Mike Duran's Blog, page 75

Why the Dislike for Vlogs?

I was a little surprised by the response to my last post in which I solicited reader questions using a video blog (vlog). The comments drifted away from reader questions into opinions about vlogs and why people do or don't like them.

Interesting.

Here I thought that vlogging was just another tool in the social media arsenal, only to discover that there's anti-vloggers.

It reminded me of when I used to rail against Twitter.

One commenter summed up the anti-vlog sentiment by simply saying, "I don't do vlogs." I had to check to make sure I wasn't talking about smoking chronic, watching internet porn, or human trafficking. I "don't do" those things either. But vlogs? Eh.

Anyway, it was a minor revelation. I used to think the dislike of vlogs was mainly on the blogger's end, not the reader's (or viewer's). I mean, making a vlog requires certain technical skills, equipment, and software. It also involves time. Between scripting (if one does script), filming, uploading, editing, and embedding a finished product on a website, vlogging can be tedious and time-consuming. All that to say, I can understand why some bloggers would be reluctant to vlog.

What I don't understand is why readers would be reluctant to view video blogs. Unless there is some kind of telepathic message being secretly transmitted through your computer screen, what's the issue?

It's a video.
It's a video of someone talking.
It's a video of someone you probably read, talking.
It's a video of someone you probably read talking about something you might be interested in.

Sure. It might be a vlog from someone you don't read, whom you've never heard of, talking about something you don't give a rip about (or doing something exotic like seeing how many pool balls they can insert in their mouth). But last I checked, you're free to watch as long or as little as you like.

Either way, it's not the medium that's the issue.

I'm assuming that readers — as in "those who prefer written stuff" — still watch TV, movies, or an occasional video podcast. So unless one is a Luddite, what good reason is there to dislike vlogs?

Like a lot of things that come through the interweb, it can turn faddish and be used poorly. I mean, just because you have a webcam and a guitar is not a good reason to vlog. And just because other people are vlogging is not a good reason to do it either.

But simply "being a reader" is not a good reason to not "do vlogs."

Soliciting Your Questions

10 Great New Christian Fiction Book Covers

For the record: I am not being paid by anyone to make this list and promote their book. These selections are entirely my own. I know I missed some good covers and would love for you to point them out. In all honesty, I found the pickings slim the last few months. There are SO many Historical covers out there that look SO much the same. Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Agree with these selections? Are there some I missed?

The Chair, James Rubart, B&H Books

A Stand-up Guy, Michael Snyder, Zondervan

Winter Keven Newsome, Splashdown Darkwater

The Opposite of Art, Athol Dickson, Howard Books

Vigilante, Robin Parrish, Bethany House

Kiss of Night, Debbie Viguie, FaithWords

Hero in Hiding, Mitchell Bonds, Marcher Lord Press

Water's Edge, Robert Whitlow, Thomas Nelson

Night of the Living Dead Christian, Matt Mikalatos, SaltRiver

 

Protection for Hire, Camy Tang, Zondervan

Interview w/ Dan Keohane — Part Two

MIKE: Dan, what was your initial reaction after hearing of the Stoker nomination? It had to have been exciting and a little bit scary. Did you see it as a potential career break? Were you nervous, skeptical? And how do you see it now?

DAN: Wow, yea, I was honored to see Solomon's Grave make it to the final ballot of the Bram Stoker award. Like many writers, I'd had stories, even my first collection, reach the Preliminary Ballot. To see my first novel rise to the next level was fantastic! I wasn't certain how the subject matter might have been received by the voting members of the HWA, but I suppose in the end people vote if they like the story and writing, and not so much on what specific elements are / are not in it. Of course, being realistic, getting on the ballot has a lot to do with getting the book into voters' hands. I wasn't too good at marketing Solomon's Grave, so much had been going on in my life when it was released… not to mention I'm a lousy marketing person, lol. When it landed on the preliminary ballot, however, I got off my duff and offered free copies to voting members of the organization. Many took me up on the offer. That's the thing with awards, or book reviews: the work has to be read, and that takes copies being sent out everywhere. I'm sure there were many novels better than mine which no one had read or even heard of. If they'd gotten the attention of enough people, I might have been bumped off the list! This also applies to horror/suspense novels in the CBA. I've read Christian fiction books which I've really enjoyed, even recommended them for the Stoker, but likely the majority of HWA members don't come across these books on a daily basis, so many are never nominated. Visibility is such a key thing.

