What's The Point Of Christian Fiction, Anyway?

I recently wrote a review of a novel by a new Christian author, and am currently reading 'Heidi' by Johanna Spyri; both of which talk about God clearly, but in completely different ways.

Hardly surprising, as one is set in a dystopian future and the other is set in the Swiss mountains in the late 1800s - I'll let you guess which one is which. However, one thing they do have in common in this regard is that they both talk about God in how He is there, and involved in the characters everyday lives.

But 'Heidi' wouldn't ever have been regarded as 'Christian fiction'; indeed the author would have probably had trouble understanding what the term meant. But it's not because 'back then' everyone wrote about God so it wasn't anything special - that's clearly wrong, for instance, Jane Austen's novels have hardly any mention of God, and yet she was a vicar's daughter who wrote poems and prayers that are full of faith - but rather the opposite. There was no 'Christian fiction' because it was quite 'normal' to read about God. Not everyone wrote about Him, but no-one thought it anything out of the ordinary when people did. And, more importantly, no-one minded particularly.                                   

But now, the prevailing opinion is that 'no-one wants to read about God'; or, at least, not enough people to make it worth trying to market it. And so, a market has grown up for those who do - and for those who naturally do want to 'write about God' (or at least include Him), this has become the natural market to aim for. Seems sensible to find the people who will probably want to read what you want to write.        

But 'Christian fiction' means more than that, or it has come to. It was designed for those who were fed up with not being able to find something to read that didn't contain bad language, drunken excess, violence and sex scenes. You may ask what's wrong with having those in a book, and I can say 'nothing, as long as it adds to the story'. Having them in doesn't make a book good, or not make it bad - that's my view on it.  And I've read plenty of both.

And I can also say that I have a lot of sympathy with this view. I read a lot of chick lit/romantic type fiction and I have to say that after a while sex scenes begin to get a little...boring. There's only so many ways you can describe it, after all. I often find myself wanting to skim through those scenes in order to get back to the story. There's one series of books I read set in Regency times, and in pretty much all of them the couple has sex before the wedding day. Now I realise there were quite a few 'honeymoon babies' who came suspiciously early - or might have - but it would have been far less than in modern times. Still, every single one of the books also features a love match, and that certainly wouldn't have been the case.

The problem comes if or when it becomes more important to have certain elements and exclude others. In both the books I mentioned at the start, God appears naturally, because everything that could be included naturally is, and a relationship with God is treated exactly the same way. Which is exactly the way things should be (and how John Grisham, for instance, gets away with openly talking about faith issues in his novels), but while we still have a situation where, for the most part, God is 'excluded', then unfortunately, the current situation is the best we're going to get. We just have to hope that Christian writers (and readers) get more daring with what is acceptable.

Blank Page...

Sitting in front of a screen, sighing, wondering what words to write. I have words at hand, just waiting for me to reach out and grasp them - but which ones? And in what order?


Sometimes I just have ideas, or images of something not quite... there. Not quite clear. Or whole. Maybe the words would come easily, oh so easily if, when the ideas become what they could be, should be.


And when that idea comes, where will it go? How will it get there? How do I get there? What path do I follow? Or make? Where do I forge my own route? Where will I go? Where will I end up? Sounds a bit like an adventure, yes - exciting? It could be, hopefully will be - but not yet.


I haven't got there yet. I haven't got anywhere, it seems. And, it seems like I'm never going to get anywhere. Not at the moment. Maybe not ever. Who knows, maybe I'll never write again.


I know what I want to say. Almost. Sort of. I'm just not sure how to say it. Where to start, where to go next. What words, phrases will be best, be right. If any - there have to be some, right? Right?


I've done it before; I must be able to do it again. I must. It can't be that difficult. It can't. It is. It was never this difficult, I'm sure. I can't do it, I'll never do it. Never again. I give up...

I Am Margaret

I recently read an ebook - a debut novel by a Catholic author. I was given Amazon vouchers for my birthday, and was wondering what to spend them on, when I saw an ad for this:-
                                              
                                                            

This is the cover for 'I Am Margaret', and I think it's brilliant. It's both simple and powerful, partly because it is so stark. It gives something of an impression of what the novel holds, while also showing somewhat the tone of the novel. Stark and powerful - both the cover and the novel itself.

