D.N.A., EPISODE 2

By BarbaraBlackwell (March-April 2019, age 9)

IF YOU MISSED EPISODE ONE YOU CAN VIEW IT: HERE

To be continued in a few more weeks ...

Book Review: A Game of Thrones 4-Book Bundle

Title: George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones 4-Book Bundle
Authors: George R.R. Martin
Publisher: Bantam
Godfrey's Rating: 1 stars (out of 5)
Summary in a Sentence: A very well-written series of books that are enjoyable and engrossing then quickly descent into nihilistic soul-destroying garbage in an unending meandering tale with no plot advancement over thousands of pages.

Given the wild popularity of these novels and the HBO TV series they have inspired, it seemed almost mandatory for a blog focussed on science fiction and fantasy to review this work.

Mr. Martin has been dubbed the "American Tolkien" by Time magazine -- I cannot agree with this. The world he created for "A Song of Ice and Fire" is certainly very well thought-out and full of rich details, reminiscent of Tolkien's Middle Earth. However, he is no Tolkien, first and foremost because whereas Tolkien wrote inspiring tales of friendship and honour amidst evil and destruction, Mr. Martin weaves a depressing, dark, and uninspiring tale.

George Martin is, technically, a very skilled writer, and it is his skill that kept me reading and made me really want to enjoy these books the way so many do. He may actually approach Tolkien's mastery in terms of command of language. His style is quite dynamic and engages all of the senses making his writing in some ways more engaging than Tolkein's. It is his underlying message/theme that I cannot abide, coupled with some rather stupid ideas that make no sense if one knows anything about medieval societies, and the outright pornography in sections.

The novels take place, for the most part, the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros, which are, at the beginning of A Game of Thrones, united into single kingdom. It is an ancient kingdom with history stretching back some 12,000 years referenced in the story. The overarching plot is of a conflict between the leading families of the realm with House Lannister (the Queen of Westeros being of this house) playing the role of antagonists against the Starks of the North (the large family of Eddard Stark play a major role in the series). There is also a subplot concerning the exiled Targaryen heirs who seek to reclaim Westeros (the last Targaryen king having been overthrown about fifteen years before the start of A Game of Thrones). There are massive complexities within this broad plot involving familial alliances and age-old rivalries (quite well-done) which all explodes into a massive civil war.

One of the major aspects of the world Mr. Martin created is that it has seasons that last for years. I found it extremely difficult to suspend my disbelief on this score, since it would be impossible for people with mediæval technology to survive in northern climes where there are winters that last years and even a decade and more. Especially since there is reference to there being snow on the ground in summer in Winterfell. No satisfactory explanation is ever given in the novels as to how people stay fed in such an area -- although aside from this I found the world-building in these novels was well-done.

In addition to this, Mr. Martin populates his world with a large cast of characters who are for the most part believable and interesting. The problem I had with them is that they are, with very few exceptions who are all killed very early in the series, too "dark". That is, they are all completely out for themselves and here, again, the worldbuilding starts to fall apart a bit because a society with such universal disdain (not just disregard) for oaths and honour would not hold together. Certainly not in a feudal realm which Westeros is portrayed as. An assassination or an oath-breaking here-and-there is realistic and adds conflict to a story. The CONSTANT and unending oath-breaking, assassinations/regicides (more than one occurring at weddings that were ostensibly to form alliances), betrayals, the brutality of every character, the lack of decency, the complete narcissism and nihilism of every character who survives past the second novel, all proved too much for me. In the first two books this is not so bad as the few good and decent characters are still around. But as they are killed-off the work becomes uninspiring and depressing. At first I thought it was good writing -- giving the protagonists lots of conflict to overcome -- but ultimately it becomes clear that the overriding theme of "A Song of Ice and Fire" is complete nihilism, as summed up by a character called "The Hound":

... there are no true knights, no more than there are gods. If you can’t protect yourself, die and get out of the way of those who can. Sharp steel and strong arms rule this world, don’t ever believe any different.

Which is certainly not uplifting at all. It is social Darwinism/"survival of the fittest" writ large. It is, ultimately, soul-destroying uninspiring garbage. The technical writing itself is superb.  The many interesting plot elements and twists and turns, conbine for an enjoyable and addictive read. But this depressing and FALSE theme and theory cannot be countenanced. The real world is often ugly and there is evil in it, to be sure, but it is not THIS ugly -- J.R.R. Marin is beyond cynical in these books. Among humans there ARE true knights and heroes, and the IS a God. And no society has survived on a "survival of the fittest" mentality; it has rather been those societies that took duty seriously that rose to be great civilizations.

Just a couple examples from this series and how they're ridiculous when applied to real life. In one scene, we see a group of lords laughing to scorn a certain duke's "softness" because he allowed his peasants to take shelter inside his castle. This ignores the importance of serfs to a mediæval culture -- the main point of castles was to keep these valuable citizens safe. Martin never does try to explain how there isn't mass starvation across Westeros when the serfs are wantonly massacred and their own lords make no attempt whatsoever to protect them (and on the contrary tend to prey on their own serfs as much as the enemy). Then there's the marriage scene I referenced which angered me so much I stopped reading the novel for many weeks. It's preposterous that one would slay his new allies at the very wedding feast that is to seal the alliance. No one would ever join with that lord again and in reality in a feudal society which DEPENDS on the sacredness of oaths, such a man would be spurned by all.

