Review: Fast As I Can

Think the "split-episode" format is dead? Nope. "Fast as I can" is a split-episode "on steroids". How so? It refuses to create a single storyline with a handful of characters but chooses quantity over quality instead. Is it just me, or did today's episode feel a little bit too cluttered? Each individual's fast felt like it was fighting for time, and in the end, none were developed to their full potential. "The more" often isn't "the merrier". Sometimes large amounts of characters and plots can be weaved together well, and have even become classics as a result ("Do Or Diet", "A Lamb's Tale") but it doesn't always work. For instance, episodes such as "Buddy Guard", "Wooing Wooton", "Potential Possibilities" could have been much better if they hadn't had two competing storylines. Thankfully, most of these post-hiatus episodes have concentrated on carefully developing only one storyline per episode, with the occasional sub-plot that compliments, instead of takes away from, the larger story.

I felt "Fast as I Can" was the result of Marshal Younger not being able to decide between a number of good ideas brought up in a writer's brainstorming session. It was as if  the writers compiled several different fasting scenarios with different characters and, in the end, Marshall simply decided to combine every idea into one episode, giving time for only one or two scenes per character. It's a shame, since some of the different fasts the character's attempt could have been good ideas for full length episodes simply on their own; after all, both Connie's obsession with makeup and Matthew's obsession with computers reflect two of the biggest problems with North American youth. Would it have been better if the episode had focused on fewer characters? I honestly don't know, but the episode struck me as a tad bit too messy. You'll find out why...

Because of the need to "cram" so much into 25 minutes, the main message or theme was negatively affected. Essentially, this episode wasted away so many opportunities to say something meaningful and was obviously trying to be a light-hearted and entertaining episode instead. First, Whit begins and ends the episode referencing John the Baptist, Jesus, and Moses, who all fasted in order to deny the body "something it enjoys so that it can concentrate on something spiritual, like our relationship with God". Now, how on earth did we go from Mr. Whittaker's clear definition of fasting to the whole mess that ensued? The characters in today's show spent remarkably little time focusing on spending time with God but only seemed focused on overcoming their temptations. Now, I'm not quite sure whether the writer's were presenting the character's "fasts" themselves as the model for good fasting or whether they were deliberately presenting their experiences as a guide to "how not to fast". I'm assuming the answer is...partially both. Some of you may say, "Well, that was the point of their individual journeys--for Wooton, Connie, Eugene and Matthew to learn from their fasts". And, yes, that's true. But what lessons did they learn?

Although Whit makes it clear that he is fasting from newspapers in order to raise "awareness" and to "have the conversations like this with the kids", "fasting" didn't seem like the topic for this show. If everyone is fasting to raise awareness, then fasting doesn't strike me as very important, does it? Rather, aside from a few scattered references, the episode had very little to do with the showing the need for prayer and spending time with God. That, I thought, was the point that the episode was wanting to get across...but didn't. While Whit and Chris (and Wooton at one point) mention what the Bible has to say about the importance of fasting throughout the show (Chris explains to be the purpose of fasting: "getting rid of the chaos and clutter"), there was scarcely enough shown in the story lines themselves that recognized the second half of this particular theme: "for prayer and bible study [...] [to] focus on Him alone".

At the very end of the episode, when Whit brings the gang upstairs to view the new displays, I was hoping that he would clear everything up and explain what fasting is really about. As shown through Connie, is it about spending less time focused on oneself? And as shown through Wooton and Matthew, is it about spending more time focusing on others? As an eight year old (I'm not one, but let's pretend I am for a minute), I'm not sure what fasting is about! Why? Because Wooton's DUCK needlessly interrupted the chance to bring the episode to a nice, smooth and thought-provoking ending. By no means did I want to have a "Hallowed be thy Name" type of episode, where Whit and Connie sit together at in front of the "BEAVERS" program and provide listeners with a 25 minute scholarly lecture about biblical interpretations of fasting--until our our brains melted. But for a show whose main intention was to explain how fasting worked, it seemed like it needed some character saying one or two extra sentences at the end to explain the full message. Essentially, this episode reminded me of a bad essay, where the student ends up proving half his main thesis. Marshall Younger made up a clear thesis at the beginning (Whit's opening talk about fasting) and even had a nice conclusion at the end (Chris's wrap-up), but the argument in between didn't seem to show enough evidence of either the thesis or the conclusion.

I was pleasantly surprised to see how many fans have been concerned about this same issue. It reassures me to know that it isn't just me thinking these things. Mind you, I'm not totally convinced myself whether this episode does a good job or not at showing the true meaning of "fasting". But, for one reason or another, other people have had similar reactions and opinions, and they've provided better examples over at The Town of Odyssey. That means there must be some truth to it, right? Check out what they have to say!

