Frozen

Having missed it in the theaters, this week I finally got to watch the latest, much-praised Disney movie Frozen.  I've seen it twice now in a few days . . . yes, this movie is fantastic, and worthy of some analysis.

Plot Summary

Princess Elsa of Arendelle has a gift- she can create snow and ice.  As a child she delights in her ability, and uses it often while playing with her little sister Anna, until one day Anna accidentally gets hit in the head by an errant blast of cold.  The King and Queen take the girls to nearby trolls, who are able to heal Anna, but at a cost: they must erase Anna's memory, the King forbids Elsa to use her power until it can be controlled, and he orders the castle gates barred for the safety of those outside.  Unable to harness her powers, Elsa becomes a recluse in her castle, even years later after her parents die at sea and leave her Queen.  Anna also suffers, as she's suddenly without a playmate or explanation, and is left to spend her days roaming the castle halls alone.

Fast forward to Elsa's coronation, where she is officially crowned Queen of Arendelle. For the first time in years, the gates are opened.  Anna rejoices with the freedom of the day, and falls in love with the first person she meets- Prince Hans.  She and Hans get engaged, and ask for the new Queen's blessing- only to be summarily rebuffed.  Upset by the refusal, Anna lets years of sadness and anger boil over, and she demands to know why Elsa shuts people out.  Fraught with emotion, Elsa mistakenly reveals her powers, and flees in terror afterwards.  As she runs, her now-unchecked powers launch the area into perpetual winter.

Horrified at the events, Anna leaves the kingdom in the charge of Hans, and looks to find her sister and help her.  Along the way, she teams up with Kristoff (the ice-seller), his reindeer Sven, and the comic relief/adorable snowman Olaf, who was created and brought to life by Elsa's recent outburst.  Together, they track down Elsa, who is living in freedom (but still in isolation) in an ice castle of her own making.  Anna's attempts to convince the queen to return home fail, and the team is eventually chased away by a snow monster after Elsa accidentally hurts Anna again- and this time, it's a wound to the heart, which only an act of true love can heal.

Upset at Anna's prolonged absence, Hans and a handful of men set off in search of her, and eventually come to Elsa's castle.  They capture Elsa and imprison her within the castle dungeon.  Meanwhile, Anna's condition worsens, and Kristoff believes the act of true love must be a kiss from Hans- so he returns her to the castle, too.  Things take an unexpected turn, Elsa escapes, the winter gets worse, and eventually Anna is forced into a situation where she must choose- should she save herself, or Elsa?   

Movie Analysis

Frozen is fantastic on many levels- there's a lot to unpack here.  In fact, after watching it once, I watched again two days later, with notepad in hand, to verify and record my observations.  They can be (mostly) binned into three themes- love, gifts, and human nature- all of which are expounded upon below.

Before the analysis begins, I must say I was shocked to see the themes in Frozen so closely aligning with the Bible.  I certainly don't expect that from Disney (or most major corporations), though I did see an article (here) that discusses some virtues of the film.  Where relevant, I quote Scripture throughout the analysis to reinforce the similarities.  There are spoilers here (to the movie), so be warned.


Theme 1: Love

The film looks at not only what love is, but how it's done.

What is love?
Love: it's one of the most-used and ill-defined words in the world.  Ask 10 people what love is, and you'll get 10 different answers.  Frozen looks several ideas of love- some accurate, some not- and ends up (shockingly) at the right answer.  Here are the definitions explored:

a) Elsa's view is that love is avoiding hurt to others.  After she accidentally hurts Anna, her parents hide her away.  Elsa's taught to "conceal it, don't feel it," and shuts people out of her life because, she reckons, if she lets them near her they might get hurt.  "Don't let them in, don't let them see" is how she lives.  Okay, that doesn't sound too bad . . . so why is it wrong?  Well, the fact is this: you hurt people by shutting them out.  Anna grows up alone and sad because of Elsa's unexplained distance.  We are made and meant for community.  In the Bible, we see this right at the beginning:

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Genesis 2:18)

Elsewhere in Scripture we see the importance of community:

Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken. (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12)

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good . . . For the body does not consist of one member but of many . . .  If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.  (1 Corinthians 12: 7,14,26)

So the first view of love presented is erroneous because it denies a basic element of life: the need for community.  If we isolate ourselves, we hurt others.  We're a community, and in this together, like it or not.

b) Anna's view of love is based on the opposite of what she sees in Elsa.  She's been shut out for years, and since that hurts her, she thinks that love must be the opposite.  When she meets Hans, and falls in love within hours, they sing that "love is an open door with you."  That appears to be all that matters to Anna- Hans is someone with whom she can talk and share.  That's an element of love, certainly- but is that all there is?  No- as Anna is soon to find out.  In one of the more amusing scenes of the movie (and, incidentally, one that turns your standard Disney princess flick on its head), Kristoff is incredulous that Anna would rush into love based on so little, and (rightly) questions her judgment.

c) Olaf's view of love is the right one.  Late in the movie, as Anna discovers that her view of love was severely lacking, Olaf fills her in on the truth: "love is putting someone else's needs before yours."  My jaw about hit the floor when I heard that- Olaf gets it 100% right.  Consider the Scriptures:

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him [Jesus] to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” (Luke 10:25-28)

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.  Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. (Philippians 2: 3-4)

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.  For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:13-14)

Love isn't about how we feel.  It's not about shutting others out, or (just) about letting others in.  It's serving one another, caring for others as you do yourself.

