Thus Concludes 2013

One year ago today, I summarized my year in reading.  Below I do the same, but add fitness to the recollection this time- I need to start working on that.

Reading 

As I looked back at my post from 365 days ago, I have to laugh- my goal was to read less this year (I said 36 books).  I read over 80- whoops.  I don't know if I should feel proud or see a therapist. 

This year, I read 81 total books, 29 of which I rated a solid "A" (95) or higher (my average rating was 87).  This was the first year I kept track of the number of pages I've read (yes, I obsess).  The final number was 23,314 pages, or ~64 pages/day.  That's an hour of reading each day- really not that big of a deal.  Seriously; think of people like Theodore Roosevelt, who read 1-3 books per day, and you'll know I'm not in the upper echelon.

At the highest level, I finished my British Reading List by reading the final 40 works on it.  Amusingly, I then proceeded to read 11 more British books before year's end. So, the year was dominated by Britain's finest, once again.  That said, my overall list was broad in scope, but the year was dominated by fantasy (31 books), history (9), and classic literature (12).  Several series were enjoyed- Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Sherlock Holmes among them.  I started a Robin Hood kick this year, coupled with continued interest in King Arthur stories.  Star Wars remained a mainstay, as did history books.  Finally, I read a few leadership books, and really enjoyed them.

Of everything, here are my Top 10 Books (or Series) of the Year:
The Harry Potter saga by JK Rowling (I liked books 3 and 7 the best)
The Lord of the Rings saga by JRR Tolkien (I liked book 3 the best)
The Arthur Trilogy by Kevin Crossley-Holland 
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë
Night by Elie Wiesel
The Path Between the Seas by David McCullough
Batman: Black Mirror by Scott Snyder et. al.
Darth Vader and the Ghost Prison by Haden Blackman et. al.
Good to Great by Jim Collins
Peter Pan and Wendy by JM Barrie

As always, I've found reading, regardless of genre or topic, to be a valuable past-time.  Pick up a book- or many- in 2014.

Fitness

I'm including this category for recollection and accountability.  Next year I plan to be better about fitness- think of this as a baseline.

I began the year weighing ~195lbs.  I hit 200lbs around June, then decided to man up and lose some.  At the conclusion of this year, I'm at 185lbs.  I hope to lose 5-10 more next year.

I like to lift weights (generally twice a week), but I didn't try to make any progress in that this year, in terms of increasing muscle mass.  I did start doing the "green sally up" push-up challenge a few times a week, and that makes a big difference.  I've been reading about the benefits of short, high-intensity work outs, and I've seen that be true in that exercise.  I need to mix it up here, as I tend to do the exact same work out each time.  My body gets used to that, and I don't benefit as much as I could.

I didn't run as much this year as I would have liked.  For much of the year, I ran only once a week- 3 miles, on Saturdays.  My best time for that, if memory serves, was 22:30 (7:30/mile pace).  Towards the end of the year, I started running more frequently, and a bit farther- 7km, or 4.33 miles.  My best there was 34:50 (8:01/mile pace).  8min/mile is my standard for longer distances- and I hope to maintain that over greater and greater lengths in 2014.

I love running, but my main issue with it is my knees and lower back.  When I run more than once a week, I really feel it in both places- in a bad way.  I need to figure out how to heal more quickly- or which muscles I need to work to supplement running.  I also had a bout of sciatica this year that knocked me out for over a month- and I'm still feeling it at times on my lower left side.  Yoga/stretching help- and I need to do that more frequently next year, too.

My diet really needs work.  I did start eating less for lunch- which is in part responsible for my weight loss- and I eat less meat now, too.  I enjoy vegetables, but my downfall is sugar- I love sweets.  I have to cut back on those in 2014.

Well, that's my fitness in summary for 2013- more on goals for 2014 tomorrow, in the "what lies ahead" post.

Darth Plagueis (James Luceno)

One enjoyable aspect of the Star Wars movies is the one-liners and references to characters and events from the past.  In Episode IV, Obi-Wan Kenobi mentions the Clone Wars, and the dark times.  Clearly significant, but we got no further detail- what were they?  How did they happen?  We had to wait over 20 years to see both expounded upon, in Episodes II-III, but it was worth it.  References like these arouse the curiosity and heighten interest in the Star Wars mythos, and have led to the creation of over 150 Star Wars books and comic books since 1977.  If you enjoy the references in the movies and want to know more, you'll like Darth Plagueis, by James Luceno.

Supreme Chancellor Palpatine mentions the Sith Lord Darth Plagueis to Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars: Episode III.  It turns out Palpatine (as Darth Sidious) was apprenticed to Plagueis for decades, before Palpy killed him and became the newest Sith Master.  That's all we can infer from the movie.  In Luceno's book, we get the backstory.  At its heart, Darth Plagueis is the story of Palpatine's apprenticeship, rise to power, and the machinations he and Plagueis put in place to bring about the destruction of the Jedi Order and the downfall of the Republic.  It's interesting in its own right, but what makes it really cool is the way Luceno incorporates a lot of other references into the plot- not to mention ties to graphic novels, books, and video games set in the same time frame.  In Darth Plagueis, we learn:

- How Plagueis met and recruited Palpatine to the Dark Side
- How Palpatine became a Senator on Naboo, and Amidala the Queen
- How the Sith plotted the downfall of the Republic
- How Kamino's cloning abilities were discovered
- How Darth Maul came into being
- How Anakin may have been conceived by the Force itself
- How Count Dooku fell away from the Jedi Order and was lured by the Dark Side
- How Master Sifo-Dyas (mentioned in Episode II) was involved in the creation of the clone army

In short, it provides excellent back-story to events seen and characters referenced in Episodes I and II especially.  But that's not all!  As previously mentioned, Luceno also ties in events found in other Star Wars stories.  Here are just some; I doubt I caught all the references:

Graphic novels:
- Jedi Council, Acts of War
- Jango Fett, Open Seasons
- Darth Maul

Novels:
- Darth Maul, Shadow Hunter

Video Games:
- Bounty Hunter (starring Jango Fett)

Love him or hate him, George Lucas did a good job requiring all Star Wars contributions (in any media) to fit in one overall story arc, consistent with itself, and Luceno takes many of them and glues them all together.  Overall, a fantastic job, and worthy read- if you're a Star Wars fan.  That's my one criticism; if you're not a fan, this novel would not do well on its own.  It lacks big space battles common in Star Wars tales, or galactic adventures; it's really just a novel filling in backgrounds and tying things together.  It has politics, betrayal, and intrigue, to be certain, but it relies heavily on the knowledge of the reader to arouse interest.  So, be warned; if you know the movies well, you'll like this.  If you know the expanded universe well, you'll love it.  If you don't, you can skip this.

