The previous post generated some positive and negative comment, and I should explain a few points.
No enclaves. It has been objected that an overt Christian message would put Christians into a literary ghetto. Actually, we're already there, and we won't get out until we fight our way clear. We already have the reputation of following the world rather than pioneering, yet any proper study of literature would tell you that much of modern literature parasitizes from Christianity.
That's as it should be.
Instead, we are the Elvis impersonators of the literary and musical world. We turn out second-rate copies of stuff that isn't even worth a first-rate copy.
Subtlety. Subtlety can work--in a different world. People today are generally too ignorant of the Bible (and that includes Christian writers) to notice subtlety, much less produce it properly. Can God use it anyway? Of course; Jesus Christ, Superstar is outright blasphemous--it ends with Jesus very much dead and in many stagings Judas resurrected--but it also contains a lot of Scripture, and people have gotten saved as a result. "Subtle" Christian fiction seldom does even that well. But that doesn't justify blasphemy. (It might justify using Scripture, however.)
If God requires you to go this route, fine. You can count on him to bless the result as you submit to his leading. I doubt this happens much, though. My experience is that a writer will blame God (He told me to write it this way!) initially, only to turn around and rewrite the credits (It's MY story!). But be very sure you totally immerse yourself in Scripture. Turn off the TV and radio (including Christian programs) and give yourself over to prayer and Bible reading. It'll probably take you a month just to get the toxins out. Otherwise your "subtlety" will be nothing more than spouting what you've taken in, and most of it won't be the Gospel truth.
Vive la Différence! One of the big problems is that we try to blend in. We tell the unsaved that we're just like them. But if there's no difference, what's the difference? Groucho Marx heard about a nude musical (I think it was Hair) and stripped off in front of a full-length mirror. He said he didn't see anything worth buying a ticket for.
Neither do unbelievers. If our faith makes so little difference in our lives, if we can blend in that easily, we might as well stop pretending and drop the Christian act.
The side with the better narrative wins--and that should be us! Our story is more shocking, powerful, and beautiful than theirs--and it happens to be true. Let them borrow from us, not vice versa.
But I admit that back in the 1980s I fell for this idea myself for a while. Then I noticed that it didn't work. In fact, when unbelievers finally tumbled to the fact that a subtle story had Christian leanings, they usually felt betrayed. I encountered some very negative remarks about that.
On the other hand, what people want is something fresh and different. Got it. In today's post-Christian world, a lot of people are more curious than hostile, and practically everyone respects someone who's up front with his views. (Think about how popular blogs are! No pussyfooting there!) I know of one case in particular where atheists and others hostile to Christianity still strongly supported an overtly Christian novel because they respected the writer's candor and talent. If we hit them with full-force Christianity, we'll make a few enemies and a lot of converts.
Obedience. But more important, we'll be obeying God. If we continue with "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" writing, we invite the charge that we're ashamed of the Gospel. Why else sneak around? The early Christians were very in-your-face about their faith, and they turned the world upside down.
What will we do? And what will we answer when God asks in the end what we did with what he gave us? Burying the gift in the uncontroversial sands of subtilizing is not an option.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
MindFlights 3: Neutrality is not an option
So roughly half of the available stories for MindFlights are worthwhile, in my opinion, but only one or two are noticeably Christian. That's fairly common these days, which is a solid-gold clue that something's wrong.
Historically, we have been the counter-culture. Even Balaam figured that out concerning Israel: "From the rocky peaks I see them, from the heights I view them. I see a people who live apart and do not consider themselves one of the nations." (Num 23:9).
Compare Paul:
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. (2 Cor 6:14-7:1)
That doesn't mean abandoning the field entirely, but we should stop playing catch-up with the world. We should innovate and let them copy if they can. And one of our standards should be Php 4:8--"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." (That would probably clear out even a Christian bookstore pretty fast.) I should mention that the Greek does not refer to thinking about such things from time to time but constantly--these are the things we are to dwell on. You are what you read.
Does that mean we should read only Christian work? No; there is worthwhile material even in pagan sources. Paul quoted pagan writers on various occasions.
Does it mean that we should only write tracts on getting saved? Again, no. Read the New Testament carefully: how many "Steps to Salvation" pieces do you find?
