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.

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...

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...

Book Learnin'

I'm writing this post for two reasons. One is that I've been writing several posts on books recently (here, here, and here,), about stuff I've learned from books. Some of which I didn't know I knew until I wrote the posts. I just started talking about a subject, and saw where it took me.

I once wrote a poem called 'Books', which was about books being carriers of ideas. Any books, not just textbooks. Any and every book has ideas contained within it. Ideas which go together with other ideas; which go along with or collide with, sometimes producing totally new ideas.

So, that's just to say that I've learned more from books than I will probably ever know. Even just a few books push together and against each other, forming new shapes, new patterns; and I've read more than a few books. Literally more than I can remember, so how many different ideas have come into being and become something more, I will never know.

Fiction clashes with poetry and philosophy, and mixes with mythology and theology, all to produce a new, fresh view of the world; of the whole of creation. Ideas are dangerous things; they live and grow in directions you never thought they might. And can change everything you thought you knew.

And the other reason is that when I started writing about books, I did it because I didn't think I'd have as much to write about in the 'real world':- i.e. the one where ideas change things. But recently, I've discovered I'm reading a lot less than I was; and one of the reasons for that is that I'm doing more. More different things, out there with people. Maybe it's time to do something with those ideas...

What I Learned From Books 2: Men Or Monsters

Well, I've written about dystopias and zombies, so I thought it's time I wrote about vampires, which I'm sure you've all been waiting for.

I've read a lot of books involving them in some way from the oldest novels, like 'Dracula' to some of the newest ones; which are most often now in some form of fantasy rather than horror. Which is why, some years back, there was something of an outcry about the new way they were/are depicted.

About the time 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer' was at its height, there were Christians (mainly in the States, I think) who were complaining of the dangers of vampires no longer being depicted as evil, but rather sexy. I think there is something to be wary of; but that this idea pretty much completely misses the point. The problem, as I see it, isn't so much that they are depicted as being sexy (in some ways, they were always alluring); but rather, that instead of being depicted as monsters, they are shown to be people - though a bit different.

For hundreds of years, there have been legends of various kinds of  'walking dead' that are close to what we think of as vampires; though the word itself is relatively modern, probably originating in central Europe somewhere. And for most of that time, they have been regarded as 'evil' or 'demonic' in some way. Even in non-Christian countries like China and Japan, they were regarded as having something to do with evil spirits of some kind. Pretty much culminating in 'Dracula', published in 1897.

The reason I think this is that, although the book is fairly clearly about good v evil, God v the Devil (at least it's clear if you read an abridged version); it wasn't long before that started to change. At first, it was in the films; though Dracula was still clearly shown as evil, the link between him and the Devil was toned down, and then ignored completely. Which is probably also why and how the 'rules' of what strengths and weaknesses they have started to get a bit hazy. After all, if you don't have a clear source for where vampires come from, why should they have any limitations - they don't make sense anyway. And then, about 30 years or so ago, things started to get even stranger.

First, they had changed from 'spiritual' beings of some kind to just beings - immensely powerful ones with less and less limitations; but still more or less 'evil', and then that changed. They still preyed on humans, that couldn't really change; but, they weren't necessarily evil. After all, everything has to eat, right? And, because of that, it was now possible to have vampires as heroes: to have 'good' vampires, who sometimes protected humans, and sometimes even fell in love-something which would have been unthinkable in earlier decades.

And if they can fall in love, then they can have sex. Which holds true just as much for the ones that aren't heroes. And all of this led inevitably to a confusion of morality. Because, obviously, although vampires look a bit like us, they're not us - but how like us are they?

And in certain stories/series, the 'bad guys' are the slayers i.e. humans. The vampires are just, you know, going about their business, trying to live and love as best they can; and intolerant humans just won't let them alone. How different this is from 'Dracula', or earlier stories.

And I haven't even talked about the role that magic plays in these stories...

