Why I Love Dragons

If you’re a fan of dragons, Arthurian legends, and Christian fantasy, then chances are you’ll love Dragons in Our Midst by Bryan Davis. This series of four books (Raising Dragons, The Candlestone, Circles of Seven, and Tears of a Dragon) kept me pretty occupied my junior and senior years in high school. I recall late nights and even spending a whole Saturday reading Circles of Seven, which I’ll have to note as my favorite one. Of course, for those of you who haven’t read these books yet, I highly recommend starting with Raising Dragons. It’s most logical to start at the beginning and while this book is not in my top three, it’s the one that got me hooked.

In Raising Dragons, we’re introduced to Billy Bannister and Bonnie Silver, the two middle-school age children of dragons. This sounds weird, since they both look human for the most part, but don’t worry. We have Billy’s dad here to tell the story of how, during King Arthur’s reign, slayers threatened to wipe out the entire dragon race because of the terrible reputation brought on by the evil ones. To save his friends, Merlin, who was actually a prophet of God, transformed the dragons into humans. The dragons lost all their traits except for their long lifespans. Now the children they’ve borne with humans have somehow inherited dragon abilities. Billy has fire-breathing and Bonnie has wings.

Since it’s not scary enough for a fourteen-year-old boy to learn he’s a dragon, let’s bring in the modern dragon slayer, who just happens to be disguised as Billy and Bonnie’s principal, Dr. Whittier. (I knew principals were evil!) Throw in some comic relief in the form of Walter, Billy’s wisecracking best friend, and the cultural awkwardness he has with Professor Hamilton, their elderly British teacher, and we’ve now got the stage set for Raising Dragons. For the sake of spoilers, I won’t say anything else, other than you know the kids live or there wouldn't be any other books.

Making his story believable is part of what makes Davis’ writing so good. He shows a corny sense of humor through his characters, but that makes it come across as all the more real. Let’s be honest with ourselves—our normal, everyday banter is generally quite lame. As an even stronger point, though his books are Christian fantasy novels, he’ll go ahead and use science to explain a decent amount of the events so that they actually seem plausible. I have never considered God and science to be enemies, but this is the first book I’ve read that has the two fully linked. For example, Merlin is a prophet of God, but he’s also a scientist. Davis explains it all far better than I could hope to, so I won’t even try. You’ll just have to read it.

My absolute favorite aspect to these books is the focus on old-fashioned chivalry. I shamelessly admit I’m a bit old-fashioned myself, so this sort of thing wins me over every time. Throughout the series, Professor Hamilton acts as a mentor to the kids, training them for combat and in the way of chivalry. For example, a knight is never to attack when his opponent’s back is turned. Hamilton also teaches them to be warriors of God, telling them that truth is their sword and faith is their shield (or vice versa, but either way it still reminds me of the armor of God described in Ephesians).

The concept of gender roles plays a huge part in the theme of chivalry. As Davis puts it, the man is the lover and protector of his woman. Equally important, the woman provides motivation and encouragement to her man. Though she’s not supposed to fight in battle—well, at least not in the same way men do—there’s no victory without her. (There’s no victory without God, either, but you get the point.) Then again, Davis fails to be consistent with these statements because his female characters do a good amount of fighting in his battles. In fact, Bonnie is the first of our protagonists to wield Excalibur. (Yes, Excalibur appears in this story. Why write about anything Arthurian without it?)

Billy is an example of God’s warrior, though he doesn’t always look like one. Certainly, he shows some amount of chivalry early on, especially in risking his life to defend Bonnie from Dr. Whittier, but overall he has a lot of issues to deal with, from the trust in his father he loses to the trust in God he’s hesitant to give. His rage brings him to violate the code of chivalry at least once that I remember. I see Billy’s character as something many of us can look at and recognize as similar to ourselves. No matter how good or strong we think we are, we will always mess up and have to rely on God’s grace to get us through our battles.

Bonnie Silver, arguably the strongest character in this series, embodies the pure, faithful woman several of my female friends and I want to be. She also has her fair amount of emotional scarring, needing to forgive her father, who used her in his experiments when she was younger. As a foster child, she longs for a permanent home and family. Yet her trust in God gives her such peace the other characters can’t help but notice. Overall, Bonnie is the reflection of ourselves we wish to see—the ideal follower of Christ.

As much as I love these books, I take issue with a few things and it’s only fair to point them out. At first I thought of Bonnie as flawless and that bothered me, but a closer look reassured me she’s not, though she’s very close.

Bryan Davis steps onto some shaky theological ground, as is expected by writing Christian fantasy. The whole dragon-human transformation and reproduction concept is certainly odd in its own right, but once again, he writes it well enough that it comes across as plausible, so I don’t see it as an issue. Then we come to the part in which we learn the dragons need their own messiah. One of the dragons must die and be resurrected in order to redeem all their souls.

