1. notleia says:

    I have mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand, it’s mostly preaching to the choir. On the other hand, it says some things that make me facepalm. That bit about the Creator God and evolution, does that mean we have yet another Young Earth Creationist here to imply those of us who don’t think the Bible is a freakin’ science textbook are horrible Christians? And you know why people hate that do-nothing-and-pray cop-out? Because it’s a cop-out. It kills the action and more often than not is a segue to a lazy-looking deus ex machina.

    • I’d agree about the prayer trope, but not without drawing distinctions between a straight-up portrayal of prayer used more as characterization aid than plot device, a prayer which results in a plot advancement driven by previously-established plot elements, and a prayer which elicits a deus ex machina.  The third of these prayers is the one to avoid.  The first two are both realistic and useful for any skilled storyteller.

    • Kirsty says:

      But Christians (whatever their views on evolution) would not agree with the belief that ‘there is no creator God’.

      • notleia says:

        Yes, but his phrasing sets up a pretty distinct dichotomy between “believes evolution is true” and “‘Real’ Christians.”

        • Kirsty says:

          True. And that’s something young earth creationists should be very careful about doing. (Although to imply that all young earth creationists believe the Bible is a science textbook might be going just a tad far the other way 🙂  )

  2. Mike Duran says:

    James, I agree with your main point, that Christians should be free to show real evil in their stories, without being charged with being evil. The Bible contains many troubling, even horrific tales, but is still considered “the Holy Book.” It’s your side points that I’m struggling with. Does never presenting “a view of the world that contradicts God’s Word” really mean never having a character who believes in evolution… unless another character there to rebut them. Does never presenting “a view of the world that contradicts God’s Word” really mean never having zombies, because everyone knows the dead can’t come back to life? Seems like you’re taking the “speculative” right out of “speculative fiction.”

    • HG Ferguson says:

      And when we — Christians — do sometimes present a view of the world that is contrary to God’s Word, such as saying things like “May the Force be with you, His Name is Jesus,” it takes the word biblical right out of biblical speculative fiction.  Speculative it remains, but God isn’t interested in our speculations when they warp His Truth as found in the Scriptures.  “In those days there was no king in Israel, every man wrote what was right in his own eyes” should not said of us…
       

      • Hence that age-old question, which E. Stephen Burnett has resolutely chided us for ever, ever asking: “How much is too much?”
         
        How much speculation is okay before we begin to “warp the truth as found in the scriptures”? As spec-fic writers we must, by definition, be willing to perpetrate at least some warping. But when does innocent speculation cross the line into fundamental-reality-twisting? What’s important enough to portray accurately, and what can we afford to imagine differently? Which hills are expendable, and which should we die upon?
         
        In short, how much speculation is too much?

        • Alex Mellen says:

          Is something like Lord of the Rings too much? It has an alternate deity, magic and wizards, and some pretty awful evil. Very little in the books or movies scream “Christian,” yet we love this stuff. Why? Because of the heart, the worldview, of the writer, does shine through.

          Understanding that, what couldn’t we use to further our ends and our stories? –as long as we’re using it in a way that reflects our Christian worldview. A fellow writer friend of mine who doesn’t believe in evolution justified her use of it a few years ago. Her explanation? Maybe it’s real or not, but it’s a fantastic plot device (think of Jurassic Park or Prey). Thoughts?

          • “What couldn’t we use to further our ends and our stories? — as long as we’re using it in a way that reflects our Christian worldview.”

            Ah, but there’s the rub.  Whereas you and I look at The Lord of the Rings and see a work of deep beauty and majesty which glories in the virtues of courage and endurance and contains as its central theme the fact that the weapons of the Enemy cannot be used against him, others look at it and see a wizard.  A wizard!  A wizard, who’s supposed to be good!  Up pitchforks!

            But what about Tolkien’s work doesn’t “scream Christian” to us?  I would assert that Middle-earth, presided over as it is by an “alternate deity” who bears no mention in those books published during Tolkien’s lifetime, is a supremely “Christian” world.  It’s a world in which right and wrong are subject to neither strength of arms nor acuity of wit, but have been woven into the very fabric of existence.  A world steeped in supernatural power, whose fate nonetheless turns on the everyday choices made by ordinary, plain, unambitious people.  A world in which those who refuse to ally with evil “for a time” or to abandon hope altogether must as a consequence face withering opposition and endure excruciating ordeals.  But it’s also world in which such horrors are more than worth it, because it’s only “Middle-earth,” after all, and there are stars beyond the storm, and beauty undefiled, and still there awaits beyond the straight way a far green country under a swift sunrise.