And the Christian nature of a spec fic story is far more important than for any other type. Why? Because even if a mystery or romance is filled with atheists and Satanists, it still takes place (more or less) in the real world, so whatever the characters' opinions, we know that God is there.
But in spec fic, we are dealing with another world, perhaps one without God. Many writers turn to spec fic precisely so they can have a godless universe. And while it was possible in Lewis' day and Tolkien's to let the writer's mindset do the work, that was a different world too. Back then people were more likely to get a biblical reference or take a hint. At this point we are so muddled with soundbites about cultures and religions we have no deep knowledge of any of them--not even our own. Indirection and subtlety no longer work.
So what's the alternative? Some publishers think that if you pursue unabashed Christianity, people will tune you out. Some will. But I think you'll find that most people are curious about what we believe, and our spin-sick world longs for someone who is candid about his beliefs. If you can mention those beliefs naturally in the course of a story--not forcing them in for no good reason, but letting them occur naturally--I doubt most people will object.
But neutrality is impossible. One of the things that bothered me about Wayfarer's Journal was a remark on the site about the desirability of writing fiction where one's faith was no more central than the color of one's eyes. In other words, it shouldn't matter at all. This is an increasingly common view: the attempt to sink to the lowest common denominator, to put the lamp under the basket. Jesus said, "So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Rev 3:16)
Pick a side!
Other CSFF Blogs on the tour:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Pamela Morrisson
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise
Historically, we have been the counter-culture. Even Balaam figured that out concerning Israel: "From the rocky peaks I see them, from the heights I view them. I see a people who live apart and do not consider themselves one of the nations." (Num 23:9).
Compare Paul:
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. (2 Cor 6:14-7:1)
That doesn't mean abandoning the field entirely, but we should stop playing catch-up with the world. We should innovate and let them copy if they can. And one of our standards should be Php 4:8--"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." (That would probably clear out even a Christian bookstore pretty fast.) I should mention that the Greek does not refer to thinking about such things from time to time but constantly--these are the things we are to dwell on. You are what you read.
Does that mean we should read only Christian work? No; there is worthwhile material even in pagan sources. Paul quoted pagan writers on various occasions.
Does it mean that we should only write tracts on getting saved? Again, no. Read the New Testament carefully: how many "Steps to Salvation" pieces do you find?
And the Christian nature of a spec fic story is far more important than for any other type. Why? Because even if a mystery or romance is filled with atheists and Satanists, it still takes place (more or less) in the real world, so whatever the characters' opinions, we know that God is there.
But in spec fic, we are dealing with another world, perhaps one without God. Many writers turn to spec fic precisely so they can have a godless universe. And while it was possible in Lewis' day and Tolkien's to let the writer's mindset do the work, that was a different world too. Back then people were more likely to get a biblical reference or take a hint. At this point we are so muddled with soundbites about cultures and religions we have no deep knowledge of any of them--not even our own. Indirection and subtlety no longer work.
So what's the alternative? Some publishers think that if you pursue unabashed Christianity, people will tune you out. Some will. But I think you'll find that most people are curious about what we believe, and our spin-sick world longs for someone who is candid about his beliefs. If you can mention those beliefs naturally in the course of a story--not forcing them in for no good reason, but letting them occur naturally--I doubt most people will object.
But neutrality is impossible. One of the things that bothered me about Wayfarer's Journal was a remark on the site about the desirability of writing fiction where one's faith was no more central than the color of one's eyes. In other words, it shouldn't matter at all. This is an increasingly common view: the attempt to sink to the lowest common denominator, to put the lamp under the basket. Jesus said, "So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Rev 3:16)
Pick a side!
Other CSFF Blogs on the tour:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Pamela Morrisson
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise
Monday, May 19, 2008
MindFlights 2: The Stories
Since MindFlights is a speculative fiction e-zine, it's fair to look over the stories. Although MindFlights is technically new, it has a seasoned staff, so I'll set the bar higher than I did for the newer Wayfarer's Journal.
The best of the stories, in my view, is "The Significance of Snowflakes," by C. L. Dyck. It's also the best story from a scientific and philosophical standpoint. For that matter, it's the only outright Christian story in the group; all the others could have been written by an atheist or Wiccan with the right kind of imagination. (If you've ever looked at Isaac Asimov's "religious" fantasy short stories you'll know what I mean.)
