Pardon the Renovation

image from here

Good morning,

Please pardon the website renovation.  Over the next few weeks, I'll be updating tags and links to streamline the user experience.  No content will be removed during this time; it may be harder to find, however.  The search bar (upper left) is your friend!

Sincerely,

Management

The Oregon Trail Card Game

As an '80s kid, one of my earliest PC memories was the video game The Oregon Trail.  In this game, prevalent in elementary schools of the era, you led a wagon group, bought supplies, and headed west.  Your party's goal was to take the famous trail from Missouri to Oregon.  Along the way, many pitfalls could ensnare you- disease, famine, mechanical trouble . . . you name it.  It was hard to win (most or all of your party generally died, sometimes in amusing ways) but fun to play.  Recently, they released a card game of the same name.  It makes every attempt to capture the spirit of the original- from 8-bit graphics to the varied (and still amusing) modes of death.  Let's see how it plays.

Overview
In The Oregon Trail Card Game, your goal is to get from Missouri to Oregon.  You and 1-5 other players start by drawing 5 trail cards and a number of supply cards (the number of these depends on how many are playing).  You then take turns laying trail cards, ensuring that the green trail aligns with the previously laid track (the below illustration gives you the idea).  Certain trail cards can do things like:

• Make you ford a river (roll a die; if even, proceed.  If odd, discard a supply card).
• Make you draw a calamity card and do as instructed on it.  Generally these are bad- things like giving a party member dysentery, suffering a wagon breakdown, having a thief steal supplies, or making one of the group enter politics (just kidding on that last one).

If you can ford the rivers and overcome the calamities, there's a chance you can re-stock (at a fort or town) and continue your journey.  Can at least one of the party make it all the way (symbolized by completing 50 trail cards)?  If so, you all win.  But chances are better that you'll all die.

the game contents

Simplified Gameplay
Each turn, a player must:
- Play a trail OR supply card if they can.

• Trail cards may specify you draw a calamity card or roll a die to attempt fording a river, as discussed above.
• Supply cards are generally played in response to a calamity, which will specify which type of supply is necessary (if any) to overcome and continue.  You can play a supply card to help another party member.

- If a player cannot play a supply card AND has no suitable trail cards (meaning they don't have a card that aligns with the current trail), they must draw a trail card instead.

examples of calamities

- After playing or drawing a card, the player's turn ends, and play proceeds clockwise (I think . . . it doesn't really matter which direction) until everyone has reached Oregon (by playing 50 trail cards) or died.


Review
This game had potential but is poorly done.  The rules are confusing and the randomized trail deck means that it's possible to encounter no towns or forts early, making it nearly impossible to win.  In fact, I wonder if it's possible to win at all.  I played two games; both were over within minutes, with the same morbid result.  It was good for a quick laugh and recalling a fond memory of my youth . . . but this won't see further play at my house unless I can make some house rules to increase the odds of victory.

UPDATE
I played again with the following 'house rules':

1. Players can reveal their supply and trail cards to each other at any time
2. When at a town or fort, each player can draw supply cards (not just the player who played the town or fort)
3. When fording a river, the player who played the trail card rolls the die.  On even, play continues.  On odd, the player discards a supply card and play continues (meaning successive players don't have to keep rolling until an even is rolled)

These house rules made the game more palatable.  It's still not great- mostly good for a chuckle before you move on to more interesting fare- but the odds of winning (for a 2-player game, anyway) go up substantially (though still a longshot).

Rating: C

Taliesin (Stephen Lawhead)

Having mildly enjoyed his trilogy on Robin Hood (Hood, Scarlet, and Tuck), I was interested to see how Stephen Lawhead would tell the story of King Arthur.  Taliesin is book one of the Pendragon Cycle, his six-book spin on the legend.  Here, Charis (a princess from Atlantis) meets Taliesin (a British druid of interesting origin) and their eventual union produces "Myrddin"- or Merlin, as we know him.

Despite some promise, I couldn't get through this.  The overall plot seemed okay, and Lawhead also makes some attempt to be historical, which I like.  There were some interesting elements- incorporating Atlantis into the legend, for example- but these things didn't compensate for the shortfalls: the writing wasn't great, the character development rushed, and it's just not compelling.  After reading 14%, I put it down.  If you're an Arthur nut, go for this.  If not, move on.