Moving on...(finally)

Ignoring the fact that they are still dishing out ice-cream and haven't progressed beyond the walls of Whit's End in over twenty-years, for the first time in a long while, I thought Connie and Eugene had the show's  most memorable moments. Specifically, I thought Eugene's fast from more than two-syllable words to be the most entertaining storyline; it ranks up there with other humorous Eugene-related moments: his over-competitiveness with Bernard in "Poor Loser", or his hidden shame for not being a valedictorian in "The Graduate". Those older episodes portrayed Eugene's intelligence as less of a gift but a curse...to himself and those around him. On the other hand, newer episodes, thankfully, show a much more adjusted Eugene who uses his intelligence for more positive results. For instance, more recently, Eugene helped solve mysteries in "The Mystery of the Clock Tower", helped explain abstract concepts in "Wooton's Broken Pencil Show", or teach guitar in "Finish what You...". This change to his character makes sense; after having been around for so long, placing Eugene into situations that would perpetuate the portrayal of his intelligence as a burden or for solely humorous purposes would be counterproductive to his character...and boring too. In other words, while I'm glad Eugene has been humanized in recent years, it is nice to occasionally hear him run into new situations that challenge the very part of his character that made him so endearing to us.

I mentioned Connie, earlier. She too was a highlight of the show. And while I don't usually enjoy "ditsy" Connie, I did find her fast from "makeup" very amusing and thought Katie Leigh performed well with the supporting role she was was given.

In comparison, Wooton and Matthew' story lines were much less interesting. Wooton's personal fast felt rehashed from "Do Or Diet" and therefore, did not seem as original as the other story lines did. And while Matthew's scene in the imagination station was a brilliant one, I felt Marshall Younger did not know what else to do to with Matthew's storyline, simply shrugged his shoulders and said to himself "Yup, that's all I got". Matthew's obsession with technology  and his desire to abstain from it, might have made a great episode all by itself. And if you count "My Girl Hallie", "Idol Minds", "Gloobers" or Barrett's subplot in next week's "Opposite Day" as episodes that remind listeners to abstain from becoming too involved with technology, then Matthew's own storyline, I suppose, could be considered "rehashed" too.

Was this episode especially insightful? Not really. Was it inspirational? Sure. After listening to this episode, I was inspired to abstain from logging into Facebook for a week.  Yes, I failed.  In my defense, I realized I needed to reply to a few messages. Regardless, I both admire and appreciate this episode for focusing on characters who would follow through with their "fasts" at all costs, and in Eugene's case, no matter how ridiculous the results may be.  And though the episode didn't do a very great job teaching kids about the need to strive for tranquility, peace, and prayer, it does a terrific job portraying the other side of fasting: perseverance. "Fast As I Can" is a fun and entertaining theme-focused episode, albeit an uneven one, that contains enough "highs" than "lows" to keep listeners pleased with yet another entry in this season.

Three and a half stars (out of 5)

Review: Stage Fright

"Stage Fright", the unofficial sequel to "Game For a Mystery", is a step up for newcomer Kirby Atkins, but also a step down for the season. Not only does this episode not bother to feature any characters that listeners care about (Atkins hasn't used a character from pre-Album 51 yet) but it re-uses the same irritating and uninteresting characters from his previous episodes. One gets a vague sense they are listening to a show that isn't Adventures in Odyssey but a cheap rip-off. Can the creators of Adventures in Odyssey write a show about anybody, add it to a season lineup, and then call it Adventures in Odyssey?

Although this makes a great start to a very mean and scathing review, don't worry, this isn't one.

At the start of last season, the producers tried to communicate to fans that the show "will still be Adventures in Odyssey" despite all the change taking place. This makes me wonder how one defines "Adventures in Odyssey". What is this show really about? If most fans were to answer this question, we would be hearing a lot of different responses. If you say "well, it's a show about characters that live in a small town called Odyssey" then that would be the most accurate definition out there. And this same vague definition excuses the making of an episode like "Stage Fright", which can focus on anyone without bothering to find out whether the audience would like to hear from these characters. And there lies the main problem: the reason why I can't bring myself to enjoy "Stage Fright" is because I don't remotely care about the characters involved.

"Stage Fright" makes me realize that the producers have gotten themselves into a strange predicament by pushing the reset button last season. By getting rid of so much of what the show had going for itself, they now have the difficult task of creating new characters that can re-attract listeners. "Stage Fright" is a awfully presumptuous episode that reflects a lot of the mistakes"Take it From the Top" made in its album. Like "Game for a Mystery" and  "When You're Right, You're Right", it takes no time to let the audience "fall in love" with its new characters, but stuffs a lot of "newness" into one episode and hopes for the best. We've seen what such optimism has done to harm the show. The program, for instance, lost a lot of listeners around the album "Signed Sealed and Delivered"  because of the ridiculous amount of new kid characters replacing the previous ones. Thinking back, I realize that most of those new kids didn't last very long. For instance, "Chores No More" sticks out like a sore thumb for including so many short-lived characters. Only about half the children introduced after that 1997 hiatus stuck around for any considerable length of time. Essentially, episodes that expect its newest characters to become fan-favorites overnight are a little insulting to its listeners; we are often left with the remnants of characters such as Colby Cabrera... and whole lot of adopted Mulligan children, too.

