The Dark is Confusing
Because he who walketh in the darkness knoweth not where he goeth.
(For a little while) Walk while you have the light/See, you can see the light/Go, lest the doom of darkness be on you . . .
Sorry. That was a random flashback to a children's choir song from back in the day. Very Joplinesque, but with KJV words, which ended up sounding kind of dumb. At the time we thought it was evil, but that's another story . . .
. . . though this one is about darkness and evil. About The Dark is Rising, to be precise--a series with a lot that's good, a significant bit that's bad, and too much that's confusing. (Some of this will be mildly spoilery, so if you're planning to read the books soon you might want to come back later. But I'll try to avoid major plot details.)
The Good
Susan Cooper writes well; her use of British mythology is fascinating; and The Dark is Rising (book 2 in the series) works well as an introduction to a fantasy world. The conflict between Will's two identities--as an eleven-year-old boy with a family he loves, and as an immortal Old One who must help save the world--provides dramatic interest. The Grey King is even better; it has the tighter plot and better character development than the other books, and is most successful in weaving Arthurian myth into the plot.
The Bad
Like the Harry Potter books, these books take place in our world, imagining a magical reality under its surface which only a chosen few can understand. Unlike the Potter books, though, they do ask whether this magical reality is compatible with the religions found in the real world. The answer, given by Will to his family's priest, is that the conflict between Light and Dark predates Christianity. A Christian church holds some of the power of the Light, apparently; but this power does not come from God. Significantly, it's Will's ancient Sign, not the cross, which holds the Dark at bay.
This comes up again at the end of the series, when Will's mentor Merrriman (Merlin) charges the children to work for good in the world. Now that the conflict between Dark and Light is over, and the Dark has been driven from the world, they're on their own:
The implicit assumption is that the Old Ones have the right to control other people's minds--and, consequently, that the Old Ones are inherently superior to ordinary people. Which I find morally, theologically, and philosophically troubling. (The same thing, of course, occurs in Harry Potter, and I find it problematic there as well; it bothered me more in these books, though, because it's more prominent.)
The Confusing
There's a lot that's good about the series, but unfortunately there's also a lot that simply doesn't add up. For one thing, it feels disjointed as a series. (The first book is about three siblings who aren't Old Ones, and who don't figure in the second book at all. Everyone comes together in the third book, but then the three siblings disappear entirely for the fourth book; and then we finally get everyone in the fifth book.)
For another, there's time travel. The Old Ones can travel through time and space at will; but they're constantly saying things like "We have to find the Thing of Power in two days, or it will be too late" or "I missed the one moment when I could have done x, and now it's too late."
Thing is, they can travel through time. So all they have to do is go back in time to the one moment when he can do x, and everything's fabulous. But they never seem to think of that.
The set-ups and payoffs also leave something to be desired. The set-ups consist mostly of cryptic prophetic poetry; and the payoffs seem somewhat arbitrary, since they haven't been established apart from the cryptic poetry. The final book was particularly disappointing--most of the payoffs I expected and wanted, based on earlier books, simply weren't there.
Conclusion
As a series, it leaves a lot to be desired--the whole is pretty much just the sum of its parts, and the sum is kind of a weird fraction. But some of the parts are really good; and even with its faults it's much superior to a lot that passes for fantasy these days. "The Grey King" is a good story in its own right (and one of the very few modern-Arthurian stories that really works). So, there you have it. Happy reading, or not-reading; and if you have read the books, I'm curious what you thought of them.
(For a little while) Walk while you have the light/See, you can see the light/Go, lest the doom of darkness be on you . . .
Sorry. That was a random flashback to a children's choir song from back in the day. Very Joplinesque, but with KJV words, which ended up sounding kind of dumb. At the time we thought it was evil, but that's another story . . .
. . . though this one is about darkness and evil. About The Dark is Rising, to be precise--a series with a lot that's good, a significant bit that's bad, and too much that's confusing. (Some of this will be mildly spoilery, so if you're planning to read the books soon you might want to come back later. But I'll try to avoid major plot details.)
The Good
Susan Cooper writes well; her use of British mythology is fascinating; and The Dark is Rising (book 2 in the series) works well as an introduction to a fantasy world. The conflict between Will's two identities--as an eleven-year-old boy with a family he loves, and as an immortal Old One who must help save the world--provides dramatic interest. The Grey King is even better; it has the tighter plot and better character development than the other books, and is most successful in weaving Arthurian myth into the plot.
The Bad
Like the Harry Potter books, these books take place in our world, imagining a magical reality under its surface which only a chosen few can understand. Unlike the Potter books, though, they do ask whether this magical reality is compatible with the religions found in the real world. The answer, given by Will to his family's priest, is that the conflict between Light and Dark predates Christianity. A Christian church holds some of the power of the Light, apparently; but this power does not come from God. Significantly, it's Will's ancient Sign, not the cross, which holds the Dark at bay.
This comes up again at the end of the series, when Will's mentor Merrriman (Merlin) charges the children to work for good in the world. Now that the conflict between Dark and Light is over, and the Dark has been driven from the world, they're on their own:
My other objection is more philosophical. When ordinary people discover something about the conflict between the Light and the Dark, the Old Ones make them forget. Sometimes it's because they feel the person can't handle the knowledge, and is better off not knowing; sometimes, it's because *they* can't handle the person knowing. When Will's brother Paul starts to realize who Will really is, Will erases the entire conversation from Paul memory--because he can't stand the way Paul is looking at him.
