Mike Duran's Blog, page 84

March 13, 2011

In Praise of Bad Reviews








"In the arts, the critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising." — Pauline Kael, U.S. film critic. Newsweek (New York, Dec. 24, 1973).

I recently received an email from a  writer who gave up his book review site. Why? Because he's trying to break into the publishing industry. He found that he couldn't be honest about his reviews without potentially offending other authors and/or jeopardizing his chances of publication. So he closed up shop. I applauded him — not because he stopped reviewing books, but because he refused to be dishonest when he did so.


I wish all book reviewers would follow this guy's lead.


When it comes to book reviews, many reviewers deserve a thumbs-down. Is it because they are too harsh, too nit-picky, or too critical? On the contrary, it's because they're not harsh, nit-picky, and critical enough! Which is why I ignore certain reviewers — not because they pick everything apart, but because they praise everything. A reviewer who likes everything they read is either biased, dishonest, or dense. I can forgive a reviewer for liking a book I hate. I can't forgive them for liking everything they read.


Trying to find bad reviews on some review sites is like trying to find conservatives at NPR. They just ain't there.


I brought this subject up to another author / reviewer once who responded, "I'll be happy to give you a one-star review, Mike." My response was, "If I deserve it, please do." But then, I thought that was obvious. Truth be told, said reviewer did not post one-star reviews. Which is how many bloggers get around writing bad reviews: they only review books they like. Question: Is this honest? I mean, what's the point of presenting yourself as a reviewer if you only review things you like? That's like calling yourself a weather man but only reporting the "fair and sunny" days. At some point, the weather is awful and you need to say so.


So there are two kinds of bad reviews: bad, bad reviews and good, bad reviews.


A good, bad review is



objective
honest
not personal
constructive

This is the kind of review that actually helps me understand the work, not just the reviewer's opinion of it. It points out strengths in the story and the writing, as well as weaknesses. It suggests ways that the book could be better and does not attack or embarrass an author in the process.


A bad, bad review is not just one that pans that the book. A bad, bad review may actually be a good review (a five star, must-read). However, the author of said "good review" is



not objective
unaware of the book's flaws (and won't bother to be made aware)
dishonest about the book's flaws
has ulterior motives for seeing the book / author succeed

Sometimes bad reviews are bad because they are biased, thinly-cloaked, puff pieces. Which is why I am skeptical of Amazon ratings… especially books that only get five star reviews. Do some books deserve five stars? I think so. But I am suspicious of a book that only gets five stars. It is either (a) The Greatest Book Ever Written or (b) Not being objectively reviewed.


I vote for (b). Mostly.


On the other hand, sometimes bad reviews are bad because they are biased, unsubstantiated, hit pieces. Not long ago, Jim Rubart's debut novel Rooms was made available as a free Kindle download. What ensued was a wave of one star reviewers who hated the book for no other reason than that it had Christian themes.


Memo to reviewers: Just because a book has religious themes does not automatically make it a bad book.


Now, I can hear the critics. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they say. Art criticism is a subjective affair. Who are you to say what people should and shouldn't like? Fair enough. Just because Grandma Fanny Apton's self-published novel about buffalo breeders is awful, does not mean it has no merit. However, someone who can't tell the difference between Granny Apton's novel and "The Great Gatsby" is either dense or biased.


Or they are related to Granny Apton.


I recently received an Amazon review of my first novel, The Resurrection, entitled Room For Improvement. The reviewer, interestingly enough, still gave me four stars. My one gripe with the review, however,  was not that the author suggested that my work needed improving, but that she did not specify where my improvement was needed.


Listen, I expect that some people will find my book boring, poorly written, and preachy. It's inevitable. I can handle that. But please don't tell me I need to improve without telling me what to improve. That, to me, is one difference between a good, bad review, and a bad, bad review.


* * *


Question: What constitutes a good, bad review? What constitutes a bad, bad review? Do you agree that the person who reviews only books they like is being disingenuous?


