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.

King Arthur's Bones (Various)

Great concept, poorly executed.  That's how I'd summarize King Arthur's Bones, a historical mystery penned by "the Medieval Murderers," a group of authors known independently for their historical murder mysteries.  Each author wrote an 'act,' and each act is separated by a significant length of time (sometimes 200 years).  We start in 1191, in Glastonbury Abbey.  The monks there discover a skeleton- with a cross on top saying "here lies King Arthur."  Understanding how significant this find would be, they quickly make plans to display the relics (drawing the devout- and their money).  Before they can, however, the bones are stolen. A group sworn to protect the remains of the King- and hence the legend that he'll one day return- spirit them away to Wales, where they remain for a good while.  Subsequent acts (set in the 1290s, 1300s, 1600s, 1800s, and 2000s) see the bones transported from place to place, for a variety of reasons.  In each case, a number of murders center on the bones, and so each act is really more focused on crime than the relics.

Like I said: great concept, poorly executed.  I wasn't overly impressed with any author here- and some where downright bad.  It's poor historical fiction- there are several cases of medieval people with impressively modern mindsets- and it was often poor crime-writing, too.  The Medieval Murderers have released several books to date- I hope the others are better.

Rating: C-

The Ultimate Sacrifice

'My three best friends have been asleep for 70 years.' So stated the old man sitting at the supermarket exit, handing out poppy lapel pins in preparation for Sunday's Remembrance Day celebration in England (which is the equivalent of our Veteran's Day).  His words checked my steps, and I gazed on his aged countenance with a mixture of respect and pity.  'But here I am, just sitting here,' he continued, looking both stoic and forlorn, his eyes fixed on a point in the distant past.  He came back to the present, glanced at me, and asked if my grandfather had served.  'Yes,' I replied proudly, 'in the United States Marine Corps, against the Japanese.'  The old man's face widened into a grin.  We chatted briefly; he had served for the British, of course, in north Africa for several years.  We parted ways, and as I walked home, I mulled this unexpected encounter.  My three best friends have been asleep for 70 years.

This weekend, we celebrate our veterans.  Many of them gave their lives.  Their lives.  Their future.  Their hope.  Their potential.  Their desire for children- offspring to carry on their genes.  They gave everything, and they gave it in the prime of their lives.  And, for those who didn't perish in conflict- think on their sacrifice.  Not just the battle- I'm talking about now- today.  That old man?  Imagine the horrors he's seen, and spent a lifetime putting out of his mind.  Imagine the guilt he feels, a hint of which I saw in his words- 'here I am, just sitting here.'  Why did he survive and not his friends?  What made him more worthy?  Everyone in that war was a casualty in some respect- forever changed by that horrible conflict.  A part of them is gone, never to return. 

For whom did they sacrifice?  For us.  For people they never met.  For people who tend to spend an awful lot of time complaining about really stupid stuff.  For people who get angry when heavy traffic delays their arrival by a few minutes.  For people who waste their time, money, attention, and resources on frivolous pursuits.  Who, frankly, often don't give a damn about the sacrifices others have made for them, and instead focus on trivialities and 'what's in it for them.'  That old man?  He sat there in that store, thinking on those he's lost.  Me?  I was excited that my favorite drink was on sale, and really angry that the check-out line was taking so long.  Looks like one of us needs to re-think his life.

Happy Veteran's Day.  Honor their memory.  Think of their deeds.  Thank God that there are those willing to give it all for the good of all.  Share in their victory by performing your own sacrifices for others.  I assure you- what you give will be far less than you've already received.

"Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:13

Batman: Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader? (Neil Gaiman et al.)

Not many graphic novels are New York Times bestsellers, but Neil Gaiman's Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader? made the cut.  Should it have?  Read on, but I do have spoilers.

This graphic novel is comprised of four stories, all written by Gaiman over the years.  The headliner, though, is the first, longest, best, and gives its title to the entire volume (the other stories are okay, but pale in comparison).  In Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader (hereafter, WHttCC), Batman has an out-of-body experience.  He's at his funeral, and all his villains, sidekicks, and friends are in attendance.  Each gets up, in turn, and relates how they were responsible for Batman's death- and all give different accounts.  As each relates his or her tale, the Batman therein is wearing a different version of his costume- which both draws from the character's rich history (he's been around since the '40s, and has many wardrobe changes in his time), and sheds some light on the overall tale.  In the end, out-of-body Batman realizes he will soon die 'for real,' but then the cycle will start all over again- the last frame has newborn Bruce Wayne being handed to his mother for the first time.

So what's the point?  Batman has died many times over the years, in his various forms, and everyone has a take on how it happens.  But, Bats just keeps coming back.  He never gives up.  When he dies in the comics, he's brought back, reinvented- but never yielding.  He's both mortal and 'eternal.'  He embodies both man's weakness, and his desire to overcome- his failure and success. 

At first, I didn't like this story.  But, as I reflected on and digested it, I saw the value.  It is different, yes- it's certainly not the standard Batman storyline.  But it is deep, and makes you think- which is good.  It forces us to reflect upon who we hold up as heroes, why, what makes them heroes, and their mortality (and immortality) in our culture.  Overall, it's a worthy read.

Rating: B+

Purge (Various)

Graphic novels are a very easy way to boost reading totals.  Not that I read them for that reason; I'm just saying that you can burn through one in a good hour or two.

