Bryce Moore's Blog, page 226

Ordain Women: Reflections

The movie geek in me really wanted to subtitle this post: “The Empire Strikes Back,” but I somehow managed to convince that geek that wasn’t quite tonally accurate. So we went with the bland “reflections.” (Bonus points to you if you can connect the pic in this post to the topic. I got a little acrobatic in the connection this time . . .)

In any case, my blog and Facebook page were hopping over the weekend after my Ordain Women? post, and so I wanted to take a moment to go over some of the lessons and principles I’ve learned or encountered in that process.

I mentioned this on Facebook, but in hindsight, titling my post “Ordain Women?” and then having the post start with the words “Yup. The time has come, sayeth the Bryce” wasn’t the world’s most genius idea ever to be thunk, and it didn’t represent what my post really was about. The hazards of typing posts quickly . . .
Many people have asked me if I regretted writing that post. The answer is “Of course not!” It’s not like I didn’t know it would be a hot button issue when I wrote it. The one thing I *do* wish were a bit different is how conversations sometimes unfold on my wall. I’m friends with a large array of individuals. I know them all, but they don’t know each other. At times I think it might be nice to introduce them all to each other, so that they understood where they’re all coming from. I don’t like policing comments, but I have to from time to time, because I want my wall and blog to be a place where everyone feels like they can say what they believe and not get put down for it. At times I’ve had people on my wall argue who I think would totally be on the same page in person. It’s just easier to argue with someone when you don’t know anything about the other person. All too easy to reduce them to a stereotype and start whacking away.
Reverse sexism–Apparently this is a thing in the church, too? Where women regularly slam men? I haven’t seen this. Maybe it happens at Relief Society functions . . . But if it’s happening, it ain’t cool. Related, the trend of continually putting women on pedestals: “My wife is perfection incarnate.” “Women are all more spiritual than men.” That kind of thing. This shouldn’t be a pendulum where we slam a gender in one area, then make sure to slam the other gender in a different way. That’s not the equality we’re going for, is it?
In light of Elder Oaks’ talk on women and the priesthood, I wonder what the Ordain Women movement will do. Part of the main reason I’ve spoken out (somewhat indirectly) in support of them is that I believed their motivation was “more equality for women in the church,” which is a sentiment I can fully get behind, even if I might disagree with the *how* they had chosen to get that goal. (In other words, as I said before, actually ordaining women to the priesthood was a step I wasn’t ready to embrace. I don’t think you need to jump to there to get equality.) However, when you call your movement “Ordain Women” and use that as a rallying cry for women’s equality, what do you do when suddenly you’re faced with an argument that women not having the priesthood doesn’t make them unequal? Elder Oaks’ talk was fantastic, but it really only answered the question, “Should women have the priesthood?”
Related to that, I was encouraged by the many people who posted and said they were women and had never felt marginalized in the church. That’s fantastic. But at the same time, I saw plenty of people post (or reach out to me privately) to say that they *had* felt marginalized, and that’s a problem. I feel like those who have escaped marginalization are too quick to dismiss the experience of others who haven’t been so lucky. Just because all is groovy for you doesn’t mean that someone saying things are less than groovy for them is wrong, misguided, easily offended, or lying. A lot of my post from Friday is still just as relevant today as it was before Elder Oaks’ talk.
Equal vs. Different–This is an idea that came up quite a bit, with many wondering why we *have* to be equal in all things. To that, I’ll first say that we of course *don’t* have to be equal in all things. It would be impossible, for one thing. The world is full of difference, and we can get a lot of strength from those differences. Many of them should be celebrated. However, there are also areas where there’s no need for differences. Where we can work to get equality and balance, and life would be better for it. Dismissing differences to try and force equality is just as bad as dismissing equality to try and force differences.
The Sister Trainer Leader program appears to (thankfully) be much more robust than I had feared. See here for more details.
I found it very sad that so many people felt the need to give these women a virtual stoning. They’ve been policing their Facebook page pretty heavily, but even then, I’ve still seen a lot of finger pointing and name calling aimed at them, plus more than a little schadenfreude. I find it very ironic that people would leave a conference focused on loving your neighbor and lifting others up would then hop onto social media and start vomiting out the sort of nastygrams that these women and men were receiving. There’s a disconnect there. Regardless of what you think of the movement or the group’s motivation, leave the judging and calls for excommunication to church leaders and individuals who are somehow directly related to this. What happened to “Love them that despitefully use you?” And this group wasn’t despitefully using anyone. They were taking some actions some people found objectionable. If you really vehemently object to all they were doing and advocating, the last thing in the world you should have been doing was drawing attention to them in any way. Arguing “They’re only doing it for the publicity!!!!!” while shrilly pointing everyone in their direction demonstrates an amount of face/palm I usually reserve for politics.