Rating: A

Darth Vader and the Lost Command (Various)

Another Darth Vader story.  Like the last, this takes place shortly after Episode III.  The Emperor sends Vader to find Moff Tarkin's son, who went missing, along with his star destroyer and crew, on a recent mission. As Vader tracks him down, he's haunted by images of Padme, the woman he loved, and what might have been had he not gone nuts and killed her.

Meh.  This one is okay, but not nearly as good as the prior offering.  The story is mostly bland, and the few plot twists and surprises don't spice it up enough.

Rating: B-

Darth Vader and the Ghost Prison

Much as I love Star Wars, I have to admit that most Expanded Universe stories are average at best.  Thus, it's refreshing to come across one of quality.  Such is Darth Vader and the Ghost Prison.

This story takes place shortly after Episode III (though, shortly could mean a year or more- they don't specify).  A terrorist attack during a cadet graduation ceremony on Coruscant leaves the Emperor badly wounded and forced to evacuate.  An injured cadet (Laurita Tohm) comes to Vader's aid during the attack and after, and helps him keep the Emperor safe while Vader and Moff Trachta rally loyal forces to destroy those responsible.  In the process, they locate and travel to a secret Jedi prison- a relic of a bygone era- to enlist help.  Tohm's assistance proves valuable, but he learns a hard lesson what it means to serve under the Emperor.

I enjoy tales from this time period in general, but Darth Vader and the Ghost Prison is top-notch.  The story is great, the art is good, and the ending surprised me- it breaks the mold.  Overall, this is recommended.

Rating: A

London

London, looking west from the top of St. Paul's

What began well ended with me carrying my daughter's vomit through the city . . . but more on that later.  Today's post recaps our recent trip to London.  Though we've lived in the UK for 2.5 years, this was our first trip to London since residing here.  We saw the town in 2006, before kids, and hit the highlights sufficiently then.  Seven years later, we returned with my mom, and had the following ambitious trip goals:
1) don't get mugged
2) find a way to get the kids to sleep through the night
3) don't lose the children (accidentally)
4) see something

Let's see how this turned out then.

Day 1

We opted to take the train down to London.  Our main fear on any public transportation is that the children will take the opportunity to riot and/or practice shrieking.  Thankfully, this time the ride was uneventful.  Arriving in the evening, we had time for only one thing;  we opted for Madame Tussauds Wax Museum.  Yes, it's expensive, touristy, and a bit cheesy, but it was actually rather nice to see.  My 'take-away' from it was that some famous people are rather short.

Patrick Stewart . . . he looks good even in wax.

 What came after the wax was highly anticipated- dinner at Chipotle.  London has a few of them, and we enjoyed our meal there.  Not quite the same as the ones in the States, but close enough. We couldn't help but notice that Chipotle was on Baker Street- the street where the fictional Sherlock Holmes lived.  We found the museum set up to celebrate him, as expected, at 221B Baker Street.  What we didn't expect was that 221B was wedged between 231 and 235 Baker Street.  Whatever.

Holmes!

After dinner, we went immediately to our hotel.  Nearby was a Sainsbury's Local- a small hybrid grocery/convenience store that was to prove invaluable (you'll see why in a moment).  The hotel was nice enough (meaning it was clean and had a working bathroom), and my daughter was overjoyed- the separate bedroom had bunk beds.  She slept on the top and, more importantly, slept through the night, as did our son, who slept in a travel crib at the foot of our bed.  Things were looking good indeed.

Day 2

The main unknowns in traveling are the weather and the kids.  One or the other can affect your plans in a big way.  With both in surprisingly good shape, we set off at 9am.  Our first destination was St. Paul's Cathedral.  I missed this last time- it was quite nice, though I spent most of the time shushing the children, who, sensing the peaceful atmosphere, elected to have a race in the south transept and squeal in delight at inopportune moments.

St. Paul's

St. Paul's

After St. Paul's, I hit Starbucks for my standard hot chocolate.  I mention this only because there are (apparently) 57,000 Starbucks in London, all within a square mile.  Seriously; there were times where they were located every 50-100 yards.  But I digress.

From St. Paul's, we walked to the Tower of London.  From the Tower, one gets a nice view of the Tower Bridge (often mistaken for the London Bridge).

The Tower Bridge

The Tower of London is great, and the kids got a chance to run around a bit.  You can spend hours there; I think we spent two.  The Tower is fun because it's generally associated with death, imprisonment, and torture; topics we all enjoy.

The White Tower

The Beauchamp Tower, where prisoners were kept (and inscribed impressive graffiti on the walls)

Henry VIII and his wives, most of whom he killed . . . and now you can hang them all on your Christmas tree

 My son, Luke, is obsessed with buttons at the moment- so you can imagine his delight when they had a voting kiosk of sorts in the Bloody Chamber (where the Princes in the Tower were kept), where you get to vote on who you thought killed the little dudes.  Sadly, my son, not understanding the concept of one vote only, voted about 150 times.  Thankfully, he gave each option about 50 tries, so I think the results were relatively unaffected.

Casting his vote . . . over and over and over

It was in the Tower that my daughter had to 'go potty.'  I took her, assuming adequate facilities were available.  The first men's room I tried had urinals only; the next was closed for repair.  Sensing emergency and doing what only experienced parents can do without blushing, I marched immediately into the women's room and assisted her in there.  It happens, people.  Deal with it.

After the Tower, the kids hit their threshold, so we headed back to rest in the hotel.  My daughter was done for the moment, but my son seemed in keen spirits, so he and I, along with my mom, went out again to Westminster Abbey.  I like the abbey, mainly because it has lots of famous dead people.  I particularly enjoyed the tombs of monarchs, and poet's corner.  It takes about 45 minutes to stroll around satisfactorily.  On the way home, we passed Big Ben and Parliament- great buildings.  Though we had the Oyster card for underground travel, we opted to walk- easily done, and more scenic.