MIKE: Tell us a little bit about your latest novel Margaret's Ark.

DAN: Margaret's Ark is based on my shot story "Lavish" published in a science fiction magazine years ago (circa 1999). It was an answer to a question, what kind of flood could occur where you wouldn't even be safe on a mountain top? It's the kind of question everyone asks themselves after it has rained for more than a couple days. The answer was easy, the Great Flood. As I started wondering about the Flood, I wondered what it would have been like had that situation happened today, with mass communication and a heck of a lot more people on the planet. What came about was a tale of thousands of people across the globe being told to build arks on their front yard or the town square. The story had some measure of success, but I often wondered about what might have come before and how the characters would have coped with everything leading up to it. How much faith would people need to take such a step? If the only miracle they'd been given as motivation was that so many others with the same 'dreams' as themselves, would it be enough to make them give up everything to face potential ridicule and fear from others? So, I backed up sixty days in the tale and decided to write about Margaret Carboneau, the main character, along with a few other side characters from the original story, tell their story throughout this sixty day period. The result is what you have before you now, and it actually inspired me to continue forward and write what would become my first published novel, Solomon's Grave (Dragon Moon Press). I had found such joy writing these characters, working their faith, and mine, into my writing. Solomon just happened to be the first to be published (after seeing print also in Italy and Germany, but that's another story).

MIKE: What has been your journey in trying to place Margaret's Ark? Surely a Stoker-nominated author could garner some interest among publishers. And how has that journey led to Other Road Press?

DAN: As I mentioned above, Solomon's Grave was actually written after Margaret's Ark, so its garnering of a Stoker Award nomination came well after Ark had run the gamut of both the CBA and secular presses. The CBA had two major issues: first, the main character was Catholic, and this did not wash with a predominantly Protestant readership. Secondly, the general theme of a new Great Flood was considered non-biblical, since God said he would not do such a thing again.  Valid point, and early on in the writing process this was a concern. I address this pretty directly in the story, hopefully well enough to allay reader's concerns. I had to craft the reasons for everything that happens carefully. It worked… I think. I hope.

The secular markets, and this was key to my decision later to produce it myself, was actually quite receptive to the book for the most part. I garnered some nice kudos, though almost always followed by the expected: "However, we do not think we'd have success marketing it." Is it a horror novel, religious tome, a suspense novel in the Dan Brown vein? Goes back to what readers (might) want, versus how much of a risk a publisher is willing to take getting it to them. With a couple years gone since Solomon was released, I wanted to get a new book out and into my fans' hands. So many writers were experimenting at putting out – if not printed versions – at least eBooks of their stuff. I decided while I continue to write and market my other schlock, I'll create Other Road Press and release Margaret's Ark myself. See what happens.

MIKE: You're calling Other Road Press your "grand experiment" but, apparently, are leaving the door open to publishing other authors. If so, what would it take for you to "open your doors" and what kinds of stories and authors would you be looking for?

DAN: Margaret's Ark is such a unique novel that I feel it worthy to be out there in the public eye and at least have a chance at being read, and since voices bigger than my own agreed – to one extent or another. The book's need for a pathway to readers makes me think, often, of what Other Road's future will bring. I haven't completely ruled out the possibility of finding other like-minded stories to publish. Just… not yet.

Publishing is as all-consuming as is writing, more so probably. I'm sure there are writers out there creating some pretty amazing stuff – just read any issue of Relief Magazine or one of their Midnight Diner anthologies and to see how much potential work there is when the barriers of the secular market (skittish as it might be to present Christ and the faith of his followers) and the Christian Book market are blurred or outright shattered. Novels which tell honest stories of Christians as they truly are: flawed, but trying really hard to do what's right in God's eyes. I guess, in the end, that's what I want to do, when we're talking about writing something and letting my Christian beliefs spew all over the pages: tell a story; tell it the best I can, even if it means pulling two disparate worlds together for a few hundred pages in a book. Christians and other people of faith have done it for centuries. So, if doing that means sometimes I'll need to get off the pot and do it myself, so be it. If down the road I come to the decision that I'm hogging the sandbox and should let some other kids in to play, too, so be that. Once I get the kinks out and make a few more mistakes, I might consider ORP to be more than a vehicle for my own stuff, and see what other worlds I can share with people.

