Note: After several friends challenged me to read the book again (I assume they wanted me to upgrade The Shack to five stars), I indeed read it a second time. As a result, I downgraded it another star. There are things I noticed the second time I didn't the first.

Added to my review below are several more specific drawbacks of the book. Unfortunately, every one of these would have been pointed out by first or second year writing students, which simply reiterates my main point below: Shame on you Wayne Jacobsen for ruining a good book by not bothering enough to edit this properly. Simply because you wanted another "anti-organized-church" book on the market, and probably saw this as a vehicle (not a good one for that purpose either) is not an excuse for allowing the following:

1. Sloppy synonyms: No one outside of bodice-rippers uses the word "visage" for "face". I lost count how many times this word is used. It is an example of the author reaching for the thesaurus when he got bored. Elementary writing classes teach "In dialogue, use the words "he said" instead of "he opined" or other such synonyms". I would gladly pay for Young to take a writing course in lieu of Jacobsen editing another of his books.

2. Inconsistencies of plot: In one scene, the narrator - who is supposedly writing down what the main character told him - tells us what is playing on the television while the main character is passed out. How can he possibly know this? Second, why does it matter? The plot is full of these little annoying inconsistencies. The biggest and most annoying is this vague reference to a possible murder of his father. Couldn't the boy just run away from home? Did he really have to spike the dad's beer with rat poison? Did the dad die? If he does, why haven't the police come after him? If he doesn't, what is he apologizing for in the great forgiveness sequence? As I said, these inconsistencies are glaring.

3. I re-read one paragraph where the author uses nine similes! Two of them concern tears and are in the same sentence. Someone please sit this author down and explain that similes and metaphors are to open windows. We don't need an entire glass factory delivered to us every page.

4. I listened to an interview with the author. He explained that this book started out as a transcription of conversations between him and God and that the story was a convenient way of bringing those conversations to light. That makes sense. It also explains why the conversations go on and on and on and on. The plot stops every time there is an elongated conversation. Mr. Young, please read the Chronicles of Narnia and see how to write a half-page dialogue that says more by saying less.

Unfortunately, this is only the start of what is beginning to annoy me about a book that I wanted to like. Read below for my full review.

**********************************



So many of my friends have recommended this book that I knew I would read it and feel strongly about it. That's an understatement. There are no Spoilers in this review.

Before I began reading I wanted so much to like this book. Partly because I respected the friends who recommended it and partly because this is the author's first book. As some of you know, I personally believe that most authors have one great book in them and it is often their first (see Tracy Chevalier and J. K. Rowling). That is why I was somewhat disappointed with my reading of the first few chapters. The writer could have used a ghost writer to clean up his prose. He overwrites like a young author. Specifically, he uses too many deliberate similes and altogether too many adjectives. In fact, on the same page he uses three different similes to describe the wind. Can it really be a food group and a sigh at the same time? I digress.

He also gets "cutsie" with his description of the main character Mack. The author needs to choose a voice to speak from. The third person omnipotent is not working for him. If you're not familiar with that POV, it is the tendency to describe what every character is thinking. Usually writers choose third person specific, meaning they know the thoughts of only one person. But later the author figures this out and sticks with the main character and lets him discover the story as it happens. So, I guess my only real criticism is that the author is not a tremendously skilled writer.

Therefore, a quarter of the way through the book I was ready to be done with it. Then I was delightfully surprised by what happened next. It seems he did an about-face as soon as he came to the kernel of the story. After the tragedy that forms the spine of the tale, he tightens up the writing and I never noticed the shortcomings after that. It is like the author himself really just wanted to get to this point in the story and realized the book wouldn't make sense and would be too short without the introductory part. So be it. From this point on, I was enthralled. His meeting with God and the subsequent discoveries of God's character and the meaning of the events he has recently lived are some of the best theology ever implanted in a story. At one point near the end I actually was in tears. It may be 20 years back to the last time a book brought me to tears. I ended the book totally satisfied.

If I may take one or two more liberties in criticizing a book I really enjoyed. As much as I enjoyed the folksy presentation of God in this story, there are parts that don't ring true. Holy Spirit still feels ethereal and standoffish. Wisdom's speeches are canned and the meals get repetitive. Major editing could have made this one of the great books of Christianity. Also, I doubt anyone outside Christianity will read past the first few chapters. That's a pity, but it is true. It is not written well enough and there are still too many obviously contrived parts to the plot to make it seem real to someone who is bent on criticizing Christian writers.

Some of my friends who love this book will really be annoyed that I am being over-analytical. But that is what a proper book review is about. These things need to be said in order to balance the attitude which says we must lift up anything with a good message. This is a phenomenal message hiding in a depressingly poor package.