This is all to say that the character of Emily Jones, specifically, does not quite work for me yet. I had no idea until I listened to this episode that she was played by an older actress. And the only reason I know this is because her performance sounded so unnatural that I was forced to go and look up her age. I discovered that my mind wandered during her narration, and I found the "cute" way she finishes her sentences nauseating. Is Odyssey so desperate to collect another Mandy and Lucy--children that never seem to age-- that they've now decided to simply cast adults so that they can stick around for a longer period of time? As the season progresses, fans will notice that most of the kids in Odyssey are currently played by adults. The list includes Adam Wylie as Ryan Cummings, Jason Earles as Vance King, Whit Hertford as Jay, Marcus Toji as Pete, and of course Hope Levy as Olivia Parker.

Honestly, casting older actors to play children is not a completely bad idea...as long as the actors can pull it off. Sometimes it works, especially if the actor, such as Adam Wylie, is supposed to sound like they're on the verge of entering teenage-hood. However, the actress who plays Emily Jones tries too hard and the end result sounds too unnatural, even awkward. The reality is that "Adventures in Odyssey" isn't a cartoon on TV; here, the audience can't be distracted from knowing an adult is mimicking a child's voice by an image of a child on screen; our attention is wrapped up solely in what we hear, and we need it to sound legitimate. As this season progresses, I think fans will need to make an important decision; they will need to decide whether they want to be able to grow up alongside the kids on the show and risk losing them after four or five years, or whether they want to hear kids that can stick around for the next ten years and never age. What do you think?

Considering how much I tried to defend the faults of "Wooton's Broken Pencil Show" for doing exactly what it was meant to do, why am I being so hard on this one? Isn't this episode doing what it wants, and that is, to provide a simple kid-centric mystery?  After all, no one expected this episode to be especially brilliant. And that's true; "Stage Fright" is not a bad episode. Far from it. I'll admit that this show does a well enough job setting up the clues and including an ending that I did not manage to figure out until Emily Jones explained it all.  But like any mystery, it's not the final revelation that makes the mystery memorable, but the journey that preceded it. USA's popular television series Monk, is an example of a mystery series of that did not solely entertain its audiences through its ridiculously clever endings, but rather, audiences watched it because they grew to love the quirkiness of its main characters. We rarely remember detective series for their endings, but we remember names such as Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Father Brown, and the Hardy Boys. Only a few mysteries such as "And Then their were None" and "Murder on the Orient Express" are remembered for their original and mind-boggling endings. "Stage Fright" needed better stuffing between its interesting premise and decent ending; it needed more reasons to make us care, including more interesting characters.

I appreciate this episode's (and this season's) attempt to situate more episodes in a school setting. In High School, Musical Theatre was one of my favorite classes, and I enjoyed hearing the multiple references to Broadway musicals in today's show. For instance, the show Barrett was rehearsing for-- the "Minestrone Man"--was probably alluding to 1957's "The Music Man"; the opening song "Twenty-Two Trombones led the marching band" was likely inspired by the "The Music Man" song that begins with "Seventy-six Trombones led the big parade"; Emily's line, "there's no business like show business" is also the title for the signature tune of"Annie get your Gun" ; Shakespeare famously uses the line "Rue the Day" in one his plays; and the production of "The pirates of penance" is most likely a nod to Gilbert and Sullivan's "Pirates of Penzance". On top of these references, John Campbell does a great job at creating background music that matches the setting; the opening number sung by Barrett was also very memorable. I look forward to seeing Focus on the Family's real-life production of the "Minestrone man" someday!

Unlike recent episodes in this season, there were no standout performances. Not even Jess Harnell's Charlie Stolfitz struck me as a particularly interesting character. At first I thought  Stolfitz was simply a "red herring"; the writer wanted us to immediately suspect him so he would distract the listener from the spotting the real culprit: the parrot. I somewhat wish they left his identity as the sulky stage manager. His involvement in the overall scheme seemed a little random and slightly unnecessary, however, it was not preposterous enough to make me not believe it.

In the end, "Stage Fright" is an interesting mystery with uninteresting characters attempting to solve it. If you've already come to love these kids, then this episode is fairly decent. If you haven't, then perhaps ten years from now we will come to appreciate this episode after growing up and familiarizing ouselves with its characters. But somehow I doubt it. After all, how are listeners supposed to grow up with someone like Emily Jones if she can't naturally grow up with us. I have a feeling "Stage Fright" will become the new "Chores No More"; I would have enjoyed it if I could bother to remember who starred in it....

2 and a half stars/ 5

A Quick Response: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

What's this? A new blog post so soon? Today, the Odyssey Scoop posted an article written by Marvin Grant that asks the questions: "Is Odyssey Stuck in the Past?" For a while now, I have wondered the same thing. And Marvin's article does a good job at making me arrive at a conclusive answer.

Yes, Odyssey is stuck in the past.

Mr. Grant's article focuses on the now dissolving relationship between Eugene and Katrina. His fear is that in the show's attempt return to its roots, the show's overall quality is digressing.

I personally think that Katrina's absence has been purely unintentional and that she is in no danger of becoming the new Maude. Like most TV sitcoms, once the fan-favorite's couple gets married, they simply become much less interesting than they were previously. We originally fell in love with Eugene, and not Katrina. Eugene will always be numero uno. It's simply natural that Katrina will fade away from the spotlight on occasion.

