First, I want to apologize for two things. I misled readers by saying I would post the winner of The Restorer’s Journey on Monday during the CSFF tour for Marcher Lord Press. I got my dates mixed up and the tour isn’t until next week.

On top of that, I didn’t even post on Monday—something that doesn’t happen very often. I had my overdue yearly eye exam and as they are wont to do, they dilated my eyes, which brought an end to my work day. I should have anticipated this and had the blog post up before I went, but that didn’t happen.

All that to say, I am sorry for the delay in announcing the winner of our drawing, the first of many more, I hope.

One additional item. I suppose this is one of those examples of the last shall be first, because our winner is none other than our last commenter, Becca Dowling. Congratulations! And thanks to the others who participated.

If you’re a contest junkie, I’ll refer you to Donita K. Paul’s new site, Dragon Bloggin’. She’s had a sequence of contests connected to the upcoming Motiv8 Fantasy Tour, and I think she has several more in the works. They’re easy and fun.

Another contest, with a considerably bigger prize, is the one Jeff Gerke is running to help kick off the first titles coming out with Marcher Lord Press. You’ll want to stop by next week to get the details of that one, or get a head start and click on over there right now.

While we’re on the subject of contests, check out Christopher and Allan Miller’s Cupbearer Challenge. These brothers, you might remember, are the authors of the Hunter Brown series (Warner Press), a new middle grade fantasy I mentioned several weeks ago. If you know any kids, I think this is a series you might want to introduce them to. It’s never too early to think about Christmas shopping either. But check out the contest and read the book for free, if you choose. It’s available at their site as well.

Last bit of contest info. This coming week in Minnesota, ACFW is holding their conference and will announce the winners of their Genesis contest and their Book of the Year contest. Both have Speculative Fiction divisions, so I’m looking forward to hearing who will be recognized this year. I’ll make a point to let you know the results.

Recently I mentioned The Restorer’s Journey, book three in Sharon Hinck’s Sword of Lyric series (NavPress), but I need to give a more complete review. This is a book and a series fans of Christian fantasy shouldn’t miss.

The Story.
In the previous book, The Restorer’s Son, antagonists from the parallel world follow the Mitchells to their home. After acquiring technology, including handguns, they force Mark to set up the portal stones in order to return to their own world. As they leave, they kidnap Susan. Mark and son Jake determine to follow to bring her back, but only Jake, who is exhibiting the signs of a Restorer, makes it through. And so the adventures begin—to rescue Susan and to stop the antagonists.

Strengths.
Hinck delivers a fast-paced, exciting story, with a healthy number of surprises. Her writing is tight, her scenes are vivid, her characters believable. In short, this is an entertaining book, well worth investing a few hours. Once again Hinck does a masterful job juggling two different first person points of view. Most of the book, I found myself trying to guess how and when the two main threads would intersect.

Above all, Hinck delivers spiritual truth that does not call attention to itself. Faith and doubt are integral themes, arising from the needs of the characters and without any finger-pointing authorial conclusions. The characters grow, learn, change in a natural way because of what they experience and the decisions they make. And along the way, the reader hopes for them, fears for them, and cheers for them at every turn.

Weaknesses.
My biggest concern was that the plot became rushed towards the end. A significant event takes place and if it were paced as the rest of the story, it should have had twice as much coverage, in my opinion. This quick, in-and-out event was critical and I think needed to be developed more to really be credible. Instead it had an add-on feel.

I also had a question about antagonist Cameron being able to do what he did to turn the people of the Verses his way in such a short period of time. In book one of the series he had been so discredited, and even in book two did not have the position that would seem necessary to pull off what he did in this short span.

Recommendation.
The Sword of Lyric is an outstanding Christian fantasy series. All three stand-alone stories, while connected with a thread, are adventures in which the reader can submerge himself and come out satisfied because of the entertaining story and edified because of the God-honoring themes. The Restorer’s Journey is a must read for Christian fantasy fans.

