Nostalgia Wins

Rogue Squadron (Star Wars: X-Wing, #1)Rogue Squadron by Michael A. Stackpole
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I recently had a disagreement with a few acquaintances of mine. They said that the Expanded Universe–I mean, “Legends” (thanks, Disney, for invalidating my childhood)*–was full of subpar novels and that they were glad it was all being wiped away. I responded that, considering the terms they were using to describe a library full of New York Times bestsellers, they seemed a little harsh, especially given their lack of specific objections.

A visual representation of our discussion.

A visual representation of our discussion.

After that, I wanted to go back and read some of the old favorites, since it’s been a few years. My first thought was Zahn’s Thrawn trilogy, the most unfairly maligned by these acquaintances, but my copies have long since been lost to the void of many moves and family members who may or may not have been the original owners. (My brother probably has them.) Without Zahn at my disposal, my next thought was the X-Wing series, which–thanks to my wife’s work managing my holiday wish lists–I have at least through the seventh installment.

Rogue Squadron is a great introductory work for the series. It lays a lot of groundwork for future installments, establishes the characters effectively, and sets us up for emotional turmoil when certain individuals kick the proverbial bucket. The conclusion of the book does not reveal all the secrets, but it doesn’t string us along too much. In short, this is a solid book, with high-quality writing, strong characters, and a plot that seems a reasonable extrapolation of the events closing out the original trilogy of films.

Not everything was perfect. There were a surprising number of typographical errors that I didn’t recall from previous reads, but it’s mostly the sort of thing that a spell-checker program would miss (if for is or it, that sort of thing). A few of the characters received minimal development, which let us treat them with relative dispassion on their passing.

But honestly, I forgave the author and the book, because the book had a lot of work to get done, and a few of the deaths really were emotionally charged for the reader.

At the end of the day, if I were being completely objective in my ratings, I’d drop this to 4 stars. If I were trying to be some kind of magazine reviewer, and my interest was primarily informational, then I might do something like that. As it stands, I’m nostalgic about this book, and I find its shortcomings easy to forgive; its rating stands at five stars in my book.

And those acquaintances of mine can go pound sand.

 

*I’m not saying Disney wasn’t justified, even–to a certain degree–required to make a statement like this. I’m just saying that when I was growing up, the Expanded Universe novels and games were a much deeper Star Wars experience than even the original trilogy. After the relative disappointment of the prequels, I realized that the EU was all up for grabs, and any future films would further alter what I had come to see as “reality” for the denizens of the Star Wars galaxy. I just wasn’t quite prepared for them to come out and say, “We’re doing whatever we want. Prepare to be disappointed when your favorite characters either (1) don’t make an appearance, or (2) don’t act like themselves if they do.” But I digress.

View all my reviews

Effective or Fallacious?

OrthodoxyOrthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

A re-read is sometimes a wonderful thing. It’s especially useful when I have attained a greater depth of understanding for the work that I am re-reading. This book is one such case.

Chesterton’s work is rightly praised by Christian readers everywhere. His honest approach to the agnostic and atheistic arguments of his day is compelling and persuasive. His prose is entertaining, his thoughts illuminating, and his conclusions reasonable.

All of this, of course, is such to a Christian audience.

The only negative things I can think to say are these: Chesterton tends to simplify his opponents’ arguments; and he tends to ridicule his opponents themselves.

From a pro-Chesterton perspective, he is distilling opposing arguments to their root beliefs, pointing out that necessary (if unspecified) premises are false, and ultimately destroying the agnostic and atheistic conclusions by those means. From an anti-Chesterton perspective, he is committing either the reductio ad absurdum or the straw man fallacy.

From a pro-Chesterton perspective, he is treating his opponents’ ideas with the incredulity and disdain they deserve. From an anti-Chesterton perspective, he is committing the ad hominem fallacy.

Ultimately, I think the book works very well and succeeds where many other apologetics works have failed (in no small part because it is a chronicle of personal experience and not a work of apologetics)–but I can see how some of Chesterton’s then-and-now intellectual opponents would severely disagree.

View all my reviews

The Hint of Fiction in the Non-Fiction

The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed AmericaThe Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America by Erik Larson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

In reading this book, I found that my imagination was taken away, not only with the story of Herman W. Mudgett, but especially with the whole of Chicago during the Gilded Age. This tale of the White City juxtaposed with the Black is not only compelling, but enthralling.

The length of time I have taken to read this book is far more a fault of my own time management than any trouble caused by the length and depth of this work. Mr. Larson’s studious examination of primary and secondary sources makes his work rife with detail that implies a fictional flair, but Larson does not hesitate to cite his sources for every controversial and suggestive claim in the book.

With such high-minded praise, then, it may seem odd that I limited my rating here to four stars. The weaknesses of the work were few and far between (and other readers may not agree with me in the least on their existence at all). The very depth that made the work so compelling seemed at once to take away from its historical accuracy; I had the distinct impression that this or that scene must surely be fabricated, for no one could possibly have known what Mr. Larson posits. At the same time, I have no knowledge of his sources, and his citations strike my untrained eye as legitimate.