* * *

Thanks so much for visiting, Dan! Remember, you can visit Dan Keohane's website HERE.  And if you'd like to a chance to win a signed copy of Margaret's Ark, leave a comment. I'll announce the winner on Friday. Once again, thanks Dan. Godspeed to you and your writing career!

Interview w/ Dan Keohane — Part One

The first indication I had that Dan Keohane might be a pretty good writer was when I discovered his inclusion in the Honorable Mentions of The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror anthology, 17th edition. After that, it was Cemetery Dance. Then, Apex Digest. Finally, as an editor for Coach's Midnight Diner, we named Dan one of our Editor's Choice winners for his short story "The Box." His debut novel, Solomon's Grave, was a finalist for the 2009 Bram Stoker Award for Superior Achievement in a First Novel. He's an active member of the Horror Writers Association and founding member of the New England Horror Writers. So, as you can see, Dan Keohane's been around the block a few times. Most recently he has decided to form his own press and release his latest novel Margaret's Ark. (In fact, Dan will be giving away a signed copy of his new novel to one commenter.) Anyway, I was thrilled when he agreed to visit and discuss his writing journey, the intersection of horror lit and faith, and his new press endeavor.

* * *

MIKE: Dan, thanks for taking the time to chat! You've been writing for a while, and witnessed first-hand the changing face of the business. While some writers mourn the current state of publishing, others seem excited by it. What's your overall perspective about the industry? Is this a good or a bad time for writers?

DAN: I suppose that depends on the specific genre. Romance writers are seeing a boom in opportunities lately, especially with the advent of the eBook, where that genre has exploded (now people can buy their Love's-Heart's-Passion's-Fury novels without a coffee table covered with open shirts and torn-bodice covers). But for horror, feels like we've hit another low point. Like a similar time in the 1990′s, many of the major publishers have cut the number of traditional horror titles or gone completely out of business (Dorchester's Leisure book line, for example). And, like that time, the small press has stepped in to take up the slack, and continue putting out new titles. The young adult book market is doing great – that's one area of publishing that seems to be keeping steady throughout the recession. Kids love to read – you just had to offer them something worth reading, and horror in this market is, of course, the favorite.

One aspect of publishing which has irked me is in the realm of eBooks. Personally, I love them. I own a Kindle and find it easier to read than a regular paperback in so many ways. Major Publishers have finally, though reluctantly, embraced the technology, only to set electronic versions of their books at the same price as mass market paperbacks. The price of these books, in my opinion, should be down around the 2.99 – 4.99 range, not the 8.99 – 11.99 range they currently are priced at even though an eBook has no printing costs, and should have no distribution costs. Historically, distributors (those "middle men" who take a book from the publisher and get them on the bookstore shelves) have always taken the largest piece of the profit pie. Sometimes I wonder if they're holding publishers over a barrel an continue to collect a percentage of profits on eBooks (unearned as that would be). Not to mention they call this pricing schema the "agency model" which implies an agency relationship of some kind. Dunno. Maybe I watched so many X-Files episodes that I've become a conspiracy theorist. Could be as simple as publishers pricing them higher to keep their print losses down.

On the other end of the publishing food chain are the small, micro presses. I've noticed many have been slow to release eBook versions of their titles, even though millions of people now own Kindles, Nooks, iPads and iPhones. How much money do publishers lose when a potential customer sees a new book title but decides to wait (and perhaps forget about the book a moment later) until its available on their Kindle? A lot of this hesitation is lack of education on how to format these buggers, and this gap is beginning to be filled by third parties who do the eBook formatting for them. The most successful of which has been smashwords.com.

One positive aspect I've noticed with smaller presses: when they do have eBooks, they price them at a realistic level. My new book, Margaret's Ark, is priced (to sell I hope) at $12.99 for trade paperback, and $2.99 for the eBook. Granted, the publisher is me, a point we'll get to in a moment, so there's less overhead.