If you would like to win a copy of The Restorer’s Journey, leave a comment between now and next Monday. I will announce the winner during the CSFF Blog Tour for Marcher Lord Press. —–

Last week’s column, the first in this three-part series, began with a rebuttal to the pervasive notion among some Christians (both real and merely professing) that Christians are meant to avoid exposure to any type of evil, whether real or represented.

To that we find several objections, backed solidly by Scripture itself. Verses such as Philippians 4:8 never encourage Christ-followers to think about only nice things. The Bible itself often represents rebellion in much of its rot-gut disgustingness. The Gospel narrative itself comprises dark and bloody elements. And lastly, Christians were never taught to avoid the world and all its cultural products by the Apostle Paul, who illustrated the point with both words and by example. One of those examples is the below verse:

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything.

1 Corinthians 6:12 (ESV)

Here, Paul quotes what was apparently a Corinthian proverb, and this instance, qualifies it with the Christian view. “All things are lawful,” the Corinthians apparently liked saying, but Paul goes on to say: Yes, but not all is beneficial. What is the point of doing “all things” if they only enslave you? The Apostle doesn’t even use the it’s-just-wrong-or-could-tempt-you-toward-evil argument. Instead, he goes for a more obtuse objection: what would be the benefit of doing something? Will it help you in Christ, or glorify sin?

That’s the argument I hope to make here, hoping to correct the opposite extreme of the first of three views on portrayals of evil. The first was a notion that Christians are commanded to think only about pleasant and Godly things and expose themselves to as few portrayals of evil as possible. But the second view goes something like this:

2. Because we’re saved, there’s nothing wrong with seeing the same movies, listening to the same music, reading the same books as others. After all, they’re just movies, music, books; I’m mature enough to handle these things. Besides, for much too long Christians have segregated themselves and been legalistic, and we’re supposed to be “all things to all people.” How should we evangelize if we don’t understand the culture we live in?

A meaty discussion

Not too few assumptions are inherent in a statement like that (though of course it can’t encompass the whole “side” because a summary can only go so far). The first is that movies, music and books aren’t significant; they’re just entertainment and so on. Closely related is the heavy implication that if someone is able to “handle” certain kinds of media or representations of evil, then all Christians should have the same power. If I can “handle” it, then you must be a legalist if you can’t.

To be frank, this is an unhelpful and closed-minded view that fails to take into account the different spiritual maturity levels and diversity of personality among believers. Picture telling that view to a former Wiccan who is repelled by elements of his or her religion incidentally reflected in a fantasy novel, even a Christian one. Or a former alcoholic, saved by Grace, who struggles to avoid even the places where beer is sold, and is mocked by his non-tempted friends who claim he ought to be able to go into a bar and grill with the rest of them. Or a typical Christian guy who shies away from too much exposure to women’s bodies, put down by a Christian doctor who has had years of mental conditioning to nudity.

Some people may not be aware that the Bible actually does say that some things are sins for people, and not sins for others. The same apostle Paul addressed that directly with the whole meat-sacrificed-to-idols issue: the big Harry Potter-style debate of its day, in which some believers felt free to eat certain kinds of publicly sold meats, while others — with backgrounds in idol worship — couldn’t stand the thought of buying a product offered by ritual to a false god. Paul sounds almost “relativistic” in saying, “Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him” (Romans 14:3).

From these chapters, it’s clear that some practices by themselves are not sins; here, the issue is the state of one’s heart attitude. So if you’re tempted by eating meat that others consider an idol’s offering, don’t do it. If you’re a former Wiccan who doesn’t like magic in Narnia or mandrakes in Harry Potter because those elements vividly bring back the junk in your mind, don’t read the books. If you’re convinced Easter is saturated with paganism and that genuinely disturbs you, don’t bother with the candy and eggs. If you’re a Christian ex-con and violence in movies tempt you to hit somebody, avoid them.

It would be wrong for “stronger” Christians to look down on others who don’t do such things and judge them for being legalistic — and wrong for “weaker” Christians to assume their apparently stronger siblings in Christ are just undiscerning backsliders.

But now we come to those things we really are told to avoid, and which really are sinful.

