Much misinformation abounds in regard to C. S. Lewis and his intentional inclusion of Christian allusions and themes in his fiction, particularly in The Chronicles of Narnia. For example, in an otherwise excellent article, Richard Doster wrote in “A Lost Art,” the following:

When Lewis wrote The Chronicles of Narnia, he had no theological agenda. There was no ulterior, evangelistic motive; he simply hoped to create likable stories. But the man’s worldview was as elemental to him as blood and bone. And his characters, plots, symbols, and themes are—unavoidably—products of it.

Actually this statement misrepresents Lewis’s position. Certainly, he stated clearly he was not intending to write an allegory when he penned The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. And Lewis thoroughly understood allegory. After all, his first work of fiction was Pilgrim’s Regress, an imitation in style of John Bunyan’s definitive allegory, Pilgrim’s Progress.

But between allegory and no intentional evangelistic motive lies considerable territory, and I believe Lewis made it clear, along with J. R. R. Tolkien, that he was aiming for neither extreme. From a Wikipedia article on mythopoeia:

Lewis’ mythopoeic intent is often confused with allegory, where the characters and world of Narnia would stand in direct equivalence with concepts and events from Christian theology and history, but Lewis repeatedly emphasized that an allegorical reading misses the point (the mythopoeia) of the Narnia stories.

The key here is that Lewis did write with intention, just not allegorical intention. Too many voices today in writing circles assume that his statements to debunk the idea that The Chronicles of Narnia were allegorical consequently mean he had no “ulterior evangelistic motive” or “theological agenda.” And therefore, no intentional purpose at all except to write “likable stories.”

Actually he intended to write a great deal more. He and Tolkien both claimed that fantasy could reveal Truth in a way that reality fiction could not.

So what was his intention?

According to Bill Smith, Director of the C. S. Lewis Institute Atlanta, Lewis utilized what he termed “supposal.” From the C. S. Lewis article in Wikipedia:

His most famous works, the Chronicles of Narnia, contain many strong Christian messages and are often considered allegory. Lewis, an expert on the subject of allegory, maintained that the books were not allegory, and preferred to call the Christian aspects of them “suppositional”. As Lewis wrote in a letter to a Mrs. Hook in December 1958:

If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair [a character in The Pilgrim’s Progress] represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, ‘What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?’ This is not allegory at all. (Martindale & Root 1990)

The idea, then, was not to disguise Christianity, as some suggest. But neither did Lewis include Christian messages and allusions unintentionally on the way to writing an entertaining story. Rather, he simply asked, “Suppose …” Suppose God would come in incarnate form to this world, what would that look like, what would that mean?

My questions. Where are the stories written using supposal? And since the Chronicles of Narnia remain so popular fifty plus years after they first came out, shouldn’t we in the publishing industry want to find many more stories written with supposal intent? Because apparently, readers still want to read them.

During the current CSFF Blog Tour for Robin Parrish’s novel Offworld, the question has come up again: How Christian should Christian fiction be, and in particular how Christian should Christian speculative fiction be? Should there be room for “seed sowing” fiction that introduces the concepts of God and a universe run by Him? Or must Christian fiction point inexorably to a Biblical understanding of God?

To both these questions, I say, Yes. Yes, there should be seed-sowing fiction. If a reader, for example, does not believe that Man, by nature, is a sinner, that he is actually good and capable of finding within himself all that he needs for life, then a Christian novel that points to a Savior who died for sinners will fail to impact the very reader it is targeting.

Some Christian books need to introduce Biblical concepts in their embryonic state, else there will be no audience for the full grown gospel.

I think of my own work, a four-book epic fantasy called The Lore of Efrathah. God does not come into the story. Neither is it allegorical. There are some key symbols, however, but the Christianity is far from heavy-handed or overt. Isn’t that the kind of book a “seeker” is more apt to pick up?