Anyway–that’s all I have for you today. Thanks for all who participated in the discussion over the weekend. It certainly led to some interesting points. That said, I’m glad those don’t happen too much. Why can’t we all just talk about how to get into BYU for the next while?

Ordain Women?

Yup. The time has come, sayeth the Bryce. For those of you who haven’t known (and I imagine this includes most of you), there’s been a bit of a movement (primarily in Utah) pushing for women to get the priesthood in the Mormon faith. (Yes, folks–this is another religion post. Move along if you aren’t interested. I’ll understand. I’m not even going to bother making some of this understandable to non-Mormons. It would take too much time to put it all in its proper context, and I’m a busy guy. Sorry.) Specifically, there’s a group of women who tried to attend priesthood conference last October who are trying again this go around. They were turned away at the door before, and they’ve been asked to hold their protest in a designated protest area this time–something they don’t want to do, as they don’t view themselves as protestors. The church issued a letter in response to the movement, and I’m more than a little curious to see what the fallout is when they try to get in to priesthood session again.

What’s the point of having a blog that touches on Mormonism from time to time if I let something like this pass by? I mean, that’s what they invented feet and mouths for, right?

So. Women and the priesthood. First off, let me say that I personally have nothing against women getting the priesthood. If the prophet came out tomorrow and said “Women can have the priesthood,” I wouldn’t have a crisis of faith. I’d also like to note that I don’t believe my particular opinion will have much of an influence one way or the other. So I’m going to just side-step the whole “should they/shouldn’t they” question. That’s up to God, not me.

That said, I think the more important question isn’t “should women have the priesthood,” but rather “why do some women want it”? I mean, there hasn’t been a big movement by men to join the ranks of the Relief Society. You don’t see men lining up to try and get into the Women’s Conference. (Or do you? Maybe some guys go all the time–I have no idea.) Frankly, a lot of the time it’s a struggle just to get the men to show up for the meetings they’re supposed to attend. I’d be surprised if many are chomping at the bit to go to more of them.

But of course, that’s kind of a cute answer, and one that misses the point. The fact is, some women feel like they’re being marginalized in the church. Are they? I would have to say that–in my experience–they are. Sometimes. I’ve heard comments that put women down. I’ve seen them ignored in meetings. Not as part of policy, but as part of an individual’s actions. (Then again, any church that has millions of members is bound to have some bone heads who do stupid things–even bone heads in leadership positions. Changing church policy as an attempt to eliminate the bone heads is a futile effort. Because bone heads.)

It’s hard to deal in big generalities. “Ordain women.” That comes with so many different facets, how in the world can you cover it in a blog post? But I came across this site that delineates some of the way women feel marginalized. Check it out, then come back here.

You back? Okay. As I look over this list, I have to say I agree with quite a few things. “Encourage partnership in marriage and eliminate the idea that husbands preside over their wives”? If I ever tried to pull the “I preside” trump card on Denisa, she’d backhand me so hard I’d be cross-eyed for a year. And it would be a deserved backhand. Marriage is a partnership, and I can find a whole slew of quotes to back me up on that, as well as very specific consequences about what should happen to men who try to pull the “I preside” card themselves.

Some other commentary by yours truly on items that stood out to me on the list:

Parity between Young Men’s and Young Women’s organizations–Seems like a no-brainer to me. I imagine it’s already in place in many wards and stakes, and if it isn’t, why in the world isn’t it? A personal peeve of mine is how much money we dump into Scouting and Scout Camp compared to how we handle Girl’s Camp. Girl’s Camp is church run and emphasizes Gospel principles. My understanding is it costs significantly less than Scout Camp. If we were spending something like $300 per young woman who attends Girl’s Camp, then I retract that generalization, but something tells me we’re not. I have yet to have someone adequately justify to me why this is.
Balance the stories of men and boys in church publications with those of women and girls–Another no-brainer. Might require stepping outside the easy stories to find examples of courageous women doing awesome things, but let’s face it: courageous women have been doing awesome things for just as long as men have been doing them. They just don’t get written down and put on a pedestal as much. Working toward parity should be a goal.
Have women speak and pray in General Conference in equal proportion to men–This would obviously be harder to do, there being so many more men up on that stand each conference. Unless that changed, I see no way for this one to be accomplished. (And I’m not arguing that should change.)
Use gender-inclusive language–No brainer. Being inclusive instead of exclusive costs nothing, and if it can help people feel more accepted, then why not do it?
Both genders are equally responsible for sexual behavior–I completely agree. The sooner we stop trying to foist responsibility for chaste thoughts on anyone other than the individual having those thoughts, the better. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I think men and women should both put some clothes on, stop taking provocative pictures, etc. I do think it’s important young women realize what sort of an effect the way they dress can have on young men–but young men aren’t helpless to look elsewhere, think clean thoughts, and stay morally clean all on their lonesomes.
Examining each calling to see if it could be filled by men or women–All in favor of this, too. Sunday school president? Heads of administrative departments? University presidents? This is a discussion that could and should happen. THAT SAID, one potential issue I see that could come up relates to mixed-gender presidencies. As a former Elders Quorum President, I know how much time I spent with my presidency, planning and talking and serving others. If you exchanged one of my councilors with his wife? I’m not sure how comfortable that would make me. (I realize equality isn’t all about comfort, but hear me out.) I believe you’d see an uptick in broken marriages if you start mixing genders in presidencies. Why? Because that’s an awful lot of extra time you’d be spending with someone other than your spouse. I do my best to limit my one-on-one time with any female who’s not my wife. Not because I think I’m just irresistible or that I have no self control, but because that’s just a generally good practice to have to avoid putting myself in any situations I don’t want to end up in. I love my wife, and I’d like to continue loving her and only her. Taking myself “off the market” as best I can is a great way to continue to be in that situation.
Change seminary teacher hiring practices–Another one that seems like a no brainer to me. Maybe I don’t fully understand the implications.
Have young women and young men serve missions for the same length of time and at the same time of their lives–I see no reason why this can’t happen, though again–I realize I’m not God, and there might be some excellent reasons why not.
Call young women as district leaders or zone leaders or assistants to the president–Another thing I’m in favor of. Being a DL, ZL, or AP involved no laying on of hands. No priesthood keys. No nothing other than a phone call from the president. I was talking to the sisters in my ward the other day, and I asked them what “Sister Trainer Leaders” did, and they said they helped train sisters and helped them with “emotional issues.” I about blew my top, but I stayed quiet. There are fantastic sister missionaries out there who would be superb leaders. They are capable of much more than helping with emotional issues. (And why is it Sisters need particular help with “emotional issues” and Elders don’t? Grr.)

The issues I didn’t particularly call out, I don’t feel qualified to speak about. They touch on doctrinal things that go beyond this blog. I think for me, the bottom line is that if this Gospel is being implemented correctly, then women shouldn’t feel marginalized. I’m not debating the fact that some do–I’m saying that some practices could be refined to make sure we’re staying in line with where the Gospel already is.

That said, I can’t help but feel the way these women are going about it at this point is going to eventually work against them, even though I understand why they continue to do it. They did this “please let us into Priesthood session” last time, and it got results. Changes were made–changes cited in the church letter sent in response to them this time. As long as their actions resulted in positive change, why would they see any need to stop them? Unfortunately, I could easily see this turning into a situation where some are excommunicated, which would be a shame.

But enough of what I think. What I’m really curious about is what you all think. Please keep it respectful, and don’t make me delete any comments. I’ve got friends who are firmly on either side of this issue, and I’d like us to have a good conversation. Ready? Set? Go!

Getting into BYU

My sister started a very interesting thread on Facebook. It began as a question about how GPAs are calculated in the BYU admission process, and it morphed into a “how do you get into BYU” discussion, with people offering a lot of helpful suggestions. I’d link to it here, but it’s a Facebook discussion, and so of course the link doesn’t exist, and it wouldn’t work even if I did.

In any case, someone linked to a site BYU has set up to discuss admissions criteria. It breaks it down by what kind of student you are (incoming freshman, transfer student, international, etc.), talks about average qualifications, scholarship–you name it. I’ve read it over with great interest, even though my oldest child is 8 years away from attending BYU, and things will likely change in the meantime.

But back to the discussion at hand: how exactly do you get into BYU? I would love love love for all my children to go to the Y. I’d take the Y over Princeton, Harvard, Yale, or Stanford–no need to even consider it for me. (Though I recognize that my children will, of course, have some say in the matter.  ) Why? Because I think college is more than just setting you up for a career. I think it’s about setting you up for life. I work at a university, and I interact with college students every day during the school year. I see the lives they lead, listen to the conversations they have as I pass through the student center. And as I watch all of that, it just makes me more convinced BYU would be the best for my kids. It gives them an opportunity to be in an environment where religion isn’t just accepted–it’s encouraged. It gives them a chance to meet other Mormon kids who share not just their values, but their beliefs. And it does all of that while providing a top notch education at the same time.