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 13, 2011 16:33

March 11, 2011

One Reason Why "Charismatic" Publishing Is Growing




[image error]



I recently spoke to a spec-fic novelist who signed a multi-book contract with my publisher Charisma House (formerly Strang Communications). My apologies for sounding like a shill, but as much as I talk about speculative fiction here, it is neat to see Charisma House assembling a a formidable crew of spec authors (Mike Dellosso, Conlan Brown, Greg Mitchell, Linda Rios Brook, myself, and the aforementioned  author-to-be-named later). In an economy that appears to be tanking, how has CH managed to pull this off?


Agent Chip MacGregor, in a post regarding CBA trends, said this last year:


The fastest growing segment of Christianity is charismatic, and we have probably neglected to mention that some small charismatic houses (Strang, Destiny Image, Harrison House, etc) have recently sold a ton of books — so certainly somebody is buying their materials, whether they are in big ponds or small, and whether they are in general markets or not.


In the comments, it was clarified that charismatic books are not necessarily the fastest growing segment of the industry, but that the Charismatic movement is alive and well in the Church. Apparently, Charisma House has captured that fire, and as reported during Strang's re-branding, "the company (CH) has become known as the leading charismatic/Pentecostal publisher in the world."


At the moment, a growing group of speculative authors are part of this.


I am personally encouraged by this trend, for two reasons. The obvious reason is that CH has contracted me for two books. Secondly (and way more importantly) is my belief that Charismatic / Pentecostal theology better aligns (biblically and practically), with a supernatural view of the universe.


As I suggested in one of my all-time most popular posts, Why Supernatural Fiction is Under-Represented in Christian Bookstores, American Christians have been drifting from a supernatural worldview. This miracle-less, materialistic worldview has ravaged the Church. Supernaturalism has been replaced by naturalism. The miracles of the Bible are little more than crumbling monuments to a mythical age. In many denominations, it is easier to "come out" as being gay, than Charismatic.


So let me float this suggestion: One reason that Charismatic publishing is growing is because Charismatic theology better aligns with the real world. Statistics continue to reveal (as do our choices of TV programs, books, and films) that people believe in the supernatural. We believe in angels, demons, ghosts, unexplainable events, and the afterlife. We believe in weirdness! As a result, Christians are tiring of a world without wonder, a world where an all-powerful God is often perceived as silent, impotent, uninvolved, disinterested, and boring.


I am not privy to my publisher's business model, sales figures, or marketing strategies. I don't know what their year-end graphs reveal or predict. Nor did they pay me to write this post. However, like me and millions of others, Charisma House believes there is weirdness in the world.


And I am thrilled to be a part of it.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 11, 2011 05:52

March 9, 2011

13 Problems with Universalism








The controversy surrounding Rob Bell's upcoming book has reignited the discussion about hell, charging him with possibly being a Universalist. This post is not about Rob Bell, but the (alleged) belief that has put him in the hot seat (pun intended… figuratively). Universalism teaches that Jesus died for all people and that all people will eventually be saved.  It also teaches that if someone rejects Christ in this life, they can accept Him in the next one, no matter how immoral, evil, or anti-Christ they were.


On the surface, Universalism sounds like a very nice position to hold. No one goes to hell. Love wins. Happy ending. However, Universalism has problems. Here's thirteen that come to mind.



