If You Want To Make God Laugh…

So last month, I spent a Monday night seated in front of my computer. My wife would tell you that this, in and of itself, is not unusual. But that particular night, I was watching the liveblog for the Christy […]
on Jul 2, 2014 · 6 comments

Numb-CoverSo last month, I spent a Monday night seated in front of my computer. My wife would tell you that this, in and of itself, is not unusual. But that particular night, I was watching the liveblog for the Christy Awards. As some of you may know, my book, Numb, was up for a Christy in the Visionary category and I was waiting to find out what happened. Last year, when my debut novel, Failstate, was up for a Christy, I made the trek down to St. Louis for the awards ceremony. This year, due to finances and scheduling concerns, I wasn’t able to go. But I did want to find out what happened.

I knew I faced some stiff competition in Patrick Carr’s A Cast of Stones and Anne Elisabeth Stengl’s Dragonwitch. Personally, my money was on Patrick’s book. That isn’t a knock on Anne’s work; there’s a reason why she won this year. But even though I had a pretty good idea that my name would not be called at the awards ceremony, I still had to write an acceptance speech just in case!

Don’t worry, I’m not going to whip it out and force you to read it.

I will say, though, that this proved to be a bit of a challenge. If you haven’t noticed by now, I have a bit of a self-deprecating, sardonic sense of humor that kind of bubbles up in a lot of what I write. But I was worried that if I tried to include that in my speech, it would come off wrong, especially since someone else would have to read it for me. In the end, I stuck to a very short speech that hit the necessary points.

But now I faced a new challenge: who would read the speech on my behalf should the extremely unlikely occur?

My first thought was to ask my intrepid agent, Amanda Luedeke, to do the honors. But, it turns out, she wasn’t going to be there. So my next choice was Steve Laube, the current owner and publisher of Marcher Lord Press…er, Enclave Publishing. It makes sense. Numb is a part of his offerings and he would be there. Steve graciously agreed.

And so that Monday night, I waited. I waited, and tried very hard not to laugh myself silly.

See, the closer the time came to find out who would take home the honors, the more a sense of absurd irony overwhelmed me. And to explain why, I need to rewind about five years and tell you about the nicest rejection letter I ever received.

Five years ago, I was still pounding on doors, trying to find someone who would check out my books. I was attending ACFW conferences to meet with editors and agents, hoping that one of them would give me a chance. Five years ago, I was pitching this little science fiction story I had created, a book called Numb. And, much to my delight, the project got a nibble, a request to see the full manuscript. After putting one final polish on it, I sent it off with a prayer and my fingers crossed.

A month later, I received this:

Dear John,

Thank you for sending us your proposal for our review. While your project exhibits merit it is not quite what we are looking for at this time.

This is a clever story. It may be that you should seek the services of a general market agent who can put your stories in front of the editors of DAW or Ace or DelRey with more success.

The reviews came back with the comment of “overwritten.” I think the comment has some merit. It feels like you are trying too hard.

Note the pages I returned with the name “Crusader” circled. This is a craft issue and is highlighted because of his unusual name. But repeating it so often on page three is a problem. Also note that Crusader has dropped, slunk, pressed, dove, calmly spun, waited, emerged, surveyed and peeked…all on one page.

The immense number of proposals we receive, our full client list, and the intense nature of the competition in the marketplace causes us to be highly selective.

Up until that point, I had only received generic “no thank yous” when submitting materials. This was the first rejection letter with a personal message, and a somewhat positive one at that. In spite of the (admittedly spot on) criticism of the overwritten nature, this one rejection letter gave me enough hope to keep trying, specifically with a story about a teenage superhero competing on a reality TV show.

So who was it who sent me this? Why, none other than Steve Laube, the very man who could possibly be accepting a Christy Award for the book he rejected.

Bizarre. Ironic. Deliciously ridiculous. Delishculous? Can I trademark that one?

Now I’m not sharing this with you to embarrass Steve in any way. Like I said, I understand why he rejected Numb when he did. He was right to do it. It wasn’t ready yet. I hadn’t learned enough. That’s probably still true.

But if you had told me five years ago that I’d be reading a Live Blog, waiting to see if the book that had once been rejected would win an award, one that would be accepted by the guy who did the rejecting in the first place, I’d have laughed in your face. Obviously, though, God had different plans.

I once had a bumper sticker on my car that read, “If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans.” I normally don’t try to derive my theology from pithy statements on the back of a rusty bumper, but this one is true. We often get it into our heads that things are going to be one way when God intends to have it a different way. And when His plans unfold, sometimes the only thing you can do is laugh along with Him.

Why Does Romance Dominate Christian Fiction?

There is an inherent discontinuity between the Christian Faith and fiction.
on Jul 1, 2014 · 55 comments

256px-"Flirt_au_Bord_de_la_Mer"_by_Hippolyte_Lucas,_Casino_Monte_Carlo,_Riviera,_ca._1895Like the secular market, the romance genre is big in the Christian market. More than big. It is fiction’s bread and butter among Christian publishing companies.

Unlike the secular market, however, speculative fiction, while growing in recent years, is still a small percent of published Christian fiction. Why the disparity?

I suspect the reason is foundational.

There is an inherent discontinuity between the Christian Faith and fiction. No, I’m not referring to the idea that “fiction is a lie” often touted by opponents of Christian fiction.

Before you stone me, allow me to explain.

In fiction, it is a well-established convention that a story’s protagonist, or a main character, must actively do something that resolves the primary conflict(s). Readers feel let down when a lucky break, unknown power/technology, or third party comes in to save the day.

Meanwhile the Gospel says we can’t save ourselves. God, ultimately, is in charge and will save us. I touched upon that topic last November concerning the difficulty that Christian fiction has avoiding God being used in a deux ex machina fashion.

One might counter, “But God redeems us from the Fall. It doesn’t mean God is our superhero who will rescue us from every problem.”

Very true. I’m not suggesting that a story’s conflict is the same as that of the Gospel message, despite what the “name it, claim it” theology might suggest. However, I think it is an equal error to assume they are not linked. God is not only interested in redeeming us from Hell, but in having a relationship with us as a person. That is the heart of the Gospel, to enable us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. (Mark 12:30)

As a result, God being invested in the Christian’s life is inherent to the Christian faith. That God wants what is best for us, and out of love will help us when we need it, is supported biblically. (Luke 11:10-13)

The problem arises in that the more an author shows God involved in the life of a protagonist, the less the protagonist is involved in solving his own conflict. The more God stays out of it so the protagonist can fend for himself, the more uncaring and deistic God is depicted.

