Mike Duran's Blog, page 83

Responding to a Reader about (What Else?) Romance

My friend and fellow blogger, Becky Miller, left a comment yesterday on my now infamous (and what will surely be one of my most viewed posts of 2011) P.S. I Love You. Apparently, I'm still getting flak even when I make a concession. Sheesh! Anyway, I thought Becky's question was important and felt it would be helpful to our conversation to post our exchange. (Plus, I know Becky likes the press. JK, Becky!). And for the record, Becky and I are critique partners, compatriots, fellow believers, Laker fans, and opinionated.

So Becky wrote,

Here's the thing I found most interesting in your post: "I have never read a CBA romance novel — historical, contemporary, or otherwise." You are one honest dude, and the email writer shouldn't be mad at you or stop visiting your blog. But she should, in my opinion, call you on things like this. On what basis have you vociferously oppose the genre in the past since you haven't read it? It would appear you have done so by hearsay. But who are you listening to and forming your opinion?

And finally, will reading one book in the genre put you in a position to make categorical statements about the entire group?

See, this is the very thing I chafe against when it comes to editors making categorical statements about speculative fiction. Which one represents them all?

Okay. These are some great points. Here's my long-winded response:

That's a great question, Becky and, frankly, one I find pretty easy to answer. First, it's a mischaracterization to say I "vociferously oppose the genre" of Romance. I don't. A world — and a bookstore — without romance would be a boring place. However, I think Christian authors and readers should bring a different set of values and expectations to the subject, just as we should to any genre we write and read in. Much of my objections / criticisms relate to this collision between the Romance genre and Christian culture and values. We should think deeply about this (as we should about the Horror genre, the Sci-fi genre, etc.). In fact, if you peruse my archives, you'll find plenty of articles on Christianity and Spec-fic, Horror, Sci-fi, etc. So Romance is not the only target of my ongoing over-thinking. But I personally don't consider myself "vociferously oppose[d to] the genre."

Second, Do you withhold criticism and/or opinion from everything you have NOT actually seen or read (like R-rated movies, horror novels, chick flicks, Rob Bell's books, etc.)? Answer: None of us do. Of course, without firsthand knowledge, some of our criticism / opinions may be skewed. But depending upon the info we've gathered about said genre, our criticism / opinions might be spot on.

So…

The issue is not whether I've read CBA romance novels, as much as Are my criticisms valid? The objection that we can't criticize or form opinions about things we haven't seen or read CAN BE a smokescreen. I mean, How many CBA romance novels must one read before they can start leveling "informed" criticism? Five, ten, twenty? And is the same true of horror, steampunk, erotica, vampire lit, urban fantasy, espionage, bio-thrillers, westerns, noir, New Age, etc., etc.? I haven't read the Twilight series but know enough about it and its fans to be able to make some educated observations. Is this wrong? Some may think so. I don't.

Much of my critique about Romance comes from what I know it to be: Written by women, for women, dealing with women's issues, often light, sometimes snarky, occasionally heavy, and frequently containing "relational" elements. Am I wrong? All one needs to do is peruse the covers of the Women's Fiction aisle to get an idea what they're aiming for. Could this be stereotyping? Absolutely. Is it always? Not necessarily.

I don't mind being told where I'm wrong about my observations / criticisms of CBA Romance (as I hope some of my recent posts have shown). However, I think some of the flak I get may be an indication that I'm hitting a nerve.

And, oh, by the way… Since I'm taking the Romance Challenge, maybe you should take the Horror Challenge. I've got several novels I can recommend.

I appreciate Becky leaving that comment and, pretty much, know my response won't satisfy everyone. That's all right. I'm beginning to wonder if just having this conversation, and remaining civil, is a really good thing. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to read Redeeming Love…

What Grabs Readers and What Keeps Them

Train wrecks grab people's attention. Having someone on board keeps their attention.

Exhibit A: Charlie Sheen.

Attempting to cash in on his recent celebrity meltdown, this weekend the actor launched his 20-city variety show in Detroit. Apparently, Charlie Sheen bombed. He was heckled, booed, and eventually abandoned by the 5,000+ fans, proving it's easier to get people there, than to keep them.

They came to see a train wreck, but discovered no one was on board.

Forgive the unseemly parallels, but there's a lesson here for writers. It goes something like this: Getting a reader's attention and keeping a reader's attention are two very different things.

