The Legend Of Rah And The Muggles: Final Assessment
ZeldaQueen: Hello everyone, time for my ultimate review and thoughts on The Legend of Rah and the Muggles. And before I begin, I'd like to direct everyone's attention to the comments section of the last sporking, in which kawaiicow rote a lovely, lovely spitefic about Zyn and the stupid situation he was left in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Characters
These folks are all being lumped together because none of them are around long enough, not even the hero or villain.
So, let us begin with Rah and Zyn. Um, what can you say about them? It's pretty clear from the get-go which one is the author's pet and which one is the whipping boy. And aside from that, nothing. None of them have any interesting traits, none of them have any interesting backstory, none of them have anything at all! Rah is the utterly bland "good boy", who basically does what he's told and gets a pat on the head and of course is never corrupted or or tempted to do wrong. Zyn is a two-dimensional "fallen villain" who is the only one who is halfway believable and is the bad guy...because the author tells us so.
Now, I know what Stouffer was going for with those two - the usual Cain and Abel tale with the two close brothers, one of whom falls from grace and goes on a downward spiral that no one can prevent. Except that she then proceeds to skip the attempts to prevent it. How are we supposed to believe that Rah and Zyn were once close if they never act like it? If anything, Zyn comes across as the most sympathetic! At least he puts forward an effort to save Rah when his brother's in trouble, which is more than Rah could say.
Of course, there's also the fact that Rah is just boring. Plain and simple, long and short, that's it. He's a goody two-shoes who doesn't get in trouble, but he doesn't do anything else. He's the sort of kid that parents tell their children to be like, not the sort that children would want to read about. In a way, I'm reminded of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, specifically how the parents always told their children to be more like the "model boy", Willie Mufferson, yet the kids all preferred to hang around with the homeless and wild Huckleberry Finn. This is probably worst in the treasure-hunting chapter. Zyn is painted as a jerk for daring to want to explore an old cave and claim a box of treasure inside, while Rah meekly keeps insisting that they should leave, for no reason. Which do you think kids are going to sympathize with? And of course, it's all capped off with Zyn being scolded for causing trouble, even though he didn't know anything bad was in there!
And then, of course, there are the Muggles. Dear God, how I hate them. Seriously, they are all interchangeable, unmemorable, and not particularly likable. They're all thrown at us one after the other, disappearing and reappearing as the plot demands. I guess it makes sense that they all like Rah better, since they themselves are equally bland and boring. But as much as Stouffer tries to write them as whimsical and sweet and perpetually happy, they still almost come off as sinister. Because for all of the "terrible" things that Zyn does - steal their stuff, attack them, beat their children into submission to become his lackeys - they don't do a thing to stop it. The apparently are perfectly fine to sit around and be injured and robbed and let their family members be corrupted and bitter. Oh, Stouffer tries to make us think that they also care, but there's still no evidence of it! Like Rah, none of them make the slightest effort to look out for or help the Nevils (THERE OWN FAMILY AND FRIENDS, I CAN'T STRESS THAT ENOUGH!!!), let alone Zyn. In a way, it feels like both sides are horrible cults, with Zyn and the Nevils being some abusive, self-destructive rebel group and Rah and the Muggles being a sort of group of lotus eaters. They sit around and are happy, happy, happy and don't lift a finger to help anyone who doesn't fit into their sunny little world.
Last of all, there are the other characters. Lady Catherine and Walter and her palace staff, the myriad of talking animals, Naddie and Neddie, all of those folks. And the verdict is? I don't care. I honestly don't. Like I said before, Stouffer did some lame and very heavy-handed attempts to give us characterization for them all, but it still doesn't matter. They all come in and out of the story to suit the plot and are never heard from again. I don't care if they live or die or suffer or live happily ever after. And really, that's just sad.
The Story
Seriously, it sucked. Really, really sucked.