MIKE: You're part of that interesting breed of novelist who writes horror that contains spiritual / religious themes. Nevertheless, you don't appear to be aimed exclusively at Christian audiences. While some see the horror genre as incompatible with a "Christian mindset," others find it uniquely fitted to explore existential, very biblical issues. So how do you personally mesh "God" and your own spirituality with the horror genre?

DAN: Yea, rather than be a Christian Horror Writer, I'm simply a Christian who writes horror. Though many of my short stories would not be construed as spiritually-themed (though I do have a few which are and there'll be more to come), most of my novels have dealt with biblical themes. Solomon's Grave is about the Ark of the Covenant buried in Massachusetts, Margaret's Ark is a modern take on the Great Flood story. Others completed (or in the oven) like Plague of Darkness and Plague of Locusts have obvious themes. The Bible is such a massive book, with so many stories and lessons and characters and events, how could you ever run out of ideas?

Ironically, Solomon's Grave was originally marketed to the CBA market, but I discovered over time that the type of story Christian Bookseller's want to publish, and the content that should go into it, is so narrow that nothing I wrote really fit. I don't see this narrowness in the vein of Jesus' "narrow gate" as much as an attempt by the CBA to make as generic a set of requirements for their content given such a vast array of denominations within their readership (and thus a highly-varied spectrum of theology within the Christian beliefs of said readers). Man, that was a cool sentence! Big words and, you know, stuff.

MIKE: I recall bumping into you years ago at Dave Long's Faith and Fiction message board. Did you make a conscious decision NOT to write for the Christian market? If so, why? If not, how have you managed to navigate spiritual themes without turning off secular audiences (or publishers)?

DAN: Some might think that marketing a story with a biblical theme might to the secular suspense/horror market be just as difficult as marketing a Brian Keene novel to Tyndale, but I've discovered the opposite. There are many, many people out there, Catholic and Protestant alike, who have their own personal faith, own relationship with God, who also love to read James Patterson, Stephen King, even Dan Brown. And with so many secular books just as sanitized, to remove religious references (unless they are in a mocking tone), as CBA titles are to remove curse words and sex, there is a vast, untapped audience who, like myself, appreciate it when an author scares the boogers out of them, makes their heart race, and at the same time treats faith with an even hand, has their characters go to church and pray and have a belief in God. I read a quote from Jodi Picoult once which really sums up why I like to write novels that I write: "Write the novels that you'd like to read."

Lately, I've begun writing books less with a biblical theme, though I'm sure I'm not done with doing that completely, but if the story calls for a Christian character, they won't be the type we've become accustomed to, berating everyone as a heathen and usually becoming the bad guy who wants to bring about the Rapture a couple of days early. They'll curse sometimes, and struggle with other issues, or maybe they'll be the purest of the pure. Depends on the person and the book.

Our stories are a reflection, to the world, of our faith as much as how be behave in public – our writing is a form of public behavior after all. So you pray, be open to the spirit nudging you one way or the other, towards some things, away from others, but writing what you want to read yourself. So, prayerful consideration of what you put into a novel or story should never be forsaken.

* * *

Part Two tomorrow. And remember, if you'd like to a chance to win a signed copy of Margaret's Ark, leave a comment here. The winner will be announced tomorrow.

Your Tribe is Really a Cult

It's been called The Echo Chamber Effect. From Wikipedia:

The echo chamber effect refers to any situation in which information, ideas or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an "enclosed" space.

There's a lot of "enclosed spaces" out there. Especially online. It could be a fan following, a blog, an agent or industry rep site, a guild, or a chat room. These spaces aren't necessarily bad. They're just… cloistered. The same people, saying the same things. And why not? Most of us social mediaites inevitably find our way into some sort of online niche;  we become part of, perhaps even oversee, a tribe. (That's what they call it now — a Tribe.) In fact, conventional wisdom encourages us writers to build a tribe.

The bad thing is when these social media circles, these tribes, produce an echo chamber effect.

I visited a blog recently and, by all appearance, it looked pretty swell. The Followers Box was overflowing, as were the Comments. The posts came with regularity and nary a one was un-Tweeted. But I noticed something odd about this blog, almost kinda creepy. The participants were…

All white.
All women.
All writers.
All saying pretty much the same thing.