How do we (show) love?
Is it possible for us to do as Olaf says- to put someone else's needs before our own?  And, if so, what does that look like?

As a Calvinist, I believe that God must set us free from our prison of self-absorption, and that only through Him can we show true love.  You see this concept in Frozen.  Elsa is trying with all her ability to control her power.  She doesn't want to hurt Anna- even though she does it twice- and she doesn't want to hurt the townfolk either.  But her best efforts fall short; her heart is frozen.  How is she healed?  By an act of initial love.  At the end of the movie, Anna is fading quickly, and has two choices: does she run to Kristoff, whom she believes by kissing can save her life, or does she run to Elsa, who's about to be struck down?  Anna chooses the latter, in so doing exemplifying

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

After Anna blocks Elsa from the assailant, finally Elsa realizes that it's about love.  As the trolls in the film say, "only an act of true love can thaw a frozen heart."  Anna's sacrifice thaws Elsa's heart.  We see the exact same concept in Scripture:

We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19)

As Anna's love for Elsa enables Elsa to love, so God's love for us enables us to love others.  It's not something we did on our own, or just started doing after years of experimentation . . . it was all God.  And notice, too, that Anna saved Elsa even though Elsa had hurt Anna- twice- and was in fact the reason Anna was dying in the first place.  Hmmm . . . sacrificing life for someone who had caused pain . . . sound familiar?

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

Theme 2: Gifts

Though love is the main focus, gifts play a major support role here.  In fact, it's through Elsa's gift that the discussion of love is set up.

First things first: is Elsa's ability good or bad?  That Elsa's ability is a gift and not a curse is established early in the movie.  The trolls ask her parents if Elsa was born with her ability, or if it was a curse; her parents confirm the former.  Thus, the fact that Elsa has her power is not inherently bad.  A troll subsequently tells the parents regarding Elsa's gift that "beauty is in it, but also great danger"- she must learn to control it.  Note that getting rid of it wasn't an option; after all,

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Romans 11:29)

Elsa has a power, it can be used for good or bad, and it's here to stay.  So, the right approach is learning how to use it properly.  Well, how does she do that?  As we see in the film, she doesn't until the end, when an act of love opens her eyes.  But before that happens, she tries two approaches (unfortunately, both of them are wrong):

a) Hide the gift.  As discussed, Elsa isolates herself, thinking that in so doing, she's helping others.  But, alas, she's not- not only is she not loving people by hiding, she's also squandering her gift.

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:14-16)

Those with gifts have a responsibility to use them- they cannot be hidden.

b) Use the gift without discretion.  After years of bottling up who she is, Elsa finally lets it all out.  She sings that song that's been in everyone's brain, "Let it go," and says things like: "I don't care what they're going to say- let the storm rage on; the cold never bothered me anyway" and "no right, no wrong, no rules for me" as she (unknowingly) rains chaos down upon everyone.  Finally, Elsa's free . . . or is she?  No, there's a  problem.  She wraps up in a cocoon of self here- look at the language.  She doesn't care if the storm rages on- it doesn't bother her.  She even throws in a Martin Luther-like "here I stand" exclamation as she proclaims her position.  Since hiding didn't work, she'll just let it out without discretion . . . but she's still alone, and now, instead of just Anna hurting, the entire town is feeling the pain.  Elsa's so wrapped up in self that she doesn't even realize the havoc she's causing.  Oops.

If the two extremes didn't work, what's the right answer then?  How are we to use our gifts?  The Bible answers:

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace:  whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:10-11)

As we're called to love each other, it follows that are gifts are granted us that we should use them for each other.  The entire time Elsa battles, it's about her.  Only through the lens of love does she receive the victory, and once obtained, she uses the new-found love inside her to finally harness her power- and she immediately uses it to right things.


Theme 3: Human nature

Frozen discusses human nature in two main ways: through the trolls, and Hans.

The Trolls
The trolls try to get Kristoff and Anna together, and they do so by encouraging them both to look beyond the faults of the other.  "He's just a bit of a fixer-upper," they tell Anna regarding him, and "you can fix this fixer-upper with a little bit of love," concluding that "we need each other to fix us up and round us out."  How true!  It goes back to the love and community aspects discussed earlier, but it goes beyond that.  We are all fixer-uppers: 

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

And it's not like one is better than another- all sins are problems in God's eyes:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.  For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. (James 2: 10-11)

The trolls do well to call the point to mind: when we love someone, we're not loving perfect people.  We're loving people who mess up.  But, since love is about helping others, that means it's our job to love them and help them through it.