Returning to the technical aspects, though the pacing was spot-on through the first two installments, I found that by book 3 (A Storm of Swords) the plot started to seriously drag and the overarching plot no longer advanced. It felt like the work started merely treading water and I wondered if Mr. Martin had any clear idea of how this civil war was supposed to end. He may not, given his inability to complete the series. Also, while unexpected twists are good,  Mr. Martin went too far in some instances. At one point he managed to wipe out, over the course of a chapter, almost all of the protagonists  and any realistic hope that whom I had identified as the "good guys" could win the war. I think this is a legitimate complaint, because it is not proper (in my humble opinion) for an author to  imply a certain group are the protagonists and then remove them from the work entirely. It is denying the reader delivery on an implicit promise.

This is NOT a work I would recommend to anyone. At best, it might be worth spending $15 on the Kindle version solely for the purpose of studying the technical writing/style of a talented author. Sadly, Mr. Martin uses his God-given talents to cynically promote a worldview of extreme nihilism.

Some Thoughts from Godfrey on Science and Faith

I saw the picture above posted to Facebook. I certainly agree that "science and faith are compatible", but I think that the picture wrongly suggests that if you believe this you MUST accept the "big bang theory". The thing is, it's just that -- a theory. And how could it be otherwise since obviously no one other than God Himself was around at the time to see what happened.

The Big Bang theory does make a certain amount of sense, but, it's unprovable, and furthermore, there IS scientific evidence out there in favour of a "young earth". Just because you ascribe to that theory doesn't mean that you believe science and faith are incompatible. And, frankly, it would be great if there were more open study of such questions. The problem is that the modern-day secularist inquisition forbids a truly open and honest discussion of these things. You must accept evolution or you're a crazy fundamentalist. You must accept the "big bang" or you're a crazy fundamentalist. Et cetera. And it seems to me that we're buying into that mentality a bit when we make memes and videos like the ones above.

Moreover, it seems to me that the reason modern "scientists" and university professors persecute those with "heretical" views is because in some respects they have elevated unproven theories to the level of dogma in some sort of quasi-religion which they call "science" but really isn't science. Hence the witch hunt for creationists and others. So the opposition isn't really between faith and science. They frame it this way to stack the deck in their favour. But the opposition is frequently between this pseudo-religion and faith.

Just some random thoughts.

THE DEATH OF ASNOR

By Anna Blackwell (May 2019, age 11)

THE TIME LIZARD, EPISODE 3

By Albert Blackwell (March-April 2019, age 12)

FOR EPISODE 1, CLICK HERE

FOR EPISODE 2, CLICK HERE

CONTINUE TO EPISODE 4: CLICK HERE

Movie Review: The Hunger Games (2012)

Title: The Hunger Games
Director: Gary Ross
Distributor: Lionsgate
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson
Godfrey's Rating: 1.5 stars (out of 5)
Summary in a Sentence: A sub-par "dystopian future"-themed film that features the disturbing spectacle of children killing each other in gladiatorial-style games, which neverthless touched something in the young-adult crowd, becoming a box-office smash with several sequels

I went to see this film in the theatre solely as social research and to see what all the fuss was about. A film that grosses $150 million in its opening weekend must have some special appeal. I went in with low expectations -- living under a rock as I do, I was largely ignorant of the whole Hunger Games phenomenon. I knew nothing of the plot save the vaguest idea of the concept. It wasn't terrible, but I'm glad I went on "Cheap Tuesday".

So the basic plot is, per Internet Movie Database:

In a dystopian future, the totalitarian nation of Panem is divided between 12 districts and the Capitol. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal retribution for a past rebellion, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors while the citizens of Panem are required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss's young sister, Prim, is selected as District 12's female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. 

There really isn't much more to it than that. After the intial heroic act of volunteering to take her sister's place, the rest of the film is just a bunch of action sequences as Katniss tries to stay alive (with the mandatory shaky hand-held camera preventing the viewer from seeing much of it). Rather ho-hum I thought on the whole, although there were some things that were quite good.

I thought the Running Man-esque critique of modern media and the voyeurism of reality shows was quite well done. Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, the host of The Hunger Games was perfect. The "look" of the film, the art direction, etc., something that I pay close attention to was very well done also. The violence was treated decently insofar as it conveyed some of the horror inherent in children killing each other, without being too graphic.

But those good things do not add up to a good film. I thought that many aspects were highly problematic, and the biggest is that this is a truly post-Christian film in that the main protagonist has not a shred of Christian virtue -- and nor does anyone else. As I said, after the first self-sacrificing move for her sister, it's all self preservation and this really perverts what could have been a dark, yet powerful indictment of modern society. This unChristian ethical void leads of other things like the pagan glorification of suicide at the end of the film. I am NOT a fan of the "Xena Warrior Princess" politically correct gender-bending pugilism -- and therefore did not enjoy the concept of Katniss, a 16-year-old girl, who is capable of defeating all comers in hand-to-hand combat. It's not only horribly cliché and overused in sci fi especially, it's also just plain wrong. Wrong in that women in general aren't just as good at fighting as men, and from a Christian perspective the idea of women fighting is repulsive.  Even the Romans found the spectacle of gladiatrices intolerable and reformed them out of existence after Nero. The whole "adults = evil, children = good" trope (as exemplified by the fact that all the adult characters were either evil or useless, save, interestingly, Katniss' fashion consultant) so common in modern-day literature is really tiring and insidious.

Which leads me to why I think this film franchise is/was so popular. There is a strong theme of abandonment by parents/adults/society in the film that I think really resonates with today's youth.  So I can see why they have consumed this film in large numbers. But for my money, I do not recommend anyone rush out to see it except maybe as a way of gaining some insight into today's young adults?

WARHAMMER 40K: PRIMARIS ULTRAMARINES

By James Blackwell (April 2019, 8 years old)