"The Other's Mission," by Matthew Wuertz, is also good, showing how a spec fic story can be generally "Christian" without being particularly preachy. (On other hand, the basic plot could also be transferred to a non-spec fic setting: it's basically a missionary story.)
"The Red Unicorn," by Rebecca D. Bruner, is caught in a dilemma of the author's own making. In medieval symbology, the unicorn represented Christ, and Bruner appears to accept that. But that makes the importance of virginity work in a troublesome way, as though it were a means of grace or even salvation. Is there forgiveness for someone who marries for the wrong reason? Apparently not.
"On the Edge of Eternity," by Steve Stanton, has a few issues. The opening scene should've been deleted; the story proper starts in the lounge. I found the "sprite" idea excessively cute. It could work, but not this way.
"Heart of Flesh," by Michael Bonett, Jr., was depressing enough I didn't finish it. I suspect it has a worthwhile point; I just didn't care for the overall tone or spirit of the piece.
"Takin' Notice," by Susan Plett, just annoyed me. The narrator affects a folksy tone, yet when God shows up in quasi-Bubba gear, he talks like a regular city fella. It probably wasn't God at all--just Obama makin' a stopover in flyover country. (Zeb shoulda ast to see him bowl!) And remember, flyover folks at best are well-meanin' but childlike dolts who need a city slicker to straighten 'em out. And what's on God's mind anyway? Salvation? Repentence in general? No, just avoidin' critters on the road. Good point and all, Lord; should I save the whales while I'm up?
"Potato," by Ben Payne, and "Poisoned Thorns," by Jonathan Moeller, were both good stories at the start, but in the end they inexplicably took a sharp turn right into the wall. I wanted to like "Potato" in particular--its opening is reminiscent of my novella "Virtual Messiah," though the setting there is relevant to the story as a whole. In this case we seem to be looking at a fake existence that is changed (more or less) to something more real by evil. There's a wrinkle God never thought of! (Yes, God does use our evil deeds to confront us with our selfish, godless fantasies, but perceiving reality is a gift of God, not a direct result of evil.) And the solution to mindless fantasy is something poisoned and evil. Okay...
In "Poisoned Thorns" the main character decides that the answer to bad magic is not-so-bad magic. Though warned at every turn that there will be some kind of curse on the result, she perseveres--and no curse turns up! (Okay, her hubby may throw a hissy fit. Large whoop.) I was prepared for some kind of "Monkey's Paw" resolution, and indeed the logic of the story requires one. I have no idea where it got off to.
Someone will probably take issue with my statement that "The Significance of Snowflakes" is the sole specifically Christian story in the group. What about "Wedding at the End of Time," by Russ Colson? It does use some biblical imagery and terms, but the concept is a bit of a stretch. The early Christians realized that the big deal about the afterlife was being admitted into or barred from the presence of God. Here, rather like "Waiting for Godot," there's a certain amount of chat about the curiously absent deity (okay, no, there's way more in the play than in this story), but it's unsurprising that the story ends without his actually putting in an appearance.
So we have two stories out of nine that are good, perhaps two more than aren't bad, and the rest (in my view) hit the wall for one reason or another. Not bad, I suppose.
Anyway, tomorrow I'll make a few observations about the e-zine as a whole and why it's necessary to set the bar higher for spec fic than for regular fiction.
Other CSFF Blogs on the tour:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Pamela Morrisson
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise
The best of the stories, in my view, is "The Significance of Snowflakes," by C. L. Dyck. It's also the best story from a scientific and philosophical standpoint. For that matter, it's the only outright Christian story in the group; all the others could have been written by an atheist or Wiccan with the right kind of imagination. (If you've ever looked at Isaac Asimov's "religious" fantasy short stories you'll know what I mean.)
"The Other's Mission," by Matthew Wuertz, is also good, showing how a spec fic story can be generally "Christian" without being particularly preachy. (On other hand, the basic plot could also be transferred to a non-spec fic setting: it's basically a missionary story.)