Hans

Hans' character intrigued me.  Unlike most villains, he doesn't come across that way in most of the movie; there's no foreshadowing to indicate his selfish intent.  And, frankly, I liked that, because it's true to life.  Most villains in this world don't walk around with a sign or evil costume indicated that they're not to be trusted.

And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)

Hans does show good deeds- he helps Anna, he even saves Elsa's life at one point, and he runs the kingdom well in their absence.  But sometimes, good deeds can have evil intents behind them, and it's clear that Hans was manipulating things to work out in his favor.

So, in general, we can deduce that we're messed up, but don't always appear that way.  Two valuable lessons.  As Kristoff sings to Sven at one point: "people will beat you and curse you and cheat you."  Yep; sounds about right.

Conclusion

Frozen is a fantastic film that accurately explores the true meaning of love, the point of gifts, and the essence of the human heart.  I'm still shocked . . . but pleased.

Rating: A+

The First 90 Days in Government (Peter Daly & Michael Watkins)

"TO STRIVE AND FAIL to be chosen for a leadership role is painful; to strive and succeed can be downright intimidating. Why? Because taking a new role means leaving behind the confines of what you know how to do well and embarking on an often uncomfortable journey of personal development."  So begins The First 90 Days in Government, where authors Daly and Watkins look at how new public managers can efficiently become effective in their new positions.

As the title states, the focus is on the first three months of a new assignment- the transition period.  This emphasis is well-founded.  Why?  "Transitions are times of opportunity and vulnerability" because they are ". . . critical times when small differences in your actions can have disproportionate effects on your later success."  Additionally, the focus of this book is on those managing in the public sector- whose actions are governed by more statutes and policies than those in private industry.

During transitions, the authors make the reasonable claim that the goal is "to get up to speed as quickly as possible. Put another way, you should strive to arrive as rapidly as possible at the breakeven point," which they define as "the point at which new leaders have contributed as much value to their new organization as they have consumed from it."  That said, "the book provides a road map for accelerating your transition."  They focus on nine key challenges to master during this time, which I list below.  For points that really hit home for me, I provide additional information.

*************************************
1) Clarify expectations
"Ambiguity about goals and expectations is dangerous."  Very true- and they go on to talk about the importance of the relationship between you and your boss: "Your relationship with your new boss will be built through continuing dialogue. . . To structure the dialogue that should take place after you report for your new position, you should focus on five conversations" with him/her, the goal of which is shown after the conversation title:

a) Situation: "gain an understanding of how your new boss sees the state of your new organization."

b) Expectations: "clarify and negotiate what you are expected to accomplish."

c) Style: "learn how you and your boss can best interact on an ongoing basis."

d) Resources: it's "a negotiation for critical resources.  What do you need to be successful?"

e) Personal Development: "discuss how your tenure and performance in this job can contribute to your own growth.  In what areas do you need strengthening?"

2) Match strategy to situation
"Different situations demand different strategies. But far too many new leaders do a poor job of diagnosing their situations and tailoring their strategies accordingly. They fall into the trap of assuming that one size will fit all and fail to recognize that different parts of their organizations may need to be approached in very different ways . . . One tool for assessing your situation is the STARS model, an acronym for start-up, turnaround, realignment, and sustaining success . . . Which of the four STARS situations are you facing?"

3) Accelerate your learning
"You cannot figure out where to take a new organization if you do not understand where it has been and how it got to where it is . . . " but "getting acquainted with a new organization can feel like drinking from a fire hose. You have to be systematic and focused about deciding what you need to learn and how you will learn it most efficiently."  In keeping with this idea, "many new leaders have found it helpful to use three lenses to diagnose their organizations—technical, political, and cultural:"
a) Technical Learning. "Mastering the nature and key features of the organization’s products, services, and customers composes technical learning."
b) Political Learning. "Every organization is political—factions, power struggles, negotiations, and coalition-building efforts can be found in any large human enterprise."
c) Cultural Learning. "Culture is at the core of the organization and influences the other four dimensions of organizational architecture—strategy, structure, systems, and skills—and shapes the thinking behind each."

How do you learn?  Everyone has their methods, but "active listening is the foundation of effective learning."


4) Secure early wins
"it is essential to identify promising opportunities and then focus relentlessly on turning them into wins."

5) Build the team 
"Building a team in a governmental context is a major transition challenge that can be compared to repairing an airplane in midflight . . . you have to be careful that you don’t make too many changes too early."

6) Create alliances
"Start by identifying influential parties and then dig deeper to diagnose networks of influence."  

Why do certain people have more influence? "Reasons for deference include: • Special expertise • Access to important information • Status • Control of resources, such as budgets and rewards • Personal loyalty • Coalition partnering."

7) Achieve alignment
"To be effective as a senior leader in government, you must be prepared to take on the role of organizational architect. This means cultivating your ability to observe and identify misalignments among strategy, structure, systems, skills, and culture."