Plot-wise, there was little that was actually there. At the heart, it was your run-of-the-mill Cain and Abel story, and while retellings can be quite interesting, it really only works if the author puts their own spin on things. But like I said above, there's none of that. All the story is about is Rah being Good and Zyn being Bad and nothing else - no reasons for this, no external forces to contend with, nothing. In a way, it's more of a fantasy-based experiment, with seeing how children deal with being given different amounts of praise and attention. But still, the fact remains, it's bland.
The writing style is just inconsistent. As I mentioned before, has a bizarre inability to remain in the same tense while describing things. The plot is always put on hold while everything "important" gets a brief and utterly pointless infodump, when gradually introducing character traits would work so much better. And there's also the fact that Stouffer tarries far too long on pointless scenes and details that don't add to the plot at all, yet gloss over what is interesting or relevant. Hint - readers care more about a kidnapping than a croquet game and the "antics" of some old folk.
I'm also not entirely sure what Stouffer's intended audience was. On her site, she at one point said it was for ages six to twelve. I find it impossible to imagine that a twelve-year-old would be interested in such a bland and simplistic writing style though, and imagine that six-year-olds would either not comprehend or be utterly terrified by the nuclear holocaust in the prologue. There's also the matter of the whole political aspect she put in the prologue, which I imagine is supposed to be social commentary, except that I don't think anyone but adults would understand it. And I doubt any sane adult would want to read this.
There's also the teensy problem with the genre, namely that it switches tracks like a train that hit a penny on the rails. The prologue has rather nasty descriptions of what's going on and an extremely heavy-handed political feel, only for the next chapter to feel like it were copied from a harlequin romance novel, transitioning into some Moses-in-the-bulrushes-esque tale as the twins are sent away. After that, we get a period of "cutsey" stuff which is closest to what she was going for, I expect, but then we ultimately get divided between that and Zyn and his crew talking and behaving like delinquents in a stereotypical James Dean movie. There is very little rhyme or reason to this and it just makes it harder to figure out the intended audience. I can't imagine children enjoying the prologue, but I also see adults getting fed up with the cutesy stuff.
That's not even going into the time line and how utterly, utterly wonky it is. I honestly would have had no clue how old Rah and Zyn were supposed to be if it weren't for a few scraps thrown in. Nor does it even touch on the myriad of inconsistencies or plot holes, a good many of which were just plain carelessness (salt water in burn wounds, anyone?) Seriously, it's one thing to screw up stuff like radiation or evolution (granted, Stouffer's screw-ups are rather extreme), but how long a person can go without food? The effects of salt in burn wounds? The survival rate for babies that are adrift in the ocean? Seriously? Most of that stuff's just common knowledge!
Granted, there are a lot of things I am willing to cut the book slack for. Talking animals? Lakes that taste like lemonade? Magical moss? I can deal with all of those things in a fantasy book. But then it is all mixed up with things that don't make sense and I don't want to give slack for. For example, saying that there is a group of creatures called Muggles that live in a far-off land? I'll buy it. That Muggles used to be normal people, mutated by a cloud of radiation within five hundred years? Yeah...no.
One other huge point I feel I ought to mention - setting. We never get it. We're only told that it mostly takes place in Aura on the "far side of the world". We're never told what world or what time. Is it Earth in an alternate dimension? Earth in the far future? An Earth-like planet? Again, I realize that setting in relation to ourselves is often skipped in fantasy novels, but we're also told that this world has Shakespeare and Pachobelle's Canon. So...huh?
As for the entire lawsuit factor, bull I say. Besides the usual "boy is orphaned and grows up to become great" theme, which is very popular in storytelling, there is very little that reminds me of Harry Potter. Even less than that, if one takes into account that Rah is possibly the most inactive and unheroic character I've ever met, especially in regards to Harry. In an interview, Stouffer explained her position as such.
"If someone else came out with Mickey Mouse and it looked like a mouse and marketed in the same arena as Disney, Disney would file suit and claim infringement. That's all I'm saying.
There can't be two Pokemons and two Mickey Mouses. I'm saying there can't be two Muggles who raise orphan boys."