However, when a story is set in our world, past, present, or future, it seems to me that a writer can’t ignore God or have Him missing because that in itself is a statement about God.

Which brings me to Offworld. How did Robin Parrish handle the religious aspects?

First, none of the characters, apparently, is a Christian. One man, the main point-of-view character, seems to have a belief in a higher power. At some point, as crisis after crisis mounts, he begins to call for help. Not out loud, so the reader would have to conclude these are prayers. here’s a sample:

A little help, please?
Anything?
I’m willing to beg.

Later in the story, during the “reveal,” the character comes to the belief that Someone must have been seeing them through a sequence of impossible escapes because they really were … impossible.

However, this supernatural power is never clearly attached to the Biblical concept of God. More troubling, from my perspective, is a misrepresentation of Him. Here’s the most telling passage, a portion of an explanation about the power behind the machine that made all the people of the world disappear. These lines are in a shared vision in which the astronauts are talking to central character’s deceased father:

“What language is that?” whispered Trisha, studying the symbols as closely as she dared.

“I don’t recognize it,” replied Owen.

” ‘Course not,” said Chris’ father. “It’s a language from the other side of the veil. The divine language.”

“Dad,” Chris said, his voice just above a reverential whisper now, “what is this thing?”

“It’s a shard of the infinite,” replied his father, and suddenly he sounded less like the man Chris remembered. “A piece of the primordial. The tiniest sliver of the Word that was breathed to bring the universe into being.”

…”You said this thing came from your side,” said Owen. “How did it get over to our side?”

“Something … has pierced the veil that separates our realities,” said Chris’ father. “I don’t know what, but it’s happened before, and more than once. And when it happens, powers and principalities and objects from our side begin to leak into yours.”

And the story continues from there.

However, I do not see a Biblical view of “the Word that was breathed to bring the universe into being.” From Scripture, I know this to be Jesus Christ. Also from Scripture, I know Jesus to be indivisible. And very much a person. How could a “shard” of Him be used to power a machine? How does writing this kind of an image of Him, especially in the mouth of someone on the other side of the veil who would presumably know, serve to point a seeker to Truth, even in an embryonic state?

Though I think seed-sowing fiction is appropriate and necessary, I don’t see a lesser, but a greater, need for that fiction to be faithful to Scripture when revealing anything about God. I wish Offworld had been more careful.

And now the others participating in this tour:

Brandon Barr/ Jim Black/ Justin Boyer/ Keanan Brand/ Gina Burgess/ Canadianladybug/ Melissa Carswell/ Valerie Comer/ Karri Compton/ Amy Cruson/ CSFF Blog Tour/ Stacey Dale/ D. G. D. Davidson/ Jeff Draper/ April Erwin/ Karina Fabian/ Linda Gilmore/ Beth Goddard/ Todd Michael Greene/ Katie Hart/ Ryan Heart/ Becky Jesse/ Cris Jesse/ Jason Joyner/ Julie/ Carol Keen/ Krystine Kercher/ Dawn King/ Melissa Meeks/ Rebecca LuElla Miller/ Mirtika/ Eve Nielsen (posting later in the week)/ Nissa/ John W. Otte/ Lyn Perry/ Steve Rice/ Cheryl Russell/ Chawna Schroeder/ James Somers/ Stephanie/ Rachel Starr Thomson/ Steve Trower/ Fred Warren/ Dona Watson/ Elizabeth Williams

Fellow Spec Faith blogger E. Stephen Burnett left an excellent comment to last week’s post answering the criticism that fantasy leads to delusion. Coincidentally he addressed the subject of escapism. I’m tempted either to copy and paste his remarks here or to simply tell you to click on the link and read what he said, or reread it, as the case may be.

I’ll resist, however, because I think this particular attack necessitates repeated repudiation.

The argument is that fantasy pulls readers away from more weighty concerns. While we should be focused on putting food on the table, we’re wondering and worrying about slaying dragons.