There is, however, one type of fiction conflict that doesn’t run into this problem: conflict found in romance fiction.

In romance, external conflicts don’t exist or are only to enable the inner and relational conflicts, which take center stage. Those kinds of conflicts don’t violate God’s involvement in our lives since God doesn’t force someone to love God and their neighbor. It is usually up to the characters to resolve those issues.

Which may explain why romance dominates Christian fiction. Speculative fiction, which tends to be as dependent upon external conflict as it is upon internal/relational conflict, if not more so, runs aground on the conflicting expectations between the Gospel and an engaging story.

It could also explain why when a message dictates a story, it tends to emasculate the plot. When the purpose is to show that God is the answer to whatever the protagonist faces, the plot revolves around the characters learning to rely upon God in order to solve the conflict. This tends to make external conflict, a primary ingredient in most speculative fiction, inconsequential to the plot; only there to enable the internal conflict like in romances.

Is there any way for a story to incorporate both elements? What is the line a plot can walk and satisfy both the depiction of God as caring and keep the resolution dependent upon the decisions and actions of the main characters?

One answer lies in how God has historically interacted with His creation. He almost always works through someone in creation rather than as an independent force from heaven.

God used Abraham, Moses, the kings of Israel, the nations of the world as His means of delivering redemption, judgment, mercy, and miracles.

Even to realize the Gospel, it took God becoming man in Jesus Christ to not only deliver the message, but to affect our salvation. Lest anyone think that only Jesus could do the miracles He did, He reminded us that we would do greater works. (John 14:12)

God using human instruments to work in our world means operating through a story’s characters, not doing an end run around them. This involves characters growth in God, learning to use the gifts God has given them, and struggling with the responsibility as so many in Scriptures did.

God’s presence and power becomes more a part of the world building than as a character acting individually. Not as in a deistic set of rules we can use to manipulate Him like we might electricity, but a relational consistency built into the fabric of the story’s world.

In that way, God rarely butts in and acts independently, but through a character who has to make the decisions and actions to make God’s will a reality. The protagonist remains the superhero, but God becomes the super resource that makes him a hero.

In using discernment, it is important to evaluate even such foundational elements that can send contrary messages about who God is. This isn’t to suggest we avoid such stories, but to be aware of the dynamic for our own discernment.

How big a problem do you believe this is, if at all? What other possible solutions do you know that projects an accurate picture of God while still making an active protagonist?

The Availability And Benefits Of Short Fiction

You can discover new authors who might become your next Favorite Author by reading their short stories. And your investment in time is minimal.
on Jun 30, 2014 · 8 comments

Splickety's Avily Jerome and Ben Wolf at the 2014 Realm Makers Conference

Splickety’s Avily Jerome and Ben Wolf at the 2014 Realm Makers Conference

For many Christians who love speculative fiction, there simply can’t be enough, and yet finding good stories may be problematic. Often we can’t afford to buy books if we aren’t sure they’re the type we enjoy. Hence, we rely on the tried and true. We buy Favorite Author’s books and perhaps books produced by Favorite Speculative Publisher. And that’s it.

But what about the other eight hundred or so Christian speculative books that are on the market? Might there not be some good books in the bunch? Undoubtedly so. But how to find them.

One way, of course, is to use the SpecFaith Library resource and hunt down books—based on genre, cover, story description, or key words—which you might like, then click on the Amazon link next to each and read an excerpt.

Another plan is more circuitous and long term: how about starting with short fiction? For some time, Christian speculative fiction has been available via free digital magazines on the Internet. Mindflights was one quite popular publication which had merged two others: The Swords Review and Dragon, Knights, and Angels. Others took a less overt Christian and more science fiction approach. Ray Gun Revival was one such publication, Residential Aliens, another.

More recently Digital Dragon made a foray into the world of online Christian speculative stories. None of these has lasted, however, in part because they don’t have a sustainable income. Consequently the editing falls to volunteers who come and go or to the editor-in-chief who ends up doing all the work and eventually wearing out or moving on to other venues, depending on his or her career path.

Does that mean these ventures were all busts? I don’t think so at all. In the first place, these sites offered writers a place to test the waters, to see if their stories measured up, to see if they’d be accepted for publication. Furthermore, they offered readers a place to find stories they wanted to read–fantasy or science fiction stories which had a Christian worldview or Christian characters or a Christian theme.

Now here comes the circuitous route I mentioned earlier—the method readers can use to find the good books they want. Many of the authors of online short stories are novelists. They write short fiction to hone their craft AND to develop an audience. In other words, you can discover new authors who might become your next Favorite Author by reading their short stories. And your investment in time is minimal.

Splickety Publishing Group logoA new, not-Christian-but-created-by-Christians publication came out a few years ago. Splickety Magazine has since developed into the Splickety Publishing Group, with three imprints catering to different genres. One, Havok, specializes in speculative fiction:

Havok is the premier publication for speculative flash fiction. We publish stories in the following genres (but this is not an exhaustive list): science fiction, fantasy, steampunk, cyberpunk, paranormal, supernatural, horror, techno-thriller, superhero, and more.

Havok_coverThe good thing and the bad thing about the Splickety publications is that they have found a way to be self-sustaining: they solicit advertising AND they charge for subscriptions. In other words, these online and/or print magazines are not the free content of yesteryear. However, they are quite affordable. A digital subscription to Havok, which comes out quarterly, costs $9.95, or approximately $2.50 an issue.

While there are some ebooks or e-novellas available for a comparable price, the beauty of a short-story publication is the variety and the number of authors with whom you can become acquainted.

In addition, Splickety publishes a Lightning Blog containing articles, announcements, and, yes, several short stories! Why not dip a toe into short fiction this summer and see what authors you might meet who you’d like to continue reading.

Books Are Dangerous

For someone like me who is immersed in books, it is easy to lose your way.
on Jun 27, 2014 · 8 comments

TheWordChangersCoverAshlee Willis is the author of Christian fantasy for young adults. Her debut novel, The Word Changers, released June 23, 2014.

