1. bainespal says:

    Before flipping the first page I had skimmed several unfavorable reviews which complained of Carr’s supposedly shallow worldbuilding or his story’s grievous lack of a flyleaf map, but now, having finished the book, I don’t believe such critiques to be substantive.

    I had dismissed the book for that very reason. Now, maybe I’ll have to read it some day.
     
    Your conclusion about Errol’s flaw is interesting. I appreciate that Carr was trying to portray a genuinely flawed hero, somewhere beneath the stereotypical knight-in-shining-armor on the Hero/Anti-Hero scale. Even if it didn’t really work, I’m glad that even “clean” Christian fantasy is up to making the effort.
     
    I just hope that Errol’s rehab doesn’t correspond to a salvation analogue. I viscerally dislike Total Transformation themes in Christian fiction. Even if it doesn’t involve any kind of conversion or spiritual revival, there’s a potential for some truly uncomfortable analogies to the Christian life. Especially if you’re giving this book to Christian children.
     
    At any rate, great review!

    • I didn’t feel that Errol’s rehab was tied to any kind of conversion message.  In fact, a point in the story’s favor is that it doesn’t contain such a message at all — merely the implication that Errol’s assumptions about life may be flawed.  As a character, he’s allowed to reject and resent the story-world’s Church without getting preached at by the narrator (by other characters, sure, but not by the narrator).  And, by association with Errol, I as a reader feel free to make my own judgements and draw my own conclusions about the story’s entities and institutions.  That’s a very good thing.

      But just ’cause Errol’s transformation was emotional, psychological, and chemical rather than spiritual in nature doesn’t mean it was realistic.  That’s because it was contained within that relatively brief section of the story set aside for what I can only describe as a protagonist swap, in which the flawed, unlikable Errol morphs into the clean, competent Errol before getting on with the narrative.

  2. Kerry Nietz says:

    As a writer, I am both frightened and awed by this review. 🙂 Wow! Nice work, Austin.

  3. I’ll post my own review over this book in a few days, Austin. I have some specific areas of disagreement with what you said here. The first is that I immediately found Errol to be engaging. I said in my review that I didn’t know how Patrick Carr pulled that off, but I’ve thought about that some more. I did feel his humiliation in the opening scene. I didn’t know that anyone should be treated the way he was. That was immediately followed up by a scene that showed he had a skill surpassing that of anyone else in the community. In  other words, he wasn’t worthless or no good, even though he was a drunk. That was immediately followed by the scene in which he’s been targeted by an assassin. Well! Now I know there’s more to this character.

    And yes, he still thinks only about getting back to the pub, but when he needs to step in and act heroically to save lives, he does that. All this happens in the first 25% of the book! Errol may not have a goal other than get his next drink, but clearly he’s got more going for him than that, and I want to find out what it is.

    I also remember one person who reviewed this book saying that Errol’s reaction to drink after he dried out was very true to life. I thought it was believable. He handled it primarily by staying away from it, but that doesn’t mean it became a non-issue for him. Not at all.

    I was one who was critical of the worldbuilding, not because it didn’t feel fully developed. It did. But it lacked the typical fantasy accoutrements–the map, glossary, character list–that help readers of a series keep the world straight. This is a big cast, and it grows bigger; a big world and it expands further. I think the need for those extras grows as the series progresses.

    I guess readers will have to determine which side of these various points they fall.

    Becky

     

     

    • And now I see I already posted my review here at SpecFaith.

      Becky

    • Julie D says:

      I agree with Rebecca. I somehow liked Errol and felt sympathy for him even though his actions were a mess.   I think part of the reason he still had a conscience was that it’s almost too cliche to show the drunk who doesn’t care about anything but the bottle. Errol’s drinking was taking him down that path, but until someone forced him to stop, he couldn’t be bothered to take anything else seriously–an attitude that can be seen in many people, drunk or sober.  

      • I’d add too, that the man who cared for Errol and mentored him actually became a father figure, and the lack of a father was the very reason he’d dived into the bottle in the first place (I don’t remember if this is revealed in the first book or in the one that follows, A Hero’s Lot). So, not only did someone stop him, but a significant someone who was a far better replacement for his escape mechanism.

