Dungeons and Draggin'

Hobgoblin

By John Coyne

Publisher: Dover Publication

Pub. Date: November 15, 2015 (reprint)

Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

A little historical perspective is needed to review Hobgoblin properly. Hobgoblin, which was written by established horror and supernatural writer John Coyne, was first published in 1981 as was a similar novel titled Mazes and Monsters by Rona Jaffe. What both novels have in common is that they were about the rising interest in fantasy role playing games like Dungeons & Dragons. The other thing they had in common was a concern that these games may be harmful for troubled or neurotic teens who became obsessed with them. Mazes and Monsters was the more commercially successful of the two books, being loosely based on a true incident and becoming a popular TV movie. Whether you agree or disagree with the premise that fantasy role playing games can be harmful, it did an adequate job in presenting its case.

Then we have Hobgoblin. Here is the same idea: A neurotic but intelligent teenager is appearing to blur the line between fantasy and reality. But John Coyne takes a different tactic. His premise is purely fictional. His main protagonist is Scott Gardiner, a teenager who is obsessed with a role playing game called Hobgoblin which is based on Irish legends. His character is Brian Boru, a high level fighter who never gets killed. Then one night Scott’s character finally meets his match…at the very same time Scott’s father dies of a heart attack. Scott and his mother moves to a medieval styled castle, on the banks of the Hudson River no less, where she works as an archivist. Scott continues to play the game alone when things begin to happen around the castle that makes him question how much is real and how much is imagined.

Does the woods around the castle hold legendary creatures or is Scott not so slowly losing his grip on reality? That is the question the author is teasing in this messy and badly structured novel. Eventually the real question becomes; do we care? For Scott is not very likeable. He is immature, selfish and basically a brat. We are supposed to feel sorry for him due to the loss of his father but there is no foundation set to feel that loss. There is also a problem of an endless amount of coincidences and unbelievable circumstances. The idea of Scott’s character and his father dying as the exact same time is far-fetched enough. Yet Coyne builds one unbelievable circumstance upon another with no real warning as if hoping the reader doesn’t notice he has gone into the silly zone. The reader can’t help but notice.

Finally, and for me the most unforgivable issue, the entire book is a cheat. It suggest and promises some kind of tie-in with role-playing and Scott’s real or imagined events. Instead of combining the two, we get a jumbled mess that never really brings them together intelligently. The made-up game itself doesn’t really fit any realistic structure of any role-playing game I’ve ever experienced. Even worst, Coyne milks the possible supernatural elements to the point that there is no real pay-off once we get to the Scooby-Doo ending. It is trite. It is predictable. It is disappointing, especially since we have a character that doesn’t really seem to grow up in any sense.

At least, Jaffe’s Mazes and Monsters addressed a real issue. Are the new role-playing games harmful to some of our more vulnerable teens? Coyne acts like he wants to address this too yet chooses to stay on the fence by making it some kind of horror/suspense tale at the same time. In trying to play both sides, he fails. Hobgoblin will likely disappoint most readers because it tries to be both and ends up being nothing.

From film to book to trash bin

Dawn of the Dead

By George A. Romero & Susanna Sparrow

 

Publisher: Gallery Books

Pub. Date: May 26, 2015 (reprint)

Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

Novelizations are always a little tricky to review. The entire idea of novelizing a film seems a bit odd. You are taking a separate art form and placing outside its intended existence. You could say that about going from novel to film too. Yet while filmmakers strive, in theory, to form a different creation using all the nuances of sight and sound, the act of novelizing too often comes across as simply another way to exploit and create merchandise to sell. That isn’t to say that it can’t be literature although frankly, I cannot think of one novelization that makes it so. But they can be entertaining and, at best, can add some insight to the characters and action that the reader may have already seen on film. Off the top of my head I can think of a few novelizations that do that very thing well: The Howling by Gary Brandner and Dennis Etchison’s Halloween II and III and The Fog writing under the pseudonym of Jack Martin come to mind. These are examples of good novelizations of horror movies that stand alone as novels and add a little something extra to the films.

Dawn of the Dead by George A. Romero and Susanna Sparrow is a novelization of Romero’s classic film of the same name. The film and book originally came out in 1978. This edition from Gallery Books is a reprint published in May of 2015 and comes with an introduction by Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead). It’s an entertaining intro but it doesn’t really add anything of note to either the film or the novel. But I doubt anyone will buy the book for the introduction. So how about the book itself?