Big Ben & Parliament

Westminster Abbey (well, part of it)

Double-Decker with Big B in the background

Dinner that day was Pizza Express.  This is where the fun started.  Both kids started nuclear meltdowns, and after a few outbursts, I started to get the starer.  Perhaps you parents know what I mean- that one guy who keeps looking at your table, murdering you with his eyes, every time the kids act up.  We do our best to control the kids, but modern child protection laws mean our hands are tied in certain respects.  In the end, we all left, the kids screaming, after half-eaten meals.  We were sad, but didn't realize something worse was coming.

Day 3

"Mommy, I don't feel well."  My daughter's first words of the day summarized it nicely.  She puked.  And then again.  And then again.  etc. etc. etc.  My wife wasn't well off either, experiencing a bout of the "Hershey Squirts," as those of use raised in PA say.  (As an aside, I think we went through 6 rolls of toilet paper that day.  SIX ROLLS).  Not knowing quite what to do, we eventually agreed that Beth and Natalie would remain at the hotel while three of us (me, Luke, and my mom, Verna) went out on the town, checking back frequently. 

It's at this point that I must digress briefly to highlight again the importance of the nearby Sainsbury's Local.  Not only was it our standard breakfast stop (croissants . . .mmmm), it was also our go-to for the emergency we were about to encounter.  Toilet paper.  Water.  Bread.  Anything else the situation demanded.  I ended up going there so frequently- sometimes, more than once an hour- that I was concerned that the staff was considering a restraining order.  Good thing it was open 24 hours . . . there are advantages to city life. 

Back to relevance.* After the sick ones were as comfortable as they were going to get, those remaining went out.  First up was Churchill War Rooms.  A great stop; highly recommend for history/WWII buffs.  We took 45 minutes to get through it all.  We were moving at a good clip, though, as my son was ornery, attempting to set off a fire extinguisher, and at one point trying to open up a water access point for a fire hose.  Fun times.

Is that middle guy supposed to be W?

Poster seen near the exit.  I couldn't agree more.

After the War Rooms, we strolled through St. James' Park, where my son expressed his delight at the nearby Pelicans by pointing to them and saying "buh," then laughing, about 100 times.  We walked on to Buckingham Palace, where we got to see guards in comical hats marching around. 

The birds that so enamored my son

Buckingham Palace

Man in funny hat

On the walk home, we passed through the South Bank Christmas Market.  For the unfamiliar, Christmas markets are where vendors come to set up stalls and sell kitsch, or 'junk', at obscene prices.  The food, however, is extremely good, and more than makes up for the rest of it. 

The food is good . . . the merchandise, not so much

Now it's dinner time.  What do we do?  The girls were still "poorly," as the Brits say, and the prior night's experience had further eroded our confidence.  We ended up spreading out a towel on our hotel floor, and sat on it eating shredded cheese, bread, and bananas- staples in my son's eyes.  Interestingly, we enjoyed this meal much more than we expected.  Maybe there's something to keeping it simple.

That night, Natalie had settled to the point where we thought she'd be okay, so Beth and I went out to see the Lion King musical (my review).   We found out the next morning that a nearby theatre had its roof collapse the very same night.  That was far from our mind, though, for as we returned to the room, we checked in on our daughter.  She (thankfully) had been fine while we were out, but the minute we got back, she started barfing again.  I did my best to avoid drawing conclusions from that.

Day 4

And now we reach the pinnacle of the journey.  Natalie's illness lasted throughout the night, and in the wee hours, her vomit took on a bright green hue.  Calling the NHS help line, we got a doctor's appointment for her at 7:20am at St. Pancras.  We were staying near Waterloo Train Station, so that meant a 40 minute journey up to the northern part of the city.  We decided that I should take her to the appointment; we had to check out of our hotel that morning, so my wife would pack up in the meantime.  

As I escorted my daughter through the hotel lobby, she kvetched again.  Now, I was prepared- I had a barf bag on me- and I caught everything.  Here's where the problem begins: I didn't have another bag.  I didn't want to risk throwing my only one away, so that left me one choice: I would carry her now-used barf bag with me to the doctor.  Not ideal, but what do you do?  So off we set, daddy carrying Natalie's vomit.

I was extremely worried about those on the underground getting an unexpected (and unwelcome) dose of Nat, but mercifully, my fears were unfounded- she didn't hurl the entire journey there.  When we arrived at King's Cross underground station, I noted that we were already late for our appointment.  Hailing the nearest taxi, I asked for directions to St. Pancras' hospital.  In keeping with my belief that Brits don't want to make money, the cabbie refused to take us, saying "it's just down the way."  Very well; I'd walk.

I found out that "just down the way" meant 0.7 miles.  Now, that's easy to do on my own.  But my daughter was tired, and so I carried all 45 lbs of her in one hand; her barf in the other.  That made 0.7 miles seem very long indeed.  We arrived about 20 minutes late, but they saw us anyway.

The doctor was a kindly Indian man with a wonderful bedside manner and horrible breath.  After doing some routine checks, he indicated that a urine sample was necessary.  That's fine; we can do this.  I took Nat to the bathroom and placed the small collection jar under her.  This was when my lack of knowledge of certain female functions became apparent.  I had assumed, never making a point of learning this for certain, that women peed "down" into the toilet.  Imagine my surprise when Nat peed "out" at me, hitting my hand instead of the jar.  I reacted appropriately, moving the jar to catch a sufficient amount.  Still, now I was covered in pee, while my daughter's barf stayed loyally by my side.  This day was getting better and better.

Returning to the doctor, a few quick tests indicated that my little girl would be fine; she had a 24-hour bug is all.  The doctor visit seemed to have a psychosomatic effect on her, if nothing else; afterwards, she felt fine, and her spirits noticeably improved.  The doctor told me that she should be carried, for a time, to avoid undue burden on her; so back I trekked to the station, with her in one arm, and barf in the other.

An uneventful journey back to the hotel, followed by some juice, made Natalie feel much better, and so off we went to "Winter Wonderland" in Hyde Park; our last stop before our journey home.  It was a Christmas market on steroids, featuring some of the biggest "temporary" rides I'd ever seen, and more kitsch than you could handle.  It was also extremely expensive.  Rides cost £2-3 each . . . yowza.  Still, it was a nice way to end the day.  Nat continued to recover, to the point that she even rode some of the more bland rides.  Amazing what a Winter Wonderland can do.

One entrance

How long did this take to set up, I wonder?

mmm. . . Viking blood

the festive atmosphere

After the Wonderland, it was time to take the train home.  We thought we were out of the woods . . . but not quite.