But you didn’t come here to read about why BYU is teh awesome. You came to talk about how to get in.

Looking at that site I linked to, I think it’s easy to start trying to obsess over numbers. They’ve got a helpful pie chart that says admissions criteria are based on

20% GPA
20% ACT/SAT
10% Seminary
10% AP/IB Courses
10% Service
10% Unique Personal Circumstances
10% Talents and Creativity
10% Leadership

Then it pairs that chart with helpful facts like these:

They accept about 55% of students who apply (Though that’s a bit misleading. Remember, only students who think they have a chance at getting in apply in the first place, so there’s a certain amount of self-selection at work.)
Average GPA of incoming freshmen is 3.82
Average ACT score is 28.52
82.3% of incoming students earned their Duty to God/Young Women recognition award
1.9% earned a national math or science award
78.7% participated in performing arts
97.1% participated in a quorum or class presidency
95.8% graduated from four years of seminary
70.5% participated in high school sports
75.9% were employed during high school
70.7% of boys are Eagle Scouts

Looking at all those criteria, it seems like getting in is just a simple matter of making sure your child earns his Duty to God and Eagle Scout while working a job, getting a varsity letter, playing in band, starring in the school musical, being a quorum president, graduating from seminary, and making sure to get as close to all As and a fantastic score on the ACT as he can.

Easy peasy.

Oh wait–that’s just the average. So to be a shoo-in, do all of that, and more.

But here’s the thing. All that admissions criteria exists to help admissions officers fulfill their goal, which they sum up as follows:

“The Mission of Brigham Young University—founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. That assistance should provide a period of intensive learning in a stimulating setting where a commitment to excellence is expected and the full realization of human potential is pursued. (‘The Mission of Brigham Young University’)

“To this end, the university seeks qualified students of various talents and backgrounds, including geographic, educational, cultural, ethnic, and racial, who relate together in such a manner that they are ‘no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God’ (Ephesians 2:19). It is the university’s judgment that providing educational opportunities for a mix of students who share gospel values and come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences is an important educational asset to BYU.”

I added the italics to show what I wanted to emphasize. Getting into BYU is going to be easier for some students than others. Fact. If you live in Utah and are a white kid from pioneer stock, you’re going to have a much tougher time getting in than a student from Slovakia. (Case in point: my wife never took the ACT. Never graduated from even a single year of Seminary. Had great grades, but still–didn’t fall into many of the categories listed above. But she was a convert Slovak citizen who brought a whole boatload of “variety of backgrounds and experiences” to the table.)

The numbers help exclude or include applicants. If you’ve got perfect numbers but a rotten Bishop’s interview, it’s lights out. If you didn’t graduate from four years of Seminary when you easily could have? See ya. After that, it becomes a process of elimination. In 2013, 12,921 students applied to BYU. 7,259 were accepted. So let’s get this out of the way right off: that’s a pretty darn good acceptance rate, from a student’s perspective. Princeton had 26,498 apply and 1,963 admitted (interesting side note? 2.5% of accepted applicants to Princeton had a GPA below 3.5.). BYU accepts 56% of applicants. Princeton something like 8%–and Harvard and the others are even worse.

In any case, to get into BYU, you have to prove that you’re a better fit than 5 out of 10 applicants. Some of that is in your control. Live a clean, moral life. Graduate from seminary. Those are baselines. Once you’re beyond that, then it becomes more nebulous. Clearly you’re not likely to get in if you’ve got a report card full of Cs. But what about a slate of classes that are all AP? Is it better to get all As in regular classes or some Bs and A-s in AP classes?

My take on it? Take the classes that will challenge you at the appropriate level. If you’re going to drown in AP classes, don’t take them. If you’re going to breeze through regular classes, don’t take them either. Challenge yourself. Show that you’re up to expanding your horizons.

Your application becomes a sort of story, and admissions committees look at the complete story to get a picture of who you are and what you’re capable of. If you get a 34 on the ACT and took no AP classes at all, that will seem strange. Why didn’t you? Was it because they weren’t offered? Fine. Was it because you wanted a 4.0 more than you wanted to learn? If that’s the case, then why in the world would they want you at their university?

Remember: they’re looking to fulfill their stated goal that I quoted above. If they have 500 white LDS people from Texas apply, there’s honestly only so many of them they’d like to take. Why? Because they want a mix. It’s not about discriminating against white Texans. It’s about having a good array of world views and backgrounds at the Y. BYU already suffers from a huge lack of diversity in some areas. If 7,000 Utah students all scored 36s on the ACT and graduated with a 4.0 from their high school, BYU still wouldn’t take all of them.