What I Learned From Books :0.5
                                              1: Dystopias, Then And Now

What I Learned From Books 1: Dystopias, Then And Now

Well, I finally get around to writing the 'first' in this series after a year and a half. Let's hope it's worth the wait.

When I say I read almost anything, I mean it; and one of my favourite genres is what is called 'young adult'. Someone smart a few years back figured that there would be a market for books written for teens containing what had up until that point been thought of as 'adult' themes in nature. By which I mean anything and everything from vampires to divorce, with possibly a side order of politics and environmental destruction thrown in. The main difference being that the protagonists are themselves teenagers, and although the themes are adult, the stories are told with a background of more or less 'normal' teen life: school, cliques, crushes, that sort of thing.

Though this second difference isn't so much in certain books; for obvious reasons. There are a few books set in dystopian futures, some of them well known classics. Like 1984 and Brave New World, for instance. And it may be somewhat surprising to realise that this is quite a popular theme among young adult books. I didn't find it surprising at first, I just read and enjoyed them; but, after a while I began to think this was an odd choice of theme. I mean, essentially, dystopian novels are political allegories-why write something like that for a market that, as a whole, hasn't really expressed an interest in, or knowledge of politics yet?

But, again, there are differences. The first, and most obvious difference is in tone. The previous ones, for 'adults', are very dark in tone; quite grim in a lot of places. For instance, there is a scene in 1984 where Winston Smith, the protagonist, goes to visit a prostitute; something that I can't imagine appearing in one of these young adult ones. It's a scene that adds nothing to the story (so if you haven't read it, I haven't spoiled anything); its purpose, as far as I can see, is to underscore exactly how hopeless it is for the people living under the regime of Big Brother. Which it achieves brilliantly.

The second major difference is in content; which actually links to the first. The most common device used in these new dystopian novels is that they are set at some point after a major event/tragedy/holocaust, which is referred to, but never really described. This neatly sidesteps the problem of dealing with politics as such, because, although there always is a government, the whole set-up is so different from our world that the things the story focusses on are the things that are the same i.e. the people and their relationships. But it also has the effect of creating a completely different tone, in general.

Because the 'adult' ones are set in a world which is recognisably similar to our own, they serve two purposes. One is that they are a twisted sort of mirror, showing the darker side of human nature; and two, they serve as a warning. Basically saying if we keep going down this path, this is where we will end up-or somewhere very much like this. Whereas the 'young adult' ones are quite different; they are basically saying 'yes, the world is messed up, and if things keep going in this direction, it could be apocalyptic; but the story doesn't end there. There is always hope, as long as individuals don't give up'.

So, what can we conclude from this? That young people are more hopeful than adults-or that people think they are? Possibly, but why then are some of these dystopian novels classics, and still sell well? That it's easier to write about people than politics? Not really; I think that's always been the case. That it's easier - and more enjoyable - to both write and read about hope than despair? I think that is definitely the case, at least.

To point this up, I'd like to compare two recent dystopian novels, one for an 'adult' market, and one for the 'young adults'. They are 'Blind Faith' by Ben Elton, and 'The Cure' by Michael Coleman; and they have in common, apart from being recent, that they both deal with themes of religion and celebrity/fame in a dystopian setting. And they couldn't be more different. The first clearly comes from an attitude of anger and confusion, and, quite frankly, is a mess; while the second is all the better for being calm, it comes across with more force. The other main difference is that the first just doesn't describe a believable world; while, although the second is about as far from reality as the other, it is quite convincing. It is also more powerful by being hopeful, whereas the main (only) cause for hope in the other is that at the end, there is the possibility that the world as it is will collapse. I recommend reading 'The Cure', if you haven't already.

And a post script note, as it were. Some other recommendations: the 'Uglies' series by Scott Westerfeld and the 'Delirium' series by Lauren Oliver, and as a one off, 'The Last Book In The Universe' by Rodman Philbrick.