Universalism is not Just.  If evil is not judged, then how is Justice served? If someone does not want to go to heaven, is it just to make them? Do Satan, Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa deserve the same future? Or do Universalists deny Justice?
Universalism violates individual free will. C.S. Lewis said, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' And those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done' All that are in Hell, choose it." If hell is for those who choose it, then by saving everyone God violates our free will.
Universalism soft pedals, reinterprets, and/or denies the basic teachings of Jesus about hell. Jesus spoke about hell more than any other figure in the Bible. Example: "…so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 12:40-42 NIV). Or, "Then he (the Son of Man) will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'" (Matt. 25:41 NIV). And many other verses.
Universalism soft pedals, reinterprets, and/or denies the basic teachings of Scripture about hell. Debate usually targets words and concepts employed in Hebrew and in Greek. Nevertheless, the New Testament is adamant about a Final Judgment where "the dead were judged according to what they had done" (Rev. 20:12) and some are thrown into a "lake of fire" where "they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever" (vs. 10).  (See The Importance of Hell by Tim Keller for a good summary of these last two points.)
Universalism eliminates the need to accept Christ. Even though Jesus cited the need for people to believe in Him, if everyone gets saved, why bother? Universalists ultimately believe there is no need for a person to follow Christ. Even blasphemy cannot damn someone, so why bow to the Nazarene?
Universalism is deterministic. If salvation is universal and automatic, then ultimately there is no free will. Your eternity is "determined" whether you like it or not. (It's no accident that Eastern religions that teach there is no hell, also teach that there is no free will.)
Universalism distorts the love of God. Love without justice is not true love, it is permissiveness. Peter Kreeft writes, "Hell is due more to love than justice. Love created free persons who could choose hell… The fires of hell are made of the love of God."
Universalism strips the Gospel of its power. If everyone goes to heaven, exactly what is the Good News of the Gospel and why do people need it? Better News (at least from the Universalist's perspective) is that you don't need the Good News to be saved.
Universalism can give someone a false sense of security. If you're going to be saved no matter what, there is no need for accountability, repentance, faith, or moral effort of any sort. You are eternally untouchable and have nothing to fear. Love wins, so why worry?
Universalism can have eternal, irreversible ramifications for its adherents if it is not true. Similar to Pascal's Wager, I am better off living as if Universalism WAS NOT true and being proved wrong, than living as if Universalism WAS true, and being proved wrong. In the first count I will still be saved, in the second count I will not.
Universalism leads to religious and moral indifference. If everyone gets saved no matter how they act, then why act morally, why perform good deeds, why strive to be just or compassionate? The Universalist's motto could be, "Do what thou wilt."
Universalism undermines the uniqueness of Christianity. If everyone goes to heaven, then the road is NOT narrow, like Christ taught (Matt. 7:13-14). Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, Satanists, even Atheists, will all be saved. So what compelling reason is there for Christianity?
Universalism eliminates the need for evangelism. If everyone goes to heaven, then Christians should apologize to the world and bring all our missionaries home. What is the purpose of turning someone from paganism, mysticism, satanism, or cannibalism, if love wins?

C.S. Lewis said he never met anyone who had a lively belief in heaven who didn't also have a lively belief in hell. "If a game is to be taken seriously," he wrote, "it must be possible to lose it."


If love wins, someone must lose. If not, then the Game is fixed.


Your thoughts?


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 09, 2011 05:08

March 6, 2011

Marketing as "Good Stewardship"








Dear Author: Is it God's will for you to sell a lot of books?


To some, that question illustrates the complexity of understanding God's will. To others, that question illustrates the complexity of understanding book sales. Either way, when it comes to successful marketing, there seems to be a strange dance between skill and luck, hard work and good fortune. Or to spiritualize it — there is a give-and-take between the book's creator and the author's Creator.


Have you noticed that marketing often gets a bad rap from Christian writers? Don't get me wrong, I'm no marketing whiz. Like most of you, I am much more comfortable writing than selling. Nevertheless, it puzzles me how some Christian writers approach marketing. It goes like this:


I'll do the writing, but God must do the marketing.


In her post Why Do We Think Jesus Will Do All Our Marketing?, Mary DeMuth quotes Randy Ingermanson:


I'm hesitant to say this because I know I'll immediately hear from people who say that I have no faith, that I am sacrilegious, or that I am Not A Real Christian. But somebody needs to say this. So here goes:


The worst advice I have heard is "Jesus will do all your marketing for you."


Let's be clear that Jesus is on my management team and I consult him often when making big decisions. But in my experience, Jesus has never typed a press release, called a radio station to set up an interview, posted a blog entry, fixed the CSS on a web site, or written copy for a sales page. (emphasis in original)


Randy's POV takes aim at a perilous but pervasive mindset among many Christian writers:  We've come to see writing as "spiritual," and marketing as not. Marketing is the "ugly" part of writing, the "worldly" dimension of being an author, the "necessary evil" you must tolerate, the downside of being published, the greens in an otherwise tasty meal.