– – – – –

Books can be bliss. Books can be a wonderful escape. Books can be deadly dangerous.

I’m not sure about you, but I’m addicted to books. I know of many people who are afflicted by this madness as well. It’s not really curable, and I’ve never been quite clear on whether that’s because it’s impossible or just the fact that people simply don’t want to be cured of it.

Books have blessed me with countless hours of laughter, happiness, heart-thumping excitement and soul-wrenching sorrow. They have given me what I consider to be some of the richest times of enjoyment in my life.

So why are they so dangerous?

For someone like me who is immersed in books, it is easy to lose your way. The characters within them can become more real than the people in your life. The adventures in them can make your own life dull in comparison. The satisfaction of happy endings can distort your real-life expectations.

Don’t get me wrong. Books offer us much. New worlds, ideas, emotions and thoughts. The epic romance, the love at first sight, the evil that is always punished, the bad guy who is always caught, the ending that is always happy.
I don’t blame you for wanting that. I want that. And it’s not something we’ll find very often, if at all, outside the covers of a book.

And this is where the danger lies.

Books teach us to expect these things. Books teach us not to settle, not to give in, until we have found these things. They promise that things like true love and happy endings are always attainable, if we could only find the right person, if we were only in the right circumstance, if we were only …. If only …. If ….

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:3-5)

You see, our war is within. It’s a subtle one—you can’t hear it raging, most times. But it’s there. And our own thoughts will turn against us if we don’t take them captive, bend them to our own will.

angry womanIf I get annoyed with my husband because he doesn’t give me the deep and mysterious affection that Mr. Rochester gave Jane Eyre, or because he doesn’t change for me as Mr. Darcy did for Elizabeth, that’s no one’s fault but my own. It’s wrong for me to have those thoughts, the thoughts that books put into my head, the ones that I allow to control my expectations of real-life people.

Admit it, it’s a little bit funny, isn’t it? To know that a book can change the invisible pathways of my mind? To know that I want my husband to be just a bit more like Mr. Rochester? To admit that my life frustrates me and makes me want to cry like a child who hasn’t got her way when things don’t go right?

I think Satan must think it’s funny, too, watching as I’m separated from God’s plan for me. Watching as I grow bitter with life and friends and the people I’m supposed to be showing God’s love, all because I want someone to sweep me off my feet, or because my life is not the adventure I’d like it to be, or because I must watch as someone I’m close to suffers an ending that is anything but happy.

Books. Are they right or wrong to teach us these things? Right or wrong to make us long for … more?

Watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flows the springs of life. (Proverbs 4:23)

Books. Dangerous or not? Do they lead us to neglect the springs of life from our own hearts, and make us instead focus our eyes on the imaginary, the unattainable?

No.

Books, after all, don’t control your mind. Media doesn’t control you mind. Your mother, your father, your spouse, your friends—they don’t control it either. Only you, and only God. And even God will not force His way in unless you invite Him. So it’s your choice, then. Just as God intended.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5)

Trust in the Lord … that’s the key, isn’t it? Keep your eyes on Him. Read books, enjoy books, love books … but keep your eyes on God and His Kingdom.

This world isn’t likely to offer you the epic romances you read about. It’s certainly not going to solve every crime and punish every criminal. And ask anyone … happily-ever-afters are but a myth.

We live in a world of sin and darkness, after all.

But God is not vanquished by sin, and His light is not to be put out. What we look for in books and fail to find in real life—we may find in Him.

God gives us the fullest, most all-consuming love. He pursues us with relentless passion and gentle steadfastness. Isn’t that just what any true romantic longs for in the end?

God is the ultimate judge. Bad guys go free on earth too many times. But don’t believe for a moment that means their sins will go unpunished.

God is the creator of mystery, and therefore the solver of it. We should revel in His creation, even the mysteries of it, and look forward to one day having Him explain them to us.

Lastly, God is the maker of happy endings. Some of them do happen here on earth—some of them even rival the best books we’ve ever read. But nothing compares to the Final Happy Ending that we as Christians have to look forward to. Not a single book on earth can hold a candle to that.

All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has read, which goes on forever, in which every chapter is better than the one before. (C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle)

This world is not our home. It is not where we belong. Books tell us of other worlds—let us not forget the one we are in, nor the one we are going to. Books give us happiness—let us not forget where our eternal happiness lies. Books tell us of adventures and heroes—let us not forget that the life God gave us is the greatest adventure of all, and that the only hero we need is our Savior, the maker of the truest Happy Ending.

– – – – –

AshleeWillisAuthorPicAshlee was born and raised in the heart of Missouri. When not reading or writing, she divides her time chiefly between forest rambles, catching frogs in the creek with her young son, watching British television, and crocheting. She is currently working on a new YA fantasy duology. You may connect with Ashlee at her blog, or on Facebook, Twitter, or Goodreads.

Find The Word Changers at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Smashwords.

An Unfolding Saga

The Wingfeather Saga unfolds through four books into an intense and beautiful story.
on Jun 25, 2014 · 6 comments

It must have been three or four years ago when I first stumbled across a book called On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness. I felt a distinct indifference, and I moved on.

Some time later I entered a book drawing with about twenty different Christian fiction titles. Out of these, I won North! Or Be Eaten. I knew nothing about the book, but it was Christian fantasy and I was determined to try it. I examined it for any sign that it was part of a series (most books are, it seems) and discovered that it was the second book of the Wingfeather Saga.

The first was, of course, On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness. Thus began my journey into the Wingfeather Saga, written by Andrew Peterson. And now, with the publication of The Warden and the Wolf King, it’s over.

The Wingfeather Saga underwent quite an evolution from its first book to its last, and my purpose here is to examine that change over the course of four books. We begin, as Andrew Peterson did, with …

On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness

The book – the whole saga, for that matter – opens with the legend of how, on the first morning of the world, the first man said to the first thing he saw (a rock): “Well, here we are.” This first sentence “was taught to children and their children’s children and their children’s parents’ cousins and so on until, quite by accident, all speaking creatures referred to the world around them as Aerwiar.”