Sex, violence and the glory of God

Perhaps I should have put that subheadline first in the column. Like many media producers know, two of those words definitely get attention. Nothing draws eyes like seeing something explode, or somebody roll around and fight, or somebody get naked — or, even “better,” seeing somebody roll around and fight while getting naked.

Violence is big in movies, and nakedness and portrayals of sex-related sins are also prevalent. Naturally, then, when Paul starts telling the Corinthians about how some things are not beneficial, he heads straight for telling people to avoid violence.

Ha ha! I’m of course just kidding. No, instead Paul writes exclusively in that chapter’s remainder about the dangers of sexual immorality and the need to avoid it. Nowhere else, either, does Paul write about avoiding violence — doing violent acts, much less seeing portrayals of it — or bad language or references to bodily abuse. Instead, the apostle heads straight for the sex. “Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body,” Paul writes.

Am I saying that any practice not specifically condemned in Scripture is wide-open to Christians? Not at all. Cases can be made that smoking is sinful (almost all people physically, cannot smoke in moderation; am I wrong?) or that the use of intoxicating drugs, anytime, is an affront to our God-given lives and bodies.

But I’m compelled to side with Scripture because it spends more time addressing the more common sins, such as pride, coveting, hatred and lust, and leaves out rarer-occurring ones such as being tempted to hit someone the same way you saw somewhere. Sure, some people will be tempted to smoke or drink too much, or commit some violence, because they’re susceptible to those elements in a film. But I contend it’s public portrayals of sex that should be anathema for Christ-followers, especially guys.

Sure, seeing naked people on-screen don’t always tempt guys to want to do the same sorts of things. But, as documented in several dozen honest Christian books on the subject (sometimes too honest), seeing folks — especially female folks — without wearing much is far from merely Arteestic or Telling the Story for Christian guys.

By contrast, I don’t know many guys — feel free to correct me — who will watch a violent movie moment and even barely think, Wow, I’d sure like to go out and kill somebody! Similarly, seeing people drink on-screen won’t affect the average believer who hasn’t had a problem with drinking too much alcohol, or drinking at all. And even bad language, I’m sure the apostle would agree, is a sin “outside the body.” Whereas sexual sin is uniquely a sin against one’s own body — the temple of the Holy Spirit — and for most guys, a bikini-clad woman showing herself off, or a sexually loaded story scenario, has no purpose beyond over-interesting the guys in the audience.

Here is where other types of Christians, though, will disagree with the contention that portrayals of sexual sins are — for the most part, and formost people — the main kind of sin that Christians, especially guys, should avoid in media. Maybe they’d point out that Jesus went among the tax collectors and the prostitutes and wasn’t bothered. He had to put up with the bad in order to reach them with the truth.

Right, I would readily say. Jesus also walked on water. So I’ll shove you out of the boat!

Seriously, Jesus had all kinds of powers that we as His people will not have this side of Heaven. One of those included absolutely holiness; though He was tempted, He never sinned. We as His people are growing in Grace, but we still need to fight the junk.

Once I read a Christian novel, one of those what-if-Jesus-never-came-until-modern-times stories. In that book, the Jesus-character was portrayed as going basically to the parallel-world version of the “Playboy mansion” and preaching the truth to the Hugh Hefner equivalent and all the self-body-selling people there. The implication, not so subtle to this author, was that Christians should quit just yelling at these types for all their sin and actually go among them and try to make friends.

And ordinarily I would agree, except for this one fact: the author’s main character, following in the parallel-world Jesus, must have been a eunuch. While much of the book presented well his struggles trying to be “Jesus’” apostle, the protagonist’s real-life reactions to the “mansion” women were nil. I don’t think the book even said something mild such as, “he looked away, trying not to be distracted.” Am I wrong? Would a real-world, red-blooded, made-for-intimacy-with-only-one-special-woman, Christ-following guy be able to suspend temptation magically while preaching in the Playboy mansion?

If you’re a guy who disagrees, claiming this sort of thing doesn’t affect you, you’re either a real-life eunuch, or you’re blessed that God’s given you more powers to overcome those temptations. But please be kind to your “weaker” brothers. And that would be most of us, judging not only from all those fight-lust books, but Scripture itself.