Set in a dystopian future, it is the story of Margaret, who is judged imperfect and taken to the Facility, where she will ultimately be dismantled, broken down for spare parts while fully conscious - unless she can escape. But no-one has ever escaped from a Facility before...

And it is the story of those in the Facility with her, not all of whom survive. The Facility is the ultimate expression of the world they exist in; a world where people are valued for what they are rather than who they are, a world where the material is all that is allowed to exist.

Without giving too much away, I will say that there is more going on in this book than at first appears on the surface - and that 'I Am Margaret' is the title of more than just this book. It peels back the layers of society in much the same way as the society peels away the layers of those who are dismantled; and it questions whether people really are just what they seem on the surface. Is there more to life than this - and, if so, what?

I also really liked the characterisation of the various people in the book, both guards and inmates. Particularly the character of Sarah, who is brain damaged due to an accident in her childhood; and genuinely has no idea of why she is there, and not much more of what could happen, what will happen.

This reminded me a bit of 'The Cure' by Michael Coleman, and like that ended with a note of hope; but unlike that, the story doesn't end here. This is the first of a trilogy, and I have to say I'm very much looking forward to the next in the series. but for now, I'lll leave you with this trailer:-

                                                                  

The Trouble With Modern Vampires

I talked about vampires before, and I described how they changed from being seen as evil spiritual beings to just beings - that may or may not be evil. Which leaves us with a problem. Simply put:- Where Does The First Vampire Come From?
                                                 

I mean everyone knows how new vampires are made; at least in as much as they know that one vampire bites a human - the process differs from story to story. But the essential point about that is that there is already a vampire there (well, duh). But before that, how do we get from no vampires to lots of them?

If we start off from the idea that they are demonic somehow, then we have a place to start. We get that they must be evil, or at least damned. We understand that they can have powers that humans don't tend to have, as well as 'living' forever. And we can accept that they have weaknesses - because, though demons are powerful, they are far from omnipotent - whether you believe in one god or more. Even the whole idea of undeath is a 'weakness' - it's the closest the demons can get to giving eternal life. And it also gives some idea of demons' character:- that what they offer is something that no sane person would seek. That all makes sense in a sort of twisted way.

But if we remove the demons and/or evil from the equation, how do we make sense of the vampires. If they were made by some random god/spirit, why? And why those weaknesses? For instance, traditionally, the best woods to make stakes from were rowan and hawthorn; which often grew in graveyards - consecrated ground. But, more obviously, why would crosses have any power over them? Unless there really is power there. Every way we look at it, a demonic origin seems to make the only kind of sense it is possible to make.

If we take the idea that they are just immensely powerful beings of some kind, then it is even nonsensical. Because, clearly, vampire abilities don't make sense in the 'normal' laws of biochemistry. So, if the 'original' stories were some sort of morality tale, then, in context, they made as much sense as such stories were ever going to make. Simply put, they are about good versus evil; a struggle which, ultimately, evil will always lose - and it doesn't have ever complete free rein. It seems that, in trying to make sense of them for a modern age, they make less sense than they used to - the more realistic people try to make them, the more fantastical they become. And if there ever were any grain of truth, they are now even less believable...

Three Comedies - And A First

I've had a very bust weekend just gone, what with watching three films. All comedies, in case you were wondering. Which makes nine since I first got my unlimited card.

I was going to see 'The Inbetweeners 2' with a friend, but she could only manage Friday, and it wasn't on in Cheltenham then. But then I realised I would be working in Gloucester on Friday, so I just randomly checked to see what was on there; and it was on. At 7:45, which was fine, apart form the fact that I didn't know what to do in between then and finishing work at 4:30 - no pun intended. So, I decided to see 'The Boxtrolls' on my own. Yes, it is the first time in a while (about 20 years) since I watched a film at the cinema on my own, but I have done it before - so that's not the first. Nor is it going to see two films in one day, though that's also something I haven't done for a long time - and possibly should do more often, at least while I have the cineworld card anyway.

Incidentally, for those who haven't yet seen it, 'The Boxtrolls' is absolutely fantastic. Both exactly what you'd expect, and completely different at the same time. What I mean is that it's a brilliant children's film, with great animation, really funny with a touch of magic - well worth watching for those reasons alone. But the things you wouldn't necessarily expect beforehand are the plot, the characterisation, the surrealness, and the mild obsession with cheese. Which, you know, is definitely intriguing.