I was thinking about this when I read literary agent Rachelle Gardner's post Why "No" Comes Quickly… but "Yes" Seems to Take Forever. She writes,

Recently on my blog, a commenter mentioned it would be nice if agents and editors would actually read a manuscript before rejecting it. The truth is, we read exactly as much as we need to. It's not necessary for an editor or agent to read more than a few pages to determine if it's a "no." It takes a lot longer to determine if it's a "yes." (emphasis mine)

Apparently, what grabs an agent and what keeps them are two very different things. Or are they? Perhaps what grabs them is what keeps them reading, and what keeps them reading is potentially what sells the story. But what  keeps a person reading, whether or not they are an agent, is different per individual.

Either way, the first step to keep someone reading is to grab their attention. Here's four common ways that writers  grab a reader's attention in their first couple of pages.

Train wrecks — explosions, action, chase scene, sex scene, murder, mayhem, mystery, etc.
Compelling premise — what the reader understands about where the story is going keeps them reading, even through a slow or lackluster beginning.
Interesting characters – someone so quirky, so charismatic, so interesting, so smart, so evil, so despondent, so upbeat, we can't help but want to follow them.
Good form — command of the language, lovely prose, economy of words, brevity, precision, consistent POV, authorial voice, realistic dialog, etc.

As a reader, which of these four elements are you looking for in the first few pages? Or do you think that's unfair? Do you think an author deserves more than just the first few pages to grab your attention? And do you think that agents and editors are too quick to reject stories based on such slim evidence?

I can totally relate to Rachelle's description. As a reader, it's "not necessary for [me] to read more than a few pages" to determine if I want to stay with a writer. I recognize that readers bring different expectations to those first pages (which is why we often chafe against what agents seem to want). Nevertheless, what grabs you is not necessarily what grabs me.

Using the above "opening elements," here's what I look for in the first few pages, in order of their importance to me:

Good form
Compelling premise
Interesting characters
Train wrecks

No amount of train wrecks or interesting characters will keep me reading a book that is not well-written and does not have a compelling premise. In the long-run, an intriguing storyline will keep me reading despite average writing. As long as I feel a story is going somewhere I want to go, I can put up with serviceable prose. Nothing grabs me more in the first pages of a book than good writing. Conversely, nothing turns me off more in the first pages of a book than poor writing. But that's just me.

The least interesting opening to me is the train wreck. Which is funny, because I think train wrecks have become one of our most conventional openings. Perhaps television and cinema are to be blamed for this, I don't know. I'm not suggesting you start your book without action, but that no amount of action can sustain a poorly written book, without interesting characters, that is going nowhere. Detonate a nuclear bomb in chapter one if you like, but if we're not in safe hands by chapter two, I won't stick around for the fallout.

While grabbing readers may entail orchestrating train wrecks, keeping them is another story. For if there's no one on board, you will most likely find the editor waving off spectators: "Nothing here to see, folks. Move along."

* * *

Question: As a reader, (1) What grabs you and (2) What keeps you? Are they the same thing or different?  Do you agree that a compelling plot can keep someone reading through an inferior opening? Out of the four "opening elements" I listed, what is their order of importance for you as a reader?

I'm Reading… Redeeming Love

As a non-romance reader, I've pledged to read one CBA romance novel. Counting private emails, my last post garnered 20+ suggestions. I narrowed them down to three authors: Deanne Gist, Francine Rivers, and Siri Mitchell. I downloaded a sample chapter from each on my Kindle and read them.

Although I probably liked Siri Mitchell's craft the best, I've decided to read Francine Rivers' Redeeming Love. Why? Two main reasons:

It is commonly viewed as THE standard for Christian romance. Joy said this in her comments on that post, "There's a reason Francine River's name has come up on this thread over and over again. She is a juggernaut in inspirational romance and Redeeming Love is the gold standard." I have heard that from more than one person over the last half decade, so I figured if I'm going to read one Christian romance, I might as well read the book most often referenced.

Secondly, Christian writers and readers often use Redeeming Love as an example that Christian fiction can be edgy (and I am very invested in that subject). Perhaps this is not the best motivation to approach a romance novel, but I can't deny that this is in the equation.

Anyway, I'll let you know if I survive my bout with Christian romance. (If I just stop blogging, assume that I croaked.) Seriously, I plan on writing a review and discussing things. Once again, thanks for all your suggestions and have a great weekend!

