outside of contemporary theology and history, i don’t tend to read contemporary best sellers, especially those of the fiction variety. to prove this point, i looked up the New York Times best sellers list to see how many books i had even heard of before. much to my astonishment, i found out that there was not one omnibus NYT list (which i guess i assumed from hearing so many times that such-and-such book is a New York Times best seller), but that there were several lists. hardcover fiction, hardcover nonfiction, paperback trade fiction, paperback mass-market fiction, paperback nonfiction, etc. so after further establishing my ignorance, i proceeded with the experiment, using the main four (in my uneducated but seemingly common sensical opinion) lists to see how many books i had heard of before using the top twenty from each list.

eight. out of eighty of the best selling books in the country, i had previously heard of eight, one of which is the subject of this post. i am clearly not in the loop. my point is that i don’t often read books that i know nothing about. before reading the first page of the book, i knew next to nothing about The Road. i knew the author wrote No Country for Old Men, which i haven’t read but i have seen the film. i knew the book had won the Pulitzer Prize, only because the front of the book told me so. that was it.

(i didn’t even know that it was an Oprah book until i was half-way through the book and someone i was talking to said she read it because it made Oprah’s book club; thankfully, i do not have a copy with the Oprah seal of approval on it, although some might argue that being selected by Oprah is better and more prestigious than winning the Pulitzer)

now i’m finished with the book…and i don’t really know what to say. i don’t think this is the kind of book that anyone could actually love. and by that i mean the kind of book, the old favorite, that you pick up and read when you’re down, or the book that is the go-to, default book when you can’t decide on what to read next and want to read something you’ve read before to re-experience the joy of reading it. this is a hard book. a gritty book.

but it’s also a beautiful book. hauntingly beautiful. it’s the story of a father and son and their journey down “the road” in a post-apocalyptic world. it’s never clear where they’re going, or what they hope or expect to find. what is clear is that they cannot linger in one place too long, or travel too long out in the open, since what’s left of humanity has devolved into an animalistc fight for survival in a world with nothing left to survive on.

what’s beautiful about the book is the language used. Cormac McCarthy is not a traditional writer. his style took me a while to get used to, and the wide disregard for correct punctuation annoyed the daylight out of me, but he is a brilliant writer. he masterfully paints the scene, dark and gray as they are, in such a way that you almost wish you were there. of course, only to be reminded of the stark reality facing the characters in the book and the immense ugliness of what the world has become.

in addition to the language, the two main characters, the father and son, are beautiful characters. the depth of relationship, the purity of love, the self-sacrificing character of both–rarely do you come across such deeply moving and inspiring characters who are otherwise grossly underdeveloped. i haven’t read any reviews on this book, but i imagine that most of the reviews that are out there focus on this relationship. i imagine they speak of the child being the only thing that keeps the father going and acting as a sort of conscience for the father, the one bright ray of hope and peace in a world that no longer knows anything of hope and peace. and surely they’d be justified in focusing on that.

for me, though, the genius of the book is the author himself. his juxtaposition of the ugly and grotesque with the stunning and arresting words in which he uses to describe it. his ability to begin a story in the middle of a journey and end the story with the journey unfinished, and that be okay and perfect. it’s an amazing book in so many ways and i suppose that’s what led it to win a Pulitzer.

but it’s still a very hard book and not one that everyone will like, and not one that everyone should read (which makes it all the more interesting to me that Oprah would choose a book like this). if you do decide to read it, don’t make the same mistake i did and read it right before going to bed. but it is a very good book and one that i am really glad to have read.

since it’s release, i’ve seen The Dark Knight twice. i loved the movie and believe it will be the best movie i see all year. it’s not a perfect movie by any means, but everything it does it does extremely well and is a very fine piece of art in all aspects.

but the thing i loved most about the movie was what it had to say. i usually don’t expect big summer blockbuster superhero films to be message films, but this one definitely was. i found it to be a profound, clear cry out for the gospel by a dark world, a world, as the posters say, without rules.