8) Avoid predictable surprises
"often, new leaders are taken off track by surprises that really shouldn’t have been surprising—if the warning signs were known and heeded . . . bad news is usually much more valuable than good news and is stifled at great risk."
 
9) Manage yourself
It's important to schedule time for reflection and contemplation, to ensure things are (and stay) in the right direction.
*************************************

There's a lot of good information and pointers in this book.  It felt a bit repetitive at times- it could have been more concisely represented- but a worthy read overall.

Rating: B+

Sword at Sunset (Rosemary Sutcliff)

As my time winds down in the UK, I want to finish the way I started: with a good story about King Arthur.  Rosemary Sutcliff's Sword at Sunset fits the bill.  Similar to Bernard Cornwell's trilogy, Sutcliff re-imagines Arthur as he might have truly been (not as the legends make him out to be).  In her case, Arthur is "Artos the bear"- the son of a Briton and Roman- a child of two worlds, working the fight off the incoming Saxons (who invaded shortly after the Romans deserted the island).  Sutcliff places even more emphasis on realism than Cornwell- gone are all references to Lancelot, Merlin, and magic; in their place are realistic-sounding Roman and British characters.  The 10% I read was well done, but I put it down.  I suppose that bears further explanation.

I learned something about myself (and my reading style) reading this book.  Sutcliff's prose is immersive, evocative, beautiful, and intensely descriptive- and I had a hard time following it.  As I pondered why it was taking me such effort to plow through this, I realized it had to do with the nature of the writing.  Her descriptions of the landscape, environment, and other elements is impressive- and to me, not overly useful.  I realized that when I read, I tend to disregard many descriptive elements, and focus mostly on the plot and nature of the characters themselves.  Normally (apparently) that works out fine, because the authors I read don't but such emphasis on descriptions.  Sutcliff breaks that pattern for me, and I had a harder time with her than I did with Charles Dickens (whose language is harder but emphasis is more up my alley- plot and character).  So, after taking five days to get through 10% of the book, I decided to move on.  She's a good author, and I'd recommend her for those who enjoy the aforementioned emphasis.  It's just not for me.

As an aside, apparently this book is not the first in the series (although it's the first to be written for adults; Sutcliff wrote mostly children's books).  It's the fifth book in a set that begins with The Eagle of the Ninth. 

As another aside, Sutcliff also did a trilogy for children on King Arthur, but those books are a more classic, legendary take on the King (and feature all the familiar faces).  Since I respect her as an author, and suspect that the trilogy will be less descriptive, I plan on picking that up.

(Anticipated) Rating: A-

York

Located about halfway between London and Edinburgh, York is a city rich in history in atmosphere.  First Roman ("Eboracum"), then Saxon ("Eoforwic"), then Viking ("Jorvik"), modern York has been an important part of history across 2000 years and several cultures.  Among other things, the Roman emperor Constantine was crowned there.  As its only 20 miles from where I currently live, I've made many trips into the town- what follows are the highlights, in recommended order of viewing (refer to map above as reference).

Recommended Walking Route

York Minster

An amazing cathedral built and re-built (the present version was finished around 1472), York Minster can occupy you for hours if you wish to explore it in detail.  Both the museum under it and view from on top of it are worth a look.  If you're local, keep your tickets- they're valid for 12 months.

The Shambles

From the Minster, take a stroll southeast and enjoy the Medieval streets, the most notable of which is the Shambles.

Jorvik Viking Centre

Learn about York's Viking heritage (the Norsemen made York their capital after colonizing part of England in the 800s) at the Jorvik Viking Centre.  You'll take a short ride through a recreated Viking village and get to enjoy several displays of mutilated skeletons and, naturally, fossilized human feces.  As with the Minster, save your tickets- they're valid for 12 months.

Clifford's Tower

South of the Viking Centre is Clifford's Tower, part of what remains of York Castle (first built in the Norman era) and scene of a tragic Jewish mass death in the 1190s (they killed themselves to avoid a worse death at the hands of the crazed populace).

York Castle Museum

Across the street from Clifford's Tower is the York Castle Museum, which is, without question, the oddest museum I've ever seen.  After several rooms and streets modeled after different eras (from the 1700s-1960s), you also get to see the remains of the jail.  I'd avoid this one unless you're bored.

Medieval Town Wall Walk/Gates

Much of the Medieval town wall remains- and you can (and should) walk on it, stopping at several surviving gates.  Looking at the map above, climb up the wall at 4 Cromwell Road, following it clockwise to Wellington Row.

Train Museum

At this point, you'll be right at the River Ouse.  If you have time, depart the walking loop drawn above and head west to the Train Museum.  If not, continue on across the river.

Yorkshire Museum

The Yorkshire Museum is a much more traditional- and interesting- museum.  You'll see a myriad of artifacts, from Roman to late Medieval.

St. Mary's Abbey

Not much is left of this, though the ruins are idyllic.