But Marvin Grant has a worthwhile point. Personally, I feel as if the creators of Adventures in Odyssey have misunderstood the fan's complaints. When we say "Odyssey isn't the same as it used to be", we don't mean that we want Odyssey to continue to be that old show where Eugene and Connie immaturely bicker at Whit's End while dishing out ice cream. Sure, some things should always stay the same; Whit's End should always be that place that helps out the town's citizens and witnesses to its community. That's the heart of the show. Guys, we've seen the show work without Whit at its center, and likewise, people forget that Connie and Eugene have not always been on the program. Even during those periods, the show was certainly still very successful.

Just the other day, I commented in a review that Connie was too "happy-go-lucky", and a fan responded that "Connie has always been like that". Not true. She used to be a sour brat, and eventually the producers brought out her comedic side and kept wringing it out every episode. She has digressed, rather than progressed, in my opinion. No, I would not be mad if she began going to college. Do I think that she wouldn't be same "Connie" kids know and love if she spent less time behind the counter? Of course not. Like Whit, I think Connie should always be attached to Whit's End--but I also believe the show needs to continue to let her grow, so that the audience can grow and learn with her.

With every step forward, Odyssey takes two steps back. Remember when Adventures in Odyssey hired two new employees? Anyone recall Nick Mulligan and Aubrey Shepherd? I don't remember anyone truly despising the decision to bring them about. In fact, Nick Mulligan, as many know, is probably one of my favorite characters. He became Connie's new and successful bickering partner, and offered loads of laughs in every show he was in. He had so much potential, including a storyline about him becoming a Christian. But what did Odyssey do? Once Eugene came back to the show, poor Nick Mulligan was never heard of again. The show didn't even have the decency to bring him to Christ, or to write him out. He simply disappeared. Poof! At the start of every season, I browse the episode descriptions of upcoming shows, anticipating his return. I understand when beloved characters like Tom, Bart, or Bernard need to leave the show. But why get rid of poor Nick? He was one of the only characters that kept many teenagers glued to Adventures In Odyssey. One step Forward, Two steps Back. The only real reason why the producers would do such a thing is because they wanted to return the show to its original roots.

Next up: Jason Whittaker. Didn't he mature, became less reckless, and also became a missionary? One step Forward, Two Steps Back. Nope. Maybe the producers thought that, again, kids would think he is not the "same character" if he stopped being that spy we knew and loved in "A Name Not a Number". And Jason, you're acting an awful lot like that old one-dimensional spy character these days.

Should I mention the consequences of not letting characters grow? Answer: they become like Rodney Rathbone. We eventually grow so tired of repetitiveness and the same old thing that people complain and ask why they are even still around. And then they disappear. I don't feel challenged by Connie and Eugene as I once did. I loved watching Eugene learn how to drive, Connie and Eugene learn to deal with one another and mature, Eugene develop a relationship, Connie search for a job, Connie almost getting married, both characters become a Christian...

And nowadays? I love...hmm...Eugene getting a haircut?

Some things should always stay the same. Whit should always be offering advice. Eugene should always be smart. Bernard should always be moody. Cryan Brian Dern should always be a big jerk. Connie should always be...wait...what should Connie always be? Oh yea, that's right, growing. People always loved Connie because she always learning and changing throughout different periods in Odyssey. Don't let that stop.

The problem with Odyssey is that its producer's definition of change on the show means to simply bring in new characters--but they don't seem to realize that they have dozens of characters running about that could simply be doing more. Is this the reason why the storylines from "Take it From the Top" and "Cause and Effect" deal with 90% new characters? And what are the main characters doing during this time? The same thing, really.

"Yet, they frequently turn down opportunities to bring about long-term character development and advance certain storylines because they believe that it would change the show too drastically. Therefore they sit, dwelling in the past, refusing to move on with the show."


I couldn't have said it better myself, Marvin. The very best episodes on the show have been about characters making drastic life-changing decisions or milestones in these character's lives: "Coming of Age", "A New Era", "Malachi's Message", "Gone", "Living in the Grey", "The Graduate"...and tons and tons more...

Let characters grow, Odyssey. Let our favorite characters change. Yes, we hate change. But we also desperately need it.

Review: Wooton's Broken Pencil Show

"Wooton in Wonderland: A Defense of 'Wooton's Broken Pencil Show'"

It was Lewis Carroll, author of "Alice in Wonderland", who helped popularized the "nonsensical literature" genre. For years, fans have been searching for some sort of concrete meaning in his book, but like Alice, we discover that the world of Wonderland has no real meaning at all. Try as we might, the Mad Hatter's riddles, the rules of the Queen's croquet game, and the confusing Dodo's caucus race, are all exactly that: confusing. Nothing logically makes sense.  Essentially, Lewis Carroll wanted to show that life does not need to be interpreted, because there is nothing to interpret about the events in our lives; life is random, plagued by moments that are simply "curious and curiouser"...

Is Lewis Carroll right? Is there such a thing as chaotic, disorganized, and nonsensical occurrences? Although it sometimes feels like one goes through life encountering "random" moments, "Wooton's Broken Pencil Show" tells us there is a greater force out there, sometimes orchestrating, but always providing meaning in our lives.

