Literary Critic; Disney After Dark by Ridley Pearson

Original post: http://thereader101.blogspot.com/2014/11/literary-critic-disney-after-dark-by.html

Hello, I'm the Literary Critic. I read it so you don't have to. Can we talk about Young Adult fiction for a moment? I mean, the genre is basically a brand these days from John Green to The Hunger Games. And while lots of YA is very good, there is also a butt load more that suck. Now don't get me wrong, every genre includes sucky titles. But YA seems particularly prone to the suckiest of them all. Why is this you might ask? Well, I think there are an array of reasons beyond all of our comprehension but the main reason that I've noticed is an author's ability to write down to readers. They don't try to write a genuinely good novel but write a silly story because it is assumed that kids and teens will drink that crap up. And that is just not true. Sure there are kids who enjoy the bad books but if they take an interest, how can we fault them? But there are many kids who seek good literature and lean toward adult novels to do so because the books in their age group have no appeal and just aren't good. And that isn't how it should be. A book should be good on it's own and not have to stoop down the story.
Oh, you think I'm wrong? You think these books don't exist? Well, they do dammit! Have you ever read Bridge to Terabithia or The Secret Garden or Sarah, Plain and Tall or Holes or The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe or Harry Potter or Skellig or Matilda or...I think you see my point. So what do all of these books have in common? Well, they are good pieces of literature. They appeal to children's imaginations yet the writing holds up. The characters are developed and complex and the author is taking a simple story and painting it as a beautiful artwork. Yes, that is literature, and YA literature at that and it is so damn good! But lots of YA doesn't fall into this category. Why? Because lots of books seem to think that because they are in the children's or YA category, they don't need to write credible scenarios or unique characters. As long as there is an adventure, kids will eat it up. And that is a big issue in my opinion. I take issue when adults say, "well at least they're reading." Kids shouldn't be subjected to lazy writing. They should get a book that took the time to really write a good book and not just because it is for kids.
Now I know what you may be thinking. I'm a 24 year old woman. Why would I be reading books below my age group? Well here is the problem: books can be written toward an age group but should not be limited. This goes for all art. Sure there are shows like Barney that aren't necessarily good but that show is aimed to teach kids things like colors and rhymes and numbers and has no real merit beyond that...and even the characters on Barney are more unique than those in some YA books. But look at another series called American Girl. Those books could easily be looked at as marketing strategies to sell more dolls and make more money but if you actually sit down and read the books, they are actually very well done. Sure the writing isn't perfect but there are never any inconsistencies, the characters are well developed and you learn a lot about culture and history along the way. I read them last year and really enjoyed them. Sure they had their problems but all books have those. My point is, there is a difference between a children's book and a childish book. The first being a genre and you can expect fantasy and lots of hypothetical situations but altogether fun, the second being poorly written and the author being outright lazy because of the genre.

