Mike Duran's Blog, page 77

The Mystery Card

Everybody has one of these. It's the card you play when you run out of answers, when Life's mysteries overwhelm you, when your educated guesses bump into the Unknown. It's the answer you resort to when you're out of answers.

Everyone has a Mystery Card. Theologians, scientists, mathematicians, doctors — all encounter mysteries. Whether it involves gravity, cellular replication, particle physics, or orbital mechanics. Whether it's why humans act the way they do, why humans don't act the way they should, and where humans go when they've stopped acting altogether. Everybody must admit there are things they just can't explain.

Why does a patient suddenly wake from a 3-year coma?
How can Jesus be BOTH God and Man?
How is DNA encoded?
Can we know anything with absolute certainty?
Why do children from the same family turn out so different?
Why do smart people do stupid things?
What is dark matter?
If God is sovereign, do humans really have free will?
How did the Universe begin?
Does the Universe have boundaries and, if so, what's beyond them?
Is there life after death?
Why can't we tickle ourselves?

Sorry. I just threw that last one in there for levity.

Point is, everybody has a Mystery Card. I don't care who you are, how educated you are, how decorated you are, how many books you've read, or how many Twitter followers you have… at some point you must play the Mystery Card.

Christians play the Mystery Card a lot. Ask one about the problem of pain, why God put Satan in the Garden, how God can exist in Trinity, and where He was before the Universe existed, and they'll probably play the Mystery Card. Yes, this can be a cop-out. This can be an excuse for mental laziness… and it often is. But the truth of the matter is, non-Christians play the Mystery Card as much as Christians.

Atheists, astronomers, astrophysicists, and air guitarists all resort to the Mystery Card at some point. You see, even if you believe that Science has the tools to explain everything, the truth is a.) It hasn't and b.) It's still faith in an ever-changing system, handled by highly-evolved apes, constructed upon a series of presuppositions, that you're banking on.

Sounds risky, eh?

Frankly, this is one thing I love about the Bible. It pulls no punches regarding mystery. As human beings, we are NOT entitled to know everything. This strikes to the core of our problem. I mean, why do we believe that our little brains, or any system of scientific or intellectual tools we have developed, are even capable of comprehending… EVERYTHING?

It's the height of hubris to believe you don't need a Mystery Card.

And perhaps that's the big difference. The real issue is not whether we need a Mystery Card, but how we play it.

How Do We "Glorify God" in Our Writing?

This feels like a confession.

When asked what they hope to accomplish with their writing, Christian writers are fond of saying that they want to "glorify God." They want to magnify, exalt, honor, give witness of and uphold God in the stories they tell.

Which leads to my confession: I have no idea what they're talking about.

Of course, I realize that Christians are to glorify God in everything they do.

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (I Cor. 10:31).

But doesn't this render the Christian writer's response moot? I mean, if you're supposed to do EVERYTHING to the glory of God, why must you single out your writing?

Do you glorify God in how you eat?
Do you glorify God in your TV habits?
Do you glorify God in how you manage your money?
Do you glorify God in how you treat your boss?
Do you glorify God in how much you serve others?
Do you glorify God in your online presence?
Do you glorify God in how you market your book?

"Do ALL to the glory of God."

If this is assumed, then why are Christians writers so concerned to point out that their literary mission is to "glorify God"? That should be a given. In fact, if you're not glorifying Him with your whole life now, why should it matter that you stick references to Him in your stories?

And, sadly, that's what many folks mean by glorifying God in their writing. For most Christian writers, glorifying God is all about their message. It means not backing away from the Gospel and not avoiding references to Christ in their novel. It means developing content that is virtuous, redemptive, and spiritually uplifting.

Which leads me to ask: Can only writers of explicit "Christian content" glorify God in their writing? Can a Christian sportswriter glorify God in his writing? Can a Christian textbook maker glorify God in her writing? Can a Christian dog trainer glorify God in their writing? Can a Christian op-ed columnist glorify God in their writing? Can a Christian scriptwriter for Nickelodeon glorify God in their writing?

IF NOT — if only Christian writers can glorify God in Christian stories — then how can a Christian ever hope to "do all to the glory of God"?

IF SO — if Christians can glorify God in whatever kind of story they write (or task, service, job they perform) — then how is glorifying God in a Christian story any different than glorifying God in a "secular" story?

Call me a stickler, a wet blanket if you like. But glorifying God seems to be a lot more than just going to church, quoting Scripture, referencing God, and distributing Bible tracts. Glorifying God is a lot bigger than just our message.

So why must our novels be any different?