This bifurcation is symptomatic of the sacred / secular mindset suffered by many evangelicals. It goes like this: Church is sacred, work is not. Praying is sacred, doing the dishes is not. Reading the Bible is sacred, reading Robert Frost is not. Serving at the homeless shelter is sacred, volunteering at the art gallery is not. Thus, writing is sacred, marketing is not. Which is why



We over-spiritualize the writing process, and


We under-spiritualize the selling process

One of the unspoken (but perhaps intended) results of such a compartmentalized view of writing is this: We can always blame poor book sales on God. "I am proud of my book," we say. "It just wasn't God's will for it to take off." Heaven forbid that an author blame themselves for poor book sales.


Please do not misunderstand me: Just because you approach marketing with vigor and savvy is no guarantee your book will do well (and really, what is "doing well"?). There are multiple factors to a book's success — like good writing, hard work, the right publisher, market trends, endorsements, platform, etc.  (see self-published phenom Amanda Hocking's post entitled Some Things That Need to Be Said.) And having all those things in place is still no guarantee your book will perform well. Nevertheless, the person who sees God as having "called" them to write can inevitably stick God with the blame if their book tanks.


For this reason, I'm starting to believe it is helpful to see writing and marketing as flip sides of the same calling. If God's "called" you to write, then He's "called" you to market.


I'm thinking of The Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30). In this classic tale, not only did the master entrust his servants with different sums of money, he held them responsible for their management of said sums. Those two elements are the crux of the lesson: (1) Gift and (2) Management. So for the writer, that looks like this:



Writing is your gift / talent.
Marketing is your part of the stewardship of the gift / talent.

No, marketing is not the only part of stewardship. Nor is it probably the biggest part. I faithfully manage my writing talent by trying to write better, not just trying to yell louder. Marketing is just one way to "multiply" my talent, which seems to be a big deal for the master in the biblical parable.


Another interesting spin on marketing from a biblical perspective could be this: Your talent is intended for others, not just you. This may sound supremely arrogant, as if you are "God's gift" to others. Nevertheless, Scripture teaches that our talents are not meant entirely for personal gain. Take this verse: "Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms" (I Peter 4:10 NIV). So…



Your talents are a gift from God
Your talents are given to serve others

The point being: If your writing gift is intended for others, how else are you going to deliver besides, um, just writing?


Of course, if a Christian writer's sole purpose in marketing is to "get rich" or "become famous," they probably missed the gist of their "gifting." This isn't meant to imply that prospering from your talent is wrong, but that the heart of marketing (from a biblical perspective) is sharing, not getting rich, it is connecting with others, not just advancing your "brand."


So for the Christian writer, getting an agent, growing in the craft, employing an editor, expanding your platform, studying trends, jumping through hoops, may not seem very "spiritual," but they can all be parts of being a good steward with your talent.


And parts of selling more books.


Yeah. Writing is a lot more fun than marketing. Marketing can be a grind, it can be distasteful, it can bring out the absolute worst in a person. Nevertheless, marketing can also part of "good stewardship."


* * *


Question: Do you agree that marketing gets a bad rap from writers? Should it? Do you tend to see marketing as the "un-spiritual" part of writing? Do you think it's God's will for writers He has "called" to sell books? What are some signs that a person is going overboard with marketing?


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 06, 2011 18:26

March 5, 2011

Weekend Poll: Is the Debate About Christian Fiction "Tired" or "Relevant"?








In my recent post entitled Christian Fiction: What's Our Mission?, a multi-published author wrote in with this comment:


"This question has been raked over the coals so many times it's all burned out."


That post, as do many of my posts about the state of Christian Fiction, got a lot of hits, as well as 40+ comments. Which got me to thinking: Is the debate about Christian Fiction really "all burned out" or is it still relevant? Is the discussion about "edgy fiction," message-driven art, the use of expletives, "Christian romance," "Christian horror," the lack of speculative fiction, the proliferation of woman's fiction and Historicals, and the overall quality of Christian books, are these issues something we should keep addressing or just drop? Or should there be another category than just the two below? Love to hear your thoughts, pro or con. Have a great weekend!