ZeldaQueen: Except by that logic, it would only work if Rowling's Muggles were also tiny, grey Telletubbie things. One could just as well say that Stouffer ripped off the Egyptian god Rah, since there can't be two men who bring light to people and are held in extremely high regard.
To end this assessment on a laugh, this is what Stouffer said in the same interview, about what her books were about.
"My book is not exactly like Rowlings, although there are similar characters. Mine is a softer approach to children's lit. They are a true old-fashioned fairy tale.
"Rah and the Muggles" is about sibling rivalry and the consequences."
ZeldaQueen: Ignoring the fact that she somehow switches to the plural in regards to her books (at least I think that's what she's switching to the plural about), "softer approach"? When one opens their book with a heavy political agenda and the casual telling of a nuclear holocaust causing an entire population to mutate into little Uncanny Valley horrors, one can't really talk about "softer" themes. Also "similar characters"? Like who, exactly? Harry is nothing like Rah, Ron is nothing like Zyn, there are no female characters beyond the Muggles and Lady Catherine, and none of them stick around long enough to leave an impression. As for "sibling rivalry and the consequences", yes that's true, if you define "rivalry" as "one sibling goes on a horrible downward spiral of depression and the other looks at the sky and whistles". The consequences, as best I can see them, are "if you deviate from the norm in any way, you will turn into an evil terrorist and wind up starving on an island. If you do what you're told and fit the mold, you'll be happy, healthy, and do everything right". What a great lesson Stouffer! Thanks!
And as a parting gift, I leave you all with the list Stouffer put together, of other things Rowling "plagiarized". This was taken off of her site at some point in time, so enjoy!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZeldaQueen: Well, that's over, thank God.
Projection Room Voices: Well, not much time for rest. Your next assignment has already been selected.
ZeldaQueen: It has? What is it?
Projection Room Voices: Did you check the date?
ZeldaQueen: *checks her watch* Oh bugger, that one!
Projection Room Voices: Yes. Are you prepared?
ZeldaQueen: Oh yeah. I do believe I get our two newest for help. Are They ready?
Projection Room Voices: They should be.
ZeldaQueen: This week - sporking gets a whole lot rougher. *cracks knuckles*
Onward to: Author Talk
Back to: Character Glossary/Author Information
Back to: Table of Contents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Characters
These folks are all being lumped together because none of them are around long enough, not even the hero or villain.
So, let us begin with Rah and Zyn. Um, what can you say about them? It's pretty clear from the get-go which one is the author's pet and which one is the whipping boy. And aside from that, nothing. None of them have any interesting traits, none of them have any interesting backstory, none of them have anything at all! Rah is the utterly bland "good boy", who basically does what he's told and gets a pat on the head and of course is never corrupted or or tempted to do wrong. Zyn is a two-dimensional "fallen villain" who is the only one who is halfway believable and is the bad guy...because the author tells us so.
Now, I know what Stouffer was going for with those two - the usual Cain and Abel tale with the two close brothers, one of whom falls from grace and goes on a downward spiral that no one can prevent. Except that she then proceeds to skip the attempts to prevent it. How are we supposed to believe that Rah and Zyn were once close if they never act like it? If anything, Zyn comes across as the most sympathetic! At least he puts forward an effort to save Rah when his brother's in trouble, which is more than Rah could say.
Of course, there's also the fact that Rah is just boring. Plain and simple, long and short, that's it. He's a goody two-shoes who doesn't get in trouble, but he doesn't do anything else. He's the sort of kid that parents tell their children to be like, not the sort that children would want to read about. In a way, I'm reminded of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, specifically how the parents always told their children to be more like the "model boy", Willie Mufferson, yet the kids all preferred to hang around with the homeless and wild Huckleberry Finn. This is probably worst in the treasure-hunting chapter. Zyn is painted as a jerk for daring to want to explore an old cave and claim a box of treasure inside, while Rah meekly keeps insisting that they should leave, for no reason. Which do you think kids are going to sympathize with? And of course, it's all capped off with Zyn being scolded for causing trouble, even though he didn't know anything bad was in there!