now, with that said, i’ve been a bit confused at some Christians’ responses to the film. a post from a prominent blog had this to say, “In fact, it comes down to a lie of human idealization being passed off on the public because they’re supposed to be better off thinking the lie. That violates everything I believe. I learned nothing. I was not enriched in any way.”

in praise of this particular post, an even more prominent blog had this to say, “But when we are supposedly deeply moved by something that, at its core, isn’t deeply moving, isn’t redemptive, isn’t part of the grand story, but is just a vast, pretentious, technologically overwhelming retelling of the worst kind of human story, I want to have the backbone to say so.”

both of these posts point to a gigantic problem in Christian circles. that problem is the failure of the church to seriously, honestly, and redemptively engage with what the wider culture is producing and telling us. if i’m allowed to broad-brush a little bit, when it comes to art (visual art, music, film, whatever), Christians would rather have Thomas Kinkade than Jackson Pollock. FFH rather than Bob Dylan. Facing the Giants rather than The Dark Knight. why? because, despite being patently bad and vacuous art, all the former examples are neat, tidy, and safe. they’re comforting. they’re unchallenging. they don’t cause us to face the fact that we live in a deeply complex world. a messy world. a fallen world.

that is not the case with The Dark Knight, or any of the above latter examples. quite appropriately, The Dark Knight is dark. it’s menacing. it’s uncomfortable. it shows us the depth of human depravity by portraying a city living in absolute fear. fear of unpredictable violence. fear of unpredictable death.

but there is hope. a caped crusader keeps watch over the city at night, protecting its citizens from a madman with no moral standards. a madman who has capitalized on the city’s fear and turned the city against itself. this crusader sacrifices everything for the good of others. time and time again he is tested by the madman. tested, seemingly beyond human limits, to break his one rule. to fall and become like the madman himself. but the crusader holds firm. despite all he has sacrificed, despite all that has been taken away from him, he does not fall. he is the true hero. he is the true hope.

but the people place their faith in another. the great white hope for the city is a bright, ambitious district attorney. a virtuous man who promises to rid the city of violence, restoring peace and tranquility to its streets. however, he too faces loss and testing. but unlike the caped crusader, this district attorney, the one the people have put their trust, faith, and hope in, falls. he becomes a madman himself. a cold murderer with no other conscience than the arbitrary flip of a coin. he represents the stark reality of what happens when we place our faith in another mere human. when we don’t look outside of ourselves to something bigger.

and that’s what Batman represents. Batman is bigger than humanity. he is outside humanity. he is the only one that can bring true peace, true hope to Gotham City. but the people will not recognize their need of him. instead they look to elsewhere for their salvation. how true is this of all of us? how many other places do we look, whether to entertainment, money, dare i say…politicians…to provide for us the hope and comfort that we so deeply long for? all the while looking past the one thing that can provide us sure hope, sure peace, sure salvation: faith in Christ.

and so Batman is a sort of Christ-figure for the city of Gotham. or, you could say that Christ is a sort of “dark knight” in this fallen world. the people do not recognize their need for him, and so they turn elsewhere for their hope. when the one they’ve placed their hope in fails and proves himself to be just another sinner in need of grace, Batman takes upon himself the sins of the young district attorney. why? because, as Commissioner Gordon says, “he can take it.” that is his role. he will be reviled, hunted, scorned, murdered in the hearts of all the citizens of Gotham until they recognize how deeply they need him. how hopeless their situation is without him. until they come to a point where they realize that it was him all along who was protecting them. who was taking away the darkness. and in that day they will repent of their hatred toward him and embrace him as the only one that can bring them true peace and true hope.