I'm exaggerating a little bit.  But only about the "all saying the same thing" part. Have you noticed that about some Christian writer's blogs? There's lotsa demographic consistency. Anyway, I followed one thread that contained 20 plus comments… and every comment (minus 1) was from a white woman.

I suppose this would not be strange if the site belonged to the Society for the Advancement of White Female Stereotypes. But it wasn't. In fact, the site had no specificity as to a gender aim at all. Or ethnicity.

It was a writer's site.
A Christian writer's site.

So why the white women phenomenon?

Before you accuse me of misogyny or jealousy, or just plain rabble-rousing, let me hasten to add that other sites / communities reflect a similar disparity. Whether it's politics, religion, media, sports, or a specific hobby, online communities tend to attract certain demographics.

Nothing wrong with this. In fact, it could be strategic. I mean, if you write biographies of NFL offensive linemen, you probably shouldn't advertize on the Martha Stewart channel.

The trouble with tribe-building is when it leads to cultism.

Participants in online communities may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, which reinforces their individual belief systems. This can create significant barriers to critical discourse within an online medium… and as such, will at times eliminate the effects of positive feedback loops (i.e., the echo chamber effect) to that system, where a lack of perturbation to dimensions of the network, prohibits a sense of equilibrium to the system. (emphasis mine)

So, I guess, "perturbation" is good.

Systems that lack a "perturbation of dimensions" sacrifice equilibrium and erect "barriers to critical discourse." Okay. Maybe some networks don't want "critical discourse." However, that doesn't strike me as the type of cult, er, network I want to be a part of.

The aforementioned site bothered me not because the author was a bad writer dispensing false information, but because that demographic is ubiquitous in Christian writing circles: Caucasian, stay-at-home-moms-turned-authors.

No wonder us "male Christian horror writers" seem like such oddballs.

Yes, I know there are plenty of female Christian writers who work outside the home. There's also some who write spec-fic. And there are a few non-white Christian authors out there. My point is only to suggest that when you get too many of the same type of people, in the same place, who believe the same thing, the echo chamber effect is inevitable.

For instance…

Literary agent Chip MacGregor once suggested that blog tours are only minimally effective in author marketing. Why? Using a client as an example, Chip wrote

So [the publisher] sent this author out on a blog tour to be interviewed at 20 or 30 blog sites. She was great, but I don't think it helped sell any books. It seemed to hit the same 300 people as everybody else…

I know, this is a little stretch. Nevertheless, I think the echo chamber effect was at work. Those "300 people" might have been very vocal, very enthusiastic, very well spoken. But if their opinions and enthusiasm never leave the tribe, they're just talking to themselves. (Which may be one reason why Christian books often get poorly reviewed outside the Christian community. We're deluded by our own press.)

Quality, salience, and/or fan enthusiasm is no indication of a product's potential breadth.

It must find its way out of the tribe.

In this way, "conversation" can be a deceptive term inside some social media circles. Why? Because oftentimes the ones "talking" are in an "enclosed space." They Like (Thumbs Up) what's being said. Their "ideas or beliefs are amplified or reinforced" by like-minded folk inside the community. The debate is pretty much localized and thus, demographic and ideological "equilibrium" is rendered inconsequential.

If you listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time, objectivity whithers. Or to put it another way, open-mindedness is not encouraged inside cults.

Writers know we must build followings. We must mine out fertile "circles," build our tribe, both for our edification and our platform. The problem is when those circles become cults, little echo chambers that reinforce our opinions, bolster our self-image, and insulate us against critique.

So go ahead, call me a trouble-maker, a naysayer, a killjoy. I prefer to think of this as my attempt at "perturbation."

Is Social Media Really THAT Effective in Author Marketing? A Response

I recently received my first royalty statement. There was a category for TRADE SALES, CONSUMER SALES, and FOREIGN SALES. There was not a category for SOCIAL MEDIA SALES. This should not be interpreted to mean that there were NO sales because of my online presence, just that those sales are rather hard to quantify.