Star Wars: Purge is a collection of four stories, all centered around events immediately following Episode III.  In the movie, Palpatine executes "Order 66," which tells the clone troopers to turn on the Jedi and kill them.  Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader, and aids in hunting down the Jedi.  In this graphic novel, we see the immediate aftermath: as you'd expect, not all Jedi fell during the initial betrayal, and those who survive can be found in various corners of the galaxy.  The survivors may have separate desires- for peace, seclusion, or revenge- but all have one thing in common: Vader wants them dead.  And, in all four stories, Vader tracks down who remains and "takes care of them."

The stories are okay (pretty formulaic), as is the art.  But, this overall time period- these "Dark Times"- are among my favorite in the story arc, so I enjoyed them nevertheless.

Rating: B

King of the Middle March (Kevin Crossley-Holland)

Crossley-Holland's Arthur trilogy concludes with King of the Middle March.  Again we're in the world of two Arthurs:

1) The legendary king sees his fellowship of the round table come to an end, as the quest for the grail disperses the knights, and the illicit romance between Lancelot and Guinevere forces people to choose between king and top knight.  The king's son, Mordred, takes advantage of the situation to proclaim himself king, sparking a war between father and son which leads to their mutual demise.

2) The other Arthur, meanwhile, is in Venice preparing to depart on the Fourth Crusade.  Things take an unexpected turn, though, when the crusaders fail to raise the necessary funds to repay the Venetian shipbuilders, who for recompense demand that they attack the Christian city of Zara (a town which has recently rebelled against Venetian rule).  Arthur finds himself exposed to the horror of war and questions some crusaders' intent as he comes of age and is knighted.  Circumstances force him back home to the Middle March as the book closes, and he takes his place as 'king' of his manor.

Like the first two offerings, King of the Middle March is great.  Equal parts historical fiction, Arthurian legend, and coming-of-age tale, I highly recommend it.  This particular book covers more of "Arthur #2" than the second book, which was nice.  Be it the wisdom scattered throughout, the time period, or the legends covered, everything is fantastic.  There are a few minor things that detract, though (spoiler alert):

• You may need some prior knowledge of both Arthurian legend and Crusades history to fully enjoy this. I think you'll enjoy it either way, but the more you know going in, the better.
• Some threads of story aren't concluded (most importantly, which person Arthur ends up marrying).  I really wanted to know!
• In the end, there's no 'real' connection between the Arthurs, though some initial indicators pointed in this direction. 

I can do no better to summarize the trilogy than quote Crossley-Holland's own words (taken from his website):

What if, I thought. What if… What if I were to write two stories in tandem? One would be a historical novel, in which a boy, eager to serve as a squire and to go on crusade, is given this piece of obsidian; and one would be the stories, the Arthurian legends, that this boy sees in the obsidian. These legends, I thought, would anticipate and reflect his own eagerness and ideals and anxieties and passions and sorrows. His own rites of passage.

You succeeded, sir.  Well done.

Rating: A

Darth Maul: Death Sentence (Various)

This post contains a spoiler pertaining to the Star Wars: The Clone Wars TV show (season 3).

Background: At the end of season 3, Star Wars: The Clone Wars had a surprise in store: Darth Maul was not dead.  Seemingly killed by Obi-Wan Kenobi in Episode I (sliced clean in half, actually, and dropped down a mysteriously-deep chasm), it turns out that Maul's upper half survived, and he got cybernetic torso/legs implanted that made him even more powerful (as an aside, it probably also made things like going to the bathroom a lot less necessary).  It was also revealed in the show that he had a brother- Savage Oppress.  Very similar to Maul, but yellow, and given powers by the Nightsisters of Dathomir, Savage and Maul get together and wreak havoc.

Darth Maul: Death Sentence tells a follow-up story to the TV show: the brothers are 'shaking things up' in the Star Wars galaxy, and they kill a few people that makes a powerful energy magnate extremely angry, leading him to put a bounty on their heads.  The brothers, not happy about having bounty hunters on their tail, track down the person who put out the reward.  All of this gets the attention of the Jedi, and draws them into it as well, making for a pretty standard Star Wars adventure tale.  In the end, all the characters end up on a planet whose population is suffering under the magnate, and the Jedi try to both help the populace and bring Maul & Oppress to justice.  

The story is okay, as is the art.  Star Wars fans will probably enjoy this one; others, not so much.  Being familiar with the TV show would be helpful for context.

Rating: C+

Robin Hood (J. Walker McSpadden)

Penned in 1891, McSpadden's version of Robin Hood is a straightforward telling, suitable for children and adults alike.  The language is at times antiquated, as you'd expect.  McSpadden does give cursory nods to the original ballads- mentioning locations like Barnesdale (Robin's original haunt, according to the earliest stories)- but this is mostly the classic story we know today.  It's set in the time of King Henry II, King Richard the Lionheart, and King John.  Each chapter tells a story- how Robin (the wrongly-disinherited Robert Fitzooth) becomes an outlaw, how he comes to live in Sherwood with his merry band of men, how certain famous members (Little John, Will Scarlet, etc) join, and how they spend their days robbing the rich, giving to the poor, foiling the sheriff of Nottingham, loving the freedom of the forest, and basking in the thrill of adventure.  It's romantic, light-hearted, short (just shy of 200 pages) and enjoyable; a worthy read.

Rating: B+