P.S. I Love You…

If I had to read one CBA romance novel, what novel should it be?

Call this an olive branch, a white flag, a peace accord. Or if you want to be nasty, you can just say I caved.

I recently exchanged emails with a published CBA "inspirational historical romance writer." She said she had to stop reading my blog because of how hard she felt I was on Christian romance writers.

…we know that we are held up as an object of ridicule in the mainstream literary community, even more so than regular romance. And it's flat out bigotry from some of them. So, when we start to get it from Christian authors too, it's kinda like going to the Christian grad seminar and finding out that not all Christians need apply.

I'm not saying that I expect others to say they like historical romance if they don't. In fact, I don't personally care for a great deal of the historical romance on the CBA market, and I'm passionate about finding authors who are raising the bar for Christian fiction. But there are ways to say such things that don't feel hurtful…

This saddens me.

Look, I write supernatural suspense. Sometimes I refer to it as horror. My genre is not nearly as popular in the CBA as is the above author's. In fact, I am often on the defensive about it. You see, horror writers and the horror genre have been stereotyped in the same way that romance writers have. Christian horror writers maybe even more so! (And in case you hadn't noticed, most of these are men.)

That said, I have no desire to demean, disparage, or ridicule romance writers. Seriously. Will I continue to be critical of Christian romance? Absolutely. But in case you haven't noticed, I am critical of a lot of "Christian" things. Point is: I am not really an ogre. I don't like that the above romance writer is mad at me. I am a lover not a fighter. In fact, I want to include more romance in my novels.

Stop snickering!

Anyway, I wanted to challenge myself and I need you to help me. I have never read a CBA romance novel — historical, contemporary, or otherwise. And I wouldn't know where to start. This is your chance to give me some advice.

If I had to read one CBA romance novel, what novel should it be?

I realize there are probably many worthy selections. But if you have one, please leave a comment on this post. Tell me what CBA romance novel you think I should read and why you think I should read it. If there is any sort of consensus, or if one of your recommendations just strikes my fancy, I will do two things (1) Read that entire novel,  and (2) Post a review on this blog. I promise to be open-minded, fair, and nice.

P.S. — This white flag is intended as a truce, not a target.

Requiem for a Control Freak

Several weeks ago, one of my characters woke me up. I had been wrestling with a plot problem in my WIP and this character arrived in my subconscious gloaming with a startling suggestion: Kill her. I immediately dismissed the thought, and tucked her back in. But over the next few days, the seed of that suggestion took root. Several days later, after considerable consternation, I pulled the trigger. Literally. But something else died in the process. My desire for TOTAL CONTROL over my story.

The writing community has developed a name for people like me. We are Plotters (which is a polite name for Control Freaks). We need to see where the story is going before we write it. We start with an end in mind and, come hell or high water, make sure we reach our destination. We pull up at the curb and tell our characters to "Get in, Sit Down, Hold On, and Shut Up." We are the sovereigns over our storyboard, our characters are predestined for the ends of our choosing.

If there is one type of writer I misunderstand, it's the SOTPs (Seat-of-the-Pants writers). These are the folks who have a basic idea and, well, just start writing. It's the equivalent of loading up the van and driving cross-country with no agenda. Who knows where you'll end up? And maybe that's the point. I'm sorry but I'm not going devote tens of thousands of words to a story without an end in sight. That's like a preacher taking the pulpit without notes, relying only on "the Spirit." To me, the SOTP writer's "spontaneity" is really just presumption and intellectual sloth.

Of course, there's some darned good SOTP'ers. Have you heard of Stephen King? In his book On Writing, he adds this to the debate:

I distrust plot for two reasons: first, because our lives are largely plotless, even when we add in all our reasonable precautions and careful planning; and second, because I believe plotting and the spontaneity of real creation aren't compatible. It's best that I be as clear about this as I can — I want you to understand that my basic belief about the making of stories is that they pretty much make themselves.

Ouch. To all us Control Freaks, King's suggestion that "plotting" and "the spontaneity of real creation aren't compatible" smacks of heresy. Is "real creation" only forged by the seat of one's pants? I'm guessing God had a plan BEFORE He started flinging planets into space. Call me a control freak, but before I put the keys in the ignition, I need to know where I am going.

The problem is, my characters are becoming back seat drivers.

