Responding to a negative view is dangerous territory, but one of the reviews I read today forced me to think harder about why I liked
The Restorer so much. I was going to respond in
D. G. D. Davidson's blog comments, but I'm not good at stringent debate. However, I do think some of the issues brought up deserve to be thought through with a gentler point of view, and I'll let him know to come here if he wants to respond to this emotional response to a practical and concise review.
To begin, it seems to me that the readership of this book isn't geared to be those who avoid addressing life on an emotional/relational basis. We're all different, and while hard logic is useful, it also can damage the beauty of imagination. However, if I'm in technical difficulty, the first person I'll turn to is likely to be logical and unemotional.
With that said...
"Susan spends the first two thirds of the novel whining."
It's not merely whining, but rather a normal reaction of an average woman after having been snatched from her beloved family. Note, her love for them was never in doubt. People can become exhausted without losing commitment. Had there been no emotional feedback on this issue I can tell you, as a woman and mother, that Susan would have immediately fallen from grace in my sight as an "unnatural" parent and wife.
The fact is, women do get overwhelmed and lost in the midst of the modern worldview and expectations. We all, even men, need to take time to clear our goals before God and renew our commitment to Him. Susan's husband was on the right track in giving her a place to focus her eyes on God and remember she depends on Him. Not everyone learns to do this in the midst of day to day affairs. If it doesn't fit naturally, then scheduling the time and place is necessary.
"The worldbuilding in this book is unbelievably sloppy."
Hmmm... I will agree with you that the technology isn't explained in such a way that those with a merely scientific mindset will accept it. This is where suspension of disbelief sets in. Choosing to accept fantasy where science won't fit may not be for everyone. However, I certainly was able to enjoy the story despite these speculative forays into pseudo-science. Trying to force the science in any fantasy book to fit reality would destroy many a good read for me.
On the other hand, the interpersonal relationships in the book are both strong and realistic. There is more to world building than weapons, transport and government. In my mind, it is the relationships in any book, more than anything else, that draw a parallel to my life. I may have no access to heavy weapons and new dimensions, but relationships I can relate to.
Swords in a high-tech world? Well, it's been done before. Swords are cool and they also bring to mind Bible verses that suit the book. Why not? Maybe I'm better at suspending disbelief than I should be. I won't fight about that. For me, a miraculous sword simply illustrates the fact that God has not abandoned Susan even in a strange new world where very little fits her expected patterns. And if high-tech people want to fight with swords, more power to them! I can think of many ways it could be explained, the most basic being "tradition! Tradition!" (side foray into that classic theme song) Must everything be explained rationally in order to enjoy it?
Susan's fighting abilities seemed to me to be a "power" that depended more on trusting God than on her own personal ability. Again, this doesn't spoil the story for me. The plot depends less on her sword-wielding and more on her willingness to simply follow God in reaching out to the individuals around her. Oh, that more Christians would battle less and lovingly help those who come within their reach. After all, the Bible seems to indicate we will not win our battle against evil with embittered logic or warfare, but with service through love, demonstrating Christ to the world, even to our own detriment.
"Hinck uses [the Rhusicans] only for a religious allegory: she seems to be saying that talking to non-Christians is dangerous. Is that a good message?"
Perhaps I'm blind, but I didn't get this at all. The Rhusicans seemed to symbolize a self-focused, godless mind-set. That sort of thinking IS purely destructive. How does one personify sinful thinking? Sharon's effort was convincing. I hope to see, in further books, more about this group and how they become what they are. This wasn't the main focus of the plot, however, but rather a symptom of a larger problem. The unbelievers in her books were much harder to seperate out (just like real life?). Is it always so simple to tell people of generic faith-in-something from people who trust Christ for salvation?
"The religion of Lyric has no rituals, no sacrifices, no priest class, no ritual calendar, no artwork, no shrines. All it has is the 'Verses,' a set of carefully memorized scriptures, and the 'Records,' a shorter set of scriptures on tape, which the characters get together to recite from time to time."
First, there is ritual within the religion of Lyric, but its focus is in community and family meditation on the Verses and Records, not clerical ceremony and sacrifice.
Does there have to be ritual between us and God? Well, this is where so many people disagree. Does religion reside in ritual and visual identity and/or in relationship and core beliefs? This is a discussion that can be carried on with no reference to The Restorer at all.
The debate over whether it's okay to write a fantasy where Christ would have to come and die all over again seems to me to be just a little ... hair-splitting-like. Hopefully, the writers and readers of these books realise that these stories are told, not to "make God die again," but to illustrate how meaningful it is that He actually has done so!
Fiction isn't meant to BE REALITY. It is meant to highlight parts of reality so we can think on them more deeply. Romance highlights the relationship between a man and a woman, whether rightly or wrongly depends on both the writer and reader. Fantasy tends to highlight social, and religious issues, contrasting right against wrong based on the author's world-view and the reader's own perspective. I could go on, but you're right, that would be even more annoying than I already have been.
"There is no problem in the world Susan or the other characters can’t solve by either quoting scripture at it or giving a religious pep talk."
Well, tossing Scripture about like a cure-all can be trite. But when so many people of faith testify how God's Word reminded them of His faithfulness and changed their attitudes in a situation, then I'd say keeping God's Word in mind is a very useful help in battling evil.
Now, I'm not saying you toss random verses in and all goes calm. I'm saying appropriately applied Scripture is a weapon God uses to change us and our perception of the world, especially when we study and meditate upon it. What subtitute do we have available to us? What would you suggest in its place?