The red flag went up the moment I read this part. Sacrifices are supposed to be blameless in the eyes of God. No one fits this description except for Jesus. Once he made his sacrifice, there were supposed to be no others. Jesus is the one and only Messiah. To even suggest otherwise puts Davis in dangerous territory, even if this is a work of fiction.

This last issue pales in comparison to the messianic one, but it annoyed me enough so in the review it goes. Several times, Merlin is referred to as “the descendant of Noah,” as though that somehow sets him apart. It doesn’t. Take a good look at Noah’s family tree. Here’s a hint: EVERYBODY’S ON IT! Please reread Genesis, Mr. Davis.

Messianic and Noah soapboxes aside, I appreciate Davis’ approach to the dragon, a creature generally viewed by Christianity as a demonic symbol. The Bible often refers to Satan as a great dragon, and as a result, dragons have been seen exclusively as wicked. That’s not a fair view to take at all, since the Bible also refers to Satan as a roaring lion and I haven’t heard of anyone thinking all lions are evil. In my eyes, this is just one more example of when a biblical metaphor is taken too literally. Davis was brave for portraying dragons as noble servants of God, and he has my respect for that.

One specific scene in Raising Dragons hit me hard. When Bonnie faces off against Dr. Whittier, she is injured and worn out. She prays aloud for God to help her, and the slayer retorts, “God can’t love a miserable creature like you.”

I want to cry with Bonnie every time I read that. Now I wonder to myself: How often do we see someone and write them off as a miserable creature God can’t love, so we don’t either?

Food for thought—Davis prepares it every time he picks up that pen of his. His stories have excellent themes and his heroes, flaws and all, make great fictional role models, inspiring me to be a better writer and a better person. I would gladly read any and all of these books to my children someday.

Why I Hate Twilight

(Important note: this review covers the first book in the "Twilight saga" ONLY. I am not attacking the rest of the series, but the fact that I hated this book so much I wouldn't touch its sequels should be some kind of indicator.)

Everyone’s heard of Stephenie Meyer’s novel, Twilight, whether they’ve read it or not. It’s hard not to be aware of its existence if you’re at all acquainted with teenage girls.

The plot is rather simple: Bella Swan meets Edward Cullen, a vampire who lusts for her blood, yet she falls in love with him. Since he loves her in return, he manages to resist the urge to kill her. Then they encounter another vampire, James, who tries to kill Bella and, of course, it’s up to Edward to save her.

I honestly read this book only for the purpose of mocking it, though I did try to keep an open mind. Romance novels, particularly ones involving “vegetarian” vampires, quickly instill cruel laughter on my part, and I generally avoid them for that reason, but in all fairness, there are some positive aspects to this one. I don’t blame people for liking it—it is rather entertaining. I would be lying if I told you I didn’t stay up late, glued to the last few chapters, wanting to know how Bella was going to escape James.

While I don’t like the main characters, I can see why they’re appealing. Bella was easy to relate to: shy, clumsy, and insecure with her physical appearance. Specifically, Edward’s appeal is difficult to deny. What girl doesn’t want a guy who zealously protects her, tells her she’s beautiful, and is attractive to boot? Well, as long as we ignore the whole “I want to eat you” side to him.

That’s where we fall into the rut, actually—Edward. Before I read Twilight, I knew he was the feature character in it, the one all the girls loved. Therefore, when I started reading it, I was expecting some cliché Prince Charming character. Instead, I found myself thinking, “What a jerk.” That’s right, ladies, I just called Edward Cullen a jerk. Please don’t tell me you didn’t notice him telling Bella what to do all the time—like when they were in the restaurant and he ordered her when to eat, when to drink, because that one hit me in the face. Maybe I’m just weird, but the control freak personality is a turn-off to me. Then there’s the part where he admits to staying outside her window all night, watching her sleep, and she got a little embarrassed but otherwise wasn’t bothered by it. Again, maybe I’m just weird, but I think I’d be getting a restraining order if a guy did that—not that a restraining order would do any good against a vampire.

There was actually a scene in which Edward told Bella that she should stay away from him because he was dangerous, and then promptly invited her on a road trip. She, without hesitating, accepted his invitation, to which he responded with a laugh, saying that she really should stay away from him, and then he walked away. This, in my mind, is a prime example of both characters’ stupidity: Edward for playing obnoxious circular games like that and Bella especially for saying yes to a guy after hearing such a warning. Again, what should have happened instead was a restraining order—or, if we’re going to stick to the fantasy realm like we should by this point, a silver stake. (Assuming that really works on Meyer’s vampires. After reading that her vampires sparkle in the sunlight, I wonder what other classic weaknesses to which they’re conveniently immune.)