Rating: B-

Hotel Valhalla (Rick Riordan)

Rick Riordan is an accomplished author of several book series, often based on differnt mythologies (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse).  His most famous hero is Percy Jackson, but his most recent works feature Magnus Chase and Norse mythology.  Hotel Valhalla is a companion book to this series.

In Hotel Valhalla, we're given a guide to the Norse mythological universe.  We learn about the Yggdrasil and the nine worlds it holds, the main gods and goddesses (like Odin, Thor and Loki), races (like giants and elves), creatures of interest, some history, and other things relevant to the universe.  It's written in a fun style- as a guidebook placed in each room of Hotel Valhalla, to acquaint the guests with things they might see or experience in the region.

I've never read Riordan's other stuff, but the subtitle ('guide to the norse worlds') caught my eye, so I picked up the audiobook.  It was short (just 2 discs or 176 pages), but I loved it.  Riordan writes well: his account is humorous, concise, informative, and compelling.  There are probably more complete guides to Norse mythology out there, but this is very well done and makes me want to read more of his books.  The only caveat: he mentions characters that appear in his works, so I'm sure there were references I didn't catch or understand.  But even then I was able to enjoy it, and you will be, too.

Rating: A

The Once and Future King (T.H. White)

The Once and Future King is the story of King Arthur as wonderfully told by T.H. White.  Originally produced in four parts, this collects all in one volume, and I discuss each separately before reflecting on the entire work.

Book 1: The Sword and the Stone
Life is not bad for 'the Wart,' a boy living with Sir Ector and his son, Kay, in the Castle of Forest Sauvage, but things definitely get more interesting when Merlyn arrives to be his tutor.  Merlyn is a wizard living backwards in time, and he educates Wart by turning him into various animals to help him learn life lessons through a different lens.  Through this and other means, Wart learns perspective, empathy, community, compassion, stewardship, and other qualities that will prove necessary for his destiny.

Over the years, Wart will also have adventures with people like King Pellinore (ever chasing the elusive Questing Beast) and the Saxon Robin Wood (or is it Hood?).  But the most unexpected is saved for last: King Uther Pendragon has died, and a tournament held in his honor has Wart and company visiting London.  When Kay forgets his sword, Wart grows desperate and obtains a sword from an anvil in a Churchyard.  What Wart doesn't know is this feat- which no other can manage- signifies that he is the son of King Uther and therefore, king.  So begins the reign of King Arthur.

Book 2: The Queen of Air and Darkness
This is the book of growth- both Arthur's as king and the Orkney faction (King Lot's wife and sons) as opponents.  Throughout young Arthur's reign, the Gaelic kings have been against him and his Gallic rule (Arthur is a Norman).  This is due to an unfortunate (and somewhat complicated) family tree involving enchantment and deception (see below).  The bottom line: Morgause will use magic against the boy King . . . which will eventually bring about his his downfall.

This book also highlights Arthur's coming of age in understanding how a good king should rule.  He wants to "harness Might so it works for Right" and so turn bad into good.  Yes, for Arthur "Might is only to be used for Right."  "I don't think things ought to be done because you are able to do them.  I think they should be done because you ought to do them."  He creates the Order of the Round Table to channel might into use for right.  Will he succeed?

Book 3: The Ill-Made Knight
This book focuses on Lancelot, the "ill-made knight," and specifically his (adulterous) relationship with Queen Guenever.  Spending "half his life torturing himself by trying to discover what was right so as to conquer his inclination towards what was wrong," Lancelot embarks on quests "to save his honour, not to establish it."  He's trying to escape from Guenever and the temptation she presents.

Lancelot is complicated.  "He loved Arthur and he loved Guenever and he hated himself . . . there was shame and self-loathing."  Eventually, he is deceived into sinning with another woman, and that triggers his downfall.  "He was a lie now, in God's eyes as he saw them, so he felt that he might as well be a lie in earnest."  So begins his relationship with the Queen.

Elsewhere, Arthur's Round Table has turned into sportsmanship.  His attempts to harness might for right worked for a time . . . but now things are coming undone.  The knights are essentially making mischief, and now Arthur comes to realize that using might for anything (good or bad) may have been a mistake- perhaps doing away with might altogether is called for, so Arthur thinks about developing law.  As he contemplates these things, he sends the knights out on one last quest, for the Holy Grail- a quest that will cost many their lives.