So with that in mind, let's talk about the first book of seven (there are seven books of this garbage??) in the Kingdom Keepers series titled Disney After Dark. Okay so what is this book about? Well we begin with a boy named Finn. He is the typical handsome white male who lives in Florida and is pretty famous because of his role at the Disney Parks. Finn along with four other kids, whose names I can't recall because they are all so boring and generic, are DHI's which stands for Disney Host Interactive. The kids are essentially actors and they have filmed scenes where they talk about rides and the park. These holographic images are then digitally projected in the parks for guests who need help. One night, something acts up in the Disney servers and Finn's dream becomes a reality when he finds himself at the park in his DHI form after he goes to bed and the park is closed. There he meets Wayne, the obligatory wise old man, who cryptically talks to Finn even though he has no reason to. We learn that the parks are in trouble and that the DHI's are the only ones who can save the parks, and apparently the world. That's right. The DHI's must defeat Disney villains come to life because they want...what else? World domination...because that isn't cliche. Anyway, Finn seeks help from a girl in his school named Amanda who is keeping a secret of her own. Oooooh, mysterious! With Amanda's help, the DHI's try to solve a mystery that will bring peace back to the parks and let them sleep without entering their DHI forms ever again.
The premise sounds a little rough but not too bad. I was interested when I read the back cover of the book. The book had some good parts...or, well a couple. Okay two or three. The concept of the DHI's is cool and questioning technology and our relationship with it is awesome. At one point Amanda sees a theme park goer walk through a DHI hologram and comments that it is rude and I thought it was awesome that this book may be asking the reader to question her logic. Like, is it actually rude when the DHI's aren't actual beings but just projected images? But the book never really got to that place again. And okay, parts of the ending I didn't see coming. But this book still sucks. Boy does it deserve to rot in a garbage dump. This book was so bad that I actually wanted to kill myself. And let me mention that I hate suicide notions and never make them...except this one time because it is necessary. I mean, I really wonder if the author had a hat full of plots and just reached in for an easy explanation or a random piece of generic dialogue or some kind of crap to end the chapter. The entire book was so ridiculous and contrived that this wouldn't surprise me.
Let's talk about the characters first because they were by far the worst part of this book. First off, what utter vanilla characters we were given. I like to think of all of them like balls of grape jelly...or, whatever jelly you want to imagine. It doesn't matter to me. There is no authenticity or character integrity to them. They just shape into the form the author desires. If the author wants a suave character, he's got it. If the author wants a fighter, he's got a fighter. But when you remove the jelly from it's fighter or suave jar, it will never stand on it's own. It will always fall flat. And that is essentially what these characters are, flat. Between the rotten dialogue and horribly forced interactions, one wonders how this book was even published in the first place. I mean, what sort of person would allow this junk to print?...Let's look at some direct quotes, shall we?
At the end of one of the chapter's, a woman isn't taking Finn seriously because of his age. She notes he is 13 and Finn corrects her, "14. I will be 14 next month." So wait, you are 13 then? Well isn't he a smart character. When someone states his age he feels a need to correct that person that they are right yet it is supposed to come across as smart. Yeah...cause that isn't stupid. I mean, why would this piece of dialogue be allowed in any text? I feel disgusted just featuring it in my review. Here is another example of the stiff dialogue. Finn is looking for clues with another DHI and says, "Hey guess what? We haven't got a clue." The other DHI then responds in annoyance, "That's a sick joke." Wait so, that was...a joke? Am I too old to get it? Or are these kids smoking something?
But my favorite quotes by far were from conversations between Finn and Amanda. I mean, these don't get any dumber. And it isn't just their dialogue, it is the narration and the ridiculous story that they are placed into. The story sets it up as if Finn and Amanda only know each other from passing in the school halls or having a class or two together. When Finn asks her for help...*POOF*...they are suddenly destined to be a romantic item. Finn will be confused by Amanda's girlish wit and Amanda will be jealous when Finn talks to any other girl. How adorable. I love teenage romance. My favorite TV station is ABC Family and the Lifetime Network. There is a part where the two are riding bikes and the narration goes, "Amanda stayed in the lead on her bike. Thankfully, she hadn't asked any questions, and he took this as a sign they were becoming really good friends." A silent woman! Men love these! Don't speak your mind girl, Finn likes it. It makes him feel much more comfortable than having to explain himself to you. A passage like this could be viewed as subtle and quite good but it just doesn't work with these characters. They are the most vanilla of the bunch yet we spend the most time with them! They also constantly contradict themselves. In this passage Amanda isn't upset with Finn for not telling her anything yet just a few chapters ago she was fuming at him for the same thing. And Finn contradicts himself within a page and a half when he states he respects the one DHI for being smart and then says how annoying his smarts are. WHY DO THESE CHARACTERS HAVE NO CONSISTENCY???!!!! WHERE IS THE DEPTH?? WE DON'T NEED MORE STEREOTYPES!!!
