the story, but even without that knowledge, this is a fascinating and well written tale. Ransom, a philologist, is on a walking tour of rural England. He is kidnapped and taken to Malacandra (the planet Mars). What unfolds is a story about relationship and curiosity (Ransom’s journey) versus dominance exercised by violence (the journey of his kidnappers). The narrative provides a resolution that exemplifies the idea that there is a standard of justice that is literally universal.

This is my third time reading OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET (notice my beat-up copy in the image above…not sure it will survive another read-through) and after finishing the book this round, I found myself dreaming about grace and kindness and goodness while I slept…something that doesn’t often happen for me after reading science fiction before bed.

FOR ALL MANKIND, A No Spoiler Review

Apple Plus released its third season of FOR ALL MANKIND this month. I have not viewed any of the 3rd season but I did watch all of 1 and 2 and loved them. What follows will be the short review and a longer review of season 1 and 2. If you’re convinced by the short review…start watching now. If you need a little more data, the longer review will give you a better idea of why this many hours of consumption might be worth your time. The show is rated R for a few racy sex scenes, but if your young person can handle that, the education piece is interesting. A bit of history can be etched out or explained as some of the “alternative” version comes across the screen. It’s portrayal of communist USSR rings true. It also captures something of the spirit of the age for each decade, especially the urgency around the space race of the 1960s.

The Short Review: 6 Reasons I Recommend FOR ALL MANKIND

  1. If you love alternative history narratives like The Man in the High Castle, you will appreciate this story
  2. If you love nostalgia settings and music, think Stranger Things, you will love being immersed in this story-world, which starts in the 1960s, but spans decades.
  3. Most of us appreciate great casting. FOR ALL MANKIND will not disappoint
  4. Top-notch production value, this includes the writing, the special effects and the acting
  5. Good pacing. A lot of action, drama and tension throughout
  6. A thoughtful story. A sprinkling of social commentary for our current time…some of that commentary I liked, some I felt was contrived, but the ideas are worthy of our attention

The Longer Review: (this review contains a couple of small spoilers)

The USSR and the US are in a space race in this alternative history, set during the cold war. The USSR has landed on the moon first, claimed it as territory, and has aims to build a military compound. This traumatizes the US as a nation. The first episode captures the feeling well as it feels like a gut-punch watching the Soviet flag raised on the moon and hearing the first words of the Russian Cosmonaut as he takes the first steps…The Walter Cronkite figure on the television news reports as follows:

The first man to set foot on the moon spoke just moments ago. “I take this step for my country, for my people, and for the Marxist-Leninist way of life. Knowing that today is but one small step on a journey that someday will take us all to the stars.”

FOR ALL MANKIND was created by Ronald D. Moore (Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek and Outlander), Matt Wolpert and Ben Nedivi. They take the “what if Russia had landed on the moon before we did” scenario and create a similar history to our own, but with differences that intrigue. The writers, I surmise, are progressive in their leanings because progressive values make their way into the script and into a historically white male dominated NASA long before reality. Sometimes, it feels heavy-handed, like the writers are checking the boxes of gender and racial diversity. However, the results do make for a delightfully diverse cast.

In episode 1, the audience meets Margo Madison (pictured above, played by Wrenn Schmidt) at the beginning point of her NASA career where she is the only woman in the male dominated control center. By season 2, she emerges as NASA’s head.

By the finale of season 2, women, a couple of non-binary individuals (though they keep their gender preferences a secret), African Americans and even a Mexican female immigrant who came over the border illegally as a child, are recruited by the NASA of FOR ALL MANKIND. And who can say it might not have been this way had the US felt the pressure of its failure to land first on the moon? Also, the Soviets promote the first female astronaut, shaming the US for its lack of representation.

Joel Kinnaman as Ed Baldwin

All the characters are well-drawn and most are courageous and longsuffering in various ways. Joel Kinnaman (The Killing, Hanna and Altered Carbon) plays Ed Baldwin, an astronaut with a big mouth who in a drunken state reveals to a reporter how NASA lost the space race because of an aversion to risk. He is punished for the reveal (taken off astronaut duty and given a desk job), but his words capture NASA’s very real dilemma. In order to stay equal to, or to get ahead of the USSR, risks will have to be taken. Many characters of significance will lose their lives to achieve the elusive prize of space dominance.

This is where the series gives commentary on current society as it poses the questions that plague our century…Who will dominate the future? US and free societies (in general) have dominated the global order since WWII, but that prize came at a great cost to many of our ancestors. We have inherited something hard fought, but that inheritance is being challenged and chipped away by those who see themselves as more deserving of dominance…and perhaps they are, but some moments in history, even national failures, have the capacity to motivate a new generation of warriors. That message shines through in FOR ALL MANKIND.