Our train home was precisely planned; we were to arrive back in our home town at 5pm- dinner time for the kiddos.  On the train from London to Leeds, though, we couldn't help but notice we were going rather slowly.  The train was losing power, and so we had to switch at Doncaster.  We ended up losing over an hour.  That's not bad for adults, but for kids, it can (and did) get ugly.  We had to eat fast food garbage in Leeds, and then continued on home with screaming children.  We must be so popular.  At last, we arrived safe, but exhausted.

When I walked in the door, I asked Natalie what she enjoyed the most.  Do you know what she said?  The bunk beds.  Just goes to show you- doesn't take much to impress the little ones.  I think we can all learn something from that.  There is joy in small things . . . though I'd rather not pay exorbitant London room rates to experience them. 

In conclusion, we enjoyed our time in London, though it wasn't without stress.  Interestingly, do you know what I enjoyed most?  Taking my daughter (and her barf) to the doctor.  Yes, it was gross, and hard, and horrible.  But she's my little girl, and I'll do anything in my power to protect, help, and heal her.  Parenting isn't always fun, but it's in those hard times that you really get what love is.  I love you, little one . . . but don't ever pee on me again.

*Well, sort of.

Lion King (the Musical)

As a Christmas gift for my wife, we recently went to see The Lion King (the musical, of course, not the Disney movie) performed in London's West End.  Based heavily on the Disney offering, The Lion King is the story of Simba, a young lion who (wrongly) blames himself for his father Mufasa's death, and leaves his pride in shame, only to return years later to wrest the kingdom from his evil uncle Scar.  Helping him along the way are his friends Nala, Pumbaa and Timon, the wise monkey Rafiki, and his father's right-hand bird Zazu.  Need I elaborate?  I think everyone's seen the movie.

The musical adaptation of The Lion King has won many awards, and my wife and I were greatly looking forward to the show.  We were satisfied, though not blown away.  Let's start with the good:
- the costumes were top-notch (A+), and really the best reason to see the show
- the story was fantastic
- the performers nailed the Disney versions of characters Timon, Pumbaa, Scar, and Zazu; their performances were great (and voices impressively similar)

And now, the not-so-good:
- the singing and the dancing/choreography was adequate, not great.  I was neither enthralled nor disgusted.  Both adults and the kids in the show were okay, but not as good as I expected for a professional theatre in London
- the musical differed from the movie a bit more than I expected.  Though the characters were all the same, there were were several new songs and some minor plot differences.  Not a big deal if you're expecting it, but I was mildly disappointed by the new songs (they just didn't impress me).

Overall, we're glad we saw the show; don't get me wrong.  I just thought I'd be blown away, and I wasn't.  It was an enjoyable performance with great costumes.  I think the people who played Timon and Zazu were my favorites on the night.

Rating: A-

Eyam: Plague Village (David Paul)

In 1665, the black plague came to a tiny village in the Peak District.  Over the next year, Eyam saw over 250 inhabitants lose their lives to this deadly disease.  Their story is captured in Eyam: Plague Village, by David Paul.

Eyam was not alone in suffering, of course, but what made it (somewhat) unique is the steps the town took to contain the pestilence.  The Church of England rector, William Mompesson, consulted with town resident (and Puritan minister) Thomas Stanley, and decided to quarantine the village (with the approval of the masses).  To allow for supplies to access the village, but keep outsiders safe, the pastors set boundary stones, where they set money (soaked in vinegar) for supplies.  Deliverers would then take this money and leave the goods they brought.  So this system continued until the plague abated in 1666.

Eyam: Plague Village is told as a series of diary entries, alternating between fictitious (but based on fact) entries of William Mompesson, his wife Catherine, and Catherine's sister, whose visit to the village was unfortunately timed.  The book succeeds in that it gets across the main points of the story- the horror of the time, the roles played by Mompesson and several others, the sacrifice of those willing to isolate themselves, and the tremendous loss experienced by many (one woman buried 7 family members in one week).  David Paul uses the diary concept to insert actual accounts written by William into the story, which is good.  So, there is value here.  Unfortunately, though, the book fails to be as good as it could have been.  The diary entries seem rather long-winded and rather repetitive (X died today; Y died yesterday; Z will probably die tomorrow).  The entries seem overly detailed, too; I doubt someone writing would (or could) devote so much time to writing what was presented.  It was obvious that Paul wanted to get across the points of the story in a unique way, but in the end, he probably should have stuck with a straightforward telling.  He repeated himself, too, so this could have been done in a shorter book (though it was a quick read, anyway).

I visited Eyam today; if you get a chance, it's a nice hour or two out.  Several graves remain from that time, and a museum tells the story.  You can visit the boundary stones as well.  Check it out, and pray we never see a time like that again.

Rating: B-

The Hobbit (The Desolation of Smaug)

At long last, the journey continues!  Last December, the first of three Hobbit movies released (my review of that here).  Now, we get the second installment: The Desolation of Smaug.

In part two, the small band of dwarves (with Bilbo Baggins) pick up where the first movie left off: they're in the wilderness, on a quest to reclaim their lost kingdom.  As they continue their journey to Erebor, a number of things happen: they're pursued by the vengeful pale orc, get assistance from Beorn, get lost in Mirkwood Forest, encounter deadly spiders therein, get captured by the elves of the woodland realm, pass through Lake-town (the closest inhabited village to the Lonely Mountain), and end up inside the mountain, confronting the deadly Smaug, who awakes from his decades-long sleep to terrorize once more.  While all of this is going on, Gandalf separates from the group to investigate the seemingly-abandoned fortress of Dol Guldur- and confronts a reawakened evil intent on dominating Middle-Earth.  Whew!  That's a lot of action to pack into a 2.5-hour film- and we still have another movie to go. 

Before I list my overall opinions, know this: like the first film, the second incorporates much more into its story than the plot of The Hobbit book.  It uses material from other Tolkien works, and (I believe) it invents new characters entirely.  If you are to enjoy these Hobbit films, you must expect and appreciate this.  In fact, calling it the Hobbit seems slightly deceiving, giving the much closer adherence to the books in Jackson's earlier Middle-Earth trilogy.  But I guess calling these films "Tales of Middle-Earth, with an Emphasis on The Hobbit" wouldn't sell as well.