Even the adults are black and white cliches. Take Finn's mother for example. She is the mother that cries when her son goes anywhere with a girl. Oh Finn got paired with a girl in science. I bet they will get married! My boy is growing up! His mother also asks questions and grounds her son yet doesn't follow up when necessary. Like the entire book is her grounding Finn but when Finn starts breaking the most rules, she is out of the picture. She is only included when it is convenient for the plot. How nice. But Finn's mother isn't the only suspicious adult. All the adults are suspicious and not in a credible way but again just for the sake of the plot. Even when Finn asks an innocent question they are on to him like dogs sniffing for drugs. Finn could have asked for a strawberry ice-cream cone and they would reply, hey punk why don't you order vanilla to match your personality?
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Finn's lady friend is not only vanilla but angelic. Yep, she is literally an angel. The book goes out of it's way to establish that Amanda lives in an old church and tries to set up beautiful imagery but I think it is safe to say the author just flew too high without a parachute. I mean, what Ridley Pearson did to Amanda is identical to what Stephenie Meyer did to Bella in Twilight. It just isn't good writing and completely missed the mark. Speaking of missing the mark, let's talk about the author setting up situations and not tying them up at the end. I already talked about Finn's mom and her lack of parental control when it is beneficial to Finn's plot. Let's talk about a scene in one of the early chapters of the book. Finn and Amanda visit the parks one day without permission (Finn needs to carry a special pass with him when he visits the parks because he is a DHI) and are chased by a bunch of security guards. Amanda angelically saves them by finding a secret passage way and they narrowly escape the guards. Once the guards that were chasing them walk away, Finn and Amanda walk out into the open and suddenly everything is normal. I'm almost positive they go and get ice-cream or something along those lines (I can't check the source material because I threw that book away the moment I finished the last sentence so I apologize for that). So...wait, isn't Finn wanted still?...won't other security guards see him?...how can he magically be wanted one minute but off free the next?....oh screw continuity. Let's just let the kids have fun at Disney World even though it contradicts the entire chapter we just read. No big deal.
This is one of the many plot holes in this book. Other plot holes include the fact that Maleficent magically comes to life yet Finn and the other DHI's actually see people dressed up in Mickey and Cinderella garb. How does that work? Well...it doesn't quite frankly. The ending was atrocious. The story essentially breaks the law of physics when Finn can suddenly become a DHI anytime he wants and at the end of the book he simple spins around and *POOF* the spell is broken. The story never was set up to be a fantasy. It is set up as science fiction where a person can enter another realm. How easy of the author to switch genres for plot convenience. It is the sign of poor writing and poor plotting. And I bet you thought this book couldn't get any worse, right? Well you are dead wrong because it can! This author has no basic knowledge of Disney history and Disney World. At one point he refers to the Hollywood Studios nighttime spectacular as "Fantasmics" instead of "Fantasmic". Good job buddy. You have absolutely no concept of your source material. Always the sign of a good author.
This book is awful! And I know awful! I read Twilight. And this was worse! I feel like the author is trying to get us to purposefully dumb ourselves down. This Night at the Museum recreation is full of contradictions, bland characters, over dramatized situations, and stab you in the eye dialogue. The book should have a warning on the back that the side effects of reading it include self harm, please keep all readers away from sharp objects and prescription drugs. Between the forced relationship between Finn and Amanda and the awful one liners, I was lucky to not bring a gun to my head. This has to be one of the worst books I've read in a long while and to think it is a series is mind boggling. I wouldn't return to this series if my life depended on it!
The only part of this book I enjoyed was the first paragraph of a later chapter on page 244 and it says, "The transportation and ticket center hummed with conversations as a tangle of park visitors shuttled between buses and monorails. Some families were ending their days just as others were starting theirs. On a Monday afternoon, thick with humidity, the tired and impatient mingled with the exhilarated and anxious. For some, a day spent; for others, an evening full of promise. The humidity hung in the air so heavily you could practically wear it like a coat." Okay, why couldn't the entire book be like that one paragraph? It was a diamond in a whole lot of rough.
What do I think of this book? Well, it pretty much blows. It is the worst bunch of words splattered on paper. I've never wanted to barf so much in my life. This could be the book that would turn kids off to books...like when you visit a fast food chain and vomit and vow to never go there again. Well this is the vomit that scares a kid from reading and makes them think it is stupid. There are some good moments...well two to be exact, which is not enough to redeem this awful awful excuse for a book. A stupid movie I could see. But a book? This is just despicable. 1 out of 5 stars from me.