The most immediately striking characteristic of this novel is its profusion of humor, especially of an absurd flavor. Aerwiar itself is a world of pandemic quirkiness. It is displayed in everything from store front signs – “THE ONLY INN: Glipwood’s Only Inn” reads one – to the most ancient legends. Andrew Peterson completes the effect by sprinkling the book with deadly-earnest footnotes that somehow always end up adventures in zaniness. “For ages,” goes one, “the Torr Dynasty nursed a disturbing fondness of all things kitten …”

But the comically bad writing (“a nameless evil, an evil whose name was …”) gives way to skillful story-telling, and the absurdity coexists with danger and adventures and sadness. The plot is solid, though not spectacular. In the end, three things make this book stand out: the humor, the quirky and unforgettable world of Aerwiar, and the characters. The characters go straight to your heart.

Into the possibilities opened up by On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness marched …

North! Or Be Eaten

On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness was a good book, but it wasn’t until North! Or Be Eaten that the Wingfeather Saga achieved excellence. This second book proved a great expansion of the story.

Part of it was a matter of simple geography. On the Edge takes place entirely within the Glipwood Township and its immediate environs. North! leaves Glipwood behind, traversing the mighty, perilous falls, the lawless Strand, and on into Dugtown, Kimeria, the Ice Prairies, the Fork Factory, the burrows.

The characters, too, are broadened. Janner and Tink, tried and tested, begin to discover what’s in their own hearts. Podo, always colorful, gains texture; we begin to understand Artham. (Poor, poor Artham.)

In a portent of things to come, the Fangs progress beyond goblin figures to something much more tragic. So Peterson pulls back the curtain on one of the most significant elements of his story. It will become the fulcrum of the Wingfeather Saga.

Although the humor is still plentiful, the tone grows more serious as the characters’ journeys grow darker. But if the pain is greater, so is the triumph. In the glorious transformation scene near the book’s end, the saga reaches a magnificence over and above anything it had achieved before.

The shift begun in North! was not drastic, but it would continue in …

Monster in the Hollows

This is the most staid book of the Wingfeather Saga. It’s not as funny as the first book, not as intense as the last, not as exciting or as variable as the second. The middle hundred pages read like a school story.

And yet it is a serious book – in its own way, the most serious of the first three books of the saga. It takes a clear view of the Fall of Man, not in its villains but in its heroes. There’s an echo of Aleksandr Solzhenistyn’s lament: “A human being is weak, weak.” Another major theme of the novel is  shame, both deserved and undeserved.

The end of the book is a masterpiece, woven with glory and tragedy, and while it is the least adventurous chapter of the saga, Monster in the Hollows is a beautiful, weighty work. And the pace will change again in …

The Warden and the Wolf King

After the relative quietness of the third book, the fourth ups the tempo beyond anything yet seen. This last book is easily the most intense: the greatest danger, the most action, the most sadness, the least lightheartedness. There are glimmers of humor, but nothing like the earlier books. Even Monster in the Hollows was funnier.

The joke on the first page of the first book, about the Nameless One whose name was Gnag, is resurrected into something earnest, the tragedy at the root of the Wingfeather Saga. It unites with the story’s most consistent theme: What is your name? In the end, it’s not without a hope of redemption.

In the meantime, there’s a lot of struggling. The Warden and the Wolf King is sadder than its predecessors, even as it brings final victory and a measure of redemption. A phrase appears multiple times in the story – the Maker’s good pleasure, even in things we would not call happy.

The book is long, 520 pages, and it spends that length bringing the saga’s ideas to full fruition and resolving its various storylines. (The only unfinished storyline is Artham’s. Again: poor Artham.) The difference in tone from On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness to The Warden and the Wolf King is striking, but it’s the same story, the same characters, the same world.

I was unimpressed, those years ago, by the title of a book. When I actually read it, I discovered it was a good book. And when I joined the unfolding saga, I discovered it was also the beginning of one of the best fantasy series I have ever read.

The Coming Speculative Fiction Storm

For the first time in forever, an author no longer needed a publisher to economically publish their book and have readers find and buy it.
on Jun 24, 2014 · 7 comments
Roycroft printing press

Roycroft printing press

Over the last seven years, major shifts in the publishing world have rocked traditional publishing channels. Namely, print-on-demand to start, but even more so, ebooks and Amazon. In short, self-publishing.

It’s not like self-publishing didn’t exist until recently. Some famous authors self-published in times past, Mark Twain being one example. But your average author couldn’t do that because of the upfront cost of paying a printer for the run of a thousand or more of a book, and then the work and expense of marketing and distributing them to bookstores. It easily ran into the thousands of dollars.

So only a handful of people ever self-published. The only real shot most had was to get a manuscript accepted by a publisher.

The in the 1980s vanity publishing came to the forefront. They generally knocked the entry price down for self-publishing to around one thousand. This allowed a lot more people to self-publish than before, so a new crop of “self-published” writers entered the market.

Problems arose on two ends. One, vanity publishing wasn’t really self-publishing in the full sense. Indeed, Yog’s law came into play: Money always flows to the writer. More accurately, when you are selling your rights, money always flows to the writer. Because with true self-publishing, you don’t sell your rights, even though you put money up to get published.

But in vanity publishing, you sell your rights and put money up front, sometimes quite a lot if you purchase several of their services. This combination qualifies as a scam.

Two, despite that, vanity publishing became equated with self-publishing. Since vanity publishers offered little to no editing, the books were often poorly written/edited. If you bought their editing services for a hefty fee, it often would not be of professional quality. Formatting and book binding/printing were often substandard. Add in authors who didn’t put in the effort to create a professional product, and self-publishing became equated with low-quality.

Still, self-publishing wasn’t a viable route. There were a few success stories, but precious few, primarily due to low numbers. While more were “self-publishing,” it was still a tiny fraction of books being published in a given year. So until around 2004, an author was limited to traditional publishers to get their book to market.

Then POD, print on demand, became a viable publishing model for print books. For the first time, a person could start a small publishing venture without the burden of inventory, overhead, or huge print runs. While getting into bookstores was still difficult, the success of Amazon allowed for a viable distribution channel.

While more people self-published using POD, it also gave rise to a lot of small independent publishers. My first book was published by one such small publisher, Double-Edged Publishing (now out of business—that series is now with another small publisher, Splashdown Books).