Just because an episode doesn't follow the typical storyline model, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad show. Yes, the episode doesn't follow a single coherent storyline, and frankly, the episode is as messy and disorganized as Alice in Wonderland is. And like the novel, "Wooton's Broken Pencil Show" ingeniously  places layer after layer of different instances, strange moments, and digressions. (Eg: Connie's lost keys, Wooton's success on the show, the intricate workings of a car analogy, Harlow's squirrels, Red Hollard's dimensionality theory, Wooton's captain absolutely...etc...) in order to subvert the idea that life is simply chaotic and meaningless. In other words, the episode's chaotic form demands from the listener to have, as Hercule Poirot might say, "little grey cells", to sort through and figure out the meaning from all of these bits and pieces. Eugene interrupts the goofiness and hyperness of the episode to ask "Does this show have a point?" to remind listeners to ask that very same question. And as Chris notes at the end, "only Wooton couldv'e created a show that made a point of having no point" or "did it have a point without trying to make a point. You tell me!"

Children are often spoon fed, and to be fair, Adventures in Odyssey holds one of the largest spoons. The show's writers often create predictable and over-structured stories, featuring a "theme" at the end to tie everything together neatly. We expect there to be a "cause" and therefore an "effect"; an "action" and therefore a "consequence"; likewise, if Matthew Parker sins we expect Chris to wrap up the show discussing his sinful deed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing. But here is an episode that does something different. "Wooton's Broken Pencil Show" cautions young listener not to simply accept what is shown in entertainment, but to search and to have trained-eye (in this case a trained ear) and to be on the lookout for what the world has appointed "unimportant".

Times have changed. We live in the age of postmodernism; the idea of objective truth--what is right or wrong-- has been thrown out the door. And the media and children's entertainment confirms that idea. Nowadays, kids are subjected to senseless Saturday morning cartoons that teach nothing; movies get poorer reviews for being "preachy" but are praised for being purposefully morally ambiguous; and, in the news, Christians are portrayed as persecutors rather than persecuted for pushing their own moral agenda onto others. These are all examples of how our society is moving towards the loss of "absolute morality", and people then start to believe whatever they feel is right for themselves; "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes". As Eugene states, "It is within our humanity to seek meaning and all of our experiences in all of of our experiences no matter how frivolous", Eugene says. "To do anything else is to reduce us to our animalistic behavior." I doubt that God wants us to begin viewing His creation as meaningless, purposeless, or useless. Rather, He wants us to believe strongly that He governs, and that He has given meaning to everything in our lives.

Focus on the Family has a way of expressing their stance on controversial subject matter without making the controversial issue the focus of this episode. For instance, consider how delicately FOTF dealt with the issue of abortion in "A New Era". Amidst all the silliness and stupidity, I appreciated how loaded "Wooton's Broken Pencil Show" was. Eugene, almost too subtly, targets the problems with the evolution theory, and describes that just as the world and the events in it have meaning, so do we as His creatures. "God created in our bodies an intricate inter-workings that connects all of our biological and anatomical systems in a way that many scholars would argue couldn't have happened by random or evolutionary chance. And it is a reflection of the intricate unity that he himself has." Wonderful.

Today's show featured Jess Harnell and Andre Stojka in Avery Award-winning performances. Their delivery, at certain times, was nothing less than perfect. I find it amusing that although all three Whits sound relatively similar to one another, the differences between their non-Whit roles are so unlike the others'. For instance, Andre Stoijka acts in a way I could never envision Hal Smith act; his alternate character as Thug Clotgripper (spelling?) sounds much more stereotypically villainous and malicious compared to Hal's own great big husky sounding characters, such as Grim in "Someone to Watch over Me" or the Sea-Captain in "Return to the Bible Room". The differences between Hal and Paul and Andre are amplified ten-fold when they are required to take on a different persona.

Also, Connie, Eugene, Red, and Harlow were all welcomed additions and were each used to the best of their abilities. I haven't completely warmed up to Red Hollard's character. I certainly don't mind him, however, I feel his character is catered to appeal to those who mourn the loss of Tom and Bernard. If this is the case, Red certainly has big shoes to fill. But, maybe the reason I can't enjoy his character is because I have trouble imagining what he looks like, so instead, I imagine Mater, from Pixar's 2006 Film "Cars". Their voices are nearly identical. And though I have no objection to world of Pixar crossing over into Adventures in Odyssey, I do have a problem with Whit conversing with a talking tow truck.

I think there's a difference between a "dumb" episode like "Fairy Tal-e-Vision" and a "dumb-episode-that-is-purposefully-dumb-and-does-'dumb'-well" like "Hidden in My Heart". Yes, I am generously giving this "dumb" episode four stars. This is an experimental episode that contains enough bubbling energy, humor and good performances to stand-out from its counterparts. I also appreciate shows that don't sacrifice the realistic side of Adventures in Odyssey but properly channels the show's sillier side through the use of Kids Radio.

This whole review could have turned out completely differently. I wasn't sure whether I should review this episode while bearing in mind the rest of the season. I tried to ignore how much "suspension of disbelief" the listener will need to have to get through this season, or the fact that Wooton has gone from a supporting character to co-star of the show--resulting in Odyssey transforming into a Veggie Tales-like show rather than one older listeners can enjoy. This episode does a lot of what I normally hate but finds ways to excuse its bad behavior. Its theme, or lack-of, justifies almost everything that takes place.