To counter this point, Andrew Lansdown, author of the booklet “In Defence of Fantasy,” the source for these posts, makes the same Tolkien argument that Stephen made. The real issue is that the accuser of fantasy is mistakenly confusing “the Escape of the Prisoner with the Flight of the Deserter.” Both escape, one rightly so, the other by selfishly shirking his duties or commitments.

So does fantasy provide a reader with escape from prison or from the battlefield? I think that’s the question each writer needs to answer about his own work. Lansdown suggests that even if a fantasy provides nothing but a little rest and relaxation, that’s OK as long as it is kept in balance.

He goes on to make the case Tolkien did for creativity being a worthy endeavor, and fantasy being the most creative of the creative.

For surely it is true that God intends human beings to be creative! How could it be otherwise, since he has made us in his own likeness? We are his image-bearers. This means that because he is Rational, we are rational; because he is Moral, we are moral; and because he is Creative, we are creative! God’s image in us explains why human beings, and human beings alone among all earth’s creatures, compose music, paint paintings, sculpt sculptures, direct plays, choreograph dances, arrange flowers, weave baskets and write stories … This is inevitably so, because the Great Creator made us in his own likeness.

Tolkien used the term “sub-creator” to clarify the storyteller’s role—a term he used especially for those who make a “Secondary World” requiring “the greatest originality and inventiveness.”

I can hardly disagree. Except on one point. Because I see fantasy as abundantly truthful, engaging the real reality, not the temporal one, I don’t think there needs to be a great balance. From my perspective, that’s like saying, We need to balance how much we think about the truths of the Bible.

Actually, we can’t think about Truth too much. Rather, Truth helps us to balance this life, the mundane in particular.

In conclusion, I can think of only one good reason for someone not to read fantasy: they can’t relate to the fanciful. I have one friend like that. She claimed she didn’t care for fantasy, and I assumed this was because she hadn’t read the really good stories. For my sake, she read The Hobbit and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Unfortunately, her opinion hasn’t changed. She doesn’t think it’s sinful or any of the other accusations thrown at fantasy. She simply doesn’t enjoy it. She prefers biographies.

OK, I’ve come to accept that the way God has made us results in some readers preferring one genre over another. Great writing will generally pull readers out of their preferences, however, which is why Tolkien and Lewis are so widely read. But even they won’t win ’em all.

Too bad, because fantasy shows me Truth and Reality like no other stories, and I’d like to see everyone enjoy the same.

In reality, this is a continuation of the series I started some time ago called “What to Make of Dragons.” This is Part 6, I believe, since my post last week on The Enclave was also part of the same, though I didn’t remember to name it as such.

To refresh your memory, I am addressing some of the criticisms thrown by Christians at fantasy. The booklet “In Defence of Fantasy” by Andrew Lansdown has served as an excellent jumping-off point. Today I want to look at the criticism that says fantasy depicts things that have no basis in reality.

This is a corollary to the criticism that says fantasy is untrue and therefore should not be something Christians waste time on.

I’ve tried to counter that misconception by looking at Vanish by Tom Pawlik and The Enclave by Karen Hancock. But what about a fantasy like Harry Potter?

This week I went to see the movie Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince so of course this story is fresh on my mind. So, what about the charge that says readers, particularly young ones, will be fooled by fantasy? Aren’t Harry Potter fans led into the occult by seeing Harry and his friends and enemies casting spells and using potions?

Well, let me ask another question. Are these fans fooled into thinking they can fly to school on brooms? Has there been an upsurge of broom sales? Maybe of the toy kind, but are we seeing poor frustrated children astraddle crying, “Up! Up!” as they gently push off the ground? Is anyone buying Nembus 5000’s?

Or how about the really dark magic. Has there been an upsurge of people killing others to stretch their souls, divide them, and store them in a horcrux as a way to obtain immortality?