And 'The Inbetweeners' was just as funny, but in a completely different way. Which was probably a good thing. Anyway, it was a really good film, and I would also recommend you consider it - if you like that sort of thing. Which clearly I do. But 'The Boxtrolls' is good for everyone. And when I was on the bus on the way home, there were a whole bunch of students, and I couldn't help thinking about the film while hearing their somewhat random comments.
                                                      

But then we get to Saturday, and after a long day at work, I had an unplanned nap before heading out to a film premiere. Which was the first - I can definitely safely say I have never been to a film premiere before. I'm pretty sure I would have remembered. Just for those who weren't sure, it's called 'Broken Leg', and that's the promo poster. The reason I got to go is that one of the writers/producers has a sister (and brother in law) who lives in Prestbury so the U.K. premiere was at their house. So, the first film premiere I've ever been to (did I mention that?), and not only that, but the first film showing where I got to meet one of the actors - Sarah Sawyer, who plays Karla. She's over here for a year, studying at the Bristol Old Vic; past alumni of which include Patrick Stewart and Daniel Day Lewis. So, hopefully, this could be just the start of what she gets up to. And if you want to find out more about Broken Leg, you could check out the  facebook page- or watch the trailer below. It is a brilliant watch, by the way; a fun and funny family friendly film. Go track it down - you won't regret it. Really you won't.   

                                                       

Chilli Cocktails

I've had an interesting weekend - and a pretty busy one for a change. Usually Fridays and Saturdays are most likely to be free evenings for me, but this week I was out both. And at parties both of them too.

The first was a spectacular combination of events. It was a house warming and a birthday party, also combined with the annual chilli challenge. Which is pretty self explanatory, really. I'm not sure whether this is the third or fourth, but I do know I missed the last two, at least. So I wasn't going to miss it this time. Generally, it was, you know, just like any other party, except with the main attraction of the chillis in the middle of the evening:-
                                          

So, there we have the Master of Ceremonies and host letting everyone know what the rules are before the next chilli is consumed, and we had three five six rounds (I think). To be honest, it was all a bit random in my mind; but it finally got down to three of us, and then it was decided by a vote - probably because Dave didn't want to have the Scotch Bonnet. And after having one, I can see why. I did decide right after that I wouldn't - ever - do that again, but I'm not feeling so strongly now, even a couple of days later. By next year..? Probably want to push it as much as possible again.

So, apart from the minor discomfort of a couple of the chillis, it was just generally a really nice and relaxing evening with friends. Lots of friends. And a couple of people I didn't know who were just as friendly. And a very nice evening that was over far too soon. Probably a good thing though, as I had to work the next day. Which was fun. No, really, it was quite a nice day; even if I was a bit tired.
And then off to Gloucester for the second party in as many days. A much more colourful affair, this one, as it was Hawaiian themed.

I got there a bit late, but as I was still there before the birthday girl, I wasn't entirely sure which table was ours. Thankfully someone saw me with a present and asked if I was there for Helen's party, so after that everything worked out well. Bright colours, colourful cocktails (and food), great company, lots of laughter, a parrot and a flamingo. And I got given a very colourful garland (a lei?). What more could you want from a party? Alcohol? Well, we were in a cocktail lounge. Silliness? Well, with a mastering of completely British understatement, I have given very little idea of just how silly the whole evening was; just go with more. I haven't even tried to describe what happened to the parrot and the flamingo during the course of the evening, and I'm not sure I could.

So, after getting to bed at about 4:30, I didn't do much on Sunday except go to church in the evening - wearing my my lei. Because, after all, why not? Church is supposed to be a celebration, and when else would I get the opportunity to wear it. It was interesting to see just how many people didn't pay any attention to the fact I was wearing it, and I gave it to someone who will probably wear it a lot more often than I would. A great weekend, with some strong and colourful memories, and I'm pretty sure I've made some new friends...

What I Learned From Books 3: Love And Romance (And Maybe Sex)

One of the things that surprises at least some people is the fact that I read so many books which fit into the category of 'chick-lit'. Some people are fine with the idea, but there are some people who do seem to have difficulty fitting it into their mental picture of me, for some reason. I'm not sure why - when I say I read pretty much anything, I mean it. Of course there are some things I tend to prefer (and I don't often read technical manuals for fun), but as I read a couple of hundred books a year, there's plenty of space for pretty much everything in there...