Other Things

If you have young children and disposable income, no visit to York is complete without a visit to the Disney store.  York offers a host of other shopping options, not to mention quite a few secondhand and antiquarian bookstores.  On the food front, pubs and eateries dot the street, and Nando's- a Portuguese Chicken restaurant- is worth a visit. 

Parting Thoughts

York can be done in a long day, or two short ones.  Either way, it's well worth it.

The Plantagenets (Dan Jones)

With Marc Morris' excellent The Norman Conquest (review) fresh on my mind, I turned to The Plantagenets by Dan Jones.  For the unfamiliar, the Normans had only three kings on the throne of England: William I (1066-1087), William II (1087-1100), and Henry I (1100-1135).  After them came the Plantagenets.  Here's how that came to be: Henry I's heir, William, died in a shipwreck in 1120, leaving Henry with no surviving male heirs.  He made the nobles of the realm swear fealty to his daughter, Matilda (or 'Maud'), but after Henry passed in 1135, most nobles instead went with Stephen of Blois, Henry's nephew (a woman on the throne was, to most at this time, unacceptable culturally).  From 1135 to 1154, civil war raged in England (a time called "the anarchy"), with Maud and Stephen vying for control.  Eventually, an agreement was reached: Stephen would remain on the throne until his passing, at which time the crown would pass to Maud's son, Henry II.  This Henry's father was Geoffrey, count of Anjou, whom history would later dub "Plantagenet" due to the yellow bloom he wore in his hat (the Latin for which was planta genista).  Thus, with the accession of Henry II in 1154, the Plantagenet dynasty was born, and they would remain on the throne for almost 250 years- until 1399 (the death of Richard II), at which point the family would splinter into houses Lancaster and York, and kick off the Wars of the Roses, eventually ending with the accession of the Tudors.

The reign of the Plantagenets coincides with my favorite time in English history: the late Medieval period.  So many interesting and/or terrible events: the shipwreck, the anarchy, Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine, Thomas Becket, Richard the Lionhearted and the Crusades, The three kings named Edward (collective reign: 1272-1377) and their conquest of Wales and Scotland, castles and knights, the Black Plague . . . the list could continue.  It was thus with great anticipation that I started The Plantagenets.  What a disappointment.

Regrettably, there are a lot of problems with this book: 
1) Not enough depth/background

Jones covers a lot of territory in 600 pages- the aforementioned 250-year period- and so I expected an overview of this time in history.  No worries there; Jones delivers just that.  But, here's the thing: in glossing things over, Jones misrepresents certain events- or at least presents one view of the time without acknowledging conflicting opinions.  Of the events with which I was already familiar, I found myself disagreeing with Jones' statements, or mentally filling in things he left out.  It's okay to be brief and summarize- but you have to be accurate, too, and there Jones is slightly off the mark.

2) Unverified assumptions/bias

Jones' account of the time is fraught with unverified assumptions and bias.  I got the impression he read a few books/sources from one angle only, then said "sounds good" without any critical analysis.  He champions some rulers and maligns others, with little justification in either case.  He quotes from Medieval sources- which most agree are incredibly biased- with little analysis.  He inserts words and thoughts into monarch's heads which may or may not represent reality.  In short, he takes an awful lot of liberty with most things, and in so doing he strays from credibility. 

3) Lack of reference material/preparation

Not every writer can strike the balance Morris does between laymen readability and scholarly preparation.  With Jones, my first alarm bell went off before I began reading- I looked for the notes and bibliography section, and found only a 7-page "further reading" section.  Contrast this with Morris' ~100-page notes section after his 350-page book on The Norman Conquest, and you can see which one of them did their homework.  Jones reminds me of a tour guide who's read a few books- he knows a good deal, but he's no historian, and it shows.

-------------------------

In the end, I stopped reading The Plantagenets 10% of the way in- after just 60 of the 600 pages- because when it comes to history (or, really, anything), I'd rather have no idea than a wrong idea, and it became clear to me that there was a lot of chaff amongst the wheat in this book.  There are a lot of facts here, yes, but they're mixed with an unhealthy amount of conjecture/bias, and it's not always easy to know what's what.  That, for a history book especially, is unacceptable. Other reviewers have called this 'pop history' or 'history light'- I'd agree, and add to their assessment to produce a one-statement review of The Plantagenets: 'potentially-misleading history light.'

I'm disappointed.  I really would love a well-done overview history of the Plantagenet era.  I'm told Thomas B. Costain did a four-volume history some decades ago; that may go on my list.

Rating: C-

Batman: The Man Who Laughs (Various)

This week's graphic novel departs from the recent string of Star Wars titles and focuses on my other comic enjoyment: Batman.  Specifically, here we look at The Man Who Laughs- one of the classic Batman tales.  This graphic novel collects two stories- the title tale and Made of Wood.