Book 4: The Candle in the Wind
The age of Arthur is in twilight.  Mordred plots the downfall of his father by using Lancelot and Guenever's sin coupled with Arthur's desires for a just society.  As Arthur realizes time is short, he contemplates this life, his goals in it, and the nature of conflict.  He assumed men were decent . . . was he wrong?

Review

The Once and Future King is a wonderful book, full of laughter, sorrow, and wisdom.  The first book is the most light-hearted- indeed, I thought it a 'serious parody' of sorts.  Things get progressively more somber in tone as the tragedy of Arthur appears on the horizon- but whether you're laughing or crying, there is value here.  The third book in particular is gold: Lancelot is a tortured soul, and seeing him come to the end of himself and reliance on works is humbling.  Other observations:
- the pace was uneven at times: there are spots that seemed rushed or drawn out
- White assumes his readers are familiar with Malory's Arthurian tale
- Historically, White places Arthur in the 12th century, over 600 years after Arthur would have lived, and contemporary with Robin Hood (who would have lived much later than Arthur).

Rating: A+

Debate in the Digital Age

image from here

The (unexpected) election of Donald Trump has come with an explosion of (quite expected) post-election emotion.  Whether outraged or overjoyed, many have used social media to express themselves or start debates . . . and it seldom ends well.  I had a traumatic experience in this vein a few months ago; let me share what I learned.

The Situation
Four months ago, I returned from a special event to find in my inbox an email that irritated me.  It was from a long-time friend who took issue with something I had done.  He had been finding fault with lots of things (and people) over the prior months, and this email was the last straw; I had had enough.  In a way that (I thought) was loving, I told him that we needed to talk, but expressed my frustration with his behavior.  He agreed to meet, and I should have met immediately . . . but I didn't.  Instead, I spent a long time crafting a response over email, and sent that after much thought.  Thus began a war.

We exchanged emails over the weeks to come, and it wasn't pretty.  We both poured a lot of time (days) into each response, so there were no rash words.  [In fact, that's what I like about email: it provides a chance to reflect and amend initial reactions rather than respond in the heat of the moment.]  Nevertheless, it was clear we weren't understanding each other, and the problem kept compounding.  The stress of the situation was taking its toll on me: I began to lose both sleep and weight.  Why didn't he understand my position?  I wasn't being mean . . . why didn't he see that?  Finally, I could bear it no longer: I acknowledged my error in conducting a discussion over email.  We met in person shortly thereafter, and though the meeting didn't exactly end in agreement or reconciliation, it was tremendously helpful.  One of my big lessons from this experience?  The words weren't wrong- the delivery mechanism was.

The Trouble of Text
In today's age, we increasingly communicate using nonverbal means- social media, email, or texting (see here for an example on teen usage).  That presents a problem, as it deprives us of the full communication experience.  An oft-discussed study conducted decades ago (see here) concluded that there are three aspects to communication:

• Words (what you say)
• Tone (how you say it)
• Body Language

The author of that study claimed our words conveyed only 7% of the meaning, our tone 38%, and the body language 55%.  Though some disagree with the ratios (see counterpoint here) or argue that this applies only to very specific conditions (see here), the point is that communication involves much more than what you say.  I learned that firsthand in debating my friend over email.

Since emails don't convey tone or body language, he was not receiving the message I intended.  And I was not receiving his- in fact, I was horrified by some of his words.  Since I imputed a hostile tone to text I viewed as harsh, it compounded my anxiety and made things much worse.  When we met in person, we were both cordial . . . and though we disagreed, we were able to have a successful discussion.  Face-to-face worked when email did not.

Recommendation
It's important in this divisive time to dialogue.  A lot.  The past week has shocked much of America, and people need to discuss and digest.  But for me, a lesson I've now had seared into my mind is to avoid such discussions online, be it in forums, facebook, or email.  It's like handicapping both parties, and the outcome isn't likely to be helpful.  For the reasons I mentioned, plus the relative anonymity of the Internet and the behavior it emboldens, it's just not a good idea.  So organize a meeting, call a town hall, or schedule something . . . but do it in-person, and 'let your speech be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.' (Colossians 4:6)

Arthur & the Gospel

N.C. Wyeth's illustration of King Arthur

Below is a rough transcription of a talk I gave today about King Arthur and why he matters.  The presentation was limited to 5 minutes and 5 powerpoint slides; it was a fun challenge.