And then, of course, there are the Muggles. Dear God, how I hate them. Seriously, they are all interchangeable, unmemorable, and not particularly likable. They're all thrown at us one after the other, disappearing and reappearing as the plot demands. I guess it makes sense that they all like Rah better, since they themselves are equally bland and boring. But as much as Stouffer tries to write them as whimsical and sweet and perpetually happy, they still almost come off as sinister. Because for all of the "terrible" things that Zyn does - steal their stuff, attack them, beat their children into submission to become his lackeys - they don't do a thing to stop it. The apparently are perfectly fine to sit around and be injured and robbed and let their family members be corrupted and bitter. Oh, Stouffer tries to make us think that they also care, but there's still no evidence of it! Like Rah, none of them make the slightest effort to look out for or help the Nevils (THERE OWN FAMILY AND FRIENDS, I CAN'T STRESS THAT ENOUGH!!!), let alone Zyn. In a way, it feels like both sides are horrible cults, with Zyn and the Nevils being some abusive, self-destructive rebel group and Rah and the Muggles being a sort of group of lotus eaters. They sit around and are happy, happy, happy and don't lift a finger to help anyone who doesn't fit into their sunny little world.
Last of all, there are the other characters. Lady Catherine and Walter and her palace staff, the myriad of talking animals, Naddie and Neddie, all of those folks. And the verdict is? I don't care. I honestly don't. Like I said before, Stouffer did some lame and very heavy-handed attempts to give us characterization for them all, but it still doesn't matter. They all come in and out of the story to suit the plot and are never heard from again. I don't care if they live or die or suffer or live happily ever after. And really, that's just sad.
The Story
Seriously, it sucked. Really, really sucked.
Plot-wise, there was little that was actually there. At the heart, it was your run-of-the-mill Cain and Abel story, and while retellings can be quite interesting, it really only works if the author puts their own spin on things. But like I said above, there's none of that. All the story is about is Rah being Good and Zyn being Bad and nothing else - no reasons for this, no external forces to contend with, nothing. In a way, it's more of a fantasy-based experiment, with seeing how children deal with being given different amounts of praise and attention. But still, the fact remains, it's bland.
The writing style is just inconsistent. As I mentioned before, has a bizarre inability to remain in the same tense while describing things. The plot is always put on hold while everything "important" gets a brief and utterly pointless infodump, when gradually introducing character traits would work so much better. And there's also the fact that Stouffer tarries far too long on pointless scenes and details that don't add to the plot at all, yet gloss over what is interesting or relevant. Hint - readers care more about a kidnapping than a croquet game and the "antics" of some old folk.
I'm also not entirely sure what Stouffer's intended audience was. On her site, she at one point said it was for ages six to twelve. I find it impossible to imagine that a twelve-year-old would be interested in such a bland and simplistic writing style though, and imagine that six-year-olds would either not comprehend or be utterly terrified by the nuclear holocaust in the prologue. There's also the matter of the whole political aspect she put in the prologue, which I imagine is supposed to be social commentary, except that I don't think anyone but adults would understand it. And I doubt any sane adult would want to read this.
There's also the teensy problem with the genre, namely that it switches tracks like a train that hit a penny on the rails. The prologue has rather nasty descriptions of what's going on and an extremely heavy-handed political feel, only for the next chapter to feel like it were copied from a harlequin romance novel, transitioning into some Moses-in-the-bulrushes-esque tale as the twins are sent away. After that, we get a period of "cutsey" stuff which is closest to what she was going for, I expect, but then we ultimately get divided between that and Zyn and his crew talking and behaving like delinquents in a stereotypical James Dean movie. There is very little rhyme or reason to this and it just makes it harder to figure out the intended audience. I can't imagine children enjoying the prologue, but I also see adults getting fed up with the cutesy stuff.