To me, it comes down to being the best student you can be. If you hate band, don’t take band. If you’re not into sports, don’t sign up. If you don’t want to be a scout, don’t be a scout. If you don’t want to go to seminary . . . don’t apply to BYU. You’re going to be happier exploring the areas of life you’re interested in than you will if you’re constantly checking to see if what you’re doing is okay by BYU. If you’re ambivalent, then sure–do that which will give you a better chance of getting in.

But even though I want my kids getting into BYU, I want them to be happier more. Happier in grade school, and happier in life. Maybe that means BYU isn’t right for them, and that’s okay. The great thing about all of this from an active faithful Mormon’s perspective is that BYU is a church-run school. It’s a place that I feel most confident saying “if God wants your child to get into the school, then your child will get in.”

Now, me personally, I’m just hoping that there’s a dearth of half Slovak, bilingual LDS students from Maine who apply the years when my children are trying to get in. You can be sure I’ll make sure that details like that come up in their application and essays. Bottom line? Focus on the stated admissions goals, not just the average numbers.

It’s all about the package deal.

But that’s just my 2 cents. (Okay–more like 4 cents.) I’d be interested to hear what other people thing. Fire away!

Fantasy Baseball, Baby!

Not that my fantasy football posts got me any eyeballs whatsoever, but here I am posting about fantasy baseball! (Clearly my interests and the interests of my readers do not 100% overlap, somehow.) But really, I had such a good time doing the fantasy football thing last season that the same group of like-minded people got together to give baseball a shot. Some of this has been fun just for the sheer “I have no idea what I’m doing” nature of it–figuring out how the game works as the season evolves.

Right off, I’ve seen some stark differences in fantasy football and fantasy baseball. Almost all of my team is playing every day, or at least that’s the goal. With football, there was much more of a “have a few running backs and decide which one plays each week” mentality. With baseball, you’ve got to have a guy in each position. If your first baseman ain’t playing one day and you happen to have a different first baseman on your bench, you can swap ‘em out for the day. If not, you just don’t get anyone making any points for you in that position that day. But of course, you could always just bring someone in just for that one day, but who do you boot . . .?

As with football, I’ve found myself caring about baseball so much more by having my own “team.” I check scores in the evening and pay attention to how particular players are performing. Fantasy baseball seems to be much more friendly to people who like flicking switches and futzing with dials–many more ways you can influence how your team is doing, if you’re paying attention to them each day. That’s a plus for me–for now.

Anyway. Just thought I’d put that out there, for the four of you who will care. It’s a slow blog day, because it’s a busy blog day elsewhere. Would you rather I’d just said “NO TIME TO POST TODAY!”?

Because I can do that, too.

An Informal Poll: How Much Do You Care About Plot Holes?

Okay. I’d like to talk a bit about plot holes today. As an author, I hate them. Can’t stand it when I find one in one of my books, and I do my best to get things set up so I avoid them. That said, it’s clear from a ton of the movies and books I read that not everyone feels the same way. I mean, there are sometimes holes big enough to fit a Deathstar through, but I’ll encounter them, roll my eyes a bit, and then just move on. In other words, as a consumer of media, plot holes don’t bug me nearly as much as they do when I’m the creator of that media.

So the question then comes up, should I be bothering as hard as I do to avoid plot holes in my own work? If I don’t mind them that much, why am I so worried someone might find one in something I’ve written? And for that, I turn to you all. All I’m looking for is how much plot holes bug you. Fill in the survey and hit submit.

Now, if you want to leave a comment explaining your reasoning, that would be spiffy, but it’d be great to have as many people fill out the poll as possible.

This isn’t to say that I plan on just ignoring plot holes depending on the responses, but perhaps it’s something I shouldn’t worry quite as much about. Right now, I try to think through the plot from every angle to see if there’s something glaring I’m missing. When it’s an easy fix, that’s a no brainer. But sometimes I’ve totally thrown out scenes or massively overhauled them based on a hole I found.

Watching a movie the other night (Epic was the name, if you were wondering), I was stunned by how big the plot holes were. Time was a huge problem. It was so elastic in the climax. Things that needed to take a lot of time, did. Things that needed to be rush and tense, were. But none of it followed any rhyme or reason, and it really bugged me. (No pun intended)

Then I realized this was a kids movie, and maybe I was taking it too seriously.