Separation anxieties

Finally, the “all things to all people” passage (1 Corinthians 9: 19-23) has been used far too often by some Christians to justify all kinds of behavior imitating the world, when it’s clear from Paul’s passage that he only “became as” different types of people groups, or perhaps economic classes, “for the sake of the gospel.”

Again, it’s a matter of the heart. We can certainly understand and participate in our culture, to the glory of God and with the hope of sharing the Gospel, without indulging in its sinful practices. Paul read Greek poetry, but didn’t buy into any of the myths. Many Christians have found they can read Harry Potter or watch Star Wars, point out how the good-versus-evil themes of those books incidentally imitate parts of the Gospel, but also disagree with the love-as-the-ultimate-end or trust-your-own-feelings notions. Neither of those franchises will truly tempt most discerning Christians and cause them to stumble — unless they’re the rarer individuals who have backgrounds in real paganism and such.

Now, given both Biblically imbalanced positions of purity and Christ-honoring art, how should Christ-followers best interact with both darkness and light in not only others’ fiction, but their own? Often we have no exact how-to rules. But I hope to finish this series by outlining some Biblically based starter concepts, as best I can, next week.

Can a story be too dark?

I had one reader describe my novel Journey to Mithlimar, the second book in The Lore of Efrathah, as “intense.” For some reason, I translated that as “dark.” It’s not, of course, but that started me thinking about the parts of my story that are undeniably dark.

Last week I mentioned Sharon Hinck‘s third book in the Sword of Lyric series, The Restorer’s Journey. That book, too, could be considered “dark.” And Broken Angel, last month’s CSFF feature, giving a dystopian view of the world, was certainly dark as well.

But none of these is hopeless. I’d like to think that’s the single factor that needs to be present to keep a story from being too dark. But to be honest, I’ve read dark books where hope shows up in the end, and I didn’t find the story any less dark. Mostly the ending felt tacked on or forced—an author’s manipulation that didn’t seem justified.

I know that God works to bring light out of darkness, and often that miraculous change comes apparently with no warning—a thief-in-the-night surprise. But in fiction? That kind of story comes across as artificial, unless proper groundwork has been carefully laid.

So my guess is, that “proper groundwork” is what keeps a novel from feeling “too dark.” Not that there are lines full of sunshine and flowers or any dramatic visions or prophecies that all will work out well in the end. Rather, there’s enough foreshadowing, enough character development, enough open-ended possibility that the reader doesn’t feel the situation is hopeless.

On the other hand, the reader should not sense a “sure thing.” If victory is a foregone conclusion, the dark forces can be as dark as they want, but the reader won’t view them as a real threat. There won’t be any tension and little suspense—the driving forces that make a reader want to continue turning pages.

I suppose some visitors may be wondering if “darkness” is a necessary component, and some might even think that any darkness is too much darkness. In that regard, I refer you to Spec Faith contributor Stephen Burrnett’s most recent post.

Scripture clearly acknowledges that we have an enemy—that he prowls like a lion seeking whom he may devour; that we are to resist him or flee from him; that we are to know his schemes without being party to them (wise as serpents, innocent as doves).

If fiction is to show truth, as I believe, it seems clear that darkness must come into our stories. But to be most effective, authors need to balance the dueling forces of too much darkness with predictable victory.

For this week’s column, I’m going to do something many Christian columnists do, but that (from what I remember) I haven’t yet done: quote a Bible passage, and thus sound very profound. In this case, it’s a passage that is so often misunderstood — and even less often, that misunderstanding is not contrasted with the life and practice of the apostle who wrote it.

Here goes:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Philippians 4:8 (ESV)

This verse came to mind while I was still making a few incidental rounds online, reading a few blogs on which Christian commentators were critiquing The Dark Knight. Already I’ve offered my views, on this site and elsewhere; and as much as I did appreciate the blockbuster Batman film, somehow I’d like to move on and talk about something else. However, the film and its indeed “dark” elements have engendered a variety of reactions within Christendom. And I can’t help but think Christians’ views of the Gospel of grace — whether right or wrong — are affecting how they see stories like this.