To whom it may concern: This review was a parody of two things, 75% Nostalgia Critic and 25% Literary Disco podcast. This review most definitely reflects my views though I expressed them in the form I was parodying.

Disney's Small One Short Film Review

Small One is one of the first projects Don Bluth was in charge of. It is a short film made by Disney and centers around a donkey named Small One. You don't have to look far to see how Small One got his name, for he is very small compared to the other donkeys. Because of Small One's size, he cannot perform the quality of work that is required of him. Although he is loved by his master's unnamed son, he provides little reasons to be kept. His master decides that Small One must be sold which greatly troubles his son. When he explains his reasoning, the son volunteers to take Small One into town and sell him to make sure he goes to a good home. The father agrees and the rest of the short follows the son's day in town and finding Small One a home.
I really liked this short. I didn't love it because there were a lot of problems with it but for what it offered I found it to be very solid. One thing I appreciated was that the film revolved around a biblical story. Usually Disney shies away from out right recognizing any religion and goes with cultural/social norms of the day. It is no surprise to me that Bluth was involved in this project as it is widely known that Bluth like taking Disney in uncomfortable territory (not a bad thing) and ultimately left Disney because they played safe instead of making quality films. One of the films Bluth worked on was The Fox and the Hound which is a cute film and one I adore but not necessarily a good product. Bluth went on to start his own animation studio and dabbled in more controversial areas. He came back to a religious theme with his film All Dogs Go To Heaven.
Of course it isn't just the theme that makes it a good short but the quality story telling that goes on. Bluth sets up a very biblical and literary plot by taking common ideas like the number three and anonymity and using them to not only advance the plot but artistically depict the story. For example, the son goes through three trials to find Small One, a home - the first being the encounter with the man who kills animals for their fur, the second being the people in town (specifically the auctioneer), and the third being the shepherd. Then there is the anonymity theme which I love. Or may be

anonymity is the wrong word and perhaps the right phrasing would be that the film is allowing the audience to put the pieces together. They aren't spoon feeding the audience. It is obvious from the character design and the presence of the donkeys and the animation of the setting that this story is biblical. It probably was also obvious by the time of year it was released. I'm completely unaware how Disney marketed the short but I'm guessing it played on ABC at least once during the holidays. Anyway, keeping all of that in mind the short never once tells us who the shepherd is that ends up buying Small One. Everything is implied through visuals which I found to be very clever.
I guess my biggest problem with the short was the center part when the son is trying to sell Small One. There is a continuous song being sung through these scenes partially by the son and partially by three men who seem to represent the greed that exists in the world. Don't get me wrong, this idea appeals to me since Christmas has become very greed ridden but I'm not sure we were so aware of the greed when this short was made. However, whenever these three men sang I just wanted to fast forward. They were annoying and not very well set up...and borderline racist. I'm not sure what could have been done differently to fix this but it was just something that bothered me.
Overall, the short was really cute and well thought out. The characters were pretty generic and others outright annoying. The pacing in the middle became a bit of an issue and the music never stood out. While the animation was simple grade B/C quality, I have to give the studio and Don Bluth credit for the effort. It definitely captures the quality of old school Disney and you can tell they are still trying to find their place after Walt's death. I would definitely recommend this short to you.
Be sure to watch the short HERE and listen to our new Christmas themed episode of Talk Magic to Me where we discuss Mickey's Christmas Carol.

The Gospel According to Disney by Mark I. Pinsky

Original post: http://thereader101.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-gospel-according-to-disney-by-mark.html
 

