Cooper's prose, as always, is gorgeous, and her flair for imagery is enviable, but this final volume in the Dark is Rising sequence disappoints as a novel. The first four volumes were nothing but buildup - and this is nothing but buildup too, until five pages from the end.
Like books two, three, and four, there are random time travelling scenes, but here they muddle the plot instead of moving it along.
None of the characters have particularly vivid personalities, but the Drew siblings - especially Jane - always felt more real then Will or Bran, both of whom suffer from severe Designated Protagonist Syndrome. Will has no personality, and Bran just wanders over the mountains sulking except when the plot forces him to act noble - basically a pubescent, Welsh Mr. Rochester. So naturally, the bulk of the book follows Will and Bran doing big important hero things that the lowly Drews are shut out of.
This is a pet peeve of mine in fantasy lit - magical elite shutting ordinary people out of the conflict, fully or partially, "for their own protection," even when they are owed an honest and complete explanation for all the scary things happening around them. At least Bran, Will, and Merriman have the decency not to look down on the Drews or John Rowlands, which is more than can be said of their literary descendants - Jace and the Lightwoods in The Mortal Instruments, Annabeth in Percy Jackson, and pretty much everybody in Harry Potter. Lewis and Tolkien had neither taste nor tolerance for this fantastic gnosticism, which must inevitably lead to fantastic racism. More on them later.
The book also assumes some - nay, a great deal - of previous knowledge of Welsh mythology and history. One can tell there is some sort of deep unspoken significance in every person, place and thing in this story - but good luck deducing WHAT they mean unless you're an expert on Arthuriana and/or Wales. Not that these plot devices are bad at all, per se - Lewis and Lemony Snicket both employ a lot of literary and classical references that go straight over most kids' heads. But in both those cases, the story can still be enjoyed on a surface level without understanding those references. Not the case with TDiR. I was confused for most of the book. Here are some things that confused me:
- The Lady calling Jane "Juno." The Lady, full stop. Is she supposed to be some kind of goddess or "sacred feminine" archetype? If so, is Jane meant to be some sort of avatar? And why bother establishing this psychic bond between the two when Jane is allowed so small a role in the story?
- Mrs. Rowlands was the White Rider all along. Um, how? And why?
- What is the Lost Land? The timelessness of it suggests Camelot, but most of the details would then be wrong.
Other flaws:
- The whole Lost Land episode does nothing for the plot, and everything important that happened in it could have been covered in one chapter.
- The scene with King Gwyddno is almost a rip-off of King Theoden's redemption in The Lord of the Rings. Not nearly as spectacular, though. Later I'll elaborate on why I think that's the case.
- Taliesin - or Gwion, whatever - was portrayed a lot better in A String in the Harp. Here he does nothing and adds nothing.
- The Drews are literally only there to fill the number of people from the prophecy. In fairness, Jane gets to talk to the Lady because she's a girl, and Barney gets kidnapped. (Barney gets kidnapped in every book he appears in). Simon might as well have been on holiday.
- I've shipped Will/Jane since Greenwitch, and that went nowhere. There's a few hints here of Bran/Jane, but that doesn't go anywhere either, because both boys have far too much Very Important Marty Stu business to attend to.
- There is literally no humor in this book. Actually, after some light touches in Over Sea, Under Stone, there's no humor in the entire series.
- I HATE the "convenient memory wipe" device wherever and whenever it appears...which leads me to my final point...
Susan Cooper has been compared to J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, not necessarily for her prose (which is great indeed) but for her "moral vision" of the "sweeping conflict of good and evil" (Psychology Today). I would dispute this claim.
In fact, Cooper doesn't even well-define the difference between the Light and the Dark. One is good and the other evil mostly because they say so. The Light is marginally more ethical than the Dark, but both sides lie and trick people and WIPE PEOPLE'S MEMORIES and keep secrets from those people even when those people are in great danger and have every right to know exactly what is going on.
The good guys in Middle-earth and Narnia do not deal in these kinds of shenanigans. They don't use deceit, even when we'd all forgive them for it. Everybody - even apparently powerless people like the hobbits and the Pevensie kids- are kept well-informed. And they are allowed to KEEP THEIR MEMORIES, even the scary ones.
The idea that there's a High Magic above and beyond good and evil would be deeply repellent to either Jack or Tollers, but Cooper uses it.
There is no Illuvatar or Aslan here, in case you were wondering.
The reason for the difference:
Tolkien and Lewis wrote from a deeply believed Christian worldview. Christianity believes that good is actually much more powerful than evil, and that simple people - mortals, children, and hobbits, if you will - have just as much a right to participate in history as the learned, powerful, and great.
Cooper's worldview, going by these books, is Manichean and Gnostic. Manicheanism is the belief that good and evil are equally matched and equally ruthless. Gnosticism is the belief that only super-special-snowflake people deserve to know the whole truth of things, and the stupid uninitiated are better off unenlightened.
This worldview can also be found, in varying degrees, in most children's and YA fantasy of the last few decades - obviously and obnoxiously in the works of Philip Pullman, J.K. Rowling, Stephanie Meyer, Christopher Paolini, Rick Riordan, and Cassandra Clare, all of whom use it in much more offensive ways than Cooper. It is amusingly turned on its head by Terry Pratchett in the Tiffany Aching novels, and deconstructed by Jonathan Stroud in the Bartimaeus Sequence.
So why is this Manicheanism/Gnosticism a problem? Because it subliminally tells kids that they have to be part of a secret, glamorous elite in order to be successful or even worthwhile. That to be ordinary is to be a loser. That simplicity is bad.
Pound this idea repeatedly into a young, impressionable mind and it can create all kinds of problems - most of which are related to narcissism.
I'll stick with Lewis and Tolkien, thanks. I'm on Aslan's side even if there's no Aslan to lead it.