Any Suggestions?

Hello all,

I’m back from the Underworld ;-)

I haven’t had much time for blogging recently. I’ve been doing college online for the past couple years, but this semester I’m finally living on the PHC campus. There were a lot of complications with classes and the admissions process, so the past few months have been rather stressful. However, I’m finally settling in, and I’m absolutely loving it! I’m also extremely excited because this fall and the coming spring I will be coordinating a fiction short-story contest hosted by PHC.

As the coordinator, one of my fun jobs is to determine two themes for the contest. I have a couple of ideas, but I would love to hear your suggestions! The themes should clearly reflect a Christian worldview but need not be blatantly overt. The contest is for 12-year-olds to 18-year-olds.

Please share any ideas if you’re interested :-)

July CSFF Tour: The Enclave by Karen Hancock

“When Science Tries to Play God, Can One Man Summon the Courage to Stand in Its Way?”

“When Lacey McHenry accepts a prestigious research fellowship at the world-renowned Kendall-Jakes Longevity Institute, she sees it as a new start on life. But when a disturbing late-night encounter with a bizarre intruder leads to a cover-up by Institute authorities, she soon realizes all isn’t as it seems…”

Unfortunately, I didn’t get the chance to read this book. I spent the last three weeks working as an assistant wrangler at Solid Rock Bible Camp, and I thought I wouldn’t have time to read it and write a good review on it when I got back. Now I’m starting to regret that decision; the little bit of info available on Amazon has roused my curiosity, and the few pages of The Enclave that Amazon lets customers read online has gotten me interested in the story and main character.

I can’t offer much praise or criticism, not having read The Enclave. But after reading the first few pages of The Enclave on Amazon, I already like Lacey and am interested in what happens next. Some of the criticisms posted on Amazon have only increased my desire to read this book, such as this tidbit quoted from Publishers Weekly:

“…Narrative energy instead goes to didacticism: Reinhardt, an evangelical Christian, argues with his fellow scientists about evolution in an episode that's more polemic than dramatic. Visionary fiction is a narrow niche, and the Christian biblical literalism driving key action in the plot won't do much to enlarge the audience.”

I’m not particularly fond of didactic preaching myself, but then again what one person may call “didactic,” another may call “telling it like it is”. As for visionary fiction being a narrow niche – bring on the narrow niches! If you want to tell a good story, tell a good story, and don’t worry whether or not it will tickle the ears of a large audience as opposed to a small audience. Popularity isn’t (or shouldn’t be) particularly relevant to the reviewer attempting to discern the pros and cons of a given novel. There’s quite a bit of good yet unpopular fiction out there, just as there is a lot of popular but absolutely pathetic fiction out there.

Anyway: Rant over. But a novel that falls into a “narrow niche” is a novel that walks the path less trodden, and is probably a more interesting and worthwhile read than the cheap, popular, and imitative novels being churned out for “enlarged audiences”.

That said, if you’re interested in finding out more about The Enclave, you check it out on Amazon, the author’s website, or the author’s blog. And, of course, you can browse the thoughts of the tour’s other reviewers, most of whom will have read the book and will have much more to say. :)


Brandon Barr
Jennifer Bogart
Keanan Brand
Grace Bridges
Canadianladybug
Melissa Carswell
Valerie Comer
Amy Cruson
CSFF Blog Tour
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Janey DeMeo
Jeff Draper
Emmalyn Edwards
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Beth Goddard
Todd Michael Greene
Heather R. Hunt
Becky Jesse
Cris Jesse
Julie
Carol Keen
Krystine Kercher
Dawn King
Mike Lynch
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Mirtika
Eve Nielsen
Nissa
John W. Otte
Steve Rice
Crista Richey
James Somers
Speculative Faith
Stephanie
Rachel Starr Thomson
Steve Trower
Fred Warren
Elizabeth Williams
Dona Watson

June CSFF Tour - Vanish (by Tom Pawlik), Part III

As I type this, I’m puzzled how to begin. The point of this post is that Vanish (and many other Christian thrillers written in a similar style) just isn’t scary enough. The thing that baffles me is that many other bloggers on the tour have stated that Vanish ought to be classified as horror because it is so frightening. But I didn’t find it frightening at all, and I’m wondering how to put my thoughts into words. I have a feeling that nobody is going to agree with me on this. Oh well. ;)

First off, I liked Vanish. The characters interested me. I wanted them to understand about God and be restored, and I was mildly anxious about their futures. But was I scared? Did I ever feel goose-bumps on my arm or a chill going down my spine? Did my heart ever race with suspense and anxiety over what would happen next, whether they would survive? When the moment of revelation came, and Hell itself was revealed, and Conner literally wavered on the brink of damnation – did I feel horror clutch at my throat?