My point is, regardless that the wildly popular series drew millions of readers, there has apparently not been a comparable wide belief in the actuality of the fantasy elements. By and large, this is so because we humans have the ability to know the real apart from the pretend.

When I was growing up in a Christian home, I remember finding out that Santa Claus was pretend, and asking if Jesus was then also pretend. No, I was told. And I never questioned it. The evidences I had about Jesus and Santa made it abundantly clear that the two were not the same.

In his essay “On Three Ways of Writing for Children,” C. S. Lewis wrote some important things on this subject, quoted by Lansdown:

The fairy tale is accused of giving children a false impression of the world they live in. But I think no literature that children could read gives then less of a false impression. I think what profess to be realistic stories for children are far more likely to deceive them. I never expected the real world to be like the fairy tales. I think that I did expect school to be like the school stories … I do not mean that school stories for boys and girls ought not be written. I am only saying that they are far more liable to become ‘fantasies’ in the clinical sense than fantastic stories are. And this distinction holds for adult reading too. The dangerous fantasy is always superficially realistic.

I couldn’t help but think of some of the Christian fiction I’ve read in which a character comes to Christ and all other problems and conflicts resolve thereafter. That kind of “realism” makes people apart from Christ think believers are shallow or deluded, maybe both.

But fantasies promise no such perfect resolutions apart from the fantasy world, though a happy-ever-after ending can be understood within the context of the pretend to point to a right resolution bringing positive change. It is win-win. No false promises, yet absolute truth.

That’s what the Bible offers, after all. We see the ultimate reality ahead—eternal life. But today, a life with Christ means I struggle and hope and believe and repent and pray and trust and wait and watch and obey. I have not yet sat down to the marriage feast of the lamb. I have not yet received my full inheritance. I look forward, and this is the reality fantasy can give readers: the hunger and thirst for the eternal that is up ahead.

The July CSFF Blog Tour feature is Karen Hancock’s The Enclave, a science fiction/suspense novel dealing with such issues as cloning, genetic engineering, and cryogenics. One of the things that struck me about this novel was how necessary it is. We live in an era of scientific revolution, much of it centered on the human genome.

For me as a non-science oriented person, I’d just as soon ignore it all. But the fact is, the discoveries of today will be married to a set of ethics to be determined, and that interplay will affect society. We Christians need to be at the forefront mapping out how right and wrong fit with these new discoveries. Because Man can clone, should he? Because Man can tweak a baby’s DNA to make him taller or stronger or maler, should he?

Karen Hancock opens up a number of these scientific topics, then couples them with an exploration of cult activity. But here’s the thing. Karen says what Christians need to hear. Her story brings serious matters front and center, not in the form of absolutes already digested, but in the form of questions.

After all, the protagonist in The Enclave is a brilliant geneticist, and he is a Christian. Not an Intelligent Design Christian, either, but one who believes in creation. You see the questions that spring to mind with nothing more than that simple description.

It is this aspect of speculative fiction—the ability to look at the hard issues, the complex topics—that I think too many people overlook in a rush to judge.

The Enclave doesn’t dodge any of it, but neither does it give easy or simplistic answers. The problem isn’t “cloning” or the answer, “down with science.” Instead, because of the second story thread, the one for which the book is named, the real problem comes to light—Man has a desire to be God.

The science issues, then, take a backseat. There is no answer to them apart from the answer of bowing to our sovereign God and saying, Your will, not mine. No legislation will insure that cloning will not violate someone’s human rights or spiritual well-being. No advancement in the study of longevity will ensure immortality. In other words, the science issues, while important for us to think about, should only lead us to the realization that God must be honored as God before we proceed in these endeavors.

And as our culture shuttles Him off to the side and claims that faith should be private, not public, we open ourselves up to antichrist figures such as the one that serves as the antagonist in The Enclave. Yet again we see the truth surface in a work of speculative fiction.