Unfortunately Dawn of the Dead, the book, does not fare well either. In fact, it is downright abysmal. It does not add anything to our understanding of the film nor is it very entertaining. It follows the film action quite closely but almost to the point of sounding like a exhausted writer reciting a bored treatment. When we do get details that are not in the movie and should help move it along, it is of all the wrong areas. For instance we get detail after detail of our anti-heroes walking through the mall but their inner thoughts and motivation remain cartoonish with no real insight beyond what we saw in the film. What troubled me is that the film itself was full of subtle touches. Much of what is happening as the characters survive and fight the zombies in the stereotypical world of the shopping mall comes across as a satirization of our own consumer driven society. None of this makes it into print. What we get is a not very well written account of “they did that and then they did this”. There is just bad writing throughout the book. The author will switch between two or even three characters doing something in entirely different parts of the mall all in one paragraph. It makes for a very badly structured and confusing narration.

The novelization of Dawn of the Dead has little horror, little suspense, and little emotion. Those few who read the book without knowing the movie will be confused and bored by the haphazard writing. Those who saw the film will be better off passing it up altogether. The film itself is a classic and a must see for anyone who loves horror movies. For that matter, it is a must see for anyone who loves movie making. But novelizations like this one not only add nothing to the aura of the film but does the movie and the filmmaker a grave injustice, no pun intended.

A watered-down defense of Noah and the Great Flood

Noah: The Real Story

By Larry Stone

Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

Before I start this review, Let's put out my opinion out for all to see. Then you can decide if you want to read this review. I view the story of Noah's Ark as a myth and an analogy meant to help us understand the nature of man. The Bible is not a science book. The first part of the Old Testament, especially Genesis, isn't even good history. The first person in the bible that has any historical collaboration at all is King David. It is a collection of myths and wonderful stories that established the basis for three religions. But it is not a book of science. Frankly I'm not even sure if the original authors meant for these origin stories to be taken literally.

Are you still with me? Good.

Larry Stone's purpose in Noah: The Real Story is to explain how the story of Noah could have happened. He believes in a literal interpretation of the bible story. The author discusses most of the questions that skeptics have asked about the ark story. How did Noah get all the animals on the ark, how did he feed them, was the flood local or global, where did it land and how did the animals get to the ark or spread out, etc. Pretty much all the corners are covered. He focuses on Noah's tale specifically with only a fleeting look at the geological and geographical problems the flood presents. For a skeptic like me, I found it an interesting read if only because it presents most of the talking points that Creationists and literal interpreters of the bible will set forward. My guess is that for most readers, it will be preaching to the choir.

Yet there were very troubling issues for me, like "Why now?" This brief book (under 200 pages) feels like a cut and paste job. It feels loosely structured and a bit sloppy, like when it throws in an interview by a Great Flood expert. There is quite a bit of talk about a developing Noah's Ark amusement ark that sounds like a commercial. The overall feel is a quick, not well thought out book that is hastily done. The fact that it was published when the commercial film Noah is about to be in the theaters pretty much confirms my position. My suspicion is it was hurried for publication specifically to ride on the film's coattail.

That is uncomfortable enough, but Stones' explanation for many things just aren't very good. Many are the usual creationist explanations. For instance he explains the number of animals referred to as "kind" in the Bible as being genus rather then species. That, according to the author, would bring the amount of animals from millions to a conservative 16,000. He seems to think the ark could have been able to hold that many animals. I doubt most others would agree with him. Then there is the questions about feeding, waste disposal, and keeping the predator from eating all those cute little vegetarians for over one year. Almost all of Stone's answer are pure speculation derived from the sparseness of details found in the Bible. Any explanation, scientific or historical, that contradicts the Bible is simply ignored.

One interesting aspect is that the author will actually say to questions, like the waste disposal problem, "We don't know". I find that a bit refreshing. Yet it is a totally different type of "I don't know" from the one that scientists will say. When a scientist says I don't know he means "I don't know but some day with the right discoveries and evidence we might." Stone's I don know is "I don't know but it means God took care of it". I'm not implying this. the author actually states "It means God took care of it."

It very important that I state that I am not reviewing this poorly because I disagree with it. I enjoy reading topics I have different views of, especially religious explanations of events, when they are well done. I even find Ken Ham's website Answers in Genesis quite entertaining and once in a while, like what Bill Nye said to Ham in their debate, "I learned something". I gave this book a poor review because I did not learn anything. It does not do a good job in expressing its viewpoint and it is hastily, even sloppily, written. As a book of Christian Apologetics or a Creationist perspective. you can do a whole lot better.

There were two areas I found informative. Stone gives a nice rundown of the attempts to find Noah's Ark which, according to legend, landed on Mount Arafat...but maybe not. He is also quick to note those claims that have been correctly deemed hoaxes. I also enjoyed his brief history of how Hollywood has treated the story of Noah although he left out my two favorites: John Huston's performance as Noah in The Bible and Disney's delightful excerpt from Fantasia 2000 about Noah's Ark as seen through the eyes of Donald Duck and set to Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance".

But that is not enough to save this book. This book easily gets my one star rating which can be translated to "Run Away! Run away!".