That's not even going into the time line and how utterly, utterly wonky it is. I honestly would have had no clue how old Rah and Zyn were supposed to be if it weren't for a few scraps thrown in. Nor does it even touch on the myriad of inconsistencies or plot holes, a good many of which were just plain carelessness (salt water in burn wounds, anyone?) Seriously, it's one thing to screw up stuff like radiation or evolution (granted, Stouffer's screw-ups are rather extreme), but how long a person can go without food? The effects of salt in burn wounds? The survival rate for babies that are adrift in the ocean? Seriously? Most of that stuff's just common knowledge!
Granted, there are a lot of things I am willing to cut the book slack for. Talking animals? Lakes that taste like lemonade? Magical moss? I can deal with all of those things in a fantasy book. But then it is all mixed up with things that don't make sense and I don't want to give slack for. For example, saying that there is a group of creatures called Muggles that live in a far-off land? I'll buy it. That Muggles used to be normal people, mutated by a cloud of radiation within five hundred years? Yeah...no.
One other huge point I feel I ought to mention - setting. We never get it. We're only told that it mostly takes place in Aura on the "far side of the world". We're never told what world or what time. Is it Earth in an alternate dimension? Earth in the far future? An Earth-like planet? Again, I realize that setting in relation to ourselves is often skipped in fantasy novels, but we're also told that this world has Shakespeare and Pachobelle's Canon. So...huh?
As for the entire lawsuit factor, bull I say. Besides the usual "boy is orphaned and grows up to become great" theme, which is very popular in storytelling, there is very little that reminds me of Harry Potter. Even less than that, if one takes into account that Rah is possibly the most inactive and unheroic character I've ever met, especially in regards to Harry. In an interview, Stouffer explained her position as such.
"If someone else came out with Mickey Mouse and it looked like a mouse and marketed in the same arena as Disney, Disney would file suit and claim infringement. That's all I'm saying.
There can't be two Pokemons and two Mickey Mouses. I'm saying there can't be two Muggles who raise orphan boys."
ZeldaQueen: Except by that logic, it would only work if Rowling's Muggles were also tiny, grey Telletubbie things. One could just as well say that Stouffer ripped off the Egyptian god Rah, since there can't be two men who bring light to people and are held in extremely high regard.
To end this assessment on a laugh, this is what Stouffer said in the same interview, about what her books were about.
"My book is not exactly like Rowlings, although there are similar characters. Mine is a softer approach to children's lit. They are a true old-fashioned fairy tale.
"Rah and the Muggles" is about sibling rivalry and the consequences."
ZeldaQueen: Ignoring the fact that she somehow switches to the plural in regards to her books (at least I think that's what she's switching to the plural about), "softer approach"? When one opens their book with a heavy political agenda and the casual telling of a nuclear holocaust causing an entire population to mutate into little Uncanny Valley horrors, one can't really talk about "softer" themes. Also "similar characters"? Like who, exactly? Harry is nothing like Rah, Ron is nothing like Zyn, there are no female characters beyond the Muggles and Lady Catherine, and none of them stick around long enough to leave an impression. As for "sibling rivalry and the consequences", yes that's true, if you define "rivalry" as "one sibling goes on a horrible downward spiral of depression and the other looks at the sky and whistles". The consequences, as best I can see them, are "if you deviate from the norm in any way, you will turn into an evil terrorist and wind up starving on an island. If you do what you're told and fit the mold, you'll be happy, healthy, and do everything right". What a great lesson Stouffer! Thanks!
And as a parting gift, I leave you all with the list Stouffer put together, of other things Rowling "plagiarized". This was taken off of her site at some point in time, so enjoy!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZeldaQueen: Well, that's over, thank God.
Projection Room Voices: Well, not much time for rest. Your next assignment has already been selected.
ZeldaQueen: It has? What is it?
Projection Room Voices: Did you check the date?
ZeldaQueen: *checks her watch* Oh bugger, that one!
Projection Room Voices: Yes. Are you prepared?
ZeldaQueen: Oh yeah. I do believe I get our two newest for help. Are They ready?
Projection Room Voices: They should be.
ZeldaQueen: This week - sporking gets a whole lot rougher. *cracks knuckles*
Onward to: Author Talk
Back to: Character Glossary/Author Information
Back to: Table of Contents