Take a look at what the other bloggers on the tour have to say about The Enclave:

Brandon Barr Jim Black Jennifer Bogart Justin Boyer Keanan Brand Gina Burgess Canadianladybug Melissa Carswell Valerie Comer Karri Compton Amy Cruson CSFF Blog Tour Stacey Dale D. G. D. Davidson Jeff Draper Emmalyn Edwards April Erwin Karina Fabian Beth Goddard Todd Michael Greene Heather R. Hunt Becky Jesse Cris Jesse Jason Joyner Julie Carol Keen Krystine Kercher Dawn King Mike Lynch Shannon McNear Melissa Meeks Rebecca LuElla Miller Mirtika Eve Nielsen Nissa John W. Otte Steve Rice Crista Richey James Somers Stephanie Rachel Starr Thomson Steve Trower Fred Warren Dona Watson Elizabeth Williams

Christian fiction is weird. If we didn’t already know that, it’s now reinforced by a Chicago Tribune story revealing how evangelical publishers are hitting all the hot buttons in the book world. And the genres are wholly divergent: creepy vampires, and quiet Amish communities.

This is interesting indeed. But I submit there’s a connection between the two. And I couldn’t have thought of it without the aid of my wife and an amazing discussion we had over greasy fish at Long John Silver’s, just last night, on the way to Bible study. (Yes, I’m now married, and that partly contributed to my absence from Spec-Faith contributions. …)

Of course, Twilight is to blame for the vampire craze, and the only reason I’m not fully annoyed at Christians copying the culture yet again is because John Olson, a terrific guy, good author, and supreme ACFW writer’s workshop host, finally got his vampire novel (Shade) published. But he’s the exception to the vampire craze; I happen to know he’d written the novel years ago and of course couldn’t find a publisher who’d take it on. Then came Twilight and hordes of swooning fangurlz, and — I’m employing some conjecture here — suddenly everybody who had shopped a Christian vampire story concept started getting callbacks.

Author and Spec-Faith contributor Jill Williamson already said everything I’d have wanted to say about Twilight, and even better because a) she’s female, b) she’s actually read the book. (In short: it’s questionable-at-best porn for women, and that’s my extreme phrasing, not Jill’s; however, I believe I can defend it.) She also reviewed Shade and another Christian vampire novel, Field of Blood. (Both sound cool enough. Perhaps I’ll soon read one or both. First I need to finish Williamson’s non-vampire novel, By Darkness Hid — marriage interrupted my reading!)

Yes, I believe in capitalism, and I understand enough about the book business to know that trends can’t just be dismissed with high-sounding rationale if you want to make profits (and nothing is wrong with that). Still I wish Christians wouldn’t just roll out a torrent of vampire stories just because the secular trends decree that now it’s cool. It looks bad, and it won’t last.

Instead — here it comes — publishers risk chasing after this trend and sucking it dry until finally it’s dead and with no possibility of coming back to life for several centuries.

Amish vs. Vampires

But weighing in, in this corner, is what the Tribune says is “the undisputed industry leader” in Christian fiction:

[T]ypically, romances and family sagas set in contemporary Amish communities. They’re a surprise hit with evangelical women attracted by a simpler time, curiosity about cloistered communities and admiration for the strong, traditional faith of the Amish.

The vampires don’t stand a chance. But I’m not sure what’s so surprising about these kinds of stories attracting evangelical women. (I may get in trouble here.) From what I’ve seen of evangelicaldom, these are the very virtues prized even among women who don’t care for Amish stories. What is surprising about that, I wonder? Perhaps the Tribune writer assumes that a more-epic faith — involving a Bible filled with battles, lineages, miracles, special effects, and above all an omnipotent, don’t-mess-with-Him God who loves and yet is holy and wrathful — would naturally lead to more-epic stories, with similar elements, not just Safety-First stories?

I don’t want to knock all the Amish fiction. But the fact that they appeal so much to evangelical women scares me more than vampires. An overemphasis on this is not healthful to Christians.