My recent post The Number One Marketing Hurdle: YOU received a decent share of retweets and positive reaction. And then this…

I guess I have a problem with this whole friend=customer or blog-follower=fiction fan type of marketing thing and it's probably why I'm not good at it. I don't buy that way and I have trouble seeing it from the perspective of people that do, which in turns makes it very hard to supply whatever it is I'm supposed to supply in order to attract those people. What did authors do before social media and blogs? Must have been nice.

The comment was left by author Caprice Hokstad, and you can read it in its entirety HERE. Caprice and I have discussed this issue before (online) and she makes some relevant points. Her comment was followed up by C.L. Dyck:

…social media alone is pretty ineffective in author marketing.

It acts as a replacement or substitute for interaction, and so is best as a bolstering tool in a range of others. Nothing replaces our natural instinct for face-to-face. And its blunt democracy–accessible to one and all–renders it a lower status tool. Social authority is still carried through traditional media.

Cat (who is the C. in C.L.) and I have also talked before. She's a wonderful thinker and blogger. So before I start I want to make sure you understand this is not a personal attack on either of these commenters, but levied in the spirit of conversation.

Is social media really that effective in author marketing?

A couple of quick responses.

Cat and Caprice are right to question the social media phenomenon. There is a "bandwagon effect" in relation to social marketing that cannot be denied. New authors are jumping on board for the wrong reasons, with bloated expectations, without having counted the cost, and without a philosophical foundation for continued success. It is not wrong to approach this question critically and more authors would be better off if they did so.

However, it cannot be disputed that the publishing industry is changing so, it would translate, that an author's approach should change also. Sorry, but authors who hedge against blogging and social networking remind me of those who decried electricity, the combustion engine, and air travel — they are living in a bygone era.

Using big name authors or famous authors of the past as a reason to forgo social media is misguided. "Does JK Rowling have a Facebook account?" Caprice asked. "C.S. Lewis never Tweeted." This, to me, is like comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds — it's two different eras. Almost everything about the game has changed. Besides, there's a certain "critical mass" that an author reaches where social media becomes a wash. Why should Rowling or King or Grisham or Meyers worry about Tweeting? Problem is, I don't know personally know any author that has reached that status. And in today's market, if they do, my guess is that some form of social media will have played a part.

Using "computer illiteracy" as an excuse to not blog or Tweet is a cop-out.

Just because some authors abuse their platform doesn't mean authors don't need a platform. As Cat put it, "I've seen some very uncool behaviour from writers, mostly on Facebook." I have too, Cat. Which is why I usually unFreind authors who just bombard me with reminders about their books. But saying that social media is largely ineffective because some authors don't do it well is like saying that auto mechanics are worthless because mine gouges me.

Perhaps the issue was better summarized by  Katherine Coble in her comment:

"My favourite authors of late are also the ones who have the most genuine-seeming web presence. Patrick Rothfuss' blog reads like that of a buddy you could've had in college. George RR Martin's is like the guy you want to hang out with at a party.

…I guess the short version is: don't be pushy with sales and don't be arrogant about your job. "

I know for a fact that some people have purchased my book because they stumbled upon my online presence. However, that "stumbling" was the result of a very intentional effort on my part to have an active online presence. Furthermore, both Cat and Caprice have only heard about Mike Duran because he has got himself out there and worked hard to do so. In fact, you are reading this because of that.

That wasn't too pushy or too arrogant, was it?

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Is social media really THAT effective in author marketing?

Guillermo del Toro's "Atheist Art"

Art does not occur in a vacuum, even if that vacuum is an atheistic one.

I admit to being fascinated by the worldviews and beliefs that fuel someone's art. What life experiences and philosophical foundations (or lack thereof) inspire someone to write, draw, or compose a certain piece? Can savage paganism or a bleak metaphysical outlook spawn something meaningful? Especially if the owner of said beliefs doubts anything is meaningful? Which is one reason why dark fantasy, pulp horror director, Guillermo del Toro is so intriguing.

Not only is del Toro one of the most gifted celluloid myth-makers, he is "a raging atheist."