The Number One Marketing Hurdle: YOU

Must all marketing be an obnoxious slobbery love affair with yourself? It's a question every author should ask. And those who don't often drown in their own drool.

The thrill of receiving my first publishing contract (a two-book deal with Charisma House) was quickly doused by the realization that now I must sell books. I no longer had the luxury of obscurity. Not only was I a writer, now I was a unit-mover. So after years of hard work, rejection, and personalized pep-talks, I had turned a corner and come face-to-face with my worst enemy: ME.

And the spotlight has a way of making that wart on your nose look like Kilimanjaro.

It used to be that publishers promoted their authors. But those days are passing. In this new age of publishing, the impetus for getting your name "out there" is squarely on the shoulders of the author. Which can be a dangerous thing.

Especially for those who covet the spotlight.

And have warts.

Not long ago, agent Jessica at BookEnds took a poll of her readers. She asked, "What about an author's Internet presence grabs your attention and impresses you, what turns you off?" The responses revealed two very important things about authors and marketing.

First, most readers recognize that authors need to market their books and promote themselves. No one begrudges a writer who pitches their stuff. In fact, if you go to an author's website and find nothing about their books and where to buy them, it is right to question that author's professionalism. Not only do readers tolerate a certain degree of marketing, we expect it.

But while most authors recognize the need to market oneself, there is also a point of diminishing returns, a point where self-promotion actually turns away potential buyers. Social media expert  Kristen Lamb in The Most Effective Author Marketing Tool, sadly chronicles what many desperate writers (and their internet presence) become:

This past week on Facebook I approved a friend request for another writer. Within MINUTES, I had four other e-mails. "Here is my website! Go to my blog! Look at my book! Here is a discount! Pass on to all of your friends and let me show them how to blah blah blah!" It made me regret I'd ever befriended this person. Rather than it being like Starbucks, "Here is a coupon for a free Frappuccino" (awesome), it sounded more like, "Me, me, me, me, me! Look at meeeeee!"

It's part of the new paradigm, the power of social media. We can reach hundreds, thousands, potentially even tens of thousands of people with a mouse click. But if we're not careful, our media stream will come off as an obnoxious slobbery love affair with ourselves and our message will sound like little more than "Me, me, me, me, me! Look at meeeeee!"

In a way, it can't be avoided because marketing magnifies YOU. Not just your book. Your likes, dislikes, ideas, values, tone of voice and temperament are all amplified. Marketing magnifies your warts. Which makes me wonder whether or not the first marketing hurdle isn't… OURSELVES.

Not only must we overcome our fears and introversion, we must overcome the lure of the spotlight and our temptation toward self-absorption. We must resist preoccupation with our own success, our own career, our own stats, and the number of our Followers. We must be more than just unit-movers. It's one thing to be proud of your publishing accomplishments, it's another thing to become a living, breathing spam advertisement for them. I mean, if all you are about is jamming your book down my throat, then I probably won't like you or your book. If you are one-dimensional, self-absorbed, and shallow, I'm not sure that your book will be much better.

In a way, it's not about being smaller (read: bashful, humble, deferential, etc.), but being bigger. Bigger than the business. Bigger than the spotlight. Bigger than your book.

Authors who are bigger than their books talk about more than just their books. They talk about other people, other ideas, other blogs, other books. They celebrate others' success and enjoy aiming the spotlight elsewhere. And in doing so, they market themselves. Listen, if you can't see beyond your book, your blog, your opinions, and your super-coolness, then please back away from the social media.

It's been said, "The smallest package in the world is a person all wrapped up in themselves." And if that's the case, then much of our marketing is just… drool.

More or Less of Me?

I recently heard a Christian song that contained a familiar chorus:

More of You, Lord, and less of me

 

That phrase and its variations is basic Christianese, found in dozens of praise and spiritual pop songs. But apart from the sappy sentimentality it can evoke, what does it really mean?

Does it mean that I am a bad person and that the less I am myself the better off I'll be?

Sure, John the Baptist said, "He must increase and I must decrease" (John 3:30). But the context clearly had to do with prophetic roles (John was the forerunner to Christ and relinquishing his mantle to Someone greater). The apostle Paul talked often about "Christ in you" (Col. 1:27), putting off our "old self" (Eph. 4:22), and being "filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18). In fact, Jesus said we must deny ourselves and take up our cross (Matt. 16:24-25). And crosses were made for one thing. So clearly, Christians must release something inside them and replace it with something they are not.

Question: Wouldn't this make me less, not more, myself?