i said at the beginning that the film wasn’t a perfect one. there is a great monologue at the end by Commissioner Gordon that i absolutely love. however, it’s ever so slightly off. Gordon says of Batman, “he’s the hero we deserve, but not the hero we need right now.” i say “off,” because Batman is the hero that Gotham needs, though they don’t know it. the hero they deserve, that all of us deserve, is Harvey Dent, the fallen district attorney. we don’t deserve Batman. we don’t deserve the hope, the grace, the redemption that Batman represents to “a world without rules.” yet it is freely, unconditionally offered to us. however, we remain blind to it until our eyes are opened and we see past the felt needs and false hopes of anti-Batmans and anti-Christs, only to see the true need of God’s grace and mercy and salvation, the only means of true hope and peace in this world.

to “learn nothing,” to not be “enriched in any way,” to see The Dark Knight as unmoving and non-redemptive, is a failure to deeply engage with one of the loudest cries for the gospel that hollywood has produced.

so this blog has been quiet for a while. i got terribly bogged down in my last semester of seminary as i was trying to graduate. other factors contributed to this, but since graduation is over i hope to have a lot more time to devote to blogging.

perhaps there is no better return to blogging than an experience that really gets your juices flowing, for good or bad. this definitely happened with me as i sat in the theater watching the latest film adaptation of C.S. Lewis’s masterpiece, The Chronicles of Narnia. the film in question is the second installment of the franchise and is based on the book Prince Caspian (PC hereafter).

let me start by saying that PC the book is my least favorite of the Narnia series. i can’t exactly pinpoint why, i just don’t enjoy it near as much as i do the other six books. that’s not to say, however, that there aren’t some really great moments in the book, and of course it is here that we first meet my favorite character in the series, Reepicheep. so because it’s my least favorite, if there was any film where much could be changed without my really caring, it would be PC. this of course being under the assumption that an attempt would be made to preserve the underlying message and intent of the author in such a film.

sadly, however, what was done by the filmmakers to this book is, frankly, atrocious. the narrative of the film is largely unrecognizable to someone familiar with the book. so much has been changed, so much has been added, and the message and intent has been completely removed that it’s a wonder that this film can even be called “Prince Caspian.”

putting what was done to the actual story aside for a moment, the film, as a piece of art, is also horrific. the film is basically a Michael Bay version of PC (and i say that as a fan of Michael Bay films) where cheap thrills and violence are the order of the day, and the story is a secondary matter, almost an afterthought. the effects in the film, though better than those of the previous film, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe are not very well done and the film seems to be a pretty poor, cheap ripoff of the Lord of the Rings films, especially in the first ten to twenty minutes of the film.

with the exception of a few bright spots, the actor who plays King Miraz in particular, the acting is pretty painful. two of the children, Lucy and Edmund, are alright, but Susan and Peter are just awful. much of the dialogue is awkward and stilted and there just doesn’t seem to be much chemistry between them. it almost appears as if they don’t want to be there. Liam Neeson, much more in this film, is unconvincing as Aslan (more stilted dialogue here), and perhaps the biggest disappointment of all was the noble mouse Reepicheep. i was skeptical on Eddie Izzard providing the voice, and for me it just didn’t work at all. of course this might of had to do with more stilted dialogue. i mean it literally sounded to me that when Reepicheep spoke there was someone pushing play on a tape recorder and then pushing stop when the line was finished. that’s how awkward and disjointed the dialogue was.

so as a piece of art on its own, the film, while mildly entertaining, is just not very good.

many people around the web have commented on and detailed the points at which the film strays from the book, so i won’t take the time to do so here. if you want to know, it’s not that hard to find. the changes, as i said before, are so numerous that it’s a wonder that this film can even be called Prince Caspian. it’s also a wonder that Douglas Gresham, Lewis’s step-son, allowed such a raping (in my opinion) of this story to take place.

i actually wasn’t that surprised at the changes in themselves, but i thought enough of a vestige of the book and the author’s intent would remain untouched. however, if the filmmakers couldn’t get the conversation in the Beavers’ house right in the first film, i don’t know why i expected the more profound parts of this book to be handled with care and delivered faithfully (how you can mess up that great line of Aslan’s, “every year you grow, you will find me bigger” is just beyond me; “as you grow, so do i,” the line in the film, means nothing even in the same vain as what Lewis intended. ugh!)