This is what I mean:

• The stories are steeped in environments, even “mythology,” that are Traditional. That’s a comforting thought. This has been around for a while. Even the stories with newer elements contain familiar elements. You don’t have to fight much to accept it.
• In such stories, the environment is highly structured. You can let yourself go, even let the men handle things. If you were a woman in this story, you need only go with the flow, maybe only worry about raising your children. Yes, there may be problems, but (dare I say it) even those are “safe” in a way, because they are predictable.
• Such stories often contain “bad boys,” either religious or otherwise. Bad boys, to many women, are attractive. They have a strength that real-life “nice guys” often don’t have. They may be bad, but at least they’re powerful. There’s a strange comfort in that — a “comfort” that, unfortunately, leads to so many twisted relationships and enabling of evil abuses by men against women. It’s something I did. At least he’s strong. Maybe he’ll change. There’s a control in being controlled.

Well, isn’t that interesting. All three of those sets of characteristics apply equally to the appeal of legalistic environments and the hunting habits of vampires.

(Now I may really get in trouble.) When it comes to the Amish, I have a different view than many Christians do. Yes, these are just stories about the Amish, and perhaps some of them deal more even-handedly with the good and bad aspects of the lifestyle they practice.

But I know of many people who take the desire for safety, “simple life” and “traditional faith” way too far. They don’t just read stories about the Amish and pine away (which I maintain is itself questionable, when compared with reality and Christ’s commands for His church to engage the unbelieving world for His sake). Instead they want to be almost-Amish. They dress like them. They have the same cloistered views. Some want to live like them. All of the “safety,” and often even less accountability in a Christian community. They want their men to be large and in charge, a dangerous desire for control in being controlled as I said above. In essence, they earnestly desire the conditions that will lead not only to spiritual abuse (sometimes even physical abuse), but to a form of idolatry that puts people, tradition, safety and cloistered living above desires to glorify God and make Him, His Word and His grace the center of our lives.

Still, we have to contend with one little ‘graph in the story:

Christian fiction often has mimicked successful genres: Romance. Sci-fi. Legal Thrillers. But in Amish fiction, Christian publishing has something it can genuinely claim as its own.

Yes, Amish fiction seems at least original. But similar to a Washington Post story that rankled me exactly two years ago, the Tribune leaves out one genre: fantasy. We had it first. J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were not copying modern trends, they made modern trends. And both did it (albeit in slightly different ways) while glorifying God and echoing His truths.

If more Christian fiction continued to follow in fantasy’s path — and moreover, more Christians grew into epic-level faith that didn’t overvalue safety and “tradition,” but an epic God and His glory — we could legitimately claim that genre as our own. Question: how can we help this?

The winner: Bloodsucking barn-raisers

That was the serious stuff, and I’m interested in reading ideas, reactions, critiques, requests for Biblical back-up, whatever. Because of my background and familiarity with almost-Amish types of people (especially in homeschooling circles and on the blogosphere), you may simply not have seen what I’ve seen.

But now I’ll close with some frivolity. As a Christian, convinced capitalist, and aspiring author, I’m sure there’s a way to cash in on the strange saturation in Christian fiction of both Amish and vampires. The answer? Amish vampires.

That could be the title. It cuts to the chase pretty well: Amish Vampires. No vagueness would be necessary. And to underscore the subtle theme, the cover illustration could be one of those little black Amish bonnets, lying in a field, and the little strings that tie the bonnet to the neck would be stained with bright red blood.

And the back-cover summary:

“Run! Zechariah, run!”

They are in your neighborhood. They are in your cornfields. They may even have taken over your buggy. Lights keep mysteriously coming on — and you are not even supposed to have lights.

Don’t go near the barn. They are feeding beyond your cows and now crave even human flesh, the lifeblood of the simple. Long thought a legend, a terrible threat has now awaken as The Blood-Suckers of Lancaster County live again. Now the residents of this quiet community cannot even go outside their homes to make phone calls. They will find you. They will take you. Beware!