In his book Lights! Camera! Fiction!, Alfie Thompson suggests a third category, the SIB: Somewhere in Between writer. This is "a hybrid of the two styles," a writer who gives herself room for spontaneity within the context of a plot. This is the driver who aims for the Ozarks, but allows detours along the way.

As writers, we thrive on "spontaneity" — flashes of inspiration that transcend us. But, for control freaks like me, we need a context, an anvil and workshop to hammer out the crudeness of those raw concepts. Like a campfire, most stories require a Spark as well as tending. Your baby may be an angel, but there will come a day when she needs a whupping. Likewise, this idea of "plotting loosely," I think, blends both of these worlds.

Of course, the Control Freak in me is scared about letting go of my story. What if we drive off a cliff or end up in Timbuktu surrounded by malnourished cannibals? Spontaneity can be dangerous, especially when you allow fictional characters to drive. Nevertheless, good stories have a way of driving themselves. Which means that even the Plotter, at some point, must learn to get out of the way.

So my second novel is almost finished, and so are my days as a Control Freak. Yes, I still have the keys (I'm not giving them up!) and the map is in the glove box. But if another character wakes me up and demands to be executed, this time, I will probably oblige.

Mormons in the Marketplace (and What Christians Can Learn from Them)

Mormonism has been good for the publishing industry. Or is it the other way around? Either way, it makes me wonder if Christians shouldn't sit up and take note.

Before you head to the comment box to tell me Mormons ARE Christians, save it. That debate goes on elsewhere and this post is not about that. This post is about authors with a definite religious persuasion who are making inroads into mainstream publishing.

And why others aren't.

The most recent Mormon publishing phenom is Kiersten White author of the NY Times bestseller Paranormalcy. Last year, in a post entitled Something in the Water, Kiersten said this about the unusual proliferation of Mormon authors into mainstream publishing:

This is such a phenomenon–and a growing one–that one editor considering PARANORMALCY heard I was Mormon and remarked, "That's the magic ingredient!"

So basically I'm saying, if you want to get published you really ought to join my church.

KIDDING. So, so, so so so kidding. But clearly people have noticed and are trying to figure out why.

In the LDS church, family is the center of everything, and women are encouraged to try and be home as much as possible with their children to give them the best start in life. (This isn't a requirement–everyone does the best they can, just like anyone else, Mormon or not.) We are also encouraged to get as much education as we can. AND we are encouraged to develop our talents and constantly seek to better ourselves.

So, here's the equation: Very Well Educated Women + Lots of Hours at Home + Needing Something to Do that Makes Us Feel Human and Improves Our Lives = WRITERS.

So is there something intrinsic to the Mormon faith that may relate to the recent proliferation of its authors?

Several years back, when Stephanie Meyers (also a Mormon) hit it big with her Twilight series, one blogger compiled a list of Mormon Young Adult Fiction Before Twilight. They too speculated about how "Mormon culture" may fuel its authors' success:

There is a culture that cultivates YA fiction among the Mormons. Part of it is a focus on family-friendly literature. Part of it comes from that history of periodicals that promoted Mormon youth to develop their writing talents. Part of it comes from Brigham Young University, connected intimately with most of those nationally publishing LDS writers (including Meyer). Many of the best Mormon writers for the YA market have taught or been taught at BYU (and BYU hosts other important writers such as Douglas Thayer who have not succeeded nationally, but who are writing high quality adolescent literature). Conferences for aspiring and professionalizing writers take place annually via BYU, such as the Writing and Illustrating for Young Readers Workshop, and there are student clubs that connect young writers with established writers. Courses in Mormon literature (and more specifically in YA literature) are held regularly at BYU, too.

Okay. So this has me thinking. As a Christian author, I wonder if our community is far too fractured and divided to have such a concentrated influence on aspiring authors. Or is Christianity just far less monolithic and "rigid" than Mormonism, preventing such singularity? Either way, where is the "Christian" version of the BYU writers workshops?

Now, from what I understand, publishers of "Mormon fiction" are faced with the same uncomfortable decisions that publishers of Christian fiction are. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Meyer's Twilight and White's Paranormalcy are NOT carried by Mormon bookstores for the same reason that Grisham, Koontz, or Tolkein are not carried by Christian bookstores. Nevertheless, as I see it, these authors — and their faith — is celebrated in a way that that mainstream Christian authors are not. Am I wrong?