Also in this series: What I Learned From Books 0.5.

Zombies!

A few days ago, I went to spend my gift cards that I got for Christmas. Most being for Waterstones, as, for some reason, people who know me well thought I might like to go to a bookshop. So, I went to said bookshop, and bought...a game. Called Zombies, it's pretty self explanatory-as the game says, it's not very nice, but it is a lot of fun. And, after playing it, I can definitely agree with the fun part.

After playing it, I started thinking about zombies, and how popular they have become. Which in itself is kind of strange. I mean, what is there about them that's really likable? They're just walking (well, shambling, anyway) dead bodies. No intelligence, no emotions, no real aim in (un)life-except maybe to eat. And yet, starting from the George Romero films, they have become a bigger and bigger part of popular culture; including board games, card games, TV series, films in various genres (Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead being two of my favourites), and even appear on the CDC website. Apparently when that first appeared, they had so much traffic, the site shut down for a few days. And they still have it up because they reckon if you're prepared for a zombie pandemic, you're prepared for just about anything...

So, they're clearly really popular; but why? If it's not the zombies themselves, it must be something they represent. After all, zombie films are basically disaster movies when it comes down to it (as an aside, what exactly is the difference between a disaster movie and a horror film). So, it could well have something to do with the idea that people like being scared-as long as it's in a safe situation. For example, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, this was top of the charts.

And what could be safer than zombies? Cos, apart from the fact that they're fundamentally unlikely to ever happen; they're also slow. Which gives the possibility of them being played as comedy as easily as terror-note my fave films mentioned earlier. Someone once said something along the lines of 'Comedy is when something happens to you; tragedy is when it happens to me'-i.e. the more of a distance there is between you and it, the funnier it can be.

A bit like going out on a Saturday night, as I did last night. By then end of the evening, you may well see people looking a bit like zombies:-groups wandering/stumbling around apparently aimlessly who can look quite amusing from a distance, but, it's all too easy for violence to explode. Which leads me neatly on to another reason why I think zombies are popular (almost like I'd planned this)-they look like us, but they are clearly not us. The threat, the 'bad guys' in this situation are clearly not how we can ever be described; no, never, not us.
It's well known that George Romero wrote his zombie films as a reflection of how he saw society at the time. You can't exactly call them 'satire', cos that would imply that they were primarily intended to be funny; and that's definitely not a good description-though they definitely do contain a lot of humour. Which may be why the earlier ones are more popular than the later ones-I've seen them, and they're good films. Apart from the fact that they have had longer to get into the public consciousness (including remakes and rip-offs), with the earlier ones, it is clear that those films are describing someone else; that we, as a society are not racist and materialistic like that any more. All the more so in countries other than the U.S.-we can happily watch them in the knowledge that that's what America is like, and indulge ourselves with the illusion that we were never like that. Though with the increasing globalisation of culture, particularly music and film, who knows how long we will be able to comfortably be able to say that...

What I learned from books (0.5)

I think it's fair to say I don't do much in my life. I'm currently reading 'Yes Man' by Danny Wallace, about how he chose to start saying 'yes' to the opportunities life can give, after realising that he basically hadn't gone out anywhere for most of a year; and, while I'm nowhere near that bad (who is, apart from Danny?), 'going out' and 'doing things' definitely isn't the general pattern of my life. Though, saying that I did go to a leaving party last week for a friend who's going to Mozambique for a few months. And tomorrow I'm going to watch another friend poison himself with very hot chillis he's grown himself (habaneros-350,000 Scovilles, apparently). And Sunday looks to be pretty busy also. So, you know, I do 'go out', but overall that probably wouldn't be enough to keep writing about on it's own; so, I thought I'd come up with something else to say now and again.