Most listeners will have a greater problem with today's show than I do. However, we should admit that for what it intends to do, it does well, and succeeds. I've heard complaints about the show having no plot. Well, I'm not quite sure if the episode would have been able to convey the same message with one. For once, we don't have some poorly made episode to communicate a very simple and childish theme, but rather, we have a well-made episode that communicates something more ambiguous and more important to today's children. And though you searched and searched the meaning and grew angry, frustrated and confused, realize that, perhaps, that was the point.


Rating:  ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆


NOTE: This review was written after hearing the Album version of today's episode. The Radio/online Version may have been different. 

Review: The Mystery of the Clock Tower, 1-2.

Episode: "The Mystery of the Clock Tower I & II"
Writer: Paul McCusker
Director: Paul McCusker
Sound Designer: Jonathan Crowe
Music: John Campbell
Theme: Be sure your sins will find you out
Oirignal Airdate: 10/02/10, 10/09/10

Has "The Mystery of the Clock Tower" kicked off the season with a bang? Or was it a gentle Tick-Tock? Having listened to all of album 52 already, I thought today's show was no doubt one of the best episodes of this upcoming season. How much of a compliment is this? I guess you'll find out in the weeks ahead.

Matthew Parker, Adventures in Odyssey's newest Dylan Taylor, tags along the adults throughout this mystery. I once remember it was Whit's policy, and even the writer's policy, to not look down on kids.  And yet, Eugene, sighing, tells Matthew: "Today is Saturday, you should go play like a normal child would". Normally, I'd object to a line of dialogue like this, but I shared Eugene's sentiments here.  Although I don't have a problem with Matthew, I found his presence, and his one-liners, a little tiresome.

I don't normally mind having children tagging along with the adults in order to solve a mystery. It is, after all, still kid's show. Lucy did this a number of times. Matthew noticeably lacks the importance Lucy had when she trailed adults. Lucy acted less as a "extra-voice" but rather an "extra-brain"; she was either directly involved in the mystery, or discovering clues for herself. In comparison, Matthew was far less useful, here. His abnormal expertise with gadgets went completely unneeded and, in one instance, he dumbly asks, "Have you thought about turning the knob on the back of the clock?" Lucy, on the other hand, felt more helpful had purpose being there.

The music in today's show stood out. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. It seemed awfully dated as soon as I heard it. Some of the electronic drum beats and percussions could have sounded more a little more contemporary. Other times, the music impressed me, especially when the ticking of the tower's clock transitioned into the music's beat in part one -- it was one of the neatest and most original things I've heard from John Campbell in some time. Sometimes the music added to the show, especially, for instance, when Alicia discovers the card and flowers, but other times, it seemed like everyone, at any moment, would break down and start rapping "Communicate!" That's how cheesy it sometimes sounded. In the end, the benefits of today's music outweighed the negatives I've mentioned.

Many are calling the fact that Andrew turned out to be the "villain" as an obvious and predictable twist. I think this is ridiculous. Saying that this was predictable is like saying the crime was obviously committed by "Professor Plum", but not knowing where it happened and with what he was murdered with. I doubt many knew why everything was happening until much later. The show's true "surprise" was that the mystery surrounding the clock tower was only a distraction for a bank robbery. It would have appeared far more preposterous if the audience had no idea Andrew was "bad". Therefore, Andrew was less part of the episode's conclusion than he was simply a clue. No doubt McCusker wanted us to see him as number one suspect--even Matthew points out to him as being the villain, echoing the minds of the children everywhere.

I've always enjoyed these story lines about "I committed-a-crime-and-20-years-have-past-and-now-i'm-feeling-guilty", but this one seemed to lack the emotional resonance of classics such as The Painting, and Buried Sin. Yes, I would have enjoyed if the stakes had been higher here; if the villains a were a little more dangerous and a little less smug. As Andrew say:

"This is the perfect crime, everyone is at city hall watching that clock, and drooling over Alicia's unrequited love story [...] we'll be long gone with all the money [...] the program is impenetrable [...] we'll walk right into that vault".

Please. If I were serious on making "the town distracted" would I really have depended on a secret of a little girl not delivering a letter? Probably not. Would a ticking time bomb attached to the city's clock tower have been enough to keep the town's attention? Probably. Because, after all, the rest of the town didn't know about Alica's secret--only Connie, Eugene, Matthew and Whit did. Even the journalist says, "there is a rumour that the clock is engaged in a countdown to 11:45 again, but no one knows why". So what was the point of concocting such an elaborate mystery if the entire town was only crowded around the clock because it was going backwards and there was a timer attached to it? It seems to me that the town's attention would be drawn to the tower regardless of whether Alicia's past was involved or not. Am I right?

Perhas The rest of the performances were somewhat sub-par given the severity of the situation.  Connie and Matthew seemed too happy-go-lucky -- too thrilled to be part of a mystery than genuinely concerned about the mystery itself, as shown to us with the line, "Matthew, tell Eugene Connie is on the Case!" Connie, usually brilliant, felt a little over-the-top at times, sometimes. Meanwhile, Alicia, too, was unremarkable, and Stojka's Whit seemed like he might "hoot" or be interrupted by Winnie the Pooh and Piglet at any moment. I guess I'm still getting used to him.