The real boast to self-publishing came with Amazon’s introduction of the Kindle ereader, and the ability of authors to publish directly in that distribution channel. The cost to self-publish went from the thousand or more dollars of vanity publishing, not counting the preparation of the book, to zero. As Amazon succeeded in creating a demand for the ebook market, self-publishing became not only possible and viable, but profitable.

This created the shifts I mentioned. For the first time in forever, an author no longer needed a publisher to economically publish their book and have readers find and buy it. Indeed, in many cases, more authors could make a living self-publishing who struggled in the traditional publishing channel. In the last three to five years, the number of mid-list and best-selling authors who are self-publishing either in part or in whole has blossomed. Some turning down traditional publishing deals and advances because they know they can make more money publishing it themselves.

So, what does all this have to do with readers, especially Christian speculative fiction readers? Why the history lesson? To give background for the following points.

How Does the Publishing Shifts Affect Readers?

1. Wider selection of reading choices. Without the restriction on the flow of books to market created by the traditional publishing and bookstores channel, many more books are able to reach readers than before.

On the positive side, many good books that never would have made it through the traditional publishing channel due to small market, no slot in publishing schedule, hard to peg market, publisher already has books like it, etc., will now be available.

On the negative side, many bad books that never would have survived the traditional publishing’s gauntlet will now be available. The increase in published books means it will be easier for a reader to miss books they’d really like due to time, money, and difficulty finding them. While self-publishing is quickly losing its stigma of low-quality, there are still some books a reader will wade through that would have never seen the light of day in the traditional publishing channel. Moon People, anyone?

2. It will be easier to find books targeted to small markets and cross-genre/difficult to market books. Publishers tend to be reluctant to publish anything they don’t believe will sell into the thousands of thousands. A small market or difficult to identify market is a huge financial risk for them. But not a self-publisher. Want to find an Amish-vampire-space opera book? It’s out there, but not from a traditional publisher.

3. Books not able to meet CBA (Christian Booksellers Association) litmus tests have a means to find their audience. This is a biggie for Christian Speculative fiction. Not merely due to the censorship issue, but because it doesn’t rely upon Christian bookstores, which are often held hostage by their most legalistic customers. Those same people can’t effectively convince Amazon or B&N to take titles off their shelves that they deem unholy. Not like they can at their local Christian bookstore.

It also means there’s going to be more “Christian” titles that are theologically and morally questionable. Reader discernment skills, like we’ve been discussing lately, are even more important.

That said, as self-publishing in Christian circles follows the general market trend, as it usually does, you can expect to see more creative and original horror, space opera, fantasy, and other speculative fiction titles. That, overall, will be a good thing. Plus, it will put more pressure on the CBA-linked publishers to open their doors to more speculative fiction titles.

The Christian speculative fiction storm is coming.

What are further benefits/negatives that I’ve not listed, for readers, do you see from this shift?

Divergent, Great Stories, And Good Writing

The book series was one more hot story that had fans craving the next book and the next. Granted, though the first book opened as #6 on the NY Times best-selling list, it didn’t reach the stature of Twilight or Hunger Games and certainly not of Harry Potter. Still, it had a loyal and avid following.
on Jun 23, 2014 · 17 comments

This article contains * * * SPOILERS * * *

DivergentI finally had the chance to see the movie Divergent based on the novel with that same title written by Veronica Roth. I’d talked to a number of friends about the story—both movie and book—and I had their critiques in mind as I watched Tris and Four and the Dauntless Faction prepare their newbies.

Interestingly, I went to the movie with a friend who had heard no such critique and who also had not read the book. Afterward we talked about what we liked and what we found problematic. We both agreed we were glad we saw it, but also that it had flaws.

For one, there were places where the movie dragged. For another there were parts of the worldbuilding that seemed . . . odd, if not incongruent. Both those things seem like death to a story.

First, if a movie is dragging, it seems to me that’s a symptom that there’s not enough at stake.

During a different action adventure movie some time ago, I remember feeling really bored and checking my watch. There was one narrow escape after another, with bullets flying and cars blowing up, but there was no credible danger. So the next chase was like the one before it and they seemed to run together and drag out into an hour and a half long scene about which you already knew the ending.

In Divergent much of the focus was whether or not Tris would make it as a Dauntless. She was weak and one of the instructors had it out for her. But the possibility of her failing didn’t seem credible to me. The training was interesting and necessary because Tris built relationships during that time, and we as viewers got to know her as a character better. But as far as moving the story forward, the training sequence (most of the movie) didn’t do much.

Secondly, the worldbuilding proved problematic—more on reflection than during the movie. Why did the people take a test to find out what faction they should belong to only to be given the choice to choose the faction they wanted? And who made up that rule? Who determined they had to take a meaningless test?

Why did Tris’s mother know her daughter was Divergent and not just Dauntless as she had once been? If she’d turned out to be Divergent, that whole line of the story would have made much more sense. Instead, her admission that she had been Dauntless opened up the question about why she moved to Abnegation and how she retained her Dauntless abilities though she was apparently not Divergent. Following that line of thought, I had to wonder about the other new Dauntless inductees who also showed traits from their old factions.

Then there were questions about the factionless—were they all Dauntless wipe-outs or did other factions reject people as well? And why wouldn’t they be allowed to return to their old faction or to join a different one rather than become a blight on society and a drain on resources? It seems like a silly, arbitrary rule and there’s no hint as to who instigated such a harsh, purposeless, harmful concept.

Similar to that was the idea that faction is stronger than blood, though clearly in Tris’s family that wasn’t the case. Were they exceptions or did others not realize the strength of their family bond because they belonged to the same faction as their family? Oddly, none of the Dauntless members seemed to be in a family.

Despite these problems which were not exclusive to the movie, I understand the book series was one more hot story that had fans craving the next book and the next. Granted, though the first book opened as #6 on the NY Times best-selling list, it didn’t reach the stature of Twilight or Hunger Games and certainly not of Harry Potter. Still, it had a loyal and avid following, and I’m sure it is making Ms. Roth, her agent, and her publishers good chunks of change.

Why? Why did the story become so popular?