"The Red Unicorn," by Rebecca D. Bruner, is caught in a dilemma of the author's own making. In medieval symbology, the unicorn represented Christ, and Bruner appears to accept that. But that makes the importance of virginity work in a troublesome way, as though it were a means of grace or even salvation. Is there forgiveness for someone who marries for the wrong reason? Apparently not.
"On the Edge of Eternity," by Steve Stanton, has a few issues. The opening scene should've been deleted; the story proper starts in the lounge. I found the "sprite" idea excessively cute. It could work, but not this way.
"Heart of Flesh," by Michael Bonett, Jr., was depressing enough I didn't finish it. I suspect it has a worthwhile point; I just didn't care for the overall tone or spirit of the piece.
"Takin' Notice," by Susan Plett, just annoyed me. The narrator affects a folksy tone, yet when God shows up in quasi-Bubba gear, he talks like a regular city fella. It probably wasn't God at all--just Obama makin' a stopover in flyover country. (Zeb shoulda ast to see him bowl!) And remember, flyover folks at best are well-meanin' but childlike dolts who need a city slicker to straighten 'em out. And what's on God's mind anyway? Salvation? Repentence in general? No, just avoidin' critters on the road. Good point and all, Lord; should I save the whales while I'm up?
"Potato," by Ben Payne, and "Poisoned Thorns," by Jonathan Moeller, were both good stories at the start, but in the end they inexplicably took a sharp turn right into the wall. I wanted to like "Potato" in particular--its opening is reminiscent of my novella "Virtual Messiah," though the setting there is relevant to the story as a whole. In this case we seem to be looking at a fake existence that is changed (more or less) to something more real by evil. There's a wrinkle God never thought of! (Yes, God does use our evil deeds to confront us with our selfish, godless fantasies, but perceiving reality is a gift of God, not a direct result of evil.) And the solution to mindless fantasy is something poisoned and evil. Okay...
In "Poisoned Thorns" the main character decides that the answer to bad magic is not-so-bad magic. Though warned at every turn that there will be some kind of curse on the result, she perseveres--and no curse turns up! (Okay, her hubby may throw a hissy fit. Large whoop.) I was prepared for some kind of "Monkey's Paw" resolution, and indeed the logic of the story requires one. I have no idea where it got off to.
Someone will probably take issue with my statement that "The Significance of Snowflakes" is the sole specifically Christian story in the group. What about "Wedding at the End of Time," by Russ Colson? It does use some biblical imagery and terms, but the concept is a bit of a stretch. The early Christians realized that the big deal about the afterlife was being admitted into or barred from the presence of God. Here, rather like "Waiting for Godot," there's a certain amount of chat about the curiously absent deity (okay, no, there's way more in the play than in this story), but it's unsurprising that the story ends without his actually putting in an appearance.
So we have two stories out of nine that are good, perhaps two more than aren't bad, and the rest (in my view) hit the wall for one reason or another. Not bad, I suppose.
Anyway, tomorrow I'll make a few observations about the e-zine as a whole and why it's necessary to set the bar higher for spec fic than for regular fiction.
Other CSFF Blogs on the tour:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Pamela Morrisson
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise
Labels:
e-zines,
fantasy,
science,
science fiction,
site review,
speculative fiction
MindFlights 1: Intro
I should begin this tour of MindFlights e-zine by mentioning that I am a proofreader for two other Double Edged Publishing e-zines, and on one of them I also serve as an editor. I don't usually bother actually reading those e-zines; I've already read them in proof.
MindFlights isn't one of them, but I admit I've steered clear of it on several grounds, as I did from its predecessors, The Sword Review and Dragons, Knights and Angels. But it's on the CSFF list, so I thought I might as well take the time for a look.
To begin with, there's a bit of an odd nuisance factor: unless a piece is unusually short, such as a poem or flash fiction, you get a teaser page with about a printed page worth of text. You can then get the whole piece in your choice of html or pdf, and the full version comes with a copy of that month's cover art.
Free advice: Just have the whole piece in html minus the cover art, and have a link at top or bottom for those who'd rather have it in pdf. If the reader decides to drop it after a few paragraphs, that's every bit as easy to do with the full story loaded. And if catering to those with a slow connection is a concern, html loads much faster than graphics, so losing the cover art will speed up the download, and you won't have to click through. (Hands up, anyone who does enjoy click-through pages!)