        Becky

    • Becky,

      So why do you think Errol starts out as a drunk?  I don’t mean in terms of character motivation — the story covers that fairly well.  I mean in terms of broader thematic purpose.  What purpose is served by Errol’s alcoholism, other than to preach to the reader that “alcoholism is bad”?  Why did Patrick Carr choose to introduce us to a protagonist so pathetically helpless as to be incapable of engaging with the plot until entering, against his will, an entirely new state of existence?

      First there’s Errol the Addict, annoying burden on everyone around him.  Then that Errol falls into a river and gets swept away to the isolated abode of The World’s Most Awesome Mentor Figure Ever (father of The Token Girl Who Begs Our Hero for a Shirtless Scene, by the way), a man who literally beats the cravings out of him.  When Errol arises from this convalescence — cleansed, empowered, and pretty much resurrected in every conceivable fashion — it’s as a different character: Errol the Hero.  Not once does he suffer a relapse.  Not once does his prior alcoholism influence the ensuing story one iota (other than bringing his adoring fans to tears at the thought of what a wretch he’d once been).  Prior to Errol’s personality swap, we saw no hints of what he’d eventually become.  After the swap, we see no hints of what he used to be.  It’s as though Errol’s a perfect man who just happened to get tragically victimized by drink.  Take away the drink, confront some childhood trauma, and everything’s all good now.

      That sequence of events doesn’t feel real to me.

      Is there a thematic purpose to Errol’s alcoholism larger than incidental moralism?  If so, I don’t see it in A Cast of Stones.  Is there something I’ve missed?

      • Why must there be a “broader thematic purpose” to Errol’s being a drunk, Austin? Why can’t there just be a logical character motivation revealed through the backstory? It completely works for me and is believable. And while he does struggle with drink as someone might who has been sober for years and years rather than for months, I think the change shows his deeper development–that he no longer has the need to escape life as he once did.

        I don’t think the alcoholism in the story “preached” anything. I mean, no one lectured about the evils of alcohol that I recall. It’s pretty hard for a story to “preach” when all it does is show.

        You asked:

        Why did Patrick Carr choose to introduce us to a protagonist so pathetically helpless as to be incapable of engaging with the plot until entering, against his will, an entirely new state of existence?

        I maintain that’s a mis-characterization of Errol. He wasn’t helpless–which was why he was given the job of carrying the message and communion supplies to the pater. Which was why he was able to escape the attempts on his life. Which was why he had the wherewithal to save the two men he was with from dying because of the poison they’d ingested. Clearly he was engaging with the plot.

        Errol the drunk was never a burden on everyone. He had the sympathy of a good number of people who understood why he’d fallen. They knew the emotional blow he’d been dealt when he was orphaned before he reached manhood. They actually wanted to help him, though they didn’t know how.

        Of course you’re right that “coincidence” plays a part in the story, considering who finds him washed up on the riverbank. Or not–considering the character of the person who would reach out to save a someone he doesn’t know who is at death’s door. Would an evil murderer or a fellow drunk or a cruel duke have given the inert body lying beside the river a second look? Would they have taken him in, nursed him back to health, then agreed to teach him (rather than simply use him as slave labor)? Of course not. The choice was either for good people to find him or for him to die.

        I’ll argue, there was no personality swap. Errol had shown himself heroic before he got sober. More than once. He showed himself in need, too. And the father-figure who came into his life, gave him what the bottle could not. So why would he return to it? That’s not only not likely, it’s not good fiction. Readers don’t want to see a character deal over and over again with the same issue. They want to see growth and development. That’s in this book (and the next) in spades.

        I’ll say again, I don’t think there was moralism involved in Errol’s being a drunk. I don’t think people in our society need to be convinced that alcoholism is a bad thing. It’s sort of an established given, as it was in Errol’s world. Even the people running the pub didn’t want Errol to be a drunk.

        I also don’t agree with the idea that there has to be a thematic purpose for ever decision an author makes regarding character motivation or action or reaction. Errol’s choice to drink is believable given what his life was like and the traumatic event that orphaned him. Does it have to have some greater spiritual significance? I don’t think so. There’s plenty of spiritual significance in his hatred of church and the men of the cloth. I tend to think the spiritual themes are quite overt.