View Poll


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 05, 2011 05:34

March 2, 2011

10 Great New Christian Fiction Book Covers










The Seraph Seal, Sweet and Wagner, Thomas Nelson





Roadside Assistance, Amy Clipston, Zondervan





The Promises She Keeps, Erin Healy, Thomas Nelson





The Brotherhood, Jerry B. Jenkins, Tyndale House





Operation Bonnet, Kimberly Stuart, David C. Cook





The Ale Boy's Feast, Jeffrey Overstreet, Waterbrook





The Canary List, Sigmund Brouwer, Waterbrook





Who Is My Shelter?, Neta Jackson, Thoams Nelson





Pattern of Wounds, J. Mark Bertrand, Bethany House





The Chasm, Randy Alcorn, Moltnomuh



 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 02, 2011 05:50

February 27, 2011

5 Reasons Why Your Pastor Should Read Fiction








So I wanted to raffle off a few copies of my novel to pastors. The book's themes seem like something a pastor might get into, plus I just wanted to encourage those in ministry.  I contacted a pastor friend of mine who oversees a terrific ministry for ministers. He ran the contest and last week I mailed out three autographed copies of The Resurrection. Well, I happened to ask him how many entries he received. Surprisingly (to me), he said "not many." The reason he gave was this:


Pastors just aren't very interested in reading fiction.


And my heart sank.


It reminded me of an article I read a while back at Out of Ur entitled Formation via Fiction. The piece was aimed at church leaders, and its gist was that most pastors sorely neglect reading fiction. Having been on staff with two different churches over an 11 year stretch, I can attest to building a library top-heavy with the subject of 1.) Theology and 2.) Administration. I'm guessing when most pastors aren't reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion or Barth's Church Dogmatics, they're reading Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People or Blanchard's The One-Minute Manager.


But The Hobbit?


There are probably lots of reasons why pastors don't read fiction. When one enters the ministry, a whole host of demands start pressing. Suddenly, time management becomes an issue, as does doctrinal integrity, church government, and the care and feeding of troubled souls. Reading fairy tales, frankly, seems irrelevant to someone dealing with such heady issues as the Atonement, Salvation by Grace, and such practical issues as resolving marital conflict. Compound this with the fact that we tend to see fiction as make-believe. And being that pastors traffic in Truth, it cuts against the grain of their fundamental mission. Another factor is skepticism toward pop culture in general. Over the last thirty years, the Church has largely retreated from cultural interaction, opting instead to quarantine themselves against secularism and sit in judgment. As such, the arts — theater, film, music, literature — are branded as "worldly" and left to the devil.


Either way, pastors often develop a utilitarian view of life, one in which art and imagination become tertiary, non-essential, expendable, if not altogether perilous.


For the longest time, Narnia just seemed irrelevant to what I was doing as a minister. However, there came a time in my ministry — precipitated, I think, by the ever-present need for spiritual fresh air — when I decided to read something other. I'd been enjoying some of C.S. Lewis' non-fiction works — Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, etc., which seemed status quo for a young pastor — and was intrigued by the amount of fiction in Clive's canon. Why would someone with such philosophical prowess devote so many pages to spacemen and talking animals?


So I started with something up my alley, you know, just to see…


Having read Ray Bradbury, Richard Matheson, Arthur Clarke and the other sci-fi-ers of my adolescence, Lewis' Space Trilogy seemed apropos. The story of Ransom's journey out of the "silent planet" to a world of fantastic beings ruled by a great spirit named Maleldil, captured my imagination! Far from pure escapism, the trilogy encapsulated Lewis' theology wonderfully.


Could it be that fiction was a powerful vehicle for truth?


Anyway, it opened up the floodgates. From there I read The Chronicles of Narnia, The Pilgrim's Regress and The Great Divorce. After that, it was The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Charles Williams' The Place of the Lion, George MacDonald's Phantastes and Lilith,  Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday and finally the fictional work that Lewis considered his best, Till We Have Faces.


I suppose someone could view it as escapist. However, for me, reading fiction transformed my worldview, informed my theology, and reinvigorated my ministry. How?