Christian authors often bemoan our lack of crossover appeal. We (a generic we) feel shunned by the market. We can't reference basic elements of our faith without getting the axe. Some even go so far as to call it conspiratorial. For many, Christian fiction exists because of this, as a reaction against the mainstream market's persecution. Furthermore, mainstream Christian authors can sometimes be viewed as "spiritually inferior" to the author with explicit Christian themes. No one can doubt John Grisham's success. But is his faith celebrated in the same way as Meyer's or White's? Does his faith play any less a role because his content isn't overtly "spiritual"?

I'm just thinking out loud.

So how do you answer the Mormon publishing phenomenon? Is there something intrinsic to the Mormon faith that may relate to the proliferation of its authors? Can the Christian writing community learn something from the success of these Mormon authors? Is the Christian writing community, as I suggest, far too fractured or spread out for such a concentrated push? Or am I just very wrong?

Have a great weekend!

CSFF Blog Tour Highlights

The Christian Science Fiction & Fantasy (CSFF) Blog Tour of my novel The Resurrection is in full swing. It's both exciting and unnerving to have so many people talking about and analyzing your book all at once. It's also fascinating to see the various angles and emphases readers extract from the book. Or don't. Here's a sampling of some of the discussions that have ensued over the last couple of days (and a song list to boot).

On day one of the tour, Becky Miller used the novel to discuss charismatic phenomenon (prophecy, tongues, miracles, etc.) and Christians' responses to said gifts. It led to a lively discussion. You can see Becky's post HERE. Novelist Bruce Hennigan has written three very extensive posts about the themes of the book. Here's 1, 2, and 3. Thanks, Bruce! Really nice work! And a good discussion ensued at David Wilson's site regarding the occult elements in the story and whether or not the protag's followed a biblical precedent in how they dealt with them. Thanks, David. Also, blogging buddy Jason Joyner not only reviewed my novel, he conducted an interview with me regarding the book. We go into detail about some of the story elements. You can find Part One of the interview HERE.

Mixed responses to the book being referred to as part of the Horror Genre. Carol Keen said,

I just found out that some are thinking this is a horror story. I don't see that. To my mind horror movies are all blood, guts, killing and hatred, Satan and no God, no redemption. There is plenty of redemption in this book.

Blogging friend Jessica Thomas suggested, in Part Two of her review, that the book wasn't scary enough:

In my opinion, The Resurrection wasn't as spooky as Frank Peretti's The Oath, which gave me nightmares…  My main gripe with the story was that I wanted more supernatural elements. I guess when it comes down to it, I want a supernatural thriller to give me nightmares.

On the other hand, Sarah Sawyer is so leery of the horror genre, she did not read the book. She admitted in her post,

I don't read "supernatural suspense"–the Christian term for horror. The few times I've attempted to read in the genre, I've regretted it. By no means do I think Christian horror is intrinsically flawed, but it reminds me too much of recurring nightmares and childhood fears to make it an entertaining or even thought-provoking reading experience. My vivid imagination needs no further provocation regarding the dark side of the supernatural realm, however redemptive the conclusion. So after hearing The Resurrection branded as horror and hearing reviewers speak of it as creepy/eerie and refer to ghosts and the occult, I determined this wasn't a book for me.

I wonder if these different responses aren't indicative of one of the reasons why Christian Horror struggles for traction in the Christian market. Is it too scary or not scary enough? (Sounds like a good blog topic, huh?) For those who are interested in this discussion, today I am guest blogging at Sarah Sawyer's site with a piece entitled "The Argument Against Christian Horror — a Response." Check it out!

John Otte takes a good critical look at what he felt was a flaw in the story and then moves to a doctrinal critique of my argument for the possibility of ghosts,  concluding that my first novel is a "less-than-impressive book." Contrast this with Nikole Hahn's review:

The characters endeared themselves to me. It's a week later and I am still thinking about them…  As much as I tried, I could not find anything I didn't like about this book. It's earned a permanent spot on my library.

Aren't reviews fun?

Anyway, Nikole liked my stuff enough to ask me to guest blog on her site, which I did, in a post entitled "Why We Need Supernatural Fiction."

And on a more humorous note, Steve Trower compiled a list of the Top Ten Resurrection Songs. And, no, none of them are from Duran Duran. Lots of fun, Steve!

Anyway, you can find links to all the participant's blogs at the CSFF site. Thanks to all those who have participated. And a special hats off to Becky Miller for spearheading this thing and her enthusiasm to see Christian writers and Christian fiction succeed. Thanks Becky.