John Morehead at TheoFantastique in his review of del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, touches upon some of the "forces" that framed the auteur's aesthetics. Morehead summarizes a snippet of the director's interview at NPR this way:

A portion of the interview is heart-wrenching as del Toro describes growing up with a stern Catholic grandmother who saw his identification with monsters and fairy tales as somehow demonic. These experiences, coupled with his work in a morgue, the kidnapping of his father, and his reflections on the Spanish Civil War, all shaped his negative views of Catholicism and organized religion, so much so that in the interview he says he had to jettison the belief that there was an ordering Being beyond the universe and that as a result "we are all on our own."

Del Toro is not the first person to be driven from the religion of their youth by "stern grandmothers" and such graphic, "heart-wrenching" experiences. He may, however, be the first with this big a platform. And such a wild imagination.

An expose in The New Yorker entitled Show the Monster, builds upon the biographical tidbits, and their devastating existential outcome:

Del Toro had been raised Catholic, but this sight [of a pile of dead fetuses], he said, upended his faith. Humans could not possibly have souls; even the most blameless lives ended as rotting garbage. He became a "raging atheist."

Call me narrow-minded, but whenever I see an artist of del Toro's caliber profess godlessness, it breaks my heart. There is something natural, right, about a talented individual acknowledging Something / Someone outside themselves — even Fate or Fortune — that has blessed them. Otherwise, it's like painting the Cistene Chapel in hell — no matter how beautiful, fantastic, or captivating, it just doesn't matter.

If the museum of oddities birthed from Guillermo del Toro's imagination is any indication, one's religious outlook may have little to do with their creativity and craft. Either way, it's evidence how the impulse to create is inherent in humans, even if the acquiescence to a Creator isn't.

Author Assailed for Foul-Mouthed Character

And in the "Here we go again" department…

Last week, Novel Rocket ran an article by Tess Gerritsen, NY Times bestseller, entitled When Loathsome Characters Say Despicable Things. Apparently, Gerritsen had been "taken to task" by a reader because one of the antagonistic characters in her book The Silent Girl snipes, "Are you a retard?"

The reader wrote to tell me that she has a mentally challenged child and she was furious at me for using such a word. She felt I was insensitive and should never have used it. And the truth is, I myself would never use it. Just as I would never call anyone a chink, a whore, a gook, and any number of things.

But over the years, my characters have used such words. And they were not nice characters. Their choice of words, in fact, helped define the type of people they are, and evoked an emotional response in the reader. Many times, writers get slammed by readers because those words turn up in our books. We are supposed to clean up the language of our characters, however nasty they may be. Our characters — even the murderers, the crime lords, the gang bangers — are supposed to speak in antiseptically sensitive language. (emphasis mine)

After reading the article, I felt simultaneously vindicated and flabbergasted. Let's start with the vindication part:

This is a subject near and dear to my heart (see examples HERE and HERE and HERE and…). Sadly, one of the defining characteristics of Christian fiction has become "antiseptically sensitive language." The topic never fails to stir debate, anger people, and evoke recitations about how Christians should be separate from the world and that good writers can avoid such language.  So seeing Gerritsen, an author with considerable clout, make the same point, brought a smile to my face.

Writers face tough choices with every word we pick. Do we write dialogue that's realistic, or dialogue that doesn't offend? Do we sanitize every line of dialogue so that it's lifeless, stilted, and completely unbelievable?

Instead of saying "Are you a retard?" should that nasty character, a mobster, have said instead "Are you mentally challenged?"

It just doesn't sound right. Does it?

No, Tess, it doesn't.

Now for the flabbergasted part:  Some people still don't get it! Not only did the comment thread plunge into a lengthy discussion about whether it is appropriate for a Christian story to address adultery (much less have a protag who's committed it!), but another word was added to the censorial lexicon.

Now, "retard" is the "R" Word.

In fact, one commenter politely informed Gerritsen and the NR readers about a national campaign to ban the "R" word. Kidding, right?

Either this is a case of being way too easily offended or having extremely narrow, moralistic, conceptions of fiction. Perhaps it's both. I do find considerable solace, however, in the fact that these squabbles even impact NYT's bestsellers.

The Sky Pilot — Interview

I recently had a chance to visit with an Australian acoustic duo named The Sky Pilot. They're currently touring America, promoting their new album, and stopped at our church to perform (and enjoy American-style BBQ ribs). They're a couple of great guys… and they do a great cover of Heart of Gold. Check them out!