The greatest people I know, the ones I would most like to emulate, are uniquely themselves; they have embraced the essence of their God-giftedness and individuality. This idea of "uniqueness" is intrinsic to the Christian worldview.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26 NIV)

Each one of us is uniquely "God-like," or if you prefer, "like God." So when we sing, "More of You and less of me," aren't we denying something central to who we are? Of course, you need "more of God." But, being that you're fused with His DNA, you also need "more of you" — at least, THE REAL YOU.

Yet Christians are to be emptied, you say, vessels that can be filled with God's presence. Amen. But it begs the question. For what would people look like who were completely empty? They would look like… themselves.

So we are more of us when we are less of us — at least, we are more of who we are meant to be when we aren't full of ourselves. But what "self" should I be less of? And in being "less myself," isn't it possible that I'm being "less like God"? I mean, if we are created in the image of God, shouldn't we be MORE like ourselves, not LESS?

Okay. So I'm overthinking this. This is nothing more than hair-splitting, an exercise in semantics. But which one of me is asking the question?

The Problem of Depicting God in Fiction

I've been thinking about a question raised by blogger Becky Miller a few weeks ago in a post entitled Realism in Fiction wherein she asks why those of us who pine for "realism" in Christian fiction (meaning inclusion of taboo subjects like sex and language) aren't as concerned about the portrayals of God in our novels. The gist of her argument could be summarized:

Why do Christian writers who want realism in fiction not demand as much realism in the depiction of God as they do of human behavior?

In other words, those of us in the "realism crowd" would like to see a grittier, less sanitized depiction of life. But according to Becky, our blindside may be that we aren't equally passionate about realistic portrayals of God.

It's a terrific point and I really encourage you to read Becky's entire post. Let me quote a chunk of her piece just to set the table:

Why are we not up in arms about how shallow or weak or absent God comes off in novel after novel bearing the Christian label? We complain about humans appearing out of touch with the world or behaving in ways that are not consistent with reality, but we are silent about God appearing as out of touch with His creation or inconsistent with His self-revelation.

God might be incidental to a story, an add-on "faith element," and no one is complaining. No one is standing up and saying how such stories aren't real.

Why is it OK to do a poor job of showing God in a real way, but it is not OK to show humans in a real way? And if it's not, why aren't we saying so with the same frequency we decry the absence of realism in human behavior?

…As I see it, pushing for realism ought to start with showing God as He is. (emphasis in original)

This is such a huge, yet important subject. Here's some of the questions the article raised in my mind, followed by some brief thoughts:

What constitutes a realistic portrayal of God?
Must that portrayal be the primary "distinctive" of Christian fiction (as Becky suggests)?
How does that distinctive practically reveal itself in a fictional setting?
Is it even possible in the context of a single novel to accurately do so?

God's character and nature is such an immense subject. My initial response to the post was to ask what constitutes a realistic portrayal of God? That may seem like hair-splitting. But unless you're actually showing God doing something (through a vision or divine revelation), you're pretty much consigned to showing Him through flawed characters, much like the Bible. Which leads me to ask, can you ever accurately portray God through sinful characters?

Furthermore, a realistic portrayal of God is not always edifying, encouraging, or enlightening. In the Book of Job, watching Job's family and property be systematically ravaged is part of a realistic portrayal of God. In the Book of Genesis, witnessing the horrors of the Flood is part of a realistic portrayal of God. The slaughter of firstborn Egyptian males reveals the character of God, as does the Red Sea, the Jewish wandering in the wilderness, and their exile into Babylon. King David revealed the nature of God… just not when he committed adultery and murder. Solomon showed forth God's wisdom… until his concubine stole his heart. Point is, a realistic portrayal of God could leave one angry, perplexed, and un-inspired. When we think about accurate portrayals of God, are we simply thinking about His "positive" attributes?

Also, is it possible for a single work of fiction to accurately depict God's nature or any one (much less all) of His attributes? He is merciful, holy, infinite, just, compassionate, omniscient, omnipresent, loving, gracious, etc., etc. So where do we start in our portrayal of God? And if we resign our story to just highlighting one attribute of God, we potentially present an imbalanced view (like those who always emphasize God's love and not His judgment). Furthermore, we have the luxury of the Bible and centuries of councils and theologians to help us think through this issue. But when we bring this body of info to bear upon our novels, we must remember that others often don't possess such detailed revelation… including our characters.

Maybe my main reaction to Becky's post was slight affront. You see, it is inaccurate to portray those of us who want realism in Christian fiction as being dispassionate about portrayals of the character of God. I may be arguing for allowing expletives, but that doesn't mean I'm afraid of Bible quotes or theology in my fiction. As I've suggested elsewhere, sweet, sanitized fiction may also be guilty of wrongly portraying God. Just because a work of fiction is "clean," and involves a Christian protagonist who quotes Scripture is no guarantee of a realistic depiction of God. In fact, I could argue that those who want more realistic Christian fiction are more committed to portraying Truth than those who argue for G / PG-rated novels.