i will mention one specific change, however, that i actually thought was an interesting and good one. many people are incensed at the invented romance between Susan and Caspian that the film portrays, saying that Lewis would never have approved of such a change. they may be right, but i think the change is actually in keeping with what Lewis tells us of Susan’s later life. the kiss she plants on Caspian, that so many are outraged over, shows the beginning of Susan’s pursuit of worldly things. in The Last Battle we are told that Susan is no longer a friend of Narnia and that all she cares about are “nylons, lipstick, and invitations.” so concerned with becoming an adult, Susan rejects the childlike wonder of Narnia in pursuit vain worldliness. her romantic interest and bold kiss in the film gives us an idea of where Susan is going, especially since this will be the last we see of her (assuming the filmmakers remain mostly true to the story for the remainder of the films, something that seems much more in doubt after this latest chapter). so i actually like that change and think it suits Lewis’s intent pretty well.

overall, though, i really did not like this film and i would have no problem with it being the last adaptation from the Narnia books. i shudder to think what the filmmakers will do with The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and The Last Battle.

so as i’ve said in previous posts, i’m reading through Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series. i’ve just completed the second book, A Subtle Knife. if you’ve read my post on The Golden Compass, you will remember that i really enjoyed that book. i thought it was a well-written suspense/adventure story and had all the makings of a great novel.

however, having finished the second book, i am less enthusiastic about the story as a whole. where The Golden Compass is fresh and unpredictable, The Subtle Knife suffers from many bouts of sluggishness and complete predictability. most of the way through the book it felt as if reading this part of the story was merely a means to an end, a necessary slow point that has to set up what’s to come in final book. perhaps that’s why this second part of the story is the shortest of the three? whatever the reason, The Subtle Knife was not nearly as enjoyable as The Golden Compass.

(if you don’t want to be spoiled, read no further) (more…)

head on over to the blog for the Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University where you might see a familiar name. as the title of this post suggests, it’s a grand honor to have been given the privilege of being able to contribute to that blog, and i greatly look forward to working with the folks over there.

on this day in 1892, the greatest author of 20th century was born. in commemoration of this event, The Tolkien Society sponsors a worldwide toast for folks to show their appreciation to the good professor, his work, and the legacy he left behind. a fantastic tradition and one i plan to practice until the end of my days.

in addition to later raising a pint, i am celebrating by watching the three extended editions of The Lord of the Rings films in succession (something i’ve never done before and am excited about) as well as breaking in the new pipe that i got for Christmas.

“the professor!”

this was easily one of my top 5 favorite movies of 2007. it’s the story of a pregnant teenage girl faced with the choice of what to do with the fruit of her exploits. while it never seems that keeping the child is an option, she does consider both of the other options, adoption and abortion, and decides on the former. she then looks for a worthy family that can adopt the baby and finds, through a personal ad, no less, a seemingly perfect couple with a seemingly perfect life. the movie then goes through the events that transpire leading up to the birth of Juno’s baby.

now, there are several reasons that i loved this film. first, it’s just funny. i mean really hilarious. the conversations, especially between Juno (played by Ellen Page) and her best friend Leah (played by Olivia Thirlby), are brilliantly written and never seem forced or contrived. when the two girls are together they pretty much only talk in slang, which can be hard to keep up with but is terribly funny if you can. the word choice is amazing and it’s interesting that they can use certain words to convey meaning that could have nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word they use. that’s probably confusing, and i can’t remember any specific examples, so you’ll just have to see the film to see what i mean. but it’s brilliant. i also found it very refreshing that the majority of the humor in this movie is in the dialogue. frankly, i’m a little burnt out on comedies that are nothing but situational or gag humor. i want something witty, something intelligent. and Juno definitely fits that bill.