The Man Who Laughs recalls Batman's first encounter with the Joker.  The Clown Prince shows up terrorizing Gotham by killing people with his poisonous laughing gas and taking over the airwaves to promise deaths of prominent Gotham citizens.  Batman eventually realizes Joker plans to poison the city water system, and takes him down before he can do so.  Elements of this story definitely found their way into two Batman movies by Christopher Nolan: Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Made of Wood features the 1940's Green Lantern (Alan Scott) teaming up with Batman to solve and stop a recurrence of a mysterious serial killer from 50 years ago, whose trademark is inscribing "made of wood" on all his/her victims.  It also features the (now-retired) Commissioner Gordon, and looks at the trouble people can get into when they treat heroes as gods. 

Both tales here are good.  The Man Who Laughs is not the first or only Batman story to look at the early days of Joker- for example, Lovers and Madmen (reviewed here) is set in the same time/deals with the same themes- but it's well done.  Made of Wood is a good, if not stellar, tale.

Rating: A-

Muppets Most Wanted

I grew up loving the muppets- both the TV series and the movies- and so I thought the latest caper, Muppets Most Wanted, would be satisfying.  I was wrong.

The latest muppet installment is set immediately after the last Muppet movie (from 2011, starring Amy Adams and Jason Segel).  Kermit and crew are approached by Dominic Badguy, who offers them a world tour on the heels of their recent success.  Kermit's reluctant, but the band encourages him, and they set off to Berlin for their first overseas gig.  Little do they know that Dominic is using them- first to spring Kermit lookalike Constantine (the most dangerous frog in the world) from a Russian gulag (headed by Nadya, harsh Russian leader) by switching places with Kermit, and then to use their performances as diversions to concurrent burglaries in nearby buildings.  Eventually, Sam the Eagle and French inspector Jean Pierre Napoleon catch on, and thwart Constantine's overall obejctive to steal the crown jewels.

It's hard to pinpoint why, but this movie misses the mark.  It's okay, but not overly entertaining.  The cameos are fun (as always), and I found the American/European cultural mockery between Sam and Jean Pierre amusing, but after that, this film just didn't do it for me.  As an aside, I also realized just how much the muppets really are intended for adults.  My daughter sat bored and stoney-faced through the entire movie, understandably missing most of the cultural references and not being as amused by the ridiculous events as I had hoped.  Overall, though it pains me to say it, look elsewhere.

Rating: C

Star Wars: On the Wrong Side of the War (Empire Volume 7)

It's graphic novel Sunday Thursday!  Yes, I'm late this week, due to visitors and traveling.  Anyway, we've arrived at the seventh and final trade paperback in the Empire comic series.  

The Wrong Side of the War collects issues 35-40 of the Empire series.  The collection consists of only two stories:

1) Model Officer (Story: B-, Art: A-)

When several Imperial strikes on Rebel bases don't go as planned, Darth Vader senses- and finds- a traitor in the ranks, and uses the turncoat to unwittingly further the Imperial agenda.

2) The Wrong Side of the War (Story: B-, Art: A-)

Janek "Tank" Sunber, introduced in volume 3, is on Kalist IV supervising slaves recently transported from the conflict on Jabiim (from volume 6).  There he runs into his old buddy from Tatooine, Luke Skywalker, who's undercover as an Imperial officer and part of a Rebel plot to steal the base's fuel and free the slaves (as this happens soon after Episode IV, and the identity of the pilot who blew up the Death Star is not known, Luke can apparently pull off the ruse- thus, Janek doesn't know where Luke's loyalties lie).  Janek, growing increasingly uneasy as Imperial atrocities mount, nevertheless tries to stop Luke when his Rebel connections are revealed.  Janek fails, and Luke & crew (to include Deena Shan, also seen earlier) escape with their spoils.  In the end, we see Janek pondering which side is the right one, and another Imperial officer pleased with the seemingly-disastrous outcome, hinting that the Rebels are playing into a larger Imperial plot. 


The first story was decent and only one issue long.  The second (the other five issues collected here) was similarly okay, but nothing to write home about.*  That they ended the 40-issue Empire series on a cliffhanger bothered me; Empire was followed by a short-lived story arc (16 issues) called Rebellion, and I think they picked the story up there, but I remember reading them years ago and being unimpressed, so I don't think the overall story ended as well as I hoped.

Rating: B

*but apparently something to blog about

The Norman Conquest (Marc Morris)

 

In The Norman Conquest, Marc Morris recounts, explains the background to, and shows the consequences of a seminal event in English history: the 1066 invasion of England by William the Conqueror of Normandy.  While the majority of the book focuses on Edward the Confessor, William and what happened in England immediately before and after 1066, Morris goes discusses events from the 990s to 1230s to give the work suitable context.  He discusses the powers vying for the English throne- the entrenched Anglo-Saxon nobility, the often-invading (and occasionally ruling) Vikings from Scandinavia (modern Norway, Denmark, and Sweden), and of course the Normans (from modern northern France).  We also get snippets of affairs on the continent which (indirectly) played a role- from Normandy's fights with adjacent kingdoms (Anjou, Flanders, France, Maine, etc.) to the Viking's internal power struggles in Scandinavia.  In short, we learn a lot about a lot of different peoples in northwest Europe at the turn of the first millennium.