Anyway, there's a few thoughts. What's your feelings about portraying God in fiction? Is it really possible? Is it something Christian writers should actively aim to accomplish in their stories? And do you agree with Becky that many of us aren't nearly as concerned about misrepresentations (or lack of representations) of God as we are realistic portrayals of our characters?

 

Is There Hope for Epic Fantasy?

So I took up Patrick Rothfuss's The Name of the Wind on Katherine Coble's recommendation. Several things initially worked against my decision. For one, I'm a slow reader. So the book's 700-plus page count didn't rev me up. Secondly, was my waning interest in epic fantasy.

A bit of background: I like epic fantasy. At least, I used to. That was before Tolkien. I've read the the Lord of the Rings trilogy twice. The Hobbit and The Silmarillion. And I own the Extended version of Peter Jackson's film trilogy (if that counts). After reading the trilogy, I remembered wondering aloud if any work would ever measure up? Still, I began searching to fill my then budding fantasy fix. So I read the first part of the Thomas Covenant series. And while I enjoyed it, it was no Tolkien. Then someone recommended Terry Brooks' The Sword of Shannara series. I only made it through the first book.

And the slow disinterest began.

The more I read and watched epic fantasy evolve, the less it seemed that there was anything original. Elves, dwarves, and wizards, creature classes, rustic maps, misty mountain ranges and enchanted forests, talking trees, warrior kings and genteel oracles. And of course, magic swords. Everything seemed to be a rehashing of Tolkien's template. The Lord of the Rings didn't just set the standard for epic fantasy, it made everything else feel derivative. I could not pick up an epic fantasy novel without it (or an endorser) screaming THE NEXT TOLKIEN! It left me less a believer in Tolkien than a skeptic in original epic fantasy.

Patrick Rothfuss has me rethinking that.

No. I'm not up on the genre. I haven't read epic fantasy in at least a decade and am sure there's other great fantasy series and authors out there. And I'm not prepared to place Patrick Rothfuss anywhere near Tolkien. However, there are so many reasons to love The Name of the Wind. Its complexity, its voice, its scope, its subtlety. But the main reason I found myself enthralled with this novel was the sense of originality.

The Name of the Wind just feels… fresh.

Perhaps it's because I've been out of touch with the genre — my "distance" from it has made epic fantasy feel fresh. Maybe the market has caught up and we're witnessing a sort of 21st century-style epic fantasy. (Rothfuss would be a good example of a blending of modern scientific theory and old world arcana.) Or maybe this is really just a screed against derivative novels. Then again, every novel is derivative in some way. Most likely, it's indicative of my own personal growth as a reader and my own evolving tastes.

Either way, I can feel my love for epic fantasy stirring. Should I be afraid?

Guest Posting at New Authors' Fellowship

Today I am posting at The New Authors' Fellowship (NAF) in a piece entitled Outside the Echo Chamber where I proffer a theory about why the Christian writing community is more like a cloister than a training center. The NAF is a lively community of aspiring authors with some great voices. Anyway, thanks to Kat Heckenbach for the invite and I hope you take a minute to take a peek at the article.

Interview w/ Grace Bridges of Splashdown Books

As part of my ongoing series on indie presses, I'm excited to visit with speculative fiction novelist and publisher Grace Bridges. Grace is the author of two science fiction novels and the owner of  Splashdown Books, an independent publisher of inspirational sci-fi and fantasy. In addition to chatting about the publishing industry, Grace is offering a free eBook (or PDF) of Aquasynthesis, Splashdown's upcoming short story anthology, to five lucky commenters. The winners will be announced Monday the 25th and contacted via email with details. If you'd like to enter, please leave a comment on this post for Grace.

* * *

MIKE: There's so much debate about the state of the industry and the future of books and publishers. Is it safe to say that indie presses are booming? And if so, are the factors that have contributed to this a good or bad thing?

GRACE: As far as the industry goes, I'm really just along for the ride. Publishing is going somewhere fast, and we are on board traveling at speeds never seen before. The factors of digital print publishing and everyman's ebook-making are definitely good things – after all, it allows me to do what I'm doing with a minimum of overhead. Sure, it may ease the publication of some bad books along with the good, but the good stuff tends to rise to the top. I do my thing with half an eye on the state of the industry, but the fact is, it doesn't really impact us much down here in indie-land. When our books succeed, it has very little to do with the industry and everything to do with our authors and their own individual campaigns to spread the word of mouth.