        Becky

        • In a story, everything must serve a purpose.  If it doesn’t, then it has no reason to exist on the page.  This is the Law of Conservation of Detail, and it’s the only way that I as a writer can command a reader’s attention, conjure order out of chaos, or weave a sturdy story out of the fraying threads of everyday existence.  Readers, being savvy, rightly expect this law to always be in effect at all times.  Therefore, if I as a writer spend a quarter of my book focusing on a particularly annoying trait in my protagonist, only to dispel said trait from his life without his incurring any lingering consequences therefrom, my readers will be fully justified in wondering why, exactly, I bothered obsessing over said trait in the first place.  That’s why I ask what thematic or narrative purpose is served by the alcoholism of Errol Stone.

          I appreciate that you sympathize with Errol’s initial plight and respect him in spite of his flaws.  I understand that the difference between our reactions thereto is likely due to personal taste more than anything else.  (Although I completely disagree that Errol had “shown himself heroic before he got sober,” since he does nothing in the first 25% of the story that isn’t motivated by pure self-interest other than moving faster than he otherwise would’ve to a place he was already going in order to tell someone else that his friends needed help.)  But regardless, my challenge still stands.  Since the latter three-quarters of A Cast of Stones wouldn’t have changed one iota had its first quarter simply been absent, why was the first quarter even necessary?

          Allowing ale-addled Errol to open this tale was a risky — perhaps even gutsy — move on the part of the author.  It carried with it an inherent risk: that people like me would simply lose interest and walk away.  I don’t make it a habit to read about people who don’t interest or inspire me in the slightest.  And Errol didn’t.  To be frank, the only reason I kept on slogging to the one-quarter mark was because I’d promised you, Becky, that I’d go ahead and read the book on your recommendation.  Ultimately I didn’t end up regretting that resolution, but this shouldn’t cloud the fact that the novel utterly failed to hook me on its own accord.  And it didn’t have to be that way.  If the author had opted to ditch the idea of Errol as an alcoholic, then I’d have been engaged from the get-go.

          So my question, again, is this: why was it worth the risk?  What does Errol’s alcoholism add to the plot that, if removed, would render the whole structure unstable?  Why is it necessary?  Why is it important?  (Other than to deliver to the reader the message that “alcoholism is bad”?)

          And this brings us to my point about greatness.  The reason I picked up A Cast of Stones in the first place is because I happened to be grousing about the lack of truly great Christian spec-fic post-Tolkien, and its title was proffered to me as worthy of such an adjective.  The reason I don’t consider it a great novel — good, yes, but not great — is because, for a narrative issue of such plot-stifling magnitude as Errol’s alcoholism, there’s no apparent justification, no apparent greater purpose.  It doesn’t even feel real.  It feels forced upon the story from outside.

          Why doesn’t Errol have a relapse or two?  Why don’t we get to see him struggle — really struggle, not just get his hand rapped by The World’s Most Awesome Mentor Figure Ever until he stops reaching for a bottle — with the fallout from his neigh-lifelong habit during the ensuing months chronicled by the narrative?  Why isn’t he tempted?  Why don’t his adversaries use his weakness against him in some meaningful way?  Why is he suddenly this goody-two-shoes prodigy when he’d be so much more interesting as a conflicted character?  Why isn’t his addiction put to good storytelling use?  For the first quarter of the story his problem as a character is that he isn’t even slightly conflicted about his lust for liquor, and, for the remainder of the story, his problem’s that he entertains no doubts about his abstinence therefrom.  It seems it’s either one or the other with Errol: he’s either a pathetic pariah or a shining example.

          But both realism and relatability lie between those two extremes.

          • Austin, honestly I’m not trying to be irritating here, but I think I already answered all your questions. First, Errol’s inebriated state IS NECESSARY, but not for some theological purpose it seems you want to impose on every element in the novel. It is necessary for character development, which is at the heart of good story telling.

            I’m sorry you missed the diamond in the rough which I saw Errol to be. I thought of another thing which made me like him–he was likeable to the other characters in the book. All except the priest who beat him. And there was another reason this character, drunk though he was, engaged me: he was mistreated. For no apparent reason. But he didn’t become murderous in response.