So, here is the first in an occasional series, which I'll put up whenever I haven't done anything worth remembering, and can think of something to say. Which might not be that often. We'll see. As I said in the last post, one thing I do do is read. A lot. For anyone who may be interested in knowing exactly how much, you may be able to see the current total here. I hope so, anyway. And from reading this much, I've come to see that a lot of books say very similar things. A very smart chap a long time ago said that 'there is nothing new under the sun', which seems reasonable, so, you know, hardly surprising that there are patterns. So, unlike learning from cats or TV shows, I've learned some stuff (maybe not a lot, definitely not everything) from books. Or, at least from reading.
So, in this sort of introduction (that's why 0.5), I'll unleash my first conclusion. Are you ready? Here goes, then-what people say about things, and what they actually are may not be the same. Seems pretty obvious, and it probably is; but it's amazing how often people seem to forget this in everyday life. Or at least I do. Almost certainly because it's easier-and definitely quicker. In the same way that people really know that most films that come from books are not accurate, but talk as though when they've seen the film, they know the book. Or that a cover version just may not be the same as the original (ya think!?). It seems that most people think/behave in a way that they form their opinions from a cloud of half formed bits of ideas. I know I often do something along those lines, but I aim (hope?) to keep challenging myself on this.

Anyway, I will unfold this a bit with a couple of examples. First, how 'Dracula' annoys me-not the book, but the films; or rather, the way no-one seems to know the book. As I said before, most films which come from books are not accurate, and this is particularly so with this one. As I seem to be one of the few people in the world who read the book before seeing any films based on it (I think I was 13), I find it difficult to watch any of the films which claim to be based on the book-'Dracula A.D.1972', however is definitely worth watching. Most of these films are incredibly inaccurate (ironically, apparently 'Dracula-Dead And Loving It' by Mel Brooks is pretty accurate), the 'best' (worst?) of these, certainly the best known, is the awful 'Francis Ford Coppela's, sorry, my mistake, Bram Stoker's Dracula', where about all he got right was the characters names. And that Dracula was a vampire. I suppose we can give him that, at least. So, the point is never read a book before seeing any films based on it? Or films about Dracula only work if they don't try to be anything like Dracula? I guess either of those could be a point, but to get back to what I was saying earlier, the point is that the films (what people 'say') and the book (what it actually is) may not be (alright, definitely aren't) the same. At all.
That was me being ever-so-slightly cynical. Or possibly just annoyed. So, on a more positive note, here's what I have to say about 'Pride and Prejudice', which I finally got around to reading sometime last year. And then read most of the rest of what Austen wrote, cos, you know, I actually quite enjoyed it. I like most of her books, with the exception of 'Mansfield Park', which for some reason I've never been able to finish. I don't think 'P&P' is the best, my favourite is 'Persuasion', basically because pretty much nothing happens. Sounds a bit strange, but it works-probably why there's not many films based on it, though. Anyway, I used to have this sneaking suspicion that classic literature was in general quite boring; until I decided to actually read a fair bit of it. And found that there's a lot of good stuff out there. What I didn't realise about Austen, cos I've never heard anyone say it, but she was very, very funny. She had a very dry wit, which is particularly clear in her short stories. My favourite is about a man who gets married, and then decides to go travelling-without his wife-comes back a while later, flirts with a woman in a coach, and then discovers that's his wife, and they live very happily ever after. Unfortunately, I've now ruined that one for you, as the actual story isn't much longer. And the other thing I discovered is that 'P&P' is not a love story, primarily-I don't think Austen ever intended to write love stories. I think what she wrote (and what she intended to write) was sort of satires (gently) poking fun of the society that she lived in/around. The reason why there's so much bout marriage in what she wrote is simply because that's what life was all about for most people of her social status-she didn't really have anything else to write about. But don't just take my word for it, read her books (especially the short stories), and see for yourself.

And that's the point, as much as this has a point. Things may not be as they seem, appearances can be deceptive; so, why not actually check things out for yourself. Remembering, in the words of G. K. Chesterton, "the point of having an open mind, like an open mouth, is to close it on something solid".