Why Writers Need Thin Skin

One of the most helpful letters I ever received was a rejection letter. If I'd had thick skin, however, I may have never benefited from it.

It was back in 2007. I was only two years into writing, finally gaining enough confidence to begin submitting to professional paying magazines. What followed were dozens of form style rejections thanking me for submitting, saying the pieces weren't suitable, and wishing me luck on placing them elsewhere. Not only were these letters disappointing, they were not helpful. I mean, how would I grow as a writer unless I knew what professionals thought about my stuff? Besides that it wasn't worthy for their mag.

Then I received this email from a pro-grade speculative fiction magazine regarding my short story "Subterranea."

Mike,

Thank you for your interest in xxxxxxx and your recent submission, "Subterranea ."

There are lovely beginnings, here, but too many.   It seems to restart at least 3 times, the last at about the mid-way point.  Also, the digging metaphors, which felt, at first, fresh and poignant, became tiresome about here:  "I immediately set a spike and began my descent;" they begin to sound awkward, especially when married to allusions to building bridges.

The story, overall, felt like Lovecraft as told by Dashiell Hammett, which is very clever, but about here:  "It wasn't long before he saw the hardhats again," I realized that the true protagonist of the story was Mr. Gordon Sartwell, and the voice should perhaps be his, instead of the mesmerist, who added a bit of opening drama but no substance to the meat of the plot.

Therefore, I unfortunately am unable to accept your story for publication at xxxxxxxx.

Writers are often told we need thick skin to weather rejection. There's a lot of truth to that. Sometimes we need to discard critique, ignore rejection, and simply press on. But I wonder if the opposite isn't also true: We need thin skin to learn from critique.

After months of form rejections, the above letter was a revelation for me. A professional editor, someone who probably saw hundreds of stories a month, took the time out of her schedule to write someone she didn't know, someone she wasn't even going to publish, and articulate the pros and cons of their piece. Sure, it was still a rejection letter. I could have snarled, deleted it,  and ignored her advice.

But my skin wasn't thick enough.

Charles Spurgeon, the famous British preacher, once told the story about an anonymous critic who, after each of the minister's sermons, would send a weekly list of his mispronunciations, slips of speech, redundancies, and misquotes. Spurgeon concluded,

"Possibly some young men might have been discouraged, if not irritated, by such severe criticisms, but they would have been very foolish, for in resenting such corrections they would have been throwing away a valuable aid to progress. No money can purchase outspoken honest judgment, and when we get it for nothing let us utilize it to the fullest extent." (The Blind Eye and the Deaf Ear, Lectures to My Students)

Not only was Spurgeon unoffended, he grew to relish the critique and came to see them as "a valuable aid to progress." Spurgeon wrote of his anonymous critic, "He never signed his name, and that was my only cause of complaint against him, for he left me in a debt I could not acknowledge."

Question: Are your critics "a valuable aid to progress" or a pain in the ass?

I blogger recently reviewed The Resurrection and gave it a thumbs-up… with some caveats. I emailed him the following letter.

Just wanted to say thanks for reading The Resurrection and posting a review. I am really interested in working through some of the weaker elements of my writing style, and felt from your review that I could trust you to be honest with me about some of them. From reading The Resurrection, what advice would you give me for my next novel. Things I need to avoid or work on. And please — nothing offends me! I'm genuinely interested in growing. Thanks again for your review.

Some would probably say I am setting a dangerous precedent for myself. No doubt, the quickest way to paralysis would be to listen to everyone's opinion about your writing. Nevertheless, this does not mean we shouldn't listen to some.

Point is: It's possible for us writers to work so hard on developing thick skin that we become hardened to the things that will help us grow. We develop blind spots that cripple our career or stunt our spiritual growth, all under the guise of "thick skin." We become so beholden to gushing five star reviews that anything less is a personal affront. The writer who is worst off is not the one who is naive, lazy, or amateurish — because every writer is this sometimes. Rather, it's the writer who refuses to receive critique.

So let me ask you, Is your skin thin enough for the writing business?

Blog Posts, Blog Tours, and Other Fun

My publisher, Charisma House, has assembled some of its authors for a group blog entitled Just the Write Charisma. It's an interesting mix of authors and should be fun. I'll be posting over there once a month. Today I'm up with a piece entitled The Downside of Niche Marketing. In it I ask, For an author, do niches become ruts or runways? Check it out if you get a chance.