My thoughts on this installment:

- While part one felt like more of a Fellowship of the Ring re-run, part two feels more original.  We're not just re-visiting familiar locales in Middle-Earth; we're exploring new areas of the land.  These new locales are fresh and exciting.  The home of the Mirkwood Elves is spectacular. Lake-town has an interesting and unique, if downtrodden, air to it.  Dol Guldur and a certain important gravesite are also fantastic- and necessarily dark.

- I love the elves, and those of Mirkwood get a bigger role here.  Three stand out:
    - Legolas (never in the book) did well
    - Thranduil (his father, king of Mirkwood) had a complexity I appreciated.  He's both good and selfish- a refreshingly gray character.
    - Tauriel, the female captain of the guard, was amazing.  Wow!  She may be my favorite movie heroine of all time.  A deadly warrior, yet compassionate companion, I loved her scenes. 
- Some of the fight scenes (especially involving Legolas, Tauriel, and the dwarves floating down the river) were top-notch; among the best I've seen.
- The CG, as expected, was great.
- The parts of the movie I expected to be the bulk of the film- forest/spiders/elves- were done much faster than I imagined (possibly even in the first third/half of the movie).  It seemed odd to me to "skim" over these parts, when you're making three movies out of one book.  I wish they were a little longer.
- This movie feels more 'epic;' more in-line with the original LOTR films.  Jackson did a great job foreshadowing the return of Sauron- it almost makes the dwarves' quest take a backseat.
- Whereas the first movie had me looking at my watch, this movie had me wanting more- a good sign.
- The movie ends too abruptly.  I can't wait for part three, but part two could have ended more naturally.

Overall, another worthy movie- better than An Unexpected Journey.  

Rating: A

Cradle of the Gods: The Soulstone Prophecy (Thomas Quinn Miller)

The Soulstone Prophecy, first book in the Cradle of the Gods series, introduces us to an exciting new fantasy world.  Long ago, a god (Haurtu) clashed with other deities in a quest for supremacy.  Haurtu failed, was banished, and his created beings (humans among them) were subjugated by the progeny of the victors.  So it has remained for a thousand years- but no longer.

Ghile, one of the few remaining humans, is a clumsy boy about to undertake his manhood tests- the same that claimed his brother's life several years before.  Lost one day amongst ancient ruins, he stumbles upon a statue which will change his life forever.  It imbues him with a magic stone, and in so doing, he unknowingly becomes involved in Haurtu's plans to escape exile.  He has become a 'stonechosen'- a vessel for Haurtu's return.  The human's overlords, the dwarves, discover Ghile's situation and seek to kill him- as they do any who show signs of the fallen god's favor.  As Ghile flees the dwarves with the help of the druids, he experiences visions- visions which will lead him on the quest of a lifetime.  He is not alone.  There are other stonechosen- and he wants their stones.  He needs them to complete his quest.  Can he free Haurtu?  And should he, if given a choice? 

Debut author Thomas Quinn Miller does well.  The story is good, and holds promise for the future.  The world is interesting, with intriguing scenarios brought on by the fascinating interplay between multiple gods with multiple created races.  The book is short, and leaves us wanting more.  The only downside: this needs some editing (a common issue with self-published, first-time authors).  Overall, a worthy effort, and recommended read.

Rating: A-

Robin Hood

Having immersed myself in all things Robin Hood for a few months now, I'm at that particularly dangerous stage where I think I'm educated on the topic.  I'm probably not, and so what follows is likely speculative conjecture.* 

Today's post is a quick summary of who Robin Hood may have been.  Let's face reality up-front: he probably didn't exist at all.  Many people named Robin Hood (or something similar) have existed, certainly.  But the Robin Hood- the "rob from the rich and give to the poor" Robin Hood- is likely a creation of man, based on a grain of truth, but so enlarged and exaggerated that he's essentially straight out of the imagination of generations of minstrels.  But still, just for fun, let's consider the possibility that the Prince of Thieves did exist, in something close to the form we know today.  Where did he roam, when did he live, and post importantly, who was he?

Before proceeding- if you want a more informed opinion, see the history of Robin Hood site here.  It has a number of good resources on it.   If you're happy with my "learn in 2 minutes" approach, read on.

Where did he roam?

The main areas proposed are:
- Sherwood Forest/Nottingham area
Where most of the tales place our hero.   Almost all of the modern stories do so, and many of the older ballads, too.

- Barnsdale (in present-day South Yorkshire)
Some of the earliest surviving ballads mention Barnsdale, not Sherwood, as Robin's haunt.  Barnsdale is north/northwest of Doncaster; about 50 miles north of Sherwood Forest.  In Medieval times, however, the forest may have encompassed the entire region.  There are many minor links to Robin in the Barnsdale area today; here is a good overview. 

- The Welsh Marches 
This location is proposed by Stephen Lawhead, in his historical fiction trilogy on Robin.  Lawhead believes Robin originated here for several reasons, but geographically because the Marches of Wales was primeval forest, "while the forests of England had long since become well-managed business property."  Basically, Robin could actually live hidden in the fearsome Welsh wilderness; England's had become more like preserves for game.  An interesting thought.

Sherwood, Nottingham, and the Marches are shown below.  Keep in mind that Sherwood, today, is a much smaller chunk of land than it would have been during Robin's day.  So, though it's (currently) insignificant, it wasn't always.  As an aside, a day out in Sherwood Forest- preferably in summer- is quite enjoyable.

There are a few sites that have Robin Hood claims.  Kirklees Priory, south of Bradford, is privately owned, but on it is a grave that claims to be Robin Hood's.  Little John's grave is supposedly here, in Hathersage, Derbyshire.  Fountains Abbey, the well-known tourist destination, is mentioned in many Robin Hood tales.  All, you'll note, are closer to Barnsdale than Sherwood. 

When did he live?

Historians have suggested Robin was active in one of the following times:

- 1090s
Stephen Lawhead puts this forth, claiming Robin was a Welsh (Briton) fighting off the Normans, who invaded England in the 1060s.  The Normans made short work of England, but it took hundreds of years to conquer Wales.  Lawhead cites the 1095 Welsh Chronicle, which states that the Britons harassed the Ffreinc (Normans) to the point that the latter "dared not go into the woods or the wild places . . ." as evidence for what may have started the Robin Hood legend.