But anyway–on to survey. Please fill it out!

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world’s leading questionnaire tool.

20 Feet from Stardom: The Third Side of Fame

Denisa and I watched the Oscar winner for best documentary this year last night: 20 Feet from Stardom. Netflix just added it to Instant Watch, so why not? It’s a very well done piece on the history of backup singers in American music. I enjoyed the film, though I thought it could have used a bit more focus to the narrative. 8/10 for me, and worth a watch.

One thing that I wanted to talk some about that I appreciated from the movie was how well it showed a side of fame that I think often gets overlooked. Most people hear about the big successes or the big failures. The people who make the big time, or the people who wish they could but never do. This movie highlighted the people who get stuck in the middle. They’re close to their dream of stardom, but in some ways that puts them farther away than the people who are just starting out.

Some of these backup singers are recognized by stars as being exemplary musicians, but because of fate, managing, luck, or whatever reason, they just never quite made it to the big time. They got stuck between floors. Sting has a great quote in the movie that touches on this concept, but I can’t find a copy of it online to share.

In any case, as I was watching it, I couldn’t help but draw comparisons to the writing industry. I have some friends now who are bonafide rock stars when it comes to writing. They sign seven figure contracts. I have other friends who aren’t published at all–they just dream of being published one day. Me? I’m in the middle, though much closer to the end of “not been published” than “seven figure contracts.” I wouldn’t even put myself in the same region as the equivalent of the ladies featured in 20 Feet. No, those are other friends. Friends who are great writers, who’ve written excellent books, but who just. can’t. break. through.

Friends who got publishing contracts, but then their books didn’t sell. Friends whose books review well, but they don’t take off.

It’s one thing to be frustrated that you can’t get your foot in the door. It’s another realm of hurt when your foot’s there, and you find out no one cares about you anyway.

Watch the movie. Think about the topic. I’d love to hear what others have to say about it. Again–this isn’t about me. This isn’t even about me pretending it’s not about me. I didn’t watch this film and think “That’s me!” But I did see others I knew.

The hope of course is that with epublishing, a lot of people will be able to be discovered who couldn’t be previously. The fact, however, is that all it does is increase the noise, making it hard to stand out and be seen. I’ve read a few well-reviewed (on Amazon) self pubbed books that were just dreck. It’s the nature of the beast. The sooner we can realize that talent and skill don’t equate to success and big bucks, the sooner we can be at peace. Frustrated, but at peace.

Anything to add?

An Underground Railroad in Trencin in World War II

Today’s post is going to have to be a short one, alas. I got a migraine yesterday evening, soon after posting about how “It could always be worse” on my blog. *Coincidence?*

I think not. (For a laugh, check out the comments on Facebook for that post. They’ve started to reflect the Monty Python sketch quite well . . .)

In any case, looking at a computer screen and thinking aren’t exactly high on my list of “Things that Make Bryce Feel Good” today, so thankfully there’s a link I’ve been wanting to share with you since I came across it yesterday. I was reading Cracked, as I am wont to do from time to time on my iPad, and imagine my surprise when one of the articles was about Slovakia in World War II. (Slovakia doesn’t get many articles written about it. Period.) So of course I had to read it, and then I discovered that not only was it about Slovakia–it was about Trencin! (The city where VODNIK takes place, also the city where my wife is from.)

Being in the Underground was stressful (surprisingly few water slides and ping pong tables in “the Underground”), and betrayal was always a worry. While small towns like Katarina’s were relatively safe since everyone knew everyone else, in the bigger cities paranoia was rampant. Katarina went to college at the University in the city of Trencin, less than half an hour away. That meant she got to know some people well outside of her comfort zone. Rich, powerful folks — who weren’t always the ’80s-style movie villains you might expect.

Going to school, this girl, Tanya, was there. Her dad was a mayor of a big town, so she was wealthy. We always wondered, though: Why would she come from 100 miles away just for school? She was even friends with this girl who was the girlfriend to a member of the Hlinka Guard. She, despite being rich, would go to the poor areas at night. We always wondered why she went there. It wasn’t until after the war we found out why.

Check the rest of it out.

It never says exactly what village the girl lived in, but there’s really only one road to the Czech Republic from Trencin, and it’s right where my mother in law lives and where we go to stay each time we visit. It was fascinating reading the article and seeing what the region was going through then–a side of the city’s history I hadn’t seen yet. (Also interesting that so few Roma were killed in the country in World War II, judging from the book that’s cited in the article. Of course, just after the part that notes that in the book, it goes on to say how Roma were treated after the war, but I’m focusing on the positive here . . .)