I hope some of you won’t be too annoyed here, because in this and in at least two future columns, I hope to categorize those factions and reactions to this film, and novels and films altogether, into three groups. Then I’ll deal with them one by one, ending with the view held by me and many others.

Virtue versus violence

1. Christians shouldn’t expose themselves to negative things no matter how positive other elements are. Darkness can’t mix with light. To do so would be to compromise, expose ourselves to evil and maybe allow Satan to gain a foothold in our lives.

Those who hold this view — or a derivative; my summary can only go so far — would point to the Philippians passage as proof that Christians should avoid thinking much about evil, looking at images of evil or contemplating the reality of evil. Instead, we’re supposed to concentrate on only the good stuff, and thus, only good guys in our stories.

I hope most Christians don’t have the extreme perspective given, purely by accident, by a character in the “Kids Praise” cassettes of the ‘80s and early ‘90s, featuring Psalty the Singing Songbook. In one of the later tapes, Charity Churchmouse, trying to encourage Psalty’s omnipresent cabal of kids not to get depressed and down, sings the words of Philippians 4:8, along with her interpretation (you wild-at-heart guys, please hang tough through this): “I think about bright yellow daisies and daffodils, petunias, and all kinds of posies!” she proclaims. That’s just reading a silly, false and overly feminized view into the verse, though I’m sure that wasn’t Psalty’s intent.

Even the milder form of such a view would seem based on the incidental perception that Philippians 4:8 has a single word in there, which it does not — the word only. If such a meaning of the total-virtue types were true, it seems the apostle Paul would have put in the term between the words think and about — i.e., “think only about these things.” But he didn’t. Everything in this chapter is for encouragement, not a do-this-only command.

And both Paul and we should be glad he didn’t say only. If he had, the erstwhile epistle scribbler would be subject to a heap of hypocrisy. Think about these things: Paul was a missionary, who often traveled to cultures that weren’t necessarily only virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy or commendable. Throughout Acts, we find Paul and his Gospel-preaching colleagues mixing it up with all kinds of false religious advocates. Paul, though grounded on the rock of the Gospel, had to wade through a lot of muck and junk to take that Gospel into the evil world. Could it be said that he let his light “mix with darkness”?

What I find most interesting is the fact that Paul had clearly read a lot of pagan poetry. We first find him directly quoting a non-Biblical selection in Acts 17:28 — probably a poem by a Cretan writer — in support of the Gospel Paul was preaching about. Later, Paul quotes twice from more non-Christian writers’ works in order to contrast it with the truth (“all things are lawful” and others, in 1 Corinthians 6: 12-13 and in 10:23). Also, as Paul later reluctantly tells the Corinthians, he was beat up, shipwrecked three times and often on the lam. Not necessarily petunias and daffodils, this.

Meanwhile, many other portions of the Bible offer graphic descriptions of violence for no clear reason other than perhaps to show the state of man without God. That includes several brothers’ sexual actions with one woman (Genesis 38), a man cutting up his “concubine’s” body into 12 pieces and sending those separately to the 12 tribes of Israel to incite further violence (Judges 19) — and perhaps most repugnant of all, God’s own parable about Samariah and Jerusalem in Ezekiel 23, comparing them to “women” (to use a more-polite term) who repeatedly and disgustingly sell their bodies to the preying men of Israel’s enemies.

Some presentations of evil, whether they’re in Scripture, pagan poetry, The Dark Knight, The Lord of the Rings or any other story, fantasy or otherwise, are often necessary. They help us picture the state of man, and the natural results of Evil, without God’s powerful and glorious intervention to redeem the universe. Representations of evil often remind us that without Christ’s righteousness, people are dead in their trespasses and sins and would keep doing the same things.

Such awesome truths make people “smaller,” and God “bigger” and more glorious to us. Best of all, they echo the Gospel itself — the Gospel that includes the “impure” elements of sin, Hell and God’s wrath that far too many Christians incidentally gloss over.