I think I have a hit on my hands. Don’t any of you dare steal it. But wait. Perhaps what is even more horrible and unthinkable than anything I have written above — I just know someone will.

As part of the CSFF Blog Tour, I read Vanish by Tom Pawlik. While this novel falls into the supernatural suspense (or horror) category rather than fantasy, it nevertheless serves as a perfect jumping off point to discuss the way speculative fiction can show Truth.

Critics of speculative fiction, and in particular fantasy, argue that the stories deal with things that aren’t real such as dragons and fairies and gremlins and genii. In Vanish readers discover toward the end that this story all takes place in a pretend “Interworld,” a place that isn’t an actual place.

But how is this different from other fiction? Gone with the Wind author Margaret  Mitchell imagined a pretend place called Tara and peopled it with the pretend characters Scarlet and Melanie and Rhett and Ashley. Is the reader to believe that Tara really existed or that the characters are historical figures? Not at all. Readers are to believe that they are imagined by the author and only realistically believable.

So too with speculative fiction. Is the Interworld in Vanish to be accepted as an actual place? No. It is to be accepted as realistically believable, but not real.

Why then do authors write what is only imagined? Because in telling a story, Truth can surface. Let me illustrate from Scripture.

Romans 8:28 says God works good for those who love Him. Genesis records the story of Joseph, sold into slavery by his brothers but able as a result to provide the means of salvation for his family from a seven-year famine. The brothers meant evil, but God meant good. The story illustrates the point.

So too Christian speculative fiction can illustrate Christian truths.  From the booklet “In Denfence of Fantasy” by Andrew Lansdown:

Fantasy touches on matters of ultimate reality. For what we accept as real now and what will be real in the end are not necessarily one and the same.

It just so happens that Tom Pawlik touches on some very serious truth in Vanish. You can find some excellent discussion of the novel on the tour. I especially recommend you take a look at Rachel Starr Thomson’s three posts: day 1, day 2, and day 3. Keanan Brand also has three excellent articles posted here, here, and here.

Take time to visit all of this month’s participants and see what they have to say about Vanish:
Brandon Barr / Keanan Brand /  Grace Bridges / Canadianladybug / Melissa Carswell /  Karri Compton / Amy Cruson /  CSFF Blog Tour Stacey Dale / D. G. D. Davidson / Janey DeMeo / Jeff Draper /  April Erwin /  Karina Fabian /  Alex Field / Beth Goddard / Todd Michael Greene / Ryan Heart / Christopher Hopper / Joleen Howell / Becky Jesse /  Cris Jesse / Julie / Carol Keen / Krystine Kercher / Margaret / Rebecca LuElla Miller /  Eve Nielsen /  Nissa /  John W. Otte / John Ottinger / Donita K. Paul /  Epic Rat /  Steve Rice / Crista Richey /  Chawna Schroeder / James Somers /  Stephanie / Rachel Starr Thomson / Robert Treskillard /  Steve Trower / Fred Warren / Phyllis Wheeler

The Fantasy Nut post got such a good response, I decided a little more light-hearted rambling might be in order.

First an announcement. Fellow Spec Faith contributor E. Stephen Burnett just recently got married! I was fortunate enough to see some wedding pictures on Facebook. I also learned that Stephen is the moderator of the NarniaWeb Forum. I didn’t even know there WAS a NarniaWeb Forum before I read Stephen’s Facebook info.

Which reminds me … if you’re on Facebook, consider friending Stephen or me. Just mention that you’re a Spec Faith visitor, and I know I’ll be excited to add you to my network. When Stephen gets down from cloud nine, I suspect he’ll be delighted to add you to his network as well.