On the other hand, newcomer Spencer Hicks is a welcomed addition to the show and has a nice "mayoral" sounding voice. Out of all of them, Eugene had the best performance, carrying the show by imploring audiences to believe the severity in the situation.

Although I have written far more complaints than compliments so far, don't be fooled; I'm very glad that this episode is part of the series. It is an engaging and well plotted show, with an ending most listeners, including myself, did not see coming until moments before it was announced. A somewhat convoluted story with dialogue that could have been trimmed here and there, music-related issues, as well as over-the-top performances, all prevent this episode from being considered as brilliant as A Perfect Witness 1, 2, 3 was. That said, The Mystery of the Clock Tower is far superior than more recent mystery-like episodes such as The Other Side of the Glass or last year's Game for a Mystery.

I miss hearing mysteries that can scare my socks off. The Mysterious Stranger and The Case of the Secret Room did that. They made me cower underneath my bedsheets and too afraid to go to sleep. They were made with Hitchcock's stamp of approval, driven by an unnerving mood and powerful, sometimes creepy, performances. The Mystery of the Clock Tower, on the other hand, keeps things purposefully light, rescued only by a delightfully original and complex story. Even though, at times, it might not always make sense.

Review: Paul McCusker, License to Kill (on paper)

Search "the busiest man in Hollywood" on Google and you'll likely get different answers, such as Hugh Jackman, Steve Carrell, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Ryan Reynolds. Ask who's "the busiest Adventures in Odyssey writer", on the other hand, and the answer is pretty obvious:

                                              Paul McCusker.
                                                    
Where does he find the time? He's finishing album 53, working on Radio Theater, co-writing the new "The Imagination Station" series, writing "TSI Novels"...Paul McCusker is not only the busiest writer on Adventures in Odyssey, but also one of the most loved and appreciated. Seeing his name attached to an Odyssey episode is like a sigh of relief for many of us. As I wait for part 2 of "The Mystery of The Clocktower" to air before my full review, I encourage listeners to pick up a copy of the other projects Adventures in Odyssey writers are involved in. They often are equally impressive and well thought out as the stuff they produce for the show. This is one of the reasons why I'm reviewing two non-Adventures in Odyssey-related products today.

"TSI: The Gabon Virus"

Paul McCusker's first novel in the TSI series is, more often than not, entertaining and thought-provoking. Though I don't feel especially overwhelmed or ecstatic about it, the novel is a pretty solid one, nonetheless.

For the majority of the book, the action takes place in Gabon, Africa, with the occasional flashback to Eeym, England, 1666. Does that date sound familiar? It should for several reasons. In this case, the novel focuses on the effects of "The Great Plague" which killed thousands in England. Essentially, the premise starts with the questions: what if that same plague, or something like it, came back today?

And it does.

A majority of the novel's intensity perhaps owe's credit to recent news events. The Gabon Virus, published in 2009, arrives on shelves around the time the H1N1 epidemic made everyone worried about leaving the house. This same feel of uneasiness is apparent throughout the book; people get infected, blood sprays and pours, people are tortured while others get killed. Yes, the novel has the violence of McCusker's more mature work, including the brutality of an episode of 24, but he, alongside his co-writer Dr. Walt Larimore, create a truly gripping piece of fiction.

As a long McCusker fan, I noticed some similarities between this book and his other works, most notably, Father Gilbert's "The Grey Lady", and "Arin's Judgment". The connections between the latter and TSI are obvious; (VERY TINY SPOILER ALERT) both use the idea of a child who brings destruction to the world carrying a virus that he himself is immune to. And like "The Grey Lady", the novel has its own historical 'ghost', but here, it is called the "Blue Monk", haunting characters here and there. Though the explanation for its existence is different from The Grey Lady's, I'd be interested to hear what McCusker really thinks about the existence of ghosts. He seems to often create stories which include supernatural elements, and then has the main character quote the one or two verses from the Bible to defend the existence of such phenomenon. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. But I can see how some of these more--should I say--radical ideas do not mesh well with a more down-to-earth rational belief some have. If I remember correctly, some listeners had a problem with "The Grey Lady" back when it aired. According to his Facebook fan page, McCusker converted to Catholicism in 2007; I do not know whether there it reflects how "out there" some of his stories have been in past years; I really don't know enough about Catholicism to say one way or another. But I do know of one Catholic, Cardinal Newman, who writes in Apologia Pro Vita Sua one of his reasons for converting, stating that "now these discoveries [of the Victorian Age], certain or probably have in matter of fact and indirect bearing upon religious opinions" defending the idea that fact should not trump our faith. Our idea of "what is possible" here on earth is diminishing with every scientific discovery that says what's possible and normal. Sad, but true. Do miracles that defy the laws of physics happen? Does God come down and intervene directly? Do Angels, like Malachi, walk among us? Do ghosts exist? McCusker seems to be a writer who would say yes to "all of the above", regardless of what is considered "rational" in this day and age. 