a second reason i loved this film is the relationships of the characters. i think one thing that hollywood often fails to convey is the reality of relationships. there are a number of reasons for this, of course, and some of them are justified, but one thing this film does really will is to portray the messiness and complexity of relationships. every relationship in this film is flawed, even the one between Juno and Leah. yet all the characters seem to be conscious of this and do what they can to work through their various issues. they don’t do so perfectly, of course, but through the trouble and pain comes love and redemption. and i think this film does a very good job at showing that.

a third reason i loved this film is what it says about life. now let me be perfectly clear in saying that i don’t think this film was in any way intended to be an “anti-abortion” film, nor do i think it was intended to make any kind of political statement whatsoever. it may, but if so then i am completely unaware of it. nevertheless, i think this film is a wonderful testament to the miracle of life and pregnancy. as i mentioned earlier, Juno does contemplate having an abortion. like one of Job’s friends, perhaps, Leah makes the calls for her and sets up the appointments, trying as hard as she can to help Juno with the situation in the way that she thinks best. but when Juno gets to the abortion clinic she meets a classmate, a stereotypical anti-abortion Christian, protesting the abortion clinic with a picket sign and chanting “all babies want to get borned.” the “Christian” is made to look like a fool, but what she tells Juno, that her baby has fingernails, completely changes Juno’s attitude towards what she is about to do. it’s through watching the nervous, unsettled fingernails of the other “clients” in the clinic that cause her to run out and choose adoption, and she never wastes an opportunity to tell everyone around her that her baby has fingernails. in her own quirky way, Juno comes to realize the wonder that is growing inside of her. and even though she refers to the baby as “this thing” or to her pregnancy as “a fat suit i can’t take off,” even though not having an abortion will bring scorn upon her from classmates and parents, she refuses to do the easy thing and to respect the life that is growing inside of her. it’s beautiful.

there are other things i loved about this film. the soundtrack is really great, the casting is perfect, Dwight has a cameo (i really wish he had more scenes), etc., etc. it’s just a completely brilliant film. this film has definitely aided in changing my attitude towards indie films. i’ve seen several of them lately (Once and Waitress being the best of the lot), which is unusual for me. i think i’ve been kind of leery of indie films because of the people that are really into them. i saw it as just another thing to be a snob about, and saw some that weren’t particularly great that just solidified my view. but that view has completely changed now. i’m not going to be one that ONLY watches indie films from now on, i love popcorn blockbusters too much to do that, but i definitely won’t be as suspicious toward them as i was little more than a month ago. like with Juno, in the best ones there’s a profound realism, and that’s something i’ve been looking for in film for a long time.

first, i must say that i really loved this book. yes, there’s controversy about it, and i’ll address that in a bit, but on its own merits this book is very well done. it’s a believable “world creation,” the characters are engaging and very complex, the story takes a lot of interesting turns, and the book doesn’t end…….well it doesn’t end, really, as it’s the first of three parts, but the ending of this first part didn’t really turn out the way that the reader probably would have expected it to. i like that in books. i know some people like everything to be all neatly tied up and explained, but i’m not like that. i love books that lead me in a certain way throughout, only to blow away all my preconceived notions of how the book should end at the last minute. i like books that leave me guessing and let my imagination try to fill in the holes. fiction, anyways. that’s not a desirable trait to have in non-fiction books. but i digress.

i loved this book. if you’re unfamiliar with the book or the film, this is the story of a young girl named Lyra. kind of a fitting name, actually, as Lyra is also a liar. a big one, at that. but she does know when she needs to be completely truthful and would probably say that she only lies when it’s absolutely necessary. Lyra has an uncle, or someone she believes to be her uncle, named Lord Asriel who also happens to be a world famous explorer. in this sort of alternate universe from our own, Lord Asriel, while exploring the far reaches of the North and trying to discover the truth behind Dust (more on that in a second), is taken capture and imprisoned by Gobblers, who also happen to be stealing children and performing experiments on them. little by little, Lyra learns what is going on and she sets out to help the stolen children and to free her uncle. aiding her in her task are her daemon (again, more on this in a second), an exiled armored bear, and a an alethiometer, a small golden truth-telling device that much resembles a compass, thus the title of the book.