There is a certain amount of sensationalism, too, which must of necessity accompany any story about the first American serial killer. It is the same sensationalism, I suspect, that accompanied the discovery and trial of the infamous man, but it is here presented in an oblique fashion. On the one hand, it demands that the next page be turned, but on the other, the great tragedy of these events (and also, perhaps, the great grandeur of the Fair) is faded and colorless in the light of the shocking nature of it all.

Perhaps I am being too harsh, especially considering that I have given five stars to works of far less skill and scope in the past, simply because they entertained me. But at any rate, I certainly enjoyed the book, and if you are a fan of history, you should, too. The full exposure to Mudgett’s evil, though, turned my stomach so much that I nearly put the book down for a time, if only to escape the imagery; Mr. Larson in no way focuses upon the grue, but he does help us to befriend the victims before their wicked demise. So keep that in mind.

On the note that Mr. Larson’s integration of the two focal points of the book – the World’s Fair, and Mudgett’s murders – is either inefficient or ineffective, I will admit that the contrast is occasionally obvious. One, however, could not be properly addressed without examination of the other, and they tie together with sufficient aplomb that the book itself does not suffer.

View all my reviews

Han Solo Trilogy, Part 3

Rebel Dawn (Star Wars: The Han Solo Trilogy, #3)Rebel Dawn by A.C. Crispin
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

NOTE: Many spoilers follow.

There were a lot of things I really liked about this book, so my rating it lower may be a direct result of the ending.

First, let me discuss what I liked. I liked the characters; Han, Lando, Chewbacca, and Boba Fett were all true to form, and I enjoyed the other characters, as well. I liked the interweaving of the other “Han Solo” trilogy. I liked how events in the first and second novels were tied into events in the third. I liked how the book led up to the events in the films (although that section seemed a bit rushed, and Lando seemed to overreact a smidgen). Overall, I liked the book.

But let me address what I did not like. As with the last two books, I don’t care for pulling quotes out of the films as if we weren’t sure this was Han Solo or Lando Calrissian talking. And, as before, I don’t like how often Han uses terms of endearment or nicknames; I just don’t think it’s natural (or necessary) to address your conversation partner every time you open your mouth, so that comes off as a little odd.

Most importantly, though, I don’t like the ending of this book. This is for two reasons. First, I don’t like how everything gets tied up in a neat little bow. The problem of Ylesia is solved forever; the problem of Bria is solved forever; the problem of Boba Fett does not affect later encounters with Boba Fett. Everything’s perfect. It would have made a lot more sense, to me, if things had ended a little more messily. Sure, the trilogy wouldn’t have been as compact and concise, but it would have fit in better with, and lent itself to, the broader Star Wars experience.

Yet this first was the minor complaint. The major complaint I have is how Han reacts to Bria’s death. Here is a woman who, claiming to love him, got his adopted brother killed, stole from him and his friends, got him ostracized by the entire smuggling community on Nar Shaddaa, and worst of all, lied to his face right up until she betrayed him. She stopped loving him the moment she put the rebellion ahead of him – and she started doing that back in the second book. And what’s more is that she kept doing it, for the rest of the trilogy! Nevermind that she never really knew him (she thought he’d forgive her for taking the money and join her in the rebellion, which was plainly ridiculous), and nevermind that it was her abandoning him that made him that way – the worst part of all is that she stopped feeling bad about it when she fell to her lowest point. Throughout the previous book and this one, she felt bad every time she neglected to talk to Han – right up until she stabbed him in the back. Then, she only felt bad because he called her out on it.

Now, I don’t dislike the book because I dislike Bria’s character. She’s excellently written, and the relationship as it unfolds is fabulous, especially because we (the audience) know it can’t last. What upsets me about the ending is that, about two weeks after the woman he loves betrays him for her rebellion – which he is still sure will fail, so she betrayed him for nothing, from his point of view – he learns she’s dead and says, “Well, gee, I regret how things ended. Guess I better tell her dad, and feel bad for myself.” It just doesn’t line up with his character at this point.

Anyway. That ending kind of puts a damper on the whole book (and, in a small way, the whole trilogy), but overall, the book is still a good read.

View all my reviews

Han Solo Trilogy, Part 2

The Hutt Gambit (Star Wars: The Han Solo Trilogy, #2)The Hutt Gambit by A.C. Crispin
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I have few to no problems with this book. It was well-written, engaging, and tied in very nicely both with the book that preceded it and the book that followed it.

My qualms are minor. While I agree that people who speak in a certain way frequently use the same mannerisms and sayings over and over, I don’t think it was necessary to rip quotes straight from the films for the characters we encounter in them – Han and Lando don’t need to quote themselves to sound like them. The design of the characters ought to do that for us. Should they speak in the same style, say similar things, etc.? Sure. But I thought I was reading about Han and Lando much more accurately when I imagined them speaking in the voices of Harrison Ford and Billy Dee Williams, respectively, than when I read lines they had in the films.

All-in-all, a worthy addition to the first in the trilogy. Worth a read.

View all my reviews