Shadow Of The Cross ~ Final Discussion

[Scott]

This is the final discussion thread for Shadow Of The Cross. Please wait to read this thread until you have read the whole book because this thread will contain spoilers.

What do you think of the book?

I liked it but not enough to recommend it. I did not find anything wrong with specifically, but it just did not catch my interest very much.

[avidlistener]

I totally agree that I would never recommend this book. I think that the concept is interesting (the interaction of religion during the colonization of the Americas), but the delivery here is amateur. The language and the dialog just seemed like something I could have read in one of my college bud's rough drafts for a class.
As for the canine perspective being involved, I am not intrinsically against anthropomorphic writings. In some cases where the culture relies more heavily on animal analogies and symbolism in their religion and life lessons, I think it can be used the same way that other writings use the perspective of the god's (i.e. Greek writing). However, I thought its use here was not fully utilized and didn't really add anything to the story--it was sort of just there. While the wolf's story did parallel and at times foreshadow the human's plot, it didn't enhance it enough for me.
I admit there was a point where I was actually interested in the plot of the book, but I was really disappointed in the finale. It just seemed rushed, maybe? ...So, they finally face their love and then, with no justification for the timing other than this coming out, Daniel is killed? Say what?! Why does T'Hattan strike at just that point when he has probably had other opportunities--what about this point motivates him? It all just seemed too convenient a death and that the discovery/acceptance of love was glossed over. The power of the moment was lost. Then at the end with the wolves and humans finding makeshift love, I found myself so underwhelmed. To me, it came across as sappy.

I know that was a bit of a rant, but I was really let down by this book. Can someone please give me a reason not to give up on it?

[jerolyng]

I probably will be blown out of the water for what I am about to say, and I must say that I am a little uneasy about it. After all, when someone begins their comments with "I would never recommend this book" it is a bit intimidating. If a person happens to like it, or gets something out of it, it seems a bit hopeless to put their ideas forward, knowing how those ideas will be disregarded. Hardly conducive to an open discussion or exchange of ideas.
That being said, I (timidly) would like to respond to a couple of comments made about 'anthropromorphism'. The definition of anthropromorphism is "ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human".I am wondering what 'human' characteristics the critics found in the depiction of the wolf that was anthropromorphic. Certainly the wolf never spoke.
Was it the ability to think or reason? It would be the height of conceit to think that ONLY humans can think or reason. I have witnessed many situations that would suggest the contrary. But they would only be personal, and therefore would carry no weight in a discussion of this kind. But just today I received my copy of National Geographic in which the thinking and reasoning ability of animals is not only studied but documented. So I would venture to guess that the author of SOTC reasearched that aspect pretty thoroughly.
Was the readers objection based on the fact that it is a particularly 'human' ability to communicate? Again I would say that there was no anthropromorphism here. I say that because the communication between the wolf and others - be they human or canine - was entirely through body language not written or spoken language. And it is the written or spoken language that is 'human'.
I could continue but I think I have made my point that the wolf was NOT anthropromorphized.
I do agree that the wolf story line paralleled the story line of the humans, and perhaps this is what the author was trying to do.
I have other points that could be put forward for discussion, that might help avidlistener decide that the book truly does have something to it. Maybe it is one of those books where we think we are getting one thing and it turns out to be something entirely different. It can be disappointing - even maddening. But at least it should be discussed.

[avidlistener]

I first want to apologize if I left people feeling like I wasn't open to hearing/discussing the merits of the book or that they couldn't express their opinions. It was poor communication on my part. Especially at the end, what I was trying to convey was that I WANT to hear the merits because right now all I am focused on is what I didn't like. I really appreciate you calling that out and putting forth your ideas jerolyng.


I recognize that one of the reasons I have been harsh on the book may have been that the ending didn't go the direction I was expecting. I will admit that I am a bit of a romantic, always wanting everything to work out in the end even if it isn't perfectly. This book, like the real historical facts, is much more bleak and solemn. I wasn't thrilled with the book before the end and the end may have just pushed me over the edge.


In terms of what you said on anthropomorphism, I agree that the idea of animals having thoughts and communication cannot be the basis of a claim to anthropomorphism--in fact it would be really anthropocentric to think that other animals are so far separate from us. What I think is the basic premise of the claim is the assumption that we can relate their thoughts and communication to the way we think. I hope I am saying this right, but I feel like even if we know that they have thoughts and reasoning skills, it is not inherent that we understand what those thoughts and skills are like as an experience--after all none of us really knows what it is like to be a dog, we can only see it through our human experience. This is more of a philosophical discussion of whether or not the writing is anthropomorphic. It is up to individuals to decide whether or not they like or don't like it.


I think I mentioned it before, but I don't think anthropomorphism is inherently bad. I think that is what fiction language is for- speculation of the unknown, to try and express the inexpressible, but I think for me art is purposeful and meaningful. I just felt like in this case it didn't add a whole lot to the story. But maybe, just trying to tie Haiki's and her spirit guide's lives together was the purpose of the writing. I guess I was just expecting more.


Thoughts?

[dizivefilm]

i love this book

[juanmacho33]

It has been a LONG time since I read a book that I found to be this moving. I did not skip long, wordy passages that just took up space. I read every word. Ms. Garriott does not waste the readers time, yet I could actually see what she described. When I finished the book, I was not really finished with it....it stuck with me for several days. I felt Ms. Garriott had thorougly researched her information as well. I hope she writes more novels!

[kgntechnologies]

Going for walks in lighting style design is the same as walking with God. Just like a little kid position their parents aspect, and going wherever that parents marketplaces them. Actually, adolescents never know their holiday they only know that they are position onto their parents arms and are articles in being there. Kids are definitely based mostly upon their parents and yet with finish hygiene and sightless believe in they go where they are led. In this situation Honest in the same way switch with God, where God is genuine lighting style design and sin is genuine night time. But we switch still in our sinful designs. We never go on sinless- to say that we are sinless creates God a liar and in doing so we do not switch in lighting style design. So yes, we do sin. But sin is not a main perform, it does not management our way of life, we will slaves to our sin functions, it’s no more regularly using our thoughts.

[jerolyng]

to kgntechnologies. I am really sorry , but did you actually read the book, Shadow of the Cross? There is little you said that applied to the book I read.