i should say here that if you have not yet read the book or seen the movie and do not want to be spoiled, then you should probably read no further. so proceed at your own risk. (more…)

read the full press release here. this is such exciting news!! many Tolkien fans thought this day would never come, so it’s completely wonderful that Jackson, New Line, and MGM have been able to work out their differences enough to let this happen. i would have loved to hear that Jackson would also be directing the two films (though, i suppose, there is still hope until they officially announce a director), but oh well. executive producer (along with his wife, Fran Walsh) is much more than we had hoped to get at all.

as far as the details go:

The two “Hobbit” films – “The Hobbit” and its sequel – are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, with pre-production beginning as soon as possible. Principal photography is tentatively set for a 2009 start, with the intention of “The Hobbit” release slated for 2010 and its sequel the following year, in 2011.

2010 can’t get here soon enough!!!

UPDATE: The Hobbit: The Official Movie Blog has been launched.

Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, offers some helpful advice on how Christians should respond when there’s a “groundbreaking discovery” like new gospels, ossuaries, tombs, etc., or when popular books take the world by storm to debunk Christianity or attempt to “kill God”. too many Christians, he says, too quickly resort to anger and dismissal, rather than openly and honestly engaging the issues that come up. he offers advice to a wide range of Christians, leaders and lay people, but his advice to individuals is most helpful:

Rather than seeing new media reports as conspiracies to rail against, why not see them as opportunities to discuss faith with friends and neighbors who will find them intriguing? Only we mustn’t do so with an angry or dismissive tone. Rather, we ought to respectfully explain the historic Christian view. Becoming equipped for such discussions may require seminars organized by local churches. Imagine churches working together to help believers contend for the truth in their communities.

of course, as he suggests, being able to explain the historic Christian view takes a concerted effort to become educated, to which he charges church leaders to undertake, but given today’s culture this is something that must be a priority, especially if the church is to continue to carry forth the Great Commission, not only to the far reaches of the earth, but to our immediate communities and cultural contexts. and it’s the Great Commission that i think is the heart of the matter.

Bock’s article is great and i highly recommend reading it. however, i think that while Bock does an excellent job with covering the “how” in getting to the point where Christians, lay and leader, can engage these things, i think he fails to rightly convey the “why” in getting to the point where Christians can intelligently respond. now that may be an unfair charge since his main intent was probably to focus on the “how”, but i’m afraid that a cursory reading of the article could leave people thinking that we need to be educated for education’s sake and to be able to engage the issues of the day intelligently so that we can put those nasty pagans in their place.

but if that’s what one comes away from the article thinking, then the point has been missed. if the motive of engaging the culture is simply to win arguments and appear intelligent, then this is a quick road to engagement becoming heated, tense, and hurtful. in this situation, the engagement, intellectual and informed though it may be, is no better than what is too often the current Christian reaction, namely holing ourselves up and cursing the darkness.

rather, Christians should pursue this education and these engagements of the culture, first, out of love for God, and, second, out of love for one’s neighbor. not for the purpose of winning arguments, but for the purpose of winning hearts. not in the confidence of one’s own knowledge and learning, but in the confidence that God, through his Holy Spirit, is at work in and around them, and it is he alone that opens the mind to discern spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2).

so it’s ok to read The Da Vinci Code or see the movie. it’s ok to read His Dark Materials or see The Golden Compass. it’s ok to watch National Geographic documentaries about tombs and lost gospels, and no one is going to hell for doing any of this. rather, Christians will be living up to their calling to be light in the midst of a dark and twisted generation. so, as Bock concludes his article:

the next time you hear an earth-shattering announcement about Jesus from the media [or hear about the next bestseller that seeks to undermine the Christian faith], don’t get angry. Rather, take three deep breaths, sit down with your Starbucks coffee, and…prepare yourself for the opportunities it presents.