MIKE: What is your vision for Splashdown Books? What prompted you to start it? Are you a natural entrepreneur or did you see a void that needed filled?

GRACE: Splashdown Books has a vision to provide a connection between authors and fans of a genre with the capability to transport the reader to other worlds. I see our aim as two-fold: to discover and publish great books, and to get those books into the hands of readers who want exactly what we're giving. I started it because I kept coming across perfectly marvelous manuscripts in critique groups, and the consensus seemed to be that there wasn't much hope of publication. I'm out to change that. In that sense I definitely stepped into a gap.

Back when I finished polishing up my first novel, I knew it would be well-received by the right sort of people, but there was pretty much nil chance of being published traditionally. The book was just plain too strange. I mean, how often do you get post-apocalypse mixed with virtual reality, biology, persecution of believers, and romance, set in Ireland and viewed through the eyes of a Kiwi in Germany (where I was living at the time)? So with some encouragement from the good folks at the Lost Genre Guild, I decided to take matters into my own hands four years ago. I learned how to format a book inside and out for print, and I gave myself the toughest standards along with a boatload of critique partners and editors and proofers. As I continued to swap critiques with other Guild members – finding some truly awesome stories along the way – I realized they would have the same kind of problem trying to get published, and that I could use my technical skills to do for them what I had learned to do for myself. Not everyone wants to be indie-published, and I understand that. I applaud those who have gone on to traditional publishing. Signing on with me is more like an employment contract than anything else – it has to be a good fit personality-wise, and my authors are asked to dig in with all the work there is to be done around here.

MIKE: What kind of learning curve was there to starting a new press and what were some of the unexpected obstacles you encountered along the way?

GRACE: You know, there are a thousand tiny things I've learned to do, and together they make up the curve. But none of them seemed significant at the time. I'm still learning! Whether it be the ins and outs of PDF formatting, or a newly discovered effect in a graphics program, or a different way to use social media – it never ends. Something unexpected? Well, publishing a book nearly always takes a lot more time and effort than you first think it will, even after gaining a reasonable amount of experience. It's a fine art to plan out all the steps involved and allow sufficient time to do everything properly.

One thing I've had to learn lately is that I CAN'T do everything myself, much as I'd like to. So we are currently in the process of carving up the responsibilities and handing them off to this one and that one. It shocks me when my authors tell me they're going to need a team to handle just one aspect of what I have done alone up until now. I mustn't be a creative control freak – I've got to let my people do their thing in their way and come to me for the sign-off, rather than doing it all myself because I think wrongly that I might be faster or more pleased with the result. In the future, my website, marketing, newsletter, cover design, initial editing, and specific projects will be off my plate and in the capable hands of my team members.

MIKE: There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about independent presses, the types of quality they will "tolerate," and the insular, perhaps "cliquish," nature of their business. What are the most common myths or misunderstandings about independent presses?

GRACE: My biggest gripe lately is that many writers, especially those new to the business end of it, do not know the difference between self-publishing, vanity publishing, and indie publishing. They are three very different entities. Vanity is to be avoided at all costs (pun intended: vanity or subsidy presses are out to get your money). Self-publishing may be sensible for some books – it gives the author complete control over the project, and the cost as well, though much less than vanity. Indie is a branch of traditional publishing, where the author is never asked to pay anything. I object to being compared in any way to a completely different kind of business because vanity publishing especially – and self-publishing to a lesser degree – is notorious for bad quality books. With us, everything is carefully chosen and polished to its greatest potential. So you can understand that it makes my blood boil when new writers don't want to consider the indie route because they think it is the same as vanity or self-publishing. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with self-publishing if proper standards of editing and design are applied. It can certainly be the perfect business decision for many authors. Yet what we do as an indie publisher is a very different animal indeed.

MIKE: Many authors are currently seeking self-publishing. What advantages are there to small press publishing versus self-publishing? Why should someone choose Splashdown Books over doing it themselves?

GRACE: Self-publishing is exactly what it says on the label: you're by yourself. You have to learn how to publish, mostly without help except of the Google variety. You must learn or hire out your cover designing and formatting, and you MUST get external edits because self-edits are not sufficient. If you're doing "real" self-publishing, you need to set up a business and a publisher name, even if it's just for your own books, and sign on with a printer. "Easy" self-publishing would include options such as Lulu and CreateSpace, where you don't have to set up as a publisher yourself, but then one of those entities would be your publisher of record. With them, you still do all the design yourself, and there is the option to purchase extra help with editing and design – but I don't recommend that, as it's rather pricey and the quality has often been called into question.