- 1190s-1220s
Most of the stories take place during the reign of Richard the Lion-hearted (1189-1199) and John (1199-1216).  Richard fought in the Third Crusade, and spent very little time in England.  Frankly, I don't think he even liked England, using it mostly as a revenue stream, while he fought and lived in his holdings in France.  Odd, then, that many tales hold him up as loving the land.  After Richard, John ruled for about 15 years, and many stories mention him as well (though always in conjunction with Richard, not after Richard).  J.C. Holt, largely considered the authoritative Robin Hood expert, points out that in 1225, a "Robert Hod" was outlawed in York.  Additionally, he says the name "robynhode" starts becoming really popular as early as 1261, implying that the fame of the name had spread in the years/decades preceding.

- 1300s
Some early Robin Hood ballads mention "Edward, our comely king."  England has seen many Edwards take the throne; the originals, though, were Edward I (1272-1307), II (1307-1327), and III (1327-1377).  Over a hundred years of Edward . . . how do we narrow that down?  We do have one clue, from Michael Dacre's A Little Book of Robin Hood:

Between April and November 1323, Edward II made a royal progress through Yorkshire and Lancashire, ending up at Nottingham.

It's possible Robin was active during this time, as many ballads mention the king meeting Robin (and, in fact, Robin joins his court for a length of time).  It's equally possible that Edward was inserted into the ballads to flatter him.

Who was he?

Ooh, this is the hardest one.  First, let's tackle the generic.

- Basic Yeoman
Most early ballads call him a yeoman- a commoner, essentially, little better than a peasant.  In this regard, Robin is held up as a hero for the common people.

- Simple Thief
Robin may have been just your average outlaw, robbing like many others during the time. 

- Disinherited Noblemen
Later tales make him a wrongly-disinherited noblemen.  Often a Saxon, as well, which would make sense, as after the Norman invasion, the Norman lords dispossessed many Anglo-Saxon nobles of their lands.  Some claim, though, that nobility was added to Robin's past only for the upper crust's increased enjoyment of the tale.

- Knight Templar
In his book The Unknown Templar, John Paul Davis claims that Robin was a former Knights Templar.  The Knights Templar were disbanded and decried as heretics in 1312.  Davis argues that a band of them, to avoid death, could have fled to the woods and made their living as outlaws.  He further contends that their well-published hatred of corruption and helping of the poor points to them being deeply religious, as the Templars were.  An interesting theory.

- Welsh Freedom Fighter
As a final generic note, Lawhead points out that Robin is traditionally a fantastic archer- and the Briton experience with the warbow (longbow) predated that of the English, lending credence to his belief that Robin was a Welsh freedom fighter.  Even the generic is difficult to nail down, as can be seen.

Okay, now let's look at specific names.  Many variations of the name "Robin Hood" have appeared through the centuries.  Here are just a few of the most likely candidates:
- According to J.C. Holt, as mentioned above:
   - in 1225, Robert Hod was outlawed in York
- According to Dacre,
   - in 1317, a Robert Hood was on the court rolls in Wakefield (near Barnsdale)
   - in 1323-4, a Robyn Hode was in the royal service as a porter, employed as such for at least one year.

Conclusion

Nobody knows where he lived, when he lived, or who Robin Hood was.  Deal with it.

*that's probably always true of my posts

Outlaw (Michael Morpurgo)

Michael Morpurgo, author of War Horse, is a prolific author of children's novels- and he was even the British Children's Laureate for a few years (2003-2005).  That said, I was looking forward to his take on the Robin Hood legend.  Sadly, I was disappointed.

Morpurgo's version is pretty standard- same locale (Sherwood/Nottingham), same friends, same villains, and same time frame (Richard the Lion-hearted) as most tellings.  Here, though, Robin becomes the famed leader at a rather young age (early teens), marries Marion (who, for some reason, is an albino) right away, has a child (Martin Hood), and personally travels to Austria to free the King and return him to England.*

Being standard isn't bad, but the story is told poorly, making it uninteresting on top of being unoriginal.  There's little to no character development, and some of the exploits seem just plain silly or unrealistic (even for a legend).  Sadly, Morpurgo's version isn't nearly as good as McSpadden's, Pyle's, or Gilbert's.  Not recommended.

Rating: C-

*Richard the Lion-hearted was captured and held for ransom by the Duke of Austria after the 3rd Crusade.

Hood (Stephen Lawhead)

Having read several versions of the classic Robin Hood story, I looked for a historical fiction offering.  "Historical fiction" is a stretch for Robin, because we know so little about him.  He's thought to have lived anywhere between the late 1000s and early 1300s . . . a rather large swath of time for someone attempting to reconstruct what might have been.  So, what do you do?  You pick a time period and run with it.  That's exactly what Stephen Lawhead does in Hood, the first of a trilogy.

Lawhead sets Robin (or, Bran, as he's called here) in the 1090s, in the Welsh Marches (a strip of land straddling modern Wales and England).  The Normans invaded in 1066, and, while England is firmly in their grasp, much of Wales remains unconquered.  Bran is prince of Elfael, a small cantref in the Marches.  His father the king, along with Elfael's army, is slaughtered at the hands of the Normans, and Bran watches helplessly as many of the village inhabitants flee into the woods.  The Normans soon take up permanent residence in Elfael, effectively enslave any that remain, and conscript them to build large castles, to be used as bases for further subjugation and conquest of the land.  As Bran thinks on what to do, he's chased by these new overlords, hunted down, and left for dead in the expansive nearby forest.  He's healed by a strange old woman (Angharad), who encourages him to lead the refugees and take on the Norman threat.  With that, Robin Hood is born.

I have very mixed emotions about this book.  It's an excellent story, no question, and a believable take on who Robin Hood could have been.  It's the telling that leaves something to be desired. While some chapters were fast-paced, well-written, and gripping, others bogged down the story and made it hard to continue.  Some plot elements were developed very well; others were covered with insufficient build-up.  Lawhead does a great job weaving the traditional characters into the story in plausible ways, yet there were moments when characters had sudden, inexplicable changes of heart.  I didn't always like how it was told . . . but I did want to keep reading, and I look forward to the rest of the story.  That, in the end, overcomes the deficiencies.

This series is to Robin Hood was Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Trilogy is to King Arthur- effectively, historical fantasy.  While I can't help but think that this story would be better told by Cornwell or Ken Follett, I do think Lawhead's work is worth reading.