Nope.

Maybe I’m just jaded? No, that’s not the reason. I hardly ever read thrillers or watch “scary” movies. I don’t play violent video games that feature eerie military buildings resplendent with globs of gore sprayed across the walls. I can’t read Fox’s Book of Martyrs without feeling physically ill. I’m just not jaded.

Maybe I’m one of those people who can’t get emotionally involved in a book? Naw, that’s not it either. I’m not a particularly emotional person, true – but a lot of authors can get at my emotions and turn them in any direction. Take JK Rowling’s Deathly Hallows as an example. I sobbed when Dobby died, I sobbed when Harry met his dead parents, I was in mental anguish when he walked into the forest alone to meet Voldemort, I felt a thrill of horror along my scalp when he pressed the Snitch to his mouth and whispered, “I am about to die.” Several times throughout the book, I literally felt my blood racing with excitement and suspense.

Note, also, that Deathly Hallows is written in a contemporary and fairly fast-paced, easily-understood style. So it’s not that all modern styles of writing are “bad.” So what’s so terrible about Tom Pawlik’s style?

First, I’d like to clarify that it’s not just Tom Pawlik’s style. The style he employs is actually fairly common (it’s not the voice of an individual author) and seems to be pushed by a lot of publishers these days. Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti apparently write in the exact same style. Generally speaking, a lot of “thrillers” use this style, which is characterized by extremely short paragraphs and sentences, lots of quick, back-and-forth dialogue, sparse description, incomplete sentences, and cliché body-language speech tags (he nodded, shook his head, raised an eyebrow, narrowed his eyes, frowned, sighed – these are the most-cliché tags in Vanish).

It’s a style of writing that is deliberately “dumbed-down.” Generally speaking, books being published today are written at a lower comprehension-level than in the past. It’s a common problem in children and teen fiction, too. If you go through a writer’s course, your mentors will undoubtedly give you advice on how to write for readers of different ages. The three “older” groups of children/teen fiction are intermediates (ages 8-12), adolescents (ages 10-14), and young adults (ages 13-18). To quote an essayist in From Inspiration to Publication – How to Succeed as a Children’s Writer: Advice from 15 Award-Winning Authors, “adolescents read only slightly better than middle-graders,” and “young adults haven’t increased their reading skills much [more than adolescents]”.

In other words, a lot (not all) of stuff being written for 18-year olds is stuff that 8-year-olds could handle. The difference between a novel written for young adults and a novel written for intermediates is primarily one of content, not style or complexity. Writers are advised to keep their sentences short and simple, to put in lots of dialogue, and generally to leave intact as much white space on each page as possible.

What does this have to do with Vanish? It’s incredibly simplistic – more so than many other contemporary books that have already been criticized for over-simplified styles. And it’s not even a kid’s book. Ultimately, I think that this kind of advice merely hinders the author in creating a really gripping, eerie atmosphere. It also obliges the author to rely on cheap shocks and thrills that quickly wear off and yet are constantly repeated to keep the reader engaged.

Let me explain. The most frightening aspect of Vanish is what I like to call “facial-unzipping.” The characters have several face-to-face encounters with demons that are sexless, gray-skinned, and, at first glance, faceless. Then their faces unzip, revealing inky-black tongues, eyes “white” and “soulless,” and mouths dribbling with “tarlike saliva”. This happens about fifty times in the first five chapters alone. (Okay, slight exaggeration, but you get the point.) I’m supposed to be unnerved when it keeps happening? Overkill, mate.

The author relies far too heavily on these demonic creatures to create an eerie atmosphere – it gets old long before we reach the climax. The demons are the only “scary” factors of the novel, and the eeriness of their presence quickly fades to nothingness. They show up way too often.

Yet, given the excessively simplistic style employed in Vanish, what else can the author do to create suspense? He has nothing else to fall back on. See, the style won’t let him slow down for any reason. The main rule of this particular style is that everything must be choppy, fast, and action-oriented. You might think this would create suspenseful fiction, but I think it undermines the suspense and cheapens the horror. Here are a few reasons why:

Appropriate pacing helps you to create the right mood or atmosphere. If you use this style, you are forced to charge through every chapter at breakneck-speed. When a character is absorbed in sad memories, however, it’s useful to slow down, using longer sentences and lingering over certain details. When a character is getting chased by demons, on the other hand, it’s useful to speed up and use quick, snappy sentences. If you use a fast pace throughout an entire book, you can’t speed up to heighten the tension when a character is in danger, because you’re already going at a sprint.