            The fact that he saved the two priests’ lives certainly was heroic, especially in the face of his attitude toward clerics in general. He had made it clear he didn’t want to go with them. What he wanted was to get back to the friendly confines of the pub. He had the chance to do this as they lay dying. The herb woman didn’t even hold out much hope that the priests had survived, but Errol acted selflessly and led her back to them. He also stood against the assassin, not once but multiple times, and attempted to lead the attack away from the others. But I suspect, having not cared for him from the beginning, these things were not noteworthy in your estimation. They were for me. It’s what we’ll have to chalk up as the differences between the way people read.

            As to the subject of relapse and the idea that this is the only way you would see the character as really struggling with his drink, I’ll reiterate my points: 1) not all alcoholics fall off the wagon; 2) readers don’t want to see characters deal with the same issues over and over–they want to see growth and change. In my estimation, that’s what we got–not some magic transformation but a believable, though truncated, process (and you seem to have missed the scenes where he in fact had an internal struggle with drink, showing he did doubt); 3) his state of drunkenness or his choice to escape his problems via alcohol is secondary to his choice to escape. Once his REASON for escape was gone (he thought), his need to escape was gone as well. The story was never about Errol triumphing over drink, which is what you seem to think it was by your continued reference to a moralistic message that I never saw present.

            Again, I don’t know if you’ve read The Hero’s Lot or not, and that second book in the story may be informing me of some of my views. I read the two one after the other, and don’t know what facts came out in the first and which in the second. It might be beneficial to keep reading the story. It’s a lot bigger than the alcohol. That was a device Errol used to medicate his pain. But his pain was always the real problem. And his pain is something he still needs to face.

            So now I’m wondering if all this character development in an action fantasy series entitled the Staff & Sword is more what women readers care about than guys. Seems the story got interesting for you when the battles started coming. I enjoyed all the action too, but I certainly didn’t think seeing what Errol’s “normal” looked like was without purpose, uninteresting, or off-putting. I found Errol to be relatable from the start, and I found his changes to be believable.

            So I guess we disagree. Which is all I was saying in my first comment. You gave your reaction to the book. I gave mine. Now it’s up to readers to see what they think.

            Becky

            • Character development is essential, of course, for any character in any story. I just don’t think that Errol Stone’s development over the course of A Cast of Stones was particularly belivable or meaningful. Though I can’t speak for Hero’s Lot, the emotional trauma which incited Errol’s alcoholism was indeed revealed in Book One. But just ’cause I understand why Errol fell into drink (and that account I did find totally believable and compelling) doesn’t mean that I buy the means by which he escaped therefrom.
               
              But it does appear that we’ll have to agree to disagree about this. And that’s okay — this is all part of a robust and healthy conversation about storytelling in general and this story in particular. 😉

    • Why did Patrick Carr choose to introduce us to a protagonist so pathetically helpless as to be incapable of engaging with the plot until entering, against his will, an entirely new state of existence?

      On first blush that sounds like a statement about man’s deadness in sin to me.

      But I haven’t yet finished the book. Alas for my old smartphone with Kindle on it, which suffered a cruel fate at the hands of a closed pocket and washing machine!

      By the way, Becky may have already published her review. But I have not.

      So there’s still hope for further conversation on this story. 😀 Which is excellent.

      • I certainly hope it wasn’t the author’s intention to make Errol’s alcoholism analogous to his deadness in sin, because that would give rise to some unfortunate implications.  For instance, what would we be supposed to make of the fact that Errol doesn’t drink — doesn’t sin — even once following his “salvation”?  How would we interpret the fact that his alcoholism was ultimately just a coping mechanism with which he mitigated the pain of a severe childhood trauma?  And what would be our response to the idea that, for Errol, deadness in sin is a matter of morals — that “new life” is a function of just shaping up and getting it together?

        No, I don’t think Errol’s alcoholism was intended as a sin-analogy, because the analogy swiftly falls apart.  I think it was intended to be no more than it appears.  But I still can’t figure out why it was necessary, or even useful, in either a narrative or a thematic sense.

What do you think?