Anyway, tomorrow I'll look at some of the stories that are up at the moment, and in the third post make a few observations about the e-zine as a whole.
Other CSFF Blogs on the tour:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Pamela Morrisson
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise
MindFlights isn't one of them, but I admit I've steered clear of it on several grounds, as I did from its predecessors, The Sword Review and Dragons, Knights and Angels. But it's on the CSFF list, so I thought I might as well take the time for a look.
To begin with, there's a bit of an odd nuisance factor: unless a piece is unusually short, such as a poem or flash fiction, you get a teaser page with about a printed page worth of text. You can then get the whole piece in your choice of html or pdf, and the full version comes with a copy of that month's cover art.
Free advice: Just have the whole piece in html minus the cover art, and have a link at top or bottom for those who'd rather have it in pdf. If the reader decides to drop it after a few paragraphs, that's every bit as easy to do with the full story loaded. And if catering to those with a slow connection is a concern, html loads much faster than graphics, so losing the cover art will speed up the download, and you won't have to click through. (Hands up, anyone who does enjoy click-through pages!)
Anyway, tomorrow I'll look at some of the stories that are up at the moment, and in the third post make a few observations about the e-zine as a whole.
Other CSFF Blogs on the tour:
Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Pamela Morrisson
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise
Labels:
e-zines,
fantasy,
science fiction,
site review,
speculative fiction
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Asulon 4: Weak points
There aren't that many problems in William McGrath's Asulon.
Topical harangues. Preachiness isn't a real problem. Concentrating too much on the topics of the moment is. We have nods to term limits and something like the Fair Tax early on, for example. That's all very clever, but an author should focus better and remember that topical references get old fast.
Info dumps. These are hard to avoid, but some of them are a bit long. I generally find that dialog is better than pulling out a book and beginning to read, which actually occurs twice. Also, since this uses an omniscient viewpoint, we could simply watch some of the events unfold free of charge.
Abrupt ending. It's a bad sign when you reach the end and turn the page expecting at least another few paragraphs. The ending here is as sudden as an invisible brick wall on a freeway.
Editing. The editing could be better. Unfortunately, these days that's true of practically anything in print.
Sidebar: "Etruscan." I considered mentioning this yesterday, but only a language geek would notice. The "Etruscan" is in fact mangled Latin. I don't consider this a problem, however, for a couple reasons:
1. Although Etruscan wasn't even related to Latin, the Etruscan civilization dominated the area where Rome and Latin eventually came to power. The goal is evidently to invoke Rome indirectly. I can live with that.
2. The author clearly likes playing with words anyway. Toward the end of the story, he conflates "Nephilim" and "Rephaim" into "Rephalim," for example. Again, it's tolerable.
Conclusion
The positives strongly outweigh the negatives, and I look forward to the remaining two books. There are some good points here, and perhaps getting a fresh perspective on what has become a stale genre will provoke people to think about alternatives to the opinions they've been taught to consider practically on a par with Scripture.
Participating Blog links:
The Christian Fiction Review Blog
A Frank Review
Susan Kirkland
Melissa Meeks @ Bibliophile's Retreat
Geralyn Beauchamp @ The Time Mistress
Cathi Hassan @ Cathi's Chatter
Caprice Hokstad @ Queen of Convolution
Topical harangues. Preachiness isn't a real problem. Concentrating too much on the topics of the moment is. We have nods to term limits and something like the Fair Tax early on, for example. That's all very clever, but an author should focus better and remember that topical references get old fast.
Info dumps. These are hard to avoid, but some of them are a bit long. I generally find that dialog is better than pulling out a book and beginning to read, which actually occurs twice. Also, since this uses an omniscient viewpoint, we could simply watch some of the events unfold free of charge.
Abrupt ending. It's a bad sign when you reach the end and turn the page expecting at least another few paragraphs. The ending here is as sudden as an invisible brick wall on a freeway.
Editing. The editing could be better. Unfortunately, these days that's true of practically anything in print.
Sidebar: "Etruscan." I considered mentioning this yesterday, but only a language geek would notice. The "Etruscan" is in fact mangled Latin. I don't consider this a problem, however, for a couple reasons:
1. Although Etruscan wasn't even related to Latin, the Etruscan civilization dominated the area where Rome and Latin eventually came to power. The goal is evidently to invoke Rome indirectly. I can live with that.