Furthermore, a slow(er) pace in the hands of a competent author can often be used to create an intensely eerie atmosphere or event. It gives you the chance to pause and linger over what, exactly, is so eerie, and does not force you to state it baldly, bluntly, without subtlety. This technique is not available to those who use an overly simplistic style.

Also – Pawlik’s style is ill-adapted for serious introspection. Why does this matter, and how is it relevant to my point? Quite frankly, some of the freakiest, most fascinating passages ever written in literature are purely introspective. But the style of Vanish doesn’t allow it more than a couple of extremely short paragraphs at a time. Consequently – to give an example – we would never get to see Conner really grappling with the spiritual side of things the way Ransom agonizes over it in Perelandra. To really dig into a person’s thoughts – to see how they try to ward off the inevitable conclusion in a subconscious attempt to deceive themselves – to gradually view that person realize a terrible truth – to see them fight against it, panicking, agonizing over it, and finally accepting it – this takes too long. If an author attempts to write such a scene in this style, he is forced to limit this to a couple pages while adding lots of short, back-and-forth dialogue and making sure the paragraphs don’t look dense and keeping the sentences short and tidy. The narrator really isn’t allowed to get into a character’s head for more than a few sentences at a time. The style calls for constant movement, action, conversation. It doesn’t allow a character time to actually stop and think.

There are several times in Vanish where serious introspection would have served the author well, since the characters are ultimately grappling with spiritual forces. You don’t need the threat of immediate physical danger to create suspense, but if you throw away the tools of your art, that’s all you have left to work with – and I think this is what happened in Vanish. There’s nothing wrong with putting your characters in real danger – I love it – but if that’s all you’ve got, you’ll end up sounding like a broken record that keeps repeating itself.

I could go on and on – but by now you probably just want me to shut up! So, I will. I’ve been on the computer too long now anyway – my brain feels like a soggy wet noodle. However, I just want to say that I don’t think Vanish is “stupid” or Pawlik a poor author. Vanish is a fun read, and Pawlik is talented. He really made his characters come alive. I just think he used the wrong style.

June CSFF Tour – Vanish (by Tom Pawlik), Part II

Overall, I did enjoy Vanish. It was a quick, entertaining read that I put down at dinner only grudgingly. Those of you who read Ted Dekker and other Christian thrillers will probably enjoy this one immensely.

The pros & cons

Tom Pawlik is a very good writer. In regard to style, there certainly wasn’t any unnecessary padding! (More on that later…) The best thing about Vanish, though, was the characters: they felt real and believable. The author makes the reader sympathize with some generally unsympathetic characters, including a somewhat unscrupulous lawyer and a city kid with a gun. He really “got into their heads,” so to speak, and made them come alive through their thoughts and dialogue. I like the way the characters reacted so differently to various situations, acting according to their personalities (which were colorful and diverse). They didn’t feel stereotyped or overly-heroic – they acted like real people.

One character disappointed me, though – Devon, the black city kid. I really liked him at first. He had the makings of a great character; you could sympathize with him despite the “tough-thug” façade, and he felt like a real person…but then he just sort of faded out of the picture, until his character was reduced to throwing up his hands and saying “oh, great!” whenever something bad happened.

The good news about Devon is that he shows up in the first chapter of the sequel (you can read the first few pages on Amazon), so maybe Pawlik has expanded Devon’s role in the story. Let’s hope so.

The spiritual and emotional baggage of the characters also felt real and relevant to contemporary readers. Mitch (a twenty-something mechanic) has cut himself off from his father, whom he considers hypocritical and self-righteous. Devon, now involved in gang activity, has only one friend to “watch his back” and has no loving parents or close relatives. Helen, a middle-aged model, is suicidal and suffers from intense loneliness and guilt of a previous abortion (not that she remembers it…). Conner (the lawyer), now divorced, struggles to connect with his teenage daughter while inwardly blaming the death of his young son on an uncaring God he says doesn’t exist.