Introduction

King Arthur is important to understand because he's had a significant influence in western culture for over a thousand years- so let's learn more about him.


History

Was there ever a historical Arthur?  A real person?  We don't know.  The historical record is scarce, and so we're forced to deal in the realm of probability.  It seems likely that an Arthur was active between 480 and 540 AD in southwest Britain (in the region of Cornwall and Wales), and that he was a warlord fighting off incoming waves of Anglo-Saxons who were taking over the island in the decades following the collapse of the western Roman Empire.  That's about all we know.  Nevertheless, there are many sites in the region that happily (and profitably) associate themselves with Arthur.  The two most common are Tintagel Castle and Glastonbury Abbey, but there are many others, and in 1290, King Edward I was so enamored with Arthur that he had a round table made for use at his castle in Winchester- and a tudor-era replica of that hangs on the wall of the ruin to this day.  This begs the question: why would a man about whom so little is known historically be so influential culturally?  That answer lies in literature.

Literature

We first hear of Arthur in the chronicles.  Nennius mentions him around 800 AD, but we get our first real detail from Geoffrey of Monmouth 300 years later.  Now, chronicles were histories of sorts, but the writers of the day didn't hesitate to incorporate legend, hearsay, and even personal whim into their accounts.  So we can't use them as a basis for a historical Arthur; nevertheless, they formed the foundation.

After the chronicles, Arthur transitions to romance with Chrétien de Troye's Four Arthurian Romances.  This is where Arthur's popularity skyrockets, and he would remain at the top for centuries.  Authors of subsequent ages would write new tales using de Troye's universe and characters, and in 1485 Thomas Malory collected the most popular tales, added his own flavor, and produced Le Morte d'Arthur, the death of Arthur, which remains the most popular and definitive account written.  Chances are good that if you know any Arthur tales, you know Malory's version (or a close derivative of it).  Authors continue to write stories to this day, but the three most important in the formation of the legend are those mentioned.

Religion

So what does this have to do with religion?  Well, "stories reflect the values and concerns of the age in which they were written."*  Arthurian stories were penned in an overtly Christian society and deal with an ideal kingdom (and ruler).  When we consider these things, we realize that Arthur stories are a window into Medieval man's mind on how they thought the gospel should be applied in their daily lives.  We see the pursuit of virtue and the reality of failure- it's all there.  But what's fascinating, when we take a step back, is when we realize that their interpretation of the gospel differs markedly from our own.  They emphasize different things or omit things altogether that we hold dear today.  This, in turn, begs the question: is it right that man's interpretation of the gospel changes from age to age?  Why does it happen?  Do we have it all correct today . . . or is there value in ancient perspectives?  I don't have the answers, but the questions bear asking.

Reading Recommendations

If you're interested in Arthurian studies, there's one concise place to turn: the Oxford Guide to Arthurian literature and legend.  If you want story, I recommend Rosemary Sutcliff's Arthur Trilogy.  It's well-written, appropriate for all ages, and follows Malory quite closely.  From there you can branch out to deviations from the classic version- things like T.H. White's excellent Once and Future King, to Bernard Cornwell's historical fantasy trilogy, to Kevin Crossley-Holland's historical fiction works.  Thank you, and I hope you enjoy the tales of Arthur, King of the Britons.

* from the Oxford Guide to Arthurian Literature and Legend

Doctor Strange

Stubborn, arrogant, and ambitious (yet renowned) neurosurgeon Stephen Strange has his world turned upside-down when a car accident leaves his hands in a condition unsuitable for his profession.  Desperate after traditional medicine fails, he heads to the far east for answers. Led to the Ancient One, master of the mystic arts, he learns just how little he knows . . . and his training not only gives him great power but exposes him to multiple planes of reality.  He discovers a terrible threat to Earth, and must decide: should his powers be used for personal benefit or for the good of all?

This movie presents several messages to contemplate (see next paragraph).  The visuals are stunning, the acting is (mostly) good, and the plot is decent, if rushed or confusing in places.  The humor and dialogue are okay (but seemed forced or cheesy at times).  In summary, it's part good, part complicated . . . and part strange.