A historian of antiquity faces two challenges:
1) the dearth of primary source material
2) the often-obvious bias of what little material exists
Morris does a masterful job in overcoming both.  He 'considers the source' at all times, looking at not only what was written, but who wrote it and what agenda they could have in so doing.  Where no primary sources on a given event exist, he scours other relevant material (land ownership, taxation records, etc) to reconstruct what might have happened.  And, to top it off, he weaves an interesting narrative out of his extensive research, remaining readable to the layperson yet valuable for the academic.  He does just about as good of a job as one could, looking so far into the past.

Any student of British history would find this book valuable.  The events of this time period are complex, no question- almost everyone's connected (through marriages or fealty), the balance of power is always shifting, and people change sides often in their ongoing attempts to gain power and wealth.  Marc Morris makes about as much sense of it all as can be made- and he does so in often succinct and elegant prose.  Among other things, I appreciated his ability to incorporate relevant background information on other areas (Normandy, Scandinavia, etc.) into the narrative without losing the overall story.  Highly recommended.

Rating: A

Holy Warrior (Angus Donald)

In January, I read (and mostly enjoyed) Outlaw, the first book in an ongoing series on Robin Hood (review here) by Angus Donald.  As I stated then, I'd probably give the second book a try to determine if the rest of the series was worth pursuing.  I got my chance sooner than anticipated, and I started Holy Warrior last week.

Outlaw ended with Robin being pardoned by Richard the Lionhearted and given a modest landholding in central England.  As part of the deal, though, Robin swore to 'take the Cross'- to accompany Richard on the Third Crusade.   In Holy Warrior, we start with Robin making preparations for his departure, a necessary part of which is raising money to pay for goods required on the journey.  With few options, he decides to pursue borrowing from the Jews of York- and unfortunately walks in on the 1190 Jewish massacre in [what is now] Clifford's Tower.  That's as far as I got.  You may have picked up on my unusual wording from the first paragraph.  I started Holy Warrior last week.  I didn't finish it, and I won't.  I gave it a fair shot, reading 33%, but I decided to put it down.

To be fair to Donald, I want to explain my reasons for stopping.  The book isn't bad- I rate the portion I read below.  But my big problem was with the history.  As I commented in book one, I'm not entirely sure Donald is portraying the history correctly.  Recounting the events, yes.  Conveying the correct atmosphere and attributing realistic motives to the participants, I'm not so sure.  If you read it as fiction with some history mixed in, I think the book is enjoyable.  If you just want a Robin Hood story and care little for other elements, go for it.  But if you read it as historical fiction, the book might give you a wrong impression on how and why covered events happened.  Personally, I'd rather have no idea than a wrong idea about a given situation . . . so I stopped reading.  It may be for you, but it wasn't for me.  I'm not saying that Donald is certainly off-base in his perspective . . . I just felt something was lacking in both books one and two, and it was significant enough in my mind to stop.

I believe Donald is up to book five or six in the series, and it looks like subsequent offerings cover the Third Crusade, Richard's return and capture on the way, and other interesting events.  So if this time period is for you, and this history aspect isn't overly important, you may enjoy this series.

Rating: B-

A History of Britain

Having lived in the UK for almost 3 years, I'm something of an expert on the history of the land.  Understanding the history of an area gives us a heightened appreciation in several respects- but most importantly, it tells us how to avoid unwittingly incurring the hatred of the local populace.  For example, if you were traveling in Turkey and introduced yourself as Kurdish or Armenian, you might get shot.  Why?  Because history would tell you that those peoples aren't on the best of terms.  Now, if you introduced yourself the same way to someone in Philadelphia, something entirely different would happen- you would still get shot, but in this case, it would be because they wanted your shoes.  I had a point; I've lost it now.  Ah, yes- history matters.  So, free of charge, I present the below overview of British history for those living in this great land.

McLean's History of the Britons

1,000 BC: The native Britons are a happy bunch, frolicking often with unicorns amidst a backdrop of rainbows, puppies, and chocolate chip cookies. 

500 BC: After a weekend of unusually excessive drinking, Prehistoric British University (PBU) students decide to build a random structure for hangouts and keggers.  They call it "Stonehenge."

~0 AD: The Romans, having a limited understanding of weather patterns, make a conscious decision to invade Britain.

~120: The Roman invasion progresses to halfway up the island.  They then encounter men wearing dresses, eating sheep lung, and playing bagpipes, an instrument which has been likened, not inaccurately, to an amplified nasal kazoo.  Exercising seldom-used discretion, the Romans call it quits and build a large wall, name it "Hadrian," and elect to keep the natives north of the wall at a healthy distance. 

~200: The Romans build the main north-south roads on the island.  This is the first and last time major roads are constructed in Britain.