As far as sexual activity goes, the book is clean, despite the fact that one time Edward spends the night at Bella’s—which, I might point out, is a No-No in any decent guy’s book, even if nothing particularly explicit occurs—and in Edward’s defense, he does resist the urge to bite Bella. Unfortunately, working against Edward’s favor is the fact that he always places himself in situations he knows will be tempting, particularly in the case of his vampiric appetite. He says he doesn’t want to hurt Bella, which I would totally believe if he truly made an effort to stay away from her. Instead, there’s that infamous scene in which he tells Bella that he wants to “try something,” followed shortly by their first kiss. Clearly, he does not know whether or not he can control himself but chooses to test that limit anyway. I don’t know, girls, but that’s another trait I wouldn’t want in a potential spouse.

Overall, I found this novel degrading to women. I would say that it suggests women fall for the hot guy, despite his particularly unattractive personality, but then I realize that is exactly what society tends to do. I have heard of many cases in which a girl hands over her heart to an attractive guy who compliments and protects her. She overlooks the fact that his protectiveness is actually possessiveness, that in the back of his mind, all he can think about is how much he wants to “bite” her. He pushes the limits, trying to see how far he can go before she tells him to back off—like when Edward kept trying to make Bella afraid of him.

It is worth mentioning that the woman is not the only one being used here. There is a character, Mike, who also shows an interest in Bella. (He is not the only one, but I do not feel like taking the time to address all of them.) He is friendly and nice to her, but she spurns his advances and instead turns to Edward, who tends to be rude to her. By the way, Edward’s personality does infuriate her. All she really finds appealing about him is his attractiveness. When she thinks about him, the only thing she’s really thinking about is how “beautiful” he is. So, while Bella is a possession to Edward, he is also one to her. Think about it. Boys tend to use girls for physical gratification, and we tend to use them for emotional gratification: to gain a sense of self-worth.

Walking hand-in-hand with a hot guy like Edward must mean she’s pretty special herself. He kisses her; that must mean he finds her attractive enough. He wants to hold her close; that must mean she’s desirable. He tells her she’s beautiful. He tells her he loves her. So what if he happens to be a bit rough and scary around the edges? He’ll change for her. In the meantime, Mike, who is already nice but not as good-looking as Edward, will just have to settle for the shallow Jessica. (Which, by the way, makes no sense to me—why is the “shallow” girl falling for Mike and not Edward, unless she’s not as shallow as Meyer would like us to believe?)

This novel is a reflection of our culture, our society’s view of what love is. It is very entertaining on the surface, but then I start to really think about what it is saying. I think about all the girls who rave about Edward, how they want a guy like him. I think of the girls as young as ten who have seen the movie and say, “Edward is handsome,” and that’s the only comment they have on it. I think about the girls who will be in my classroom someday, who will probably say something similar about “Mr. Perfect” from whatever story, if we’re lucky enough to have Twilight out of fashion by then.

My mocking laughter ceases. The feelings of anger and sadness replace it, and then I weep on the inside. I weep for the Bellas of this world, giving themselves over to the Edwards because they lack the self-respect to say no, to take out a restraining order if necessary. I weep for the Edwards, who only have girls interested in them because of their looks—otherwise, they would be getting that restraining order. I weep for the Mikes, who aren’t given the chance they deserve. And I weep for the future of literature.

This aspect of society should not be encouraged; it should be questioned. That is why I hate Twilight.

Intro to Crazy Owl Reviews

I love books. Thanks to the excellent teachers I had growing up, I read them well. This means I also critique them fairly well and enjoy doing so, especially when I run across the ones that thoroughly need it. Let's just say I didn't like Twilight. I was asked why multiple times, and I became bored with explaining multiple times. So--what'd I do? I wrote a review and published it in my Facebook notes. The number of comments on it impressed me, and apparently I impressed a few of my friends enough that they recommended I write more reviews.


Crazy Owl Reviews is the place where I will be posting said reviews, starting with the first, "Why I Hate Twilight." The focus is going to be on young adult and children's books, since those happen to be the kind of books I read the most. Occasionally you might see a review on adult fiction pop up on here, but it won't any time soon.


I am a Christian and therefore I will be approaching these books largely from a Christian perspective, but also from a somewhat liberal perspective. I think books should be read--this includes the controversial ones that many fear would influence their children in the wrong way. Because of this fear, I think that is all the more why those books should be read. I also think they should be thought about and discussed thoroughly. Critical thinking is the key. As I mentioned above, I've reviewed Twilight so far. I've also mentioned that I hate it. Despite the fact that I hate it, I think it should be read and discussed anyway. (If your brain cells can survive the incident, that is.)

And yes, I am very much obsessed with owls and I collect objects pertaining to them. Just call me the Crazy Owl Lady.

To your right are Athena, Copernicus, Wesley, and Archimedes, the cute and fluffy raptors that will be helping me lighten up the reviews with my random sense of humor. You'll get to know them a little better once the reviews start coming up. Let's just say they put the "Crazy Owl" in Crazy Owl Reviews.