            When we behold wonder of such staggering scope, reactionary justifications of “Oh, Gandalf’s not really a wizard per se — he’s more of an angelic being of the same order as Sauron, commissioned by the Valar to stymie evil after the reshaping of the world” feel small, petty, inconsequential.  If you don’t “get it,” if you don’t feel the sense of awe exuded by a story which draws you through the emotional totality of earthly human existence from the peaceful complacency of childhood to the bittersweet poignancy of departure and separation, then I have nothing to say to you.  You’ve missed the forest for the trees.  You’ve latched on to irrelevant nubs on the outward appearance instead of gazing upon the heart.

            (Not you, of course — I speak here to hypothetical pitchfork-wielders.)

            I still don’t have a foolproof means of measuring GQ (glorification quotient).  But maybe the example of Tolkien can serve as a useful benchmark in that regard.

          • Kirsty says:

            Is something like Lord of the Rings too much? It has an alternate deity…

            Isn’t Iluvatar supposed to be the Christian God, though. Set in a pre-Abraham time on the real earth (obviously completely speculative, and he’s not in any way suggesting it even could have been like that!). I read this somewhere, but I can’t remember if it was in something by or merely about Tolkien.

      • Well, my specific chiding was limited to the questions of supposedly sinful content. 😀 In fact I’m convinced that if we quit asking that lame question about pop-culture stories and media, the challenge actually gets tougher. It would be like breathing a sigh of relief after Jesus Christ uttered His challenge to the whole “you shall not commit adultery” thing, only to be shocked when He raises the bar even higher and says that even the slightest trace of a lustful thought = adultery. (Which of course only leads to our hopelessness, which must lead straight back to Him.)

        • But I don’t see how this is any different than a question of supposedly sinful content. In fact, I think it’s probably more important; thematic assumptions and theological implications make more of a long-term impression on readers than sex scenes and dismemberments. Where is the line? Why is it okay for me to portray a sinful mortal as a Christ-figure, but not okay to portray an impersonal force as such? Or is the former too much of a warping? The latter not warped enough to warrant preclusion? Who is to say?
           
          We all have opinions about the placement of the line. Mine are fairly strong. But that doesn’t mean this is a black-and-white issue. The question of how strongly our sub-creations should be governed by God’s actual creation is not straightforward, which is one of the reasons it drives a lot of well-meaning-yet-ignorant Christians away from our genre. The distinction between “healthy imagining” and “unhealthy imagining” is one of degree, not kind. How much can I speculate and still glorify God?

          • Kirsty says:

            [blockquote]Why is it okay for me to portray a sinful mortal as a Christ-figure, but not okay to portray an impersonal force as such?[/blockquote]
            The Bible does both, doesn’t it? Jesus’ parables often have sinful characters to represent some aspects of God. And then the Holy Spirit is represented by the wind or fire – which is an impersonal force.

  3. Ty Briggs says:

    “That bit about the Creator God and evolution, does that mean we have yet another Young Earth Creationist here to imply those of us who don’t think the Bible is a freakin’ science textbook are horrible Christians?”

    I’m sure he’s implying no such thing. In fact, I’d be willing to bet my lunch that by “evolution” he’s actually referring to philosophical naturalism. Many people use the term “evolution” in many different ways, from “change over time” to an “unguided, random, naturalistic explanation for the origin of life without the need for a creator”. 
    it would be inappropriate to debate theistic evolution here, but I think we can all agree that “God created the heavens and the earth” is a fundamental aspect of a biblical worldview and that philosophical naturalism (what I believe he means when he says “evolution”) is anti-thetical to that. 

  4. Kessie says:

    I’m amusing myself by writing a guy who is a devout Christian who is also a lich–his soul has been removed and sealed in a phylactery. That means his emotional state is reduced to shades of hatred. He’s found a treatment for it, but it’s a constant struggle not to lapse into becoming the evil being he’s supposed to be. (And the treatment that keeps him human is magic.)
     
    I giggle to think what Christians will think of this. Although I won’t be marketing to them anyway.

  5. Julie D says:

    Out of curiosity, what is the main premise of Fallen? The cover image makes me think of stereotypical paranormal romance with HAWT fallen angels

    • notleia says:

      Apparently there is a hawt teenage angel romance book by that name, but it’s by some person named Lauren Kate. The Amazon summary sounds like a bunch of angsty blorf. This guy’s “Fallen,” however, sounds kinda fantastical steampunkish. Or at least it has a strong probability of being steampunk since it’s set in Victorian England and has vampires and werewolves in it. But it’s free on Kindle now. I think I’ve found my next review subject.

What do you think?