Allow me to offer Five Reasons Why a Pastor Should Read Fiction:



Reading fiction — good fiction — awakens the beauty and power of language. No other book made me want to be a writer more than The Two Towers. The grandeur of the story and the eloquence of the craft kindled something that lay dormant in me. I wept, at times, as I read that book (silly, huh?). Good fiction reaffirms the power and beauty of words. And since words are the preacher's stock in trade, he does well to see them strung together rightly.
Reading fiction stokes the imagination. "Christian imagination" is not an oxymoron. If anyone should explore and articulate the wonder and mystery and sublimity of creation, it should be believers. And because we are made in the image of our Creator, we are built to create. Good stories rouse our creative genes. And, frankly, there's no one who needs to keep those creative synapses firing like a minister.
Good stories speak to us in ways that exposition and data cannot Of course, some could argue that Christ's stories were instructional. Nevertheless, it doesn't negate the fact that He used fictional persons and plots to engage people. This says a lot, I think, about how Jesus viewed His audience. Fact is,  It's one thing to be told God is gracious and merciful. It's another to watch the prodigal leave his home, blow his money, and come limping back, only to see his father running towards him, arms outstretched, with plans for a big party. Or as Tim Downs in his keynote address to the ACFW conference last year said, "Thou shalt not" touches the head. "Once upon a time" touches the heart.
Reading fiction also helps us stay tuned to pop culture at large. Granted, this might not be the best reason to read Harry Potter. But the Harry Potter phenomenon says something about people. Why are we drawn to certain films and stories? Could it be our fascination with certain themes and archetypes is indicative of intrinsic spiritual needs? Sure, fiction has its share of sleazy, shoddy, ill-intended stuff, just like any other medium. Nevertheless, popular fiction can be a great gauge of cultural interests and an effective springboard to address the needs of a congregation.
Reading fiction breaks the potential monotony of the ministry routine. During the peak of my ministry (if there was such a thing), I can recall retiring every afternoon to read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson. Oh what joy it was to leave the meetings, the counseling, the delegation, the study, to visit with Saltheart Foamfollower and his cynical sidekick. Yes, we need hard theology, and woe to us if we don't apply ourselves and our congregation to it. But there is nothing like a story to flesh out the mystery and majesty of Grace and provide a fresh wind to our weary soul.

Perhaps some will interpret this as an argument against exposition, as if I'm suggesting doctrine takes a backseat to entertainment. No doubt some ministers sacrifice substance for style, and prefer fiction to the more rigid implications of Christian theology. After all, it's a lot easier to thrill a congregation with a good story, than outline eschatology and atonement. Still, there's a lot of good reasons for pastors to read fiction. In fact, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Institutes of the Christian Religion may be equally essential to the minister's library.


* * *


If you are a practicing pastor (i.e., one who is actively ministering to a congregation in a professional capacity) and leave a comment on this post, I will send you a free copy of my novel The Resurrection. This offer is open until 10 pastors submit their name.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 27, 2011 15:24

February 25, 2011

"The Resurrection" — Misc. Updates








If writing a book is like giving birth, then having it published is like watching the kid finally leave home. The Resurrection has been in book stores almost a month, and the kid seems to be doing all right. Reviews have been coming in, as have encouraging emails, and some promotional opportunities. Things have been fun, busy, and a little scary. Here's a few updates.


I made good on my charitable donation to Foothill Family Shelter (see pic). You may remember that for every book sold at my book signing, I promised to donate $1 to a local charity. Well, I recently wrote a $100 check to the wonderful folks at FFS and donated a signed copy of my book to their library. They were thrilled, but I think I got the better end of the deal.


Blogger and sci-fi writer Tim Ward was kind enough to ask me for an interview and so I did my first podcast. You can find the Interview with Mike Duran at Tim's podcast site. It's about 40 minutes long, mostly discussion about my path to publication and tips for writers. It was really fun and I appreciate Tim doing this.


There's quite a few good reviews starting to show out there. Cheri from Life Worth Serving writes,


Mike Duran paints a beautiful picture of what real faith looks like when we are faced with powers that are greater than us.  He has an incredible ability to bring the characters to life, and creates a descriptive backdrop that would cause anyone to become part of the story.  I found myself relating to the different characters in The Resurrection, especially Ruby Case.  I could relate to her child-like faith, and her connection with an autistic girl named Jilly who has the ability to see angels.  This book is a must read for anyone who seeks supernatural warfare, and an edge of your seat thrill.