Rating: A-

A Little Book of Robin Hood (Michael Dacre)

We know the name Robin Hood was captured for history (see here) in the early 1200s.  But, the original surviving tales about Robin Hood (in the form of ballads) come to us much later- the first surviving one, Robin Hood and the Monk, was written around 1450.   Others followed in subsequent decades; a good overview of them is here.  As you'd expect, over time more ballads were recorded, each with their own twist to the story.  With each alteration, the originals were increasingly obscured.

In A Little Book of Robin Hood, Michael Dacre takes us back to these first five surviving ballads (and one play), and rewrites them in modern English.  Really modern English.  Too modern, for my tastes- but more on that in a moment.  He also includes an introduction, which discusses (briefly) the topic of who Robin may have been, if he existed at all. 

Dacre's work brings us back to the foundation of all current Robin Hood yarns.  In that regard, it's valuable.  You see how, in these first ballads, Robin is associated more with Barnesdale (in Yorkshire) than Sherwood, and he's associated with King Edward (early 1300s) rather than King Richard the Lionhearted (late 1100s).  Location and time aside, many elements are familiar- his skill with the bow, his band of merry men, his companions (little John/etc)- all were present even 550 years ago.  It's fun to go back and look at the origin of the modern tales.  Additionally, the introduction is a pretty good overview for those unfamiliar with Robin's potential real-life identities.

Unfortunately, I felt Dacre took the modernization of the language a bit too far.  Extremely modern street slang shows up here, which I felt a bit overdone.  Additionally, he takes it out of the original rhyming verse and creates straight prose, where in many cases modernization of the rhyme, and preservation of the structure, was easily done.

This is a quick read- a fast 160 pages- but all things considered, I'm not sure this was worth my time.  There have to be better re-tellings of the originals.  Speaking of them, some of the original ballads can be read here.

Rating: C

Epic (John Eldredge)

The subtitle of Epic pretty much sums it up: this book is about "the story God is telling."  Eldredge shares the basic Bible story: that we were created perfect, fell into darkness, required rescuing by a merciful God, and now have a choice to follow Him or not, with eternal consequences.  Eldredge frames the book by comparing the story of life to many other stories that we tell, discussing common elements and showing how many of the tales we create as humans are simply reflections of the ultimate story.  He then claims that our resonance with such stories is a (mild) proof that the real story- life's big picture and ultimate truth- is along the same lines.

The book is okay.  It's main point is relating the gospel, and the creation-fall-redemption story with which Christians are well familiar.  It's always good to be reminded of that, but I didn't learn anything new from that portion (though a nonbeliever would).  The part I enjoyed more was the reflection on stories in general.  Eldredge says that many of us feel as though our lives are stories we don't quite understand- either where it's going, or our part in it.  He frequently references common epics of our day- The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Chronicles of Narnia, Braveheart, etc- and discusses their common elements.  Things like the world was once okay, something happened (evil entered the world), now it's not what it should be (the bad is mixed in with the good), and restoration requires sacrifice of one (or many), and we can be a part of one side or the other.  That basic plot is extremely common, and it never fails to draw us in.  Eldredge's point [after preaching the gospel] is: why?  Why is that so enticing?  Everyone agrees that our world isn't all it should be today, and everyone wants to see it get better.  Many believe it used to be better.  And so Eldredge hypothesizes that these epic stories resonate so much with us simply because it's the same story being acted out now, in our lives, and that we should be aware of that story and our role in it.  It's an interesting and valid point.  He's saying "if you're lost, learn the main story, and you'll see the way."

Here's the bottom line: you either believe that there's a point to life- an overall story- or you don't.  Either life has meaning, and you have a part to play in it, or life came about by chance, will end by chance, and there's no overall point to it.  God exists, or He doesn't.  Either belief has epic, life-affecting complications.  Which side are you on?

Rating: B-

Night (Elie Wiesel)

Elie Wiesel was 15 when he and his family arrived at Auschwitz.  Night is his account of his time both there and at other concentration camps before the allies liberated him.

Night is a fast read (120 pages), and, as you'd expect, is horrifying, poignant, and unforgettable.  Wiesel manages to describe things well and yet moves the story along at a fast pace.  Growing up in Hungary, he and his family are soon sent to the camps.  Separated from his mother and sisters at Birkenau (the women would be killed there), he remains with his father through so many trials until the father, too, passes, just months before liberation.  Elie describes those tribulations, as well as daily life (the food, clothing, sleeping, working, etc).  He paints a horrible, yet invaluable, picture of life in a concentration camp.

Like many, Wiesel lost his entire family, and his faith along with them.  What was impressed upon me most wasn't the brutality towards the Jews from others- with which I was already familiar- but the brutality of the Jews against themselves, as they descended into an animal-like frenzy in the scramble for survival.  Son against father, brother against brother- dignity was lost in the horror.  Wiesel confesses his own selfish thoughts of survival as his loved ones lay dying, and the regret he subsequently feels for those thoughts.  He feels his humanity slipping away as he abandons all hope and is reduced to nothing.  It's a very vulnerable admission of his own failings as well as the failings of the monsters who held him. He's brutally honest about everything- for which I commend him.  It's easy to overlook our own failings in the face of much greater faults.

This is a fantastic read on many levels.  If you haven't yet read this, do it.  But brace yourself.

Changing the topic somewhat: Wiesel won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986.  During his acceptance speech, he said this:

 . . . I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation.  We must take sides.  Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.  Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.  Sometimes we must interfere.  

Wise words, and ones that force us into a dilemma: do we, as nations or individuals, have a right to interfere in the affairs of others for the sake of ending suffering?  It sounds like an easy question, but digging deeper, we see the difficulties inherent in such policies.  When should we interfere?  How?  I don't have the answers- but there are those suffering today, while the world watches silently (or turns a blind eye).  Is that okay?

Rating: A+

Robin Hood (Henry Gilbert)

Again with Robin Hood.  This time, I read Henry Gilbert's 1912 version.  Don't be fooled by the innocent-looking "kid Robin" on the cover here- this version isn't quite as kid-friendly.