I think one element in Divergent engages the viewer right away: Tris doesn’t feel like she fits well. She sees herself as different from her brother and parents and drawn to several of the other factions. “Not fitting well” seems to be a universal for teens, and to be honest, many adults continue to struggle with fitting well. Some simply accept their “not fitting well” status and become content. Others realize they fit all along and their perceptions were off. Some find a group with which they fit—one they hadn’t discovered when they were younger. The point is, the dilemma Tris faced at the beginning—how to define herself and not knowing how or where she belonged—drew viewers in.

Presenting a character with a dilemma readers (or viewers) can relate to seems to be a great start for a story. Interestingly, the answer came fairly quickly—Tris was not one of the factions; she was the illegal Divergent. So how will she cope, where will she go to find a sense of purpose, can she keep her true self a secret—these and other questions drive the story.

I have to say, I think it’s a good story. All those fans were not flocking to the book simply because it was a hawt romantic triangle between innocent girl and bad boy #1 or bad boy #2.

But was it good writing? On the story level, I don’t think so—not with the worldbuilding problems or with the low stakes. Good writing wouldn’t leave you with so many doubts about the plausibility of the story when you’re finished.

Good writing would also create a greater sense of tension and urgency throughout—not just for the main character, but it starts with her. Perhaps the book did a better job here than the movie, but I’m left wondering, what’s the worst thing that would happen to Tris if she doesn’t make it in Dauntless?

We’re told she’d be Factionless, but why that’s so bad isn’t shown. Not really. Not in the movie. To me the Factionless looked like poor people sitting around with nothing to do. I can’t help but wonder, why? Why couldn’t they make their own Faction and find purpose? I mean, there are more than five character traits in the world. But that’s beside the point.

Rather, being Factionless didn’t seem like the end of the world, maybe because I wasn’t sure what Tris wanted from life. As a member of Dauntless, she’d be tasked with policing the city. Was that what she wanted from life? Or did she simply want to avoid being discovered as a Divergent? But even that purpose doesn’t come with high stakes. If she’s discovered to be divergent and killed, she will die and that would be sad, but what does that outcome mean? People die every day. Why should readers and viewers care about the death of this one person? I think the stakes need to be higher.

And I haven’t addressed other aspects of good writing, which is just as well since I haven’t read the books. Perhaps some of the rest of you can weigh in on whether or not you think the writing in Divergent on the sentence and paragraph and scene level is good. Were there interesting descriptions? Fresh metaphors? Poetic expressions? Quotable lines? Looking forward to your thoughts.

Why We Condemn ‘Game Of Thrones’ Porn and Think You Should Too

All men must die to self and reject even “soft” porn and “artful” rape culture wherever it hides. #GameofPorns
on Jun 20, 2014 · 65 comments

logo_gameofthrones

Somehow it surprised me when the SpecFaith article But ‘Game of Thrones’ Still Has Porn In It went as viral as a SpecFaith article can go. ‘Tis a strange thing — that if you simply write about sex and naked people, great is your reward in internet heaven.

Now a bigger spiritual “gun” calls out the TV series for being a “Game of Porns” (my term, not his). Desiring God author and former pastor John Piper challenges the series in today’s DesiringGod.org post 12 Questions to Ask Before You Watch ‘Game of Thrones.’

And I say: better late than never, even after the blockbuster HBO adaptation of George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire novels has finished four seasons.

Why does Piper care? Because he and similar Christian teachers frequently promotes the Biblical ideal of joy — that Christians should neither assume “duty” is the chief end of man, or that happiness on its own is our chief end, but that man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, even to glorify Him by enjoying Him forever. However, Piper frequently stops short of applying what he terms “Christian Hedonism” to popular culture, beyond the occasional foray into (rightly) condemning idolatrous use of media.1

But here Piper addresses the issue and he is (mostly) dead on.2 Unlike other Christian critics who lump all “objectionable content” together, Piper especially shows discernment about nudity versus other sins in visual stories that are merely acted-out:

Nudity is not like murder and violence on the screen. Violence on a screen is make-believe; nobody really gets killed. But nudity is not make-believe. These actresses are really naked in front of the camera, doing exactly what the director says to do with their legs and their hands and their breasts. And they are naked in front of millions of people to see.

And Piper also anticipates the response from the “but it’s Art” folks. Notice he does not say “Art doesn’t matter,” or “there are more spiritual things to think about” — instead he rightly puts the assumption itself on ice.

There is no great film or television series that needs nudity to add to its greatness. No. There isn’t. There are creative ways to be true to reality without turning sex into a spectator’s sport and without putting actors and actresses in morally compromised situations on the set.

It is not artistic integrity that is driving nudity on the screen. Underneath all of this is male sexual appetite driving this business, and following from that is peer pressure in the industry and the desire for ratings that sell. It is not art that puts nudity in film, it’s the appeal of prurience. It sells.

Cap Stewart was already onto this — the real reason powerful men often exploit women for the screen, often while merely winking at the “but it’s Art” justification that higher-minded defenders employ:

The movers and shakers in Hollywood have acquired what seems to be an almost limitless amount of power to enforce the sexualization of actors. To cite another example: director Neil Marshall once commented on how he was pressured by an HBO executive to put more sex and nudity in an episode of Game of Thrones:

It was pretty surreal. I’d not done anything like that in my films before. But the weirdest part was when you have one of the exec producers leaning over your shoulder, going, “You can go full frontal, you know. This is television, you can do whatever you want! And do it! I urge you to do it.” So I was like, “Okay, well, if you—you’re the boss.”

A little later, he added:

This particular exec took me to one side and said, “Look, I represent the pervert side of the audience, okay? Everybody else is the serious drama side—I represent the perv side of the audience, and I’m saying I want full frontal nudity in this scene. So you go ahead and do it.”

Notice the implicit acknowledgement that the nudity had nothing to do with art—that it was designed solely for the satisfaction of a perverted audience base. The producer pushed his weight around, and the director (and everyone else) acquiesced. All of this to appeal to the lowest common denominator.3

Why should we care about #GameofPorns?

With all the legalism out there, with all the fundamentalist or evangelical fears of “big evil Hollywood” by Christians — fears that have hurt many of our readers personally — why am I again addressing Game of Thrones and its naked people?

This could take a whole other article. But in case that is your reasonable response, I will offer these challenges.