Next week The Resurrection will be the featured book for this month's Christian Science Fiction & Fantasy Blog Tour (CSFF). This is quite a large, lively group and I'm looking forward to their discussions surrounding the novel. Becky Miller, the coordinator of CSFF, encouraged me to follow the chat and interact with the participants, which I'll be doing. Several opportunities have resulted from this tour, which will make next week exceptionally busy for me.

First, I'll be doing a guest blog post for Fantasy writer Sarah Sawyer (date to be announced). Then Tuesday and Wednesday I'll be doing an interview with longtime blogging buddy Jason Joyner. Apart from being a wise guy, Jason asks some penetrating questions, so I'll make sure to provide links and witty rejoinders. (In fact, let me take this opportunity to say that I am available for interviews, guest blog spots, and featured reviews. If you are interested, you can find my contact info HERE.)

And last but not least, March Madness is in full swing and thanks to Yahoo! Sports, our "family tournament" contains 14 contestants. In case you're interested, I have selected Ohio State to play Kansas in the Finals with OS prevailing. My screen name is Professor McGillicutty.

Have a great weekend!

Does Natural Disaster Prove God's Non-Existence?

Christians are often accused of exploiting disasters like the Japan earthquake for their ends. No sooner does the rubble settle than we are whipping out our Bibles to proclaim God's judgment or the end of days. But apparently, atheists aren't much different. Within hours of the event, the headline at Debunking Christianity read like this: Devastating Tsunami Hits Japan. You Want Evidence There Isn't a Good Omnipotent God? Here it is. What follows is a 4:40 video containing footage of the disaster, with this postscript: "Here it is. Try explaining this rather than explaining it away."

But who's using this event to explain what?

Christians are often too quick to sermonize after such tragedies (who was it that suggested that the Haitian earthquake was God's retribution against voodoo?). But couldn't non-believers be accused of the same thing? To the atheist, natural disasters are an apologetic for unbelief.

But does such mayhem and "senseless human suffering" really prove God doesn't exist?

Even though this is one of the atheist's strongest arguments ("How can a Loving, All-powerful God allow such random misery and devastation to occur?"), I've never really followed this line of reasoning. While pain and suffering admittedly presses us intellectually and emotionally, both theist and atheist, how exactly does disaster disprove the existence of God? Natural disaster and random human suffering could prove lots of things about the nature of the Universe. Here's three of them:

God exists, but is evil.
God exists, but is indifferent and morally neutral.
God exists, but is powerless to do anything.

Couldn't tsunamis, earthquakes, cancer, and human deformities prove that an Evil God runs the show, One who delights in watching us suffer? Or maybe the Man Upstairs is a Relativist and doesn't believe in Absolutes and objective morality. So why lift a finger? Then again, perhaps God really is just an Impersonal Force or a Deistic Watchmaker Who wound things up, sits back, and watches things wind down. Point being: Why can't disaster and human suffering be evidence of a different type of God, rather than none at all?

Furthermore, if disaster and human suffering point to the non-existence of a Loving God, couldn't good luck, good fortune, harmony, health, prosperity, and order, be possible evidence for the existence of a Benevolent Being?

In other words: If cancer is evidence of No God, is the spontaneous remission of cancer evidence of a Good God? Why one and not the other?

Peter Kreeft in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics writes:

The fact that we do not naturally accept this world full of injustice, suffering, sin, disease, and death — that we spontaneously cheer the poet (Dylan Thomas) when he says, so irrationally yet nobly: "Do not go gentle into that good night / Rage, rage against the dying of the light" — the very fact of our outrage at evil is a clue that we are in touch with a standard of goodness by which we judge this world as defective, as falling drastically short of the mark.

Unlike the poet, the atheist has no "light" to "rage against." And even if my ignorance is worth "debunking," at some point it just won't matter. You see, if Nothingness awaits us all, then what's the ultimate point of debate?

Really.

Why can't natural disaster and human suffering be evidence of an Evil God, an Indifferent God, or a Powerless God? Why must the Japan earthquake be "evidence" that "there isn't a good omnipotent God?" Because for the atheist to even concede a deity — evil, indifferent, or powerless — is to subvert their own position. The first step toward conceiving a Good and Loving God, is to establish evidence for a god. And this is the step that atheists simply cannot take.