That's print. For ebooks it's even easier, with Kindle, PubIt, and Smashwords providing instant access to sales if your marketing is up to scratch. Some people are going this way and not bothering with print. All power to them – there is some decent money to be made if you have a good product. But it's up to you and you alone to make it sell well, by its quality and by your marketing.

At Splashdown, nobody is alone. We're a team – not just authors, but editors, artists, marketers. There's always support for any issues that may arise, and we have a shared marketing plan to assist every author. We brainstorm together for book blurbs, covers and even titles. We critique each others work thoroughly – in fact that is the beginning stage of getting a book ready for publication. An early edit, one might call it. Then of course there are the major edits, two or three rounds by different people and finally by me, to scrub and tighten your story. When it comes time for those final copyedits and proofreads, the team is called in to help. You still get input on all the design choices as you would with self-publishing, but you don't have to arrange it yourself (unless you want to). So in that sense it's really the best of both worlds.

MIKE: As you know, a lot of writers who frequent my site are Christians, but are unhappy with the current content being labeled "Christian fiction." They want "faith" elements in their stories without the ultra conservative strictures. Does Splashdown Books address that demographic? And, if so, what advice would you give to writers of such a genre?

GRACE: I think because we publish speculative fiction, we are already a bit out on the edge of "Christian fiction". Sometimes our faith elements are truly minimal, visible only in the spirit intended by a Christian author behind the words. Others are a little more overt, but I'm no fan of preaching in fiction. I'm also no fan of strictures, so you'll sometimes find stuff in our books that goes beyond what, say, the CBA might accept. You can be sure, though, that it won't be gratuitous nor anything that makes me uncomfortable personally – because the buck stops with me.

Some of our readers have had issues with the idea of a future artificial intelligence gaining a type of spirituality, a fantasy world where slavery is acceptable, a divorce lawyerette getting hooks into a superhero's wife, and various sexual situations with and without marriage – though nothing actually happens onstage, so those must have been well written to provoke to that extent, right? These are exactly the kinds of things I like to explore in fiction, and in every case they are 100% necessary to the story's impact.

Advice for writers? Read this excellent post at the New Authors' Fellowship. Quit whacking on the "other" more conservative type of writer, and let everyone tell the story they're called to tell. Don't worry about them. If you're weird enough, maybe I want to publish you.

MIKE: What kinds of submissions are you currently looking for? Is there a genre or story that you are really seeking, one on the rise, or something entirely from left field?

GRACE: Right now we have a ton of fantasy – I'm not complaining, it's GOOD fantasy! You can expect some exciting releases over the next year. But I'd love to see some more science fiction coming in. Virtual reality, cyberpunk, space travel, aliens, multiverse, time travel, space opera, steampunk, and whatever else is out there. I want concepts that mess with your mind, maybe even a little metafiction if it's well-executed. Metafiction is a story within a story, e.g. a tale AND the tale of its author as she writes it, and how they interact. Or something like Galaxy Quest, where the fiction becomes real.

We have also just launched Splashdown Darkwater, a new imprint for supernatural and paranormal plus the darker sides of science fiction and fantasy. I have a couple of good prospects for that, but we need more. There is a great interest right now in supernatural and dark fiction, and we want to jump into that arena. And the direction is proving to be correct: our first supernatural title, Winter by Keven Newsome, has had the best launch of any book in our history. Anyone with a manuscript involving visions, demons, near-death experiences, dark beings of any sort, and any paranormal occurrence or supernatural gift, is very welcome to get in touch.

MIKE: Finally, what advice would you give to someone who wants to start a small press? Aside from the money, no small thing indeed, what factors should the entrepreneurial small presser consider before diving in?

GRACE: Well, I started with my own book, and that is a good way to learn it so that no one else is affected by our bumbling beginnings. There's a good reason I published a second edition of that one But seriously, nothing teaches so well as just diving in and doing it. I'm not ashamed of my first efforts – they got me where I am now.

You need to be able to do everything yourself or plan on paying someone to do it for you. This includes absolutely everything from editing and proofing to typesetting and interior design, all the way to covers and marketing. All of this takes a huge amount of time which you should consider if you are working another job to pay bills, as most of us have to. If you become a publisher, it will take all your time, period. I can't remember when I last watched TV or a movie.