These kinds of issues and broken relationships are prevalent in America’s current society. People often question the existence or goodness of God on the basis of what they’ve suffered, and Vanish is an attempt to answer such accusations. The message of the novel is timely and relevant. However, I think Pawlik only partially achieved a convincing answer. While his suggestion that much of what we suffer is our own fault is true (for example, Conner would never have lost his son if he had been a more attentive father), this isn’t the whole story. Sin has consequences, true – but much of what we suffer has nothing to do with our own actions. The Fall in Eden, by bringing sin into the world, poisoned not only the human race but all of creation. The existence of suffering can only be explained and reconciled to the notion of a just and loving God by the information given in the Genesis accounts, but Pawlik doesn’t dig this deep.

(Then again, the story’s not over. Maybe he’ll dig a bit deeper in the sequel.)

Furthermore, when Conner finally comes to grips with the realization that his son’s death was his own fault, that it was irrational for him to blame God, that God is not cruel or legalistic and that God only requires one to believe and come to Himself with a penitent heart…it seems a bit “tacked-on.” For one thing, this is coming from the mouth of a demonic being (why would Satan defend God’s holiness, love, and mercy to someone on the brink of death? Doesn’t he realize that’s the quickest way to lose his grip on a human soul?). For another, it's all crammed into a couple of last-second conversations.

One last criticism of Vanish is that it is a thriller with no real thrills or shocks. Yes, it kept me guessing until the end – but at the moment of revelation, my only thought was, “I should have known.” I may not be the most accurate judge, since I’ve only read a few Christian thrillers; but my hunch is that once you’ve read one, you’ve pretty much read them all. They all seem to be about a group of strangers who get thrown together into some sort of virtual reality and struggle to survive against a mysterious enemy (usually serial killers or demons) with a secret or twisted agenda. The genre is fairly new, but (in my opinion, anyway) it is already a bit too predictable.

Oh well. It was still a fun read.

More tomorrow!

June CSFF Tour - Vanish (by Tom Pawlik), Part I

This week the CSFF blog tour is reviewing Vanish by Tom Pawlik—a “nonstop suspense thriller in the vein of Ted Dekker,” to quote Amazon. Vanish is a fast-paced read featuring a diverse cast of contemporary characters who, forced to stick together through unusual circumstances, find themselves alone in a seemingly deserted world. Soon discovering that they are being watched by a group of alien-like beings, they are forced to relive their worst moments and ultimately face the truth about themselves and the reasons for their broken relationships. Meanwhile, it’s hard enough just trying to survive…

If you’re interested, check it out at Amazon (there’s also a sequel). The author has a website and a blog with further information, and as always the CSFF bloggers will have lots to say about Vanish.

Since I haven’t blogged in a while, I decided to blog all three days of the book tour. Tomorrow I’ll focus on the pros and cons; the day after I have a special rant in mind (namely, Christian thrillers are not “scary” enough, and this is partially due to a “dumbed-down” style).


Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Keanan Brand
Grace Bridges
Karri Compton
Amy Cruson
CSFF Blog Tour
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Alex Field
Beth Goddard
Todd Michael Greene
Ryan Heart
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Becky Jesse
Cris Jesse
Julie
Carol Keen
Krystine Kercher
Margaret
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Eve Nielsen
Nissa
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Donita K. Paul
Epic Rat
Steve Rice
Crista Richey
Hanna Sandvig
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Speculative Faith
Rachel Starr Thomson
Robert Treskillard
Steve Trower
Fred Warren
Phyllis Wheeler

May CSFF Tour: Tuck by Stephen Lawhead

First, the preliminary remarks: Tuck is the third installment of a trilogy, and I have not had the pleasure of reading its two predecessors, Hood and Scarlet. Thus, some of my criticisms of Tuck may not be completely fair or accurate. I might have found Tuck more enjoyable if I had read the other two first. With that in mind, here are my thoughts on the matter.

Tuck continues the “real” story of the legendary Rhi Bran y Hud (commonly known to his friends as “Bran” and to modern readers as “Robin Hood”). The rightful king of Elfael, Bran was cheated out of his kingdom and now strives to regain his throne with the help of his followers – a group of women, children, and archers armed with deadly longbows.

If you’d like to check it out further, click here for the Amazon link and here to visit the author’s website.

The pros

First, I liked friar Tuck. Of all the characters, he felt the most familiar, the most “friendly” to the mind’s eye, so to speak. The story is mostly told through his eyes, and as he is one of the few with any sense of humor, this is good ;) He’s a bit more rounded out than the others, in both senses of the word – not very many fat and aging friars make interesting or sympathetic narrators, but Tuck did.