2. The author clearly likes playing with words anyway. Toward the end of the story, he conflates "Nephilim" and "Rephaim" into "Rephalim," for example. Again, it's tolerable.
Conclusion
The positives strongly outweigh the negatives, and I look forward to the remaining two books. There are some good points here, and perhaps getting a fresh perspective on what has become a stale genre will provoke people to think about alternatives to the opinions they've been taught to consider practically on a par with Scripture.
Participating Blog links:
The Christian Fiction Review Blog
A Frank Review
Susan Kirkland
Melissa Meeks @ Bibliophile's Retreat
Geralyn Beauchamp @ The Time Mistress
Cathi Hassan @ Cathi's Chatter
Caprice Hokstad @ Queen of Convolution
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Asulon 3: False Negatives
This is normally the point where I'd mention any negatives in William McGrath's Asulon. However, because it's an unusual book, I think it's likely to generate some faulty criticisms--more than most books. So I'll take a few moments to deal with some false negatives.
Head hopping. Expect this from the dysfunctionally illiterate. McGrath doesn't really head-hop; he's using an omniscient viewpoint. That puts him a bit out of step with the received wisdom of writers' groups, which is likely a good thing.
Preachiness. It's surprising how many people preach against preachiness. I've already dealt with this in the past [1] [2] [3], but here I'll just point out that practically all modern speculative fiction is preachy. Matrix? Star Wars? Star Trek? Preachy, all of them. In fact, the big difference between them and Asulon is what (or Who) is preached. Now, some of the topical stuff is problematic; I'll get to that tomorrow. But preaching as such is not the issue.
Magic. The bad guys use it, which is the way that works. Simon the priest doesn't. In fact, he gives a very beautiful, moving, and accurate explanation of the difference at the end of the book.
Eschatology. Yes, the eschatology is a little unusual. But while I don't agree with all the interpretations, it's probably nearer right than the usual "Left Behind" view. As anyone who follows my reviews knows, I don't require authors to agree with my views; I just want them to be consistent and scripturally plausible. That's why I, as a premill, endorse the postmill The Shadow and Night. It's a good idea to know what other Christians think. If you're average, you're spending more time--way too much--absorbing non-Christian views anyway.
Production Values. Yes, it could look a little better. But if you're more interested in looking at pictures than in reading, you should probably skip Asulon and check out The Pokey Little Puppy instead. The text is definitely good.
Tomorrow we'll look at some actual (minor) issues, and I'll put in a final plug for the book.
Participating Blog links:
The Christian Fiction Review Blog
A Frank Review
Susan Kirkland
Melissa Meeks @ Bibliophile's Retreat
Geralyn Beauchamp @ The Time Mistress
Cathi Hassan @ Cathi's Chatter
Caprice Hokstad @ Queen of Convolution
Head hopping. Expect this from the dysfunctionally illiterate. McGrath doesn't really head-hop; he's using an omniscient viewpoint. That puts him a bit out of step with the received wisdom of writers' groups, which is likely a good thing.
Preachiness. It's surprising how many people preach against preachiness. I've already dealt with this in the past [1] [2] [3], but here I'll just point out that practically all modern speculative fiction is preachy. Matrix? Star Wars? Star Trek? Preachy, all of them. In fact, the big difference between them and Asulon is what (or Who) is preached. Now, some of the topical stuff is problematic; I'll get to that tomorrow. But preaching as such is not the issue.
Magic. The bad guys use it, which is the way that works. Simon the priest doesn't. In fact, he gives a very beautiful, moving, and accurate explanation of the difference at the end of the book.
Eschatology. Yes, the eschatology is a little unusual. But while I don't agree with all the interpretations, it's probably nearer right than the usual "Left Behind" view. As anyone who follows my reviews knows, I don't require authors to agree with my views; I just want them to be consistent and scripturally plausible. That's why I, as a premill, endorse the postmill The Shadow and Night. It's a good idea to know what other Christians think. If you're average, you're spending more time--way too much--absorbing non-Christian views anyway.
Production Values. Yes, it could look a little better. But if you're more interested in looking at pictures than in reading, you should probably skip Asulon and check out The Pokey Little Puppy instead. The text is definitely good.