This isn't a hobby or even a job – it's a lifestyle. To do it even halfway justice, everything else takes a back seat, including my own writing. I've got a lot of novels in my head too, but it's going to be a long time before I can write them. I have two in progress and I keep my hand in with occasional short pieces such as the Comet Born superhero serial at Digital Dragon magazine and our Avenir Eclectia multi-author microfiction project, but that's often all I can do. And it bugs me sometimes.

Having said that, this is an incredibly exhilarating ride and I wouldn't exchange it for the world. There's nothing that can quite compare to being the one who makes dreams possible, even if it's just for a handful of people each year. One person can only do so much, especially when she does nearly everything!

* * *

Awesome stuff, Grace! If you'd like to be entered in the drawing for a free eBook of Aquasynthesis, feel free to leave a comment or question for Grace. And don't forget to check out Splashdown Books and the fine collection of authors being assembled there.

Thoughts on "Magical Hedges" and the Paradigm of Potter Objectors

The debate about Harry Potter, and its depiction of magic and sorcery, is a prime example of a philosophical divide among Christians. How much, if any, occult symbols, practices and references, should Christians tolerate in their tales? Especially as those elements are attached to protagonists?

Yesterday's post How Harry Potter Made Me a Believer produced some great discussion. I particularly enjoyed the thread started by Jesse Koepke wherein he expressed concern that we have allowed a good story to overwhelm biblical injunctions against witchcraft and the like. Jesse proceeded to make some lucid observations about "magical distinctions" in Narnia / Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.

There's a lot of great (and not so great) articles / discussions about this  subject (like Stephen Greydenas' Magic, Middle-earth, Merlin, Muggles, and Meaning). So I don't really want to go there. And I don't need to. As much as I agree we mustn't take magic and its portrayal lightly, my first reaction to Potter opponents and their ilk is to question their template.

Christian opposition to Harry Potter is reflective of a larger, more detrimental mindset which affects our view of God, Christianity, art, and culture. Hopefully I can elaborate on that statement enough to avoid misunderstanding and eliminate the concern that I may be somehow justifying tolerance and/or acceptance of occultism. But I'll warn you ahead of time, this post is a bit long and a little scattered.

Like some of the commenters on yesterday's post, I have come from an fairly active occult background. Not only did I frequent a warlock's house in high school, I owned occult paraphernalia, and eventually began taking hallucinogens for "religious" purposes. So I totally respect the sensitivity Christians, especially Christian parents, bring to this discussion, and for the most part believe it is warranted.

Those who make a distinction between what Greydanus calls "magical hedges" (which "serve to divide the magic of fantasy from the [real] magic of curses and occult powers") in Narnia / Lord of the Rings versus Harry Potter walk a very fine line. I'm not suggesting distinctions can't be made, as Jesse did well in his comments, but that the defense a.) Can turn into an exercise in hair-splitting and b.) Is NOT shared by most Potter opponents. Which is why many of those same folks also denounce Lord of the Rings and Narnia.

On a.): Those who try to define the proper use of magic in Christian fantasy are forced to create their own literary / religious cipher. They inevitably construct sets and subsets of laws to govern their own discernment regarding what is acceptable or unacceptable magic.  Some of the following may be found on that list:

Magic is tolerable as long as it's done in a "fictional" world (as opposed the real world).
Magic is tolerable as long as the source is defined as God.
Magic is tolerable as long as the source is defined as NOT being God.
Magic is tolerable as long as i's source is clearly delineated as Good or Evil.
Magic is tolerable as long as it is used for Good.
Magic is tolerable as long as it's performed by non-human characters (i.e., elves, wizards, etc.)

And the list goes on. Problem is, even the defense of magic in fantasy can take on the tone of nit-picking. Maybe it should. Maybe that's what separates discerning Christian readers from the general public. I don't know. We just seem to be falling into a potential trap when we start niggling over whether THIS wizard, in THAT setting, on THAT world, could perform THAT action, with THOSE results, if he was really empowered by God. It's pure tedium if you ask me.

On b.): Those who defend the magic of Narnia / LotR and NOT the magic of Harry Potter are in the minority. In other words, those who disapprove of Harry Potter most likely disapprove of Narnia and LotR on similar grounds. They are driving the debate more than the Potter apologists. "Let anyone who wields a wand be accursed!" In their scheme, even the Christian who defends Gandalf's magic is an emissary of Evil. All that to say, the person who approves "Narnian magic" while questioning "Potter magic" walks a fine line and may in fact find opponents on both sides of the aisle.

As I said in my intro, I believe this controversy illustrates a philosophical divide among believers, one that frames our perspectives on (1) Christian holiness and (2) Fiction. Not only do we get caught up in arguing a "touch not, taste not" paradigm (only in this case, spell books, wizards, and crystal balls replace Sabbaths, dietary laws, and meat sacrificed to idols) we impose that template over storytelling. Thus, when holiness becomes a system of thou-shalt-nots, so does our fictional diet.