When I was 15, I attended church camp for a second time. As much as I want to go into great detail about my experiences there, I will spare you the reader and get to the point that relates to this book review. My friends and I were at evening chapel, soaking in what the Pastor was saying. Suddenly, he stepped aside and the lights dimmed. The screen lit up in a blue glow and once our eyes adjusted it became apparent we were watching a clip from a Disney movie...and not just any Disney movie but The Lion King, one of my all time favorites! What does The Lion King have to do with church? I asked myself. Let me paint the scene for you. Simba has just reunited with his childhood friend who believed him to be dead and confronts him with his past that he thought he left behind him. Angry, confused, and lost Simba walks to the water and stares at his reflection in the water. Suddenly, the peace is disturbed by the wise old Rafiki who tells Simba he knows he is Mufasa's boy. When Simba tells him his father is dead, Rafiki disputes him and tells him his father is alive and he can see him if Simba follows Rafiki. Simba follows and they arrive at another body of water. Rafiki tells Simba to look and when Simba looks at the water, he only sees his reflection. Rafiki urges him to look harder and suddenly Simba is starring at the image of his father. Then Rafiki says the iconic words, "You see, he lives in you." There is a loud rumbling and in the sky stands Mufasa, urging Simba to stop running from his past and to take his place on Pride Rock as King. When Mufasa's ghost fades, Rafiki furthers his message by saying, "Oh yes the past can hurt, but the way I see it you can either run from it or learn from it." Hans Zimmer's score beautifully clashes with the African choir as Simba makes his decision to return to Pride Rock. Tears welled up in my eyes. A great deal of my emotion stemmed from the nostalgia I was feeling. But it was also more than that. I had never known that faith could be seen through "secular" entertainment. Yet here was a perfect example. The Christian symbolism was so clear to me at that moment and it is one of the defining moments of my adolescence for it is the moment that inspired me to study other entertainment and look for hidden meanings in other media I encountered. I began searching for books that discussed this topic of Christian symbolism in Disney films and soon came across this book, The Gospel According to Disney by Mark I. Pinsky. I couldn't wait to read it.
This book is not what I expected at all. While the title implies that the author will be picking out bits of the gospel that are ingrained in Disney films and discussing them, it is quite the opposite. The book begins with a long chapter discussing Walt Disney's relationship with Christianity and faith in general. It takes a deep look at Walt's childhood that greatly summarizes the man the public came to know and either adore or despise. The book then goes into separate chapters discussing a different movie each chapter. Part one of the book focused on the films that were made while and a little after Walt was alive. Part two focuses on the Michael Eisner years. Once again, Pinsky provided a good look at Eisner's relationship with faith. It then goes into a bit about the theme parks and the Baptist boycott. 
Critical reviews of this book are very positive while the reviews I saw online were extremely negative. This made me wonder a great deal, for I was on the latter side. I did not think this book was very good. But I think it is the title that either helped the book or made people cringe at the book. I already stated what I expected this book to be. However, I realize the title can be read another way. Rather than picking out the deeper Christian gospel messages of these films, this book gave a detailed look at Disney's relationship with culture and general religion. It didn't really look for the deeper messages but at surface level material - what Disney the company did, what it would look like if people clung to the films as a religious entity, etc. While this was also a good approach, it has already been done before. None of Pinsky's chapters looking at these wonderful films wowed me or moved me. The only chapters I took great interest in were looking at Walt's life and Eisner's life, the theme parks, and the Baptist boycott. Those chapters contained worth while substance. The rest of the book...not so much.
One huge fault of the book is Pinsky's constant lengthy summaries of each movie he talks about. Literally every chapter is a frame by frame look at the film in question. As an English major in college, I was taught that when you write an essay you should always avoid giving the summary of said subject. The person who is reading your essay or group of essays will most likely be reading it with knowledge of the content beforehand. They don't need to hear it again, they just need to hear your analysis. And if the chapter didn't contain a summary, it was Pinsky bitching about the movie's lack of political correctness. I gained nothing from these chapters which was extremely disappointing.
Another huge fallback of the book was it's lack of even addressing the gospel at all. The chapters talked more about Disney and culture and went on more about tropes and stereotypes. We get it! People talk about this all of the time. Why do we need to hear about it again? Chapters such as Alice and Wonderland and Aladdin never mentioned the gospel once. It made me question why I was continuing with the book when it wasn't even addressing the subject it claimed to tackle in the actual title! And there were a few mistakes made throughout the book as well. The one I can remember off the top of my head was in the Alice in Wonderland chapter when Pinsky kept calling Alice's older sister her governess.
And finally, the book's biggest mistake has to be the title. The word "gospel" should not be in it. It is misleading and insulting to the actual Christian gospel. Rather, the book should be titled Religion According to Disney. The book's focus on religious culture and culture in general combined with no focus on any specific faith tells me this book was not about any gospel. It is about organized religion.
This book disappointed me on multiple accounts. It is a real shame because I think there is a lot of potential in looking for the Christian gospel in Disney films but Pinsky went the cynical route. The fact that he didn't take advantage of what could have been some excellent analysis is just inadequate. 
In short, this book is a compilation of what has already been said and done before. It added little to no new or interesting commentary to these excellent films.
I can't help but compare this book to a similar book I read earlier this year titled The Wisdom of Pixar by Robert Velarde. That book not only looked at Christian wisdom but philosophical wisdom and it took that knowledge and applied it to the Pixar movies. It dissected Pixar and showed where the gospel was hidden and what we as Christians or general audience can gain from it. This does not happen in The Gospel According to Disney and this is what I wanted and expected and I don't think I am alone in feeling this way.
Overall, this book wasn't very good. There were some interesting chapters about Walt himself and the Disney company outside the movies but it really was poorly structure otherwise. For what the book was going for, it wasn't a terrible book. It did a fair job at illustrating how Disney became the almost religious icon that it is today and explained the morals Disney films present that fans live by. But the glaring problems like the misleading title, the semi-present gospel analysis, and the consistent dull summaries were what I would expect from an amateur. I will give this book 2.5 out of 5 stars.