Some other noteworthy (and flattering) reviews include Brenda's review, Nicole Petrino-Salter's Reacting to the Resurrection, Crystal Fulcher's Amazon review, Julia Reffner's review on Title Trakk, and  Tim George's review.


This week, I received an email from a reader that said,


I finished The Resurrection last night–in less than a day. I couldn't put it down, and I don't even care for spec fiction. It's by far one of the best novels I've read in a long time. You raise so many interesting questions that kick us in our complacency. It hurts, but that's a good thing.


Very encouraging! In addition, Kari from the Lit n' Latte book club contacted me about speaking to their group. They've ordered 16 copies of The Resurrection as their Book of the Month for March. The group recently spoke via email chat with Tosca Lee and are thrilled to have their first "live" author… although, following Tosca Lee could be treacherous.


Anyway, I'm very busy but having lotsa fun. Thanks to all of you who have followed this little journey of mine. More updates as they come in…


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 25, 2011 05:09

February 23, 2011

Is the Church Too Tolerant?








Critics would charge just the opposite. they would say that Christians are too intolerant; we alienate, condemn, embarrass, and shun people we should be reaching. And indeed there is a move afoot to portray the American Church as a bigoted, dogmatic, narrow-minded bunch. But despite the Fred Phelps' of the world, it appears the American Church is actually drifting Left when it comes to tolerance.


George Barna has been compiling statistics on the Church for decades.  But a review of last year's research conducted by the Barna Group provides "a time-lapse portrayal of how the religious environment in the U.S. is morphing into something new." From Six Themes of Change in the Church:


The postmodern insistence on tolerance is winning over the Christian Church. Our biblical illiteracy and lack of spiritual confidence has caused Americans to avoid making discerning choices for fear of being labeled judgmental. The result is a Church that has become tolerant of a vast array of morally and spiritually dubious behaviors and philosophies. This increased leniency is made possible by the very limited accountability that occurs within the body of Christ. There are fewer and fewer issues that Christians believe churches should be dogmatic about. The idea of love has been redefined to mean the absence of conflict and confrontation, as if there are no moral absolutes that are worth fighting for. That may not be surprising in a Church in which a minority believes there are moral absolutes dictated by the scriptures.


Events like the recent Big Tent Christianity operate on the assumption that the Church's intolerance, among other things, has narrowed the parameters of God's House. Barna's findings, however, reveal just the opposite. We "avoid making discerning choices for fear of being labeled judgmental" and are increasingly lenient, believing there are fewer issues to be dogmatic about.


So is the Church intolerant or too tolerant?


Those who typically charge Christians with intolerance often do so by pointing to Jesus. He loved the outcast, they say. He accepted sinners and offered forgiveness. And indeed He did! However, I must admit: Jesus does not strike me as a great role model for tolerance.



Was Jesus tolerant when He said, "If you do not believe I am the one I claim to be, you will die in your sins" (Jn. 8:24)?
Was Jesus tolerant when He said He was the only way to God (Jn. 14:6)?
Was Jesus tolerant when He drove the money changers from the temple (Matt. 21:12)?
Was Jesus tolerant when He claimed not to bring peace, but a sword (Lk. 12:51)?
Was Jesus tolerant when He drove away potential disciples by saying they must eat His flesh and drink His blood (Jn. 6:66)?
Was Jesus tolerant when He called the religious leaders "hypocrites, "serpents," and a "brood of vipers" (Matt. 23)?
Was Jesus tolerant when He told the invalid He'd healed to "Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you" (Jn. 5:14)?
Was Jesus tolerant when He warned of "false Christs" and "false prophets" who would deceive many (Matt. 24:24)?
Was Jesus tolerant when He spoke about hell (Matt. 13:42, Matt. 25:41, Lk. 16:24)?
Was Jesus tolerant when he told the prostitute to "go and sin no more" (Jn. 8:11)?