"For Drake is no longer in his hammock, children, nor is Arthur somewhere sleeping, and you may not lie idly expecting the second coming of anybody now, because the world is yours and it is up to you. Now especially since man has the strength to destroy this world, it is the responsibility of man to keep it alive, in all its beauty and marvellous joy."
The implicit assumption is that the Old Ones have the right to control other people's minds--and, consequently, that the Old Ones are inherently superior to ordinary people. Which I find morally, theologically, and philosophically troubling. (The same thing, of course, occurs in Harry Potter, and I find it problematic there as well; it bothered me more in these books, though, because it's more prominent.)
The Confusing
There's a lot that's good about the series, but unfortunately there's also a lot that simply doesn't add up. For one thing, it feels disjointed as a series. (The first book is about three siblings who aren't Old Ones, and who don't figure in the second book at all. Everyone comes together in the third book, but then the three siblings disappear entirely for the fourth book; and then we finally get everyone in the fifth book.)
For another, there's time travel. The Old Ones can travel through time and space at will; but they're constantly saying things like "We have to find the Thing of Power in two days, or it will be too late" or "I missed the one moment when I could have done x, and now it's too late."
Thing is, they can travel through time. So all they have to do is go back in time to the one moment when he can do x, and everything's fabulous. But they never seem to think of that.
The set-ups and payoffs also leave something to be desired. The set-ups consist mostly of cryptic prophetic poetry; and the payoffs seem somewhat arbitrary, since they haven't been established apart from the cryptic poetry. The final book was particularly disappointing--most of the payoffs I expected and wanted, based on earlier books, simply weren't there.
Conclusion
As a series, it leaves a lot to be desired--the whole is pretty much just the sum of its parts, and the sum is kind of a weird fraction. But some of the parts are really good; and even with its faults it's much superior to a lot that passes for fantasy these days. "The Grey King" is a good story in its own right (and one of the very few modern-Arthurian stories that really works). So, there you have it. Happy reading, or not-reading; and if you have read the books, I'm curious what you thought of them.
Labels: fantasy books, pluteus Erendi
posted by erendis nasard at 5:24 PM
5 Comments:
Walk lest the darkness cometh upon you...
Whoever wrote that song needs to go back to King James' English Class.
I agree that The Dark is Rising Sequence is well written... and leaves a lot to be desired.
It didn't seem openly hostile to Christianity to me; but it was very unChristian. The obvious difference between Cooper's work and Rowling's is that in the Harry Potter books, good will win in the end. It is simply not possible to doubt it. Any or all of the main characters might die; but good will triumph, even though evil seems to be stronger much of the time.
In The Dark is Rising (at least after the first book, which has a very different feel), Light and Darkness are truly dualistic. It's an even match, and it's an open question as far as the characters are concerned which may win. Good is not deeper or more fundamental than evil. They both just are.
Which is why I like Harry Potter better... because it's more true.
I didn't think it was *hostile* to Christianity, exactly. In the first (second?) book, there's actually a connection between Christianity and the Light (the Dark can't enter the church during the Christmas Eve service, though they want to).
But Christianity is portrayed as ultimately powerless against the Dark. The priest (though he's a nice man) doesn't have a clue what's really going on, and mistakenly thinks he's been protected by the Cross.
Add this to Merriman's comment about "no second coming," and you get the implication that Christianity is harmless, even sort of good, but irrelevant (and, if you come right down to it, false). Which I find problematic, esp. in a series intended for young readers.
I do think Cooper is better than Rowling stylistically. But then Rowling has a better sense of narrative logic, better character development--*and* sacrificial love as the central theme. So yeah, I prefer HP too. :-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Somehow I missed this post, but here's my belated comment anyway.
I went through this whole series summer '06 (summer before last), and I agree with a combination of your comments & Jonathan's. There just, very literally, wasn't much coherence to "The Dark" series--it didn't hold together as a story.
I listened to much of it on unabridged audio book, as I have done for my 2nd time through the HP books. Though the linguistic style is far more poetic in Dark, the plot line is not as developed or complete as HP.
I enjoyed the interesting details in HP, and was surprised in the end by how much they all turn out to be significant, interlacing pieces of the whole, even many of the comic bits. In The Dark, however, I read all these interesting pieces of mythology, poetry, and magic and felt set up to anticipate them fitting intricately into the whole--but they never did. It was a big let-down.
The dualist nature of the over-arching battle also bothered me, No matter where or how I've seen it used, it never seems to make any sense. If The Dark is so evil, then WHY not work to completely defeat it? What justifies the supposed necessity of a "balance" between The Dark and The Light? It always leaves me with an impression of hopelessness--an eternity of unrelenting battle in a war that can never be won? Very depressing.
So, yeah, I think that HP, despite a lower stylistic form, holds together better in its plot and characters, and that there is something inherently missing or wrong with the premise of The Dark that HP manages to get right: The Light is ultimately the standard of right, of reality, in the cosmos. The Dark is a sniveling, pathetic, fearful rebel against that order, lying in the corner unwilling to admit his impending defeat. All together a much more satisfying end.
Post a Comment
<< Home