  1. Do you care about misogyny or the sex trade? Do you condemn the flagrant sexual abuse of women by men — enough perhaps to fault Piper himself for some of his statements about sex roles and differences? Then you will at least be willing to consider that perverted and powerful men in the film and television industry are also victimizing women.Quite frankly, if you claim you hate misogyny and the sex trade and rape culture, and then reflexively decry such efforts to apply this consistently to the “legitimate sex trade” of visual media like Game of Thrones, that puts such claims in doubt.
  2. Do you abhor the justification by abusive and careless men that “the woman was asking for it”? Then you will at least be open to seeing through the lie that the women (and men!) who strip naked and act out sex scenes for money only want to do it. You will be open to consider that, as noted above, some TV and film producers are perverted people (often men) who set up bounded choices in which even strong women are deceived to believe they must show themselves naked for the sake of Art.
  3. Are you a Christian who hates the culture of abuse and shame in the Church? Then you will be open to the possibility that many men (and women) are justifying their sin-temptations by saying it’s only Art. Even well-meaning people who react to opposite and legalistic views of storytelling can wrongly conclude that it is more Christian to applaud the objectification of human beings, and assuming that if we don’t then we are somehow commiting a Gnostic “fear of the body” sin.
  4. Are you a Christian who loves great fantasy storytelling and can’t stand it when other Christians don’t get it? Then you will be the first to take the side of critics who say that some of this popular-culture stuff is made simply to endorse sinful lusts. In fact you will be getting out in front of such claims by being the first to decry pervy fantasy as pervy.Trust me, it makes at least the fair-minded Christian critics of popular-culture engagement sit up in surprise. They may say, “Wait a minute, that person has just violated my stereotype of them as a compromiser who’s in love with the world. Maybe this person is actually serious about discerning and enjoying fantasy and popular culture — gritty bits and all — for the glory of God.”Even better, if you fight such sins privately and publicly, you will be pleasing not man, but the Creator of all fantastic worlds.

Conclusion: Yes, this is a discussion that Christian fantasy fans must have — not first by asking “is it Art?” or “do the actors (mostly women) actually get hurt?” or “do most Christians sin with this,” but first by asking these two questions

1. Could I personally watch this visual fantasy series that has porn in it?4

2. And if I do, can I genuinely, truthfully say that I in Christ take measures to ensure I’m not sinning but only doing this from faith (Rom. 14:23)?

  1. Piper has also made some unwise statements in his attempt to defend Biblical sex differences. If you’ve arrived here at this post solely determined to pick on him for those, you’re gonna have a bad time.
  2. One could argue that Piper doesn’t deal with exceptions when he says that seeing nudity in videos and photos is always a sin. Some Christians indeed do not struggle with this, and that is actually a higher threshhold of holiness. Yet as I point out in But ‘Game of Thrones’ Still Has Porn In It, from what I can tell these are unfortunately rarer circumstances — like the Biblical “gift of celibacy,” or even Ripley’s Believe It or Not-style human beings who can rotate their necks 180 degrees.
  3. Hollywood’s Secret Rape Culture, CapStewart.com, May 20, 2014.
  4. This is a point beyond contention: naked people who act out sexual scenarios in public media in order to get money is porn. So the argument is not truly about whether it is porn; the only real argument is how we respond to it.

Three-Second Comment Defeats Entire Storyline Of ‘Dragon 2’

An actor’s ad-lib has overthrown every other theme of the 102-minute animated epic.
on Jun 19, 2014 · 12 comments

howtotrainyourdragon_gobberandhiccup

BIG HOLLYWOOD, Cal.—A remark uttered over the space of approximately three seconds by a tangential, comedic-relief character in the Dreamworks animated epic How to Train Your Dragon 2, which released Friday, June 13 in the U.S., has overthrown each and every theme that comprises the remaining 101 minutes, 57 seconds of the film.1

Observers over the weekend noted that Dragon 2’s soaring tributes to chaste young-adult romance, lifelong romantic commitment between two mature central characters who delight in beauty and their differences, and a tragic showcase of self-sacrificial love were all blasted to death by a voice actor’s single ad-libbed comical line that made it into the film.

“I’m devastated,” said 34-year-old Jennifer Winchovski, of Des Plaines, Ill., who has been reading secular websites and religious blogs to grasp the secret meaning of the dialogue clip that on its own could mean literally anything or nothing. “My children would have loved the film’s messages of growing up, responsibility, and true love. But with the single clip of dialogue over three seconds, my children will never appreciate those themes.”

Despite the comedic sidekick’s vague allusion—“That’s why I never got married. Well, that and one other reason”—critics and supporters alike proclaimed that the minor character of Gobber the Belch has come out from under his double-horned Viking helmet and that this disqualifies all of the Dragon 2 story’s representations of traditional beliefs.

“It’s sickening, but just typical of the immoral garbage coming out of un-Holywood these days,” remonstrated 65-year-old Armond Crigler of Lincoln, Neb., though he has not seen in the film and in fact if he had seen the film for himself and judged fairly he would have only witnessed and enjoyed the “conservative” themes that cultural and religious critics alike are strangely eager to toss aside in pursuit of their political agendas. “Thanks, Obama.”

Cultural writers from web publications as ideologically varied as The Huffington Post and Jezebel praised the minor character’s easily missed revelation as a great leap forward for equal rights and a revolutionary philosophy of liberation that should be accepted as the central theme of the film, bypassing the inarguable fact that even the comic-relief character Gobber the Belch in the quip defines the term “marriage” as a practice between a committed woman and man in which he is thus unable to participate.

“This represents the latest proof that fans will respond positively to themes of diversity and tolerance of different sexual preferences and lifestyles,” wrote Clive Botkin in a June 17 post at The Daily Kos. “History is on our side,” he added, apparently unaware of the fact that the single comment in the animated sequel represents less than .0007 percent of the film’s total runtime and in fact a well-placed cough from an audience member could have obscured the groundbreaking achievement for the progressive cause.

Audiences appeared ignorant of the film’s offensive assault on their traditional moral values or the film’s brave ad-libbed stand for progressive equality, propelling the Dreamworks sequel to the top of the box office over the summer weekend.