Another for-fun writer tidbit coming up, but first for those who love reading fantasy, you might be interested in the short story I posted on my personal blog, A Christian Worldview of Fiction. The story is called “The Stones Cry Out.” (I wrote it before I knew there was a popular novel with a similar title!) I posted it on three successive days, so if you’re interested in reading the story, click on Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

I promise, I will get back to the more serious discussion of fantasy I started weeks ago. I haven’t forgotten. I just needed a break from heavy-duty analysis. All those Shack posts I mentioned last week took a lot out of me.

So this week is fun stuff.

And here’s the writer fun I mentioned. Thanks to Rachel Marks, I discovered a quiz that will answer the question, Which fantasy writer are you? How fun is that! So go! Take the quiz, then post the results on your own blog. Be sure to come back here and leave a link in the comments so we can visit your site and find out which writer you are. For those of you who aren’t blogging, tell us your results in a comment. Now I’m off to take the quiz myself!

Apparently I’m more one-track minded that I wanted to admit. I’ve been slogging out a series over at A Christian Worldview of Fiction that dissects The Shack, which has left me with no time to carry on the rebuttal to the anti-fantasy position some Christians take, as important as I believe it to be. I hope to come back to that topic next week.

In the meantime, I thought you’d get a chuckle out of something I found today—”You Know You’re a Fantasy Nut When …” posted by Ëarwen and used by permission, as you’ll see at the bottom:

You know you’re a fantasy nut when…

You and your friends speak *your* language, not english

You are shocked when you meet someone who has never seen The Lord of the Rings

All you want for your birthday is the latest christian fantasy book, a slice of cake, and thou

You go around offering to teach people elvish (Sindarin or Quenya? One lump or two?)

When you read a verse in the Bible and shout “That’s like my character, when…” (has happened, by the way!!)

You are past your fifteenth birthday and still read ‘Grimm’s fairy tales’ for inspiration

You drink tea out of your favorite ‘alice in wonderland’ oversized teacup (I have one! =D)

You can’t watch a good fantasy movie without writing your own fanfiction to go with it

You drool every time you hear Howard Shore’s music

You are adamant that Legolas does NOT look like a girl!

You are shopping for your archery things and you keep saying “I want Susan’s Arm Guard in Prince Caspian” and “I want Legolas’s quiver!”

You are determined to name your little girl Galadriel and your little boy Eragon (or Sienna and Eristor)

Someone asks you what your favorite animal is and you say “DRAGONS!”

You hardly know the meaning of the word ‘non fiction’

You search the Bible looking for names to name your fantasy characters (I found two, perfect for stupid henchmen – Lud and Phut! they were actually doomed cities.. haha! But forget Mahershalalhashbaz)

You are more excited about the new Vision Forum dvd ‘Science Fiction: Reclaiming the Genre for Christ’ than you are about the new Pixar movie (so that one’s more Sci-fi – I love that, too!)

Every time you wear a ring, you call it your precious (sss)

Your favorite exclamations are “Fool of a Took!” and “Forth Eorlingas!”

You MUST have everything with a Celtic design or leaves on it, because it’s positively Elvish

Every time you see an eagle you shout “Gwaihir!”

You respect moths for some odd reason…

You speak elvish more often than english (wishful thinking on my part)

You see someone with exceptionally pale skin and are convinced they are a Glimpse

Every time you and your sibling say something at the exact same time you shout “Nock and Bolt syndrome!” (in me and my little sister’s case, we go “KYS!” for ‘Kayle and Yane Syndrome!’)

When a star is shining especially bright you say “Second star to the right, and straight on till morning…”

Your dearest wish is that you could fly (always has been, always will be)

You think that you have both elvish AND hobbit somewhere in your family tree… (Glorfindel and Daisy Cotton, for instance…)

If you would like, if you give me credit you can use these 🙂 I don’t mind!

Credit – Originally posted by Ëarwen (Ay-are-wehn) Herion (hair-ee-on) at Thoughts of a Shieldmaiden.