Anyway–just thought you might find that all interesting, too. Now I’m off to find a cold cloth and a dark room. Catch you all on Monday!

In Which Monty Python Proves It Could Always Be Worse

I’ve had a lot going on in my life the last month or six, most of it less than ideal. There’s been everything from broken teeth to t-boned cars to lost positions at work to broken snowblowers. I’m trying to stay positive about everything, but at times it gets difficult. Just sayin’. And then on Monday someone sent out an email to all students on campus that our university president had died of a stroke.

Whoa.

It turns out that the email was from a hacker, but it still hit me out of the blue. The university’s going through some massive changes at the moment. The last thing we need is to have to do those without a leader, setting aside the “any of us could die at any moment” thought that naturally follows those sort of events.

My house, it turns out, didn’t want to be forgotten either. We have a front porch area that we left unshoveled this winter. Why bother? We never use it. Well, today I found out why we bother. Snow and ice had blocked up the spaces between the boards, making that area into its own little icy swimming pool. All fine and good, except for the fact that one side of that swimming pool is the front of my house.

Water was flowing its way into my front room.

I got out there with a hatchet and went to work on six inches of ice, trying to get a way for the water to flow out. Nothing was working. And I’m way past the point where I’m just going to sit back and keep struggling. So what did I do?

I went into my garage and got the power drill, then drilled through the wood to make new holes for the water to drain. Not the most elegant of solutions, perhaps–but when you consider that we’re planning on ripping down that porch eventually, then it becomes much less important to keep it in pristine condition. So it started draining, and I got to traipse inside and mop up a bucket of water.

It really could always be worse.

Why am I still sane? Little things. The new Diablo expansion came out, and I’ve been playing that. I play games or read books with my kids. I watch a bit of Cheers, and on the way in to work, the follow Monty Python sketch came on. I’m sure there’ll come a time when I just look back on all of this and boast about how my life was worse than everyone else’s. Fifty years down the road, just think of how I can embellish the facts . . .

Happy Thursday, peoples. See you tomorrow.

On the Power of Great Reviews

I got another super review for VODNIK today–nothing quite captures the feeling you get as an author when someone reads your work and sincerely likes it. Especially if that someone is a stranger who has no real incentive to like your work more than any other. (Not saying I don’t appreciate reviews from friends and relations–I do! But how can I be sure you people are actually telling me what you think, and not what you think I want to hear?)

In any case, this one had some great blurbs. The final statement is probably the best: “Need something light and Steelheart-y? Vodník is your go to book!”

(And coincidentally, VODNIK is still on sale for the Kindle until the end of the month. Only $1.99)

But really, I just wanted to reiterate how important word of mouth reviews are these days to the success of novels–particularly books that don’t get put out by the big presses with a huge advertising budget. The only way people are going to notice a book like VODNIK is if people who read it and liked it mention it to others and encourage them to read it.

This isn’t a plea for you to go out and review my book. At this point in time, two years after the book’s release, I assume that the faithful blog readers of mine who wanted to review the book on Goodreads or Amazon have already gone and done that. (To you who have, a very deep sincere thank you. I’ve read them all and really appreciated them.) No–I just wanted to encourage all of you to be active proponents of reading. If you read a book you like, tell other people about it. Review it on Goodreads. Post about it on Facebook. For one thing, you’ll look like a cool, suave, sophisticated person, and who doesn’t want that?

But you’ll also help boost the signal for books that other people might not otherwise come across?

If you didn’t enjoy the book, feel free to review it anyway. Be honest about what you thought about it–not vindictive. Someone else might read why you didn’t like the book and think it sounds really intriguing to them. Some folks like chocolate, and some like vanilla.

(I know some authors refuse to read reviews. I’m not one of those authors. I can’t stay away from them. Maybe after I read enough, I’ll stop caring as much. But I really do like hearing what worked in a book and what didn’t. I review other books, and I review movies. It’s all part of the process to me.)

Anyway. That’s all I’ve got for you today. Go out there and review something–now!

Cosmos’s Assault on Religion

Whoa boy. I know what some of you are thinking, and I want to rein that in before this gets off on the wrong foot. I’ve never considered myself to be a frothing at the mouth anti-science sort of a chap. Yay science. I believe evolution. I believe in the scientific method. So if you’re here to have some bobble-head reassure you that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs are imaginary or whatever, move along to the next blog, thank you. And if you’re here to yell at me because SCIENCE, same thing.

I want this to be a rational, polite discussion.