Second, the author obviously did his research in constructing the plot, characters, and setting. I’m not particularly wild about 1080 – 1100 AD myself, but Tuck would surely appeal to readers who are fond of historical novels in medieval settings. The author explores the historical implications of the longbow, for example, as well as those religious beliefs of the Catholic Church that caused so much conflict between kings and popes and shaped the course of history. I particularly liked the way these historical details were not merely part of the scenic background, but became central to the resolution of the plot.

Third, the book is fairly “clean,” with the exception of some flirtatious serving women, and lacks any gaping theological holes (if we take it for granted that the Norman clergy are portrayed as wrong in their theology). Friar Tuck prays often and encourages his “flock” to keep trusting God. Nothing really offensive comes to mind, though the book is sometimes violent (what adventure story isn’t?) and is probably inappropriate for younger kids. I’d recommend it for teens and up.

The cons

First, Tuck wasn’t particularly deep or gripping from a spiritual aspect. It wasn’t “bad,” it just didn’t give the reader any meat to chew on. Tuck prays frequently and exhorts others to trust in God, and he was portrayed in a good light, but there was no real grappling with the spiritual side of things. This is a story about a man reclaiming his throne, not a man learning to trust God.

Second, Tuck is supposed to be based on the Robin Hood legends – but in trying to write a story grimmer and more realistic than the legend, with higher stakes and less frivolous adventures, and in basing it on the age-old plot of a king reclaiming his throne, the author pretty much butchered the spirit of the legend. There is no band of “merry men” here getting into scrapes with the sheriff, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, getting into fights for the fun of it, playing pranks on greedy clergymen, killing deer to annoy the lords and living in the forest as peace-keeping outlaws. Now it’s more of a political story, a king pursuing his throne against all material odds. The old Robin Hood would kidnap the sheriff and give him a good scare before letting him go (untouched) just for a laugh, but Bran is grim and thin-lipped, and his escapades resolve around reclaiming his throne – he doesn’t stir up trouble “for fun.” The old Robin Hood stories are hilarious and tragic, but Tuck is consistently somber (with isolated flashes of humor) until it reaches a happy ending that poor old Robin Hood never enjoyed.

This was the thing that ruined it for me. Tuck takes itself way too seriously, fabricating a grand, epic plot to raise the stakes but completely missing the spirit of the legend and the personality of the old Robin Hood. It just isn’t the same.

Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Keanan Brand
Rachel Briard
Grace Bridges
Valerie Comer
Amy Cruson
CSFF Blog Tour
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Alex Field
Beth Goddard
Todd Michael Greene
Ryan Heart
Timothy Hicks
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Becky Jesse
Cris Jesse
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Krystine Kercher
Dawn King
Terri Main
Margaret
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Caleb Newell
Eve Nielsen
Nissa
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Epic Rat
Steve Rice
Crista Richey
Hanna Sandvig
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Robert Treskillard
Rachel Starr Thomson
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Fred Warren
Phyllis Wheeler
Jill Williamson

April CSFF Tour: Blaggard's Moon by George Bryan Polivka

This week the CSFF Blog Tour is focusing on Blaggard’s Moon, a novel by George Bryan Polivka (author of The Legend of the Firefish). Unfortunately I forgot to sign up for a free copy this time, so I haven’t actually read the book. I’m afraid my “two cents” will be worth even less than the given price, but if you’d like to check out Blaggard’s Moon, click here for the Amazon link and here for the author’s website.

BUT: for what it’s worth, I must say that Blaggard’s Moon does look interesting. The protagonist is a pirate who, to quote the author’s website, “must come face-to-face with himself, with his choices, with the power of love, and with a God who promises him both a hell richly earned and a grace given where none is deserved.” If you like pirate stories (seriously, who doesn’t?) and/or Christian fantasy (hey, it’s improving…), I’d urge you to at least browse through the author’s website. Beside a short summary of Blaggard’s Moon (prequel to the Trophy Chase Trilogy), it includes (among other things) various info about the author’s fantasy world as well as the author’s blog. Also, definitely check out the other tour participants’ reviews; they’ll have lots to say about the book’s style, philosophy, worldbuilding, characters, and more.

Deepest apologies for this unenlightening, all-too-short, and rather pathetic review.

Brandon Barr
Jennifer Bogart
Keanan Brand
Melissa Carswell
Amy Cruson
CSFF Blog Tour
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Alex Field
Marcus Goodyear
Todd Michael Greene
Ryan Heart
Timothy Hicks
Cris Jesse
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Magma
Margaret
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Nissa
John W. Otte
Steve Rice
Crista Richey
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Rachel Starr Thomson
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Jason Waguespack
Fred Warren
Phyllis Wheeler
Jill Williamson