There are a few themes in this movie that bear discussing:
- The first is selfishness.  Strange claims to be motivated in medicine to 'help others,' but his teacher recognizes his heart: he's in it only to help himself.  He's motivated by his performance; his identity is in his trade.  The Ancient One's greatest lesson to him: "It's not about you."
- Another is the nature of this life.  Is the universe simply material and (therefore) indifferent?  What gives life meaning?  People long for the eternal and recognize that the world is not what it ought to be.  We also see only in part . . . there's so much out there we don't know or even recognize.
- Another is power and control.  "Power is for a purpose," claims a protagonist at one point- and that purpose is not to benefit self, but serve others.  In addition, we have a delusion of control . . . but to be truly free, we must surrender control and silence our ego.  "We never lose our demons . . .we only learn to live above them."

There are some great thoughts in the above, and though mysticism is present, I see the gospel, too.  Check this one out.

Rating: A-

Election Time

image from here

This post is for my children.

Kids, today mommy and daddy vote for our next President.  In America, we (effectively) have a two-party system, meaning one of the two main candidates will almost certainly win.  This election's choices, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, are largely despised and distrusted, respectively.  Thus, many people feel this is a 'lesser of two evils' election, whereby you choose the candidate you dislike less, rather than one you like.  A wave of breathtaking rationalizations have resulted from this mindset, and the hardest part (for us) is watching it all unfold.  But let's take this back to the basics and see what we can determine.

What do we need a leader to do?
Here I quote heavily from Storied Leadership and my review of it.  We know what a leader is to do based on what the Bible says about us and the world.  The Christian Gospel can be summarized as 'Creation, Fall, Redemption;'  in a nutshell, "perfection distorted and restored."  This story is the foundation from which leadership happens.  Specifically, from the Creation mandate (Genesis 1:28) and Jesus' teaching (Matthew 20:25-28), leaders are to be loving lords.  We rule over creation, but with a servant mentality.

The loving lord is the one who protects the limits and draws out the possibilities.  She is able to consider the potential of her subject and nurture it toward maturity.  The loving lord leads the created order into the way it is meant to be . . . loving lordship seeks to bring out the fullness of something for the common good and for the benefit of the thing itself.

Said another way, "We are called to lead the nascent creation from potentiality into actuality."  To
"Guard and till.  Preserve and cultivate."  But it's not just about this.  Because of the Fall, "All has been distorted."  Thus, "Our role as image bearers is also the work of reconciliation."  That can mean we're called to fix in addition to creating.  So, we are called to be "cultivators and restorers."

Ultimately, we "define leadership as a collaborative effort that influences positive purposeful changes."  The goal of leaders is to make "the world more like the Kingdom as God intended it to be."  Things will never be perfect, but we should be neither cynics (who ignore the restorative work of God) nor naïve optimists (who ignore the Fall).  So leaders do what they can.


Thoughts for voting as a Christian

Are any candidates today in line with what we need a leader to do?  The dilemma is that no candidate (or party) fully aligns with the Gospel.  People generally vote based on both platform (of the party) and character (of the candidate).  Both platforms and character are in question here:
- Each party's platforms contains some beliefs that align with what is right, and some that oppose it.
- The character of each main candidate is in question.
How should we then vote?  I won't give you an answer, but will provide some thoughts.

Abhor what is evil
The "lesser of two evils" mindset is flawed.  We should never choose evil, nor be overcome by it, but overcome evil with good (see Romans 12:9-21).  If you think a candidate is evil, don't vote for him or her.  Period.

Be consistent
When deciding, hold candidates to the same standard and do not show partiality for any reason (see Romans 2:6-11 or James 2:1-9).  Too often, people excuse the words and actions of their own party members and condemn 'outsiders.'  Don't fall into this trap.

Be realistic
There are no perfect candidates because there are no perfect people- everyone sins (see Romans 3:10-11), and our leaders are no different.  But there are good and bad rulers (see Proverbs 29:2).  Thinking through what was presented above, think about which candidate(s) are the most likely to nurture, cultivate, and reconcile the nation.

Beware false prophets
Some are easily led astray by words.  Remember that people (including even political candidates) are recognized by their fruits- not by their words.  Some who claim to align themselves with the Gospel may be far from it (see Matthew 7:15-23).

These thoughts may lead you to a third party candidate- one which will almost certainly lose.  But so what?  Our hope is in the Lord, not the President (see Psalm 130:7).  We shouldn't compromise our beliefs or go against our conscience (see Acts 24:16).

I'll end with this.  Regardless of today's outcome, we should . . .