Tomorrow we'll look at some actual (minor) issues, and I'll put in a final plug for the book.
Participating Blog links:
The Christian Fiction Review Blog
A Frank Review
Susan Kirkland
Melissa Meeks @ Bibliophile's Retreat
Geralyn Beauchamp @ The Time Mistress
Cathi Hassan @ Cathi's Chatter
Caprice Hokstad @ Queen of Convolution
Monday, May 5, 2008
Asulon 2: The Good Stuff
So why does William McGrath's Asulon succeed? There are a number of reasons; I'll touch on a few.
Myth. It turns out that McGrath was right about the compatibility of biblical prophecy and myth. It shouldn't be a surprise: in the Old Testament especially, images are sometimes drawn from pagan myths. And as the Chronicles of Narnia show, mythology on a fairy-tale level can not only enrich a fantasy but ease up the expectations. In Asulon, for example, there's a running gag of sorts about an angel turned mortal siring children with angelic blood in their veins. Ordinarily I'd ding McGrath for that, but since he uses much the same concept to set up dwarves, unicorns, etc., I accept it as mythology and let it pass. If he had gone for a realistic, modern setting, I would've nailed him.
Character Balance. I see a lot of plot/character problems. On the one hand, sometimes a character does something for no apparent reason except that the author says so. On the other hand, sometimes a character is so cliché-ridden that you can predict his every move. The characters in Asulon, however, are strongly typed without becoming stereotypes. You can predict their general responses, but not very precisely. With a few characters on stage at any given moment, that produces reasonable surprises rather than rabbits out of a hat.
Also, the balance between Simon the priest and Moor the warrior works well. Moor is not a Christian, so while he is physically very competent and has considerable cunning, he has no spiritual insight. He goes by appearances, but he isn't stupid. Simon, meanwhile, is spiritually adept. He's a good fighter as well, but not at Moor's level. Together they provide humanistic and spiritual depths that make the story far more interesting. Most authors would have had one or the other, or at least would have emphasized one over the other.
Authority. Never let your readers suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Asulon is awash with combat-related notes, and McGrath does handle action scenes better than most. He is generally informative without being pedantic, which helps his credibility and readability.
He does get "preachy" on occasion, but that's not a major problem for me. In fact, tomorrow I'll deal with that and some other complaints I suspect will be leveled at Asulon and why they're bogus.
Participating Blog links:
The Christian Fiction Review Blog
A Frank Review
Susan Kirkland
Melissa Meeks @ Bibliophile's Retreat
Geralyn Beauchamp @ The Time Mistress
Cathi Hassan @ Cathi's Chatter
Caprice Hokstad @ Queen of Convolution
Myth. It turns out that McGrath was right about the compatibility of biblical prophecy and myth. It shouldn't be a surprise: in the Old Testament especially, images are sometimes drawn from pagan myths. And as the Chronicles of Narnia show, mythology on a fairy-tale level can not only enrich a fantasy but ease up the expectations. In Asulon, for example, there's a running gag of sorts about an angel turned mortal siring children with angelic blood in their veins. Ordinarily I'd ding McGrath for that, but since he uses much the same concept to set up dwarves, unicorns, etc., I accept it as mythology and let it pass. If he had gone for a realistic, modern setting, I would've nailed him.
Character Balance. I see a lot of plot/character problems. On the one hand, sometimes a character does something for no apparent reason except that the author says so. On the other hand, sometimes a character is so cliché-ridden that you can predict his every move. The characters in Asulon, however, are strongly typed without becoming stereotypes. You can predict their general responses, but not very precisely. With a few characters on stage at any given moment, that produces reasonable surprises rather than rabbits out of a hat.
Also, the balance between Simon the priest and Moor the warrior works well. Moor is not a Christian, so while he is physically very competent and has considerable cunning, he has no spiritual insight. He goes by appearances, but he isn't stupid. Simon, meanwhile, is spiritually adept. He's a good fighter as well, but not at Moor's level. Together they provide humanistic and spiritual depths that make the story far more interesting. Most authors would have had one or the other, or at least would have emphasized one over the other.