So, for those slightly less aware, what is 'chick-lit' anyway? Isn't it just romance? Not exactly, but that's still pretty close. It's like the difference between 'rom-coms' and 'chick flicks'. The main difference in my opinion is humour; 'chick-lit' does cover more than just romance, but the thing that they all have in common (at least the ones I've read) is a robust sense of humour. 'Chick-lit' does cover more, but it's rare that romance doesn't feature at all.

So, having read definitely over a hundred of them, what have I learned about life - and relationships? Well, apart from the fact that romance still seems to be incredibly important to women in general (and that men in general seem to be pretty bad at it - not just me, then), there do seem to be a few recurring themes. Which eitther mean that the authors are pretty unimaginative, or real life really is this messy. I'm going for the second option, personally. These general themes are: life is difficult; relationships are difficult; marriage. Oh, and sex rears its many splendoured head time and time again. The first one is kind of obvious, really - if everything goes smoothly, there wouldn't be much of a story. Ever. And if anyone tries to say that's unrealistic, that life is easy; I would just gently suggest that you probably don't live in the same world as approximately 98% of the world's population, somehow. But that's really just background; it's the second one, that relationships are difficult that the majority of the stories are about.

And they get to be made difficult for two main reasons, really. All relationships suffer from breakdowns in communication; sometimes it seems that they are shaped by the secrets they keep - and share. And I do mean all relationships - with friends, work colleagues, and family members, as well as romantic partners. It almost seems that no-one really trusts anyone - but that can't possibly be true.
And romantic relationships also are affected by attraction. And sex. Surprisingly, sex isn't just had by people who fancy one another - and even when it is, attraction can and does fade. The thing that puzzles me, that I just can't get my head around, is how people can see sex as meaningless and at the same time so important that it's one of the main things (romantic type) relationships are centred on. Not the only one, I know; but it's so rare for it not to be there that I almost think it's implied to be the only vital thing. (Of course, these are all in books, obviously; so they don't relate at all to real life? Right?)

And marriage. You might be surprised that I mention that, as I'm talking about books that are basically talking about romance - so marriage is pretty much to be expected, right? Well, when I thought about it, it did come as a surprise to me. We're always being told/shown in the media, in books, that romance and relationships don't have to end in marriage; or even have it as an aim anymore. No-one would be surprised to hear that; yet in these particular books marriage is a big thing - and not just in the ones in a historical setting, either. It's far more common than not for marriage to be a major part of the plot - and that does come as a surprise.


And I think I'll leave you with this cartoon from xkcd which neatly covers the first three points...

Holiness And Boredom

A bit of an odd title, you may think - or you may be entirely happy with the idea that the two are linked. It is, I understand, quite a common idea that holiness is boring; or, at least, doing the things that lead to holiness are. I know where this idea sort of comes from, but I've never really understood how it developed. From what I know, the idea is all to do with the idea of asceticism being the ultimate 'good'; and, even for those of us who still live in the world, the idea of self-denial being what holiness is all about. After all, one fruit of the Spirit is self-control, isn't it?

But self-control does not mean self-denial; not at all. In the same way that the word temperance has changed meaning - it originally meant 'moderation', now it is used to mean 'abstinence' (particularly from alcohol - another idea that the Bible doesn't teach) - there has been an overreaction in the direction of caution. People didn't want to teach grace as being completely unlimited, because it felt like there would be no incentive to grow, to change. Or something like that.

                                                     

As we know, or at least think we do, that God loves us, but doesn't want us to stay how we are, we want to co-operate; and we also want some sort of reassurance that we are doing the right thing, that we are 'getting it right'. And it's not so very far from there to coming up with rules and regulations; so that we may see how well we are doing - and how well others aren't. And that becomes a cage; it is restrictive, painful, annoying, and yes, boring.

That's not what God wants. He wants to give us life - a full life, an abundant life. And life means growth. We can't be perfect straight away, just like we can't be fully grown immediately - but the idea is that we can and will grow into full maturity. However long that takes. And one thing we can be sure of is that it will take longer than we would like it to. Growing is something that takes a loong time sometimes, and it's not entirely in our control - but we can encourage it to grow the way we want to grow. By what we eat and how (much) we exercise, for example. And what we do spiritually has exactly the same effect. That's what holiness is all about in the end. And, essentially, it is the end...