“This assault on our values using Hollywood propaganda and the dark forces who oppose marriage will be rejected by honest hard-working Americans,” said Robert McBoreson, president and chair of the Family Values Research Heritage God Bless and Save America Foundation, utterly incognizant of the fact that the Hollywood film brainwashes viewers by showing the journey of a maturing young man to find himself, while also respecting the stories and perspectives of both his father and mother, who turn out to have had a short and yet blissful life of committed and romantic marriage that is upheld as the story’s ideal.

McBoreson cited FVRHGBSAF statistics proving that 89 percent of tentpole animated films feature wacky-jester sidekicks who exist solely for comic relief, whose amusing hijinks and direct endorsement of alternative lifestyles persuade impressionable youth to ignore the journey of the sympathetic heroes and follow the secondary character’s journey instead.

“My daughter carries her Gobber the Belch action figure everywhere,” stated 27-year-old mom Melinda Jameson of Bluefield, Va., adding that her daughter Madison, age 6, is also obsessed with the ancillary Viking blacksmith whose visage is printed on most licensed merchandise offered by Dreamworks such as bedsheets, plushies, body wash and adhesive bandages. “Now what will I tell her when she starts asking about his bachelorhood?”

A Dreamworks spokesman who asked not to be named confirmed that already the film’s director and writer is considering how to proceed with How to Train Your Dragon 3 while dispensing with first two films’ majority themes of respect for parents, honor of committed relationships, and stewardship of nature. Instead the sequel will follow the tangential exploits of Gobber the Belch, plus a dark-haired person seen briefly in the background running in fear during the Alpha dragon attack scene that marks the 2014 film’s finale.

“Other beloved fantasy franchises such as ‘Doctor Who’ have proved what studio insiders are calling The Harkness Law,” the studio spokesman said, referring to the concept that fans of the BBC space-fantasy series are left emotionally unaffected by the seasons-long love story of featured heroes like Amy and Rory Williams, but are moved to tears by the momentary madcap shenanigans of supporting characters such as Captain Jack Harkness.

At a joint press conference on June 16, the heads of six major studios stated they are so committed to the redefinition of traditional marriage that they will henceforth pour all their investment into only big-budget movies that push this ideal, ignoring other goals such as financing stories that audiences prove they want, in order to make money.

  1. With pseudo-apologies to The Onion.

The Facts Are These…

I find it interesting that at the heart of this whimsical modern-day fairy tale is the concept of resurrection.
on Jun 18, 2014 · 6 comments

My wife and I have a late night ritual. It seems that lately, every night after our boys are off in bed, we’ve pulled out some old TV shows on DVD and rewatching them. We recently finished aiming to misbehave with Captain Tight-pants and his motley crew. That was my choice. Now we’re working our way through my wife’s choice (one that I’m happy to revisit), namely Pushing Daisies. Both of these shows were well-written, sparkling in their wit, with memorable characters, only to be cut down in their prime.

I’m sensing a theme here.

pushies-daisiesFor those of you unfamiliar, the premise of Pushing Daisies is this: a man named Ned, also known as the Piemaker, has a special gift. He is able to bring the dead back to life by touching them. The thing is, there are limitations to this ability. If the recently revived stays that way longer than a minute, someone else of commensurate “worth” (for lack of a better term) will die in his or her place. Also, if the Piemaker touches that individual a second time, they die again and stay dead forever.

A P.I. named Emerson Cod (who loves to knit in his off-time) learns about the Piemaker’s ability and uses him to help solve murders. After all, what’s easier than bringing a murder victim back to life so you can ask him or her who did the deed? They just have to learn the information in less than a minute. So the Piemaker runs a pie shoppe and solves murder on the side. Things become complicated when the Piemaker learns that his childhood friend/sweetheart Charlotte (or Chuck, as her friends call her) has been murdered. He brings her back to solve her case, only when the time comes to “re-dead” her, he doesn’t do it. He keeps Chuck alive, creating a complicated romance. I mean, even the lightest touch from the Piemaker will kill the girl named Chuck once again.

All of this, plus Kristin Chenoweth. And Chi McBride. It’s a toss up which of those two I enjoy more.

So why do I bring it up? I find it interesting that at the heart of this whimsical modern-day fairy tale is the concept of resurrection.

Now this show plays this up for laughs. I mean, week-to-week, the Piemaker resuscitates people who have been murdered in creative (and disfiguring) ways and/or those who are in various states of decomposition. And nobody’s return to life is in any way permanent (with the exception of the aforementioned Girl Named Chuck and the Piemaker’s childhood pet, Digby). Hence why, in this article so far, I’ve been using as many near-synonyms for “resurrection” as I could think of.

More importantly, though, Pushing Daisies premise resonates with me because it touches on a fundamental truth, one that I think every human being has understood at a visceral level since the dawn of time, and that’s this:

Death is not natural.

That’s how a lot of people talk about death. Death is seen as a natural part of life. It’s just what happens. Maybe it doesn’t happen when or how we want it to, but it will happen eventually to every one of us. So don’t fear the Reaper, man. Embrace it. Be ready for it. Christians have even gussied death up, trying to make it our new best friend. After all, death is what ushers us into heaven, and that’s a good thing, right? That’s what we hope for as Christians, right?

Well…not exactly.

See, that’s the funny thing about death. Death is not natural. When God created our world, death wasn’t a part of His equation. That snuck in on the coattails of sin. One of my seminary professors put it this way in class once: “Death is as much a natural part of life as a knife is a natural part of your leg. A knife to the leg hurts because it doesn’t belong there. And that’s why death hurts so much too.”

And really, when you take a close look at what the New Testament says about death and the life thereafter, very little is said about heaven. Yes, Jesus did promise the repentant thief that “today, you will be with me in paradise.” But when He was comforting Martha after her brother died, He didn’t point to heaven. He pointed to the resurrection and how that unwinding of death’s power was at hand. Paul does the same thing when he comforts the grieving Thessalonians. He doesn’t tell them, “Hey, yeah, your friends died, but at least they’re in heaven, right?” No, he says, “Yes, your friends died, but death will not be able to keep them. They will rise when Jesus returns.”

Maybe that’s why I like Pushing Daisies so much. The Piemaker’s touch is just a glimmer of a greater reality to come.