But if they do, they miss the point of the Gospel, that Christ died a horrible death to save rebel sinners. The story is weakened. And instead of recalling adequate amounts of evil for the contrast with God and righteousness, such Christians have lightened darkness into gray. They’ve either pretended evil doesn’t exist, or made it seem similar to goodness. And that, not the Biblically unbalanced “think only pure thoughts” view, is the worst, most dangerous way that darkness could really be mixed with light.

Withdraw from the world?

Finally, another argument based on Biblically based logic and common sense rules out the whole avoid-impure-thoughts-at-all-costs view. If certain Christians should not recall or contemplate the realities of evil in this world and its unnatural results, then what? Are they “holier” than other Christians who work in professions in which they go head-to-head with evil?

Consider Christian police officers, detectives, coroners, soldiers, prison guards, ER doctors and nurses, soldiers (in an overall-“just” war), national security agents. Would such a view consider these people below-class Christians because of their dirty work? Or would advocates of the think-only-pure-thoughts belief be left with the rather awkward and reclusive conclusion that Christians should avoid these dirty-work professions 24/7 and leave them all for the unbelievers to fill?

Some Christians (real and professing) do claim this, to be sure, especially the quasi-Amish types of folks. In response, I can’t help but think of the Hobbits, blissfully dwelling in the Shire and smoking pipeweed while the Human Rangers try to patrol its borders and keep them safe and unaware of danger.

Moreover, though, more of the Apostle Paul’s strong language, directed toward the Corinthian church, comes to mind. Paul was much more concerned with how the church interacted with false and disgustingly sinning “believers” than with their reactions with the world’s sordid sinners. “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world,” he told them, “or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.” That, to Paul, makes no sense. Neither was it anything he himself practiced.

Now we come to the fact that some people overcorrect with this view, based on Arteestic frameworks of thought, regarding other sinful aspects of the world — ungodly sexual practices, for instance. Junk like that, some professing Christians say, doesn’t bother them, or else it really shouldn’t bother us because this is part of our world and we should understand sins like this. That’s what I hope to write about next time.

I’ve been thinking about the topic of the Church to the point that I posted a number of articles over at A Christian Worldview of Fiction a few weeks ago. Then lo and behold, the last two Christian speculative novels I read have touched upon the subject.

In one, Sharon Hinck‘s third Sword of Lyric novel, The Restorer’s Journey, the church falls under false teaching because an errant leader distorts the records, actual audio editions of the Verses. This is a clear analogy of the Church falling away from the truth by believing a lie—one perpetuated by forging a “new” record that presented lies as if they were truth.

The other, Sigmund Brouwer’s Broken Angel, the CSFF Blog Tour’s August feature, does something remarkably similar. In this dystopian science fiction, the church ostensibly has withdrawn to a cloistered theocratic country within the United States. However, the iron-fisted rule of the autocratic Ben Elohim prohibits reading and outlaws owning a Bible. The result is error compounding error.

In some ways, the authoritative ruler in each of these novels is a type of the Antichrist, though I don’t believe either Hinck or Brouwer intended to make an end-times statement. Rather, the themes seem consistent with what passes itself off today as Christianity—religious observance without any basis other than the say-so of the leader. In both novels, the leadership became the keeper and the disseminator of truth.

And in today’s churches? Too many congregations no longer take a Bible to church. Too many churches display selected verses on a screen via Powerpoint in a “user friendly” translation. Too many auditoriums full of people listen to a mega-star preacher rip out segments of Scripture from their context and distort the meaning beyond recognition.

Both The Restorer’s Journey and Broken Angel are full of thought-provoking content, but I find them both equally relevant when it comes to the issue of the Church and the easy slide into false teaching. What a warning. What perfect examples of the way in which Christian speculative fiction can tell the whole truth about the world.