Authority. Never let your readers suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Asulon is awash with combat-related notes, and McGrath does handle action scenes better than most. He is generally informative without being pedantic, which helps his credibility and readability.
He does get "preachy" on occasion, but that's not a major problem for me. In fact, tomorrow I'll deal with that and some other complaints I suspect will be leveled at Asulon and why they're bogus.
Participating Blog links:
The Christian Fiction Review Blog
A Frank Review
Susan Kirkland
Melissa Meeks @ Bibliophile's Retreat
Geralyn Beauchamp @ The Time Mistress
Cathi Hassan @ Cathi's Chatter
Caprice Hokstad @ Queen of Convolution
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Asulon 1: Back to the Future
It would be tempting to describe William McGrath's Asulon as a sword-and-sorcery version of Left Behind. It would also give a seriously wrong impression: Asulon is far better than Left Behind. (On the other hand, I did enjoy the numerous silly errors in LB. Asulon lacks them.)
Anyway... Asulon is the first installment of a three-part series ("The Sword of Fire") presenting McGrath's interpretations of End-Times prophecy in the form of a fantasy story with a prince and his friends caught up in events of Apocalyptic dimensions.
Hands up, everyone who thinks that sounds stupid.
To be honest, I thought it sounded stupid too. But somehow it works. In fact, the further you go in the book, the better it works. (This means you should not read the book backwards: you won't like it, and all the subliminal messages about the Beatles are annoying.)
Anyway, Part II: the story is a geopolitical roman à clef, so some of the people and most of the places are thinly veiled versions of their real-world cunterparts. Sometimes the veil is so thin it's practically indecent, but the story remains family friendly for teens and up. (There are lot of action scenes and moderate violence, but I'd give it a PG at most. Star Wars was at least as violent.)
As usual in this type of fantasy, we wind up with a boy, a girl, and a couple of mentor characters beginning a journey that turns out to have an unknown destination. We also have an odd mix of topical references and vaguely Narnian mythological material. Thus "Asulon" itself (presumably from a Greek word meaning "asylum, refuge") is the USA, Logres (from a Celtic root) is England, and so on. (In other cases, if you get stuck on a country name, remove the -ia suffix, if any, and read it backwards. That usually works.) Again, it all sounds odd, but the story really does work. I'll explore some of the reasons for this tomorrow.
Participating Blog links:
The Christian Fiction Review Blog
A Frank Review
Susan Kirkland
Melissa Meeks @ Bibliophile's Retreat
Geralyn Beauchamp @ The Time Mistress
Cathi Hassan @ Cathi's Chatter
Caprice Hokstad @ Queen of Convolution
Anyway... Asulon is the first installment of a three-part series ("The Sword of Fire") presenting McGrath's interpretations of End-Times prophecy in the form of a fantasy story with a prince and his friends caught up in events of Apocalyptic dimensions.
Hands up, everyone who thinks that sounds stupid.
To be honest, I thought it sounded stupid too. But somehow it works. In fact, the further you go in the book, the better it works. (This means you should not read the book backwards: you won't like it, and all the subliminal messages about the Beatles are annoying.)
Anyway, Part II: the story is a geopolitical roman à clef, so some of the people and most of the places are thinly veiled versions of their real-world cunterparts. Sometimes the veil is so thin it's practically indecent, but the story remains family friendly for teens and up. (There are lot of action scenes and moderate violence, but I'd give it a PG at most. Star Wars was at least as violent.)
As usual in this type of fantasy, we wind up with a boy, a girl, and a couple of mentor characters beginning a journey that turns out to have an unknown destination. We also have an odd mix of topical references and vaguely Narnian mythological material. Thus "Asulon" itself (presumably from a Greek word meaning "asylum, refuge") is the USA, Logres (from a Celtic root) is England, and so on. (In other cases, if you get stuck on a country name, remove the -ia suffix, if any, and read it backwards. That usually works.) Again, it all sounds odd, but the story really does work. I'll explore some of the reasons for this tomorrow.
Participating Blog links:
The Christian Fiction Review Blog
A Frank Review
Susan Kirkland
Melissa Meeks @ Bibliophile's Retreat
Geralyn Beauchamp @ The Time Mistress
Cathi Hassan @ Cathi's Chatter
Caprice Hokstad @ Queen of Convolution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)