All that to say, Jesus does not strike me as a model for "tolerance." He was pretty black and white. He challenged people's sins, incited controversy, and actively drove others away. Heck, even those He forgave He challenged to stop sinning unless something worse happen. Yikes! Of course, this is not to diminish the fact that Jesus WAS kind and loving, that He wooed people to Himself through His grace and mirth. The point is, the "tolerant Jesus" portrayed by many critics and/or religious liberals is a myth.


The above article summarizes, "There is a place for tolerance in Christianity; knowing when and where to draw the line appears to perplex a growing proportion of Christians in this age of tolerance."


When it comes to tolerance, "knowing when and where to draw the line" is the issue.


The "new tolerance" renegotiates lines. The "old tolerance" reinforces them. The "new tolerance," rather than expounding the boundaries of the Church, actually eliminates the boundaries for the Church. For where there are boundaries, there must be intolerance. Alas, what the Religious Left really seeks is not tolerance, but fewer boundaries.


So what do you think, is the Church intolerant or not tolerant enough?


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 23, 2011 05:17

February 21, 2011

When is Compromise "Selling Out" (or Just Plain Smart)?








You've got to give a little, take a little, and let your poor heart break a little.
– Benny Goodman, The Glory of Love

Publishing — like music, film, business, or sports — is not a solo act. Therefore, climbing the ladder of success always involves some sort of compromise, some sort of give and take. Of course, what one is willing to give and take along the way is the cause of much heartbreak.


Writers typically frame their dilemma this way:


"Do I compromise what I really want to write in order to make a living or get my foot in the door?" or "Do I write the story of my heart and let the chips fall where they may?"


There is a certain nobility (sometimes feigned) by artists who rage against the machine. You know some of these people, right? They refuse to adapt their style to the market. They rail against the money-grubbing gatekeepers. They scoff at "the rules." They chafe against industry decorum. They denounce the status quo. They disparage what is commonly accepted as popular art. They would rather die anonymous than be a patented sellout.


They are [insert angelic choirs] principled.


Sometimes being "principled" is a cop-out. No, I'm not suggesting being a sell-out isn't. I'm suggesting that we sometimes use the term "principled" as a smokescreen.


Sometimes being "principled" is really just



Pigheadedness
Inflexibility
Disdain
Institutional prejudice
Lack of professional savvy

Of course, there's many artists who have resisted conformity and we are better off for it. But is "resisting conformity" the golden rule? Truth is, the "starving artist" is often one who holds the ticket to her next meal. Your "hunger strike" could be avoided by simply seeing your talent as a tool rather than the Holy Grail.


Nevertheless, knowing when to compromise and when to hold your ground is the gist of creative enterprise. Just don't be fooled into thinking that all compromise is selling out.



Compromise is "selling out" when you become a puppet of the institution; your talents exist only to oil the machine, your originality and vision is replaced by groupthink, the ties that bind are actually nooses, you are an organizational prop.
Compromise is "selling out" when your integrity, morality, and highest principles are sacrificed in the process; you lose yourself for the sake of success / power / fame / advancement / personal gain, "high ground" is vacated for "safe ground," your birthright is squandered for three square meals a day.


Compromise is "selling out" when your unique voice and vision is squelched; you no longer have any real creative freedom or input, you are coerced into complicity, you cannot air opinions lest you bite the hand that feeds you, someone else holds the deed to your creative license.

No matter how unique your vision, you probably can't go it alone. You will need to compromise, involve others, solicit others, confide in others, team up, and make concessions along the way. This is definitely true in publishing. I know, I know — the publishing world is changing, you say. The self-published author can do it "their way" (which is code for remaining [cue angelic choirs] principled).


But while the solo artist might maintain creative freedom, they often lose something in the process, namely collaboration. It is precisely the thing that they most fear (other eyes), that they can most benefit from.The self-published author may not have sold their soul to the devil, but the chances of them selling their book is equally remote.


Compromise can be painful. But if it makes my product better and gives me the opportunity to make more of it, then it's the smart thing to do. Or as Benny G said, "You've got to give a little, take a little, let your poor heart break a little."


* * *


Question: Do you agree that being "principled" can sometimes be a cop-out?  Do you think it's better to compromise what you really want to write in order to make a living or get your foot in the door? Or is it better to write the story of your heart and let the chips fall where they may?


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 21, 2011 06:11