~450: After centuries of rain, the Romans decide "it just isn't worth it" and abandon the island, opting to seek decent plumbing and reasonable medical care elsewhere.   The native Britons are excited, but before long . .

~500: Two street gangs, the Angles and the Saxons, invade Britain from [current] Germany/Denmark.  They challenge the native Britons, led by mythical King Arthur, to a heated game of mythical Triominoes.  The Britons lose, are banished to Wales, and are forced to use an alphabet consisting almost entirely of G's, L's, and Y's, leading to place names like Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch (yes, this is a real town name).

~800: Vikings invade York.  They end up splitting rule of parts of England with the Anglo-Saxons for several centuries.  Who cares?

~850: Monarchs begin appending appropriate and/or comical names to their birthnames.  Examples include Sven Forkbeard, Robert Bluetooth, Edward the Confessor, Ethelred the Unready, Aethelfrith the Somewhat Annoying, and Walter the Ridiculously Good-Looking But Prone to Drunkenness.

1065: William the Conqueror invades England, but is turned away at Customs when they determine that his visa application was filled out incorrectly.

1066: William the Conqueror returns to England with several thousand ill-tempered, physically-imposing men, each of whom is named Norman.  Appropriately, this is called the Norman invasion. 

1150: an overweight, down-on-his-luck minstrel named Robin Hood takes up LARPing (live action role playing) in Sherwood forest.   He writes outrageous stories about himself and spreads them throughout the land in an ultimately-successful quest for fame. 

1215: The nobility forces King John to sign the Magna Carta, granting them (the nobles) greater rights, to include the right to continue shamelessly exploiting poor people.

1337-1453: Having a poor grasp of math, the Brits fight the French on and off for 116 years, but call the conflict the Hundred Years' War.

1346-1353: Black Plague strikes, killing pretty much everybody.  I'm having a difficult time trying to spin this into something heartwarming.

1455: What began as harmless fun- nobility lofting floral arrangements at each other- takes a deadly turn and escalates into the Wars of the Roses.  This war featured the powerful houses of the time: Lancaster, York, and Teleflora.

1508: Henry VIII becomes the first monarch on eHarmony.  His profile: "severely obese man with violent temper, prone to fits of inane babbling, seeks significantly younger, attractive women.  Male children a must.  No long-term relationship necessary."

1536: Henry VIII, for future tourism purposes, demands that all monasteries be converted to ruins. 

1600: Tired of bland British cooking, Queen Elizabeth I gives permission to invade India.  From her memoirs: "sometimes you just need a good curry."

1600ish: King "LeBron" James I officially unites the English and Scottish thrones.

1775-1783: The Brits lose to a bunch of poor, ill-equipped, foul-smelling Americans in the Revolutionary War.

1882: Plumbing is installed in Britain.

1883: Plumbing is updated in Britain for the last time.

1911: Titanic is built.  It's billed the ship that God couldn't sink.

1912: Titanic sinks.  Leonardo Di Caprio fans are heartbroken.

1913: Cars are mass-produced for the first time.  The average British car is 2.1 meters wide; the average British lane, 1.8 meters.

1914-18: WWI.  Germany invades the rest of Europe; Britain relies heavily on America for help.

1939-45: WWII.  See previous post.

1948: Realizing that a large portion of the population could not afford health care, the National Health Service (NHS) is created.  Now, regardless of economic standing, anyone can go to the doctor, for free, and be told to "give it a few weeks and see if it won't heal on its own."

1950: Britain comes in dead last at the Modern and Sound Plumbing championships, losing by a wide margin to every major country and several species of moderately-organized amphibians.

2014: An amateur blogger attempts to summarize Britain's history, but gets tired and decides to skip the last 65 years or so.

A West Midlands Miscellany

Locations shown below

This past weekend, we took a trip "down south" to see friends and visit some sights in the west midlands.  Below is a succinct review/photo set of each location seen.

Tewkesbury Abbey

A nice abbey northwest of Cheltenham.  One effigy features a decaying corpse- cool.
Rating: B

Goodrich Castle

A nice English Heritage castle, reasonably intact, pleasantly situated on a hill overlooking the Wye river.
Rating: A

Puzzle Wood

The most unique place visited during the trip, Puzzle Wood is thought to have inspired frequent visitor J.R.R. Tolkien to think up Mirkwood Forest in The Lord of the Rings.  It's a small section of mysterious woodland, abounding with moss-covered boulders, ancient trees, and narrow gullies.  Only about a mile of paths total, it can be seen in a pleasant hour of wandering.  Well worth it.
Rating: A

Ludlow Castle

A scenic castle of historical importance, Ludlow guarded the Welsh borders in Medieval times.  Parts of it date from the Norman era.
Rating: B

Stokesay Castle

A fortified Medieval manor home, upon which Kevin Crossley-Holland based one location in his excellent trilogy on Arthur (my reviews here, here, and here).  It's very small, and the interior is largely unimpressive, but if you're an English Heritage member, and near Ludlow (Stokesay is 7 miles north), it's worth it.
Rating: B