In the process, I think we risk bigger issues, we strain at gnats and swallow camels. We miss opportunities to engage the culture because we're too busy quibbling with particulars. Like what constitutes "bad magic" in fiction.

After King Saul disobeyed God, the prophet Samuel rebuffed him with this admonition:

"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. " (I Sam. 15:23 KJV)

The letter of the law demanded that witches be stoned. Saul didn't have a cauldron or a magic wand, but his "rebellion" was just as repulsive to the Lord. It foreshadowed what Christ would reveal — that the heart is the issue. Lust is akin to adultery. Hatred is analogous to murder. And rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. This isn't to downplay witchcraft, but to suggest that the issue is much bigger than magic  — especially as it relates to storytelling! – it's about one's heart.

So why do Christians always get hung up talking about "externals"?

Jesus made the entire Law a heart issue.  And when we get caught up in debating things like whether one type of wizard is more tolerable than another type of wizard, we're really off course. Nevertheless, that's the kind of debate this often turns into. Of course, we need to warn and guard against occultism. But when the Christian opposition to "magic in fiction" is driven by a narrow, draconian view of holiness, I can't help but feel we're completely missing the boat.

Okay. There's a few rather disconnected thoughts. I'd be interested in yours.

How Harry Potter Made Me a Believer

My daughter is caught up in the Harry Potter craze. And I couldn't be happier.

After attending last Thursday's midnight showing, she gushed about the film. I teasingly said she was no better than a Twilight fan, to which she bristled. Then, to my utter surprise, she said, "Do you know what Stephen King said about that?" Now she had my attention.

"Harry Potter is all about confronting fears, finding inner strength, and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend." – Stephen King

I was momentarily stunned, not because she quoted Stephen King verbatim or that he dissed the sparkly vampire saga, but that my daughter was culling deeper, more substantial elements from the boy wizard. In so doing, she demonstrated one reason why Christian critics appear to be softening.

Apparently, there's more to Harry Potter than just magic.

When the series burst on to the scene in '98, some Christians immediately denounced the book. Potter is a primer for witchcraft, they asserted. Several small independent churches publicly burned the books. In fact, the series ranks first in the American Library Association's Top Banned/Challenged books from 2000-2009.

In Was Harry Potter a Good Christian?, one Georgetown professor, Lauve Steenhuisen, is quoted as blaming the criticism squarely on "conservative Christians."

"In conservative Christianity there's two kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. If (Harry's) not on one side, he's on the other."

Our desire for a black-and-white world and a simplistic discernment model (like Bad guys wear black hats or Good Christians don't smoke) may be the culprit behind much of the early Potter paranoia. Wizardry is evil, was one such dictum. Since the Bible condemns sorcery, necromancy, and the like, many assumed that any employment of said practices — even in fictional characterizations — was wrong. Good guys don't wield wands. The problem was, as the Harry Potter series wore on, magic took the back seat to bigger issues. And even the critics had to take notice.

In How Christians Warmed to Harry Potter Wall Street Journal columnist Sarah Pulliam Bailey observed this slow sea-change:

Christians today are certainly not universally enchanted by the series. Over time, however, more readers have begun to express praise for its honest depiction of fear, loneliness and sacrifice as Harry faces the evil wizard Lord Voldemort. Many Christians have cheered the portrayals of loyalty, courage and love, as the main character repeatedly risks his life.

"These books are not written for people who have a mechanical faith," says John Granger, author of 'Looking for God in Harry Potter.' "For Christians who are consumed with moral elements and symbolism, Potter mania was ironic beyond words."

This irony that "sacrificial love conquers power, including magical power," threw a monkey wrench into the "mechanical faith" of many opponents of the novel. As the series developed, Christians could not avoid the reality that in the story magic was secondary to other powerful, very biblical, "moral elements and symbolism." How could a story that glorified some of Christianity's cardinal virtues be so evil? Even the most "mechanized" Christian recognized the legs of their arguments were undermined.

This warming trend is encouraging. Of course, there may be many reasons why the criticism of Harry Potter has waned. But I can't help but feel that the series has been a bit of a lesson to us culture warriors. We can't approach art through a "mechanized faith." Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to symbols, words, images, or practices, perhaps we should look deeper, to larger thematic elements that shape a story. After all, sacrificial love is far more important than whether someone wields a wand.

It is this unfolding of Harry Potter's enduring "message" which has silenced many of its critics. And made me a believer.