Why? Because like many of you, I was really excited to hear they were running a new version of Cosmos. And like (I assume) many of you, I’ve seen the first two episodes. (Streaming on Fox’s iPad app, since I like watching them with my kids, and I like being able to watch when and where I want). I love fostering my children’s love of exploration and knowledge, and this seemed like a great way to do that.

What I wasn’t expecting was for a full third of the first episode to be focused on how awful the Catholic church (and religion in general) was, historically speaking. And then in episode 2, the continued subtheme about how fundamentally flawed religion is didn’t go over too well with me either. Let me take each of those on one at a time.

First, I don’t think any sane person is going to argue successfully that religion has a perfect track record over the years, especially when it comes to nurturing inquisitive minds. Point taken. But I’d expected Cosmos to be about the wonders of the universe. The marvels of discovery. To spend so much time focused on the story of a monk who’s constantly oppressed by those evil evil churchy types . . . seemed like the wrong place to put your focus. It’s a missed opportunity. There’s so much awesome out there to focus on. That 15 minutes or whatever you spent focused on that meant that I got 15 minutes less of black holes or string theory or god particles.

I get it. Science feels a need to get back at religion for what’s been done to it over the centuries. And many sciencey types like to do a bit of chest thumping about how awesome science is and what a fairy tale God is. To me, you don’t make your point by rubbing people’s noses in what you aren’t. There’s no need to muck rake here. If you’re so awesomely right, then show us that, and let us figure out the rest on our own.

The same thing about the presentation on evolution. Yes, I know it’s a hot button topic. Yes, I realize that there are people out there who want to dismiss it as a whole and talk about “theory” this and “incomplete” that. But at the same time, the show made such a big deal about how great science is because “It’s okay for us to admit we don’t know something” (I don’t have the exact quote here, sorry–it’s along those lines), but it seems to me science is often unwilling to allow people of faith the same leeway.

I am fully confident that there are things being presented as fact today in schools and by science that will one day be deemed over-simplistic, misguided, or just plain wrong by scientists in future. Science is far from infallible. So let’s follow that bit about glass houses and stones, eh?

I’m watching the show with my kids, as I said. And I paused it after the big talk about how evolution happens over billions of years and how it can all function without any guidance whatsoever. How things are all just random, and how yada yada yada. And I asked my son what he thought of that. He wasn’t sure what to say. The kid’s only 9, after all. So I asked another question. “Does God exist?”

“Yeah,” he said. It was the safe answer.

“How do you know that?” I asked.

He thought about it some, still not sure what to say.

“Have you ever prayed?” I asked.

He nodded.

“And were your prayers answered?”

Another nod. He and I have had numerous talks about prayer and faith and finding out for yourself what to believe. It was nice to be able to draw on that experience during this talk.

“There you go,” I said. “Your prayers were answered. You know from personal experience that prayer is real, that God hears you and helps you.” I went on to talk about how I don’t understand everything, but I’m a firm believer in the scientific method–with the disclaimer that I don’t believe it’s the only way to acquire truth and knowledge. If we all went about insisting on using the scientific method all of the time, none of us would get anywhere. At some point in time, we have to read what other people have discovered. Learn from their truths and not just our own. Yes, we can and should put those truths to the test, but one of the big ways we’ve advanced so far scientifically is that science is a team sport.

The same holds true for religion. If there’s a God, and He hears and answers prayers, there should be a way to put that to the test. For me, it’s been following the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon church. Certain promises are made to the faithful. I’ve seen in my personal life and experiences that those things really work. Prayer is a fact for me, not a theory or a new agey puff of incense.

I went to college at BYU, a church owned and operated school. Evolution was taught in my biology class. It wasn’t dismissed or ridiculed. It was accepted as-is. How does evolution match up with what I know of God? I don’t know. I’m not God, and I’m also not smart enough to be able to know everything about evolution. But again, it’s okay to admit you don’t know something. There are tons of mysteries science has to do the same thing with: shrug its shoulders, say “I don’t know” and work on figuring out what the solutions might be.

Why does evolution have to exclude a creator? Why does it have to be random–what’s to say it isn’t guided by someone or some thing?

I don’t know. And I’m okay with that. I’m going to keep watching Cosmos. I love learning new things, and I’ve enjoyed a lot of the explanations on the show. I’ll keep having my kids watch it. I’m not threatened by truth and the search for truth. I’m confident that one day it will all make sense. For now, I’d just appreciate it if Cosmos played to its strengths (the awesome presentation of the potential of the universe) and left the interpretation and spin control out of the picture. People like me don’t need it, and people who are frothing-at-the-mouth aren’t going to listen to it.