Be sure to take a look at what other bloggers participating in the August CSFF Blog Tour have to say about Broken Angel: Brandon Barr, Justin Boyer, Keanan Brand, Jackie Castle, Valerie Comer, Karri Compton, Courtney, CSFF Blog Tour, Stacey Dale, D. G. D. Davidson, Janey DeMeo, Jeff Draper, April Erwin, Karina Fabian, Mark Goodyear, Andrea Graham, Katie Hart, Timothy Hicks, Christopher Hopper, Joleen Howell, Jason Joyner, Carol Keen, Magma, Margaret, Shannon McNear, Melissa Meeks, Rebecca LuElla Miller, Nissa, John W. Otte, Steve Rice, Ashley Rutherford, Hanna Sandvig, Chawna Schroeder, Mirtika or Mir’s Here, Sean Slagle, James Somers, Donna Swanson, Steve Trower, Laura Williams, Timothy Wise

The new issue of Latest In Spec just came out. As always there’s a listing of new releases, author appearances, interviews, book reviews, and much more. It’s a great resource for anyone who wants to stay current with the latest in Christian Speculative fiction.

The categories include Contests. On her new Dragon Bloggin’ blog, author Donita Paul is holding weekly contests as a build up to the upcoming West Coast Motiv8 Fantasy Writers Tour. Lots of fun.

Donita isn’t alone when it comes to running contests to stir up interest in the tour. Bryan Davis, author of the Dragons in Our Midst, The Oracles of Fire, and the Echoes from the Reflection’s Edge series also has a contest.

On a new subject, did you know that Stephen R. Donaldson is writing a third Thomas Covenant trilogy? The first, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, published in the 1970’s, created a phenomena akin to the Harry Potter craze, but these were adults waiting and waiting for the new release, then rushing to the bookstore at the earliest possible moment.

Anyway, the first book of The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Runes of the Earth, came out in 2004. Book two, Fatal Revenant released last year. So why aren’t fantasy fans talking about these books?

Speaking of recent releases, Warner Press has published a middle grade fantasy—Hunter Brown and the Secret of the Shadow, first in The Codebearers Series, by Christopher and Allan Miller (brothers, but no relation to me, at least that I know of!) The art work looks wonderful, as you can see if you visit their site, and the story sounds just like my kind of fantasy, only for kiddos.

And now, the truly amazing thing. You can read the book online, for free.

I’m not sure what I think about this marketing strategy. I will say, from what I’ve seen of the art work, this is a book you’ll want to own if the story lives up to the promise. I’ll let you decide that one.

A recent commenter to Stephen Burnett’s review of the Dark Knight made this statement:

the issues raised by the literature [discussed] on this blog [do] tend to raise these very fundamental issues [the origin of the universe; evolution; the existence or not of a good, omnipotent God; the origins of evil; suffering; and so on]

DB is absolutely right. The literature we discuss at Spec Faith brings up these ultimate issues. But how much of understanding is in the eye of the viewer, or when discussing books, in the eye of the reader? For example, where Stephen and others saw redemption in the Dark Knight, DB saw a distrust in humanity, and some reviewers, such as Bryan Davis, saw evil triumph.

How is it that the same work can stir up so many interpretations? And is this a good thing or something to be wary of? Shouldn’t it be clear that good wins out? And what, after all, is good? Is it the indomitable human spirit, a creator God who made all things well, doing no harm to others or to our planet, a figment of the imagination?

Shouldn’t a work of fiction make this clear?

I’ll admit, I’m ambiguous on this point. When it comes to literature as art, I think the spelled-out ending is weak. Nothing is left for the reader to contemplate. No gaps left for the imagination to fill. Everything tidy and neat, tied up in a box and delivered for the reader. No further thought required.

But when I think about my own writing, do I want pagans latching on and finding something they think fits their worldview, as many do with Tolkien’s work? Do I want humanists to think my character came through without any help from an incompetent god?

No and no. So a part of me wants there to be no doubt what I mean by the story, and another part of me wants very much for readers to discuss the implications of this or that event, decision, character’s choices.

The question is this. Does a piece of fiction impact a reader more by ambiguity and the ensuing discussion, or by clarity?

I’ve never heard a discussion about whether or not Aslan was a redemptive character. Did Lewis create a less powerful character as a result of making him clearly good, clearly redemptive?

I already said, I’m ambiguous on this subject. What are your thoughts?