The Nostalgia Critic's Disneycember

Nothing gets me quite as excited as hearing the words, "Hello I'm the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it so you don't have to." The Nostalgia Critic is arguably the best YouTuber I've ever watched and indeed one of the best critics. His real name is Doug Walker and his black comedic and satirical reviews began in 2007. He reviews movies and TV from the 80's and 90's and man is he popular. I've always been a fan of his work but until recently I wasn't up to speed on all of his videos. I have since caught up quite a bit and can't get enough.

This month I am recommending Walker's series called Disneycember. The series started in December of 2011 and has been consistent series every December since. I guess I should put up a warning now that Walker's videos definitely contain more mature content and is not meant to be viewed by kids but by nostalgia adults. The content can be a bit racy. You have been warned. That being said, I freaking love how "adult" Walker's videos are. He doesn't hold back. He is just flat out honest and I love it. And it isn't just the "adult" language he uses to be honest but just his honesty in general. He states his opinions even if they are controversial or breaking away from the status quo and I respect that. He also makes very well rounded arguments and is open to people questioning his opinions to start conversation.

Walker's Nostalgia Critic reviews are hilarious. Disneycember strays away from the usual comedy though and just features Walker talking about the films and why he likes them or doesn't. And he doesn't BS when it comes to this stuff. You can tell her cares about these movies and has really thought hard about what he is going to say. His reviews are excellent, short and sweet. I definitely disagreed with him on certain aspects of the films but I loved his commentary. His genuine approach to Disney makes the viewer much more comfortable and open to what he is going to say.

Disneycember is a must watch. Check it out in the links below! I wonder if he will be doing another Disneycember series this year!?

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

A Christmas Carol is one of my favorite books and since we are talking about Mickey's Christmas Carol on Talk Magic to Me I figured it was appropriate to post my short review here on Disney Danielle. The review isn't that detailed so I will add that reading Dickens is always a treat and no author really compares. His writing style is magnificent and poignant in a way that isn't accomplished by writers in modern day. Original post: http://thereader101.blogspot.com/2012/12/reading-christmas-carol-by-charles.html

A Christmas Carol has to be one of Charles Dickens most famous works ever.  It is a staple at Christmastime to hear the story; whether it be from watching the many film adaptions, seeing it presented live on stage, hearing it read out loud in schools or in the household, or from reading the book itself, A Christmas Carol is all around us.  I grew up watching Mickey's Christmas Carol on ABC every December.  I remember all kinds of fun Disney specials playing on TV after Disney Michael Eisner introduced them with Mickey Mouse himself (or sometimes Goofy).  It was a Christmas tradition for us to watch these Disney specials.  To this day I still love Mickey's Christmas Carol and it never fails to bring tears to my eyes.  In seventh grade, my class read the play out loud which was not very fun.  It was then that I thought that A Christmas Carol was written as a play and not a book as I had always thought.  Luckily, I found the actual book a few months ago in a thrift store and bought it so that I could finally read it myself this Christmas. 

I loved this book.  Charles Dickens is truly a masterful writer and storyteller...not that I ever doubted he was.  The classic story tells the tale of Mr. Scrooge who hates merriment and Christmas.  He is snapped out of his funk when his old business partner Jacob Marley who has long since been dead for seven years returns as a ghost and tells Scrooge that he will be visited by three spirits - the ghost of Christmas part, present, and future.  After Scrooge sees his life from these three spirits, he changes his ways and stops his obsession with money. I think my favorite line of the story was said by Tiny Tim and it is not "God Bless us everyone" though that is a close second.  The excerpt I love is this: “'And how did little Tim behave?' asked Mrs Cratchit, when she had rallied Bob on his credulity and Bob had hugged his daughter to his heart’s content.  'As good as gold,' said Bob, 'and better. Somehow he gets thoughtful, sitting by himself so much, and thinks the strangest things you ever heard. He told me, coming home, that he hoped the people saw him in the church, because he was a cripple, and it might be pleasant to them to remember upon Christmas Day, who made lame beggars walk, and blind men see.'"
I won't be able to say this enough, I love this book.  It has been added to my favorites!  I will most definitely give it a 5 out of 5 stars!