At its heart, this version is similar to the two I've recently reviewed- by McSpadden and Pyle.  The story is basically the same: we learn how Robin came to be, how he met Little John, how he helped Alan-a-Dale and his wedding, how Robin dies, etc.  Like the others, it's set around the reign of Richard the Lionheart, and Robin is obsessed with robbing the rich and helping the poor.  That said, there are some notable differences:
- It's just a touch grittier- Robin isn't quite the happy-go-lucky guy here.  He and his crew don't hesitate to kill people (if they have it coming).
- It's more descriptive and immersive- the prose is more detailed.
- You get more back story.  Gilbert dedicates a little more time to why Robin became an outlaw, and how his band was formed, what happened after he was granted a pardon by King Richard, etc.
- In keeping with the original ballads, Robin is from Barnesdale (here, Barnisdale) rather than Sherwood, though the latter is mentioned a few times.
- Two small humans or brownie-like creatures- Ket the Trow and Hob o' the Hill- feature regularly here, and I'd never heard of them before.  They help Robin and are his eyes throughout the wood.
- You see just a touch more of history.  The Jewish massacre at York is mentioned, for example, and a little more history of Richard and King John is mentioned.

Like McSpadden and Pyle, the Gilbert version of the legend is good.  It's a close call, but I think I liked it a touch more than the former two.  You really can't go wrong with any of them- if you want a classic take on Robin.

Rating: A-

Green Street

"Put this on."  My friend handed me a Manchester United scarf.  I, an Arsenal fan, was repulsed.  "No."  "Let me put it this way," he continued, "we are watching this game in United's stadium.  We are sitting in United's section.  You will wear the scarf, you will cheer for Man U, and you will not cheer for Arsenal.  If you do, I'll hit you myself."  Thus was I introduced to soccer, or football, in the UK.

British football fans take their sport seriously.  The ardent ones are appropriately called hooligans, and their fame is legendary.  For a time, British fans were even banned from European continental football games, given their inclination towards violence.  At games in the UK, if you're rooting for the away team, you must be in the away team section.  Which is surrounded by police.  For your own safety.  People caught in the home section cheering for the away side will be escorted out- again, for their own safety.  I've attended three football matches here, and in each case, though I was never personally threatened, I felt the tension in the air between home and away fans.  People are out for blood.  They're drunk and they're looking for a scrap.  Like I said- British football fans get into it.

So, this is supposed to be a movie review.  Green Street is a movie about British football hooligans.  Specifically, about the 'firms'- essentially gangs that attend every game, regardless of location, looking to fight.  Elijah Wood plays an American- framed for drugs and kicked out of Harvard- who goes to visit his sister (Claire Forlani) in London.  There he ends up in the West Ham United Firm, and experiences first-hand the horror and 'thrill' of violence.  He learns when to stand his ground- and when to walk away.  Sadly, it's an expensive lesson.

Green Street is an excellent film.  It's violent, the language is foul, but it felt so real.  It hit home because I could see it happening here- it must happen here, based on police levels at games and other observations.  I was repulsed, horrified, and saddened.  On the edge of my seat the whole time.  It's so sad that humans will do this to each other- at all, and especially over a game.  If you want to 'get' the darker side of British football, watch this film.  Don't do it with kids, though.  Or squeamish adults.

I need to go watch Care Bears or something.

Rating: A

Clone Wars: Season 3

It's season 3 of the Clone Wars animated series, and it's more of the same.  More large-scale battles between clones and droids, more Jedi action, and more adventure. Among other things, we see a new Sith weapon- Savage Opress, Darth Maul's brother, who's empowered by the Nightsisters (Sith witches) and sent to Count Dooku for training.

I felt this season had more ups and downs than the prior two.  Some episodes were outstanding- among the best of the series so far.  Some were flat-out duds, or super-strange.  Overall, though, I think it was the best season so far.

Rating: B

The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood (Howard Pyle)

Yes, I do have an obsession problem.  When I find a subject that suits my fancy, I tend to do a 'deep dive,' learning what I can as quickly as a can.  The current focus: Robin Hood.

Like King Arthur, Robin Hood's story has been told many times, in many ways, through the years.  I recently read McSpadden's Robin Hood (reviewed here).  Pyle's version of the legend, The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, is similar.  Really similar.  Mostly the same stories- how Robin became an outlaw, how Robin met Little John, etc.- told mostly the same way.  In fact, the tellings are so similar that I stopped after I had read about 25%.  I enjoyed McSpadden's version, and I enjoyed (what I read of) Pyle's.  Since they're so alike, though, I didn't feel the need to complete the latter.  Some minor differences between the two:
- Pyle's language is just slightly more archaic than McSpadden's.  Pyle's was published first (1883 vs. 1891), but by only eight years, so I can't necessarily attribute it to that.  Perhaps Pyle just preferred the older style.
- Pyle tweaks the tales a bit and has Robin killing only rarely- in fact, at the beginning and end of the book only.  Both versions are kid-friendly, but Pyle goes that extra mile to even remove (most) killing.
- Pyle's is longer (327 pages vs. 196).
- McSpadden gives more nod to the original ballads, generally starting each tale with a stanza from the original.  Pyle clearly uses the same sources, but doesn't reference them as much.
- Though most of the same stories are featured, there are very slight differences in plots.  Mostly minor things- not significant enough to expound upon here.

In the end, you won't go wrong reading either version of Robin Hood- both are good in my book.  If I had to choose one, though, the McSpadden telling wins by a hair.

Rating: B+

The Legacy of King Arthur (Chris Barber & David Pykitt)

It's really  not fair to call this a book review, as I read only a dozen pages.  That was enough, though, to make me realize I really didn't want to read any more.

In The Legacy of King Arthur, Chris Barber & David Pykitt state matter-of-factly that they've gotten it right and almost every other historian has gotten it wrong.  They claim to know not only who the real King Arthur was, but that his bloodline continues to this day.  They claim to know an impressive amount of detail and present some evidence to back their claims.  So, why did I take issue?  Well . . . hundreds, maybe thousands, of historians have searched history for Arthur.  Was he a Roman?  A Briton?  A poet's creation?  Nobody knows for sure, and enough people have been looking at the problem to make me doubt anyone's claim that they've figured it all out- not just a piece or two, but nearly everything.  Seems far-fetched.  Could they be correct?  Do Barber and Pykitt know what nobody else does?  They may well- which is why I mention the book here.  I just don't think that they do.  Ancient history is so shrouded and complicated that anyone claiming to have such a complete story- a story with which other experts in the field disagree- is bound to arouse suspicion in my book.

If you're an Arthurian nut, then read this for completeness and awareness.  I don't mean to imply that the authors have nothing to say- just be wary, and consider the source.  In a multitude of counselors there is wisdom.