1. Submit to (and pray for) the government
• Unless we are prohibited from doing right or compelled to do wrong, we should submit to earthly authority and pray for them, hoping for a peaceful and quiet life (see 1 Peter 2:13-17 and 1 Timothy 1-2).
2. Remember that the Lord is in control
• God is sovereign; nothing can happen outside of His control.  Christ is preeminent (see Colossians 1:15-17); our God does what He pleases (see Psalm 115:2-3).  Even kings obey (see Proverbs 21:1).
• I think we sometimes put too much faith in the state.  Ever since Constantine, Church and state have been intertwined to varying degrees, and some (like Susan Wise Bauer in The History of the Medieval World*) argue that this has caused problems for both.  I see it here in America: some think that victory for a certain candidate will spell doom for us.  I think we have perhaps unreasonable expectations about the role of the state.  

*see chapter 1 of that book

Robber Knights

Today's game review is for the 2005 release, Robber Knights.  For 2-4 players, it can be played in 45 minutes.

Overview
In Robber Knights, your goal is to gain control over the villages, towns, and castles of the land.  Each player starts with 24 landscape tiles and 30 knight tokens which he or she must use to maximum advantage as turns progress.

Landscape tiles
There are two basic kinds of landscapes:
- Those without buildings: lake, mountains, plain
- Those with buildings: plain, forest
A building can be a village, castle, or town.

Knight tokens
Knight tokens deploy only from castle tiles and sweep across the countryside to stake their claims on the land.  At the end of the game, victory points are granted for each building your knights occupy (1 per castle, 2 per village, 3 per town).  But others can gain control of your spaces if you let them . . . so use your knights wisely!


Simplified Gameplay
Each player has 4 landscape tiles in his or her hand to start (their remaining tiles are shuffled as prescribed in the rules and placed in a pile).  Each player places 2 tiles face down and adjacent to the other players' tiles to form the rectangular starting layout (the other 2 are kept in each player's hand).  All starting tiles are turned face up, the oldest player starts, and the game begins.

On his or her turn, a player:

• adds 1 tile to the layout (adjacent to existing tiles and within certain limits as prescribed in the rules)
• if it is a castle tile, he/she can place up to 5 knights on it and immediately move them (see below for movement rules)
• draws 1 tile from his/her pile

A player may perform the above steps 1-3 times on his or her turn; play then progresses clockwise.

Movement rules
When knights are deployed on a castle tile, they immediately move away from the castle in a straight line in one direction (no diagonals, skipping tiles, or changing direction is permitted).  As they move, a minimum number of knights must be left behind on each tile, according to the type of landscape:

• plain tile: 1 knight
• forest tile: 2 knights
• mountain tile: 3 knights
• lake tile: impassable

Knights can only enter a tile if sufficient knights remain to be left on it (so if you have 1 knight left, you can't enter a forest or mountain).  There can never be more than 4 knights left on any one tile (if moving to a tile would break this rule, the tile cannot be entered).  If you enter a tile which already has knights on it (but less than the total permitted), you can place your own knight(s) on top of the existing ones to gain control of the tile.  Only the topmost knight has control at the end of the game.

a game in progress; image from here

another game; image from here

When all players are out of tiles, each player tallies his/her victory points based on which tiles his/her knights control (see Overview section for point system).  The player with the most points wins!

Review
This game is okay.  I've played it only once, and it has potential, but seems like more of a simple puzzle than a strategic game.  The rules are poorly written, and online support is nonexistent compared to similar games.  There may be better out there.

Rating: B-

The Castle (Franz Kafka)

K is a surveyor, called to the castle to perform his trade.  Arriving at the surrounding village, he's bewildered by what unfolds.  He runs into obstacle after obstacle as he attempts to reach the person who summoned him for the work.  People are unhelpful (and unconcerned), paths are confusing, and his pleas through multiple outlets go unanswered.  Will he ever get to the castle?  Or will he

This one is weird, folks.  Really weird.  SPOILER: K never gets to the castle, the novel ends with an unfinished sentence (see what I did above?), and we never learn the point.  This so bewildered me that I put it down after reading 10%.  Some say it's about theology and man being unable to approach the Almighty; some say the web of bureaucracy; others say it's simply a stunning illustration of the loneliness we all feel.  I'm not sure, and I see some value in these veins.  But perhaps a short story would have been better.  A summary, themes, and review are available if you want to pursue this.  But I recommend you don't.

Rating: C-