One of the problems with the novel, especially in its first half, was the fact that there were quite a few cliches. There are oftentimes some sort of melodramatic sentence concluding each chapter, I assume, to encourage the reader to keep reading. Yes, I rolled my eyes here and there. What amazed me, however, was that halfway through the novel, one of the characters, Nora, even accuses the protagonist, Mark, of talking "like a character in a B Movie". Mark flinches and responds, "Do I do it that much?". Maybe McCusker or Larimore realized that the dialog was sounding bizarre halfway through  the book. Maybe Not. In any case, if either of them knocked on my door and told me these cliches were done purposely for that one single joke, I would have trouble believing them.

It takes a while to know which character's on which side and who to trust--certainly a sign of good writing. However, McCusker and  Larimore spend so much time setting up characters that it takes just as long to get into it the story. It is also uncertain who's the novel's central character until several chapters later. I wonder how much the writer's mapped things out since a good chunk of the book focuses on characters that trickle away and lose their original relevance halfway through  Also, members of the TSI team are introduced much later in the story than one expects. I'm not saying that this is a weak element of the book, or worse, unintentional on the writer's part, but that the novel shifts focus a lot until it settles into a comfortable gear-- focusing on the Dr. Mark Carlson and the TSI Team. In addition to this, about a three quarters into the novel, McCusker's audience is thrown into a tedious, slow-paced archaeological search, as they comb through a lot of facts and dates; essentially, the feeling of an "urgent catastrophe" looming over the first half of the novel is  lost...but only for a while. Without spoiling anything, I'll say the ending is good, and intense, too, and once you reach the last quarter, you likely won't put the book down until the story ends.

Overall, will it entertain you? Sure. I finished reading it fairly quickly, and quite a few chapters had me "on the edge of my seat". It doesn't stand out as McCusker's best work, but it's certainly good enough to make you want to go out and buy its sequel, which, yes, I did.

TSI: The Gabon Virus is available at Amazon.
Rating: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

"TSI: The Influenza Bomb"

The 2nd book in Series, TSI: The Influenza Bomb, takes place throughout London, Germany, and Russia; here, the TSI team attempts to solve present-day mysteries using clues from the past.  Like the first book, they continue to battle "Return to Earth", a secret organization interested in returning Earth to its natural state by killing humankind, as well as tracking down its leader, Stephen Maier, who is less of the afterthought he was in Gabon, but here takes center stage as the novel's primary villain. In a nutshell, the TSI team investigates the possibility that Hitler and the German army were attempting to both create and manufacture a disease, like the Spanish Flu, and use it against its enemies during World War II. They hope the answers will explain whether Return to Earth are using these same plans to carry out the annihilation of the human species.

It was only after hearing about this novel in the series that I decided to give the series a try--but I knew I had to read the “The Gabon Virus” first. I’m glad I did for two reasons: it is not a standalone book and features old characters and one or two continuing story lines, and also, well, to be blunt, “The Gabon Virus” is the better one.

I suppose it depends what kind of novel you like reading more, but in some ways, "The Influenza Bomb" was more historically fascinating. I found the novel's historical side better implemented into the present-day storyline than the previous book. In other words, you got a good sense the writers knew what they were talking about. But the overall plot is lacking. I first thought that the TSI team would battle a different type of crisis then another deadly epidemic. First time around, though, the idea of combating a deadly virus seems pretty exciting. But how many more times will this formula be used? I wonder if this means that epidemics are the threat the series will face. Already we see that there's less tension and intensity in this book; the "Influenza Bomb" appears to be much less of a threat than the last book and far fewer characters seem affected or bothered by the virus, whereas the Gabon Virus enjoyed killing people left, right and center.

However, take my opinion with a grain of salt. After all, this book took me three times longer to read than the first one--perhaps killing the story's momentum in the process. To be fair, though, a good story shouldn't let the reader stop reading. 

These books are published by a Christian company, Howard Books.  To me, The Influenza Bomb's references to God seem forced and don't fit well into the multiple story lines. On the other hand, The Gabon Virus appeared better at sowing the plot and biblical messages together. So wait, did I essentially just say "God doesn't fit" in this book? Not at all. And I'm certainly not proposing that the religious element be removed from any future books in this series. After all, I admire authors that create a world in which God is very much there, as opposed to many authors today that create a world where His authority doesn't exist at all. Thomas Hardy, for instance, believed that if God existed, He wouldn't have anything interesting to say to us. God, Hardy believed, had essentially turned his back on creation. To a similar degree, but obviously an unintentional one, God seems to be referenced only in passing and the moments when the novel takes time to explore the character's spiritual journeys seem contrived. The effect of this shows that God perhaps isn't that important to these characters as the authors might want us to believe He is. One customer review on Amazon.com states: "Throw in three or four quite clunky and preachy digressions into the nature of forgiveness and it was a real struggle to keep reading". The fact is: both believers and non-believers will read these book, and somehow I wish more attention was given in making God more relevant, and ultimately necessary, in these character's lives.

If you enjoyed the first book in this series, The Influenza Bomb is certainly worth a look. By the way the book ends, it's fair to assume that McCusker and Larimore are planning to write more. Let's hope. But let's also hope for something better, too.  

TSI: The Influenza Bomb is available at Amazon.

Rating: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

Has anyone else read this series? If so, what did you think? Feel free to comment below.